Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2011

March 2011

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [1].

---

Gymnopilus maritimus

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a newly described species of mushroom; the article makes use of all available sources and, I feel, discusses everything one could hope to know about the species. It passed GAC with compliments from the reviewer, and I look forward to your thoughts. The last FAC failed due to comprehensiveness issues- there was another source available, and I had not referenced it. After some work, I managed to get hold of a hardcopy of the other source, and I have added in what I can. I have also made all reasonable efforts to acquire a free photo but, alas, to no avail. The best I could do is to use Template:External media to link to this picture, which is legally hosted on another site, but which could not be used here under the NFCC. If people think that is a good idea, I'll add it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Given that Contu has only two authors, why not just list both instead of using et al.?
• Nitpicking, but be consistent in using "et al." vs "et al"

Sources seem reliable, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair points, I have dealt with both issues. Thanks for your review and for cleaning up after me. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Further sources comment: My concern expressed at the last FAC, about overreliance on a single source, was ably answered in that discussion. The Italian source which was anticipated (Contu et al) is now in place. So far as I am able to judge, I think that criteria 1(c) and 2(c) are fully met. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments I supported this last time, so no real problems. Nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "However" and "moreover" seem overused to me.
• The species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but can be differentiated from both. Despite the similarities, it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution — the fact that it can be differentiated is axiomatic, I'd prefer something like the species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution
  • I've specified that they can be differentiated by morphology, but I can remove it altogether if you prefer. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• The dried cap is turned blackish-red — turns?
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• can easily be differentiated from G. maritimus as it lives among grass — query use of "easily" the id seems to rely on two things; spore size, which doesn't sound easy, and where it is growing. Relying on habitat for id, especially for a species whose substrates are not fully known, may be easy, but seems dubious.
  • The source does specify "easily", but I guess that's not entirely neutral; sure, it's an easy differentiation for a Gymnopilus specialist, but perhaps not the rest of us. I have rephrased, and removed "easily". J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• I know your feelings about this, but a sketch would make it easy to visualise this thing. Self-made maps, diagrams and sketches (like your cladogram) are perfectly acceptable, especially where no free image can be found

• How do you feel about something like this as a possibility? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy with replies, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments by Sasata (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support—I do believe the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think you need to include something from the micro characteristics section to make the lead more representative of the article's contents. Spore size & shape is a good bet that's not too technical.
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's little indications of dimensions in the lead, other than the somewhat ambiguous "moderately-sized"; how about including max sizes for cap diameter and stipe length/width?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• "… and difficult for non-specialists to come by." come by -> obtain ?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• "… the spectabilis–imperialis clade; a clade including …" this seems more grammatical to me: "… the spectabilis–imperialis clade, a clade that includes…" and it avoids consecutive sentences with semicolons.
  • I changed it, but went for "which includes". If this is technically wrong, hit me. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No need for violence, I just changed it myself. "which" typically follows a comma. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The yellow (brown at the bottom of the stem) flesh can be up to 15 mm (0.6 in) thick and does not bruise." This thickness refers to the cap flesh, I assume? (stem is only 8 mm wide)
  • Specified. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• "In colour, they are yellow in the youngest mushrooms, turning an ochre-orange, and turning a rust colour in older specimens."reword to avoid repetition of "turning"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The gill edges are paler than the faces, and the gills stain orange-brown or darker." stain with bruising or just stain naturally with age?
• "Surprisingly, despite the similarities between the three"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• "two major morphological differences; it produces smaller mushrooms" think that semicolon should be a colon
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• since there's a Guzman-Davalos et al. in both the refs and the "Works cited", maybe the year should be specified in the short-form citations to avoid possible confusion? (or maybe not, I suppose people can figure out which document is being cited from the page ranges… your call)
  • Fair. Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support only really 1 1/2 sources, but that goes with the territory. "...on coastal sand dunes around 10 metres (33 ft) from the ocean." presumably means from the high tide mark, which oddly doesn't even redirect anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. I've rephrased to "from the high tide line", as that's what I've always heard it referred to as. I'm also amazed we have no article- we have ordinary high water mark, which is about the closest thing, but not redirect-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Everything good now; the article comprehensively covers a little-known species. Ucucha 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:

• Why are there no imperial conversions in the lead?
  • Didn't think they were necessary, but I've added them. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• "(the area where the spore was attached to the sterigmatum)"—don't you mean sterigma?
  • I do. Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Please check for overlinking: what is the value of a link to "moss", or one to "Italy" right after "Sardinia" is linked?
  • Lost those links. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have external images within the body of the text instead in an External links section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a template for it, I assumed it was OK. I added it in response to Jim's concerns. I can move to an external links section if you would prefer, but that would perhaps remove the utility currently offered as something to go alongside the description. I'm happy either way. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT say they shouldn't be in the body of the article, rather in external links. But, Template:External media says to use it inline temporarily. So, I guess we don't worry about it for now, but I don't want to see the fact that it's used here as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reason for other editors to start adding external links to the body of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [2].

---

HMS Speedy (1782)

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC), Benea (talk), Dank (push to talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I was reviewing my contributions and I came across this article which I was surpised to find hadn't been promoted. I created this article a long time ago, Benea was leading the first nomination but apparently it died due to neglect; the only thing I think that was holding it up before was the image, which I think is fixed. Let me know if you have any questions. Kirk (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Probably should address this first; Dank helped quite a bit with the copyediting of the article and volunteered to help with the nomination; Benea deserves all the credit but she hasn't been to Wikipedia for 6 months, so I added her as a courtesy. My contributions are small but I'm sure I'll have plenty before we're through the process and I believe the article is ready for promotion whether or not I get any credit for the nomination. We look forward to your comments. Kirk (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This article was archived from FAC on 5 October with 2 supports, one weak support and no opposes. There was an outstanding image issue and a list of relatively minor issues unaddressed when the nominator apparently walked away. Has the image problem been cleared with Jappalang, who raised it? From the very few minor edits that have taken place since the archiving, it doesn't seem as though the list of points raised by Sarastro has been addressed either. Apart from a couple of tweaks, it looks as though the article stands exactly as it did when it was archived. As to sources, these were cleared by Ealdgyth and have not been changed since, as far as I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the image issue to Kirk. On the question of Sarastro's questions, I'd like for reviewers to make their own judgments about the relevance of those questions from the first FAC. If a reviewer says, "Yes, I'd really like to know about this and this", then we'll research it. If a reviewer takes the position that we need to answer every possible question about historical context in order to succeed at FAC, then a more general discussion about FAC standards for ship articles would be helpful. I'm wondering if we would have lost Benea as a contributor (she hasn't edited since September) if we had had such a conversation the first time around, rather than putting the whole burden on her. At the time, I was too timid to say anything, and was thinking it was "not my job", but I should have said something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The image in question currently has a date of early 1800's, although the museum has it catalogued without a date. There's a possibility it was in a book with a better citation, and there's two or three images that could replace it at the top if we're so concerned with the outside possibility of a copyright issue with an anonymous work that is pretty obviously from the early 19th century. Regarding Sarastro's questions most seemed like minor things to me; as Dank said we can just leave those questions to this FAC review. However, one specific point; while some of Cochrane's exploits are fictionalized in the Hornblower series, its much more fiction than Master and Commander. I think Sarastro was referring specifically Hornblower and the Hotspur, while the Hotspur is a sloop that's about it as far as simliarity to Speedy goes. I hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail about the image in question. I did find it in a book, Nelson Against Napoleon: From the Nile to Copenhagen 1798-1801, ed. Robert Gardiner, page 77, no date or creator. Kirk (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to myself

• I actually don't know whether "apparently warships attempting to attack a British convoy" means they were apparently warships or apparently attempting to attack. I've ordered Henderson's book (Borders is going out of business and I'm getting it cheap), and I'll check this when it arrives. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, Kirk describes them as gunboats, so I've reworded to "gunboats apparently attempting to attack ...". - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I forgot to mention I reworded this. Kirk (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, mostly on prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comments (please note that I haven't looked at the previous FAC, so I don't know what issues were previously raised)

• Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • I tried something different here - does this look better than the sandwich?
    • Not really, no...what if you did the same thing but on the other side (under the infobox)?
      • Under the infobox - how's that look? Kirk (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "This is roughly equivalent to £403 thousand in 2011 pounds" - phrasing is a bit awkward
  • I looked into this & that's how the inflation template generates the number; I checked other FA articles and its the same...is that ok? I'm looking into the rest of these.Kirk (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Is "as of 2011" better? I'll try that. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I figured out the number conversion and put it in a note. Kirk (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "giving a complimentary report of Cockburn to take to Hood" - giving who?
  • Reworded.
• Petrel or Peterel?
  • Peterel.
• What is "flag rank"? "closing with them"? Be sure to explain unfamiliar terms for non-specialist readers
  • I fiddled with this and replaced "flag rank" with Admiral of the Fleet; I reworded "closing with them".
• "30 yards" - what is this in metric?
  • Fixed.
• "at dawn on 6 May" - could you remind the reader what year this is?
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in when numbers are spelled out
  • Nothing stood out when I checked - its pretty consistent about using written numbers of guns (six 12-pound guns), for example. Anything specific?
    • "5 armed vessels". Also, use a consistent time format.
      • Personally, I'm with you, Nikki ... the part of WP:ORDINAL that says "5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs" has proved to be almost impossible to follow in a consistent manner. But I believe that's the justification behind "12 merchant ships and 5 armed vessels". - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Reading quickly, I didn't see any military times, everything is a.m. and p.m. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, but also need to look for 1 a.m. vs 1:00 a.m. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • AFAIK, they mean two different things, Nikki, just like "1 inch" and "1.00 inches" mean two different things. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
            • I would 3 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. but it doesn't sound like there's agreement. Other than that...? Kirk (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
  • Ok I believe I fixed all of these. Thanks for your review. Kirk (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. FYI Reviewers: I'm going to be away until Monday, so don't expect any responses until next week. Kirk (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I should be around for the duration of this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to Support: It seems my previous comments are causing a bit of a fuss, so I apologise! As I said before, this is a really good piece of work and very enjoyable. My questions were mainly to see if any more detail was available to clarify some minor points, but if the information is not available, there is no problem at all. Several of my comments have been cleared up, these are the only ones outstanding.

• Any more details of her early career out of Humber? What kind of role did she perform?
  • I doubt there are any, but I'm working on getting a copy of Winfield.
• Any details of the vessels she captured while blockading Genoa on her own? Presumably they were quite small.
  • The source doesn't specify any details.
• When Eyre took over, was he still with Sutherland while part of the siege of Bastia?
  • It sounds like he was with Hood.

Fair enough for all of these, if the information is not available it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Having silenced the shore battery..." How?
  • I reworded this.
• "...and then re-floated and sailed the four merchant vessels they had been escorting, which had run themselves aground to avoid capture, back out to sea under heavy musket fire from the beach." This seems like an afterthought. Would it be better to mention this before the capture of the French ships?
  • I redid this - Dank, can you check this over?
    • Did some copyediting on this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• What happened to Elphinstone; i.e. why did Dowman take over?
  • I haven't been able to determine that other than he was promoted to Post-Captain, retired as a Post-Captain and didn't die.
    • I added a note about which rank would command a sloop such as Speedy. With this specific question; Elphinstone was promoted at some point to Post-Captain, which meant he would command a post ship that was rated, such as a frigate, and a sea officer with the rank of commander would took his place, but I don't know specifically what happened here. He's wasn't an important enough Elphinstone to warrant an entry in the Navy Biography book by James.Kirk (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "After Defender headed out to sea, Speedy ran in and anchored within 30 yards of the middle ship." Isn't this a little ... reckless?? If so, is it worth a comment?
  • Added a comment.
• Do we know the name of the other merchant ship attacked by the gunboats off Algeciras? It may make that part slightly easier to follow.
  • Not that I can find.

As above, not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I feel the part about the Intrepide is slightly too dramatic; rather than "a strange ship", why not simply say "the 6-gun privateer Interpide"? Or "a ship which emerged/turned out to be..." Feel free to disagree!
  • "Strange" was removed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• As far as Hornblower goes, a few of Cochranes actions were copied in the Hornblower books, but I'm afraid I don't have anything at hand to give examples and I imagine they are fictionalised enough to be irrelevant to this article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I never found a secondary source which connected a Hornblower-plot point with the Speedy but we can keep an eye out.

I don't blame you, I blame myself for not speaking up when I suspected Benea needed some help. On your questions, I've just bought one of the main sources (Henderson) and I'll have to wait for it to arrive; in the meantime, I'll ask for help at MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I think I addressed most of these points...let me know what you think. Kirk (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything seems good now, so switched to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments There's no rule that says you must do this, but it would make me oh so very peaches 'n cream happy if you would pretty pretty please change all the cites to reflect all authors, e.g. change "Adkins" to "Adkins & Adkins" or "Adkins and Adkins", ditto for "Colledge & Wardlow", "James & Chamier" and any others. Meanwhile, "Lavery" in cites but not refs. GlitchCraft (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that I don't want to mess with what Benea did unless we know there's a reason to mess with it, and some books are commonly known by one author. I know style manuals are generally fine with listing one author, but if this is usually the way it's done at FAC, I can make the change. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Benea says on her talk page: "The references are the way I've always done them, and I'd be happy to see them left as they are, as my thoughts match your position." - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments. Switched to support. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two minor questions left on the talk page, neither of which should hold up promotion, so I am switching to support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments: I really good article. I only found one issue—the notes run from B to E... why not A to D? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Fifelfoo just removed note A in the last edit. But good news ... Benea is back, and she's fighting for the note :) This is a rather complex issue, and I'll look for some economics folks to help us out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd really rather not oppose on grounds of original research and being incorrect in fact, which is why I quietly deleted the note using the cost of bread for wage earners in the 18th century to inflate the cost of light warship construction. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hi all, sorry to have been away. I'm back for a while now, and would be happy to use my sources, etc to bring this to a successful conclusion after the last nom petered out halfway through. As for Fifelfoo, if this is a more general change in policy I'm happy to see the change, if not, please get this sorted out at a higher level and not make this article a test case. Benea (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The incorrect use of Template:Inflation has been repeatedly raised here. Template:Inflation bares a reasonably clear warning against using CPI to inflate capital goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to see you back, Benea. Fifelfoo has a point ... and not only about the {{inflation}} template. User:Protonk and many others make the case that when you go back too far (maybe 1800-ish), there's no table you can use to give a conversion that makes any sense in today's pounds, because different things had a different value in relation to each other. So what we're doing currently at A-class is just not to give a converted figure for older ships (and we're flexible on what "older" means). The best link I have for you is this one, which also links to a discussion at the Kenilworth Castle A-class review. It wouldn't bother me a bit to go with Fifelfoo's edit and just omit the conversion, although as Visionholder points out, if we do that, I'll have to re-number (re-letter?) the notes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and I quite understand the arguments (I have done post-graduate level economics). It was not in the article originally but was included at another editor's insistence at some earlier review. My main aim to be sure is that this is something that isn't go to go back and forth one way or the other and may lead to reviews being scuppered. Benea (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I was brusque. Was the request at GA or MILHIST-A? If it was at MILHIST then I might go have some words on their policy pages about economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Speedy (1782) (where it was argued that it might be beneficial for younger readers). I argued briefly against it but it seems to be a well-intentioned personal preference on the part of one editor. No particular policy was mentioned, but at the time it didn't seem worth holding a strong opinion about, as the trend seemed to be to put these conversions on many similar articles. Benea (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-lettered now, since it looks like the note is going to stay gone. I can't speak for the other reviewers, but I generally just let people argue these things for a while ... it's the only way to find out where everyone stands. I'm satisfied at this point that we don't want to give conversions (CPI or otherwise) to present value for older ships, castles, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support This is an extremely well written article. I have only three suggestions, and none of them is necessary for this to have my support. These are just ideas, and it's up to you whether or not you want to use them.

Lead

I would suggest changing "American War of Independance" to "American Revolutionary War", which is a much more common name. I suspect that some might get confused and think it was some other war. I'm assuming here that "Revolutionary War" is also the more common name in the UK. If not, please ignore this suggestion.

From our article of the same name:

British writers generally favor "American War of Independence", "American Rebellion", or "War of American Independence".

- Dank (push to talk)

Yup, I thought that might be the case. I've never heard it worded that way before!-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Downman and Brenton

"The gunboats were attempting to catch the Unity when Brenton took his ship through the flotilla, close enough to break many of their oars, maintaining a constant fire from his guns and with every spare member of the crew firing muskets." This reads a little confusing. Maybe the section about the oars could be put into parenthesis?

I'm sorry, we're constrained by style guidelines and style guides here that advise us not to replace the only two commas in the sentence by dashes or parentheses. - Dank (push to talk)

French and Papal career

Maybe you could wikilink "broken up" here. It's linked in the lead, but nowhere else in the article that I noticed.-RHM22 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Speedy_(1782)/archive2

Comments. Not much to quibble at; this is a fine article (and I laughed out loud at the description of Cochrane's capture of the Gamo).

• Any particular reason why the ship is described as a brig in the lead but as a brig-sloop in the first sentence of the body?
  • It's Benea's call but I'm fine with it, since more readers will know the term "brig", and we try to reduce the effort needed to read the lead. - Dank (push to talk)

    I thought it might be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "Tons" capitalized? Is this standard in ship articles?
  • I changed it to tons - its not capitalized in the source.Kirk (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The abbreviation "pdr" is only used twice; elsewhere it's "pounder". Any reason not to use "pounder" throughout? If it's a standard abbreviation I think it's OK but it should be defined on first use, and used more than once in the text in that case.
  • Oops, fixed. - Dank (push to talk)

    OK; I also fixed the example in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Downman captured "a number of vessels" and "captured five privateers"; is the second just a repetition of the first? If so I would cut the first phrase.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Eyre endured a harsh time in captivity": I would prefer "Eyre endured a harsh captivity"; it's the captivity, not the time, that is harsh.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• One more comment: isn't it the case that back then capturing a ship led to an award of prize money to the capturing crew? Should some mention be made of those amounts? Perhaps that's less relevant to Speedy than to the men commanding her, but I thought I'd ask.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, crews were awarded prize money. The awards were Gazetted, which means they are verifiable as to having occurred, but not the amounts. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I looked at this after seeing Mike Christie's recommendation here, and I have to say the article is overall excellent. It easily meets the FA criteria in my opinion and Cochrane's exploits in the ship make a damn good ripping yarn to boot. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see any issues that would prevent promotion. Some minor filling in of details could be done from The Times and the London Gazette, but the article is ready for promotion IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review

Any volunteers? I haven't heard back from the NMM - should we change the image in the infobox? Kirk (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, we should not change the image in the infobox. It is clearly PD and there has been no challenge on Commons as to its status. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, that's what I think too. The images were reviewed in the last FAC so I think we have the required reviews and support for promotion.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These fractions are horrible, Tony (at least, and others) has objected to them on many previous FACs, please find a way to replace them with something more visually appealing if possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy was so named to symbolise this new approach, and measured 207 21⁄94 tons bm with a total length of 78 feet 3 inches (23.85 m). She was armed with fourteen 4-pounders and twelve ½-pounder swivel guns, and carried a complement of 90 men.

Got 'em, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems very odd that we are actually reducing the accuracy and detail of the article based on the opinion that fractions are visually 'horrible'. The Builder's Old Measurement is simply expressed as a fraction. Benea (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest they be removed, rather rewritten without the clunky frac template, which distorts the text size. Can't you just write 21/94 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if you want to add it, Benea. I was concerned that it would be slightly jarring to modern readers, but I often lose these battles :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I got reverted by MJRoots. Not a lot I can do about it, Sandy, as long as SHIPS editors are adamant, and MOSNUM seems to require the {{frac}} template. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation style is somewhat clunky, with so much repeat info, but I 'spose it can't be opposed because it's consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can it say British Royal Navy? There are other Royal Navies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much with Sandy on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a script to add nbsp's? - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Shimgray got them. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [3].

---

John, King of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article review because King John is a challenging medieval figure for a wikipedia article: his reign excites strong feelings amongst many academics, with historical views changing significantly over the years. He was, however, a fascinating ruler at a critical moment in British history. I expanded the article significantly a couple of months back after a lot of work in user space; since then it has had a GAR and a much needed copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Captions that are complete sentences should end with full-stops
• It would be helpful to explain what the different colours represent on some of the maps
• Source link for File:Philippe_Auguste_et_Richard_Acre.jpg is dead
• Licensing tag on File:Isabelle_d'Angoulême.jpg is not appearing correctly
• Source link for File:Original_7_streets_of_Liverpool.jpg is dead and thus proof of licensing is not present
• File:Penny_john.jpg has an incorrect licensing tag, as a coin is not a 2-D work of art - see here for information on correct licensing

Sources

• Earwig's tool found no copyvio; manual spotchecks not done
• Johnson or Jonson? Rowland or Rowlands? Elliot or Elliott? Check for transcription errors
• Check alphabetization in Bibliography
• Be consistent in whether years in shortened citations are in parentheses or not, and don't provide the year there when it isn't needed for disambiguation
• Be consistent in whether punctuation appears before or after quotation marks in chapter titles
• Check formatting for Coss and Harris bibliography entries
• Probably more helpful to provide a state abbreviation rather than "US" for American publishers
• Journal articles should have page numbers and need not repeat the year. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've altered the one caption I think is a full sentence.
• Colour explanations given on the two main maps.
• File:Penny-john.jpg altered accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Original_7_streets_of_Liverpool.jpg - I've tracked down the author (born 1869) but although he stopped publishing early in the 20th century, I can't prove date of death, so copyright could still be extant - I'll delete the image later.
• File:Philippe_Auguste_et_Richard_Acre.jpg - although the record on is correct (the original archive source being the "Grandes Chroniques de France France, Paris, XIVe siècle Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Français 2813." - which does exist) the old website link is, as you say, dead, and I can't find the actual image itself on the new Bibliotheque website. I can find the same image elsewhere on the web, however (e.g. http://www.dinosoria.com/chateau_gaillard.htm). Do you know what's the next step for me getting this right? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is the old site available through a web archive? Check out WP:LINKROT for some options. Failing that, find a site with both the image and the image source ("Grand Chroniques de France"). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Found it on a web archive, and added to original file.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Jonson etc. sorted.
• Alphabetization hopefully sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Shortened citations done.
• I think I've fixed Coss and Harris.
• Journal page numbers done.
• Consistency of commas and speech marks fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

SupportQuery Bad King John was the subject of one of my earliest edits and certainly ought to be a featured article, and I think you've pretty much got it there. But I do have a couple of minor quibbles, and I made a few little tweaks which I hope you appreciate.

1. "Modern historians remain divided as to whether John suffered from a case of "royal schizophrenia" in his approach to government, or if his actions captured the complex model of Angevin kingship in the early 13th century." Captured seems odd to me, would reflected or possibly embodied be better?
2. I don't suppose your sources cover the story of the location of his birth being altered so the Queen could avoid the Fair Rosamund? If they do it would probably merit inclusion. Shame but if they don't fair enough it stays out.
3. "As the youngest of five sons" doesn't quite reflect the fact that the eldest of the five was dead before John was born. I've made a couple of changes re this but I think there are more needed.
4. John died of dysentery contracted whilst on campaign in eastern England during late 1216; supporters of his son Henry III went on to achieve victory over Louis and the rebel barons the following year. I thought that John's death prompted many of the Barons to desert Louis in favour of the infant Henry.
5. Some of the links are worth reviewing, civil war for example would be better linked to an article about the relevant civil war and Toulouse to an article about the medieval county not just the city.

Thanks for your work on this, it was an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Captured changed - agree, it was awkward wording!
• I hadn't picked up on the Rosamund Clifford story - I'll have a proper search through later.
• I've had a go at softening the five sons bit.
• I don't think John's death immediately prompted the shift in loyalties, my reading of the material suggests the defections really begin after William Marshal and Fawkes de Breate's victory at Lincoln (for which Marshal gets the long term credit, thanks to later events at Bedford Castle... ...and Marshal having the better biographer!). That said, the period is murky - let me know if you think it still needs further tweaking.
• I've changed those two links, and will have a look at the others.
• Glad you enjoyed the article, and thanks for the edits! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Have checked the Rosamund bit. The more current biographies don't really mention this; Warren notes the suspected affair, but doesn't link it to the birth of John. I've tried a quick pull on Google Books, but I'm not finding anything other than the various tales about how much John's mother disliked her. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to that, and for the changes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Paragraph 3 of the intro reads "Although both John and the barons agreed to Magna Carta peace treaty in 1215,". It feels like there's a word missing there. Should it be "a Magna Carta peace treaty" or "the Magna Carta peace treaty" perhaps? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments, leaning support: An outstanding piece of work which I've been watching for a while (I was beaten to the GA review!), very thorough and detailed. It covers all the major aspects and is well written and seems to cover a wide range of sources. My only major issue would be the length (12,629 words), but given the enormous amount to fit into the article, I believe it is justified. However, in such a long article there are a few niggles but nothing major and I'll switch to support after they've been answered or addressed. There are a few instances where direct quotes are not attributed in the text; I've listed some here, but there were a few more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can the growth of the Capetian dynasty really be attributed to the loss of Normandy? Or vice-versa? Not sure here.

• The argument is from David Carpenter's volume (cited later as p.270). The argument seems to go that once the Capetians weren't having to push almost all their money into fighting the war to protect the approaches to Paris, they had a chance to do rather more on the continent. I've softened the language slightly.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead seems to cram in a lot of facts but I'm not sure they flow. The information about his excommunication seems a little out of place surrounded by the battle over Normandy. It may be better moved, but not a big deal.

• It's not perfect, I agree, but I was struggling to find a better place to put it (the current location is the best chronological place, but doesn't fit thematically). Ideas welcome!Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "was slowly growing in popularity": This suggests that people liked it rather than it became more widespread, and leads to "popularity ... popular". What about "slowly becoming more widespread"

• Like it - changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " with the king hoping": noun verb-ing should be avoided.

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Henry the Young King was unimpressed by this, since although he had yet to be granted control of any castles in his new kingdom..." Since although seems a bit much; possibly rephrase, for example "unimpressed by this; although he had yet..."

• Changed as per your suggestion.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The following year, Henry disinherited the sisters of Isabelle of Gloucester and betrothed John to the now extremely wealthy Isabelle, contrary to legal custom": what was against the custom, the disinheritance or the betrothal? Why was it a problem?

• The disinheritance - have tweaked the text accordingly.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John seized the opportunity: went to Paris, where he formed an alliance with Philip" Does not quite make sense. Missing he after the colon?

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " He allied himself with the leaders of Flanders, Boulogne and the Holy Roman Empire – a "German strategy"." What does a German strategy mean, and why is it inside quotation marks. It is repeated later in the article but still not clear what it means.

• It's a phrase used in some of the literature, but I think, judging from your comments, that it's distracting here, so I've reworded.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " With Norman law favouring John and Angevin law favouring Arthur, the matter rapidly became an open conflict" Is it worth expanding this to say why each law favoured the two men?

• Have expanded to explain.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Feudal/mercenary army section: "and proved an inflexible asset" is a bit impenetrable and I don't really know how it is inflexible, and "could provide much greater military agility" sounds a little odd. What is military agility? And while this paragraph is interesting, is it worth saying how this affected John and Philip prior to le Goulet? Did they have feudal armies? The armies are mentioned later but should be touched here or this seems disjointed.

• Try the revised wording.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but was it not quite a big concession to recognise Philip as his overlord? Am I correct in saying Henry II and Richard never did this?

• You're right, although Richard recognised the German Emperor instead. Both Henry and Richard theoretically held lands from the French crown, but never did homage. The literature seems divided on how important John's step was; some authors make more of it than others. I'm not sure I've got the balance here perfect yet.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Philip, in respect to decisions John took within his French lands." Should it be in respect of? Not sure myself.

• I'm not certain either, but a quick "google" count suggests "respect of" is more popular! Have changed. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The king's treatment of his ally, William de Roches..." This is presumably John but it is not clear as there are two kings in operation here.

• Clarified in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " the comparative military costs of materiel and soldiers": I assume materiel is a typo but didn't change it in case I'm missing something.

• Materiel is a term for military supplies and equipment. Let me know if a wikilink in the article would help.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " He attempted to convince Pope Innocent III to intervene in the conflict, but the Pope's legate was unsuccessful": Not quite clear. Did John ask the legate to approach the pope? Is this the English papal legate, and do we have a name?

• I've simplified - see if it works! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "he decided to have Arthur killed..." Hmmm. It says in the next part that historians believe John had Arthur killed, so presumably this is what historians presume John thought? Or is there another source which confirms John decided this?

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "including novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor": Could these be linked?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John discharged "his royal duty of providing justice... with a zeal and a tirelessness to which the English common law is greatly endebted"." This quote needs attribution in the text.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of economy is a little repetitive: John, John, He, He; however, I don't really think this can be improved given the nature of the information there.

• I've given it a go, but you're right, it's not easy. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " soldiers whose behaviour would become infamous ": Could it be specified in a word or two why they were infamous?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Many barons perceived the king's household as a "narrow clique enjoying royal favour at barons' expense" staffed by men of lesser status than their own": Again needs attribution in the text.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• " power Marcher lord with lands in Ireland": Powerful?

• Done. (Although the image of a "power Marcher lord", rather like a Power Ranger, sprung to mind! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• First paragraph of Dispute with the Pope has a couple of quotes not attributed in the text.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... with the exception of baptisms and confessions and absolutions for the dying.": Is this baptisms AND confessions and absolutions for the dying, or all three only for the dying?

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Although the interdict was a burden to many believers...": Given that the faith (or lack of) of the population is an unknown, maybe replace "believers" with "population" or such-like, as almost everyone would have presumably be a church-goer.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could a little more be said about what happened in the 1212 plot, as there are few details here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yep - will put in a couple of sentences later. Many thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Switched to support now, great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Richard's reign (1190–1199):
  • Richard left political authority in England... Eleanor, the queen mother, convinced Richard to allow John to return to England, which Richard agreed to before leaving on crusade." Had he left or not? Did John return before or after he left on the crusade?
  • "Mandeville promptly died" sounds very colloquial - suggest deleting "promptly"
  • "At this point Walter of Coutances, the archbishop of Rouen, returned to England; he was sent by Richard to restore order." The use of the semicolon makes it messy. Consider re-wording
  • "The political turmoil did not cease." I think you'll find it did in the end
  • " Richard declared that his younger brother... He removed his lands with the exception of Ireland... his malevontia, or ill-will, towards John" Does not sound like forgiveness to me

Hawkeye7 (talk) Support Concerns taken care of. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I can't work out from the literature exactly where John was when Richard was preparing for the crusade; I've tweaked the text to reinforce the key point, namely that Richard didn't mind John being there if he was as well - he just originally wanted to make sure John wasn't wandering around England without his older brother to oversee things. See if the language works better.
• I've gone for "immediately".
• Agree - changed.
• Agree - changed.
• The historical opinion is that it was forgiveness. Although it wasn't really the done thing to execute your family back then, John had committed treason, and Richard could reasonably have imprisoned him for the rest of his life. John got Ireland back, but didn't get the lands that Richard had given him to keep him well behaved whilst he was on the crusades. I've added a "but" to clarify it though! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Concerns taken care of. I've moved the detailed commentary to the talk page. Comments Excellent work, but have some concerns. Not enough to outright oppose, but more than enough to keep me from supporting at this time.

(detailed commentary moved to talk) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Heads of state in a time of war are generally tagged by Milhist; I'll do that now, but feel free to revert, anyone, if there's some issue I don't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interrupting my copyediting to say a word about "whilst", and the word is: ugh. Americans are stupid, I know, but to many Americans, the word sounds Elizabethan, and therefore slightly comical. Disclaimer: my wikiproject's A-class review makes some effort to accommodate everyone's ear; we defer to the variety of English first used in the article, but we don't tell everyone else to go jump. Not every wikiproject takes the same position. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half if it, down to the end of John,_King_of_England#Economy, per standard disclaimer. Hchc, you seemed comfortable on previous articles when I made the copyediting edits directly, so I did it this time; feel free to revert. I'm sorry I only had time to cover half. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's a team sport - no problems at all, and many thanks indeed! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing. "apply law suits": "lawsuits", and I don't know what that means ... file lawsuits? collect judgments? - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• filing law suits is good. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• "his own relatively advanced education": from his own reading? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "own" is potentially confusing; I've removed it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• "reformed the English feudal contribution": reformed or re-formed?

• I think I mean "reform", in that he updated the system that produced the soldiers (but I can see the potential issue, as re-formed might have made sense as well!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "he may have done so": requires some kind of attribution, since it calls for speculation. In some articles, I'd have a problem with the frequent use you make of "according to chroniclers", but there's a lot of dissention among the sources, apparently, and it would be tedious and distracting to say X said this, but Y said this, but then again Z said this. So ... I don't have a preference how you attribute this one, but something is needed.

• Attribution added.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not on board with converting marks to pounds every time marks are mentioned, but I generally stay away from arguments over conversions.

• I tend to do it because I remember when I was a kid always getting confused about how much marks meant in the history books, and at least it is constant across the period (unlike, ahem, trying to convert medieval sums into modern ones!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The northern barons had the fewest links to the situation on the continent": ?

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "frequently owed large sums of money to John": Did they owe money, then pay it off, then owe more money, frequently? I assumed not, so I went with "many of them owed large sums of money to John."

• Yep, that's correct. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The situation appeared promising, as John ...": to whom? I'd go with "John was optimistic, as he ...", if that's accurate.

• Have gone with your suggestion.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely on board with "Magna Carta was signed in ..."; I see it without the "the" more often these days (in EB, for instance), but back in my day, we wouldn't say that any more than we'd say "Declaration of Independence was signed in ...". Magna Carta doesn't use the "the".

It was never signed actually. It was sealed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd concede that Magna Carta, as a Latin noun, doesn't use the "the", although I'll happily admit that it still seems odd when I omit it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support per standard disclaimer. Made it to the end. this and this are diffs of my work since Sandy asked for a copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dank - Immense thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments No page numbers anywhere for book chapters in refs? This is confusing. Several notes repeated; could benefit from named refs (just use WP:AWB to getthem all in one whack). GlitchCraft (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm quite with you here - none of the citation references refer to book chapters, each one refers to a specific page number (or numbers) in a volume. Is your concern that that the bibliography doesn't give the page numbers? I don't use AWB, but I'm very happy to alter any repeated references if someone can tell me which ones they are! Hchc2009 (talk)

• For example, "Curren-Aquino, Deborah T. (1989) "Introduction: King John Resurgent," in Curren-Aquino (ed) 1989" is a chapter by Curren-Aquino in a book by Curren-Aquino. The book is the next reference down on the list. Mmmm, I would consider changing (1989) to (1989a), which would then be followed by (1989b). I would sorta also consider adding page numbers to the first reference, to indicate the page span of the chapter... I put the list of repeated cites on your personal talk page. Remember that you are not required to change them into named refs if you don't want to (except one that looks like it might be missing page numbers, but perhaps I accidentally chopped them off when I copy/pasted) GlitchCraft (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK (and thanks for the talk-page discussion). Should all be fixed now - shout if I've missed any. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• "John was proclaimed king of England, and came to an agreement with Philip II of France to recognise his right to the continental Angevin lands at the peace treaty of Le Goulet in 1200." - "his" is ambiguous, and "right" too vague.

• Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "famous for his opulent clothes but not, according to French chroniclers, for his taste in wine" could use a link to the relevant article in the history of fashion series - 1200–1300 in fashion, or English medieval clothing. What does the wine bit mean? He didn't drink much, or he couldn't tell the good stuff?
  • I just tweaked that a bit yesterday; the mistake may be mine. It said "taste in rich clothes ... taste in wine" before, and I didn't like the two different uses of "taste" so close together. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    • same issues with both versions I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I tweaked it again, to "became famous for his opulent clothes and also, according to French chroniclers, for his fondness for bad wine." It's not ambiguous now, but it could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Seems accurate to me; the French thought it was very funny that when given the run of the French king's wine cellars, John kept on choosing what were, from their perspective, appalling bottles of wine to drink.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "As John grew up, he became known for being potentially "genial, witty, generous and hospitable"; at other moments, he could be jealous, ..." not "potentially" just "sometimes".

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John infamously offended the local Irish lords ..." is lords the right word at this date? Chiefs, princes, or something more vague might be better. Later on they are "the native Irish kingdoms", perhaps going too far the other way. Is there an article to link to?

• I've changed to "rulers" - they were the kings plus associated lords from the accounts I've seen (the later kingdoms bit is precise I think). I've added a link, though its not ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John's policy earned him the disrespectful title of "John Softsword" amongst some English chroniclers..." was this at their conference? Inelegant usage of "amongst".

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John accomplished this by arguing that he had failed to get the necessary papal permission to marry Isabel in the first place – " link Consanguinity here or on the next line (or is it Affinity (canon law)? Generally the article seems somewhat underlinked.

• Link added. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and many of the lands and revenues owed to her were never passed on by John, ..." how would the lands have been passed on? Needs a re-write I think, maybe: "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and did not pass on much of the revenue from her lands, ..." perhaps?

• I like it, changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Otto Welf" is an odd way to describe someone who was in 1212 certainly Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, even if the next emperor-elect had been chosen from his rivals.

• I suspect I picked up that from one of the authors. I've changed, as per your suggestion. 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• A link to Investiture Controversy is needed in the Papal relations section.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "within the traditional Robin Hood narrative set" - set? =cast? "who is usually the "swashbuckling villain" to Robin." - opposed to?

• Hopefully reads better now.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's it. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support when other issues dealt with. The prose could do with a final run-through by somebody, but is acceptable for FA. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I found numerous MOS issues on just a quick glance, particularly (but not limited to), date ranges need cleanup for consistency and endashes. Also, please review the use of the word "still" to see if all are indicated, or if they are redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard layout-- why isn't "Geneology" placed above See also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cheers. Will try to sort these tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• I believe I've sorted the MOS issues. I've moved the genealogy section to where it would ordinarily be; if you don't like it there, you may wish to consider cutting the heading and adding the table alone either to the navigation templates at the bottom, or right at the start of the first section where his family is described. DrKiernan (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• The "stills" are stilled (still). I can resume copyeding where I left off (halfway) if you need me to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Copy-editing isn't my strongest point, so if you'd be willing to, I'd deeply appreciated any help! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See my support above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [4].

---

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is my third nomination of the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl article for featured article status. The previous nomination was archived essentially due to a lack of reviews. Since the last nomination I added a picture, File:UConn Lawrence Wilson.JPG, taken by myself and freely licensed, and made several copyedits throughout the article. I appreciate everyone's comments as I try to finally get this article over the FA hurdle. –Grondemar 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note to self, because this has two previous archivals with little review, I'll let it run longer if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources have not changed since the closure of the last FAC on 24 January 2011. At that FAC, sources were approved by Ealdgyth, subject to a possible query on the reliability of http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php (College Football Data Warehouse). This sources has been defended as reliable by WikiProject College football and I am prepared to accept that judgement. The article was subject to heavy spotchecking in its November 2010 FAC. I think it can be safely said that the article is properly and reliably sourced. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, Brian. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I find the terminology confusingly inconsistent. At various points, "UConn", "Connecticut," "Huskies," and "Connecticut Huskies" are all used interchangeably (with the same variation for South Carolina. I would suggest picking one usage and sticking to it, unless there are reasons to deviate. Sir Nils (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Nils, speaking as someone who's written several of this type of article before and has tried that approach, using one form tends to create an immense amount of repetition that hurts readability even more than alternating forms does. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with JKBrooks85 on this matter. All of the different names are introduced in the first sentence of the lead. Varying the names improves readability and is consistent with how previous college football FAs, as well as external sports articles, are written. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should clarify. Obviously, across the sweep of the article, it's desirable to have some variation; however, what I found irksome is when a single sentence/pair of sentences uses a construction such as "Connecticut X then the Gamecocks Y." It's just an opinion, but I think that reads better as "Connecticut X then South Carolina Y." Certainly, I will bow to consensus. Sir Nils (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, Sir Nils. I agree with you on that, and it's something I'll have to watch out for in my articles as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with that point; I tried to make sure that when the teams are compared in a sentence it is as like-to-like, such as "Connecticut X, South Carolina Y" or "the Huskies and the Gamecocks". I'll take a look through the article and fix any issues I can find. If you find any I miss and either fix them or point them out here, I'll greatly appreciate it. –Grondemar 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I went through the entire article and fixed any issues with the juxtaposition of dissimilar team names that I could find. Let me know if I missed any. –Grondemar 13:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Link updated. Good catch! –Grondemar 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've given most of the article a quick copyedit, so take a look and make sure I didn't make a change you disagree with. I'd advise trying to get someone unfamiliar with American football to take a look, just as you did with YellowMonkey in the first FAC.
  • I'll see what I can do. I miss having YellowMonkey around since he was always good with this. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Can you find the official final statistics to get the exact time of kickoff? Most games are scheduled for even hours like 1 p.m., but then kick off at something like 1:05.
  • After a great deal of searching of newspaper and web archives, I finally found this information in a place I should probably have looked sooner: the bowl's own website. See [5]. Official kickoff time was 1:04 PM; I've integrated that into the article. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Were there any postseason coaching changes for the two teams?
  • Added to the aftermath section. –Grondemar 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Consider setting off that quote in the Aftermath section with a colored box. As it is, there's not much difference in how the quote displays its text from how the body copy is displayed.
  • Done, I changed {{quote}} to {{quotation}} to achieve the effect. –Grondemar 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The season summary sections are a bit long; I'd suggest splitting out the Howard stabbing into a subsection and transitioning into the games that followed by writing a sentence or two about how the team reacted.
• Even though that might involve writing a bit more, there's room to cut the season summary by removing some of the information about how many of the games were won. That's information better suited for the season article. I tend to include information about season-turning games rather than individual performances. Forex, the North Carolina game is good, but you could end the Baylor summary with the score. The Cincinnati game also could be cut down. This is a tough thing to do, but rather than deleting the information entirely, consider copying it over to the season article.
• By splitting out the Howard murder earlier and writing a transition, you can remove redundancies in the pregame buildup intro.
  • I believe I addressed all three of your above concerns. –Grondemar 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest moving the Courage Award into the aftermath section, since it came after the PapaJohns Bowl.
  • Actually this is a tough one, because the award was announced on December 21, prior to the PapaJohns.com Bowl, but wasn't presented until January 4, after the game. I placed it in the Pre-game buildup because I thought the award announcement was more important than the actual presentation, and that it would be confusing to try to split the information between the sections. –Grondemar 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Discussing the Notre Dame coaching situation, it isn't clear whether the situation was resolved before the PapaJohns Bowl or not.
  • It was resolved prior to the game per the source; I added the date Kelly was named head coach (December 11) to clarify. –Grondemar 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest using simple past tense; "would go on" should be replaced by "did", and there are other, similar examples that can be replaced with simple past tense. I replaced many of them, but you may want to check for lingering items.
  • I believe this is fixed; please review. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Watch your pronouns when talking about teams and schools, "team" is an it, not a "they". It's a collective singular noun, so it takes a singular pronoun even though it refers to a group.
  • I believe this is fixed; please review. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Were there sponsorship renewal discussions before the 2010 game?
  • I expanded the information about the sponsorship renewal; hopefully this addresses your concern. –Grondemar 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is any information available on the game's economic impact?
  • The only source I've found is a single line on the bowl's website, which says the game had an economic impact of $18.4 million. I have no idea how they came up with that number, however. I'll add it to the article while clearly indicating that this financial number is the bowl's own claim. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Looking into it further, it appears that there was a press release that further described where that number came from (apparently from the Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce), but unfortunately, it is a dead link and I haven't been able to find it archived anywhere. –Grondemar 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• How did ticket sales compare to expectations? What were the two schools required to sell?
  • Information added / expanded. –Grondemar 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• How did the schools fare financially in the game? With fewer tickets sold, the schools typically are required to eat the cost of their ticket allotment; was anything written on this?
  • Information added. –Grondemar 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• What was the halftime show? Who were the game officials? Did any celebrities/notable people perform the pregame coin toss?
  • Found the game officials in the bowl pdf linked above and added; still looking for the others. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • After an extensive search I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing the halftime show or pregame coin toss. From actually being at the game I can tell you that the halftime show consisted of the two team's marching bands, plus John Schnatter, the founder of Papa John's, driving his Camaro partially onto the field. I have pictures of the pregame coin toss that appear to show the referee posing for pictures with someone who looks like Schnatter, but the photo was taken from too far away to tell for sure. Either way, I can't find anything reliable that discusses either of these things, unfortunately. –Grondemar 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a logo available for use in the game infobox?
  • There is, File:PJcomBowl Logo.png; however, at the first FAC User:Jappalang requested that the non-free logo be replaced with one of the free images in the article. I selected File:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl 4th Down Measurement.JPG as it represented a pivotal moment in the game (although the picture would have been better if the PapaJohns.com Bowl had used normal chain poles that were orange and black instead of the white one with the game logo that blends in with the Gamecock offensive linemen directly behind it). I'm neutral on whether the game logo should be included in the article or not. –Grondemar 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. I've never used a picture in a game infobox, so it stood out for me, but since there's no standard, there's no reason not to. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The payout information needs to be cited, and if you could add a sentence next to that on bowl money distribution in the two conferences, that'd be a nice bonus.
  • Corrected and referenced in the infobox, and additional information added with reference to the first paragraph in the Team selection section. –Grondemar 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Drop me a line when/if you take action on these suggestions, and I'll give the article a more thorough copy edit. Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed review! It will take me a couple of days to get through all of your feedback, so I politely request patience. :-) –Grondemar 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it did take me a week to get back to you on your request for a review. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, except for the outside jargon review; let me know if you agree. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions appear correct, everything looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. –Grondemar 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The third time for this article, and it has received a good amount of work already during this FAC. I haven't read the whole article again, but here are a couple quick things from the season summaries:

• Connecticut: There's an abbreviation for North Carolina, which as far as I can tell isn't used after it is defined. If it's not going to be used later, there's no reason to abbreviate it in the first place.
• South Carolina: "After six games, the Gamecocks had a record for 5–1". "for" → "of". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking another look, Giants. Both issues should be fixed now. –Grondemar 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More Comments:

• Bowl payouts are given to the conference, rather than individual teams. I've changed the last sentence of the first paragraph of team selection to reflect this.
  • Good catch! –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• In the South Carolina season recap, you repeat "next game" as almost every sentence transition. Try to use varied wording there.
  • Good call, this should be corrected now. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's a comment in the first section of Connecticut offense that needs to be addressed.
  • This should be resolved now. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Watch for the "their own" construction; it's redundant in almost every situation, and you have a lot of them scattered throughout. I've removed them where I saw them, but you will want to check.
  • I went through the article and replaced all of the "their own"s. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Check your pronoun agreement. I've seen a lot of sentences that include "South Carolina ... their". South Carolina and Connecticut are being used as collective nouns in these cases. Even though they're referring to teams of people, the team is singular, it takes an "its". When you say Huskies or Gamecocks, the opposite is true; you say the "Huskies had the ball on their 17-yard line." This is one of the places where British English and American English disagree.
  • I went through the article again and corrected the subject-verb agreement wherever I found they didn't match. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've been told that alt text isn't required for FAC photos anymore, but I'd suggest its inclusion.
  • Before adding alt text to any further images I've been waiting for WP:ALT to stabilize into a consensus guideline; at this point I might have better luck waiting for Godot. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• The scoring summary at the conclusion of the game summary is nice. I'll be sure to copy it in my bowl game articles from here on.
  • I find that table makes for a very nice game summary. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've removed the repeated wikilinks from about the game summary section onward to avoid overlinking. You may want to go through player names to unlink additional iterations.
  • I unlinked all duplication I could find; I left alone links to the same page where the linked text is different, generally because different football jargon is defined on the same page. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• In the aftermath section, it's not clear which UConn assistant coach filled which position. The "respectively" doesn't help me, I'm afraid.
  • I revised; hopefully it is clearer now. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have thought of including the 2011 season results, but because you have the text about Spurrier promising changes, it works nicely.
  • Thanks. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Including a sentence in the aftermath section about what happened with Howard's murder wouldn't be amiss, I think.
  • I'm not sure that's really relevant to the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. What happened basically is that the Connecticut state police arrested a couple of suspects, and a year later they reached a plea bargain to a lesser charge. I think this would work a lot better in the Jasper Howard article than in this article. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've given the article another copy edit and changed some things. You'll want to look at the season summary in particular, and I think I deleted one of your repeated citations accidentally. The article's definitely coming along, and please write me a note when you're ready. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me; I commented-out the unused reference. Thanks again for the thorough copyedit; if you could review again to see if I have addressed all of your concerns, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. With those changes, I'm happy to support the article as meeting all requirements for FA status. You'll still want to get someone unfamiliar with American football to look it over, but I believe all major issues have been addressed through the two previous FACs and your responses to my comments above. Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks again for the thorough review! –Grondemar 12:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "which had 7–5 regular-season record highlighted " -> perhaps "also had a 7–5 regular-season, highlighted..."?
  • Good call, changed as requested. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "-No. 4[Note 1] Mississippi and then-No. 15[Note 1] Clemson. " I think our readers could cope with one Note 1 at the end of the sentence.
  • In college football there are multiple organizations that rank the top 25 teams before, during, and following the season. They include the AP Poll, the Coaches' Poll, the Harris Poll, and the BCS Standings which is based in part on the Coaches' and Harris polls. In order to simplify the article and not provide multiple numbers every time I wanted to list a team's ranking, I settled on using the AP Poll as a default, and developed Note 1 to explain that the ranking immediately previous is from the AP Poll and no other poll. I like having the note directly next to the ranking, so that if the reader is confused about where the ranking came from they can find the answer quickly, but if you really feel the note should be moved to the end of the adjacent sentence I guess I could do that. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from, but in almost all the circumstances in this article where note 1 is used, it's real close to punctuation, with no room for confusion as to what it's referencing (in my opinion), so I would prefer to see the notes moved. But that is a preference, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• When did pregame become a real word? I would have thought pre-game was more correct, however, if USEng allow pregame, I can't argue I suppose...!
  • According to Wiktionary, both spellings are acceptable. See wikt:pregame. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Okeydokey. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• "tragic circumstances of the Huskies' season" surely the tragedy was specifically related to the death, not the overall season?
  • It does, but I didn't want to repeat "the murder" when I said it immediately above. Do you have a suggestion as to how this could be reworded? –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think "tragic" is not required, I think perhaps our readers would get it without this word. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I really like having "tragic" or "tragedy" there; the sources virtually universally describe the event as a tragedy, and the word helps add resonance to a very emotional event. How about "Pregame coverage focused on the tragedy that marked the Huskies' season..."? –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "had effectively been decided" sounds a little POV to me.
  • I don't really see it as POV; more as a recognition that an American football team down thirteen points (a touchdown and two field goals, or two touchdowns) with less than 3:30 left is highly unlikely to make a comeback. A similar scenario is a soccer team down 3–0 in stoppage time scoring a consolation goal to make the score 3–1; despite the score it is extremely unlikely they'll be able to complete the comeback in so little time. This interpretation is also supported by the sources. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Just wasn't keen on the fact the interpretation wasn't as stated in the sources, i.e. you put your spin on the situation. Perhaps I'm being too picky though. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ref 82 (the ESPN/AP recap) states, "Dixon's 10-yard touchdown with 13:12 left effectively put the game away." If Dixon's touchdown put the game away, then the South Carolina touchdown came after the game had been decided. I didn't add the ref to that sentence because it is in the lead and there is a similar sentence in the game summary that (now) has the reference. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Forgive my ignorance, but the infobox has 8–5 and 7–6 under the teams. Is that as a result of games between regular season and the bowl game?
  • Per the instructions in Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game, this should be the team's record prior to the bowl game. Fixed. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• What is SEC?
  • Southeastern Conference. I added the abbreviation at the start of the lead. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Two links to the St Petersburg Bowl, one to the general article, one to a specific year, potentially confusing.
  • I'm not sure how to resolve that... the problem is that if I put the years in front of the specific-year bowl games, they would be all over the place because bowl games are played in both December and January following the college football regular season. For instance, following the 2009 college football season, Rutgers went to the 2009 St. Petersburg Bowl, played in December 2009, while UConn went to the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl, played in January 2010. Both games are considered part of the 2009 season despite one being played in the calendar year 2010. It also leads to anomalies such as there being no 2009 PapaJohns.com Bowl: the 2008 bowl was played in December 2008, while the 2010 bowl was played in January 2010. If you have any ideas how to resolve please let me know. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I looked at this one, too. The best alternative I considered was to simply display the year of the link. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You could do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "versus No. 19[Note 1] North Carolina. " again, no real reason to not put the note after the period. Same comment applies throughout.
  • See my response above on this. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "a historic rival " in BritEng this is "an historic rival", but perhaps USEng ignores that?
  • I think "an" does sound better here, so I changed it. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Around 12:26 a.m..." very specific for a "around"...
  • The time is directly supported by the source. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • After further consideration, "about" changed to "at". –Grondemar 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• "he murder of Jasper Howard was the first homicide.." no need to repeat Jasper here.
  • Agreed; reworded. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "coming one week" no need for coming.
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Non-expert warning, what does "late go-ahead score" mean?
  • It means a score late in the game that put the team (in this case the Huskies) in the lead. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The Fighting Irish" I guess you mean Notre Dame but the non-experts amongst us won't understand that at all.
  • Clarified. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "with 1:10 left" do you mean 70 seconds? or 1m 10s? Not completely clear to me.
  • One minute ten seconds equals seventy seconds. Could you clarify your confusion? –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, badly phrased by me. I just thought there was a possibility that a non-expert would not quite get that without something like 1m 10s ... (I maybe underestimating our non-expert readers though.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Syracuse[34] and South Florida at home. " Syracuse is specifically referenced but South Fl isn't. Why? And would still prefer to see these sort of references after the period.
  • This is a result of the compression of the season summary sections done above. The reference immediately after Syracuse is for the Syracuse game. The reference for the South Florida game is at the end of the paragraph, because it supports not only the latter part of that sentence but also the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "AP, Coaches', and Harris polls" what's AP and can you link these?
  • AP is the Associated Press; I added links at first mention (not counting Note 1). –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "game-clinching touchdown; South Carolina lost 20–6" I know (as you can tell) not much about US football, but how do you define "game-clinching" if they won by 14 points?
  • Good point; removed "game-clinching". –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's me up to the "Pregame buildup" section. I'll pause to check these comments are useful, I know mostly they're down to my ignorance of the sport and presented in an attempt to ensure the article is accessible to all readers. Let me know if I should put up or shut up! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback; I do find it very helpful. I responded to all of your comments above, but did ask for clarification on a couple of them. If you could review and respond, I would greatly appreciate it. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comments Support Sorry I couldn't find more, very tightly written piece. How do you like WebCite? I've thought about doing that for 2009 World Series, but the prospect of going through for 100+ sources scares me.
  • • I highly recommend using WebCite to archive web page links. It's easy to use and ties easily into the Cite templates. I've been trying to use it to archive every reference I add to Wikipedia. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Five losses by a total of fifteen points" Could you add a "just" in there to make clear that that's a low amount for non-football fans? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that this was the last "PapaJohns.com" Bowl, as it were? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That's already there, in the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I know, I meant noting that in the lead. Either way works though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion, but have you considered {{Quote box}} instead of {{Quotation}} for Spurrier's bit in Aftermath? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I looked at {{quote box}} in preview, and I like {{quotation}} better. Quote box makes the quoted text too small in my opinion. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you expand a bit on what "Economic impact" means? (the source doesn't make it clear, is it total tickets/TV/concessions/etc?) Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I wish I could; unfortunately the only source I have for the number is the mention on the bowl website. There is a link to a press release apparently further explaining the figure in the bowl website, but unfortunately the link is dead and I couldn't find the contents in any of the Internet archives. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments (cont.)

• "The two combined for 27 touchdowns and more than 2,100 rushing yards" probably worth ensuring us non-experts realise at this point you're talking about the whole season, not just this match.
  • Added "during the regular season". –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• " ranking 41st nationally in rushing offense and 46th in passing." (a) not sure where this is referenced (b) to a non-expert, neither of these sound impressive. Out of how many teams?
  • This is referenced by Ref 69, a couple of sentences later. There were 120 teams in Divison I FBS in 2010; this fact was added. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure how ref 66 says experts thought Frazer needed a good game. It read, to me at least, that the one reference said the passing was far from impressive.
  • Fixed; that should have been reference 69, the College Football News game preview, versus the ESPN game preview. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "and 6 touchdowns" - previous section saying similar had "and eight touchdowns".
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Wilson & Legion Field images are squashing text between them (which I thought was discouraged at MOS#Images)
  • What resolution are you using when looking at the page? I moved the Wilson pic for now to the Connecticut section as at a full 1920x1080, I couldn't reduce the resolution enough to avoid the problem and still have the picture useful where it was previously. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Zach Frazer hands off to Andre Dixon." not sure this needs a period.
  • Removed. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be contradictory, but it's a complete sentence (apart from the missing period at the end). --RexxS (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• " UConn also gained only one yard, punting the ball back to South Carolina." this could be read that the gain occurred after the punt. That's not what you mean, right?
  • Reworded. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• "After a 2-yard" any reason for that not to be "two-yard"?
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• " Husky defense" a bit weird for me, I thought it was the Huskies defense.
  • Whether to use "Husky" or "Huskies" is generally awkward in American English, so I changed it to "UConn". –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• " three-and-out " don't know what this means I'm afraid.
  • Linked at first reference. Basically, in American football, an offense has four plays to move the ball a minimum of ten yards. Generally teams do not make an offensive play if they haven't gone the ten yards by the fourth play, since if they went for it and failed to make the distance, they would turn the ball over to the other team at that spot. Instead, they elect to punt or kick the ball away to the other team, to increase the distance the other team would have to go to score. A "three-and-out" is when a team doesn't manage to go ten yards within their first three plays after getting the ball. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• I know at WP:FLC we pay a lot of attention in ensuring our lists/tables are accessible. I don't think the score summary table really is, but that may be because FAC isn't too fussed. We would avoid use of bold or italics to convey specific information (especially without a key), we'd use row and col scope parameters for screen readers... Is the Length col in yards? Is Time the time elapsed in the quarter? A couple of things that may not be clear to non-experts.
  • I'll need to edit the Scoring Summary template to fix this. This will take a few days minimum. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • After some sandbox work and much frustration, I revised the templates behind the scoring summary to include some explanatory links, changed Length to Yards, added a column for Plays (commonly mentioned for scoring drives along with the time of possession and yardage), and changed the second "Time" to "TOP", with a note that TOP stands for Time of Possession. I also removed all extraneous bolding and italicizing. I'm not sure what you mean by "scope parameters" for the table. If you could take a look and let me know if the revised table meets your expectations, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • If you take a look at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables, there's guidance on how to mark up data tables to maximise their readability by screen readers. See this for details of how JAWS interacts with tables. Although the "Scoring summary" table is complex, it should be readable, although marking up the required column headers (e.g. Plays) with scope="col" would increase the chance that a screen reader would announce the header intended. The "Statistical comparison" table is completely missing markup for the row headers, and the column headers would benefit from defining their scope. If you don't feel confident with this, I'd be happy to do the markup, if requested. --RexxS (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I took a shot at adding the scope parameters to the tables per the MOS. If you could take a look and fix anything I did wrong, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 12:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
        • In the "Statistical comparison" table, I've removed the hard-coded bolding of the cells you marked as row headers, as they are made bold already in css, and there's no point in defining the scope of the empty cell at the top left. Otherwise, you've improved that table dramatically for accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Does the mascot caption need a period?
  • This is a complete sentence, so yes. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Another image squash between mascot image and Spurrier image.
  • See above; I usually edit and read articles on a 1920x1080 screen with two windows side-by-side; is there a standard resolution this should be tested at? I haven't done anything yet because I'm not sure where else I could put the mascot picture. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Out of interest, what did the teams spend the money on such that they just about broke even?
  • Travel, meal, and lodging expenses for the team, marching band, cheerleaders, and administrators; unpurchased tickets from the number of tickets the bowl game mandates. Although this is about UConn's bowl game from the next year, the 2011 Fiesta Bowl, see this for an idea on how teams can lose massive money at bowl games even though there is a stated payout of millions. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Official BBVA Compass Bowl (new name as of 2011, formerly the PapaJohns.com Bowl) Website" I don't think the EL needs all this. The detail of the name change is well covered by the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support accessible, well-written, to my eyes meets the FA criteria, nominator went the extra mile to modify templates for WP:ACCESS, a good sign indeed. Well done, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Would you have a look through the wikitext of the article as it seems to be cluttered with lots of  , please? These make the text hard to read/edit and may produce unnecessarily ugly line breaking, especially on small screens. To the best of my knowledge, the relevant guidelines indicating where to use nbsp are at MOS:NBSP, MOS:NUM#Non-breaking spaces, MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words and MOS:NUM#Unit symbols. I can't find anywhere that would justify things like "Dixon rushed for 126 yards and a touchdown on 33 carries, giving him 1,093 rushing yards on the year", for example. It is correct to write 126 yd as it separates a numerical value from its units symbol per MOS:NUM#Unit symbols, but it's not needed for 126 yards as a line wrap to start a new line with 'yards' is a perfectly good piece of typesetting. I see no reason why a line shouldn't break between '33' and 'carries', and the same applies to things like 'a touchdown'. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all of the unnecessary non-breaking spaces have been removed. As you probably guessed I completely misinterpreted the MOS to mean that a non-breaking space must be placed between any number and its unit, not just between numbers and unit symbols. –Grondemar 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I may have thought something along those lines, but I would never be so rude as to say so :). There are some exceptions for most of the "rules" concerning numbers, units, and line-breaks especially where space is restricted (e.g. infoboxes), but you have grasped the general principle and I think the article is better for it.

Support this engaging article. I'm no expert on the subject and can't judge its comprehensiveness, but my concerns on technical issues of style and accessibility have been promptly addressed. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here.

Note to delegates: the comments on the talk page are minor and I am supporting regardless of the outcome of those points. Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support! I have responded to/addressed all of them on the FAC talk page. –Grondemar 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review my edits and edit summaries-- I got balled up in too many dashes in a few places, and confused by two different records, and found some MOS issues-- please review throughout and make sure the rest of the article is consistent if you keep any of my changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Sandy; I further revised the sentence on the Cincinnati game, and went through the entire article again fixing minor grammatical issues and non-breaking spaces in dates issues, including in all of the references. Please review and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. –Grondemar 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [6].

---

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Capcom's "legendary" Versus fighting video game series known for the Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK installments went on hiatus for nearly eight years. With the arrival of Street Fighter IV, came the revival of the fighting genre and the next Vs. installment. Timing may have been intentional, but in any case let the nitpicking begin!

In regards to the last FAC, Games Radar, Kotaku, and Destructoid's quality were questioned and are still in the article. While I find "high quality reliable sources" and "Video game journalism" together as an oxymoron, does anyone else have concerns with their use? Also, images were not changed.« ₣M₣ » 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since the sources were a particular issue last FAC, I'll take a thorough look at them when able. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page (The gamezone link, all of your wayback ones are too but that's on purpose). --PresN 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.
• The article uses two non-free images and one free image. I am reasonably satisfied that the use of the non-free images complies with WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment would it be worthwhile on the table to identity the game or property that each of the characters are from? A casual reader seeing this table may not know who all the characters are but connecting them to their source would help that (they still may not know the source, but that's ok for this level of detail). --MASEM (t) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what the list use to look like. See comment below. « ₣M₣ » 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the gist of the comment below, but this comment is more to other reviewers as well: unlike your list of events from Olympic games (which are generally reasonably well known, and more a matter of what specific events they didn't program in), we're talking characters that may be obscure to some people, particularly those on the Tatsunoko side. If no one else raises the issue, hey, fine, addition later may be ok. But others may feel for this FA to be complete the list needs more explanation. I'm ok without them those see the value in that. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the current version of the character table DOES link to their respective series/franchise, except in the event where they have an actual character page. That should be enough, right? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

About character list Since its easy to add, remove, or whatever editors want to do about it, I think its best to take that discussion to Tatsunoko's talk page. If it helps, my last passed FA, Mario & Sonic, talked about adding a list of events. That closed with the discussion still ongoing elsewhere. « ₣M₣ » 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am reading this sequentially (i.e. general reader perspective), so if something makes sense later in prose, but I complain about it -- so would most likely a general reader. I have also never played any game in this (these?) series. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Moved resolved comments to the talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I just attempted to solve most of these problems. Like with Flow, I was the main copyeditor on this article. Unfortunately, I've never played the game; I had a hard time understanding a lot of the stuff in the Gameplay section. If something doesn't make sense, it's probably because I couldn't figure out what it meant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, not you again! :) But, seriously, you are doing valuable job CEing articles, so kudos for that! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Anyway, I hope that I've alleviated your concerns thus far. I'll continue to tweak the prose if necessary, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the Wikiproject need more people like him (and you). Unless I've missed something, I think that's most/all of it. « ₣M₣ » 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support Well, looks fine to me. I am going to say "weak" though, since it is a bit gamecrufty but would at the same time expect the general reader to have some basic idea of what a fighting game is. But definitely, support. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support (sorry it took so long for me to get around, but I'm a busy man!) I think the aforementioned Destructoid, Kotaku and GamesRadar refs are fine. While the Destructoid and GamesRadar pubs are iffier as sources in general, I think the authors (Crecente definitely meets WP:SPS and I think Killian does in this case as well) boost them to the standard necessary for inclusion in an FA. I have no issues with the prose and I don't think the article gets into game cruft; it's one of the few fighting games where I can follow all the different modes, and it's not presented as a game guide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support: I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. The changes from the last FAC (which I also supported) look to have improved the prose. I'm not pleased to see the character list return, but I don't think that should hold up this nomination. I'll pursue that on the article's talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
• Support - Read through the article, only ever played one fighting game before (and never a Capcom one) and I had no trouble following what was going on. Didn't spot any prose concerns, and I agree with the above analysis of the references. I'm not sure about the character table, but not enough to withhold my support. Two points- I'd like to see the Famitsu review in the review table, though, since it's a Japanese game and that's the primary Japanese review. Also, ref 45 is one page, so p., not pp. --PresN 00:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's the only score for CGoH and since its never abbreviated in the article (I don't think anyone other than fans abbreviate it), I chose to leave it in prose. Otherwise, good catch. « ₣M₣ » 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• More review needed. Spot-checking for problems:

• MOS:CAPTION issue
• WP:LQ issues: the punctuation for full quotations is supposed to go inside the closing quote (has any of this been checked for MoS?)
• The use of quotations in the Reception section borders on excessive. Use quotations only when the statement is something memorable and not easily paraphrased.
• "Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica enthusiastically wrote" How does one enthusiastically write? Quick typing with giddy noises?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Asked Tony. « ₣M₣ » 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkout comments from H3llkn0wz above. « ₣M₣ » 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support As a fighting game enthuiast, i'm quite interested in any fighting game that appears for GAN or FAC. I've taken a once, a twice, and a thrice over the article and nothing appears to conflict with this game becoming FAC. Infact, I believe this article should become the benchmark for all fighting game articles to become. It so says so much in so few words, and the only issue I find with it is the large amount of whitespace in the characters' section because of the table, but it does not take away from the content of the article, which is what Wikipedia is used for. Sorry for such a lengthy comment, but that's my view on this article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Just as an FYI for those interested, I removed the character list. The discussion on the article talk page wasn't in-depth, and no one replied to my comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

I thought these Easter egg date links were specifically discouraged by WP:MOSDATE? Unsure, please review:

• It was originally released in 2008 as the Japan-exclusive ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• That rings a bell. I think this is easily solved by including "released in" with the year. There's actually a template [7] for that, which I've included. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Undefined term in the lead, what is the Vs. series, and why is there no link to it? All I can find is Heisei era (daikaiju eiga). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no article for this Vs. series since editors focused on its Marvel sub-series. The best place that defines it is the navigational template at the bottom of the article. Weighing in what you and H3llkn0wz said, how is "Vs. video game series consisting of Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK"? « ₣M₣ » 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Up to two players"? Not much of a range-- wouldn't that be the same as one or two players? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, changed it to that. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [8].

---

Somerset Levels

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Somerset Levels cover a large area of low lying wetland, with complex geology and ecology. Man has been living on the Levels since the Paleolithic era, with many loosing their lives in floods, and trying to drain the area for about a thousand years. Its even been the site of several battles - so there is something in the article for almost everyone.

To reach FA quality has been a long process with gradual improvement since it achieved GA back in the summer of 2007. Recent work has included a helpful peer review by Finetooth and an extensive copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum, along with input from several other editors and a push on the referencing. I now feel it meets the FA criteria and would welcome your comments.— Rod ^talk 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - A locator map for the area, similar to the one shown for Exmoor would be nice. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. Map making is beyond my capabilities, and it is difficult because of the lack of explicit boundaries, however the map at File:Map of Somerset Levels.png was kindly made for this purpose following the peer review - I suppose that could be made larger if that would help?— Rod ^talk 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was more thinking of an insert, similar to this File:Exmoor National Park UK location map.svg. The map workshop might be able to help you. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see now. You are suggesting an inset showing the position in the British Isles. I have asked User:Nilfanion who created the map for this article whether it would be possible to add this. If not I will contact the map workshop.— Rod ^talk 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• An insert of the British Isles has kindly been added by Nilfanion. Is this the sort of thing you wanted or were you thinking of Template:Location map England with a red dot on it? This would probably be appropriate for an infobox, however I can't find a suitable one as the Levels are not a protected area in the way that Exmoor or the Mendip Hills are.— Rod ^talk 08:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, but a couple of dead external links- [9] and [10]. this one also hit its bandwidth limit, but I'm sure it will return. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these checks - all were working fine a few days ago when I last checked them.

• The Langport and River Parrett Visitor Centre seems to be affected by the use of toolserver looking to the server as if they are redirects. It gives error 302 "Excessed redirect limit (8)" but if you click on the URL directly it works without problems.
• The Brent Knoll link works fine for me
• I'm not sure about the Drainage Boards Newsletter bandwidth problem. The top level of that domain gives the same error, even though it is a .gov.uk (government) domain. I will check again in a day or two to see if the problem has resolved.

• The drainage boards newsletter is working fine again now.— Rod ^talk 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I presume the potential linkrot you are referring to is 40ft sculpture unveiled in Somerset This is a BBC news page and although the link checker always highlights these as 301 "Redirect preserves id number". The BBC news URLs have remained stable for some years.— Rod ^talk 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• The 8x redirect was ending up at their main page yesterday; seems to be fine now as does the mysteriousbritain one. I do actually click on the links, the tool server has quirks sometimes. As to the BBC one, I know about the /1/ versus /2/ just being which server it sends you to, but the actual redirect I meant was the /uk/ being changed to /uk_news/. Whatever, It's not a big deal in this case. --PresN 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found only mirrors. Manual spotchecking not done yet - I'll try to do the next couple of days
• I'm somewhat confused as to the purpose of your Bibliography section - some of these sources are cited in References, but include full bibliographic information there, while others are not cited anywhere. I also see discrepancies in citation formatting in this section, and some slight variations between identical entries in Bibliography and References - for example, what is the actual title of the Havinden work? This section needs work

• As far as I can see, Havinden (1970) is correctly transcibed using the {{cite book}} template. The title is "The Somerset Landscape", it is one volume of a series entitled: "The making of the English landscape". What exactly is your concern? Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have changed this to further reading - the intention is to give details of other relevant sources which are not directly referenced in the text. I have removed those which are now used as references and hopefully improved the format.

• "King Andy"? Other than that, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comma added.— Rod ^talk 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include counties for English publisher locations, or indeed whether you include publisher locations at all

• I have removed place of publication for consistency

• Use a consistent format for references with multiple authors

• I have revised these - hopefully got them all

• Missed a few - for example 34 and 36

• Hopefully fixed now.

• All citations to books should have page numbers

• I believe all the books now have page numbers

• Missed a few here - for example 37. Also, make sure page ranges use ndashes and single pages don't use "pp."

• I have never understood the mdash v ndash argument but have used citation bot which has hopefully fixed these and found one occurrence of pp for a single page - if there are others I can't see them.— Rod ^talk 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have a copy of Hollinrake, Charles; Hollinrake, Nancy (2007). "Chapter 9: The Water Roads of Somerset". In Blair, John (ed.). Waterways and Canal-Building in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921715-1. to hand but will ask for help or get a copy from the library.— Rod ^talk 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Now done. Pyrotec (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's good that you indicate format for PDF sources, but you should do the same for doc files

• I could only find one .doc & have added format= to this one

• Spell out or link acronyms like ONS on first appearance

• Done - hopefully got them all

• I'm having some issues with the webcitation.org links - they don't seem to be loading for me

• Work OK for me but can be a bit slow

• Use consistent names for things. For example, Dovecote Press or The Dovecote Press Ltd.?

• Consistency improved

• Still needs work - for example, ref 17 uses "Dovecote Press", 21 uses "The Dovecote Press Ltd." and 71 uses "Dovecote press". Rechecked 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC), still not done

• I found and fixed another one.— Rod ^talk 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent on what is linked when, what is italicized, etc - lots of minor inconsistencies

• Several were in italics as work= had been used rather than publisher= - hopefully got them all now

• Also check date formatting, how you format works within larger works, etc

• Sorry I can't see this error

• For example, ref 18 uses "28 January 2010" and ref 19 uses "2011-02 24"; ref 37 uses "In Blair, John" and ref 132 uses "In B. Purdy"

• Requested changes Done, but I'm not sure why an accessdate is considered necessary (ignoring date consistency for the moment) for a map that exists in paper form - it has an isbn after all. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Still some minor inconsistencies, but much improved. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• What is this source? Who publishes it?

• I have replaced this source as same information is available in the English Nature "Conservation Profile" document

• Check formatting on Ashe

• Changed

• What makes this a reliable source?

• According to this page the content on the site is based on Cope, Julian (2011). The Modern Antiquarian: A Pre-millennial Odyssey Through Megalithic Britain : Including a Gazetteer to Over 300 Prehistoric Sites. Thorsons. ISBN 978-0722535998. However I don't have a copy of the book so I'm relying on the web site for this citation, however I was worried about sourcing legends about giants so gave three references.

• I agree that this isn't reliable, since the it is SPS. I noticed that the 'Landscape of King Arthur' mentioned in a post is on google books though (only in snippet view) but you can confirm that the post is a faithful copy and then cite the book instead. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• What about this?

• I would agree this is a commercial site selling coins. I could not find another source for the specific age of the coins in the Shapwick Hoard. I will remove that information if required.

• This?

• It is the site of a campaign group - only used to support the claim that there had been local opposition to the electricity cables. The other details about the proposals are covered in the next ref (currently 115) from the BBC

• I found a BBC article about protests against the pylons and have removed the link above. SmartSE (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have made further changes, so the relevant citations are now 116 & 117 (now two, not one). Pyrotec (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Spell out journal names (ex. Topham)

• Done

• Publisher for ref 106?

• Done (this was a formatting error using a capital P for publisher=)

• As a general point, I would prefer to see fewer sources that are either a) commercial or b) promotional. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a few spotchecks now, and am concerned:

• "about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (roughly west of the M5 motorway). The inland Moors can be 6 metres (20 ft) below peak tides" - not in source

• That has been added since this FAC nomination. I believe it is an accurate description & I will look for a source and contact the editor concerned.

• I reworded the section and added a citation to cover it. It currently states: "The Levels are a coastal sand and clay barrier about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (O.D.) (roughly west of the M5 motorway). The general elevation of the inland Moors is 3 to 3.7 metres (10 to 12 ft) O.D. and with peak tides of 7.6 to 7.9 metres (25 to 26 ft) O.D. recorded at Bridgwater and Burnham On Sea, respectively, the inland Moors lie below peak tides.(Ref)". Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Brent Knoll has been inhabited since at least the Bronze Age" - source?

• Reference added

• "shows a seasonal and a diurnal variation, but due to the modifying effect of the sea the range is less than in most other parts of the UK" vs "Temperature shows both a seasonal and a diurnal variation, but due to the modifying effect of the sea the range is less than in most other parts of the UK" - very close paraphrasing
• "January is the coldest month with mean minimum temperatures between 1 °C (33.8 °F) and 2 °C (35.6 °F). July and August are the warmest months in the region with mean daily maxima around 21 °C (69.8 °F)." vs "January is the coldest month with mean minimum temperatures between 1 and 2 °C." and "July and August are the warmest months in the region with mean daily maxima ranging from around 19 °C"
• "The south-west of England has a favoured location with respect to the Azores high pressure when it extends its influence north-eastwards towards the UK, particularly in summer." vs "The south west of England has a favoured location with respect to the Azores high pressure when it extends its influence north eastwards towards the UK particularly in summer"
• "Rainfall tends to be associated with Atlantic depressions or with convection. The Atlantic depressions are more vigorous in autumn and winter and most of the rain which falls in those seasons in the south-west is from this source." vs "Rainfall tends to be associated with Atlantic depressions or with convection. The Atlantic depressions are more vigorous in autumn and winter and most of the rain which falls in those seasons in the south west is from this source"

Neutral - the major concerns above and the egregious instances of close paraphrasing found on earlier spotchecks have been addressed. However, I have not checked every source, and among those I did check I still found some information not supported by the source (for example, "In December 1998, there were 20 days without sun recorded at Yeovilton"). Good work has been done so for, but more is still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Too many instances of close paraphrasing/plagiarism. I've only checked a few sources; this article needs to be checked top to bottom for plagiarism, and potentially for copyvio issues. There are also some issues with sources not supported the material they cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• The paragraph about climate which is all cited to the single Met Office source has been used on several geography articles in this part of the country (egs Glastonbury (GA), Somerset, Mendip Hills & Exmoor (which are all FAs) & copied many times (with little or no variation) so it is difficult to identify exactly where it was first written, although I probably copied it into this article and should have checked. I will reword this to remove the close paraphrasing & then try to find all the others which use it and revise those as well. Thank you for all your comments.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have now reworded the climate paragraph and replaced the copyvio/close paraphrase paragraph on 40+ other articles which all use it. Thanks for spotting this it was obviously more widely used than I realised.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• "20 days without sun recorded at Yeovilton" now referenced to an archive of the site as the latest version doesn't seem to include it.— Rod ^talk 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

SupportQuery I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not well it is a wiki...

1. "A number of Saxon charters document the incorporation of areas of moor in estates, with several towns, villages and hill forts being built on the natural "islands" of slightly raised land," This seems to be combining two different things, a settlement pattern that is skewed towards higher land and the Anglo Saxon changes. Hill forts elsewhere are not usually of Anglo-Saxon origin, could you check this please. resolved now thanks
2. There is some overlinking such as bird, by all means link where you have a relevant link, but if I see bird linked in an article I rather expect it to be piped to an article about the bird life of that area rather than birds generally. I've fixed some of these, also generally we should link the first occurrence and repeat sparingly where relevant and much further down the article.
3. "which the Lords supported but the Commoners opposed" it isn't clear to me whether this is talking about local Lords and Commoners or the houses of Lords and Commons. If the former I suggest adding the word local, if the latter I suggest replacing Commoners with a piped link to Commons.
4. The map is helpful at least as far as the river system goes, but doesn't show many of the features and places mentioned in the article, nor does it show the area of the levels -one shade of green is clearly the lowest land but it is not stated what the maximum height is of this colour and therefore whether this coincides with the levels.

ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits (all of which seem fine to me). I have revised the conflation of Saxon charters & hillforts, changing the chronology in both lead & appropriate section. I've just checked with a couple of the relevant books & it was "local" lords, at the request of the king - commoners were worried about loosing grazing rights. Some overlinking has been reduced since your comment and I will look for others. I have asked Nilfanion about a key for the map giving the heights the coulours represent, but what other features and places would you like to see included, without overcrowding the map? - perhaps I should change this to a lead image and increase its size?— Rod ^talk 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the hillforts bit, and explaining the commoners - I've added the grazing rights bit. Ideally the map should show the levels themselves as they are the subject of the article, and the features - villages, rivers and motorway referred to in the article. The more incidental the mention of an item the less important to include it on the map - so the listed villages are unimportant as would be a place like Wells which is on the map you are using, but is only mentioned once. ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the map to the lead & made it bigger. The significant rivers are included, so do you feel the M5 motorway should be included & which villages?. I've added the heights the colours represent - but not sure of the best way to do this in the caption.— Rod ^talk 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently the scale is a tad overwhelming, and I'm pretty sure that the lowest altitude bit covers rather more than just the levels. I think that the motorway is such a feature of the modern day that it should be in, but this is one of those articles that would really benefit from different maps for different eras, or one of those graphics that changes over time, in this case showing the flooding of the land in the mesolithic, the Roman era, the post roman era, the Anglo-saxon era etc. Of course that depends on whether it can be done and whether it can be sourced - so I wouldn't oppose FA status for the lack of it. Different maps for different eras would enable you to depict more info without cluttering one map and would give a great way to show the fluctuating shoreline and extent of things like the great flood ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• That information exists in graphical form in, "Williams (1970) The Draining of the Somerset Levels" for instance, but under UK copyright law that book is still in Copyright: it is claimed by Cambridge University (not the author). Any work based on it would be regarded as a derivative work and would therefore not be copyfree. Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved to support per the improved mapping. I'd have liked to see a map that actually shows the levels themselves, but accept that we can't use what isn't available under an appropriate licence. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the map, the yellow region on this map is the Somerset Levels and Moors Natural Area (That data is not free, so cannot be used here). The 10m contour is possibly a better match to that region in some places, but to split 0-20 to 0-10 and 10-20 could unbalance the map by giving undue weight to the lower altitudes. As it is the map reflects the information in the lead section, the hills and the rivers - the physical geography. I'm not convinced the M5 is that relevant, its an important road, but its merely something that passes through and has no apparent significance to the Levels themselves. For that matter, the Willow Man is more relevant to the Levels than the motorway. That said, if including the road network (not just the M5) would provide helpful context to the map then it is worth including.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.
• All images are properly licensed (although it took me a while to ascertain this for the OS map). Stifle (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved comments from Reaper Eternal}}

Comments by Reaper Eternal

I try to be direct in addressing issues, so I'm sorry if this sounds a little blunt. I'm not commenting on anybody personally!

• 1st paragraph of "Settlements" section: "Small villages in the centre of the Levels include: Burtle, Catcott, Chilton Polden, Cossington, Edington, Greinton, Lympsham, Mark, Meare, Middlezoy, Moorlinch, Othery, Pawlett, Puriton, Shapwick, Sharpham, Stawell, Stoke St Gregory, Weare, Wedmore, Westhay, Westonzoyland and Woolavington." Unsourced. (Maybe needs {{cite map}}?)

• Cite map reference added

• 2nd paragraph of "Settlements" section: "It is a natural hill of Triassic sandstone capped by Keuper marl. Excavations showed evidence of a 12th-century masonry building on the top of the hill. The northern edge of the Levels approaches the southern slopes of the Mendip Hills; from west to east it contains the settlements of Compton Bishop, Axbridge, Cheddar, Rodney Stoke, Westbury-sub-Mendip, and Wookey." Is this covered by ref #22 in paragraph #3? If so, the reference needs to be added to the end of this paragraph too.

• Two references added about Burrow Mump

• 3rd paragraph of "Settlements" section: "The position of the town on the edge of the Somerset Levels has resulted in a history dominated by land reclamation and sea defences since Roman times." Who says this? You need a source.

• Reference added

• 3rd paragraph of "Settlements" section: "Burnham was seriously affected by the Bristol Channel floods of 1607, and various flood defences have been installed since then. A concrete sea wall was built in 1911, and after the Second World War further additions to the defences were made, using the remains of a Mulberry harbour; the present curved concrete wall was completed in 1988. Highbridge, which neighbours Burnham, is near the mouth of the River Brue and the villages of East and West Huntspill." This is also unsourced.

• References added for flood & sea defences

• 1st paragraph of "Climate" section: "Along with the rest of South West England the Somerset Levels..." Comma needed after England. "In December 1998 there were..." Comma needed after 1998. "In summer a large proportion..." Comma needed after summer. There are more related issues with comma use, and I am willing to copyedit the article if the nominator wants.

• I'm never sure about too many comma's and tend to go with the copy editing of Malleus Fatuorum and others, but I would be happy to accept your kind offer.

• 5th paragraph of "Drainage" section: "The first steam pumping station was Westonzoyland Pumping Station in 1830, followed by more effective ones from 1860. Automatic electric pumps are used today." Unsourced.

• Reference added

• 6th paragraph of "Drainage" section: "Water levels are managed by the Levels Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs)..." Apostrophe needed.

• I'm not sure about apostrophes for plural abbreviations either, but I've added them.

• "Sea defences" section: The picture breaks the formatting on my computer. You probably should add a {{clear}} at the end of the paragraph.

• added

• 1st paragraph, "Sea defences" section: "Much of the area is at, or only slightly above, mean sea level, and thus was frequently flooded by the sea, a problem that was not fully resolved until the sea defences were enhanced in the early 20th century. The Parrett is the only river in the Level and Moors that does not have a clyse on it." This paragraph is completely unreferenced.

• I've rewritten this section. The referencing is now better: but, I've using 40-year old references. I need to add a more recent one, and a reviewer would (obviously) expect to see one (or more). (Note to Rod: I hope to find one at the EA-but you tend to be quicker than me at web searching). Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Now added current (Dec 2009) reference. Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Teazel growing" section: This isn't really an issue, but could you expand this one-liner section?
• 3rd paragraph, "Biodiversity and conservation" section: "there is currently no single conservation designation covering the Levels and Moors." This is unreferenced.

• I'm not sure how there can be, as the absence of a single designation is the issue - the various designations which do apply to parts of the levels are included.

• Natural England has a designation "Natural Area" that applies to this. (See page #7 [11].) Also, this book mentions that SSSIs are patchy on the Levels & Moors, which would indicate a lack of one continuous designation. Apart from these, I can agree that such a reference might prove impossible to find, since it is a reference for a lack of information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've now added a reference which talks about how the patchwork of different designations doesn't provide the same level of protection.— Rod ^talk 09:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph, "Tourism" section: "It has been designated by English Heritage as a grade I listed building,^[142] and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument." Does ref #142 apply to the Scheduled Ancient Monument phrase? Also, what is the number? (I know this can be very hard to impossible to find, and definitely will not oppose if you cannot.)

• Reference moved to the end of the sentence as it says it is an SAM but I haven't been able to find the number.

• 3rd paragraph, "Tourism" section: "The barn and courtyard contain displays of farm machinery from the Victorian and early 20th-century periods. Other exhibits show local crafts, including willow coppicing, mud horse fishing on the flats of Bridgwater Bay, peat digging on the Somerset Levels, and the production of milk, cheese, and cider. In reconstructed rooms detailing domestic life in the nearby village of Butleigh, the story of one farm worker, John Hodges, is told from cradle to grave. Outside, there is a beehive and rare breeds of poultry and sheep in the cider apple orchard." This description is not sourced.

• Reference added.— Rod ^talk 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• No problems about you being "blunt"; however, I would like to be able to read your comments without having to use a magnifying glass. Was it necessary to make the comments that small? Pyrotec (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments from Reaper Eternal

• 3rd paragraph, "Settlements" section: "Highbridge, which neighbours Burnham, is near the mouth of the River Brue and the villages of East and West Huntspill." This probably needs a {{cite map}}.

• cite map added

• 1st paragraph, "Tourism" section: There are a large number of (1234 mi, 1974 km). This should probably be changed to ({{convert|1234|mi|km|disp=comma|abbr=on}}).

• convert template used.— Rod ^talk 16:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

|}

• I can now support this article for FA status. Syntax looks better, referencing much improved, etc. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Support apart from a couple of minor comments -

• In the section "Biodiversity and conservation" a paragraph ends "was supported by a grant of £700k grant from Viridor Credits." - I would loose one of the grants to improve flow.
• I think that "Domesday Book" should be in italics as it is a title.

Keith D (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the second "grant" from that sentence and, although its not a book in the modern sense I have italicised Domesday Book.— Rod ^talk 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak support Neutral Leaning oppose. Switched to weak support; weak because although all my concerns have been addressed I feel the prose is not quite as polished as it could be. The article feels a little fragmented in places. I think this is because the topic requires the article to cover so many disparate pieces of information that it's hard to make reading the article feel like a narrative, but I think some more improvements could be made by a good copyeditor thoroughly familiar with the material. However, I do think the article just about reaches the level necessary for FA. Switching to neutral since a map has been drafted; I will take another look tonight. I'm only partway through the article and will try to add more comments over the weekend, but at the moment I am leaning towards opposing. A big issue for me is the lack of a detailed map. The topographic map is fine, and gives the reader a good deal of information, but to a reader unfamiliar with the area the article contains a stream of place names that can’t be positioned. I think a larger scale map would be very helpful, listing as many places that are mentioned in the article as can be reasonably managed. For example, “roughly west of the M5 motorway” is going to be of little help to almost all readers. Along the same lines, I think the lists of village names are unhelpful; not only would a map get rid of the need for these, but perhaps a link to a List of settlements in the Somerset Levels (which doesn't have to exist yet; red links are OK) would be useful for those who want to see the list. Some other issues, mostly fairly minor:

• The current map says “Poldern” which is presumably a typo.

• I have contacted User:Nilfanion who created the map.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead makes it appear that the Sumorsaete explanation for Somerset’s name is just one possibility, but the same story in the body of the article is much more definite. Which is correct?

• I have made the text in the body of the article less definite and added an alternative derivation.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can any date be given for the palaeolithic tool found in Sedgemoor?

• Added.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  The date, which is unusually early for the UK, rang a bell; I dug through some of my references and I think that more recent sources now date this to around 500,000 years old. I will see what I can dig up for you and will post on the talk page of the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK, I changed the date and added a ref; so striking this. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead needs a comma after "Shapwick Hoard"

• Done.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• You might consider mentioning Alfred and Athelney in the lead, though the lead is already quite long; perhaps it's my own bias but I think that's quite a well-known story

• As you say the lead is already quite long so I'm leaving this one for others to comment.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The area has been extensively studied for its ... heritage": what does this mean?

• There is substantial evidence in the main body to support the claim that "The area has been extensively studied for its biodiversity and heritage, and has a growing tourism industry." but it could be removed from the lead if required?— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  My concern was that "heritage" is a very vague word, and introducing it in this way in the lead wasn't very informative. I will finish going through the rest of the article and see if I can come up with a constructive suggestion. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've struck this; there's sufficient support in the body, as you say. I don't particularly like this use of "heritage" without qualification but that might be just me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Geography section starts with “The Levels and Moors are”, and the next paragraph starts with “The Levels are”, giving a completely different definition. I think this is technically correct, if I understand the intent, but it is very confusing to a reader.

• To me it is clear that the wider levels and moors area contains both the levels and the moors. How would you suggest it is clarified?— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  Before reading the article I had never heard that the levels were correctly called the Levels and Moors; I didn't know there was a difference. On seeing that there was, I assumed that the moors would be higher land, since that's a normal interpretation for the word "moor". The first paragraph defines the whole of the Levels and Moors, and I had no trouble with that. Then, since the article is in fact titled "Somerset Levels", not "Somerset Levels and Moors", I assumed that the next paragraph, starting "The Levels are" was also about the entire area. As I said, I can see that this is technically perfectly correct, but I hope you can understand my confusion.

  Perhaps it would help to reverse the order? Suppose the first sentence of the first paragraph were something like: "The Levels and Moors are a largely flat area, with the "Moors" referring to the inland plains, and the "Levels" referring to a coastal sand and clay barrier, roughly west of the M5 motorway"? That can no doubt be improved (I don't like using "referring" twice like that) but sets the context for the reader to see that two different things are about to be discussed; then "Levels and Moors" can be used to refer to both together. That would require a little rework of the subsequent sentences, but not too much, I think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I reworded the first sentence based on your suggestion & moved the agriculture paragraph further down bringing the description of height etc together.— Rod ^talk 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  I tweaked this a little. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The southern area the civil parish of Aller" – missing a word or some punctuation?

• Done— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "has been a major port and trading centre”: probably better as "was at one time"

• Done— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the arrival of the railway in 1841 made this the furthest navigable point": I'm not sure what this means -- furthest navigable would imply something to do with navigation up the Axe, but why would a railway have anything to do with that?

• The railway built a bridge over the top of it. I've re-written that section. Pyrotec (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  That's clearer, but why do you say "However"? Previously it was a port; it's still on the navigable part of the river, so there's no change in status, is there? Or does the bridge interrupt the ability of inland river traffic to bring goods to the port? Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The source quoted is somewhat unhelpful. I'm not sure that the editor who used it understood the context. The status of the port appears to be unchanged. The Axe in those days (1840s) would have been used by sailing vessels, so it is possible that they could have travelled up river beyond the port before the railway line "blocked" the route. Changing timscale, the Axe was certainly navigable to Glastonbury Abbey in the Medieval period: that is well documented (but its not in this article and I did not add that section of text, but I do have the reference(s)). I can add it if you like. Pyrotec (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a key piece of information, so if the source doesn't give enough information to allow you to use it effectively I'd suggest just cutting it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a further copy edit. Pyrotec (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's much clearer. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• The mention of the Azores High (and that's probably a better link than just to the Azores is not supported by the given reference, as far as I can see; I don't doubt it, but it needs a source. Similarly, you're using that reference for the statement that most rainfall is caused by Atlantic depressions, but I don't see that in the source.

• It is sourced in the archive version of the Met Office site which I've added as a reference.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I've just realized that in fact your original source (footnote 32) was fine -- within the page are multiple tabs, and the rainfall and sunshine tab cover everything you give. I was only looking at the first tab. So I think you can get rid of the new footnote 33 (and in fact one of those footnote 33 links doesn't work for me -- I get page not found). Perhaps a comment could be added in the footnote that the reader should look at the rainfall and sunshine tabs? Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at Template:Cite web I can't see how to add a note saying click on the different tabs.— Rod ^talk 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  Nor can I. I just reverted to your original version and tweaked a couple of links; I also added a note at the end of the citation that might help. Revert if you don't like it; I don't see a better way to do it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think you need a source to say that the Levels are a good place to see a Fata Morgana; the source you have just talks about the mirages themselves.

• I have removed this as it seems to be based on the origin of the name being in arthurian legend rather than any scientific basis.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A salt-making industry was set up near Highbridge": this is followed by another sentence saying the same thing in a different way, from the same source. I think this could just be cut.

• I've removed the first mention (short sentence at end of previous paragraph) and left the second mention which covers different areas.— Rod ^talk 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "may have been linked to this industry, or to the associated local minting and counterfeiting operation": does "this industry" refer to the salt extraction industry? There's an intervening sentence about other settlements so I wanted to check, but if so that's fine. Also, what's the source for there being an associated minting and counterfeiting operation? The source given just covers the details of the hoard itself.

• I've removed the uncited claim that the hoard was connected to local minting and counterfeiting - the only source I could find would not have been considered reliable.— Rod ^talk 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• The citation (77) refers to both archaelogical evidence, i.e. pottery, dated to the Roman era found and recorded at some 20 sites in the locality, and an area marked as "The Saltings" on an 1886 map. The latter is likely to be possibly 18th-19th century. (It's not in the article, but brine was discovered in 1910 and extracted commercially at Puriton for a few years - but its obviously not the site refered to at Burham / Highbridge). Pyrotec (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The area has few wooded areas": needs rewording.

• Redone— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any particular reason why "Cider" is capitalized in the Land use section? And "Scrumpy"? I think these are normally lower case.

• Done— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• "over 60% of Somerset's orchards were intentionally destroyed" is a bit of an odd way to phrase it; I assume that farmers have given up the orchards because they are not a good investment of the land. If the sources support that, I'd suggest a rephrasing to clarify the reason: perhaps "Since the early 1960s over 60% of the orchards have been converted to more profitable uses of the land".

• Changed as the source just says "lost" not "intentionally destroyed" which could be seen as POV.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• You use Williams and Williams for much of the second paragraph of Land use, including a statement that local industries are "now" in serious decline. Since the source is almost twenty years old, I think it would be better to make this "as of the early 1990s"; a more recent source would of course be even better.

• I've changed this to second half of 20th C as Williams & Williams were writing about what had already occurred.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful to add the dates of the project to the paragraph on the Shapwick Project.

• Added— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

-- More over the next day or so, as I have time. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a pass through. If the above (minor) issues are resolved, and some form of map is added which lets a reader locate many of the settlements mentioned, I think I would be ready to change to weak support. My main remaining concern is that the prose is somewhat bitty. This is to some degree a natural consequence of the topic, which requires you to cover a great many disconnected bits of information under a single heading, but I do feel the prose is less than optimal. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (which I will address individually) however with reference to the village names and a map - List of locations in the Somerset Levels does exist and includes settlements, as well as individuals named moors and minor rivers and drainage channels. It is linked from the see also section. As discussed above map making is beyond my skills, but the editor who did make it did suggest not making it too cluttered.— Rod ^talk 09:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I missed that list; I will take a look. As for a map, there are a couple of options to create maps -- User:Kmusser creates top-quality maps on request; and there are also people at the Graphics Lab who can provide maps. I really think they would be a big asset to the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The typo on the map has been fixed. As for what else is wanted from a map, one image can and should only do so much. The current map shows the physical geography reasonably well. Adding a political map to the settlements section would be most appropriate (in the style of the one at List of windmills in Essex) is a sensible way to show the location of the settlements. And if you want a map that shows "everything" a crop of this would do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A crop of the OS map would definitely be helpful; I think that would address a lot of my concerns. The style of the Essex map you give is a bit less helpful, in my eyes, because the reader has to go back and forth between the caption and the map to understand the relative positions of the named places. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Essex map uses numerical captions (to avoid overwhelming the map), but clearly the labels could be put on the image, instead of the caption. My thinking is that the map should be usable at the size it is displayed in the article - if the reader has to click away from the article to interpret it, that's a significant drawback. The harder question is how big the map should be in article - too small its useless, too big it overwhelms the article. FWIW, that OS map is freely licenced and can be utilised.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added some points on the map of the talk page to show what towns & villages could be included.— Rod ^talk 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be usable at the size it is displayed in the article; but surely an article that is specifically about a geographical area makes the best possible case for a large map that spans the width of the screen? If I were reading a physical article about the levels, in a magazine, I would be grateful for a full page map, and I'd keep a finger in that page and constantly flip to it whenever I wanted to check where the Pillrow Cut joined the Brue and the Axe, or to see where it was that Alfred burned the cakes. Perhaps other readers don't read that way, so please push back on these comments if you really don't feel a detailed map is necessary, but I think it would be a big plus. I do like the purely topographic map at the top, which sets the stage for the discussion of the geography, but the Settlements section could easily start with a large map to help the reader locate all these places. The map that is being assembled on the talk page is certainly helpful, and I may support with just that (though I still need to go through the rest of the article), but I think bigger is better here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the map & removed the "list" sentences naming the villages.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Switched to weak support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support with one minor query.

''The Peat Moors Centre to the west of Glastonbury was dedicated to the archaeology, history and geology of the area. It also included reconstructions of some of the archaeological discoveries, including a number of Iron Age round houses and the world's oldest engineered highway, the Sweet Track. From time to time the centre offers courses in a number of ancient technologies in subjects including textiles, clothing and basket making, as well as staging various open days, displays and demonstrations. In February 2009 Somerset County Council, the owners of the Peat Moors Centre, announced their intention of closing the centre and it finally shut on 31 October 2009 The centre "was", but " From time to time the centre offers", then "it finally shut on 31 October 2009".

done

Otherwise prose is good, well referenced and comprehensive coverage of the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment (& support). I have changed offers to offered.— Rod ^talk 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, that was the only issue I noted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Some sections seem overlinked. Are links really necessary for: road, dairy, pasture, charcoal, cider, medieval, limestone? Aa77zz (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the examples you have given. If there are any others please let me know.— Rod ^talk 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated cider as the word is used to describe a number of different drinks across the world e.g. fizzy fruit drinks in Japan, or apple juice in the USA. I think a link is perfectly justified. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't know cider had different meanings around the world and therefore support the reinsertion.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"grass" probably doesn't need to be linked but perhaps "Teazel" in the first para of the lead should be linked - and should be in lowercase. Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain if this belongs in Geology or Geography-- move if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say Geography as, although the geology is important, it also covers human geography, natural history etc.— Rod ^talk 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [12].

---

ARA Rivadavia

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk)

Rivadavia is another article in my drive to get all South American dreadnought articles to FA. The ship had an interesting beginning but a stunningly boring career. The bidding process, described in detail in the class article, angered many countries, and the choice of an American country angered them further. Still, it turned out to be a fortuitous decision, as a ship ordered from a European company would have been taken over at the start of WWI. After many rumors of a sale to a belligerent country, Argentina took over the ships and did virtually nothing with them, aside from a European cruise in 1937, until they were scrapped in the late 50s.

I originally wrote this article in mid-2009. I improved it in December 2010, when it passed a WikiProject A-class review. I hope you enjoy reading the article!

Quick comment ... it's been a while since I've jumped in on a FAC that was underway, and I want to make sure no one gets the idea that I'm angling for a bronze star when I review or copyedit ... it's all free. Ed and I have worked together for a long time, including on this article, and he was pretty insistent that I join him. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick plea for help from someone who has access to a New York Time archive (eg ProQuest): the Times took page numbers off of their archive, so I need your help to complete references 13 and 24. Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• The 22.56 knots article is page 2; the "Off for home" article is page 12. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You're my new favorite person, Sasata. :-) Thank you very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw I know very little about the topic, so please accept that some of these comments may be due to my ignorance:

Lead

• Is acorazados Spanish for battleship or dreadnought battleship? Do we need this translated and the term for the Argentine Navy?
  • It's Spanish for battleship. I've clarified this in the text. I've also removed the translation for the Ergentine Navy, as it was already in the footnote (as you say below). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note 1 tells us that "ARA" is an acronym for Armada de la República Argentina which is currently in brackets in the text — why are both needed?
• Would it be worth wikilinking Axis powers as some readers may not be aware of the meaning of this phrase?
  • Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Do refs 2 & 3 at the end of the paragraph cover the sentence about the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina?
  • Yup, Scheina does. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• I found the linking of "Rivadavia-class" to the Japanese Kasuga class cruiser confusing
  • Do you have a suggestion as to how to make it better? They weren't the Kasuga class until later... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • How about "and Argentina sold its two Rivadavia-class armored cruisers under construction in Italy to Japan where they became the Kasuga class.?— Rod ^talk 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Construction and trials

• Are the Navy bureau (1st para) and the Navy Department (2nd para) the same thing?
  • It's not a Navy Bureau (which would need a capital "B"). They're bureau chiefs from the Navy. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I'll go with your expert knowledge.— Rod ^talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is all of the third paragraph covered by reference 15?
  • No, but it does cover all the sentences back to reference 12.
• Does speed trials need to be a redlink?
  • Agreed, there are several options for blue links. - Dank (push to talk)
• How can you have "30-hour endurance trial the next day"? a day is only 24 hrs.
  • Added "starting". - Dank (push to talk)
    • Wow, nice catch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• The majority of this section is about political issues rather than "Construction and trials".
  • I created a new section, Attempted sale, but feel free to revert, Ed. I moved the one sentence about the commissioning into Service ... that information usually occurs before the Service section, but I think ordering things chronologically makes the most sense, which puts that sentence after the material on the attempted sale, and it would look lonely in its own paragraph in the previous section. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks I think that is helpful.— Rod ^talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I like it as well – that's a much better way of organizing the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Service

• Is it normal to take 2 months to get from the USA to Buenos Aires?
  • Hmmm. The ship would have only traveled at 10 to 15 knots with stops for coal, but a trip to London at roughly half the distance would have only been a week or so... this is a very good question, and I will look farther into it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• What does "First Division" mean in this context & why is it capitalised when "training division" isn't? (although it is in the 4th para)
  • I'm happy with the capitalization. "first division" doesn't mean the same thing as "First Division" (just as "First Army" doesn't mean "the first army"), but "Training Division" could only mean the training division, so the caps aren't necessary (and so are generally discouraged in AP, Chicago, and other current style guides). - Dank (push to talk)
    • So why are they needed in the 4th para?— Rod ^talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I missed that. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The First Division of the navy, probably equivalent to a battle group today. My sources did not elaborate on the other ships or reason for this organization. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• The vessel is the Rivadavia throughout until the 4th para of this section when we get "The dreadnought joined..." - any reason for the change?
  • I like the current wording. I can expand on that if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
• I became confused with active & in reserve, later followed by "active service" which seems to be something different.
• The grammar of "she was moored in Puerto Belgrano from 1948 on, "gradually reduced into ineffectiveness" from 1951, and was left derelict and unarmed, a source for cannibalized equipment, from 1952." could be improved - initial S capitalised & punctuation looked at.
  • I tweaked this a bit; I'd appreciate it if you'd both check it to see if you're happy with the result. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

References

• Why are one journal and one author redlinked when the others aren't? Are they in some way more notable?

I hope these comments make sense and are useful.— Rod ^talk 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally these look OK. Spotchecks on the online links reveal no problems. One question of format, re the Livermore citations. At present we have "12: Livermore 45", then "14: Livermore 45–46", "15: 46–47" and "16: Livermore 47". With all these overlaps there is scope for combining; why not "Livermore, 45–47"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. To answer your query, they are in different paragraphs or have different refs in-between. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I've just finished copyediting per my standard disclaimer; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)

• It's generally appropriate to give the foreign-language term (acorazado in this case) if that term is often used in English sources, which happens in some cases, especially if the foreign term doesn't mean exactly the same thing as the word that generally translates it. I haven't read most of the sources so I can't say whether this applies to acorazado.
• "a general machinery overhaul,": You've got a comma at the end of a sentence here. If there's a period in the quoted material, you can put it either inside or outside the quote marks; otherwise it goes outside.
• The general rule would be to lowercase "the navy", but I understand how you got rolling with "the Navy". If someone wants to change it, that's fine with me.
• Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hopping in as a co-nom ... I still support, but it's not the same thing :) - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link. (The second external link, the one to the spanish pictures) --PresN 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Class says 'Fore River Shipbuilding Company' while this article says 'Fore River Shipyard'. The latter is the wikilink for the former - they probably should be consistent.
  • Done Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is the type 'battleship' or 'dreadnaught battleship'?
  • Uh, both? Pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts are all battleships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't remember why I wrote that specficially; it varies in FA pre-WWI battleship articles.
• The lengths don't match up between the class and this article.
• Propulsion says 3 screws, shp (which I wikilinked); class says 3 shafts and spells out shaft horsepower. I'm not sure if shafts/screws are synonymous.
• Range doesn't match class article.
• Guns need should be converted to metric. Ditto Armor. Kirk (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, all measurements should be in English, which conforms best to Argentina's usage when it was built. Adding |disp=flip to the templates will get them to display in English units. Be sure to add |sp=us to any remaining metric units to follow the American English used in the article.
    • Infobox should be fine now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Kirk (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The two images seem to have appropiate licences MBelgrano (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image copyright review: All clear. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• There are no cites anywhere to support virtually all the information in the infoboxes. I'd suggest that a couple of paragraphs of description be added.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Infoboxes says no bullet lists in infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I added citations and removed the bulletpoints. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I really think that a reader would be better served by a couple paragraphs of description rather than littering the infobox with citations. However, that's not really a criteria here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a dead link
  • Link fixed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You sure? This still appears to be a dead link
      • I've searched the text for "histarmar", and that's not currently a link in the article; the only two links both work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Two of the External links are histarmar, but both seem to be working now, so I guess it's been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I think histarmar did some minor page moves a little while back. It was still on the site, just at a slightly different link. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• "During their construction, the two dreadnoughts were subject to numerous rumors that Argentina might sell the two battleships to a country engaged in the First World War, but the ships were not sold" - phrasing is somewhat awkward, reword?
  • If "rumors" is at the heart of the problem, I can fix that. Otherwise, I need more. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Could be fixed by reordering the second clause - "During their construction, there were numerous rumors that Argentina...". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• WP:OVERLINK - for example, First World War is linked twice in the second paragraph
• Prose in general is awkward in areas - though grammar is not a major issue here, suggest copy-editing for flow and clarity
  • I need more. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Some examples:
    • "Brazil decided in early 1907 to halt three obsolescent pre-dreadnoughts which were under construction in favor of two or three dreadnoughts" - probably clearer to write "..halt the construction of..."
      • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "a fast-growing rival to the United States" - fast-growing in what way? A rival how? Territorially, militarily, economically, in some other way?
      • Not convinced that "military" is necessary, but it doesn't hurt. Added. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "the former believed that the British were going to be given the ships as soon as they reached Argentina" - as soon as the ships or the British reached Argentina?
      • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "the latter charged the United States with ensuring that the ships fell into Argentina's possession only" - awkward phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• "extensive bidding process" is mentioned only in the lead
  • Added in the article Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "stricken from the Navy on 1 February 1957. Three months later on 30 May, Rivadavia was sold... Less than a year after that, the ship was towed by two tugboats to Savona, Italy; they left on 3 April 1959" - 3 April 1959 is not "less than a year" after 30 May 1957
  • Wow, that was sad. Fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Debates raged in Argentina over whether to spend more than two million pounds sterling to acquire their own dreadnoughts" - unclear who "they" refers to, I assume you mean Argentinians?
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
• "To reduce exhaust interference when spotting ships in a battle" - what does this mean?
  • The smoke from the funnels could interfere with accurate rangefinding of enemy ships in the midst of a battle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That should probably be explained - non-specialist readers likely would be confused by it
      • Explained. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in using Second World War vs World War II
  • Fixed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Who is Whitley? Give first name/initials and possibly a brief description (ex. "military historian", "professor" - whatever he is) in the text
  • I reworded the sentence to avoid using his name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Do we know how much the ship cost?
  • £2,214,000 pounds sterling. The class article has a dollar figure, but I've been told that using Measuring Worth is not an accurate conversion for something relating to GDP and purchasing power. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bibliographic information for Scheina, Naval History?
  • Added, nice catch Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in using Battleships of World War Two vs Battleships as the shortened title for Whitley
  • Done, I think this was because I have been moving background information in and out of this article from the other two Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I assume Buzaco is a foreign-language source? Should be noted as such
  • Chicago does not note the foreign language, presumably because the reader can assume it is not in English when the title is foreign. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Scheina or Schenia? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks Nikki, I'll address these comments tonight after work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • All of your comments should be addressed. Thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Mostly fixed; noted a couple things above, and the prose isn't "brilliant", but it's looking better. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The article is generally sound, although I agree with Nikkimaria that the prose needs some work.

• • General note: I'm happy to respond to any comments on the prose, although I don't always agree. If my suggestions don't sound right to Australian ears, let me know. - Dank (push to talk)
    • The Australian/American/British English divide is generally exaggerated; I read a lot of texts published in the States for my work and study, so I'm generally aware of any differences. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "During their construction, there were numerous rumors that Argentina might sell them to a country engaged in the First World War, but the ships were not sold." Why say "numerous?"? "rumors" (with the plural) should stand on its own.
  • There were numerous rumors, that is, rumors that sprang independently from quite a few sources. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I still don't understand why "rumors" can't cover this. "Numerous" just sounds vague. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• United States should not need linking.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• Perhaps "She saw no active duty during the Second World War; Argentina remained neutral until March 1945 when the country declared war on the Axis powers, too late for Rivadavia to become involved."
  • This changes the meaning in a couple of ways, but it might be okay. Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
    • I would be fine with this change. The parallel I draw on is with the Brazilian battleships – while were not actively used because they were old and not in the best condition, but at the same time they were employed in limited capacities. Presumably the Rivadavias would have at least been used in limited ways had they joined the Allies sooner. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Rivadavia's genesis can be traced to the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina which were spawned by territorial disputes over their mutual borders in Patagonia and Puna de Atacama along with control of the Beagle Channel." Perhaps add a couple of commas to break up the sentence: "Rivadavia's genesis can be traced to the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina, which were spawned by territorial disputes over their mutual borders in Patagonia and Puna de Atacama, along with control of the Beagle Channel."
  • I can't add the first comma because that's a restrictive clause. I added the second comma. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Good point. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps even combine "1890s" into the first sentence here, so "...can be traced to naval arms races between Chile and Argentina in the 1890s, which were spawned..." The next sentence would then be "These naval arms races flared up again in 1902, and were eventually stopped through British mediation."
  • I'd agree with you if the second sentence had to add a lot more words in order to fit "1890s" in, but it didn't. Since the first sentence seemed to you to need "breaking up" (and I agree), it's not going to help things to add even more to the sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Well, what caught me out when I read it the first time is whether the naval arms races that are mentioned in the first sentence are the same as those in the second sentence. Combining was one option, I suppose another is to say "These arms races flared up...", just to link the ideas together. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, good point. I changed "Naval arms races" to "These arms races" in the second sentence, does that fix both problems? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes. Apterygial 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Through" rather than "via".
  • Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, in the thesaurus, groups "via" with "with the assistance or aid of, on, supported by". Merriam-Webster's gives: "through the medium or agency of". Do you have a dictionary, thesaurus or style guide that sheds some light on this? - Dank (push to talk)
    • My Oxford dictionary defines "via" as "by way of, through", but generally only between places, not subjects. If "via" has a slightly different meaning in American English, then keep it in, otherwise "through" flows better. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The definition at of via at oxforddictionaries.com does suggest that "through" would be better in BritEng. Thanks for bringing this up ... as I said, I'm always looking to massage the language so that it's clear to non-Americans, if we can do that without damage to the AmEng. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "abrupt shock". Shocks are generally abrupt.
  • Agreed, fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Historian Robert Scheina commented that the ships ordered by Brazil "outclassed the entire [elderly] Argentinian fleet."" This is very picky, but the way it is written suggests he said it at the time.
  • Agreed, changed to "has commented". - Dank (push to talk)
    • This quote seems a little incongruous in the text; perhaps better as an explanatory note?
      • I removed the quote and replaced it with textual info and a contemporary quote from the Argentine Foreign Minister. What do you think of it now? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Did the wife of the Argentine Minister to the United States have a name?
  • Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
    • The New York Times names her only as "Mme. Naon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Our article on Naon says "he married Isabel Rodríguez Marcenal", and a google search reveals the same. Not sure how strict we are being on the "every fact cited" rule, but we might be able to get away with adding this. Perhaps "...christened by Isabella, the wife of Rómulo Sebastián Naón, the Argentine Minister to the United States, on 26 August 1911..." Apterygial 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "In mid-September 1913, Rivadavia conducted trials off Rockland, Maine, but only after a two-week delay after turbine malfunctions." Perhaps, "After a two-week delay due to turbine malfunctions, Rivadavia conducted trials off Rockland, Maine, in mid-September 1913."
  • I rejected "due to" at first, but after reading up a bit, I think it's fine. "Due to" gets the stink-eye from some overzealous style gurus. Otherwise, I prefer Ed's word order, but I can agree to lose "but only". Okay with you, Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Either way is fine with me. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Since speed trials is a red link, perhaps add a short explanation, or de-link.
  • It's been mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk)
    • So we'll see what the resolution is. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I think we could link this to Sea trial... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "various rumors".
  • It's not wrong, but I can go along with losing the modifier here (as opposed to above) because all the examples follow immediately, so the reader doesn't have to be told that there are a lot of rumors. - Dank (push to talk)
• "some Argentines". In government or the military, or the media, or the populace?
  • In the government, which implies also outside the goverment. I can add that if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Thanks. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "This angered the American government, which did not want its warship technology offered to the highest bidder—yet they did not want to exercise a contract-specified option that gave the United States first choice if the Argentines decided to sell, as naval technology had already progressed past the Rivadavia class, particularly in the adoption of the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme." Very long sentence; suggest splitting after "highest bidder", so "...offered to the highest bidder. However, they did not..."
  • I split it, but I went with "Neither did they want ...". Rationalizations on request. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Instead, the United States and its State Department and Navy Department put diplomatic pressure on the Argentine government." How so?
  • I had the same question; apparently, the sources don't say. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Are there other sources that might?
      • Not in English, to my knowledge. A Spanish source might have something, but I don't really know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "...even though she was not fully completed until December." Maybe "although" rather than "even though"?
  • "Even though" is slightly stronger than "although" in AmEng, and appropriate here since she was being commissioned a long time before she was finished. Does it sound wrong to Australian ears? - Dank (push to talk)
    • Slightly stronger in any English, I think. So it doesn't sound wrong, just a little awkward. My attitude is that you let the reader decide what needs special emphasis. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Surely it's common knowledge Buenos Aires is the capital of Argentina?
  • For graduates of the US educational system, it's not common knowledge that South America is south of North America. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Fair enough. But where do you draw the line? (Not suggesting you add it, but I'm assuming Boston Harbor is in Boston, Massachusetts, which a graduate of the Australian education system usually wouldn't know). Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • • I wish I could assume it is, but some of the people I know can't even name the capital of the state we live in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Over 47,000 what?
  • People. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I assumed that was the case. Can that be added in? Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "President of the Republic Victorino de la Plaza." Perhaps "Argentinian President Victorino de la Plaza.
  • What's wrong with reminding people that Argentina was a republic, and avoiding frequent repetition of "Argentina"? - Dank (push to talk)
    • What tripped me up was that there are eight consecutive words which are linked. The fact that Argentina was a republic is not critical to understanding this article, but I'll let this go.
      • I shortened it to "President" -- there's no need for the wordiness. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• "...she called on three countries in the Caribbean and northern South America, includingTrinidad, Venezuela, and Colombia." or "...she called on three countries in the Caribbean and northern South America: including Trinidad, Venezuela, and Colombia."
  • Oops, thanks. Dropped "three". - Dank (push to talk)
• "over the years" is an awkward phrase; perhaps "...and was gradually cannibalized..."
  • I went with "over many years"; "gradually" isn't right, since a lot of it happened immediately. - Dank (push to talk)

I'll be happy to support once these are addressed. Apterygial 01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've struck out those points which are resolved, commented where it was needed, and I'll wait for Ed to take a look at the remainder. Apterygial 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I handled a few. Ed's busy but should be back soon. Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed the rest! Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm satisfied with the article. There are a couple of outstanding points, but not enough to prevent me from supporting, and I'm confident they'll be fixed. Apterygial 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your remaining points. Thanks so much for your review – I really appreciate the time you took to put this together. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Query Hi Ed17, nice work, just a couple of queries

1. "designed by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company" begs the question who built it? May I suggest "designed and built by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company".

   Thanks for your review, WSC. You know, I was all about getting the lead sentences right a year ago ... all the good feedback we're getting at FAC these days is making me realize that my focus on Milhist's A-class review hasn't been entirely good for my copyediting ... I'm faster now, but sloppier. I'll have to fix that. I added "and built" and moved this bit from the first sentence to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks Dank, didn't realize you and Ed17 were collaborating on this. Curious isn't it how this site draws one into lots of milhist editing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Conversion from coal to fuel oil is liable to greatly increase the range, or free up bunker space for other purposes. Could you check whether the range figure was before or after the refit?

   It would be before, as it didn't list the armament alterations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

3. "The rumors were partially true; some Argentines in the government were looking to get rid of the battleships and devote the proceeds to opening more schools". Presumably being an Argentine wasn't particularly unusual in that particular Government?

   Done. - Dank (push to talk)

   Thanks, I was thinking of linking that into a history of Argentina article, but History of Argentina (The Radicals in Power, 1916–1930) has the Conservatives in power until 1916, then losing to the radicals. I think that jibes with the bit about socialist gains in 1914, I was thinking of simply replacing Socialist with Radical, but the dates conflict. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Uh oh, I wonder if Livermore is wrong in his date of 1914? Socialists can't gain in 1914 without an election... does anyone have a source on this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   The only book I checked is Scheina's Latin America. It's not there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   It looks like both the Radicals and the Socialists made massive gains in 1914 and 1916. The Radicals went from 24% in 1912 to 32%, then 48%. The Socialists went from 21% in 1912 to 36% to 41%. See p. 228 in Jeremy Adelman, "Socialism and Democracy in Argentina in the Age of the Second International," The Hispanic American Historical Review 72, no. 2 (1972), 211–238, JSTOR 2515555. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

4. As she served as flagship I'd expect the name of an Admiral to appear as well as commanding officers.

   My sources don't give any... I may try hunting in the London Times microfilms this weekend for more details on this and the communist oil strike. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Some mention of crew sizes and structure would be relevant.

   My sources give a single crew size number, and nothing more. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

6. "In 1917, the ship sailed to Comodoro Rivadavia when communist oil workers went on strike" - more detail on this would be interesting, was this to maintain order or to break the strike? ϢereSpielChequers 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, that's all Whitley says. I thought the same thing as you when I first read that... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Looking at the pictures I see five twin gun turrets as the main armament but the article refers to 12 main guns, though I suppose it is possible there is another turret amidships. Please could you check this and confirm their layout. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   See File:Rivadavia-class battleships.jpg. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - aside from a few nitpicks, a nice easy read that was comprehensible and understandable.

• Why are we translating the word "battleship" in the lead into Spanish???
  • I'm currently reviewing a Milhist article with every 10th word in German, and no one seems to have a problem with that except me, so considered it a victory that I was able to cut out as much Spanish as I did :) My position, FWIW: I can understand that scholarly sources are going to throw in a lot of foreign words just to prove how scholarly they are (so impressive), and I can understand that some writers believe they're following our advice to follow the sources ... and they may be right. If even the best-written scholarly sources tend to use the Spanish word, perhaps to express a subtle distinction, then we can argue that we're doing the reader a service to define and introduce the word ... in fact, they may not be able to understand the sources if we don't, since most scholarly sources aren't as helpful as we are. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Put it in a note, it's very very jarring out there in the lead. At first, I thought you had misplaced the translation of the ship's name! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Enough people have remarked on this, and it's not an integral translation, so I just removed it. :-) [13] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• I really dislike the whole easter egg link thing - wouldn't it be okay to go "...she was the lead ship of the Rivadavia class"?
  • I was trying to avoid repeating "Rivadavia", but if you think this is better, I'm fine with changing this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This one I'm ambivalent enough about that you don't need to bother changing just for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, if you feel it's better, I'm open to changing it. I've always thought the link was a bit hidden with "her class", but it has become a habit to write my leads in that way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Might not it be good to note who commissioned HMS Dreadnought?
  • Yes it would, nice catch! [14] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm assuming that "Minas Geraes or São Paulo" refers to the Brazilian dreadnoughts? Might make this clearer.
  • You're very right, does this work? [15] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think you can probably drop the easter egg link to "launched" in the Construction section, especially as it links to the same article linked for 'christened'.
  • I combined the links, is that all right? [16] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Inflation figure for the sale price to the breakers?
  • Meh, I'm not getting into all that, see all the hubbub here over inflationary conversions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is why I write on nice safe medieval subjects a lot... avoid that sort of fuss. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • For the most part, battleships are also nice and safe. Isn't it great to avoid all the arguments inherent in controversial topics? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My replies are above. Sorry to Dank for overwriting your lower comments, but I didn't feel like restoring "Ed got it" after the edit-conflict. :-) Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing this – I greatly appreciate it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Really appreciate it, V. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [17].

---

Numerical weather prediction

Nominator(s): Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thegreatdr and myself have been working on this article for a while, and following the reviews given by Feline Hymnic and Hurricanehink, I believe the article meets all the featured article criteria. Hopefully you find the article informative, as well as well-written. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "ensemble spread to be small enough". I see 5 relationships b/w ensemble members and observations on Warner 267. Are we saying that underdispersion is by far the most common problem? I'm no saying you have to add all 5; you only need to explain what you are saying and why you are saying it... Locke'sGhost 09:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, from what I understand, underdispersion is the most severe problem for extended forecasts (~ τ ≈ 720 hours) and thus it gets more emphasis. I tried to clarify that in the article's prose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Although these Monte Carlo simulations showed skill, Leith showed" ... Leith who? Locke'sGhost 12:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Cecil Leith from NCAR. should I add the "from NCAR" bit too? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Gongbing Peng, Lance M. Leslie, Yaping Shao "Environmental modelling and prediction" has a nice flowchart of the modelling process (figure 3.2, p. 81), with discussion starting around p. 78. Would it be useful to add something like this...? The whole article is pretty difficult to digest; needs some guidance...? Please don't fall into "a reviewer suggested it; must add it". Your thoughts solicited. Locke'sGhost 13:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  If a flow diagram of the process helps the reader into understanding how NWP works, I don't see it shouldn't be added. That said, that diagram seems a bit too simple for my tastes, since it glosses over objective analysis and initialization, and it is not very clear about how model output is recirculated in the model. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Something has gone haywire with the formatting in ref 18; an url seems to have escaped.
  • The title was missing. It's fixed now. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Retrieval date formats need to be consoistent (sometimes you have "Retrieved", other times "Retrieved on")
  • This should be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• It is not necessary to add a retrieval date for online links if the material is available in print form, but if you choose to do this, you need to be consistent and do it in every case.
  • This issue should be resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Print sources (newspapers, journals, books etc) should be italicised. See ref 33 The Washington Post, look for others
  • This seemed to be the only occurrence, and it was fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• CUP should be spelt out
  • I think CUP is short for Cambridge University Press, which appears to be indicated on a web search, but the book's actual information gives no clues. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 42. A reader wishing on check this would have to search through your list to find what "Pielke" referred to. Where short citations are used, details of the book should be listed separately, in a bibliography section.
  • Switched all of those to long citation format. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Cited works should not appear in "Further reading" (Pielke again)
  • Removed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look scholarly and reliable. Spotchecking was difficult when most of the sources have very wide page ranges, and I am totally unfamiliar with the material, so not much done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources issues all satisfactorily resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Heck of a job tackling a difficult (to me, at least) subject. It took me a lot of careful reading to understand, especially because of the jargon involved, but it gets the message across. This is the kind of article where the wikilinks have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in regards to addressing the jargon; there simply isn't a way to express the terms without using many more words. That said, I have to wonder if the topic wouldn't be better suited if the history section were placed further down the page. That way, you can introduce the concepts first and explain some of the jargon without throwing the reader directly into the mix. I found myself finding answers to questions I was asking in the history section as I read further into the article. It's something to consider.
• I did a quick copy edit, so please take a look at what I've done to make sure I haven't screwed anything up too badly. It was only about halfway through that I realized this might have been written in British English, accounting for the collective noun/possessive agreement issues I found, so rather than stop halfway through and try to find everything I changed, I just kept going.
• The article frequently uses the word "fields"; both "three-dimensional fields" and "wind fields" appear -- could you explain this?

  These are scalar fields and vector fields, sometimes in 3D space. (We could also link to flow velocity, but that article makes no sense whatsoever to most readers.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• When talking about the 1950 prediction, could you drop in a reference that refers to the technique they did, one sentence before No. 5 appears? I can't tell if No. 5 is supposed to cover that as well, or just the sentence about how it reduced computer time.
  • Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Could you cite Richardson's quote, please?
  • It is covered by the reference at the end of the next sentence, but made that explicit nonetheless. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• What is a "thermotropic model"? You explain the barotropic model, but this one pops up in the second-to-last paragraph of the history section.
  • Added an explanation. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• You say Hinkelmann was the first to produce a "reasonable" forecast. What made JNWPU's work unreasonable? Was it because it was based on a simpler idea?
  • JNWPU's work was reasonable, but it was not based on the primitive equations. Hinkelmann's work was reasonable and based on the primitive equation model. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• What does "high-frequency noise" mean in this context?

  Essentially, minuscule variations in the initial condition. For the sake of example, if we approximate the state of a theoretical one-dimensional atmosphere as a sum of sines and cosines (essentially a Fourier series), we will find that with a few terms, we have a very smooth atmosphere. The more terms we add, we are able to distinguish more and more detail. However, as the picture in the Fourier series article shows, the solution becomes very spiky. When we take the derivative, those spikes correspond to huge changes in slope in a small distance, so the derivative becomes huge. Since the models depend on the value of the derivative, the whole thing explodes into a useless mess. This can be best explained with the graph at the start of [18].

  In reality, the situation is more complicated, since you could have initial conditions that don't match up and produce a velocity field that is not divergence-free or all other sorts of numerical issues. I tweaked the wording to try to clarify this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've switched your wikilink from radiation to solar radiation -- my first thought was radiation from atomic tests, but I knew that couldn't be correct.
  • Thanks. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• What is convective rain? Is there a wikilink for this?
  • It's just jargon for normal rain affecting convection processes. Reworded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• How does a global forecast model (mentioned in the last sentence of the history section) differ?
  • Essentially, global forecast models simulate the whole Earth, and thus tends to have lower resolution. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• "initialize and model soil and vegetation types" How do you initialize a type?
  • I'm not really sure how to address this: initialization is just telling the computer what kind of initial conditions and in which domain the problem is going to be solved. As such, initializing the soil and vegetation types is just punching in a variable in the computer model. I'm not sure how to clarify this without going completely off-topic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• How does modeling oceanic processes differ? The climate section leads me to believe there are additional problems involved, but I don't know.

  It's essentially a completely different problem. While air and water are both fluids, water is 1,000 times as dense as air, and such behaves completely differently. Oceanic circulation has a much higher Rossby number, so the Earth's rotation is an extremely-dominant factor in the circulation; additionally, problems such as the thermohaline circulation are completely inapplicable to atmospheric dynamics. Our article in ocean dynamics is the best place to explain this, and would be the primary article for this information.

  As for this article: flow of air over the ocean affects the ocean surface, and its modeling history is explained in this article. I added a couple of {{main}} links to the page, and again, I'm not sure what to add to satisfy this concern without veering too much off-topic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under limited area modeling, I think you first need to define what a "limited area" is. Under the history section, I got the impression forecasters started out by modeling regions, which seem to me like a limited area. If there's a difference, it'd help if it was spelled out.
  • Yes. The first models were limited-area; then came global models. Modern limited-area models use global models as inputs, and then use different numerical schemes to resolve more physical processes over a limited area. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Under ensemble modeling, "showed skill" isn't very clear to me ... does this mean he was on the right track but didn't quite have it?
  • "Showed skill" just means that the forecast is better than what one would gather by just looking at the climatological conditions in the area. Linked to the first occurrence of forecast skill to try to clarify this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• What is "initial probability density"?
  • Linked. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is METAR report redundant?
  • Same as PIN number or ATM machine. Not sure. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Could you provide a citation for ship-supplied weather information, as you have with pilot reports?
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a wikilink for prognostic chart?
  • No, but the article defines it: "The visual output produced by a model solution is known as a prognostic chart, or prog for short.[45]" Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Done and linked. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a wikilink for spaghetti diagrams?
  • No, but the article defines it: "Ensemble spread is diagnosed through tools such as spaghetti diagrams, which show the dispersion of one quantity on prognostic charts for specific time steps in the future." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The one previously within wikipedia for spaghetti plot has been upgraded, and it is now linked. A redirect now exists from spaghetti diagram. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• That's about it from me; if you have any questions, comments or concerns about what I've written here, please drop a note on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as you can. Good luck with the article! JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• The changes look good to me. I'm sure folks with other viewpoints will want to chime in, but I'm more than happy to support this article as comprehensive and worthy of FA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Looks good, but some niggles at the top that suggest the whole text needs TLC:

• "atmospheric-dynamics-based forecast models"—please always consider reversing long gobbledy nominal groups of the type that strictly speaking need multiple hyphens. Why not this: "forecast models based on atmospheric dynamics".
  • Yep, done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The development of limited area, or regional, models"—is that an equative "or", or an either-or? It goes bump-bump, too. Hyphen required. Why not "The development of limited-area (regional) models"?
  • Yep, done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "are run to help create forecasts for nations worldwide."—A bit clunky, the "nations" bit. It couldn't be just "worldwide forecasts", could it?
  • Someone has dealt with this. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Pet peeve: scientists who write in telegram language. If there's an "of" after the nominal group, put a "the" before it (mostly works): "The use of model ensemble forecasts ...".
  • Yep, done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Because the output of atmospheric dynamics-based forecast models is not perfect near ground level"—so it is perfect further up? Hard to believe.
  • Well, perfect is the incorrect word to use. The models' output has to be corrected for terrain (which can cause rain shadows/orographic rain, surface rougness (affects wind speeds), among other assorted effects based on the presence of the atmospheric boundary layer. Switched with "needs corrections". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• I guess this long sentence is ok without splitting it, but make it easier for the readers: "which post-process the output of dynamical models with the most recent surface observations and climatology using statistical techniques" -> "which use statistical techniques to post-process the output of dynamical models with the most recent surface observations and climatology".
  • I added a bit about forecast points and split the sentence. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "forecast skill"—I haven't gone to the link-target, but skill sounds bizarre when applied to a model. "power to forecast", "forecasting accuracy" ... err, surely there's another way.
  • The problem is that forecast skill is a clearly-defined term in weather forecasting, and it stands for the ability of a model to predict the weather in comparison to another baseline (usually climatology). As such, I'm hesitant to change it since it could unexpectedly change the meaning of the prose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Until the end of the 19th century, weather prediction was entirely subjective and based on empirical rules." Is there tension between "subjective" and "empirical rules"? So often we see subjectivity pitted against the evidence-based. I trip up at this "contrast" here.
  • I see what you mean. The contrast is actually between subjective empiricism and scientific forecasting. I added a bit of prose that I believe clarifies this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Start of "History": past tense / present tense dissonance. "proposed that the atmosphere was governed by the same principles of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics that were studied in the previous century" -> "proposed that the atmosphere is governed by the same principles of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics that had been studied in the previous century" (he was proposing a universal truth, yes?). Soon after, present tense is used for such proposed truths, which is fine.
  • Yep, done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Richardson produced a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe by hand, taking at least six weeks to do so." Perhaps "Richardson produced by hand a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe, taking at least six weeks to do so." Or maybe even "Richardson took at least six weeks to produce by hand a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe."

The italics were, of course, an artefact of this review, to point out the change suggested. Tony (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Switched to the first alternative, but took out the italics, since they are being used in the article to denote definitions of ancillary terms. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Again, what is shoved right at the end of a long sentence seems to belong earlier, but I can't work out a better way: "The first successful numerical prediction was performed in 1950 by a team composed of the American meteorologists Jule Charney, Philip Thompson, Larry Gates, and Norwegian meteorologist Ragnar Fjörtoft and applied mathematician John von Neumann, using the ENIAC digital computer." Unsure ... "The first successful numerical prediction was performed using the ENIAC digital computer in 1950 by a team composed of the American meteorologists Jule Charney, Philip Thompson, Larry Gates, and Norwegian meteorologist Ragnar Fjörtoft and applied mathematician John von Neumann.
  • I switched it to your suggestion, but having the two adverbial clauses "using … in" sounds weird to me for some reason. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "could be performed on the relatively primitive computers available"—maybe "... computers of the day" stops the impression that better computers were around, but they couldn't access them. Unsure.
  • Yep, done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a fascinating story. I hope the nomination succeeds. Please try to find an independent copy-editor who's used to unwinding scientists' text. I love the concept that at a certain point of time, forecasts were quicker to perform that the forecast period! Tony (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) PS, as usual, the text on the opening scematic is TINY. I'm enlarging it, but the task is challenging; readers shouldn't have to download the original image to get it (especially those on slow connections). Can we acknowledge NOAA in the caption? Whatever it is ... it's even hard to determine from the external link at the description page. And can't we have the full colour version? Tony (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the full-color version. :) I guess we could get the graphics lab to give us a better picture, but I have no idea how long it would take. Re: reviewers: Who would you suggest? Usually when Hurricanehink needs a copyeditor, he asks me, and in this case, he has already provided one for the article's GAN. So that takes out both of WP:WPTC's copyeditors, I guess. Feline Hymnic provided both a copyedit and a content review. I'm not really sure who to ask. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel so unappreciated. I'll take a look, though... Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The full colour version is on the NOAA's website: see the external ref. Tony (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. They changed it from when I had last looked at that page (a while ago, I admit). Swapped it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is a misleading comment in the lead about "imprecision of the partial differential equations". There is nothing imprecise about the PDES. This section is poorly worded. The important point about chaos is explained better in the main article, but rather inappropriately in the "Ensemble" section. Poujeaux (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was hoping you were correct about this discussion lying within the partial differential article, but I don't see it. Can you point us to the passage? Or is there a different article which discusses the equation's imprecise solutions we should be linking to instead? Realized you were talking about this article's content, not the PDE article's content. The lead has been fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, that revision is a vast improvement. Although it is good, I still don't feel that the article quite merits FA status, but I don't feel sufficiently strongly to write 'oppose' in bold. The structure is a bit odd, for example ensembles coming up as a subsection of history and then as a separate section. The balance doesn't look right, with too much history in relation to the other topics. Also, starting with the history means that some subjects get explained twice, for example initial conditions and primitive equations. Poujeaux (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • All the ensemble information now lies within the ensemble section per your comments. I created a new subarticle named History of numerical weather prediction which covers all the historic content previously within this article, which allowed me to shorten the historical content in this article significantly. Efforts were made in this process to minimize duplication within the article, per your comments. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with there being a split article for the history. It sounds like a content fork. There were no problems with the article length. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Hurricanehink. I'm not sure the section needed to be split off, when rearranging the article would suffice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually do agree with the reviewer that there was a strong bias/POV towards history in this article, which is now covered by the subarticle. It's not a content fork because we replaced a long section with a short summary: the two are not in disagreement. We've done this numerous times before within the TC and met projects during GAN and FAC. During FAC, this was done during the tropical cyclone and surface weather analysis reviews, so it's not exactly precedent setting. We'll wait to see what Poujeaux thinks about the change. It does reduce redundancy. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We could have a subarticle on the history, but the historical summary at this point seems a bit short. Maybe bringing in a bit more of the previous content (e.g. the explanation of the different kinds of models introduced, linking to Atmospheric model#Types) would satisfy everyone's concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what you've brought back so far is perfect. I'd hesitate bringing more back before getting feedback from the reviewer who brought this up. They indicated that previously, the history section led to "some subjects getting explained twice." Thegreatdr (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The feedback was positive, so I think we have the right proportion of history within the article now. As for inclusion of model types, we could do that, but then we'd need to explore what types of models are used within the ocean and air quality, to see if we included them all. I'm going to wikilink to Types of atmospheric models in the See Also section. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, the balance and structure of the article look really good now. At the moment you have a glitch with duplication of the last para of the lead and the last para of the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a way of avoiding that, although one of the other editors might. Now that the history section is basically a lead of the History of numerical weather prediction article, we essentially have two summary sections within the article...one with dates for the history section and one without for the main numerical weather prediction article. Because the lead is a summary of the article below, there will be some duplication between the lead and article content. Maybe someone can think of a way of rewording it so it's not so similar. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I partially rewrote that part to make it less similar. What do you guys think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is still a bit similar, but as RJH says below, you don't need the discussion of chaos in the history section. You could cut the "Even with..." and "This limitation..." sentences from the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support—My primary concerns have been addressed and this article appears to be close enough to FA quality that I'm lending my support. Thanks for your work on this article.—RJH (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Comment—Well it's a decent article, but I have a few issues.

• Why does the "Climate modeling" section consist of history? Doesn't this belong in the History section? Ditto for the next two sections. When I look at the "main articles" for those sections, they mostly consist of content other than history. This doesn't seem like an appropriate application of WP:SS and they may need to be re-worked.
  • Fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Only for the "Climate modeling" section. The same issue occurs with the "Ocean surface modeling" and "Limited area modeling" sections. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.—RJH (talk)
      • Tito has done some improvements here. The sections have a less historic feel now and more content. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Are we looking at the same thing? The two sections remain almost entirely history-based. I don't mind the history being there, but the section should also have two to three paragraphs summarizing their main article links.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Three paragraphs would be overkill. I added more content to the ocean dynamics section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• In the History section, there is an explanation for why the forecast accuracy decreases with time. I'm not clear why it belongs there, rather than in the Ensembles section that covers the same topic. It seems like a side bar topic in the history, so I'd suggest a relocation.
  • Fixed. This reduces duplication of information within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• The images don't begin with "File:" and lack alt text. But the licensing appears okay.
  • Fixed both. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is "statical methods" jargon, or should it be "statistical methods"?
  • Fixed. Good catch. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• The "Limited area modeling" section uses a spaced en-dash, while the remainder uses unspaced em-dashes. Please stick to one.
  • Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• There are many instances of ', and' rather than just 'and'. In a number of cases, the command and the 'and' are redundant. Please try to re-write some of these sentences, or split them up.
  • I fixed several of these.—RJH (talk)
• Added 2/21/2011. There are a few minor issues with the references:
  • You appear to have a number of instances where the doi lookup points to the same location as your linked article title. For example, the "2007: 50th Anniversary of Operational Numerical Weather Prediction" is linked to "journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-88-5-639". If you go to the doi page, the PDF file has the same link. As this is redundant, it just adds to the length of the page without providing significant value.
    • Fixed that one. Looking for the others. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Several references are linked to a doi-based address rather than using the doi. For example: "Stochastic dynamic prediction", "History of Numerical Weather Prediction at the National Meteorological Center", "Representing Model Uncertainty in Weather and Climate Prediction" and "Ensemble Forecasting at NCEP and the Breeding Method".
    • I can't get the NCEP Ensemble reference to resolve via doi's. I'm trying to fix the rest. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am leaving the urls of the references if the url field links to the pdf, and the doi links to the abstract. I personally think that is better, but if you disagree please let me know. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Many of the google book references are bloated. Only the 'id' and 'pg' parameters are needed for a successful page lookup.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • While that's true, previous experiences as FAC have led to such complete referencing format. If we can find all that information for the referencing, so much the better. This is the first time within the reviews I've been involved with that someone has brought up that we might reference things too well. I think I'm blushing... Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Like I said, it's only a minor matter. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

Yes, in fact all three of the 'applications' sections are quite historical in style. IMHO the article could do with significantly more on the current state of the art, from someone who is an expert in the field (without making it too technical). I still don't really think the article is up to FA standard. Poujeaux (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason these feel historical is that they were split off from the History section per a request on the content review. Those sections definitely need revision since they were written with a different purpose in mind. I'll see what I can do, but I will have limited online access this weekend so it might take a bit of time to fix this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about Catch 22. One of the FA criteria is that the page is stable. This article has changed a lot in the last week or so as a result of this nomination! Poujeaux (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That has more to do with edit wars and highly fluid topics, though. While this topic is about a fluid, it is not fluid per se... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Tellus); 0 dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that dab is fixable, though. Tellus describes how there are two journals named Tellus: Tellus Series A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, and Tellus Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology. Both of them split from an older journal named Tellus. The reference that links to the dab page was published in the older, pre-split journal, so neither disambiguation target is correct. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note for Laser brain, I have been meaning to look at this article-- as soon as I find time! Hopefully in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Missing DOIs as mentioned above. There should also be bibcodes for some of your cites (physics/astrophysics fields), particularly JGR, e.g. Bibcode:1996JGR...101.7419X, (use |bibcode= field) which are useful for physics articles. Have you checked arXiv too? Rjwilmsi 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Added both the missing doi's, as well as bibcodes. ArXiv links seem to me to be too much, considering the bloated referencing concerns above, and that only one journal reference didn't have a bibcode (but had a doi). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I hope to find some time for reviewing this article within the next days but some immediate comments. My first thought was: Disappointing! This article is named "numerical weather prediction" and nothing about the calculation model in there! Whether prediction models are truly fascinating topics in weather prediction modeling, and essential to be described in more detail on an article about numerical weather prediction! Just mentioning the use of differential equations is meager, and that more complex differential equations can only be solved using numerical approximations is logical. What are the parameters that play a role in the numerical modeling? Temperature (atmospheric, ground, oceans), water vapor, cloud cover, terrain elevation, vegetation (esp. ice, snow, terrain moisture), surface and atmospheric winds, pressure, etc.? Total number of parameters? What are the models incorporated in the overall computation, e.g., diurnal temperature cycles, wind propagation models? How are the trajectories from the differential equations derived? What are current performance characteristics/requirements of computational models? What are the shortcomings of current models? Some quick inputs. Nageh (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  But that is what the atmospheric model article is for. Many of the details you mention are best covered in that article, or in the article about a particular model itself. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting all the details. That would be impossible to do, even in the atmospheric model article. However, when one of the main sections of a topic is so short I do expect more details. Nageh (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about this problem last week, which is why the content was initially added to the Atmospheric model article. Have added that content into this article, which will likely need some additional expansion to include nonweather-related examples, such as those used in wave and air quality models. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Looking forward to the progress. Nageh (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple more lines dealing with ocean and air quality modeling, which forced additional upgrades to the parameterization and history of numerical weather prediction subarticles. I've also added how far a few of the global models are run into the future...I can't seem to find a reference for how long it actually takes to run them, though through daily use I'd say it's on the order of 2-3 hours for global models and one hour for mesoscale models. The quantities forecast by atmospheric models are the same from which they are initialized (outside topography). Do you think this needs to be restated? This article more than the others I've dealt with through other FAC experiences has caused significant upgrades to some of the subarticles, since they were not in very good shape (or did not exist) to begin with. Two of the subarticles have now successfully gone through the GAN process and passed, while another is currently on GAN. Neither Tito or myself were experts on this topic when we started its editing, though improving this article is changing that quickly. Is there anything significant we're missing from the parameterization section, the way it is currently written? The subarticle can deal with finer points on the topic...just want to make sure nothing major is missing for the purposes of this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for it taking me so long to read the article (though I skipped the Applications section, for now). Let me say that I'm not an expert either. However, missing information on parametrization struck me as kinda obvious. I think the current state of the article deals fairly well with providing an introductory overview. (Nice job!) Here are a few issues that were no clear to me.

• Section Parameterization, second paragraph: "Also, the grid size of the models is large when compared to the actual size and roughness of clouds and topography." This sentence looks somewhat misplaced to me. You were talking about clouds in the paragraph before. Can we remove the sentence?
• Section Domains, second paragraph: "...become dependent variables, greatly simplifying the primitive equations.". Dependent variables doesn't immediately sound like the equations becoming simpler to me... but if the source says so.
• "This follows since pressure decreases...". This? The correlation between the coordinate systems?
• "This coordinate system receives that name since the independent variable σ is used to represent a pressure level (p) scaled with the surface pressure (p0) and in some cases the pressure at the top of the domain (pT).". Can you reword this sentence and avoid unnecessary variable names? "This coordinate system receives its name from the independent variable σ used to represent a constant pressure value." (If this is what is meant.)
• Section Ensembles, paragraph "In a single model-based approach...": In the middle it says "It is common for the ensemble spread to be too small to include the weather that actually occurs, which can lead to a misdiagnosis of model uncertainty;". By whom? By forecasters, I assume.
• "A spread-skill relationship sometimes exists, as spread-error correlations are normally less than 0.6.". Less than 0.6 doesn't sound like there is a relationship.

Nageh (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • That should all be dealt with now. How does it look? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I hope I get to review the Applications section, too, within the next few days (but no promise). Best, Nageh (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a quick read. It seems mostly fine. However, the models cited under section Wildfire modeling are very U.S. centric. Here is a link to an excellent and recent (2009) survey on wildfire models: Title: A review of wildland fire spread modelling, 1990-present, 1: Physical and quasi-physical models Nageh (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I essentially wrote a new introductory paragraph based off that source, and now I'm not entirely sure we need the laundry list of models in the second paragraph of Numerical weather prediction#Wildfire modeling anymore. What do you think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Did you want to wait for someone else's input before making the change? It seems like that would resolve the latest comments made. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's ok to ax it then that's fine with me. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much of the second paragraph to remove, though. Pretty much everything after "These models include NCAR's Coupled Atmosphere-Wildland Fire-Environment (CAWFE)" seems redundant to me, but I'm not 100% sure whether the first two sentences of that paragraph should get attached as an introduction to the third paragraph. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also think so. If some of the models are particularly notable you may single them out but otherwise I'd leave them out. More detail can be provided in the main wildfire modeling article. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuked. How do you think it looks now? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. Nageh (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article provides a reasonably good overview on the topic now, so I think I can support it. Nageh (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

---

• Am I the only one who thinks the image atop the page is too large?
• Link to deposition is a dab page link. Any more of these? ... a second and final one at Tellus. Did anyone use the dab page tool?
• "to determine its transport and diffusion" ambiguous.
• what's a "spectral wave transport equation"? – Peacock.Lane 14:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The issues you brought up should be mostly dealt with. The issue with Tellus is mentioned and discussed further up the review. This is one case where a dab may be the only reasonable link available. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You wrote "The spectral wave transport equation" instead of "A spectral wave transport equation". Is there only one that is universally used? If so, the text as it stands now is a bit jarring. There needs to be a bit more cohesion b/w the spectral wave transport equation and its later relevance to numerical weather prediction, which is deferred until several phrases later. I will look at it and try to think of a suggestion.
      • As far as I can tell, yes, there is one spectral wave transport equation. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is there a typo in the doi of Bender, Leslie C. (January 1996)?
      • Fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Why is a GCM referred to as a "code"? That word is not used elsewhere in this. Can we substitute "program" or "computer model", or (even easier) simply delete the word "code"? If that word is necessary, can we briefly define it, or...? – Peacock.Lane 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Used the term computer program, as you suggested. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "can be configured for both weather and climate" I'm assuming this means they can be configured to make either a weather model or a climate model? Or does it mean that both weather and climate are plugged in to determine... weather? – Peacock.Lane 01:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • It means the same equations are used in both the short term weather forecasting and longer term climate models. It makes sense...it's not like the equations of motion used within the atmosphere change with time. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • So can we change "both...and" to "either...or"? – Peacock.Lane 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Should the wikilink to deposition (chemistry) instead be to Deposition (aerosol physics)?
      • Either works. I switched to your link because that article is better developed than the chemistry one. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "When ensemble spread is small..." and then "When many different forecast..". Do we have a problem with paragraph unity here? Should this be two paragraphs? Don't chop it up just because I say so. If they belong together in the same para, then the connection needs to be made a bit more clear.
      • Making it two paragraphs would look too "stubby". I've reworded a couple lines of that 4th paragraph, which should read better. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Stochastic or "ensemble"... surely these are not synonyms?
    • Were Epstein's Monte Carlo simulations also a form of ensemble forecasting? If not, how were they different? ... actually, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the "Epstein" paragraph (history) might perhaps simply be deleted, with perhaps one or two stray sentences relocated to the first para... thoughts..? – Peacock.Lane 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I want to wait to hear from Tito on this point before removing any additional historical info from this page, to limit reversions. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the Ensemble section to improve coherence; see version temporarily in my sandbox. Also note it's a bit fuzzy at times because I have no domain knowledge; see mildly weasel-like words such as "combine" and "analyze". I'm also aware that 1) It's 5 paragraphs long (ask me if I care), and 2) perhaps para 4 and 5 might be switched (?)... there are different ways to order that last bit of info about multi-model approaches. – Peacock.Lane 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) "Stochastic dynamic model" is the terminology that Epstein used to describe what we would call an ensemble in modern times. Since an ensemble is just a collection of forecasts (realizations), the Monte Carlo model just generated a bunch of forecasts with random (stochastic) perturbations to the initial condition. So no, they are not different. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's what I kinda surmised, but I wasn't sure. But is Epstein's terminology still commonly used? I.... suspect not. If not, then equating the terms is a bit misleading not only on that level, but because the term "stochastic" has a broader (and far more common) meaning... but look at my sandbox for more (see immediately above). – Peacock.Lane 12:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It's not common, but it is not wrong either, since that phrase describes exactly what Epstein did. He produced a stochastic ensemble of dynamical simulations using a Monte Carlo approach. Reading the sandbox, I would flip the last two paragraphs, and leave the original wording about Lorentz (saying that he discovered chaos theory is iffy—he presented the main formulation, but there have been statements that could be considered related to chaos since the 1800's.) but it otherwise looks ok. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The phrase "stochastic, or ensemble model" is used in the FAC version of this article within a passage that is outside of the contextual scope of the Epstein passage, implying that it is a valid synonymous relationship in current usage. That's what gives me pause... and the word "discovered" for Lorenz in my sandbox doesn't mean he discovered chaos theory; it says he discovered that it applies to the specific domain of weather forecasting. But if you see any value in the sandbox version, please do edit it and move it into the article. But do also watch out for imprecise terms like "combine" (as I warned above)... I am reviewing from the bottom of the page, so alas, I have quite a bit more of reviewing to do... sorry.
      • I see what you mean now. I've reworded that sentence, and copied your sandbox to the article itself. I also tried to tighten up the prose slightly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• You need to look at the link checker. Some links seem to be behind subscription firewalls; one timed out twice on me now. – Peacock.Lane 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Those all work, except the NCDC one. In fact, the whole NCDC site is down for some reason, so I am assuming that is the problem. I'll check again later to see if it came back up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The NCDC site will be back soon. They have taken it down temporarily for pre-planned Maintenance that was advertised on their site all week.Jason Rees (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Regional models use a compatible global model for initial conditions of the edge of their domain." You mentioned the model starts at the edges of the grid, then dropped this idea. Is there a reason why you start at the edges? Does the model work inward from there, or...? – Peacock.Lane 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Regional models need a global model to initialize the boundary conditions at their edge, so systems can enter their domain. The physics/equations used within the regional/LAM dominate within the grid. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't see that explained in the FAC, but perhaps I missed it... moreover, adding a completely new section during FAc (wildfires) is kinda irregular... – Peacock.Lane 04:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • We've already had to add another section...parameterization...due to comments made during this FAC, and split what was previously one section into three. The fire weather modeling did seem relevant...it's not something I ran across until the last several hours. It can always be removed if it's not deemed relevant. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the earlier additions; sorry. I still think the passage "Regional models use a compatible global model" is a bit sketchy (unnecessarily so), as mentioned just two posts above this one.. I also want to see if User:Nageh's objections are satisfied (but perhaps I missed that bit, above)... I'm getting close to being finished with this FAc, and close to supporting. I do want to look at the lede, and... a bit more.. uh the relevance of the image captioned "A cross-section of the atmosphere over terrain " isn't really made explicit.
    • The image is a vertical cross-section of the domain used in high-resolution models, and shows how they deal with terrain. I tried to clarify that in the article. How does it look now? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • MOS described as "Post-processing" in lede but not body of article. Could you explain? Does this need to be in the MOS section?
  • lede talks about "it was not until the advent of computer simulation in the late 1940s"; body talks about ENIAC in the 50s. – Peacock.Lane 11:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've made an attempt to resolve the regional model, MOS, and 1940s/1950s issue. See if this new wording is better. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten the lede, temporarily at User:Peacock.Lane/Sandbox]. Please, please, please, please read it very slowly and carefully! My biggest fear is that in a quest for brevity I may somehow have combined ideas that are categorically distinct... I also don't really see the connection between this article and wildfire modelling (in particular, neither your lede nor mine explains that at all), and I do not know the meaning of guidance ("used in the guidance") in the lede. – Peacock.Lane 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • • I put your lede in the article and made a few changes to it, and I addressed the "guidance" bit, which is just weather jargon for a forecast/model. As for the wildfire section, the section points out that some weather models (such as WRF) are coupled with combustion codes to produce wildfire spreading simulations, but that resolving all the equations involved in combined combustion and weather processes takes us firmly into DNS land. I'll see if I can clarify that further. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "parameterizations for turbulent diffusion, radiation, moist processes (clouds and precipitation), heat exchange, soil, vegetation, surface water, and the kinematic effects of terrain". It's not clear to me that all of the things listed in that sentence are discussed/mention in the parameterization section. Perhaps some bits are paraphrased, or perhaps I missed something.. "Radiation"... umm.. the default mental image is of nuclear radiation; can we add an adjective? I also don't see the word "kinematic" elsewhere. – Peacock.Lane 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Everything except turbulent diffusion was, so removed that bit. Added the adjective solar before radiation so no one confuses it with the "nucular" kind. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Caption on lead image: "Winds, etc...evaluate interactions with neighboring points."? That doesn't make sense to me as written - can you reword? In general, captions should be grammatically correct and clear, and sourced where necessary
• Why not use {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} for NOAA images, other more specific tags for US government images where such tags exist?
• File:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.gif is tagged as lacking author information
• File:NOAA_Wavewatch_III_Sample_Forecast.gif - any more specific source information available, or a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Consider this a "Support" as soon as the image issues are resolved. Unwatching; ping me if needed. – Peacock.Lane 04:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Even though this is not quite my area of expertise (even though I have a BSc in physics and I have taken courses in computational physics, fluid dynamics, and introductory meteorology), there's nothing which sounds wrong to me, and it is written in such a way that an intelligent layman (say, someone in the last year of high school) would understand at least all the most important points. —A. di M. (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "as input to initialize their models" seems slightly technical for the lead section.

  Rephrased. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Similar mathematical models" - it might be just me, but when I see "similar" used, I think it refers back to something mentioned in the previous sentence, whereas here it seems to be saying that the models used for short-term and long-term forecasts are similar. I would be inclined to drop the word 'similar' altogether.

  Rephrased. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The 'moist processes' wikilink - the parenthetical 'clouds and precipitation' help somewhat, but is there more to it than that? Also, the links in that list are profoundly unsatisfying. Radiation, heat transfer, soil and terrain all told me nothing about weather prediction. Solar radiation would be a better link than radiation. I would delink clouds, soil and terrain. I also note that the image caption links radiation rather than solar radiation, and that it uses links to wind (not mentioned in the lead) and relative humidity and hydrology, all of which I found more informative than the text in the lead.

  I've delinked those. The image notes the outputs and the inputs of a numerical weather model; the text discusses only the things that need to be treated as parameters. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Giving nationality of the researchers mentioned would give useful context. e.g. Lewis Fry Richardson, Vilhelm Bjerknes, Norman Phillips

  This was originally in the article but was removed when the section got shipped off to the History subarticle and summarized. I am not sure whether others would consider this "bringing back content", as I was asked not to do previously in the FAC, and the value of such info is marginal (that can be verified easily from the biographical articles) so I won't do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree. Nationality of researchers is useful context, IMO, but I won't press the point here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Should ENIAC and NOAA be given in full the first time they appear in the text, or are these initialisms commonly enough known not to need to do that?

  NOAA is common enough for it to not need to be spelled out. ENIAC's common name is ENIAC, in spite of it actually being called the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, so it should also not need to be spelled out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  As long as both are linked the first time they appear (I haven't checked). Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• "more physical processes" - I had to hover over this link to find out where it was going to take me. I think the way such links are made should give the reader some idea of what is being linked to.

  Rephrased. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The development of limited area (regional) models facilitated advances in forecasting the tracks of tropical cyclone as well as air quality in the 1970s and 1980s." - cyclone should be plural, I think.

  That used to read "tropical cyclone tracks" but somehow somebody forgot to change the plural when they rearranged it. In any case, it's fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "efforts began to initialize and model soil and vegetation types" - again, this word 'initilize' has cropped up. It might be explained later in the article, but I think it is a place where people will stumble. I think it means to input the starting conditions, but would have to finish reading the article to be sure.

  You are correct as to the meaning; however, I do not think that word is particularly foreign, and due to initialization being a specific technical process, I would be opposed to changing it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Sea ice began to be initialized" - again with the word 'initialize' - in fact the whole section is called 'Initialization', with no explanation of what this is.

  It was covered in the middle of the paragraph. I moved a sentence around to try to make this clearer. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Essentially, an atmospheric model is" - I believe that manuals of style discourage the use of words like 'essentially' and 'basically' as too colloquial and informal. I think it should be dropped here, as the tone it promotes is of someone thinking 'how can I simplify things to explain this to the reader?' Just starting the section as "An atmospheric model is" should be adequate.

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "potential temperature scalar fields" - should there be a comma between temperature and scalar?

  No. the distribution of potential temperature is a scalar field. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "velocity vector field" - this appears to be an attempt to explain to a reader what the term 'velocity vector field' means by directing them to read two different articles and hoping they can work it out. Possible 'potential temperature scalar fields' is the same thing. I much prefer the constructions: 'scalar fields dealing with potential temperature' and 'vector fields dealing with velocity' (but velocity of what? wind velocity?).

  Air velocity. However, explaining scalar/vector fields is well outside the scope of this article. Besides, "x vector field" and "y scalar field" are the ways these things are referred to in the literature (this is especially true of the velocity vector field). As such, I don't think they should be reworded, as that might introduce ambiguity for technical readers. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "then it would be overturned, and the air in that vertical column mixed" - is it possible to link or explain 'overturned' here?

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The process that determines the amount of solar radiation reaching ground level in rugged terrain or due to variable cloudiness occurs on the molecular scale" - are you sure 'molecular scale' is correct here? By this, do you mean absorption and re-radiation of solar radiation as it passes down or is scattered in the atmosphere? That might be more informative than 'molecular scale'. If not this, then how can rugged terrain and clouds be 'molecular scale'?

  Both. Clarified that in the prose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The horizontal domain of a model is either" - it might be an idea to first explain what a domain is, or to rephrase to have the explanation before going into details.

  Linked to Domain of a function. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Richardson's 1922 model" - it has been a long time since the reader read about Richardson in the 'History' section. Maybe give his full name again here?

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I couldn't work out why, but I felt a bit lost in the 'Domains' section. The other sections were fine, but maybe this one could be polished up a bit more? Possibly what is missing is an introductory bit to the section explaining 2D and 3D models?

  But the section is the introductory bit to 2D and 3D models. I am not sure how to address this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'Model output statistics' - this section feels a bit short and underdeveloped (e.g. no dates provided here). I didn't learn much more here than had been stated elsewhere in the article. The second paragraph feels particularly poorly written. FWIW, it is only these two sections (this one and 'Domains') that I had problems with - the rest of the article seemed fine (apart from the very last section on wildfire modeling).

  I added the date. As for the second paragraph, please be more specific. Saying it sucks doesn't really help me figure out why or how to fix it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Possibly too much use of "MOS" as an abbreviation - some added variety is possible in the writing. Also, maybe review the main article that is linked, and see if more of a fuller summary can be brought over. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nationalities of Epstein and Lorenz and Leith could be given.

  Same as above. Omitted to be consistent. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  As above, still disagree, but not worth sticking over this. Left unstruck so other reviewers can consider this point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Cecil Leith revealed that they produced" - revealed sounds wrong here.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Ensemble forecasting is an approach used since the 1990s" - this is confusing as you have just (in the previous paragraph) said that Epstein "proposed using an ensemble. That is an early example, as you say, but the text fails to move from the early history to the modern techniques - the jump is too sudden. Something like 'Following these early efforts, the modern techniques was developed by X in YYYY...", that sort of thing.

  What the article is trying to say is that only in the 1990s ensembles began to be used for actual forecasts. Clarified that in the prose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "normally less than 0.6, and only under special circumstances range between 0.6–0.7" - it would help to say what scale this is - is it a probability from 0 to 1? Or a correlation value between 0 and 1? i.e. How good or bad is 0.6-0.7? It would also be nice to have a non-technical bit saying how good or bad weather forecasts are (certainly among the general public, I think the perception is still that weather forecasts are sometimes very unreliable and sometimes adequate - but this tends to be only hearsay and remembering whether last night's weather forecast was accurate or not).

  What you are describing is forecast skill; that is the next sentence. As for the first part, it is a correlation (and the previous sentence mentions that), 1 is perfect, and 0.6 is "meh". Thus the article says that there is a weak or missing spread-skill correlation. Note that all of this info is exclusive to ensembles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The relationship between ensemble spread and skill varies substantially" - suggest adding 'forecast' before 'skill' (i.e. wikilink as a whole phrase rather than piping behind 'skill').

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In the same way that many forecasts from a single model can be used to form an ensemble, multiple models may also be combined to produce an ensemble forecast. Multi-model ensemble forecasting is an approach which uses many different forecast models to generate a forecast." - these two sentences appear to say the same thing.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "a process known as super ensemble forecasting. This type of a forecast significantly reduces errors in model output." - copyediting needed here: hyphenated 'super-ensemble forecasting'? Remove the superfluous 'a' before 'forecast'.

  I have always seen it written as one word, so combined it. Removed the stray 'a'. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'El Niño-Southern Oscillation' - is there a reason this is not linked? Also 'study its forcings' sounds strange unless you explain what a 'forcing' is.

  Linked both. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "decade to century time scale" - hyphenation needed somewhere here.

  Reworded the whole sentence. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "originally created by Syukuro Manabe and Kirk Bryan" - can you give the year here? Also, could give nationalities, though giving the location of the research institute (as you do) is good enough.

  Added the date. See above for nationalities, trying to stay consistent. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "smaller scale interactions" - hyphenation

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "wind blowing over the surface of an ocean and ocean's upper layer" - missing 'the'?

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'spectral wave transport equation' - should this be a red-link?

  Yep, fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "until the decade of the 1980s" - this is strange phrasing - it should be automatic to remove 'the decade of' from this phrase. Could you check to see if this too closely paraphrases the source?

  That was just me using a Spanish set phrase in an English context. The paraphrasing should be ok, considering that one paragraph is condensed into one sentence. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "showed skill" - again, give the full term 'forecast skill' (as commented previously)

  "Show skill" is actually a very common phrase in the literature, so I am hesitant to change it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "statistical methods continue to show higher skill over dynamical guidance" - would it be asking too much to drop the technical language and say something simple like 'statistical methods continue provide better results than dynamical methods'?

  But doing so would cause problems for readers reading the references, which exclusively use the skill terminology, and "results" is too weasely of a word. Forecast skill has a particular definition and replacing it would introduce unneeded ambiguity. As such, we just used terms defined and used throughout the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'Wildfire modeling' section feels like it is pitched too high - it is very technical and hard to understand.

  Again, this is too vague to be useful. What concepts are too technical? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are these five examples the only applications of numerical weather prediction, or are they five examples?

  Only five examples, although they are rather main areas of investigation (aside from the obvious one, weather forecasting). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Is it possible to give other examples? Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Article might benefit from a closing section to summarise recent advances and future directions of research. Finishing on wildfires because that is last alphabetically under 'Applications' feels unsatisfying. Particularly as the language used in that section is particularly technical and full of jargon.

  That would be very close to WP:CRYSTAL for my comfort. The latest advances have really been in ensemble forecasting. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The 'See also' links to Frederick Gale Shuman and André Robert should be removed after being incorporated into the article. Alternatively, they should be annotated to explain why they have been provided for the reader.

  Moved to History of numerical weather prediction, where they fit better. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I enjoyed reading the article and think I learnt something. I did get a bit lost at times, though. Hopefully the above comments will help. I did like the images used, they were very helpful to look at. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've had time to look at the changes, but not time to review and strike the points I made above. I do think that you have met most of the points raised, though, so I'm going to enter a limited support until I've had time to re-read the article again. It is limited because I do think some of the newer sections still need a shake-down to make them more accessible and less technical. I'll try and say exactly what the most difficult parts of the article are, though I've mentioned the last secton already. Part of the reason for wanting a closing section was not wanting it to end on such a fiercely technical note as the closing sentences of the wildfire section. I'll quote them here:

"The cost of added complexity is a corresponding increase in computational processing, so much so that a full three-dimensional explicit treatment of combustion in wildland fuels by direct numerical simulation (DNS) at scales relevant for atmospheric modeling is not currently practical because of the limited skill of weather models at spatial resolution under 1 kilometer (0.6 mi). Consequently, even these more complex models parameterize the fire in order to calculate local fire spread rates using fire-modified local winds. Although models such as Los Alamos' FIRETEC carry prognostic conservation equations for the reacting fuel and oxygen concentrations, the computational grid cannot be fine enough to resolve the reaction rate-limiting mixing of fuel and oxygen, so approximations must be made concerning the subgrid-scale temperature distribution or the combustion reaction rates themselves."

The placing of references in those three sentences is a bit strange as well. But my main point is that most readers will feel lost after reading that, and it will drive out what they read earlier in the article. Better, in my opinion, to finish on a note that reminds readers what numerical weather prediction is - one technique used is to find a recent good quote from someone authoritative to sum things up. If that is too difficult to do, or too far outside the style of the article, then why not end with a summary of the five applications mentioned and other major or minor applications? That summary would usually go at the beginning of the 'applications' section, but there would be good reasons to shift it to the end here, to provide a readable finishing point for the reader. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• While I see your point, wikipedia article structure allows for a summary at the beginning of the article (the lead), not the end. I have made some edits to the wildfire section to try to make it more understandable to the lay person, per your comments. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The changes help a bit, but you have misunderstood what I said. I was saying put a summary of the applications section at the end of the article. Currently, there is no summary of the applications section at the beginning of that section - you are just launched straight into five sections detailing those five applications. And regarding the technical nature of that section, see the change made here. It wasn't until that change was made that I realised that slope and terrain are the same thing. Given that the wildfire section was only added during this FAC, I'm not comfortably moving from my limited support until some of the earlier reviewers have had a chance to look at this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have made further changes to that section to try to make it more accessible. That said, I still don't think that adding the summary of the applications section at the end of the article would be a good idea. It would be an unorthodox article structure (why not put the summary at the start of the section, like all the other articles do?), and it would ultimately be redundant, as it would summarize the things that were just being said. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The changes help, and I'll strike my objections above. Will have to accept that this is a very technical subject. Overall, the applications section does now seem to have more on wildfire modelling than anything else. Possibly because of the changes I suggested (sorry!). Maybe cut down the wildfire section or expand the other sections? Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - following further discussion above, happy to enter a full support (and have unbolded my limited support above). Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieval dates aren't needed on journal articles, but no need to remove them since they're there. Are all those External links needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've pared them back, and moved half of those links to the Atmospheric model article, where they're better placed. Also fixed some intervening problems which have cropped up since your edit. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, but please review throughout for WP:MOSDAT##Precise language (currently, etc.), check for redundancies of still vs. however, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Occurrences of the words, still, however, and moreover have been eliminated. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:42, 20 March 2011 [19].

---

2009 World Series

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has been pretty thoroughly reviewed, tweaked, etc, I really do believe it's ready. FAC #1 (seems like ages ago) focused on adding the pre-series match-up info that is there now. FAC #2 (also a long time ago) just didn't draw many reviews. Also had 2 peer reviews in the past 1.5 years, with all issues resolved. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• FAC 1, FAC 2 Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment—I noticed during a brief read-through that the article doesn't mention the Yankees' transition from the old to the new Yankee Stadium in 2009. This should be mentioned somewhere, including the fact that the Yankees won the 2009 World Series in the year the new Stadium opened, similar to how they won their first World Series, the 1923 World Series, in the first year of the original Yankee Stadium. –Grondemar 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I made a minor copyedit to what you added in the Aftermath section that I hope you won't mind. In general this article looks very good, but I'll wait until I have more time to fully read through before I'll support. –Grondemar 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. Quite a few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• All fixed up, I believe. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Opening_ceremony_of_game_3_of_2009_World_Series.jpg is credited on the source website as a "Courtesy Photo", which makes its provenance unclear. It's hosted on an Air Force website, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the work of an Air Force employee
• Avoid sandwiching text between images.

Other than that, everything looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll comment out that opening ceremony pic until (if) the sourcing is better cleared up. It's not super crucial or high quality to begin with. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments – As I've said before, I want to avoid getting too close to this one because of my inherent Yankee-fan bias. However, I did notice a few more things in a quick scan.

• In the lead, I saw "as a result of the its 4–3 win in the All-Star Game."

• Fixed, and used the AL abbreviation from earlier in the lead. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Space needed after reference 20.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the references are missing access dates. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Believe I caught all of them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The series was played between October 28 and November 4, 2009," Since 2009 was used in the previous sentence to confirm, I think its use is redundant here.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Championship Series (ALCS)," comma not needed

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "career saves in the World Series (Mariano Rivera with 11)," I'd move this up alongside Pettitte's record, so the career and single-series records are together. Looks better to me.

• Done, and added the same Howard clarification to the lead that you requested below. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The Yankees had Home field advantage" home can be lowercase

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The starting pitchers Lee and CC Sabathia continued until the top of the eighth" saying 'continued to pitch' might be better, since some might ask what they're continuing to do. (obvious to me, just maybe not to others)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• When you note the Yanks-Sox "long standing rivalry", linking to it would be beneficial.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Burnett left after seven innings, replaced by Mariano Rivera in the eighth." and was replaced by

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Should tenth be written as 10th? I think that's how it works but i could be wrong; in game two summary

• Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words says the general rule is "render numbers over nine that take two words or fewer to say as words". Also, more importantly here, it calls for consistency within an article and says explicitly that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures." Since all other innings are spelled out, and tenth only takes one word anyways, left it in that form. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Specifically, the ball hit a camera owned by Fox and MLB" now I'm getting nitpicky, but i'm pretty sure mlb doesn't need to be linked here.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "With it Howard set a new World Series record for most strikeouts in a single series with a total of 13" i'd note that the record is for most strikeouts by a hitter, since i'm positive pitchers have topped that record of 13.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a well-written article and was a good read; I'll be happy to support once those issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the last paragraph of the lead really notable enough info for the lead? It also means that the Yankees winning a 27th World Serise is mentioned twice in the lead.

• Can remove if you feel it's not notable, but broken records for major statistics (home runs, strikeouts, wins, saves) seem notable to me. They drew outside notice from sources (as used in the prose), eg. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "allowing one unearned run" reader may not know what an unearned run is and the link is "earned run" so that doesn't help.
• "helped by Johnny Damon's baserunning" how? did no one eles bother to run the bases or something?

• Yes, they did, but Damon's baserunning in that game drew particular notice and which led to the decisive ninth inning runs. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "as Matsui tied the record for most runs batted in" this is also mention twice in the lead, remove one of them.
• "Derek Jeter recorded his 2,722nd career hit, passing Lou Gehrig to become the Yankees' all-time leader in career hits" I assume this means hits as a Yankee but I don't think this sentence makes that very clear. It soulds like a player could have 2000 hits with another team but if he got his 2,723rd hit as Yankees he still be the Yankees leader.
• Why does the ALCS MVP get mentioned but not the NLCS MVP?
• "whereas other closers blew 11 saves in the 24 postseason games leading up to the World Series" I don't really understand this, who are "other closers"? and are "games leading up to the World Series" just the last game before a World Series, or games a week before a world series or something like that?
• I think you need to mention that Philadelphia Eagles and New York Giants are NFL teams and Philadelphia Flyers and Tampa Bay Lightning are National Hockey League teams.
• "Finally, Lee was the first pitcher ever to strike out at least ten, walk no one" why finally?
• "This was the first of two calls by Gorman in this game which were later shown to have been wrong by video replays." What was the other? Did anything happen to Gorman as a result of getting them wrong?

• It's the call discussed one paragraph down, where I say it's Gorman. Clarified it a bit. I am not aware of any reprecussions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Happ escaped the fifth" why escaped?
• "This was the 28th pinch-hit home run in World Series history." so what?

• It's a fact about a rare event that drew outside sourcing... *shrug*. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• With 28 of them it doesn't seem very rare, or not rare enough to be notable anyway. BUC (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "three-man rotation, as CC Sabathia started the game on three days rest" reader may not know the significance of a three-man rotation or three days rest.
• "chasing Sabathia from the game" What! literally?
• "going 4–0 with a 2.33 ERA in four career starts on short rest before this game" reader may not know what shor rest means.

• I don't know what to do. You can only clarify things so much before the article becomes unreadable. There is no article or Baseball jargon entry on the subject to link to, or I would. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't short rest just less than four days? BUC (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, should I add that note? Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! Something expaining the three-man rotation as well. BUC (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Added the note on rest. Don't know how to address the rotation bit, however. The article links to starting rotation, which provides a reader some chance to read further if they so desire. Additionally it notes the rarity of the three-man rotation in the playoffs, saying it hadn't been used since the Padres back in 99. Lastly it contrasts the Yankees to the Phillies' 4 man rotation. Beyond that I'm not sure what to add. Noting the traditional regular season rotation (5 man) I feel would only confuse an outside reader into thinking the Phillies were also strange for only using 4, but that's a pretty normal thing given extra playoff rest. Again, most of this seems like ancillary information that belongs at starting rotation (which is linked) more than it does here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• "then second-most among active players" then the second-most among active players
• Might be worth mentioning Steinbrenner's age when he died.
• Didn't Yankees get championship rings for their win?

• Yes, on Opening Day the next season. Added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oooh, I forgot about the Matsui bit, adding that also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Odd that there is a picture of them visting Obama but no mention of it in the text.

BUC (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done/added/etc unless specifically responded to. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The Yankees' victory in the ALCS earned them their 40th World Series appearance in franchise history, and their first since losing to the Florida Marlins in 2003." needs ref. BUC (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref #28 mentions "FanHouse.com" but I don't see it anywhere in the article. BUC (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support BUC (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments from User:Grondemar:

• In the first paragraph of the lead, it mentions that the Yankees and Phillies met in the 1950 World Series, with the Yankees winning 4–0. While this is a good fact to include in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead right there, as it isn't directly relevant to the core subject of the 2009 Series and distracts the reader.
• "The series was played between October 28 and November 4..." I don't want to nitpick, but as currently worded someone totally unfamiliar with baseball might assume that the two teams played continuously through this time period, rather than on certain nights within the period.

• I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's how 2004 World Series is worded and I'm not sure how to make it clearer to cricket fans (eg) who might think that means more continuous play. Maybe the 1926 World Series lead style, "The series took place from [A] to [B]"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• After further consideration I think it's fine as-is. –Grondemar 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "...allowing one unearned run..." You might want to add "only" there; as currently worded it's a little vague over whether Lee allowed any earned runs.
• Philadelphia Phillies section: "Park was originally signed as an insurance policy for the bullpen..." "Insurance policy may be too colloquial. Consider "backup option" instead.
• New York Yankees section: "strong season" is used twice in close succession. Consider rephrasing one of them.
• Pennant should at least be linked, as readers unfamiliar with baseball might not realize it means "championship".
• Series preview section: in college football bowl game articles I've broken down teams in separate sections for the offense and defense, along with statistics. Would it be worthwhile to break this into individual sections analyzing the lineups, pitching staffs, bullpens, defenses, etc?

• I don't think so. They are already effectively divided like that, further subdivision/header'ing seems unneeded. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, that's reasonable. –Grondemar 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. –Grondemar 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done, but where noted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support—with all my above concerns addressed, I now feel confident that this article meets the FA criteria. –Grondemar 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments

Can't quite figure out why File:2009 World Series.svg is necessary- what does it being to the table as far as NFCC 8 is concerned? The FUR is a boilerplate, as well.

• It serves the same purpose as every DVD cover image fairly used across Wikipedia. Or all the bowl game logos in the Bowl FAs. It is an image expressly designed to represent the World Series, precisely what it's doing in the infobox. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• It would help if the FUR didn't keep referring to "the organisation" when we're talking about a sporting event... It reads like (because it is) a boilerplate that's slapped on images when no one bothers to write a distinct FUR. Courcelles 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Better? Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see anything citing that this was the 105th WS...

• Reused a ref already there to make it explicit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"93–69, .574, GA: 6" I know enough baseball to have written a few FL's on the topic... and I'm clueless as to what GA means in this context.

• Games ahead. I'll link to the closest article we have on the subject. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"as reliever J. C. Romero was assigned a 50-game suspension after violating the Major League Baseball drug policy," The source doesn't even mention Romero.

• Added another source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"They became the first World Series champion to return to the World Series the following year since the 2000–01 New York Yankees." Citation?

• Added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"500th save against the Yankees cross-town rival" Should this by Yankees' ?

• Yup. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Series started on October 28, 2009, which was the latest start in World Series history." First, citation. Second, why was it so late?

• Added. And there has been a slow and steady progress towards later and later starts. 2004 started on the 24th, then the latest start also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Feels like there's some overlinking, especially players. Rivera is linked in the game 2, game 3 and game 4 writeups, for example.

Courcelles 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, each player is linked the first time they appear in each section to make each game summary readable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I gave this article a peer review. Any doubts I had about the article which weren't addressed at the time or where in my mind have resolved. KnowIG (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Source review? Spotcheck for close paraphrase/plagiarism? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Go for it (either you or someone else) though I can comfortably guarantee there's no plagiarism in what I wrote. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Must every player be linked in every game summary section? It creates quite a sea of blue, when we should be letting blue links for baseball jargon stand out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I speak baseball, but it took me a while to figure out that the box score presented in the "Statistics" section is cumulative; how can that be clarified? I find the dashes separating the dates and times in the regular box scores to have a cluttering effect, wonder why they can't be separated by commas? Would like more review of overlinking of player names, MOSNUM, and other MOS issues (WP:PUNC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Put it in a clearly titled subsection. Also replaced the dashes with commas as requested. I'll go through and delink the players as that seems to be a common request. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• The playing delinking and USA Today italicizing is done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

USA Today is a newspaper and should be in italics in the citations-- I don't know why that citation template doesn't italicize it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting close-- please do additional review to minimize unnecessary linking, check for WP:MOSNUM issues, and review WP:PUNC (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I gave it a strong once over. Fixed all the NBSP issues you expressed in your edit summaries, the only other quotation issue the period is correctly included, looked hard for whatever NUM issues I could find, and caught a few more delinking chances. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:30, 20 March 2011 [20].

---

Kennedy half dollar

Nominator(s):RHM22 (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...we think it meets the criteria. The Kennedy half dollar was the source of great public interest when it was first issued only months after the Kennedy assassination. The double whammy of hoarding and rising silver prices both meant that the half dollar failed to circulate despite massive mintages, and effectively destroyed the half dollar as a coin used in trade. It has never recovered, and the coin is only struck today for collectors. Written at the special request of Laser Brain in honor of Be Nice to the Delegates Week! Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the coauthor of this article, and I hope you will all enjoy it as much as we do!-RHM22 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Reference 12 looks inelegant as it has a bare URL rather than a page title. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a missing close bracket, fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Bowers appears in References but not Bibliography
• Be consistent in notating retrieval dates - "Retrieved date" vs "Retrieved on date"
• Ref 13: Time should be italicized, missing closing punctuation
  • Still missing closing punctuation, retrieval date notation is inconsistent with other entries
• Spell out or link UPI and AP on first occurrences
  • AP appears before Associated Press
• "The (Oxnard, California) Press-Courier" and similar - is there a more elegant way to notate that? Refs 24 and 27 each use a slightly different formatting, either of which is a bit of an improvement IMO
  • Is "The" part of the title of this publication?
• Publisher for ref 29?
  • Make sure the punctuation remains consistent
• Refs 41 and 43: punctuation
  • The former (now 40) still uses a comma where it should use a period
• "1966 edition ed."?
• Be consistent in using Atlanta or Atlanta, Ga (if the latter, should be GA)
  • And if you've decided not to include the state, don't do so for New York either
• You've got three different versions of the publisher name that begins with "Whitman" - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All these things are caused by two editors working on the article and adopting mildly different personal referencing formats, and will be corrected. Sorry, I usually try to check those things before a FAC reviewer is put to the bother.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki, for pointing out all those errors! My apologies for adding so many inconsistencies. I believe I fixed all of them except for the Bowers one, because I don't have that book and I'm not sure of the exact publisher, year, ISBN etc.-RHM22 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Actually, it was Tomaska and not Bowers, but it's fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tomaska book is part of the Bowers series of guides, you see, and he usually writes them himself, but I'm guessing he's getting on in years, Bowers that is. My goof.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mostly fixed - a few more nitpicks above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think everything has been fixed now. The best way is to put a comma after periodicals and books and a period after organizations, right? In other words, a comma after "Time" but a period after "United States Mint". Let me know if not and I can fix them.-RHM22 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Under most circumstance I would agree, but since the Time reference in this case has only a retrieval date, not a publication date, use a period there too. Other references look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and production of silver proof sets in which the dime, quarter and half dollar were struck in 90% silver were first minted in 1992." The first ("production of") and last ("were first minted") don't agree with each other. Just removing "production of" seems to be the easiest fix.
• Inception: Comma needed after first use of Jacqueline.
• Release: I see "1964-dated" and "1964–dated" here; I believe the one with the hyphen is correct. If that's the case "1966–dated" from later in the text also should be changed.
• "with a layers of copper nickel on each side of a layer of pure copper." Remove first "a".
• "They bore a 1965 date, a date which...". The "a date" part is quite redundant.
• Another redundancy here: "opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed to putting Eisenhower on a base metal coin initially scuttled the package." To replace "opposed to", you could try "against", or there are plenty of other ways to change one of them.
• I see "copper-nickel" and "Copper–nickel" at various times. The use of a hyphen or en dash should be made consistent.
• "the Treasury was holding 200 million of the new base metal half...". Is "dollar" missing from this, or was the omission on purpose?
• Collecting: Remove first "in" from "which differentiates them from the pieces in sold in bags and rolls." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

These are now done, though in the case of Jacqueline, I changed the sentence in a different manner than what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• In the lede's second paragraph, you have "Once the coin was released in April 1964, they immediately vanished from circulation..." This should either be singular or plural.
• Under "Inception," you have "Kennedy's widow Jacqueline preferred the half dollar"; shouldn't this be "Kennedy's widow, Jacqueline, preferred the half dollar." I could be wrong, but I think the commas are preferred.
• There's at least one instance of "US". I think "U.S." is preferred.
• Under "Switch to base metal", the use of "consigning" in the first sentence seems to be a bit of negative POV. I prefer specie, too, but a more neutral wording might be preferred. Some people like fiat money.

Despite these quibbles, I enjoyed reading the article and think it's the best numismatics article yet. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! All of those are now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support With my limited reviewing skills, I see nothing save a few diction quibbles that are merely personal preference instead of anti-grammatical. I am surprised at how interesting an article can be about such a prosaic topic. I read it with great interest. The only suggestion I have would be to put up a close-up detail image of the later versions for comparison with the heavily-accented hair, which is a bit unclear to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll talk to the photographer and see if he has one of the "normal hair". Thank you for the kind words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Oppose: Support Still Oppose

Inspection

• One of Kennedy's final acts had been to request Congress to appropriate funds to allow the resumption of striking of silver dollars in 1964 and it was proposed that Kennedy appear on this piece. - 2 issues with this:
  1. The sentance doesn't make it clear that Kennedy's appearance on the half dollar be made till after his death nor do the surrounding sentances.
  2. it doesn't say who he would have replaced.
• There is no mention of who first proposed that Kennedy appear on the half dollar , only that when his widow was given the choice she picked it. The change should address your other concerns above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to make it clear why she felt the quarter wouldn't do. Her reasons for not wanting the dollar (which had not been struck in almost thirty years) are not recorded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did Mrs. Kennedy make any other proposals to the design change other than a change in profile?

Her concern was actually with the hair. She wanted the part made less prominent and more highlights in the hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Release

• Congressional approval was necessary as an 1890 statute required legislative action for a new coin design, unless 25 years had passed since the last design change for that denomination, and the existing Franklin half dollar had been introduced in 1948. - The sentence feels out-of-place in the body. It should be moved as a notation where that such info is usually mentioned in other articles as it breaks up the flow. Maybe some rewording could fix this, but that's a rather huge chunk of info so I'm a bit sceptical.

Collecting

• There is a lot of restating of the same info in multiple places beyond the lead. Specifically, the Collecting section has multiple instances of unnecessary repeat info.

Other

• The article needs some more copyediting. A few of the issues:
  • A block-long line The hyphenated word sounds awkward
  • Needs some copyediting for commas. I've removed a few, but they seemed to be used a bit too liberally.
  • the prose needs more active voice such as "Denver Mint began receiving" -> "Denver Mint received"
  • The first clad half dollars, with an outer layer of 80% silver and 20% copper bonded to an inner layer of 21% silver and the remainder copper - could be rephrased as it took me 3-4 times reading that to grasp what it was saying, particularly because of that last part.
  • The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar (with silver-clad specimens to be struck for collectors and copper-nickel clad pieces for circulation), eliminated silver from the half dollar, and authorized the sale of old Morgan dollars struck at the Carson City Mint. - removing the info inside the parentheses causes the sentence to not read right. - "The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar..., eliminated silver from..."陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've already started work to address your concerns and work will continue. I hope you will stay in touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the specific concerns, other than the commas, and have asked Brianboulton (talk · contribs) to copyedit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the last point does not need to be changed. The sentence reads (without the parenthesis) like this: "The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar, eliminated silver from the half dollar, and authorized the sale of old Morgan dollars struck at the Carson City Mint."-RHM22 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, had another look at it and found some new info. No info in the body (just the lead) that the Kennedy half dollar would replace the Franklin Half dollar.
• No source to confirm that the Franklin half dollar was widely used, just from what I've seen past half-dollars were in general circulation.
• Which Mint are the current proof available? That isn't made clear. Is it all? Just one?
• It's also not clear in the collection section whether silver was removed from proof sets ever.陣内_Jinnai 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've fixed two of the above four. San Francisco is the only mint that still produces proofs, but is that really necessary to add? It's already noted that production moved there in 1968. As for referencing the circulation of the Franklin, I have left that for Wehwalt, because none of my references say anything about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind the stricken part above. I found a place to insert the San Francisco information without interrupting the article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we've covered all the specific concerns mentioned as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. All of the above comments have been addressed.-RHM22 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With the exception of 1965 through 1967, proofs have been struck each year in the same metallic composition as business strikes. the sentance implies that business strikes are still occuring. Is that the case as it didn't appear so.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Change to "uncirculated pieces", I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Business strikes are still being produced though. All the pieces produced that aren't in either proof or mint sets are business strikes.-RHM22 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the rolls/bags considered that? I guess so, though it sounds odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is tricky, but I would say so, since there really isn't a better word or phrase. The way I would define it would be any coin that is not minted with special or unusual attention.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've found an answer. I replaced "uncirculated" in that sentence with "regular issue".-RHM22 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suits, and thus we don't have to worry about Bicentennial exceptions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll check over this tomorrow just to make certain nothing cropped up since the copyedit.陣内_Jinnai 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay now.陣内_Jinnai 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. The lead still implies that the Franklin Half dollar was in wide circulation, but its not clear from the prose that was the case.陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede revised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay the remaining issue is dealt with. I would suggest per the discussion on my talk page that if said source indicates it and isn't already used here to add it as "Further reading" material.陣内_Jinnai 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As it is a subscription only NY Times article, I don't know how much use it will be (from 1968) as it is behind a pay/subscription wall. Thank you for your work. You've helped improve the article considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. they were challenging, but the fixes were very important and well worth the effort.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1976HalfReverse.jpg and File:Kennedy-Half-Dollar-Accented-Hair.jpg - could you identify the engraver, as you did for the other coin images?
• File:Kennedy-Half-Dollar-Accented-Hair.jpg needs a PD-USGOV or money-US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed both of those.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support for an engaging and professionally written contribution. May I be allowed one tiny, tiny, nit-pick? The meaning of "currently-struck" is not clear to me. I think it means no longer minted, but it could mean the opposite. Sorry, I understand now.Graham Colm (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it means that the coin is currently minted. I can see how that would be confusing though, since "struck" sometimes means no longer used. I'll fix that to clarify.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to switch the first uses of "struck" and "minted", because it both looks better and removes any ambiguity.-RHM22 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• Why is "currently-struck" hyphenated? Same for "previously-struck".
• Demand for half-dollars dropped, with casinos (where they were commonly used) preferring to produce their own fifty-cent tokens." "With" is almost never a good linking word, and certainly isn't here. Is this suggesting that the reason demand dropped was because casinos preferred to produce their own tokens?
• "... in most years being struck in the range of 20 million pieces ...". "20 million" isn't a range.
• "The half dollar would go from 90% silver ... The new half dollars would retain their silvery appearance ... The coin would also have an inner layer of 21% silver and 79% copper." Why all these "woulds"? Were they or weren't they reduced from 90% silver etc.?

Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your first three suggestions, but I'm not certain about the last one. The reason for the unusual wording is that the Coinage Act is being discussed prior to passage, meaning that the provisions of the act weren't yet approved. It does look awkward though, and I'd be alright with rewording it if you still think it's important.-RHM22 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind, I'm wrong. It should definitely be reworded.-RHM22 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, they've been fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:30, 20 March 2011 [21].

---

Sacagawea dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. This my second dollar coin article to be nominated for FA status. My first, Morgan dollar is also a current nomination, but I was given permission by Laser brain to add this one as well. The Sacagawea dollar, like its predecessor the Susan B. Anthony dollar, proved unpopular with Americans in commerce. Nonetheless, it continues to be minted, now with a reverse that changes yearly. Thanks in advance to reviewers!-RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Comments

• Split lead into 2 paragraphs, maybe 3?

I split in two paragraphs.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The coin was first suggested as a replacement for the Susan B. Anthony dollar, which, while unpopular as a coin for every day commerce, proved useful for vending machine operators and mass transit systems" - "everyday", and is it the Anthony or the Sacagawea dollar that "proved useful"?

I reworded to make it a little more clear. Do you think it's better now?-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Source link for Castle's portrait seems to be dead

Yup, that portion of the website was probably deleted after Castle left the House. I removed the link and replaced added simply "United States House of Representatives" as the source. If this isn't acceptable, I may be able to find an old version of the Castle website on archive.org.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why was Sacagawea chosen despite the clear public preference for the Statue of Liberty? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know about this. My sources don't indicate the actual reasoning, other than the committee members (except for Castle) preferred that subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've addressed all but the latter, because I don't have any information about that. Let me know if the changes I've made are satisfactory.-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Don't worry overmuch about the last point, it's mostly just curiosity. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 8: Give the publisher (US General Accounting Office) rather than the web address
• Refs 17 to 22: Same point, really; publisher in each case is United States Mint

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. I have carried out spotchecks which elicit no problems

Thanks! I fixed the refs.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Last sentence of the article states that the coin is popular in Uruguay, but the source says Ecuador. Also, the word 'however' doesn't work at the beginning of that sentence. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, thanks! I fixed that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! I noticed that Mule_(coin) has a paragraph about the Sacagawea dollar. There is no source for that section, but it has some interesting info not found in the mule section of this article, such as the discredited theory that the coins were intentionally struck, the explanation of the accidental die replacement, the state quarter used for the obverse side (Washington), and how much one of the coins sold for. If you can verify that any of these facts are true, I think it would be nice to incorporate them into the article. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the highest priced example ($75,000). The Washington (or 50 States) quarter and the part about the coins being struck accidentally were already in there. The claim that the quarter die was used as a replacement for a cracked die is likely, but dubious at the same time. Of course, no die would be replaced until its predecessor was worn out, but there is some evidence that at least three distinct die pairs were used, meaning that the coins were likely not all struck on the same day. This really makes you question the Mint's official stance on their origin, since the Washington obverse must have been removed and then another put in its place, but I don't know of any reliable sources that disagree with them on that.-RHM22 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'll be sure reply here if I find anything else! Hopefully I'll be able to go over the article comprehensively sometime this week. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Further comments by Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I'm going to make some minor edits as I go, and report back here whenever I see something significant.

Lead

• I wonder if it would be a good idea to include a very brief explanation of who Sacajawea was in the lead, for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with American history.
• Would suggest wiki-linking first use of the Susan B. Anthony dollar. It's okay to link to its first use in the body as well.

Background

• "In the 1970s, following the lack of success of the Eisenhower dollar..." ==> I would suggest "In the 1970s, following the unsuccessful Eisenhower dollar...", but whatever works for you. Regardless, this reads oddly and should be revised.
• "...due in large part to their similarity in size and identical composition" What sort of composition? Metallic composition, I suppose. Might be best to clarify.
• It's possible that it is just my liberal bias, but it would seem that the affiliated political parties of the legislators who proposed the coin's mintage is basically irrelevant. It seems like a non-partisan issue, although it is interesting that all of these legislators are Republicans..

Design History

• "Though the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997.." I think it would be best to clarify in the preceding section that the fourth section of the 50 States Coin Act is also referred to as the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997.

Unfortunately this is all I have time for right now. I will do my best to come back later today to finish reviewing the article! It's all very good so far! Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your edits, suggestions and the kind words! I have addressed all your points, excepting the political parties. I would prefer to leave them in just to let people know their affiliations. I can remove them if you think they take away from the article, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment You do have some numbers in the reception section, but I would prefer a small mintage quantities table if possible. Reywas92^Talk 23:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Normally I don't put mintage numbers in the article, but since this series is relatively short, that seems like a reasonable idea. Gve me a day or so to format the tables and I'll have them in there.-RHM22 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the mintages in a sortable table.-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Another well written / interesting numismatic article. I am one of the few who goes to the bank and exchanges dollar bills for these. Any thoughts about adding a photo of a vending machine that accepts dollar coins? That would seem to be relevant to the "Reception" section. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be fine with me. I'll do a quick check around and see if I can find an image of a stamp machine or something.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I did find this and this (but it appears to show only Presidential dollar coins). I know I've also seen a machine down at the transit authority with a sign indicating it gives change in dollar coins. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The first one looks good. Is that covered by freedom of panorama?-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - very well written and informing. I learned much just be reading it. Dincher (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it would be better to say "... is a United States dollar coin which has been minted since 2000" to avoid the "currently minted" (which reads awkwardly to me).
• Would also help the currently repetitive "..dollar coin. The coin..."
• Perhaps my opinion, but "The coin was first minted in 2000, featuring an obverse ..." would be better "First minted in 2000, the coin features an obverse...".
• Our own article about State quarters has Quarter capitalised.
• Infobox, you relink some stuff but not all, e.g. Goodacre.
• Infobox, both Design entries should not take a period.
• Some squashing of text going on between the image of the senator/coin and the infobox, looks a little scrappy.
• Eisenhower dollar -> Dollar (according to our own article)
• "Mint sculptor" vs "mint personnel" - why not consistently capitalise Mint?
• "39 such coins were struck..." avoid starting sentences with a numeral.
• I think I fixed your table a little (en-dashes, and associated sorting)
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
• Suc box needs an en-dash instead of 2007-present.
• Are both categories really needed? Strikes me that United States dollar coins is a more specific category of Coins of the United States, so should cover it?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and fixes! I've addressed all of your concerns, except those about the denomination capitalization. Denominations are almost never capitalized, and I believe the current article titles (Eisenhower and 50 States) to be incorrect. I fixed everything else though.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Still getting image squashing up top, the infobox and the Grams image and the Anthony dollar and the Castle image are really squeezing the text. And date formats are still mixed (date= vs accessdate= should both be same format throughout)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I got it! I didn't realize that the cite templates rendered the dates as Date-Month-Year. Sorry about that! I'm not sure what to do about the images though. I can remove one if you think it necessary. I would say the Susan B. Anthony image could easily be removed without any disruption to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, TRM is on wikibreak, but I removed the Susan B. Anthony dollar image anyway, because it doesn't really add much.-RHM22 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I thought you were taking a break from the banner on your talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review (by someone who is not an expert on US copyright law)

• File:Rgrams.gif - can you provide verification that this is PD-USGOV? The source site given is not a government site and doesn't provide information on the original source

Other images are unproblematic, although the purpose of the AirBART image could be made clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Grams photo, but I think it's an official portrait. I'll check and see what I can find. As for the AirBART image, that was added to illustrate what is the only major use of dollar coins, as vending machine fodder.-RHM22 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this Congressional website has the same photo of Grams in black and white. Do you think that would be enough?-RHM22 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The copyright section is a little unclear. It says that some images are copyrighted, but also that all Senators and Representative images can be attributed to them.-RHM22 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs more prose, MOS, grammar and hyphen vs. endash review (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing these for a while now, and those hyphens and dashes still throw me off! Thanks for the fixes, and I'll look through the article to see if I notice any errors.-RHM22 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed the unnecessary dashes. Sorry for messing that up again. I know it wastes everyone's time when I foolishly misuse the punctuation, but to tell you the truth, I didn't know there was a difference between a hyphen and a dash before I started editing Wikipedia! At the least, I am learning a very useful punctuation technique for other, non-Wikipedia tasks as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Maybe comments can be left on the talk page, and the verdicts can be posted here. For instance, if you leave me suggestions, I respond, and you like the article, you'd just put "support" on this page, leaving the original comments on the talk page. Sorry if that was confusing, I couldn't think of a better way to explain!-RHM22 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support; I only had two comments and one is addressed; the other is a request for more information which would be useful but is not critical. Sandy, per your comment above, I looked for prose and grammar issues and didn't find much -- I fixed a couple of minor issues. I am not a great MOS reviewer but didn't spot anything wrong. I have not checked for close paraphrasing but will come back and do that if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re close paraphrasing: just looked at this source; it's footnote 7 in the current version. The article text is quite close to this source in several places, though I have to admit they are straightforward factual statements that are hard to paraphrase, such as "six obverse and seven reverse designs". I think this is OK, but someone else may want to take a look. Here are the details:

• Article text: "The Committee was chaired in a non-voting capacity by Philip N. Diehl"; source: "United States Mint Director Philip N. Diehl chaired the committee in a non-voting capacity." Perhaps rephrase to "The committee was chaired by Philip N. Diehl; the role of the chairman did not include a vote on the designs."
• Article text: "They convened in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts presented by members of the public along with numerous telephone, mail and e-mail suggestions"; source: "In June 1998, the DCDAC convened in Philadelphia. It deliberated about the design concept in a public session. Outside input factored heavily into the Committee’s decisions. The Committee listened to 17 design concept presentations from members of the public, as well as to numerous mail, phone, and e-mail messages submitted by the public". How about: "They met in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts submitted by members of the public, and reviewing many more suggestions received by telephone, mail and email."
• Article text: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended Sacagawea, the Shoshone guide of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, for the design of the new coin."; source: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended that the dollar coin bear the image of Sacagawea, the Native American woman who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their exploration of the American West." I think this is fine.
• Article text: "In November and December 1998, members of the Native American community, teachers, numismatists, historians, members of Congress, various government officials and others were invited by the United States Mint to review the submitted proposed designs. Six obverse and seven reverse designs were originally selected for further consideration."; source: "In November and December of 1998, the United States Mint invited representatives of the Native American community, numismatists, artists, educators, historians, members of Congress, United States Mint and Treasury officers and employees, and other members of the public to review and comment on all designs received. Using these comments as a guide, the United States Mint narrowed the field to six obverse and seven reverse designs". This is a tricky one; the date barely allows rephrasing, and some attempt has been made to rephrase the list, which is also rather hard. I think this is OK but others may see a way to improve this.

I have not reviewed any other sources for close paraphrasing -- some I don't have access to but some are online and could be reviewed by another reviewer.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. This article has given me hyphen and endash fits; will others please review all of my changes to either correct me or learn the distinction between hyphens and endashes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 19 March 2011 [22].

---

Planet Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Another pulp sf magazine from the 1940s and 1950s, with bizarrely dressed women on the cover. How can you resist? Despite the melodramatic cover art, Planet Stories actually published some good fiction, including a very early story in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, and Philip K. Dick's first sale, "Beyond Lies the Wub". It's now one of the most sought after pulps from that era. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

• "...a series of adventures involving Eric John Stark..." It's kind of unclear how Stark was involved. Was he a fictional character or a collaborator of Brackett's?

  He was the hero of the stories. I've switched to "featuring", which is the word used in the body in the discussion of Brackett; I hope that makes it clearer. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...was Jungle Stories; which was launched in early 1939..." should be a comma instead of a semicolon after "Jungle Stories".

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...such as survivors from Atlantis." You might want to link Atlantis.

  Good idea; linked. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...though he was not always the named editor on the masthead: when other editors were involved..." would read better with a semicolon after "masthead", instead of a colon.

  A colon looks OK to me, but so does a semicolon, so I've switched it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "With the Summer 1950 the editorship..." is missing the word "issue".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Bixby lasted only a little over a year..." seems kind of awkward. Is "only" really needed here?

  No; probably debris from another version of the sentence. Removed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

More copyediting

• "...with scantily-clad women..." adverbs ending in "ly" don't need hyphens. The phrase "...a separately marketed genre..." appears in the next section, and doesn't use a hyphen, so it really should be consistent.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...but it often featured storylines..." is "it" necessary here? I don't have a strong opinion, both ways read well.

  Removed; I think it's better without. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...editorial oversight and control throughout its life..." could this be rephrased as "throughout its run" or something similar? The first time I read that, I misread it basically "he retained control throughout his life". The rest of the sentence uses Malcolm Reiss as the subject, so it's pretty easy to miss the pronoun and completely misunderstand the sentence.

  Changed to "run"; those of us who write a lot about magazines forget that this sort of metaphor isn't automatic to most readers. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...who was already editing Jungle Stories, and soon thereafter it switched..." This could probably be broken up into two sentences. It's also not clear what was switched, did Jungle Stories change its schedule as a result of the change in editorship?

  Yes, the split is an improvement, and I clarified it a little more; it was Planet that changed its schedule. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...and was able to improve the quality of the fiction over the succeeding issues..." would probably read better as "...quality of fiction in succeeding issues" or "in subsequent issues" or something similar.

  I went with "quality of fiction in succeeding issues". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite the focus on space adventure, the fiction in Planet Stories improved..." I think this could probably be phrased a little better, it currently implies that focusing on this specific genre would be detrimental to the magazine's quality, and that it's extraordinary that that wasn't the case. If the source says this, it's fine, but perhaps it could be clarified or even removed as unnecessary.

  That's what the sources say; it was not a high-brow subgenre. I've added "melodramatic"; does that make it clearer? The source actually says "This magazine ... which had always promoted extravagant adventure, nevertheless developed remarkably ...". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "She wrote a well-received series of adventures featuring Eric John Stark..." could use a little explanation of who Eric John Stark is. Is he a starship captain, colonist, mad scientist? He's mentioned in the lead, but it isn't clear why he's important.

  He's a pulp hero; I switched to "adventurer" and added a link to the article about him. I haven't read them, but if he's like most pulp heros he could fight, drink, and romance the ladies, and would have generally been on the trail of treasure and on the side of the underdog. Does "adventurer" cover that well enough? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Western fiction could use a link.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...and finding unusual treatments of the interplanetary adventure theme..." could use a link to Film treatment, the concept isn't terribly common.

  I'm hesitant here; the link might imply too much, in that writers do treatments of themes without reference to film, and I don't want a reader to think there's a connection to films here. Is there another link that would work? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  All the articles I find seem to be related to films. Would "variations on" read better than "treatments of"?

  Yes, that's more straightforward. Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...in which a human in a world of robots suffers from discrimination." The "in"s are pretty close. Rephrasing it as "in which a human suffers discrimination in a world of robots" would place a little more distance and move all mention of robots to the end of the sentence, making readers initially think it's about discrimination... and then, BAM! Robots.

  Yes, that's much better; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "During the World War II..." doesn't need "the", and should link to World War II.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• sexual dimorphism could use a link.

  Linking within quotes is frowned on, so I linked in the caption; it's quoted, but those are really scare quotes. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...through which bikinis or swimsuits can be seen..." should be "could be seen", the sentence is in the past tense.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "SF artist and historian..." the use of "sf" has been lower case throughout the article, perhaps it could be rephrased as "Historian and sf artist..."

  I made it "Artist and sf historian", since it's the historian hat which most needs to be qualified by "sf". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...almost Rembrandtian in his use of light and shade..." could use a link to Rembrandt.

  I don't think I can, because of the prohibition on linking within quotes. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would the editorial succession data be better represented by a table? It seems tabular.

  Yes, but then I'd have a table next to that tabular image showing the issues -- I thought that would be visually uglier. Do you think it should be made into a table anyway? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion on it, just wanted to float the idea.

• "...for most of its life..." again, this would read better as "existence" or "run" or "publication", the word "life" makes me think a person is involved.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...reduced to 96 for the March 1952 issue, but returned to 112 until Summer 1954..." should say when it was returned to 112 pages.

  Clarified -- it was reduced to 96 pages for just that one issue. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence now seems to repeat "returned to" (not sure if it did before). The second instance could be changed to "was again reduced to", there aren't many ways to say this, but at least the "again" makes it less like the preceding clause.

• "...which was followed by Summer 1954." Would read better if it specified "...which was followed by a Summer 1954 issue".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The volume numbering was completely regular..." would read better as "The volume numbering was consistent throughout the magazine's publication".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...a thirteenth has been rumored but not seen by any sf bibliographers." Could this be changed in any way to include a link to Bibliography or some other word choice (sf chronicler)?

  Done; I linked to bibliography. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

--Gyrobo (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support the prose. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support; and also for fixing that last issue -- I missed it in the list above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. I find this meets the FA criteria and is a welcome addition to the series on sf magazines. I have a few quibbles which do not detract from my support.

• Why isn't Amazing Stories linked in the Publication history section?

  Oops. No reason; linked now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't "Fiction House" singular and "their" plural? Or is there a convention that publishers are plural? At the end of 1939 Fiction House decided to add an sf magazine to their line up...

  That's a BrEng slip; the article is in AmEng, given the subject, but I speak more BrEng than AmEng so I do miss these things from time to time. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Missing word? With the Summer 1950 [issue?] the editorship passed to Jerome Bixby, who was already editing Jungle Stories...

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• MOS says that Mike Ashley should only be spelled out on first mention (just Ashley the second time)

  Yes; fixed for Ashley and also for Clareson. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why not link Poul Anderson and Theodore Sturgeon?

  Another oops; done; and I linked Campbell too. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The word "though" seems out of place here (my suggested change is in bold and strikethrough): "One of the best artists to work on Planet was Alexander Leydenfrost, whose work "epitomized much of what Planet Stories represented in the 1940s",[9][3] though according to sf historian Thomas D. Clareson, though his cover artwork was less impressive than his black and white interior illustrations.[22]"

  The problem here is that the opinion in the second half of the sentence is from the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia, not from Clareson. I will think about a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  I've had a go at rephrasing this to clarify -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two suggestions - not actionable requests for this FAC, but things to think about. 1) Why not add a nav box to the bottom of these sf magazine articles? Perhaps "Golden Age sf magazines"? Something similar to {{CurrentAmericanSFMagazines}}. 2) Have you thought of going for a featured topic on these magazines?

  I'd like to add a nav box, but haven't been able to come up with a good one. "Golden Age SF magazines" is a good idea, but the problem is what to do about magazines that span many decades -- would Analog Science Fiction and Fact have that navbox and also the "CurrentAmericanSFMagazines" navbox? And maybe a 1950s and 1960s one too? So far I've been dealing with this via categories (Category:Science fiction magazines established in the 1930s). If you can think of a scheme that would work for magazines across multiple decades I'm all ears. Re the featured topic: I'd have to figure out what subtopic it would be, I think. There are hundreds of sf magazines. If the navbox problem is resolved, it will probably also give me an idea of what featured topics could be done. The pulp vs. digest paradigm is one possibility; at least there's a finite number of pulp sf magazines, though it's a large finite number. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hmmm, how about a nav box for "American SF magazines: 1930 to 1959" - the box could have a row for each year and magazines could be listed by the year they were founded. Perhaps they could even have a date they closed in parentheses and small text after the name, so this would be in the 1939 row as Planet Stories (1955), and Analog would be in the 1930 row as Analog (still in print). Just an idea, then the topic would be the magazines in the box. If you want to see an article with multiple nav boxes, look at Joe Paterno. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, image review to follow Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• All my issues have been addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and the support (and the image review). I'll think about the navbox issue; I'm still worried about having too many navboxes. I hadn't seen Joe Paterno before; that's a pretty startling example. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio; I was unable to carry out spotchecks due to lack of access to sources
• Full bibliographic info for Brackett appears in both Footnotes and References

  My usual footnotes style is to give the article author and name, and a brief form of the containing work, since I only list the containing work in the references. That adds up to an almost complete bibliographic listing. Is there a better format I could use? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  What about "Leigh Brackett, "The Science-fiction Field", p. 27."? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I cut it to just 'Brackett, "The Science-fiction Field", p. 27.". Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Kyle, Carter and Asimov appear in Footnotes but not in References

  Missed those; added. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• be consistent in whether second authors are listed first name or last name first

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• In Footnotes, why "vol." for Ashley but "Vol." for Tuck? Both are capitalized in References

  Should have been "Vol."; fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Westport CN"? Do you mean "CT"?

  Aaargh. That's what I get for living in the US for 20 years and thinking I've learned the state abbreviations. Yes, it's CT; fixed (and I had to go fix it elsewhere too). Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, sources look good, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues mostly addressed, good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are of magazine covers which are no longer covered by copyright (as their copyrights were not renewed), and thus are free to use on Wikipedia. All images are fine, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you add a color key to File:Planet Stories issues grid.png using {{legend}} or {{legend0}}? The color coding in the chart isn't as useful, forcing a casual reader to click the image to get the color coding when a simple line of boxes would do the same. M-102 (Michigan highway)#Racial and economic divide has such a key in the caption for a population map of Detroit as an example of what I mean. Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    Hadn't seen that done before; that's pretty neat. Done; thanks for the pointer. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a couple of quibbles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• "emphasized sex" implies that they depicted sex itself - I think you mean "emphasized sexual themes" or "emphasized sexuality"? (this applies in the body where it's discussed also)

  I'm not sure how to fix this cleanly. "Sexual themes", to a modern reader, might imply too much -- LGBT themes, for example, or sadism and fetishism (which Harrison does mention as lurking in the pulp illustrations generally, though he's not talking about Planet at that point). "Sexuality" might be interpreted as sexual orientation. What's really meant here is that the artists depicted sexually attractive women in revealing clothing and erotic poses. In both the lead and the body I tried to follow up "emphasized sex" with a phrase giving more details, but I can't think of a better shorthand way to introduce it than just "sex". If you think "sexuality" is OK, I'll use that; I think the implied overtones there are probably dismissed by the context. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Contents:

• The main issue i have here is the length of this section - it would probably benefit from being broken down into some subsections. Perhaps something by decades? Or by "Bradbury/Brackett" "Bixby's editorship" "themes" and "artwork"?

  The problem here is layout -- I don't want to chop up the section in such a way that the images bump into section headings. I think your breakdown is accurate but four subheadings seems too much for that material; breaking into three or two sections could work but there's no organizational basis for it that I can see. I had some trouble with the sequencing of paragraphs here: the last three all mention artwork, for example, but are not exclusively about art -- the sources intertwine commentary about art with remarks on other aspects of the magazine's history, so I did the same. The result is a sequence of material that I think reads OK, but is hard to split up. So I'm not sure how to do this one well, either. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

General issue:

• Planet Stories or Planet? you use both to refer to the magazine... suggest standardizing.

  This is standard in the secondary sources -- it's for variety, really; one can't always be saying Astounding Stories of Super-Science, for example, so a shortened form gets used. I've changed this per you suggestion -- see whether you think that looks OK. My preference is for the variety, but see what you think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • None of the above is enough to keep the article back, they are just concerns that I felt as I read it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

    OK -- I'll think about both the points and see if I can find a way to change them, but won't treat them as critical. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    I read through again and I think it's too monotonous with Planet Stories throughout, so I changed it back. If someone else comments I will look at it again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments all minor, but...

• Coming at this biased from WP:FL, but any reason why that slightly nasty Excel spreadsheet (which isn't interactive, isn't accessible" etc) is used in preference to a list? I'll knock one up for you if you like?

  I've no objection to a table if we can make it behave like an image -- I haven't found a way to avoid it taking over the width of the page. Take a look at the titles table in Galaxy Science Fiction, which has a similar table; that table I can justify spanning the screen, but these issue lists I'd really like to confine to the same size space I can put an image in. Is there a way to do that? I take your point about accessibility, but I think everything from the image is also in the text, so I don't think it's critical to make it readable to a non-sighted or colour-blind person, since there's no information that they could only get that way. The intention is to add a visual aid for those who are able to take advantage of it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well if you don't want it to take over the width of the page then I guess that's the end of discussion. You could put it in a collapsable box, but if you're not that bothered, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• " probably helped to fund Planet Stories while it was getting established." I get this is going to be referenced later, but this is a little vague for the lead, and I'm not keen on "while it was getting established".

  I tried a tweak, based on the wording I used in the body -- does that help? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• You abbreviate science fiction to sf, but then are inconsistent with its use, i.e. you have a "not primarily a science fiction magazine" after that. It might just be me, but if I abbreviate something, then I use only the abbreviation thereafter.

  I'm sure you're not the only one, but to my ear part of the benefit of abbreviation is variety. Ealdgyth (review just above) suggested I should be consistent and use either Planet Stories or Planet, but not both; I tried it (see the page history for the version) and I think it sounded very monotonous. I add the "sf" abbreviation to avoid having to spell out "science fiction" every time, but I think it's OK to use both. I'm not as definite on this as I was on the magazine title, though, so if you feel strongly I'd be OK with changing it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't feel too strongly, it just seemed odd to abbreviate it (and perhaps odd to abbreviate it to sf rather than S.F. or SF, but hey...) and then be inconsistent with its use. No drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "black and white" would expect this to be hyphenated.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "containing 7 stories reprinted from between " - 7 should be seven.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "were one to one and a half cents " one to one-and-a-half cents.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support my more significant comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

'Quick comment' - I meant to review this, but for some reason thought the review was finished and was surprised to find it still here. I've scanned it and nothing is jumping out at me, but will give it a thorough reading and review this evening. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Support with a few nitpicks:

• "both were monthly, whereas Planet Stories was quarterly" > feels odd without 'published' - i.e 'published monthly' and 'published quarterly' though would add some repetition

  I added "published" to "monthly"; I think the reader can supply it for "quarterly" since it's almost adjacent. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that Ray Bradbury should have full name for first occurrence and then be referred to as Bradbury in subsequent occurrences.

  Done -- I left one "Ray" in the lead and one further down, and changed the others. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Also arguing in support of Planet Stories" - feels a little awkward. I haven't had the sense yet of overt criticism.

  Not quite sure what to do here -- Clute is responding to the suggestion that the magazine was trash, because of the covers; the paragraph starts with a comment about the melodramatic covers. I played around with some rewording to make that clearer in the introduction to that sentence, but anything I say about that point is just repeated by Clute in the quote. Can you see a way around this? I was hoping the point would be apparent to the reader, at least by the end of Clute's quote, but perhaps not. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  I think maybe because I had to stop reading midway through that it jarred me a little - seems okay now.

• Re Bradbury's stories: "His stories for Planet demonstrate his reservations about the advance of technology, in particular "The Golden Apples of the Sun" (November 1953), and "A Sound of Thunder", which appeared in January 1954" > I think the issues should be consistently in parentheses or not

  Done; I had done this one differently because there's an additional clause and footnote about the fact that it's a reprint, but I think that's OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• RE the British reprints, "There were twelve issues known" > should probably be present tense

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• BTW - am not in love with the sentence in the lead mentioned earlier. I'd remove the word sex and write something along the lines of "the artwork featured scantily clad women .... "

  I tried rephrasing this -- see if that works. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Would love to see a nav template for this series at some point.

  I've been thinking about this and I think the best navbox would be "Science fiction pulp magazines"; the "pulp" qualifier would prevent the navbox from becoming unmanageably large. I will put something together over this weekend if I have time. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Don't rush - it was more in the sense of a by-the-way sort of suggestion.

  Well, I've been meaning to get to it, so I went ahead and did it this morning. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  It looks great! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments struck. You're welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 19 March 2011 [23].

---

History of Sesame Street

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way since its first nomination. Since then, it has received an extensive and thorough copyedit/review by User:Mike Christie. I believe that this article is much improved now, especially its prose, and fulfills the criteria even more now. Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Coren's tool found no copyvio; Earwig's tool turned up a whole bunch of sites, but it appears all of them were created after this article, so I'll assume they're the copies. My spotchecks of available sources found no close paraphrasing
• Why are the Cooney notes not listed as in Fisch & Truglio? What about Note 135 (Truglio, et al., p. 74)? Notes 153-4 (Fisch & Bernstein)?

  The refs in this article are very complicated and have been such a pain! Thanks for the catches. Christine 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Full bibliography for Hellman appears in both Notes and References

  You're right! Fixed it. Christine (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In the late 1960s, 97% of all American households owned a television set" - source?

  Dealt with by combining the sentence with the previous one. Christine (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format

  Fixed.Christine (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• ""Mississippi Agencies Votes for a TV Ban on Sesame Street". New York Times. 1970-05-03." and "Fitzgerald, Judith (2009-03-01). "Count This: 40 Years of 'Sesame'". Philadelphia Inquirer." - page(s)?

  Both articles are pay-walled, so the page numbers aren't available. Christine (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated

  I think I caught the one time--NC in the Bibliography section, right? Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Format should be similar for complete bibliographic entries in Notes and References - check for consistency

  Consistent. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• New York Times or The New York Times?

  "The"--fixed. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "television critic Tim Goodman called "deconstructing"" - your source has Sherman saying they "deconstructed the show", but Goodman never says "deconstructing". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, you're right--I changed the phrasing to better reflect the sources, thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'm very impressed with the work Christine has done since this was last at FAC; it's now a fine article. I haven't done a source or image review but did spotcheck a couple of the sources for close paraphrasing and found nothing to concern me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments reading through now. I'll jot queries below: Really, only some minor style issues prose-wise, and no deal-breakers as such. I have seen this article develop over the past several months on and off. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Is it "the" CTW, or just CTW? Both are mentioned throughout the article.

  Thanks, we had missed a few of those in a previous sweep. The only times that its' not "the CTW" is when it's in a quote or in a phrase like, "CTW founder Joan Ganz Cooney..."--I hope. ;) Christine (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under the first two paragraphs of the development subsection, I replaced "they" and "their" with CTW and CTW's because I wasn't sure to whom those pronouns referred. If you meant something else, please change those.

  That's fine. Christine (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you provide context for the $28,000 per episode figure? Was it a lot of money, a little, or about average?

  I added the phrase "impressive" because that's what the source calls it. If that's not enough, I can add some context and/or explanation. Christine (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• That'll work. I'm always wary when folks throw in a money figure in a historical context without explanation, since the value of the dollar has changed so much over time, and I don't have a frame of reference to compare it. "Impressive" answers that question. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could you expand upon the epilepsy complaint, as to who said it and when?

  User:Mike Christie and I had some discussion over this. The source doesn't state where it got it from, and I've never been able to find additional sources that support it. Personally, I think that the reporter was reporting an urban myth as fact. Mike and I decided to keep it in until someone else challenged it, so since you have, I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't add all that much, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "summative evaluations" in the 1970s section is a bit jargony ... can you rephrase that?

  Okay, sure. Replaced it with "studies." It probably better fits in Sesame Street research, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the 2000s section, you state "as of 2009" or something to that effect, when talking about the number of Emmy wins. Does this figure need to be updated?

  I added the five they won in 2010 in a note because no sources state the new number. Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've given the article a quick copy edit, mostly removing unnecessary "that"s because not much else needed changing, but please look at my changes to see if there's anything you disagree with.

  Thanks for the input. Tee hee, this is pretty funny--I have 5 FAs thus far; I was corrected in my very first one (The Wiggles) about using the world "that" too much. I guess that I like that word! ;) Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. These comments aside, this is a fantastically well-written and well-researched article that is extremely readable and a joy to learn about. Everyone involved should be congratulated for their work, and I strongly support its inclusion as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, you're too kind. I didn't create this article, but I basically re-wrote it. It's been very fun and truly joyful learning about and becoming an expert on The Show. I was surprised at the sheer volumes that have been written about it, but the research has been great fun. I agree; the history is utterly fascinating. To that end, I highly recommend Michael Davis' excellent book, Street Gang (book), which was invaluable in expanding this article. It also got my kids an autographed picture of Kevin Clash and Elmo! Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion! I'll be sure to request that from the library. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Images, have the concerns raised in the earlier FAC been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hi, Sandy. Kinda-sorta. ;) What I mean is I sent an email to CTW requesting that they release some of their images to Wikimedia, but haven't received an answer yet. (I'm not holding my breath.) There were images that previous reviewers had problems with, and they've all been removed. I'm not aware of any issues with the images that are left. My personal opinion is that we're right on the edge of the images being acceptable, at least to me. I'd rather have no images than substandard ones. My idea to remove all images was never addressed, so I assume that the current images are all acceptable. If you or any other reviewer disagrees, I'm willing to do something about it, like go through with my "radical" idea that this article have no images (no one has told me if that's even acceptable for an FA) and decorate it with quoteboxes. I respect your experience, Sandy, so I'll follow whatever suggestions you have. Christine (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  Christine, if I remember right, I've had FACs approved without any images. I don't know if standards changed in the time I was gone, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Can you give examples of image-less FAs? I think a solution is to keep only the FU images and remove the screenshots. Then I'll use quoteboxes to further "decorate" the article. What do folks think about that? Christine (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Sure. 2000 Sugar Bowl and 2006 Gator Bowl lacked pictures when they went through the FAC process; they've since had a few added after the fact. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oh good, thanks. Finally someone has answered my question! ;) This is what I did: I removed all the questionable images. (What does everyone think of the Gordon, Susan, and Oscar image? Should that go, too?) Then I added a few quoteboxes to liven it up a bit. I must say, I always learn something valuable from the FAC process, even if it can be a royal pain sometimes. This time, I learned how to deal with images more effectively. Thanks to all. Christine (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I would say yes to removing that image for the reasons below. Jappalang (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image review Fair use concern:
  • File:Sesame Street Hal Miller as Gordon with Susan and Oscar.jpg

    Purpose: "To show the characters Gordon Robinson and Susan Robinson, who can only be depicted in images from the show."

    Caption: "Hal Miller, who played Gordon from 1971–1973, and Loretta Long (Susan), with Oscar the Grouch (Carroll Spinney). The producers, early in Sesame Street's history, decided to eschew the advice of experts and allow Muppets and humans to interact."

    Text (closest match): "The producers reshot the Street segments; Henson and his coworkers created Muppets that could interact with the human actors, specifically Oscar the Grouch and Big Bird, who became two of the show's most enduring characters. These test episodes were directly responsible for what Gladwell called "the essence of Sesame Street—the artful blend of fluffy monsters and earnest adults"."

    Unfortunately, the current purpose is decoration; in an article about Gordan and Susan, the image might justify its use as the lead identification (and sole) image. In an article about the show that speaks little about their appearance (as illustrated in the photograph) or about the scene portrayed in the picture, it is illustrative. Interaction between the puppets—acting out as if natural or such—could deserve imagery, but this publicity photograph does not show it and very likely such scene is best shown with motion (and even then, technology has advanced to such a degree that one would easily see how they interact). This sole copyrighted image in the current article is the only outstanding image issue; all other images are appropriately licensed for free use. Jappalang (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    Ok, I have removed the offending image. (Oscar would love hearing me describe it that way; he'd say, "No, leave it in! Leave it in!") ;) Christine (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    Nah, that grouch would have cried "Give it to me... heh, heh, heh, ... now scram!!!" and slammed his can (at least that is how I remembered his character was like... wonder if they have changed him now to be more "correct" like they did to Cookie Monster's diet...). Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

    You're probably right. And I can tell you that Oscar has not mellowed in Carroll Spinney's old age, and here's proof: [24] And let me put you straight: Cookie Monster's diet DID not change! They were just doing a unit on healthy eating, and used Cookie as an example of eating in moderation. He still eats cookies, so don't worry yourself over that! ;) Christine (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Am I missing anything, folks? Is there something else that needs to happen here? Christine (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  I can't speak for the delegates, but three supports, while usually enough for promotion, is not overwhelming support, and I suspect that it was not promoted last pass so that there would be an opportunity for further reviewers to take a look at the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure about the bold, italicised, link to Sesame Street. As it's not a verbatim copy of the title, it would be just as well to leave it italicised and linked, but not in bold.

  Ok. Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could link "shorts" as that means a variety of things to different people.

  Ok, linked it to Short film. Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Does the lead make it clear that the program is still being made, broadcast, and re-broadcast?

  It does now: changed the 1st sentence phrasing to "...has aired on public broadcasting television stations since its premiere on November 10, 1969." Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm guessing from the final sentence in the lead "in its 40-year history" that it isn't still current (otherwise it'd be 42 years, right?)

  The annoying thing about changing it to "42-year" is that someone has to go in and change it each season. That's what I hate about listing the number of episodes, because to be accurate, someone has to do it each time a new episode airs. That just seems silly to me. I also thought about replacing it with "long", but that's a matter of perspective. So I went with being ambiguous and removed "40-year". Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Problem with that was that I picked up the fact it's been 42 years, not 40 years...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... great societal changes occurring in the United States during this era, the time was ripe for ..." perhaps this is directly cited, but it does have a feeling of sensationalism about it.

  It is cited. In a previous version, it was a direct quote, with "As Morrow stated,..." I was told that I was quoting too much, and that I was attributing too much. Should we go back to the direct quote? Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not unless there's a consensus to do so. If there's no clear-cut way forward, just go with what you have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• techno-geek query... "-Michael..." (in the quote box), shouldn't that be a spaced en-dash?

  Sure.

• Same quote - "Street [3]" should be no space between the t and the ref.

  Got it. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• When you link Muppets (e.g. the Henson caption), it's probably best to use "The Muppets" as the whole link, since that's its proper name.

  Actually, I don't think that's correct. I think that it's "the Muppets", and in those cases, you wouldn't put "the" in the link, right? Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well I suppose it depends on the context you're referring to them. All links I've found (including our own) have "The Muppets" but I suppose if you're just generally chatting around "this Muppet" and "that Muppet" then "the Muppets" would count equally accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, I was referring to the famous "The Beatles" controversy in WP. I don't even think there's a standard within the Henson Company or the SW. One of my FAs, The Wiggles always refers to the guys with the "the" in front, because that's how they do it. Does it really matter in this situation? Personally, I don't think so. Christine (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• After ref 62, you have a "Sesame Street" but not in italics. I take it that's deliberate?

  Um, to be honest, I couldn't really tell ya. So I put it in italics anyway. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• His research was so crucial to Sesame Street that Gladwell asserted, "...without Ed Palmer, the show would have never lasted through the first season"."[75][note 12] - is there a spare quotation mark here?

  Yikes, you're right--got it. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Second quote box is formatted slightly differently from the first one, I would urge internal consistency.

  Quote boxes are now consistent, and prettier, too. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the New York Times" it's "The New York Times", officially that is.

  Grr, thought we had caught it in previous run-throughs. Now fixed, I hope. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Gladys the Cow redirects to a page, Forgetful Jones, the same page, but to a sub-section of it. Worth doing the same for the Cow.

  To be honest, I'm not sure how that's done. It doesn't show up in the source. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• " on the Top-40 charts" I think you'll need to be specific about which Top 40 charts you're referencing here.

  Added "Billboard".

• "plus a $6 million surplus" minor point for me, I'd prefer "plus a $6 million surplus"

  Huh?

• Carroll Spinney - our article has her first name as Caroll.

  Silly typo. And Spinney is male; he says that it's like being "A boy Named Sue". ;) Christine (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In the mid '80s," I thought we usually were more highbrow, like "In the mid-1980s" or worst case "In the mid-80s".

  Changed to "1980s".

• "after 40–45 minutes" in prose, why not "after 40 to 45 minutes"?

  Changed.

• "when 5 million" -> "when five million"

  Done.

• Kofi Anan should be Kofi Annan.

  Another silly typo. Christine (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing in the 2000s section to say if it's still a current program in 2011.

  Ok, added a line about the Season 41 premiere.

• Note 9 - $15 million–17 million perhaps "$15–$17 million perhaps"?

  Done.

• Ref 14 - The New York Times.

  Caught it above.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, very picky, but much needed. Christine (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought picky was what FAC was all about! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:10, 19 March 2011 [25].

---

Flow (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A year ago I successfully brought Flower through FAC... so I thought that I would try to do it again, but with two less letters. Flow is, like its spiritual successor, an indie video game, originally played millions of times as a free flash game and then successfully used to launch thatgamecompany to prominence on the PS3. As an artistic indie game it didn't get as much attention as the big-budget games, but I've pulled together everything that I could find. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by JimmyBlackwing, so I think it's ready for the spotlight. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• As PresN said, I copyedited the article; the blame's on me if any criterion 1a issues arise. I'll address such concerns as quickly as possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Driveby comment - I may complete a fuller review later, but for now I have a quick question. The article's direct quotes and many of its reference titles use the "flOw" stylization, but the article's prose mostly uses "Flow". Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Trademarks - "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." --PresN 09:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's tool found only mirrors, a few quick spotchecks found no concerning close paraphrasing
• Ref 9: source gives author as Ross Miller, not Glen Miller
• This returns a 404 error

Otherwise, sources look okay, links check out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Argh, that link worked literally yesterday; their internal search still points to it. Added an archiveurl. That Glen Miller thing is funny, though. --PresN 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Found where they moved the article to. Left in the archiveurl, though. --PresN 22:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Reviewed the images; both non-frees have appropriate detailed rationales for their use (the only nit, but not failing, is that the title icon points to the redirect page, but that's acceptable). Rest of article reads well and appears to be very comprehensive about the game's development and reception. Support. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect link fixed. Thanks for the review! --PresN 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H3llkn0wz

Resolved comments from —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

|content=*Infobox: "Life Simulation" -- "S" should not be capitalized.

• Done.--PresN

• Infobox image caption: "PlayStation Store icon" -- surely, this is game icon in the store, not the store icon; minor nitpick.

• Done.--PresN

• Lead: You should probably link to "indie video game" or at least "indie video game"

• Done, that article didn't exist when I wrote this.--PresN

• Lead: "master's thesis" -- "M" should be capitalized, also you can link it wholly to Master's thesis to redirect to thesis in case an article pops up one day.

• Linked, but "master's degree" isn't capitalized- "Master of Arts" is. See master's degree.--PresN

• Oh, right, this is US! I'm used to Master's degree in Europe. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

• Lead: "Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's theoretical concept of flow." -- is there a concise way of describing "flow" (like "mental flow", "mental immersion or flow" or something) to give the indication what it refers to without having the reader follow the link?

• Changed to "mental immersion or flow".--PresN

• Note on Gameplay -- I have not played this, so I am reading this without knowing what the game is about.
• Gameplay: "In Flow,.." perhaps mention that this is the original Flash version. Otherwise upon start of "PlayStation versions" this got a little bit confusing. It also says "In the Flash version" about orange cells; so this is a bit confusing too. I assume the whole Gameplay lead is applicable to the Flash version. Then "PlayStation versions" should list the differences.

• Any sentence/section that does not specifically call out a version applies to both. I missed one right at the beginning, which I think was the source of your confusion.--PresN

• Gameplay: "In Flow, the player guides a small, multi-segmented creature through an aquatic environment, and causes that creature to eat other organisms,.." -- perhaps there is a better wording than "causes", for example "In Flow, the player guides a small, multi-segmented creature through an aquatic environment, making it eat other organisms,.." I may be wrong, I've no idea how it works.

• "Causes" is right- the creature automatically eats if there's something directly in front of its mouth (1st sentence, 2nd paragraph.) The player is "causing" it to happen, not "making" the creature eat- there's no direct control there.--PresN

• Since I was reading this sequentially, I got a little confused. Taking into account later comment, I would write it as "In Flow, the player guides a small, multi-segmented creature through an aquatic environment. As the creature moves about, it eats other organisms, grows larger and eventually dives deeper into the sea." I know it's wordier, but at least it gets the point across. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

• I'm not sure that's an improvement. I'll see if I can come up with something clearer than "causes", though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, whatever works. I'm just trying to look at this from general reader's perspective. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: "The game world is divided into bright, two-dimensional planes stacked vertically upon each other" -- this is the first and last mention of planes being "bright". From context, I have no idea what this means; the screenshot isn't particularly bright either. perhaps this warrants a better explanation (or can be omitted)?

• Changed to "colored".--PresN

• Do you mean "distinctly-colored" between layers? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

• I axed the offending word; it just struck me as unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: You could link gaming term game world autoredirected to fictional universe.

• That is a very unlikely article to ever get split out, in my opinion, and I don't see how fictional universe is useful to the reader in this case.--PresN

• Fair enough. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: "a blurred version of the level below appears in the background of each plane" -- I think "level" should be called "plane" for consistency or "layer" if you want to use a synonym, otherwise it's ambiguous with "level (video gaming)" (unless that's what's meant, in which case, it should be linked).

• Hmm, see what you mean. Changed to layer.--PresN

• Gameplay: "when eaten, release edible cells that increase the number of segments in the player's creature" -- This makes it sound like cells are released after you consume/eat another creature? But from further context/description it seems creatures drop cells upon death that may or may not be eaten by the player.
  • When you eat a creature, it releases cells that you can then also eat.JimmyBlackwing (talk)

• Hmm, changed. The non-confrontation ones just restore health, they don't drop cells. Only confrontational ones do that. --PresN

• Gameplay: "contain two colored organisms that move the player's creature up or down one plane" - "two-colored" via hyphen. Also, move how up or down? By finding them? Just by touching them? By eating them?
  • Actually, there are two organisms, not numerous two-colored organisms. I'll clarify the wording shortly.JimmyBlackwing (talk)

• No, 2 colored ones. One goes up, one goes down. I put in "touching them"; technically the creature does the eating motion but the creatures don't get devoured. --PresN

• Gameplay: Having read the this sequentially, some things make better sense only after reading later sentences. Perhaps this should be structured a bit better. For example, give an introductory sentence that explains that the world contains hostile and non-hostile creatures, all of them can be killed (eaten? I'm still not sure how this works) for cells, and these cells either heal or evolve (the ref #4 says that).
  • I'll take a stab at this later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Gameplay: There is no mention of top-down perspective.

• Added--PresN

• Gameplay: Basic controls are not explained (I assume: propel, turn, attack, special ability, change plane?). Though this may not need more than a very brief mention.

Nope, the creature just follows the cursor in the Flash version, and follows the six-axis controller in the PS3 version. Hitting any button causes it to do the special move. It should be a bit clearer after the above changes that eating/attacking/changing planes is automatic; you just guide the creature around. Added in the button thing.--PresN

I'll add a bit about this when I rearrange the section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: "one that has short bursts of speed" -- "has"? I believe the creature "can gain short burst of speed" or similar. This "makes sense" from gamer's perspective but reads weird from general reader's pov.

• Hmm, reworded.--PresN

• Is art game or video game art applicable for linking anywhere? Does "several considered it to be more of an art piece than a game" contain any refs that say this is an art-driven game?

• Linked in the lead, good call. As to the second... umm, that sentence is immediately followed by four cited quotes calling it just that.--PresN

• Oh, I only looked at lead for now. The second sentence about refs was implying that more mention might be given to the art-related design decisions of the game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

• I will hopefully read the rest later. Sorry for nitpicking, but FA is FA. In any case, nice work on indie games articles! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll hit the prose-related issues in the next hour or two. I left a few notes of explanation above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Argh, massive edit conflict. Replied inline. --PresN 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I added a couple more replies. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll check out other sections tomorrow. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I rearranged Gameplay in an attempt to make it easier to understand. I hope it addresses your concern. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would MOS:TM not apply to "thatgamecompany" as well? As in -- write it as "Thatgamecompany" without stylized "t".
• Lead: So does Master's thesis need capitalization? If this is a US degree, then I think it does not?
• Lead: "consuming other organisms and evolving in the process." -- serial comma before "and" for consistency with use later one.
• Gameplay picture: "showing the player's creature—a multi-segmented worm" -- "worm" strictly speaking contradicts "snake- or worm-like".
• Gameplay: First use of "Flash: is not linked (as opposed to PS3/PSP)
• Gameplay: "In the Flash version, an aggressive organism on the bottom plane releases an orange cell after being defeated; when the player's creature eats the cell, an egg floats to the highest plane and the player starts over controlling a jellyfish-like organism. When the player reaches the bottom again, the creature there is their original worm organism, and defeating it starts the game over as a worm." Can this be trimmed to "In the Flash version, the player can replay the game with a jellyfish-like organism by defeating an aggressive creature on the bottom plane. When the player reaches the bottom again, the creature there is their original organism, and defeating it starts the game over as the worm-like organism."? I think (from context) that "orange cell" and "egg floats to first plane" is trivia. Also "worm-like" per above about picture title.
• Development: "master's thesis" -- same as lead
• Development: "It's the simplest test of active DDA". " -- period should be before quote
• Development: "Flow convinced Sony to provide thatgamecompany with finances" -- Flow cannot "convince". I would say "Impressed by Flow, Sony provided thatgamecompany with.."
• Development: "finances, supplies and additional staff" -- serial comma
• Development: "for the November 2006 launch of the PlayStation Network; when it was finally released in February 2007" -- I would say split this very long sentence in two just before "when". For example, "However, when it was finally.."
• Reception: PlayStation Network first occurrance wikilink.
• Reception: "It received 2008 Game Developers Choice Awards nominations" -> "the 2008 Game Developers Choice Awards nominations"
• Reception: "Its visuals and presentation were among its" - repeating "its" -> "The visuals and presentation were among its"
• Reception: "were among its most highly praised elements" - "most highly" -> "highest"
• Reception: "Reviewers were mixed in their opinions on its gameplay" -- I think "the gameplay" is a little more straight-forward, since we all know what gameplay this is talking about, and "its" so often sounds a bit misplaced.
• Reception: "felt that "anything more complicated would take away from the friendly nature of an experience of this type". " -- period before quote.
• Reception: "Roper stated that "there really isn't any sort of a challenge here", " -- not sure about this one; the sentence in ref ends with that but, this isn't the whole sentence.
• Reception: "Calvart saying that "whatever it is[,] it's not good"." -- obvious punctuation error correction can be made in quoted text without sic notes.
• Reception: "more akin to an art piece than a game" -- art game link as first occurrance.
• Reception: You should probably include Videogamer.com review
• Reception: Situational review at Joystiq, author seems credible
• Refs: "BAFTA - Games Nominations 2007" -- since that's not the actual page title, you may as well put ndash there.
• Refs: "Sumilkumar, Nikita" -- it's "Sunilkumar

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I took a shot at fixing most of the prose-related issues. However, some of the best copyeditors on Wikipedia use periods after quotation marks, so I'd argue that changing them is not necessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am referring to MOS:LQ of leaving the original punctuation inside quotes. In this case, full sentence stop period. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I see. I haven't read the WP Manual of Style in probably 4 years, so I guess I'm a little rusty/out-of-date in that regard. I've applied the changes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Hit all of the points that JimmyBlackwing didn't; everything should now be done except for those two reviews. Looking into them now. --PresN 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Added the VideoGamer.com review, as it's rated as a reliable source by WP:VG/RS as it "Provides content for Virgin Media.[9] Full-time staff includes industry veterans.[10][11]" (Didn't know that!) Did not add the Joystiq review- though he does seem credible, and I'd like to use the review, Joystiq is a situational source and I can't find any proof that Andrew Yoon has ever written for anything besides Joystiq or worked in the industry in another way. --PresN 22:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, I never actually checked what web-sites are prominent/excluded from FAs besides the VG/RS list. I know Joystiq is situational, but it just "seems" solid. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: Since "cell" links to cell (biology) should a note be made that this is "..composed of virtual cells that.." or some other word that clearly indicates this is not an actual cell/cell simulation?

• Eh, I think it's obvious that we're not talking a full cell simulation in this case, as it's a video game with a lot of gaming abstractions. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: Can "add-on pack" be linked to expansion pack; it's on the technical side of VG terms

• Done. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: "features a multiplayer mode for up to four players" -- first occurance wikilink multiplayer mode as a VG term

• Done. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: May be link vortex? It's not in the top10k English words. I'm not sure on this; same argument could extend to paralysis and jellyfish.

• Eh, I feel like it's still common enough. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gameplay: "When the player reaches the bottom plane with each creature, the next creature type is unlocked; unlocked organisms become selectable at the beginning of the game." --> "When the player reaches the bottom plane with each creature, the next creature type is unlocked and becomes selectable at the beginning of the game." trim a little redundancy and semicolon.

• Done. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Refs: "BAFTA — Games Nominations 2007" should either be "BAFTA—Games Nominations 2007" or "BAFTA – Games Nominations 2007" -- mdashes aren't spaced.

• Done. --PresN 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)}}

• Support. Seems good to me. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe instead of a single link for "master's thesis" you could link master's to master's degree and thesis to, well, thesis?

• Done. --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Its design is based ..." perhaps better to reiterate the game here, so "The game's design..."

• Done. --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the British Academy of Film and Television Arts." would be tempted to abbreviate this here so British readers get it's BAFTA.

Done, good call. Made it British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA). --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A PlayStation 3 version was announced for " already abbreviated to PS3 so use it.

• Done. --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressed, thanks! --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. However, if you could find sources on its free release it had for a period of time on the PlayStation 3 (which I can personally verify as I obtained it through it), that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a source, but I don't think it's notable- Feb 13, 2010, three years after release, Sony made it free for one day as a promotional thing. Not a big deal, in my opinion. --PresN 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. Oh well. Good job on the article! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.

• The description at File:Psn flow icon.png should be more detailed.
• Alt text would be good for the images.
• I would remove the defined sizes for the images and use the "upright" parameter for File:Jenova Chen - 2007.jpg.
• Can you provide a rationale for ref 9 from Joystiq?

The articles looks good otherwise. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Just quickly noting that alt text, while nice to have, is not currently an FA requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, done done, and as to ref 9 it's an interview with Chen by Ross Miller, who is currently one of the editors at Engadget ([26]), so I'm relying on him as an SPS, not on Joystiq as an RS itself. --PresN 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: Everything looks good and I think the article meets the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

• LeaningSupport I'll run my own grammar/flow check later, but some minor things:
  • File:Psn flow icon.png - if it's on multiple platforms, couldn't just the flOw text be used as a smaller use of non-free content (assuming that the PSP and PS3 versions are different covered, and/or that the Flash game had that text)?
  • File:Flow game screenshot.jpg - I'm not convinced you need such a large image to convey the 2D aspect and minimalist style—you could drop it to <.1 megapixels at a resolution of 400 x 228 pixels without impinging visibility of the small dots. Also, uploading as a PNG will clean up the scaling artifacts when the image is thumbed, which might be a good choice for this type of content.
  • It may or may not be worth mentioning the game was a finalist at the Slamdance Guerrilla Games Competition until withdrawn.
  • Given the finicky nature of game refs even on reputable sites, I'd strongly recommend going through and adding WebCite/Archive.org archive links to the {{cite web}} parameters to ward off WP:LINKROT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image issues taken care of, as well as the Slamdance issue. --PresN 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• And have archived everything. --PresN 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• All right, I think it meets all the criteria. I notice that you preserve the stylized title in the reception section when it's in quotes; you'd have to check the MoS on whether you're supposed to, but for clarity you prolly can get away with reformatting them to Flow as a minor typographic change. An excellent article I enjoyed reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:36, 19 March 2011 [27].

---

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

J. Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist best known for the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process, and the prediction of quantum tunneling, neutron stars and black holes. Worked on the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear weapons. Former featured article (2005-2007) now restored to its former glory with more text and lots more references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FFA, has been on mainpage SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can never again be on the front page. It won't be restored to that much glory! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I need this reminder on FFAs so that if they are promoted, the mainpage bolding is done at WP:FA, and the correct accounting is done at WP:FFA ... if reviewers note an FFA at FAC, they could add this red note to help out the delegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean articles like Speed of Light should be removed from the page once they are promoted again? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I see DaBomb87 just fixed that one at WP:FFA; doing my homework now to see how it was missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, that was missed, now fixed: [28] [29] Have to remind reviewers and others to watch for these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Boulton

Sources comments

• Refs 16, 35, 82 should, for consistency, be formatted "Smith & Weiner 1980"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 38 (JSTOR link) needs (subscription required)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 61: Capitalization error (May)
  • Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 69: a stray "&"
  • Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 73: Dead link
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 119: I'm not sure about the caps. The purpose of the citation is to identify, rather than replicate, the source.
  • De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Refs 121 and 123: "AEC hearing transcript" requires further definition (date, who published it etc)
  • Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 128: Likewise, a date, and the source of the testimony, should be given
  • Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 145: I see no confirmation in the source for the statement that "The northern portion of the beach is colloquially known to this day as "Oppenheimer Beach"." There is also the question of what makes this anonymously written source reliable.
  • Removed text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 148: Formalize ("intro" → "Inroduction")
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Refs 153 and 154: these NYT articles require fee or subscription
  • Added (subscription required). Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Refs 157 and 159 lack publisher
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• No citations to Hager (1995), McMillan (2005). These should be listed as Further reading
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Only limited spotchecking carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Since the article was demoted after a FAR I would like to state what has been done to redress the issues raised. The main issues was the references or lack thereof. These have been tidied up. Templates have been used for all references. Page numbers have been added to all the book references. New references have been found and added. New sources have been located and existing ones verified. In the process, I rewrote some sections of the article. I felt that the there was too much about Oppenheimer's private life and political beliefs and not enough about his career as a physicist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As I also remark at the recent GAN. The article is very long. According to User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js the raw prose size of this article is 57kB or 9176 words, that is much longer as the ~30kB/6000 words recommended per WP:LENGTH. Of course, some times it is defendable that an article is longer than the suggested norm. However, in this cases, I think the article could be shorter without loss of relevant content. The text contains many spurious remarks, detailing facts that are of little or no relevance to the subject as a whole. For example, it doesn't seem that relevant that Oppenheimer took English and French lit. as an undergraduate, since this is hardly remarkable for an American undergrad. Similarly, it doesn't seem to be very relevant that Herbert W. Smith was a former English teacher. (In fact, I doubt that the reader needs to know about his existence at all, i.e. the relevant sentence could simply read: "To recover he (i.e. Oppenheimer) to New Mexico, where he fell in love with horseback riding and the Southwest United States.") TR 11:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  In other countries, science majors do not have to take humanities subjects, so this fact needs to be stated (and is in the previous sentence). Some earlier editors (and at least one biographer) mistook this for a sign of genius. However his skill with languages and interest in philosophy becomes relevant later on. I've cut out the English teacher as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Oppenheimer's interest in English and French literature is already mentioned at the start of the previous paragraph, so that point has already been made. The fact, that North American undergrads are required to take classes outside of their major, is pretty well known outside of the US, moreover since this is common in the US it doesn't say anything remarkable about Oppenheimer that he took those classes. Specifically mentioning them (while neglecting to mention what optional physics courses he took) however suggests to the reader that there is something remarkable about this choice.TR 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that it is not well-known. Removed sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As I'm reading now, size has been reduced to: Prose size (text only): 55 kB (8846 words) "readable prose size". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Comment Anybody else think the article would be better off without the infobox in the lead?—indopug (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not me -- an infobox is pretty standard, and a useful snapshot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think this infobox is well-enough done not to be distracting. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: image review

Images

• "Oppenheimer's intelligence and charisma attracted students from across the country to Berkeley to study theoretical physics" - neutrality? source?
  • Can source to Bird or Cassidy, but snipped intelligence and charisma to adopt a more "neutral" tone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Oppenheimer_Los_Alamos_mugshot.jpg - check licensing tag. Surely the tags from File:Oppenheimer_Los_Alamos_portrait.jpg would be more accurate?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Los_Alamos_colloquium.jpg - source link returns an error
  • Found again, added another link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_001.jpg - source link is dead
  • Works for me. Please re-check. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Einstein_oppenheimer.jpg - source link is dead
  • Have doubts about this one. I think it is from Life magazine. Replaced with another photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Eisenhower_and_Strauss.jpg - source link is dead
  • An unusual case where I uploaded the pic myself. Still there. The archives moved the picture. Updated the "source link". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:Edward_Teller_(1958)-LLNL.jpg - source link is dead. Note also that the image has been superseded.
  • Switched to new one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review 2.0 - I was asked on my talkpage to complete another image review for this article

• Citation for "E" Award and for the white overshoes?
  • Added ref to caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Photo by Paul Ehrenfest's (1880-1933) designee" (File:Leiden_Kamerlingh-Onnes_Lab.jpg) - so was the photo taken by Ehrenfest or by someone else? If by someone else, is that person (and their date of death) known, to verify the licensing tag?
  • It was taken by someone else, but being his designee, Enhrenfest became the legal author of the work. He died over 70 years ago, so the picture fell into the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Source link for File:Trinity_explosion_(color).jpg seems to be broken
• File:Edward_Teller_(1958)-LLNL-restored.jpg - source site has reorganized, link should be updated.
  • No longer there. added a new ref. LLNL a mess. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

RJHall

• Support—My concerns were eventually addressed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oppose for now.—A good read, but there are a few issues I'd like to see addressed:

  • "...the states of the hydrogen atom must have identical energy states." Please could you clarify this statement? Is it talking about the states representing the spin quantum number?
    • No. Changed to energy levels. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "...which they demonstrated that there was a size limit..." Shouldn't this be a mass limit?
    • Yes! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Rabi considered the appointment..." Who is Rabi?
    • Isidor Rabi. He is mentioned earlier. Changed to "Isidor Rabi". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems odd: "Oppenheimer suggested a site that he knew well..." then "Oppenheimer was impressed and expressed a strong preference for the site." So Oppenheimer was impressed that he had made the suggestion?
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is there no mention of uranium-235 or Little Boy?
    • Not so much of a technological challenge as the implosion device. Added a few words on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Oppenheimer concentrated the development effort on the gun-type device, which now only had to work with uranium-235 in a single group, which completed that later became Little Boy in February 1945." Kind of an ugly sentence. Please could you polish it up a little? Resolved.—RJH (talk)
  • I didn't see any mention of his involvement with the Interim Committee on Atomic Energy that was to decide how the bombs were to be used.[30] This seems important historically, so the lack of inclusion means it appears to fail the comprehensiveness requirement for an FA article.
    • Added a paragraph about the Interim Committee. Brought the Interim Committee article up to B class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Good job. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
  • "Jean committed suicide on 4 January 1944" Why is this relevant? Perhaps the context of the suicide needs to be explained?
    • Their affair ended with her death. Also goes to her depression, which was why he visited, and perhaps why he did not break it off. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I've modified the sentence in an attempt to put it in context.—RJH (talk)
  • "Oppenheimer testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee,..." When?
    • I found the following: "On June 7, 1949, it was Oppenheimer's turn to appear before a closed-door, executive session of the HUAC."—Bird & Sherwin (2005) p. 394–396. Please include.—RJH (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I updated the article.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The last part of this sentence doesn't quite make sense: "This was partly due to lobbying on the basis of the scientific community on behalf of Oppenheimer, as was the Fermi prize." Does it mean the Fermi Prize was due to the lobbying or to the ending Strauss' political career?
    • Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The following opinion seems a little off topic and I think could be removed without hurting the article: "(some research of this sort had occurred during World War I, but it was far smaller in scope)"
    • Agreed. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Did Toni commit suicide because she was refused security clearance? Was this refusal because of her father?
    • That was the reason her clearance was refused (added this) but who knows why anyone tops herself? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • In this case, it turns out she had just ended her marriage three months earlier and was suffering from depression.—RJH (talk)
        • Some words were added to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The reference to "the Super" is a bit obtuse. Was this "the Super Bomb"? Who made the quote?
    • Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps somewhere it should mention Fat Man and Little Boy?
    • I added the link to a "See also" section.

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PresN

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links bu this is redirecting to a listing of all of the bios they offer, rather than the one you meant. --PresN 00:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth

Comments - the following came from a quick reading through of the article. Summary and views afterwards. Please feel free to strike as the points below are dealt with.

• Lead

  The destroyer of worlds quote needs a citation.

  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Unnecessary link to physics in second paragraph.

  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Should "control" be linked to "arms control" when the sentence is about nuclear power? Nuclear proliferation might be a better link if you can rephrase that sentence.

  • The two were linked. Assistance with nuclear power required commitment to non-proliferation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  electron–positron theory would be a better link than electron-positron theory.

  • If there was such an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • My point here is that we should have such an article. The closest we have is Dirac sea. Do a search for "Electron-positron theory" + Dirac, and also have a look at Dirac's Nobel lecture. When we don't have an article on something, it is tempting to link fragments of the phrase, but ultimately that can do a dis-service and sometimes a red-link is what is needed. Maybe ask at WikiProject Physics if they think an article can be written on Dirac's electron–positron theory. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Very well. Switched to the red link. The article has very few red links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I've struck the objection and will try and get someone to write a short stub at least on it. One of the reasons I've held out on this point is that Oppenheimer himself (as you've said in the article in the cite to Pais) thought it was one of his most important scientific contributions. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  should 'second' be capitalised in 'second World War'?

  • Yes, but changed to "World War II" for consistency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Early life

  "immigrated to the United States from Germany" - is this identical to "emigrated from Germany to the United States"? I would write the latter, but if the former is OK, then no problem.

  • Yes, you emigrate from and immigrate to. So it is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Oppenheimer was a versatile scholar" - previous sentence referred to his father - may cause some momentary confusion.

  • Changed previous sentence to "his father" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "threatening a boycott the class" - rephrasing needed

  • Inserted missing word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Oppenheimer obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree" - this may confuse people who are more used to seeing this referred to as a "doctorate" or PhD.

  Added PhD in brackets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Early professional work

• "He was appointed in September 1927, receiving one of 123 postdoctoral fellowships in physics it awarded between 1919 and 1930" - two points here: (a) 'it awarded' -> "awarded by Caltech" (saying 'it' is unclear here). (b) the point of the whole sentence is unclear - are you trying to say that postdoctoral fellowships to Caltech were rare in this period and that Oppenheimer did well to get one? If so, say that. If there is no particular reason to cite the 123 figure, drop the sentence.

  • Trimmed as suggested. "It" referred to the NRC, not Cattech. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  'struck a close friendship' -> 'struck up a close friendship'

  • Never heard of that idiom, but changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  no need to link to 'pacifist'

  Striking this, as I've changed my mind here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The image caption 'Oppenheimer attracted students from across the country to Berkeley to study theoretical physics' is fine, but what relation does it have to the actual picture used? The picture is from 1945/6 and doesn't fit in this section. It looks like it has been moved here to make room for other pictures elsewhere, but what you really need for this section is a picture of him from the 1920s and 1930s with some of his students, which would justify the caption used here. Or indeed any picture from the 1920s or 1930s. If none are available, leave the section without a picture, or look for another one.

  Removed pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  You don't give a date for the work on the Oppenheimer-Phillips process - in general, you should check that you have supplied a year for each major work of his that you describe.

  • Added "in 1935". Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Is the plural of white dwarf star really white dwarves? I would say "white dwarf stars" and avoid the problem.

  • Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I did a search for "white dwarfs" and "white dwarves" and put the former spelling in the article - it seems the more accepted spelling. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll take this point elsewhere, as it relates to more than just this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The paper titles should be in single quote marks, not double quote marks.

  • Uhhh okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not 100% sure on this, but it was what I would do. If there is guidance on this, please follow that instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Interestingly, when the physicist and historian Abraham Pais once asked" - who said this was interesting?

  • Some wiki-editor. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Stock Market Crash of 1929" - should this be capitalised?

  • I don't know... it was like this because the Wikipedia article (and the corresponding one on 2008) has "Crash" capitalised. I assume there was some discussion there. Changed to "Wall Street crash" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sub-header of "Private and political life" doesn't fit under umbrella header of 'Early professional work'.

  • Split off into a new heading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  In the section about his affair with and then marriage to Harrison, you slip into using "Robert". I can see why, as you need to say "Kitty" to distinguish her from her husband, and "Kitty and Oppenheimer" doesn't work, but it is still potentially confusing - is there any way around this?

  • Changed to consistently call him "Oppenheimer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  In the 'Private and political life' bit, you skip ahead a bit too much. It might be clearer if you stick to introducing things that will come up later, without going into too much detail here.

  • This objection can be bundled in with the final comment at the end. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project

  This section is nicely done, though it could be much longer, of course.

• Postwar activities

  Image caption: "J. Robert Oppenheimer with his successor at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Norris Bradbury" - you need to say which one is Oppenheimer.

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Decapitalise 'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki'.

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  'Institute for Advanced Study' sub-header could go one paragraph down, letting the first paragraph be an introduction to the postwar activities section.

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  'physicists tacking the greatest outstanding problem' - typo: tackling

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  You say he left Los Alamos twice, once in the 'Institute for Advanced Study' and once in the 'Atomic Energy Commission'. It was the same departure, but it is not clear that he was at the IAS and the AEC at the same time. i.e. You don't need to repeat that he left Los Alamos, but refer back to where you said it before and then say he also took up a position at the AEC.

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Confusingly, you switch from 1947 back to 1946 within the 'Atomic Energy Commission' section. You should mention his work on the committee and the Baruch Plan first, and then the 1947 GAC appointment.

  • Moved paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  You need to explain what the relevance is of the image in the 'Oppenheimer security hearing' section. I presume it is to show Strauss, one of Oppenheimer's political enemies, but this is not clear. You could rewrite the caption to make this point.

• Final years

  Make clear the country for the Royal Society fellowship bit.

  • Added "in Britain" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Robert Oppenheimer was diagnosed with throat cancer" - drop 'Robert'

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Alexander hall at Princeton University" - capitalise Hall

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Legacy

  Image caption needs to say which is Oppenheimer and which is Groves.

  "in addition to Kipphardt's play" makes no sense at all - you don't mention the play until later in that paragraph.

  • Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  The ending of the article is a bit sudden and weak (this is a personal bugbear of mine). Is there not a way to build to a natural conclusion, finishing with a nice quote, rather than ending on a rather trivial note (a listing of two biographies)? Anyway, that sentence will look outdated in a year or two.

  • Well my personal bugbear is the "In Popular Culture" section, because scientists and generals are not considered notable unless they have depictions in popular culture. So this is what is left of it after I removed the cruft. Moved the paragraphs around in an attempt to end on a better note. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm still not quite happy with it. It's not that vital, but I do like to see some thought given to this. On what note do some of the biographies end? That might help guide things here. In terms of more respectable cruft, nearly every scientist of some note has an asteroid and/or lunar or Martian crater named after them. Oppenheimer has an asteroid and a lunar crater. You may want to mention those in the article: Oppenheimer (crater) and 67085 Oppenheimer. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Added mention of the crater and the asteroid. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  You list some of the books he published, but say nothing about them in the main article. Are none of them worth mentioning at all in the 'final years' section? Who arranged for the posthumous publications?

  • Another editor believed that bio articles should contain listing of book written by the subject. Do you want the section removed? I could have added a list of his scientific papers but thought that it would be too long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I like the section, and I agree that any biography articles should have a listing of the books the subject wrote. I suspect, though, that you may not have all of them, and if you are only going to have some, they should be the major ones with some reason for being there. Any luck finding out who arranged for the posthumous publications? List of scientific papers would be too long, I agree (and the ones you have mentioned in the main text are good enough for now), though if someone else has compiled a list, you could mention that and direct the reader in that direction (do any of the biographies attempt to list his papers?). Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, Hans Bethe lists them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you think it is possible to mention this, kind of like a "further reading" bit? It would fit well under the books section. Some readers will appreciate it, I think, as that will give them a starting point to look in more detail at his scientific work. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I would, if the link was not broken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Is this the broken link? Is it possible to use this link instead? From that page (p.209) to page 118, is all the papers, lectures and essays as listed by Bethe. And on a related point, that broken link is used in what is currently reference 31: "Bethe, Hans (1997). "J. Robert Oppenheimer". United States National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/joppenheimer.html." - as well as the link getting redirected (as PresN pointed out), I think you have the date slightly wrong. What is there is a 1997 reprint of the 1968 article ("Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society Vol. 14, (Nov., 1968), pp. 391-416"). You may want or need to incorporate that into the reference, somehow, so anyone looking at the reference realises it is a 1997 reprint of a 1968 work. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I think I've fixed this now. The changes I made are here. That deals with my objection and also fixes the broken link pointed out by PresN (which shows no signs of working unless someone e-mails them to say it is broken). If you are happy with this change, I'll strike my objection here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overall, I thought the article was good, but it felt a bit unpolished and not fully integrated, Some sections were very good, others less so. The section I thought most needed rewriting was 'Private and political life', which needs to be carefully considered as to how to make it work with the later section on the 'Oppenheimer security hearing'. I'm also not convinced that so much space should be given to the section on the 'The Chevalier incident' - much more could be said about Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project and this subsection might not be the best way of handling this part of the story. I'm not sure how much rewriting you did of the existing article, but possibly you need to be a bit more ruthless, as it is easy to both write too much at times, and also lose focus at various points of the story. Sorry if that's too vague - I'll try and take another look tomorrow and see if I can put things a bit better. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Reduced the Chevalier section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, this is enough to address my concern here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated to strike the points that have been dealt with. Will respond on the remaining points inline. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One additional point: have you asked any members of WikiProject Physics to have a look, especially at the way in which his science is described in this article, to make sure nothing has inadvertently been misrepresented? I am going to have another look through and concentrate on the science aspects of this article, but someone more familiar with the physics involved here may spot things that others have missed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, but as a FAC, it appears on their project main page and in the RSS alerts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to ask there about electron-positron theory anyway, so I will mention the article and see if anyone wants to give the scientific works section a review. Hopefully that will get some more eyes on that part of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • One already removed the reference to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Miscellaneous

  You already use Bethe as a source, but have you looked at Bethe's entry for Oppenheimer in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. I don't have JSTOR access, unfortunately, but those articles sometimes have details not mentioned elsewhere. You could, for instance, cite the date he was elected to the Royal Society to this source. I've also just found a free-access site for BMFRS issues. The Bethe article on Oppenheimer is here.

  • I do have JSTOR access, but not to the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society unfortunately. I downloaded Bethe's entry from the National Library. Thanks for the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The other major source for short but detailed and accurate summaries of the scientific work of a scientist (outside of biographies, some of which skip over the science) is the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Those are also now available online, and I will link here to the Oppenheimer entry, as that should be included in the article. There are two DSB entries I could find, one from 1970 here (by Rudolf Peierls) and an update in 2008 here (by Silvan Schweber). The latter usefully gives a summary and critiques of the biographies published up to 2008 - that will help in deciding whether the Wikipedia article is comprehensive enough. Whether any further biographies have been published since 2008, I don't know, but if it could be confirmed that a check has been done for that, that would be good. One final point, the link to the Berkeley webpage from the latter DSB entry failed, but it is probably worth trying to track it down, and I found it here. Suggest adding that to the external links or a further reading section.

  • Will do. The article was originally started before 2008 but I think you'll find the references are very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, as the category correctly says, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society, not a Fellow.

  The Royal Society archives have pages on their fellows, but I can never work out how to link to them. Oppenheimer's page is here. I hope that link works.

  Following the link at the bottom of the page linked above, takes you here (again, I hope that link works), which is an archive entry for his Proposal for Foreign Membership. The citation is given there as: "Professor J Robert Oppenheimer of Princeton, N.J. distinguished for his contributions to many parts of molecular quantum theory.". However, I was unable to find this reliably given elsewhere.

  You mention this paper (Relativistic Theory of the Photoelectric Effect), but don't cite it like you do for the other papers. Citing it would be consistent, IMO.

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The source you cite as "Carson 2005" appears to be a collection of papers edited by Carson. See here. Or are you referring to a different publication?

  • Corrected this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You missed one reference that still says Carson alone. I'm not going to correct that because you need to cite the authors of the chapters within the book, not the editors of the book. While checking this, I also found the following things that need correcting in the references: (1) The following links from the refs down to the bibliography are broken: Haynes 2009, Smith & Weiner 1980, Hewlett & Duncan 1969, Stern 1969, and the capitalisation in 'hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 581–584' (currently reference 117) breaks it. (2) The Herken 2002 source seems to be cited both to a published version and to online unpublished bits - can you clarify things here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed these refs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Herken put some material up on the web. The Herken (2002) refs refer to the book; The Web references (72-74) are cited inline. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  Additional suggestion, both for the article (the legacy section) and the external links, is the fact that there was a centennial conference and exhibit at Berkeley, and a link to it here.

  I've been checking the categories, and I see that the Oppenheimer article is included in Category:Presidential Medal for Merit recipients, but this does not appear to be mentioned in the article. The article is in Category:Deaths from esophageal cancer, but again this is not specified in the article (if it was related to his smoking, I would have thought the cancer would have been higher up, in the larynx or pharynx - but regardless of that, the category is being more specific than the article, which is not good). Indeed, in the article, the term 'throat cancer' is a piped link to Head and neck cancer. If it is possible to be specific about the cancer, that should be reflected in the article. If it is not, then the category needs to be removed. Finally, I noticed the template at the bottom, listing Oppenheimer as President of the American Physical Society in 1948 - again, this is not mentioned in the article.

  • I'm going to have to add "check the categories" to my FAC checklist Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It doesn't take long and can avoid errors if strange categories creep in unnoticed. Another thing that rarely gets checked (from what I've seen) is 'what links here' (making sure that articles are not wrongly linking to this one - totally outside the scope of FAC, I should say before anyone gets worried). This is partly because the use of navboxes at the bottom of articles (like the APS Presidents one) dilutes the value of 'what links here', but also because some articles have such large 'what links here' lists that it is nearly impossible to maintain them. Here the article links are between 250 and 500, so maybe just about manageable. I scanned the list quickly, and spotted some interesting ones (I'll list some below). Of course, some of these are trivial mentions, others less so, and many should only be one-way links, rather than both-way links, but I find checking 'what links here' a useful exercise, both to round out an article (if sources can confirm things) and to ensure internal consistency within Wikipedia. Back to the FAC, I see you addressed the esophageal cancer category - what about the APS presidency template and the Presidential Medal of Merit bit? Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Given some of the concerns I raised above (and mystified as to the absence of an external links section), I went and read two previous versions of this article, comparing it to the current article. I read the January 2005 version that was promoted to FA in February 2005 and I also read the version that was demoted at FAR in April 2007. My conclusions are that the current (February 2011) version of the article is vastly superior to the version promoted in February 2005, and that the current version is much more tightly referenced than the April 2007 version that was demoted, but that at least two good aspects of the April 2007 version have been lost, namely the external links in the April 2007 version (it is not clear why all of the external links were removed at some point) and the April 2007 version correctly refers to the Centennial conference and proceedings, whereas the current version did not, until I pointed this out earlier today. If it had been a new source being introduced, I could understand that, but how can such information get lost between April 2007 and now? As I said, overall, the article is much improved, but I'd like to review the history of the changes betwen April 2007 and now before I'm ready to support.

  • Mea culpa. I eliminated the external links because it had become a repository of random links. Some of them were moved to (or were already in) the references; some were broken; others were just links that had been collected. I have restored links I think readers would find useful. (The online exhibit link was broken) I don't know where the discussion of the centennial went. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  A number of notes on some awards and a lecture. Regarding the Presidential Medal of Merit, a picture of the presentation is here, and a source is here. That source also mentions that he received the Army-Navy Excellence Award (1945), but I think this was actually awarded to Los Alamos and accepted by him on behalf of those who worked on the project. On Wikiquote there is a quote from the acceptance speech. Wikiquote also quotes from his Arthur D. Little Memorial Lecture, which is reprinted here. I'm not sure which of these warrant mention in the article, but I thought it worth mentioning them here.

  • The Army-Navy Excellence Award was given to organisations that supported the war effort. Over a dozen were presented to firms and universities associated with the Manhattan Project in October 1945. The presentation at Los Alamos was on 16 October 1945. It was officially to the University of California, and was accepted by Robert Gordon Sproul. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I found an account of the presentation that led to that speech here. Whether that is the Army-Navy Excellence Award, I don't know (we also have Army-Navy "E" Award - is that the same thing?). That book (the letters and recollection ones) looks interesting, but there is so much out there on Oppenheimer it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Anyway, I've struck out what I wrote above. I presume the standard you are using on whether to include something is whether or not it is mentioned in one of the main sources you have been using, or mentioned in several sources, and/or mentioned by a single very reliable source. I realise that not everything can be included, and sometimes the decision is more what to leave out than to put in, so what I might start doing is putting some of these suggestions on the article talk page, as they may overwhelm this FAC. If you would like some parts moved, please say so and I will do that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is the same thing as the Army-Navy "E" Award. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Some non-trivial mentions of Oppenheimer in other articles on Wikipedia: Messenger Lectures, William James Lectures, List of Reith Lectures (this may be the most notable of the three lectures), Shelter Island Conference (this seems worth mentioning, if it is mentioned in sources), Take Aim (1974 film) (this is non-trivial because it is a Soviet film), Alan Oppenheimer (third cousin, probably not worth mentioning), American Federation of Teachers (probably not worth mentioning).

  Images (and magazine articles), see here for the 1954 cover (you already mention the 1948 cover). There are also three TIME articles here, here and here. The LIFE magazine (cover and article) is available here. The articles could be linked in the external links - they give a flavour of the popular presentation of him at the time.

  Another suggestion (like the centennial conference and exhibit, this could go in both the 'legacy' section and the 'external links' section) is the J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee. The series of memorial lectures (every year since 1972) has some pretty impressive names on it.

• Writings on General Topics

  I've been checking the list given under "Books", and checking with the list given by Bethe in his 1968 article, and as far as I can tell, only one of the non-posthumous items listed there is a book. It is marked as a book in Bethe's list, and is The Open Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955). The other two non-posthumous items there are actually publications of lectures. Science and the Common Understanding (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954) is the publication of the 1953 Reith Lecture. The Flying Trapeze: Three crises for physicists (London: Oxford University Press, 1964) is the publication of the 1962 Whidden Lecture. The posthumous items listed under books are an edited and annotated collection of letters (I added that item recently), and two other items that I think are collections of his essays. I think the "Books" section needs to be re-done to reflect this, and also to note that Bethe (in his 1968 list) gives 69 scientific papers, and 126 items under 'lectures, speeches, broadcasts and newspaper articles' (if you want a source explicitly giving the number of papers, I can probably find something suitable).

  • Actually, The Open Mind is also a collection of lectures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for looking that up. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  The point I'm trying to make here is that Oppenheimer did a lot of public speaking on science. This is made clear by Bethe when he quotes Pais who says that any one of five elements would have marked Oppenheimer as special - four are currently covered in the Wikipedia article (his physics work, his work with his graduate students, his work at Los Alamos, and his work at Princeton), but the fifth is not covered enough yet: "his efforts to promote a more common understanding of science" - read this page to see what is meant by that. The Wikipedia article currently says:

  "in his speeches and public writings, Oppenheimer continually stressed the difficulty of managing the power of knowledge in a world in which the freedom of science to exchange ideas was more and more hobbled by political concerns. Deprived of political power, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write and work on physics. He toured Europe and Japan, giving talks about the history of science, the role of science in society, and the nature of the universe."

  I think that aspect of things could be unpacked a little bit more in the Wikipedia article, hence my mention of the lectures and so forth, but more than that, what is needed a summary of the public discourse Oppenheimer was engaged in. Bethe devotes a whole section to this under the title Writings on General Topics (and gives a figure of "around 125" for his general writings). Bethe goes so far as to say that "Probably his greatest concern was the relation between modern science and the general culture of our time." That is what is meant by a 'more common understanding of science'. A good starting point would be saying something about what his 1955 book, The Open Mind, was about. That would be a good lead off into this aspect of Oppenheimer.

• Adding various miscellaneous points in here as I come across them in my re-readings of the article. Should be done this weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a bit on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I very much like what you added here. Do you think you could also squeeze in a mention of the Reith Lecture and Whidden Lecture? There are already there sort of (in the list of books), but not linked. Or are you holding off and trying to find a source to give more background here, as you've done for the William James Lectures? What I'm thinking is that the bit on the William James Lectures is an example of his public speaking in the US, but a bit of detail on his speaking in Europe and Japan would be really good, if possible. On the review as a whole, I'm now going to read the DSB entries and compare them closely with this article. As the review is getting a bit confusing now, would it help if I extracted any remaining points that I still consider are needed from the above, and put them in a new section along with any new points from my reading of the DSB entries? Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Noting here that a paper was written in 2009 about Oppenheimer's Reith Lecture. See Radio and reason—the Reith lectures and J Robert Oppenheimer, Mark Brake and Martin Griffiths 2009 Phys. Educ. 44 474. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/44/5/003. The Whidden Lecture was recently republished in 2008 as part of City of the End of Things - Lectures on Civilisations and Empires. And I also came across another annual series of lectures named after Oppenheimer (presumably founded in his memory). It is called the The J. Robert Oppenheimer Lecture (in Physics), and takes place at Berkeley. Two prominent examples are here (2010 by Frank Wilczek) and here (2007, by Stephen Hawking). Unfortunately, I was unable to find out when these lectures started, so that probably scotches that idea. I do think that the Memorial Committee mentioned earlier should be included somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Hopefully final thoughts on these lectures. I looked through the list that Bethe provides, and I noted where the lectures took place. Currently the article says "He toured Europe and Japan". The lectures outside of the USA took place in places like Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Geneva, so possibly "Europe" is compressing things slightly. Personally, I would give a list of the cities (it was Tokyo in Japan), rather than use country-level and continent-level descriptions. I also found the following, which may be more suited to the external links or in a recasting of the "Books" section into "Lectures and Essays" (or 'Lectures and Essay Collections' or 'Published Lectures and Essays' - that would cover everything except the autobiographical book with Rabi and the posthumous collection of letters, which also falls under the umbrella of 'autobiographical'): (A) UNESCO talk on Albert Einstein (published in the NYT Review of Books; (B) An address called 'Sorrow and Renewal' was delivered to the tenth anniversary conference of the Congress for Cultural Freedom in Berlin, and excerpts are given here - apparently it was published in full in the "February issue of Encounter" (have a look at that article for mention of the CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom!); (C) One of his other talks made a fairly sustained impact - it was a talk he gave as part of the bicentennial celebrations at Columbia University. The speech was titled 'Prospects in the Arts and Sciences', and was published in full here (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) and republished here in a book of the world's greatest speeches, and also here (Great English and American essays, 1957), and it is also here (though that site looks a bit extreme). Ferreting around a bit more, it seems it was actually a radio broadcast in 1954 (not 1964 as Bethe says): "Dr. Oppenheimer's talk on 'Prospects in the Arts and Sciences' was delivered over the Columbia Broadcasting System network, December 26, 1954, as the final program of the Columbia University Bicentennial series "Man's Right to Knowledge"." Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Couple more thoughts: (1) Infobox: Stan Frankel, Samuel W. Alderson, and Robert Christy are mentioned in the infobox but not in the main article. This seems wrong, somehow, and in any case, the assertion that they are notable students of his will need to be cited. (2) The 'Books' listing is much improved, but is it not a requirement to either cite to library catalogues or provide ISBNs to allow verification? (3) The death of Oppenheimer's father is mentioned, but not the death of his mother. As he was said to be close to his parents, I would have thought it worth mentioning when his mother died, at least in passing. Do none of the book sources cover this? Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • (1) No reference is required to back up notability, because "notability" is a Wikipedia artifice. People are notable if they pass WP:GNG; therefore they have their own articles.
    • (2) No it is not a requirement; see WP:CITE. However I've have reformatted them to use the cite templates
    • (3) She died on 17 October 1931. I've noted it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • (1) Sorry, I was unclear. I meant references to support the assertion that those three studied with Oppenheimer. And also why some of the other students of his that have articles are not mentioned. i.e. This is a question not of Wikipedia notability (you could put people here that don't have article), but of "infobox notability" (to coin a phrase). I detest vague lists in infoboxes myself, but if there is one here, there needs to be a reason for people to be listed there.
      • (2) Noted, and objection struck.
      • (3) Thanks, objection struck.

        Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Was re-reading the scientific work section, and noticed that the details are given for some of the papers (I provided details for one of them earlier) but not all of them. The one that probably does need direct mentioning is the 1930 one where "Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron". This appears to be "1930. On the theory of electrons and protons. Phys. Rev. 35, 562-563." But note also the later papers on this topic.
    • There is no intention of listing all of his papers. Added this paper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure, but how are you deciding what papers to mention? Which of your sources is guiding you here? BTW, I think you added that paper citation to the wrong paragraph. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is also the students in this section that I was referring to above. Several of them have articles, but are not in the infobox. Several of his students are in the infobox, but not mentioned in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Have dropped a mention of students who are mentioned in the infobox but not in the article. Not all students did notable work; some became notable later, for other reasons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure, I understand that, but which source is guiding you here? I scanned through Bethe's article, and he mentions others as well. There were lots of students that worked with him. How do you decide which to mention and which ones not to mention? Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppenheimer's estate: When his father dies, the article says this: "Oppenheimer immediately wrote out a will leaving his estate to the University of California for graduate scholarships". However, when Oppenheimer dies, the article is silent on whether this actually happened or not, though the disposition of the properties is mentioned after the death of his wife a few years later. Should the article not say what happened here if the subject of (some?) of Oppenheimer's money being used to set up graduate scholarships is mentioned earlier? Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This was before he married and had children. As the article states, his estate was divided between Kitty, Peter and Toni. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but that wasn't clear to me when I read the article. Only the disposition of the property is mentioned, and even then it is only mentioned after Kitty dies, not when Robert dies. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I finally found the time to read through this, and I see two sources mentioned there that are not used in this article: (1) Bernstein, Jeremy. Oppenheimer: Portrait of an Enigma. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004. and (2) Thorpe, Charles. Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. The latter at least (published in 2006) I think needs to be used for this article, as Schweber says "Thorpe’s investigation of Oppenheimer’s activities in the Congress for Cultural Freedom has revealed an important facet of his life in the aftermath of the revocation of his clearance." This isn't in the article at all yet. Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Limited support - noting here my support for what has been done so far, but noting that I'm not entirely convinced that the article is comprehensive yet (suggestions about legacy and general works above, and see also what I say here), nor that the issues around the scientific works section have been fully ironed out yet. I'm still prepared to support though, because many issues raised above have been addressed, and I'm confident that the issues will continue to be worked on. If it is easier, I can summarise my remaining concerns here or on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

• Comments. I've only just glanced at this, but the overlinking jumped out at me. Europe, eighth grade, colitis, horseback riding, chain smoker, names of various towns. Could you go through the article and really pare this back, per WP:OVERLINK? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Butting in, I think most medical terms, including colitis, should be linked, but agree about other such things as you've listed above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have kept the medical terms and the towns but removed references to Europe and countries, except the Soviet Union (which some people do not know about because it no longer exists). Pruned a lot of other links, many duplicates. Kept "eighth grade" as no all countries/schools have it (mine did not). Also decided to keep "chain smoker" as these are rare these days (but removed a duplicate link). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's still a lot of blue. University of California, Berkeley, was linked twice in the lead, though arguably no link is really needed. First section: Jewish, New York City, Manhattan, Germany, Riverside Drive, third grade, fourth grade, eighth grade, undergraduate. It's too much, and it makes the text harder to read. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Question: When you quote Jungk quoting Oppenheimer in the lead, I see that on p. 201 of Jungk, but you say p. 109. That seems like a big difference for just a different edition. Also, he translates it as "shatterer of worlds." I agree that destroyer is the more common translation, but then it seems odd to cite Jungk for it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's on page 183 of my edition, which is a 1965 reprint of the 1958 edition. Some other editor keeps changing "shatterer" to "destroyer". Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Checked the 1958 edition, and it is on p. 201. So changed the ref to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that other editor might be basing his or her opinion on this video clip, which is in the external links. Oppenheimer himself clearly says there "destroyer". I think some explication is needed (it is presumably, just a variability in translation issue), not in the lead but elsewhere in the article, to ensure this aspect of the article remains stable. Also, has this previously been discussed on the article talk page? I would be surprised if it hadn't been, if it has been an ongoing dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good idea. I have added a second note, explaining the historiography of the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• That is an excellent note. I really enjoyed reading that. I haven't struck out my comment above, but that more than addresses any objection anyone could raise, I think. BTW, I left a note on the talk page about another video clip I found. It is from around 1949, and Oppenheimer looks a lot less like someone about to die two years later. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Reading it through, I think it would benefit from some more work to even out the flow. The writing is stilted and awkward in places, and reads more like a list of facts at times than a flowing narrative. For example (my bold):

Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations. He was said to be mesmerizing, hypnotic in private interaction but often frigid in more public settings. His associates fell into two camps: one that saw him as an aloof and impressive genius and an aesthete; another that saw him as a pretentious and insecure poseur.[36] His students almost always fell into the former category, adopting "Oppie's" affectations, including his walk, his speech, his mannerisms and even his inclination for reading entire texts in their original languages.[37] His students included Melba Phillips,[38] Stan Frankel,[39] and Samuel Alderson.[40] Oppenheimer became known as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics and developed a reputation for his erudition in physics, his eclecticism, his quick mind, his interest in languages and Eastern philosophy, and his eloquence and clarity of thought.[41]

The second last sentence is just tacked on, where it should be woven into the previous ones, and the last sentence has nothing to do with affectations, and reads like an afterthought. I offer that only as one example of an issue I see throughout the article.

There's also a huge amount of repetition of his name, as though we don't know who the article's about: "Oppenheimer did important research in theoretical astronomy... Initially, Oppenheimer's major interest was the theory of the continuous spectrum. ... Oppenheimer also made important contributions to the theory of cosmic ray showers ... Oppenheimer worked with his first doctoral student, Melba Phillips ... In 1935, Oppenheimer and Phillips worked out a theory now known as the Oppenheimer-Phillips process to explain the results ... As early as 1930, Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron ..."

It's not always necessary to keep repeating his name to distinguish him from the other names mentioned. I can see a lot of work has gone into it, and I think it's nearly there, but it's not polished, and I think it needs that bit of extra polish to get to FA. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• Support -- Having reviewed fully and copyedited, I'm ready to go on record with the first thumbs-up; structure, sourcing, images, and level of detail appear appropriate; I was particularly impressed with how the Early Professional Work section related achievements by his associates and students to Oppenheimer, without making any of these links seem forced (not always easy, even when it's all valid). Well done all round. Some minor points:
  • Bit surprised nothing from Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb found its way in, though admittedly I can't think offhand of anything that major you haven't covered from elsewhere
    • It's because I am a techno-military historian. When I read Rhodes all I see is references to other books I have. So I tend to go to them instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have slight concerns with possible weasel words in Legacy, the "many" historians and scholars mentioned, and hope that this phrasing might be tightened as you've been able to do in other articles where this has come up
    • Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Lastly, I agree fully with losing an In Popular Culture section but if you're mentioning some of his portrayals in major media then Fat Man and Little Boy (aka Shadow Makers) probably deserves a mention for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If I can find a source... Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi

• Ooops, a problem: You have two instances of "cassidy 2005" in your references; should be Cassidy 2005a and Cassidy 2005b. You have 36 cites to Cassidy 2005. Have fun... uh oh, same problem with Herken, Gregg (2002)... You only need to check all cites that are between pages 13–19 inclusive, since the second cassidy 2005 is only on those pages...
  • Done. There was another ref on the same line as the only ref to Cassidy's paper in Carson&Hollinger, so removed it, so only one Cassidy 2005. Removed Herken's name from the web references, so only one Herken 2002. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• In Bibliography but not in notes: Anderson, Leif E.; Whitaker, Ewen A. (1982) and Hollinger, David A. (2005).– Peacock.Lane 12:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Spelling error. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Consistency of style: ISBN format. Some (most?) of the ISBNs are hyphenated, others not. I think it would be better if they were all in the same format. (If you'd like to standardize on hyphenated ISBNs prompt me on my talk page and I've got a script to do it.) Rjwilmsi 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bodnotbod

• Proof read done - I've read the article and found just one stray word which I've fixed. I'm pleased to commend the article for readability/clarity and on its great prose generally. Certainly a very interesting article. Whether it meets all our other criteria I shall have to leave it up to others to judge as I'm not fully fit for an exhaustive review. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dank

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "With his students he also made important contributions to the modern theory of neutron stars and black holes, as well as work on the theory of quantum mechanics ...": "work" dangles. (Made work? contributions to work?) Deleted "work on".
• "As a teacher and promoter of science, Oppenheimer is remembered as the chief founder of the American school of theoretical physics while at the University of California, Berkeley, contributing significantly to the rise of American physics to its first era of world prominence in the 1930s.": "As a teacher and promoter of science, Oppenheimer is remembered as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics that gained world prominence in the 1930s." I was concerned that some readers would be tripped up by the two meanings of "school"; also, the text seems to support "a founding father" rather than "a chief founder". Feel free to revert or discuss.
• "... he contributed to American scientific organizations again, as director of the Institute for Advanced Study ...": I removed the first part and reworded. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• "April 22, 1904": "April 22, 1904,". I fixed this one and two others. I know some people like to omit the second comma, but I don't know of an American style guide that supports that: see for instance Chicago 6.17 ("Commas in pairs"), 6.45 and 10.30; The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, at "comma" (the last two paragraphs); and AP Stylebook, at "months" and in the punctuation section. The other 7 points at WP:Checklist, such as "clarity" and "repetition", can affect readability; this point about when to use commas in pairs doesn't affect readability, but I'd still like for writers to get it right, because it's easy to learn, and because if you get it wrong in 50 different places, it's a mess to clean up.
• "He had a younger brother, Frank Oppenheimer, who also became a physicist.": "Robert's younger brother, Frank, also became a physicist." "He" was dangling, since there were 4 males closer to that "He" than the one you meant (Robert).
• "quieten down": "quiet down".
• "apparently Oppenheimer would supply the mathematics ...": "with Oppenheimer supplying the mathematics"
• "She flatly refused and reported this incident to Pauling. This ... disquieted him ...": "This" what ... the fact that she reported it, or the incident? "This" dangles. I guessed: "The invitation, and her apparent nonchalance about it, disquieted him ...".
• "ETH": I generally stay away from fights over acronyms ... and I have to admit that I've generally seen this as ETH myself ... but I'm guessing most publishers would prefer "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology", possibly followed by "(ETH)". I didn't make the edit.
• "Nobel Prize winning": "Nobel Prize-winning"
• "Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations, seemingly in an attempt to convince those around him—or possibly himself—of his self-worth.": "Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations." States of mind generally require attribution. In this case, the reader can probably form the right conclusions just by reading the paragraph, so IMO we don't need the part I deleted, but feel free to re-insert and attribute that opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • All sounds fine to me. The only one I was troubled about was changing "Frank Oppenheimer" to "Frank"; but they can click on the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have any objection to including the last name. I changed it because, generally, siblings are listed with just the first name (in the paragraph about the family) in our Featured Military Biographies. - Dank (push to talk)

Briefly jumping in here to point out another case of hyphenation (I can never work these ones out - I actually noticed the lack of a hyphen in 'Nobel Prize-winning' on an earlier reading, but forgot to mention it). Where should the hyphen be in "Long-range jet-bomber delivered thermonuclear "strategic" weapons"? Also, this has reminded me of a sentence I saw that didn't quite make sense: "Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea of these being protons; he argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge." - looking at the section in question, does anyone know what "these" is referring to there? My best guess is that Oppenheimer rejected the idea of positrons being as massive as protons, but that doesn't come across at all clearly and I'd need to read around this a bit more to be confident of correcting that sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is me trying to avoid using the word "positron", and assuming that everyone knows what protons are from high school. Re-worded to Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea that the predicted positively charged electrons were protons. Oppenheimer argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, whereas experiments showed that protons were much heavier than electrons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)
  • My objection would have been dealt with either way, but that's even clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Me again. Answering your question, Carcharoth ... ugh. I don't know what I'm going to do with that one yet. - Dank (push to talk)
• ""I need physics more than friends,"": I made a guess that the comma wasn't in the quoted material: ""I need physics more than friends"". See WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ugh again. I'm impressed with the article, and the prose is fine, but it's a very long article, and I'm struggling with J. Robert Oppenheimer#Scientific work. For instance, I wouldn't expect any reader to understand what "normalize the eigenfunctions in the continuous spectrum" means without a few linear algebra and quantum physics courses. There are all sorts of judgment calls here that I'm not qualified to make. Time to punt: Limited support per standard disclaimer, from the top of the article to the beginning to J. Robert Oppenheimer#Scientific work. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I got answers to my two main questions on Headbomb's talk page, I finished that subsection, and I'm copyediting starting from there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• "who felt that one Jewish faculty member was enough": I don't have any reason to doubt this, but can I ask if our evidence is solid? Is the reference particularly authoritative, or perhaps backed up by other sources? (One reason I have no problem believing it is that people say around here that Duke University is as good as it is in part because they didn't have a "Jewish quota" in the 1930s when all the Ivy League schools did.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is important to mention anti-semitism in the article. Obviously Oppenheimer was wealthy and therefore able to rise above it, but it still affected him. He could never become part of the establishment like Lawrence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Very true. - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Agreed with the choice to put it in quote marks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's an argument that history is storytelling with a college degree. This is a not uninteresting story: "Harrison had been married three times previously. Her first marriage, to a homosexual musician with drug addiction problems, lasted for only a few months. Her second husband, Joe Dallet, an active member of the Communist party, was killed in the Spanish Civil War." I respect your choices as an academic historian ... OTOH, my gut as a Wikipedian says that we don't put this much detail in unless we can connect it to the subject. How would you feel about this? "Harrison had been married three times previously, first to a musician and then to a communist who was killed in the Spanish Civil War." - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Respecting your gut, I have removed the bit about the first husband. I think I was anticipating people asking how someone that young could have been married thrice. I leave in the part about Joe Dallet though, because he is notable. Red linked him to emphasis this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard disclaimer. Just finished copyediting. Wonderful article, our best work. I see Sandy has just promoted this; since you'll be headed back to FAC soon I'm sure, be sure to read her edit summaries in the article. One thing: I didn't understand "confessed he had fabricated"; I can't tell if it contradicts what follows in that paragraph, and the first time you mention what he had said, there wasn't any mention that he was fabricating it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I read through her comments and corrected everything that I could find. The comment is not contradictory, because Chevalier was a professor of French literature, and not a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket

Support - Racepacket (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from Laser brain

• Status on dealing with comprehensiveness concerns? Has RJHall been asked to revisit his opposition? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm satisfied that my concerns were addressed. Thank you for checking.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Del dot

Comments My dad and I are going to review the article together--he's a World War II buff and mentioned he's read a couple dozen books on Oppenheimer. I'll relay any comments of his and add andything I see on prose, etc. I have just a couple things right now from my initial read-through:

• • Minor points about organization in Childhood and education:
    • this sentence doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, and jumps in time ahead of the rest of the section: Robert's younger brother, Frank, also became a physicist. Not sure how to fix it.
      • In this paragraph, I just wanted to tell the reader about his family. Re-worded to" "Robert had a younger brother, Frank, who also became a physicist." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think these two sentences are kind of repetitive: He entered Harvard College a year late, at age 18... then in the next para In 1922, Oppenheimer entered Harvard... I think you could probably rework by making a reference to the illness in the second para, then start the third with something like Due to the illness he entered Harvard a year late at age 18 in 1922 or something. That might also help you tighten up the second reference to the late start in that para, Oppenheimer made up for his late start...
    • Re-worded to "At Harvard Oppenheimer studied chemistry." to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Is there any way that third para could be reorganized to have the info about his graduation at the end? Otherwise the rest of the para goes back in time.
      • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Educational work, under Early professional work:
    • Pauling refused, saying that he was a pacifist. This makes it sound like the pacifism was just an excuse, but Pauling really did have those sentimentalities, right? Maybe you could say refused, citing his pacifism or something like that.
      • Not really. He did work on other military projects that had applications, such as explosives, rocket propellants, an oxygen meter for submarines and the patent of an armor-piercing shell. It was his wife who was the pacifist; Pauling did not espouse such beliefs until after the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think these last two sentences are a departure from the rest of the paragraph and section, and seem awkwardly stuck in here: Throughout his life he experienced periods of depression and was sometimes emotionally troubled. "I need physics more than friends", he once informed his brother. Also, wouldn't emotionally troubled follow from depression, isn't that redundant?
      • Moved them to the earlier section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Scientific work:
    • Could this be explained in lay terms? The formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics also attracted his attention What is formalism?
      • Putting things on a solid mathematical basis. The theoreticians of the early 20th century threw up a lot of equations which described quantum and relativity. However when the mathematicians looked at them, they were aghast, as I was, fifty years later. There were divisions by zero, functions with positive and negative roots, series that diverged to infinity. It took many years for the physicists to work through this to their satisfaction. The ultimate outcome, renormalization, is described in the post-war section. I've added a link, so readers can find out more about Hilbert's formalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • NB: The article on eigenfunctions describes "the success of [Oppenheimer's] equation in explaining the spectral characteristics of hydrogen is considered one of the great triumphs of 20th century physics." I wish he had a reference for that; I'd include it in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In general the article looks really great. I'll talk to my dad and add his comments in a bit. delldot ∇. 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can take a whack at these, Hawk, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work Hawkeye7. I don't know if we still do the thing here where you put addressed comments in a collapsey box, but I consider all of that to be dealt with. delldot ∇. 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comments from delldot ∇.

My dad says it's "a superb encyclopedia artice, I can't see a damn thing wrong with it." He does have some minor quibbles about the writing, so here they are.

• The last sentence in the lead says he became the Senior Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, a position previously held by Albert Einstein. But Oppenheimer was the director of the whole institute, he invited Einstein there, it's not like he followed Einstein. My dad says it's a minor detail of his life and doesn't belong in the lead. But if it does you could say something like 'he was the director of the institute and was instrumental in getting Einstein there' or something.
  • No, Einstein had been there since 1933; Oppenheimer arrived in 1947. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• My dad mentioned that every sexual thing in his personal life is there, e.g. hitting on Pauling's wife, but other important aspects of his personal life that aren't scurrilous are passed over. On the other hand he says not to expand the personal life stuff because that would make it too long. Just thought I'd mention that comment.
  • I thought that the original article was too heavily weighted towards his personal and political life, so I expanded the section on his career as a scientist.

• "Perro Caliente", literally "hot dog" in Spanish - shouldn't foreign words be italicized, not in quotes?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppenheimer was nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, in 1945, 1951 and 1967, but never won. Is this for physics or peace? If the latter, this is kind of misleading, a departure from the rest of the paragraph, which talks about his physics work. wouldn't you normally say 'nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work in ... '?
  • For physics. Not having won, we can only speculate on what for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppenheimer earmarked 3 per cent of his salary—about $100—to support German physicists fleeing from Nazi Germany. The $100 must be per something. Is it $100 per year? Per month? A salary is an ongoing thing, not a lump sum.
  • It's an annual thing. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think this sentence is awkward: In May 1942, National Defense Research Committee Chairman James B. Conant, who had been one of Oppenheimer's lecturers at Harvard, invited Oppenheimer to take over work on fast neutron calculations, a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into with full vigor. Is there a less wordy way to say a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into?
  • No, but the phrase can be stricken entirely. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how the 'However' fits these two sentences together: ...concerned about his chronic lumbosacral joint pain. However, Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi balked at the idea of being commissioned.
  • Changed to "The plan to commission scientists fell through when Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi balked at the idea."

• In 1943, development efforts were directed to a plutonium gun-type fission weapon called "Thin Man". My dad says plutonium is an error - it should be uranium. They knew all along that plutonium can't be used in a gun-type fission weapon.
  • He is completely wrong on this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• My dad says 'infinities' makes no sense in this sentence: Under Oppenheimer's direction, physicists tackled the greatest outstanding problem of the pre-war years: the infinities in the quantum electrodynamics of elementary particles. Is there any way to change 'infinities' for layperson's terms?
  • High school maths is enough to know that you cannot cancel out zeros, or divide by zero Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • However, the links to regularization and renormalization explain it. You would have encountered them in high school physics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Right, we're both familiar with that concept, but it wasn't clear to us that that's what 'infinities' was referring to. Would 'divisions by zero' work instead? delldot ∇. 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• My dad comments that in the quotations about losing his security clearance "they sort of miss the point of the whole idea of the security trial". He says it was really a struggle between those who wanted to build bombs and those who didn't, and the article "takes seriously the feint" by those who were targeting Oppenheimer for political reasons. Maybe you could find a quote from someone who argues that he was targeted for political reasons?
  • He is wrong again. The issue was the type of bombs that would be built. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are several instances in the article where the passive voice is used, which I think makes the prose weaker and more wordy. e.g. "was blocked by Birge".

My dad called the article "a really professional and excellent job" and remarked on its neutrality and comprehensiveness. I certainly agree that it's well done, a great article overall. delldot ∇. 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One more: Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide a few months previously, in an earlier section it said she committed suicide on January 4, 1944, over a year previously.

• No, the codename was selected back in 1944. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

delldot ∇. 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for addressing these. The misunderstandings may have been due to my poor translation of what my dad was saying, I wish I could get him to actually edit. At any rate, we both agree that it's a superb article and I have no problem lending my full support for promotion. delldot ∇. 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes

The article needs a good deal of minor MOS cleanup-- please see my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [31].

---

Eastbourne manslaughter

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This article details the death of a 15-year-old "stolid and stupid" boy at the hands of a "distorted" and "lunatic" teacher who may or may not actually have been a nice guy. While you've probably never heard of the Eastbourne manslaughter, the case was important in the development of modern laws surrounding corporal punishment. I believe it to be one of the most complete accounts of the case available (in fact, the only book I've ever seen dedicated solely to the case is a copy of this article - a bargain at only 34 euros!). A quick note about what's missing: images. There are none, as I've found none that are truly relevant, although I'd be glad to consider suggestions. The article received a very helpful GA review (and subsequent copy-editing) from User:Malleus Fatuorum (thanks Malleus!). I feel that this article is at or near FA status, and look forward to your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential images would be Eastbourne Grand Parade, Swinburne in 1860, Lewes Law Courts, and Millbank in 1862. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Added a couple. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. A fascinating tale, well-told. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)

• Perhaps "The case became a precedent ..." or "The case was used as a precedent ..." rather than "The case became used as a precedent ..."?
• "He had previously been a student ...": There are style guides that say this is fine, since "he" modifies the subject of the previous sentence. But I generally see more support for the idea that when there are 3 possible subjects, and the content of the sentence doesn't clearly nail down the subject, it's better to disambiguate, so I'd go with "The boy ..." here (and lose "the boy" in the next sentence).
• "from Send, Surrey on": I'd be forever grateful if someone would check what British style guides say about a comma after "Surry" here. User:Dank/MIL#commas gives the positions of the 3 most-quoted American style guides. (They're pro-comma.)

• Don't know how they would rule on this particular point, but from my experience it seems like British English uses fewer commas. I don't particularly mind one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "obstrecian": It gets a few ghits, but is it a word?

• No, it's a typo, now fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Cancellor's was the only death by corporal punishment to receive broad public interest.": I'd like to suggest "that had received broad public interest", since you mention another such case later in the same paragraph.

• In the later case the student didn't die, but I've made the change anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops my mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "public outcry against corporal punishment among the general public": I'd lose the first "public". - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All addressed. Thanks for your comments! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with the obvious disclaimer that I was the GA reviewer. I thought then that there was a gap or two in the narrative, but I believe that those gaps have now been plugged. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help, Malleus. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple of quickies...

• Trial: Not wild about the one sentence starting with "But". I've always been taught that a sentence shouldn't start like this. I don't even think it's needed here; if a contrast word is desired, try "The press was extremely hostile, however" or something.
  • You were probably taught that at school, but it's entirely incorrect. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reaction and aftermath: Reference 9 should be outside the parenthesis. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reference moved. Thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Red-links (checking both existing and missing red-links in an article appears to be one of the rarer things that is checked for in Wikipedia review processes):
  • (1) Edward Hopley (1816-1869) - (ODNB entry) - is a red-link I agree with.
  • (2) Caroline Lefevre I'm not so sure about - can you justify the red-link here?
  • (3) Charles Locock (1799-1875) - ODNB entry - is not currently linked in the article, but is listed at Locock Baronets.
• Existing articles (why did previous reviews not find these?):
  • (1) We already have an article on the judge: Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet (1802-1880).
  • (2) We already have an article on the defending counsel: William Ballantine (1812-1887).
  • (3) We already have an article on one of the non-called witnesses: John Eric Erichsen (1818-1896).
• Images:
  • (1) File:William Ballantine Vanity Fair 5 March 1870.jpg is a caricature of the defending counsel.
  • (2) File:Williamballantine.jpg is a photograph of the defending counsel.
  • (3) File:Sir Alexander Cockburn LCJ.jpg is an artwork of the judge.
• Redirects
  • (1) Thomas Hopley redirects to this article. The ODNB has an entry on Thomas Hopley ([32]), which is used as a source in this article. The questions that then arise are what happens to the biographical metadata (where should it go?), and should the information in the ODNB entry that is not present in this article be placed in there somehow? To put that another way, the ODNB has an entry for Thomas Hopley, but we have a page on the case. Clearly the ODNB can't have a page on the case, but I'm not so sure Hopley should be a redirect to the case. If it should be, then where should the other details about Hopley be put, if not on this page? In a footnote, maybe?
  • (2) Reginald Chancellor redirects here (but see discussion on article talk page about this spelling). (reasonable as a redirect, still unsure about how it should be handled in the article)
  • (3) Reginald Cancellor does not yet exist as a redirect, but probably should.
• General thoughts:
  • (1) This article currently only links from 'corporal punishment': [33].
  • (2) The Ballantine book is available online: [34]
• Article thoughts:
  • (1) How much was £180 then relative to now?
  • (2) How old was the "Reverend John Henry Cancellor" (brother to a 13/14/15 year old)?
  • (3) Any other relatives? No mention of the boy's mother.
  • (4) Mention of servants is a bit abrupt. Set the scene by mentioning them earlier?

Overall, I found the article well-written, but am puzzled as to why the article was brought to FAC with two very obvious links missing (did you not find these articles while searching for images? that was how I found them), and one less obvious link missing, and also what looks to me like an unresolved talk page dispute. Possibly obtaining a peer review at a relevant WikiProject might have picked up on this earlier. I'm sure lots will be picked up here at FAC, but could you give a brief run-down of the history of the article writing process? Over what period of time was the article written, who have been the major editors, and what review processes has it been through before arriving here apart from the GA review? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope - my image-finding skills are obviously quite limited, and I didn't think to check for images of the judge or barrister. Brief history of the article: I created it in a sandbox in fall 2010, and moved it to mainspace in October, at which time it was nominated and approved for DYK. The talk page dispute you mention was raised shortly thereafter (at that point, the "Chancellor" spelling was the primary one used in the article), and I modified the name and relegated the alternate spelling to a footnote (it was later "promoted" to parenthetical mention). It was nominated and promoted at GAN in November, and further expanded in February and early March. Beyond Malleus' copy-edits, I've been pretty much the only major editor. To respond to your specific points: Locock now linked; Lefevre is linked because it's a notable case in English history but lacks a "case title" like this one has. Existing articles now linked, and I've added a couple of the images you suggested. Both spellings now redirect to this article, but I'm not sure exactly what you're saying with your point about Hopley - could you clarify? I'm aware of both of the "general thoughts" you raise; as to the "article thoughts", 1 and 4 have been addressed in the article, but my sources give no information on 2 or 3. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My reason for pointing out that the Ballantine book is online was that I thought you could link to it, either from the reference (if the page numbers are the same as the copy you consulted), or in an external links section, or as a courtesy link if the page numbers are different. As far as Hopley goes, there is quite a bit of information in the ODNB entry (such as birth year) that isn't in this article. Since his name has been redirected to this article, there is nowhere else for that information to go. When I mentioned metadata, I was referring to things like Wikipedia:Persondata and birth and death year categories, though I don't know whether such things are applied to redirects (the categories could go there) or included here (the persondata could go in either place). This is one of the disadvantages of redirecting names to articles like this, though the advantages probably outweigh the disadvantages. Possibly a note saying that further information on Hopley is available in the ODNB entry? As regards the talk page dispute, as far as I can see, the IP editor was arguing that you are promulgating an error of transcription. My concern is that not enough eyes have been on the article (since it was created fairly recently) to ensure that that content dispute was adequately resolved, so that matter should be considered here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

About the £180, I know I said what is it relative to now, but on reflection, that isn't that useful. What I was trying to get at (apart from it being a lot of money) is how much was it for Hopley? Was it a lot relative to his wealth/income at the time? Probably your sources are silent on this, but I thought it was worth asking. It did make me wonder, though, where the money for the £2000 bail came from! Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy link added for Ballantine - the page numbering is similar, but not exactly the same. There's probably enough information about Hopley to turn that redirect into a real article, so persondata and categories could go there. As you suspected, my sources don't comment on the fee relative to Hopley's income, but given that I did the conversion using "average earnings" that probably gives a good estimate (I suspect that £121,000 would be a lot relative to the income of an average teacher today!). As to the talk page dispute: I appreciate the IP's argument, but it seems to me that since at least 3 sources use the alternate spelling it's worth mentioning. Do you have a different view? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consider the dates of your sources and what sources they are basing their spelling on. The point about the spelling being the same for 150 years and only being spelt differently recently was a good one, I thought. Personally, I'd relegate mention of this from the text to a brief footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? I read the article in The Times from 1960, and that uses the Cancellor spelling. I'm still concerned that only three people (you, me, that IP editor) seem to have picked up on this. Do any of the reviewers here have an opinion on how the matter of this spelling should be handled? The ODNB entry (published in 2006 and with no significant change in 2008) is silent on this, and would surely have picked up on the Chancellor spelling if they had consulted the Parker-Jenkins book (published 1999). Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. Above, at '03:48, 9 March 2011', you said "my sources give no information on 2 or 3". Are you sure about this? I had taken your word for this, but on my recent re-reading of the ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley (a source you use in the article), I noticed the following: "Reginald's elder brother, the Revd John Henry Cancellor (1834–1900)" (this indicates that Cancellor's brother was 25 or 26, which is exactly the sort of context I was looking for (how much older than his younger brother was he?) - I understand that you can't give his exact age, but the ODNB did the correct thing which was to give his birth and death years - why did you not do this? Similarly, the age of the father at the time (and at death) seems relevant - the ODNB says "John Henry Cancellor (1799–1860)", so he died at the age of 60 or 61 (you should also make clearer that the father and the brother have the same name, including the same middle name - that may confuse some who see references to 'John Henry Cancellor' and fail to realise that this can refer to the father as well as the brother); and about the mother (or step-mother), the article of 1960 in The Times (titled 'A Sussex Tragedy', again a source that you use) says "Hopley resorted to beating only after anxious consultation with the boy's father who consented in spite of his wife's 'great dread of severe corporal punishment'". Now, is that article referring there to Hopley's wife or John Cancellor's wife? If the latter, then this pertains directly to the question I asked above about whether the boy's mother was known and alive during all this. You say the father died of a broken heart, and mention the brother, but are silent on the mother. Why? Another of your sources says "Cancellor's family was deeply affected by the case, as they had been "disinclined" to see Cancellor beaten; his father died shortly after the inquest of a "broken heart"." That source says "disinclined", and the article in The Times quotes from somewhere saying 'great dread of severe corporal punishment', seemingly referring to Cancellor's wife. Could you recheck the sources (the one with the 'disinclined' quote is subscription-only and I can't access it)? I've unstruck points (2) and (3) above until this can be addressed or some reason given for leaving out this context. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates added for both John Henrys. As to the issue of the mother, I would not presume that the woman married to John sr. at the time of Reginald's death was necessarily Reginald's mother - none of my sources explicitly identify her as such, although I will keep looking to see if I can find anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. I've restruck the original points. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Couple more points: (1) You say "the Chief Justice at the trial" - this reads as if there are several Chief Justices, when as far as I can tell, this was a single-person position, one of the highest, if not the highest, legal positions in the land. This seems worth mentioning. See Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales - he was both the last Chief Justice and the first Lord Chief Justice. (2) The term "barrister" may be slightly misleading when applied to William Ballantine. It seems the more precise term to use is serjeant-at-law (apparently still a barrister, but I think the more specific link will be more informative, though you would need to consider whether to briefly explain the term serjeant-at-law in this article). Both these points feed back to my point about getting a review from someone familiar with 19th century British legal history - there may be other things that everyone here is missing. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, in 1860 there were several Chief Justices. If you read the article you linked to, you'll note that each court had its own Chief Justice until 1875, at which point the three were combined in the post of Lord Chief Justice. I've reworded the sentence in question slightly, and have changed the link for Ballantine. I'll see what I can do about a specialist review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  That is most of my concerns met. Will take another look in a few days and see how it looks then. If you look around, it should be possible to get hold of a picture of Sir Charles Locock (whether he was Sir or not in the timeframe of the article is probably also worth looking into - he was made baronet in 1857, so the answer is 'yes' it seems). Also, hopefully, when someone comes to work on the articles about the judge and the barrister, they will consider whether a mention of this case is worth it in those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Cancellor's was the only death by corporal punishment that had received broad public interest. " - do you mean "first" here, instead of "only"? The meaning is not quite clear. If "only", relative to what? Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reworded. Thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• You may have missed the additional comment I made about Locock, who I think should be referred to as Sir Charles Locock. The ODNB entry says "On his retirement in 1857 he was created a baronet". The ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley refers to him as "Sir", and has the following to say about him: "Anxious to secure authoritative endorsement of the official verdict Hopley accepted an invitation to call on Sir Charles Locock, the queen's obstetrician and an acquaintance of the Cancellor family." this has translated, in the article to the bland "Hopley asked Charles Locock, a friend of the Cancellor family and an obstetrician to the queen, to examine the body and verify death by natural causes". There also seems a discrepancy here between "friend" and "acquaintance" and between "asked" and "accepted an invitation to call on". The article also fails to make the point (that the ODNB makes with the word "authoritative") that as an eminent doctor, Locock's opinion would carry a great deal of weight. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I've also unstruck two points above and returned to the issue of the spelling of the name.

• I've added the Sir, switched in "acquaintance" and tried to reword to reflect Locock's importance. I'm not sure "asked" is a problem, so I'll leave that and the name issue open for other opinions/reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - following review and discussion above. Only remaining concern is the spelling issue, as I tend to agree with the IP editor on the talk page that if the latest sources (ODNB entry of 2008 - are there any later sources?) use the Cancellor spelling, then using the Chancellor spelling is not appropriate (not even in a footnote, though that would be better than the current parenthetical mention). But am leaving that for others to comment on. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: No reliabilty issues. One nitpick: ISBN missing from ref 26. Another point, not strictly related to sources checking: are we seriously to believe that an income of £180 pa in 1859 equates to £121,000 today? That is the problem with Measuringworth; its scholarship looks impeccable and its theoretical basis sounds convincing, but it produces absurd results. This isn't the place for a discussion on the concept of present-day value, but I have long given up on Measuringworth. Because of the totally different economic circumstances that apply as between the present and the distant past, I am inclined to avoid altogether these raw present value comparisons. What would be acceptable, and much more useful, is something like: "...£180 a year (compared with a schoolmaster's salary at the time of £x)", but this may not be possible, in which case I would drop the £121,000. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ISBN added. I've commented out the measuringworth parenthetical for now, will see if I can find a source for average schoolmaster's salary. Thanks for the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the closest comparison I could find. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks. I will try to give the article a fuller reviewer soon - I lived in Eastbourne for a while (though considerably after 1859), yet was unaware of this case until now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, the law. One concern; the phrase "Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Chief Justice of the court, presented a summary of the decision". Cockburn was the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, which is distinct from the Assizes; the Assizes were run by puisne and chief justices from the three Westminster courts. You might want to clear that up. You also use Regina v. Hopley; English cases exclude the full stop, and normally phrase it as either R v Hopley or R. v Hopley rather than using the full name. Ironholds (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both now fixed. Thanks for commenting! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: In the lede: "The case became a precedent in discussions of corporal punishment in schools and reasonable limits on discipline." The body text says "archetypical", which makes it seem as though this case is one that was cited more than several times. The sentence in the lead seems to understate this, and is so terse as to be easily overlooked. All of that merely means that I think that sentence needs an additional phrase or so to elaborate... GlitchCraft (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked a bit, but I don't want to overstate the case in the lead either. See what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "The case became an important legal precedent in discussions of corporal punishment and reasonable limits on discipline in schools." Also perhaps should add geographical context ("in the U.K" or "in British law" or something; whatever seems most standard) either after "discussions" or after "schools" GlitchCraft (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support GlitchCraft (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating story, no real problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – My couple of comments were addressed or explained (I have to ask Tony about the But thing one of these days), and the writing, sourcing, etc. all seem up to FA standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments coming at this as a total non-expert (but BritEng reader)...

• Should you clarify "case" in the opening sentence?
• "(some sources give his name as "Chancellor"[1] and his age as 13 or 14[2]) " I loathe the positioning of ref [2] here. Can't it go outside the parentheses, or re-work the sentence to avoid this? (It may well comply with MOS right now so don't worry, but, gah...)
• Worth linking corporal punishment I think. (later note) Okay, do it first time, not second time round.
• "into Cancellor's death began when Cancellor's brother" why not just "his" brother? Unambiguous.
• "sensationalized" would expect a specifically BritEng article to use BritEng, so this (et seq) should be "sensationalised" etc.
• "in the UK for discussions " perhaps here, as it's the first time, just use "in the United Kingdom..."?
• "Hopley, aged 41,[4] was well-educated" you mentioned only him in the previous sentence so I'd say "Aged 41,[4] he was well-educated..."
• "His pamphets included.." now you've mentioned Algernon, I'd re-assert Hopley, so "Hopley's pamphlets included..."
• "teacher in 1860[9])" ditto with repugnant ref placement!
• Since kidskin is a redlink, I think you need to explain what it is. I certainly have no idea.
• "and after a seven-hour preliminary hearing[16] was released on" could have a comma after hearing here.
• "But the press was extremely..." could be just my ill-educated upbringing but starting a sentence with "But..." seems incorrect.
• "hate mail" worth linking?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the above issues have now been addressed. I disagree with your suggestion to add a comma after "hearing" and that "But..." is incorrect - both seem fine to me as they are. I'm also not sure how to handle the ref placement issue. My reasoning for having them as they are is that they cite only the material inside the parentheses, not the preceding material, and thus are better placed within the closing parenthesis to make that clear. The MoS does not seem to address this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Still some USEng in there "sensationalizing" etc, and there's no good reason not to have a comma after "hearing". And while I'm no expert, I was always convinced that formal writing avoided the use of "But..." to start a sentence. As for ref placement, I thought MOS said place them after punctuation where possible. One way of avoiding this kind of indecent ref placement is to use footnotes... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just found the relevant section of MoS, WP:REFPUNC - "where a reference applies only to material within a parenthetical phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate". On the "But" issue, Garner gives a very in-depth explanation with examples supporting its use. (Incidentally, "-ize" is accepted in British English - see WP:IZE. However, for consistency I've made that change). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I would not accept -ize but yes, we're learning from the fact that Brits went all posh and made ize into ise just to stop us being associated with the masses. ize is a bitter pill to swallow, and as yet, won't be proper BritEng (hopefully for some time to come), so -ise works lovely jubbly. As for starting sentences with "But...", what a waste of resources that we're even arguing over it?! A minor reword and it would go away. Anyway, you're determined to keep it, even with a single source to back it up, so I won't pursue that. As for the punctuation, sure, it may be absolute, "letter-of-the-law" correct, but it looks totally repulsive. A footnote in each case would be magnificent – you don't want to do that? Fine, when I get time, I'll do it myself! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"-ize" has been accepted British English usage for some time now, and is preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. The only real issue is one of consistency. The belief that sentences ought not to start with "But" is what Fowler has called a superstition, something taught mindlessly in schools, like the "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" nonsense. And there should definitely not be a comma after "hearing" as you're demanding. (See how I started a sentence with a conjunction there? ;-) ) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course I'll defer to Malleus, I'm a mere mortal and I have a lot to learn, I honestly appreciate that. I initially had an instinct to head for -ise as BritEng, but it was only tweaked as a result of inconsistency in the article. As for the "But ... nonsense", I yearn for the day that all my lacklustre education (to be sure) be eradicated and replaced with Malleus' (or Malleus's) superior knowledge. A debate with Malleus is of course one I expect to come out as second, so no point pursuing it. Godspeed!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. For a long time I too thought that sentences ought not to begin with conjunctions, having had that drummed into me at school. It's been explained to me that primary school teachers propagated the rule to counter the tendency of kids to start every sentence with "but", or "and", but I don't know if that's true. And it was (I just can't help myself, it's so liberating) watching a fairly recent episode of QI that made me realise the old '"i' before 'e'" mantra is just plain wrong. A day we don't learn is a day wasted. Unfortunately though, when you reach a "certain age" the new stuff has an apparent tendency to crowd out the old stuff ... I'm talking about myself of course, not you TRM. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Used sparingly, starting a sentence with and (or especially but) can be very powerful. Even as stuffy a reference as my 30 year old Harbrace guide to grammar allows it (and gives examples of how to use it effectively). As long as we pull it off effectively, tricks like this make us look more professional, brilliant, etc.TCO (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [35].

---

1906 French Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC), AlexJ (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

An article about very early motorsport, the first large motor race to be called a Grand Prix. On a dusty road outside Le Mans, drivers in huge, rickety cars fought, driving off planks roads, being blinded by tar. It was a miracle no one died. AlexJ has agreed to co-nom; the text is mostly mine, but the images, the video, the map, and a helpful review are his work. Thanks to Finetooth for his peer review and Malleus Fatuorum for his copyedit. Apterygial 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Images/Media

• File:1906_French_Grand_Prix_Szisz.jpg - how do we know that the other car is Shepard?
  • From this page at the LAT archive. I'll add Shepard into the image's description page. Apterygial 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• File:Shepard_Calais_1906_FrenchGP.ogv - can you provide more information about the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the clip is taken from a VHS copy of "Shell History of Motor Racing, Volume 1: The Heroic Days 1902-1914", now out of print I believe. Given that the cinematographs of the time wouldn't have recorded sound, the soundtrack on the film is likely to be later and not authentic, so I've stripped these from the clip before uploading it. What's left should only be original 1906 material. AlexJ (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources review: Sources look reliable and formats are OK. Very limited spotchecking revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent article which is fully deserving of FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Great artice on otherwise quite poorly covered subject of early racing. --Sporti (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - an interesting article, covering a niche topic, but some way to go.

• "was a motor race held on June 26 and 27, 1906," seems a little odd to have a motor race that was held on two days, it wasn't the Le Mans 24 hours....

Can't do anything about the fact it was held over two days! This was 1906, and the very first Grand Prix. It was some time before it evolved into the hour and a half Sunday afternoon event that occurs today. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it wasn't therefore "a motor race" if it was more than one race, and held over multiple days... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - there wasn't two races, else we'd have two winners etc. To quote The (London) Times newspaper at the time "The race for the Grand Prix of the French Automobile Club will be run to-morrow and on Wednesday" [36]. Similar is the Sydney Times [37] which says "The race for the Grand Prix, the great international motor contest promoted by the Automobile Club of France, took place over the Sarthe circuit on the 26th and 27th of June." Both refer to a race held over two days, rather than races. AlexJ (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "lapped six times on each of the two days " why not just "on both days"?"spent half an hour

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Presumably you use FIAT instead of Fiat because that's how it was referred to in 1906?

Indeed, FIAT was still an acronym (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) in 1906. Pretty much all period sources I've come across refer to it as FIAT rather than Fiat. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not convinced at all that you should be linking tyre or puncture.

Unlinked. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Grand Prix should be linked first time it's used, not later on in the lead.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "ACF to run the Grand Prix again the following year" would be more intuitive to link "following year" rather than "run the Grand Prix again".

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dates are US format, spelling is Eng format. Suggest a coherent approach.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Distance (in infobox) could probably use a "over two days" caveat.

The infobox doesn't have a parameter that would enable me to do this. It does say above that it was held over two days (the date), and I don't believe the number of days are "distance". Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can I just ask you to check that the flags in the infobox meet WP:MOSFLAG?

MOSFLAG states that as a rule of thumb, flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes. The way I read that, it isn't a requirement, but there needs to be a good reason to go against it. Consensus on motor races is currently that we shouldn't follow the guideline due to the strong emphasis on the nationality of competitors in the sport, as representatives of their country. Even today, the top three drivers stand beneath their national flags whilst their national anthem is played out at the end of a race. Compare this to the examples given at MOSFLAG, where the nationality of an actor or a company has relatively little relevance in comparison to other details, and may not be clearly defined in any case. Removing the flags in the infobox would require a change of consensus, which implicitly would require a compelling reason to not have the flag. AlexJ (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• " Instead, it put them on a level footing" I think it's fair to say the level footing was simply numerical here.

"numerical level footing". Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "three cars each" - "cars" is a little odd for me here, maybe "three vehicles" or something?

They were cars. "Vehicles" seems awkward to me. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "organised" vs "organized" - please keep ENGVAR consistent throughout.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't see a need to link "puncture".

Unlinked. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The British were perhaps suspicious that the .." rephrase, so you focus more on the source saying this was the case.

I've knocked out "perhaps". The source says "as if to confirm worst suspicions of French motives and lack of sportsmanship." Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't think "engine" needs linking either, or tyre (again).

Unlinked. The last time I took an article to FAC, I was requested to link all of these things, so I've tried to remain consistent. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "As carrying each rim added 9 kilograms (20 lb) onto the weight of the car " - not "onto", just "to", and avoid "car".

Changed to "to". I've kept "car", every source uses this, and it's hardly informal. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Too many links for tar, and no need to link goggles.

Tar is now linked at the first occurance only, goggles is now unlinked (avoid linking plain English words) AlexJ (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• " in 43.4 seconds. But over the full distance of the lap Brasier's Baras was the quickest; his lap time of 52:25.4" perhaps not clear to non-experts that the second time is 52 minutes, 25 seconds, 4/10s.

It now reads "52 minutes and 25.4 seconds (52:25.4)". This should help subsequent mentions (I've done the same with Szisz's first day time below). Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• " two and a half hours" hyphenate.

Done. Apterygial 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• "spent half an hour" - "spent half-an-hour" or "spent 30 minutes"

Done. Apterygial 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• " lap 7 and " seven.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "reduced to 3 minutes " three.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Trophy doesn't need to be linked.

Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like succession boxes, but that's just me, especially when they add nothing to this article beyond what's already discussed.

They're used throughout Grand Prix race articles, including several FAs. They're tucked away at the bottom, so they don't really affect the flow of the article. I find them useful, so I guess this one comes down to personal preference. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Should have addressed each of your points. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments, leaning support: A really good piece of work. Very thorough and prose looks good. Just a few questions, but looks good otherwise.

• "The Grand Prix was organised by the Automobile Club de France (ACF) at the prompting of the French automobile industry as an alternative to the Gordon Bennett races, which limited each competing country's entries regardless of the size of its industry. As France had the largest automobile industry in Europe at the time, the Grand Prix was held without limits to entry to better reflect French dominance in the sport." Hmmm... Not sure about the phrasing here and I think the events need connecting better. I'm assuming this means limit the number of entries for each country. Could this be rephrased to something like "the automobile industry, the largest in Europe, wanted the number of entries to better reflect French dominance of motor racing. Consequently, the Grand Prix had no limits to the number of entries."

Will look into a rewording of this, but it's worth pointing out that France didn't have a dominance of motor racing prior to this (prior to the 1905 Gordon Bennett, they'd won 3 out of 5 - superior but not dominant, and only 1 of the last 3). They felt the three car per country ruling was the reason they weren't dominant, as it didn't give all their manufactures a chance to compete and there was a good chance that a problem could strike their three cars. AlexJ (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this any clearer:"The Grand Prix was organised by the Automobile Club de France (ACF) at the prompting of the French automobile industry as an alternative to the Gordon Bennett races, which limited each competing country's number of entries regardless of the size of its industry. France had the largest automobile industry in Europe at the time, and in an attempt to better reflect this in the sport the Grand Prix had no limits to the number of entries by a particular country."? Removes any possible POV stuff about dominance etc. AlexJ (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. The only tweaks I might make would be to remove "in the sport" as this is unnecessary, and have "no limit" rather than "limits". --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed. I used "any particular country" rather than "a particular country", however. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• First paragraph of background: the word "formula" is used twice. It is a sufficiently unusual word (and made me think of formula 1) to stand out, so I wouldn't use it twice.

Funny that it made you think of Formula 1, because the meaning in it's first occurrence in the article is where F1 got it's name from - racing to a formula of rules and regulations. The second one I'd agree is a bit repetitive, so I've reworded it for clarity. AlexJ (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The original proposal was to run this model of race alongside the Gordon Bennett one, but this is not mentioned. Any reason why this was dropped?

I can't cite this, but I think the French were just fed up with dealing the 'democratic' way the Gordon Bennett races ran; they wanted complete control over the race. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the ACF simply abandoned the GB race in 1906, which the other countries would presumably have objected to, why did this not happen in 1905? What happened to all the opposition?

My speculation is; France got fed up and decided to go it alone anyway. Britain and the US continued to object which is why they didn't enter any cars (the article covers the British view that the event was French propaganda) whilst Germany and Italy decided to give in and take part in the event. I'd have to look for sources which confirm that thought. AlexJ (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Although, having said that, it looks like the GB might have been ended as an event for racing cars before the 1906 GP ever took place by Gordon Bennett himself. Guess that would explain why Germany and Italy took part in the GP. AlexJ (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That would have been because he saw the writing on the wall; the French were powerful enough that if they wanted to end it he had no power to stop them. I suppose a French boycott would have made the GB races quite hollow. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Cars assigned the letter "C", the last away, formed a single line at the side of the track, allowing any cars completing the circuit before the "C" group set off to pass." I'm afraid I don't understand this. Does it mean that by the time these cars set off, some cars would already have completed their first lap, so the C cars were kept to the side to allow the other cars to "lap" them?

Doing some maths, there were 34 cars scheduled to start the race to be set off at 90 second intervals meaning it would take just over 50 minutes between the first car leaving and the last one. In the event, the fastest lap turned out to also be just over 50 minutes, so I guess (and I stress I'm guessing here) they'd worked out before hand that it would be a close run thing, and so put this system in place, just in case the leaders came around before the last cars had started, to "lap" them (because the event was run to time rather than track position (like a modern day WRC rally event), it wouldn't have mattered if they were lapped). AlexJ (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think this sentence just needs clarifying a touch. Could it be rephrased to "Cars assigned the letter "C" were the last away; they formed a single line at the side of the track so that any cars which had completed their first circuit of the track would be able to pass." [or "not be impeded"?] Or something like that. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worth adding something about the Gordon Bennett races; I notice they ceased in 1905, but this is not mentioned in the article. If this new race led to their cancellation, I think something could be added.

We've currently got "(when) the responsibility for organising the 1906 race fell once more to the ACF, the French completely abandoned the Gordon Bennett races" - does that cover it? AlexJ (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. When I first read it, I assumed that someone else would have carried on afterwards and that it was only the French who abandoned it. Could it be made explicit that these new-fangled Grands Prix replaced them? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "But when Théry and Richard-Brasier won again in 1905, and the responsibility for organising the 1906 race fell once more to the ACF, the French ended the Gordon Bennett races and organised their own event as a replacement, the Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France." Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• The only other thing I wondered would be something hinted at in the final section. How did this compare to the Gordon Bennett race, especially if it was such a poor substitute? How did they start, etc. Maybe just a word or two for comparison purposes and to set this in context. The impression I get is that the other race was more toe-to-toe than this one, and this may be worth making explicit. If it is possible to do this, of course! --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I added an explanatory note about this (I think it would be distracting from the flow if it was in the text). Looks like the GB races sent off cars at even longer intervals. I believe we have addressed all of your concerns, and thanks for taking the time to review! Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing or clearing up my points. I'm happy to switch to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Background: Personally, I'm starting to get annoyed at seeing sentences start with "But". At least in the type of English I've been taught, this isn't a great way to begin a sentence.
  • I'm not sure how best to break this to you, but your teacher was wrong. You might like to consider consulting authoritative sources on the matter. Here's what Fowler has to say for instance: "That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and [or but] is a faintly lingering SUPERSTITION. The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to the 19th c.; the Bible is full of them." Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Race: Another "But" starts a sentence in the section's second paragraph. Even putting aside my views on the word, I don't think this is adding anything to the sentence; having it start with "Over" would be fine.
• "Nazarro passed again, and led into the last lap of the race by less than a minute." This is for second, correct? That is a little confusing if the context isn't understood. Would it be possible to phrase the sentence "and led Clement" or some other way to avoid this?
• Post-race and legacy: "Despite this, the ACF decided the run the Grand Prix again the following year." Second "the" should be "to" instead.
• For consistency, there should be a space before the page number in reference 21. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Giants. I've dealt with each of your points except the first; I'll defer to Malleus on that one. Apterygial 05:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I'm struggling to find nits to pick to show I've read it! Anything on the top speeds achieved? Shouldn't AIACR be spelt out at first occurence, with the acronym given after? Or at least that's what I was always taught... Other than those vanishingly minor points, a well-polished and comprehensive article on a notable sporting event. For the reassurance of other reviewers, I've checked the Rendall (1993) (only one I've got) references and they all tie up. Well done. 4u1e (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. The last paragraph of Race mentions that Szisz set the fastest time on the straight, 154 kilometres per hour (96 mph)—which would feel very quick in those cars on those roads. As for the acronym, "Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus" is quite long and would be awkward in the main part of the sentence, and the body is generally known by the acronym. However, I'm happy to change it if it's an issue. Apterygial 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No trouble. Many readers would be surprised by the speed, so it might be worth mentioning. AIACR is already spelled out immediately after its only use, so I don't think you can argue it is any more awkward to put it the other (correct ;)) way round. But this is a very minor point. 4u1e (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. As I say, Szisz's speed is already in the article. Apterygial 08:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops - sorry, missed that (despite you pointing it out!) 4u1e (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Apterygial 12:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. I peer-reviewed this excellent article about a month ago and thought it quite good. The recent changes in response to the comments above have only made it better. Finetooth (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is a nice article that meets all of the FA criteria in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article clearly says:

The 1906 Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France, commonly known as the 1906 French Grand Prix, ...

but 1906 Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France does not exist as a redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it myself; will the nominator please make sure to add the correct tags to the redirect (foreign language redirect, or some such thing, that isn't print worthy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by "tag the redirect". Apterygial 23:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, got it now. Apterygial 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to thank everyone who commented on this page; as Finetooth said it served only to make the article better. Apterygial 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [38].

---

Suillus salmonicolor

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The slippery Jill is an widely distributed, slimy, and (somewhat) edible mushroom. I have exhausted my sources both scholarly and popular, and think the article is similar in quality to the two other Suillus FAs. Looking forward to your feedback. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. Since it's in the toolbox, are we required to use alt text now? If so, several images need it. If not, never mind. Otherwise, I will offer a full review shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt text is not currently a FA requirement. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The article looks good at a glance. Here are a couple of things to chew on while I slowly make my way through the meat of the article.

• In the {{mycomorphbox}} template, the smiley face doesn't imply food safety to me. I feel that File:Food Safety 1.svg might be a better icon. Alternatively, I might be able to create something from File:Clipart plate.svg and a few other clipart items on Commons, if you want. Your thoughts?

• This is more of a template issue. There's a suite of face icons that correspond with edibility (smily for edible, green sickly for poisonous, etc.) and all of them would have to be changed to make them consistent. I think there fine as is (but I guess I'm used to them now). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I just though I'd bring it up. But you're right—it's a template thing. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed a lot of links in the references. Are all of the links fairly stable? Would any of them benefit from being archived on something like WebCite?

• I think most are quite stable (Biodiversity library, Cyberliber, Mushroom Expert, Index Fungorum) except for the Google links. I've been meaning to figure out how that WebCite thing works, so perhaps I'll use it on a couple of the outliers. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "mycorrhizal" is linked in the lead, but can it be briefly explained? The body text summarizes it nicely and quickly.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The very last paragraph, "has also been" repeats 3 times in close proximity.

• Good eye; reworded some. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be adding more as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: That's it! The article is excellent. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look! Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking nice at first glance!

• "by Charles C. Frost" Who? "American mycologist" or something?

• Added American mycologist as suggested. I'm working on an article for him, but it'll be a multi-hook for DYK so it's taking a while. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "publication, Mycologist Roy Halling" caps (and perhaps more as above?)

• Fixed cap. I'll bluelink him soon. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The online mycological taxonomy database MycoBank considers them to be synonymous,[7] contrary to the opinion of Index Fungorum.[14]" A small point, but they can't really consider anything. Perhaps say they list it as such? Websites can't have opinions.

• Didn't think of it like that; not sure I completely agree with the semantics (if you look a several definitions for "opinion", some of them are worded such that it could be correct to say that a book or a website expresses an opinion), but nevertheless, I have reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Bessette and colleagues" Who? Full name?

• Added first name and redlinked. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "propose to remove" Propose removal of?

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "According to one source" A bit weasel wordy? Name the source?

• Weasel removed, source named. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Similarly, David Arora in his Mushrooms Demystified, opines that it is not worth eating." Odd commas

• Also reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any reason you haven't placed similar species as a subsection of description?

• Not really; now subsectioned. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it all as closely as it warrants, but it is looking great. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Couple of other thoughts-

• Pileipellis could do with a link, and the article could do with updating with the details of a ixotrichodermium (which is a wonderful word :) )

• Added a link in the description section, and mentioned the ixo in the cap cuticle article. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "especially the cheilocystidia on the gill edge" A little redundant, though I see what you were trying to do

• Redundancy gone. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• What's a "caulohymenium"?

• I took it out, it specialized jargon. Basically, some boletes have fertile regions on the upper portions of their stems where caulocystidia and caulobasidia may be found, and these are often morphologically different than the usual ones location in the regular hymenium. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to name the authors as well as the books in the edibility section where possible. I also rephrased it slightly, I hope you don't mind.

• I'd rather not add more names unless they already have Wikipedia articles (hence the D. Arora name drop); interested parties can check the citation to see who gave the opinion. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Other than those little points, I am happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again JM. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Be consistent in how page ranges are notated - for example, you use "100-5" but "586–89"
• Ref 15: two issues - first, thus far no Bessette bibliographic information has been provided (it appears later); second, it's not clear which Bessette et al. is being referred to here
• What does CAB stand for?
• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or not
• Ref 22: again, no full bibliographic information until late
• Indicate foreign-language sources (ex. ref 29)
• Page number(s) for ref 29?

Images are all CC-BY-SA, captions are fine, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thorough nitpicking, Nikkimaria. I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support and a comment Since NH₄OH doesn't actually exist (see the article), I'd prefer "ammonia solution (NH₃)", but no big deal. Happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim, I've reworded as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support reading through now (Slippery jill?! gosh, not heard of this one...) notes below Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

... in the Suillaceae family of the Boletales order - just a nonactionable style thing as I know you always write them this way, I must say if it were me, I'd find myself naturally saying (writing) " in the family Suillaceae of the order Boletales" (but I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way here...just interesting)

First described as a Boletus in 1874 - I find this jars a bit - I find myself thinking that the italicised genus name refers to the genus and not generally a member of the genus, or if it does then "species" is appended. Personally, I'd feel happier with "First described as a member of the genus Boletus in 1874"

before it was assigned its current name in 1983 --> "before it was assigned its current binomial name in 1983" (and link bolded bit)

S. salmonicolor is different from the species S. cothurnatus "distinct"? (scans a little better and more exact meaning(?))

In their 2000 monograph of North American boletes, Alan Bessette and colleagues list the two taxa separately, noting that the range of S. cothurnatus is difficult to determine because of confusion with S. salmonicolor - they don't mention intermediate forms at the junctions of their ranges do they?

I'd link gastrointestinal to Human gastrointestinal tract, although ideally there'd be something to link "gastrointestinal symptoms" to (I might raise this at WP:MED sometime)

The last two sentences look a bit lonely at the bottom of the Taxonomy and phylogeny section. I'd tack them onto the end of the first para, where I think they easily segue off the last sentence there.

Otherwise looking good. I've been reduced to nitpicking (again) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Cas, I agree with and have implemented all of your suggestions above. Bessette et al. don't mention intermediate forms in their book. Sasata (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: there's a problem in the page range here:

Kretzer A, Li Y, Szaro T, Bruns TD. (1996). "Internal transcribed spacer sequences from 38 recognized species of Suillus sensu lato: Phylogenetic and taxonomic implications". Mycologia 88 (5): 776–5.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [39].

---

December 1969 nor'easter

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For my first FAC in eight months, I present one of my proudest articles, which describes a highly significant, yet mostly forgotten, winter storm event. Drifts of snow following the storm were 30 feet high, which completely cut off some communities from the rest of the world, and proved victorious over snow removal equipment. I created this article in the first couple weeks of the year, and gave it a couple months to be polished and reviewed. My reason for nominating it is that I feel it is among the highest-quality accounts of a meteorological event, aside, of course, from tropical cyclones. The meteorological synopsis is extremely thorough, owing to the excellent research of Paul Kocin and his colleague Louis Uccellini. Notwithstanding my bias towards the article, it is clearly the most comprehensive description of the storm in existence. Juliancolton (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's tool found no copyvio; manual spotchecks found no concerning paraphrasing, but not all sources were checked
• Be consistent in whether you have last name or first name first

• On it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "However, more recent data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) classifies the nor'easter as a low-end "catastrophic" Category 4" - "catastrophic" does not appear in the cited source

• I guess they must have changed the wording... fixed. Juliancolton (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 12 should be noted as subscription/paywalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The only info I used from the article is what was available from the preview snippet. Do I still need to mark it as subscription? Thanks for the review, in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to remedy that to be honest. Juliancolton (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Took care of it.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments I like this article! Though I didn't notice any huge problems, I wanted to give you a few rewording suggestions:

"New England experienced a severe ice storm due as a frontal boundary established itself between warm ocean air and a wedge of cold air over interior New England."

I'm not sure what "due" means here. It appears to be a typo, but it could be some type of jargon, so I didn't remove it outright.

Fixed, bit of an "oops" there. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"which, in Albany, surpassed the old record by 17 in (43 cm)."

Maybe this could be changed to "former record"?

Sure thing. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "and a record at the time of $2 million USD was spent on snow removal." could be changed to "and $2 million USD was spent on snow removal, a record at that time."

"Governor Deane C. Davis declared a state of emergency and ordered the National Guard to assist with cleanup efforts."

Since Vermont was mentioned in the previous sentence and not this one, it's possible that there could be confusion as to what state Deane was governor of. Maybe you could add something like "In response," to the beginning of the above sentence?-RHM22 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Really appreciate it. Re the Vermont comment, I think it's generally assumed that the governor corresponds to the last mentioned state, especially within the past two or three sentences. I'll fix it if you think it's that confusing, though. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support No, it's no big deal. It was just a suggestion, and I definitely don't think it's necessary at all. Article looks good!-RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. :) Juliancolton (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Meteorological history: "in some of the major northeastern cities and southern New England. New England...". Try to avoid the repetition in the transfer from sentence to sentence.
• Impact and aftermath: Excess word in "drifts reached up to to 30 feet in height." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Got them both, thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

• and at least 20 deaths are blamed on the nor'easter. - why the present tense?

• Eh, dunno, it sounded good at the time. Changed. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the hardest-hit areas, snow removal on roadways was severely delayed, and the storm isolated some communities. - so because of the lack of snow removal, some communities were isolated? IDK, I feel that could be better worded. Is there an estimate on the number of communities isolated?

• Reworded. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The winter of 1969–1970 continued a long-term El Niño from the previous winter,[1] which produced two significant winter storms in the Northeast United States" - it might be hard to avoid, but could you find a way not to use "winter" three times in the same sentence?

• Yeah, I removed the third instance. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• You establish the connection between the El Nino and the two other winter storms, but you don't really say why the NAO is important here. Maybe just a little blurb on what it does would be good.

• The effects of NAO are still being debated in meteorology circles, but there are definitely some correlations. It's just a neutral, objective observation for now. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ehh, IDK, there's just nothing there that indicates any importance. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's not that important, it's just something for a little meteorological context. Juliancolton (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• But you don't provide that context, that's my issue. It's as arbitrary as saying "the solar radiation at the time of the storm was X". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Little quibble - shouldn't the images alternate right, left, right? Or, did you do the placement intentionally?

• Yeah, I played around with it and found this is the most visually appealing alignment. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The nor'easter originated in a weak area of surface low pressure that formed over northern Texas by Christmas Day" - just gotta check, is there a better estimate than "by Christmas Day"? Also, a really minor quibble, but not all countries consider Christmas on December 25, and there doesn't seem to be any religious connotation to the article. Might just "December 25" work better?

• Alright, changed to the date. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• How/when did the storm die?

• I don't think there's anything in sources or maps that establish this. It probably simply fizzled out somewhere over the North Atlantic. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• M'kay. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, any reason there isn't an infobox?

• An infobox would be really useless, since the only thing it would establish is that it was a nor'easter, what its minimum pressure is, and maybe peak snowfall. I only use infoboxes to organize an abundance of stats and details, not to just take up article space. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Snow accumulated from the Appalachian Mountains in southern through western Maine, encompassing the entire Mid-Atlantic region." - missing wordfail?

• Yeah, not sure what I was trying to say, so changed entirely. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The highest totals were found immediately inland from the coast." - IDK, it doesn't look that way in the map. The highest totals look fairly far inland, not to mention the lede says "although precipitation changed over to rain near the coast due to an influx of warmer air."

• True enough, think I relied on the source too literally. Fixed. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• You go a lot into New England/New York impact, but there is very little about Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and southward.

• I'll see if I can find any more. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any luck? It was a huge area affected, according to the map, but you don't go into it at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why no conversion for 40 inches, 30 feet, or 1 feet?

• They're already converted previously in the article, and I try to avoid the prose just being a jumble of parenthesis and numbers if possible. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• IDK, sometimes I just skip the lede. It's hardly a jumble if you repeat it in the lede and then in the article, although I get your point. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's like how we don't link things more than once the way I view it. Juliancolton (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I can see your viewpoint. Personally, I disagree, since linking and converting are totally different, since the latter is for accessibility concerns. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• When was the former record set in Albany?
• Does the record in Vermont still stand? (greatest single snowfall total ever recorded in the state) - if so, that's fairly important

• I'll check on these too. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing for either of these. Juliancolton (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think further research needs to be done about Vermont. You don't specify where the peak total was in Vermont, just that 29.8 in fell in Burlington. A quick Google search shows this storm is 2nd on record in Burlington, recently surpassed by the blizzard in January 2010. That's a place to start. Also, I quickly found this report on monthly snow records in Albany, which shows the previous record was in 1915. IMO, the article appears to be poorly researched, considering how quickly I found these two items. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Much better now, and great find on the other impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any damage estimate?

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - article is currently only linked from List of NESIS storms, and that in turn is only linked from a series of nor'easter storms which may (I haven't checked) only be linked among themselves or to the list. I know healthy linking to and from other articles is not a FAC requirement, but it astounded me that this article was only linked from a list. I would normally suggest that links be added in relevant places, but given the lack of existing links, I'm not entirely sure if that is a good idea. At least some linking should be a natural demand for an article, not a web of links created by the writers of an article or set of articles. Will wait to see what others say about this (if anything). Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye out for places to link it. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead (and overall): I would expect to see something in the lead saying how long the storm lasted for, and how long the recovery took. You do say "late December 1969" and that it started on 25th, and that the worse of the storm took place on 26th and 27th, but the reader is left to work out for themselves that it might have been 2-3 days or something like that. The snowfall map lower down the article gives a range of 4 days. Is it not possible at all to say how long the snowfall lasted in some of the areas affected (e.g. where the snowfall was heaviest)? The latest date in the article is the 30th, but the article ends somewhat abruptly at that point, with no real closure. Do meterological records indicate when snowfall has melted completely on an area? There must be some system for measuring that.

• I added a definite time frame to the first sentence. Honestly, I don't think it would be possible to determine when the snow from this particular storm melted. I imagine some of it stayed around until March, when warmer weather inevitably takes over, but even then we have to assume The Snow Hole retained a bit well into the dog days of summer. :) Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The low peaked" - I'm guessing this has come up before, but it sounds strange.

• Added another word. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Inches of mercury, (inHg) is a unit of measurement for pressure. It is still widely used for barometric pressure in weather reports and aviation in the United States, but is seldom used elsewhere." I was hoping for a conversion to mmHg, the measurement I am more familiar with.

• I've actually never heard of mmHg being used in the real world, especially in US-related context. I guess I could add a third conversion if you really wanted it, but nothing else is converted to metric, so I'm not sure how well that would work. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Could it be written out in full the first time it is used? In print editions, people can't hover or click through to see what something means. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm actually not sure the convert template can handled it being spelled out, and I think you'd be hardpressed to find inHg being referred to in writings as "inches of mercury". There's a lot people reading print editions can't do, so I think we shouldn't bend over too far backwards to accommodate them when Wikipedia is designed to be read online. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "reaching 40 in (100 cm)" - I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "in" for inches. I think this will confuse other readers as well.

• Alright, spelled out on the first instance. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Due to a number of factors including" - comma needed after 'factors'.

• Done. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "frontogenesis" - this seems like an example of using a technical term for the sake of it. It would be simpler to say "weather front formation", wouldn't it?

• Not really. Frontogenesis can also mean weather front strengthening/establishment, not necessarily formation. The term is linked, so I'm not too concerned. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Again, I know there is a consensus that terms can be linked and followed for people to understand them, but that fails to cater for readers of a printed copy of this article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Throwing in "Christmas Day" may confuse those who don't realise that this is 25 December

• Yeah, fixed. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I still see "Christmas Day" in the article. The one you fixed earlier was one of two instances of this phrase. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oops... got it. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A localized southerly low-level jet developed by midday over Mississippi and Alabama and drifted eastward." - is this part of the developing storm, or something different?

• It's associated with the storm, but not exclusively part of it... I go into more detail about it later in the section. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  You mention "jet" twice in the article. If someone is unfamiliar with what a jet is, they are left in the dark as to what role a "jet" plays in this storm. Think of it from the point of view of someone who has only ever heard of a jet aeroplane. Also, the link is not that helpful. It takes you to a section of the article jet stream and there the reader is faced with Barrier jet, Valley exit jet, and African easterly jet. Effectively, you have linked to a disambiguation section and left the lay reader in the dark as to what you were talking about in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I clarified that it's a jet stream, which should eliminate the confusion with aviation. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  And the other point I made, that the reader following the link is left to work out for themselves what you meant here? If your sources don't say, fair enough, but I was expecting some sort of response here. To my mind, this is effectively an undealt with disambiguation link. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is "Mississippi and Alabama" synonymous with "southern Gulf Coast states" used in the previous sentence?

• Not necessarily, but I'm not sure what you're shooting for to be honest. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  What I'm trying to do is picture in my mind the developing storm moving over the "southern Gulf Coast states", and then fitting that in with the "localized southerly low-level jet developed by midday over Mississippi and Alabama". Is this part of the development of the storm (i.e. you are going into more detail) or is it something that happened after the storm passed over? i.e. is the jet below, behind, or within (and part of) the developing storm? Carcharoth (talk)

• It was associated with the storm's development. Whether it was geographically behind or ahead of the storm I don't know, but it was situated generally south of its center until the low stalled and the jet caught up with it. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the main body of the article, you say "The low turned northeast by early on December 26 as a result of the coastal front along the East Coast, at which time the storm underwent its first of two periods of rapid intensification [...] accelerated from Georgia to the coast of New Jersey". In the lead, you say "Upon reaching the U.S. East Coast, it intensified and turned northeastward, accelerating toward New England". Did it intensify before turning north-east, or did it turn north-east and then intensify, or both at the same time? The lead and main text seem to be saying slightly different things.

• I'm not sure I'm really following, but I changed "East Coast" to "Eastern Seaboard", which connotes less of the immediate land-sea border than "East Coast". Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  That does help, but it is the chronology I'm focusing on here. Did it intensify before turning north-east, or did it turn north-east and then intensify, or both at the same time? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, reading the two excerpts you mentioned again, I'm confident they mean precisely the same thing. The storm hit the coastal plain, turned north, and began to intensify at the same time. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  On re-reading, I agree with you. I'm being overly pedantic here - apologies for that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "from Georgia to the coast of New Jersey", I think to myself that it must have been moving from inland Georgia to coastal New Jersey, but did it reach the East Coast or not, or turn before it reached the coast and moved parallel to the coast and moving closer as it went northwards? The lead says "Upon reaching the U.S. East Coast", but the main text seems to say it was held off the coast by the front and diverted north. Should the lead say "Upon approaching the U.S. East Coast"?

• The storm more-or-less straddled the coast itself for most of its northward journey, as indicated by the track at File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg. I think the tweak I mentioned above should resolve this issue. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  That does help. Is it possible to put something like "The storm more-or-less straddled the coast itself for most of its northward journey" in the article? I must confess here that I had not actually seen that File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg contained a track for the storm. The caption only said "Surface weather analysis of the nor'easter", so I mentally dismissed it as some complex diagram and thought to myself "what is really needed is a line showing the route the storm took". But now I look closer, I see that there is a dotted line along the coast - not very easy to see among all the other lines. I would suggest: (a) explicitly telling the reader that this image contains a line showing the route the storm took along the Eastern Seaboard; (b) highlighting that line in a different colour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I clarified the caption a bit, which should negate the need for further in-text elaboration. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The tweak to the caption does ease my concern, but I'm puzzled as to why you think avoiding further in-text elaboration is a good thing? Are you worried that further in-text elaboration may drift away from what the sources are saying? And regarding File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg - I presume that can be freely modified? Would highlighting the storm track misrepresent things in some way? I'm striking my objection, but it would help to make clearer that if people want to understand the 'squiggles', they should read surface weather analysis - I found some of the explanation there very helpful. I know you currently link that featured article already, but some readers will be more used to having a key explaining image symbols attached to the image, rather than having to go and read a Wikipedia article. There is, of course, the larger question of whether you are including these images for the reader to examine in detail and attempt to understand them, or whether they are decorative images intended to give readers only a superficial idea of what is shown (the low resolution of the images makes it difficult to examine them in any detail or read the numbers written on them, so they appear to be more decorative than something to be followed up by the curious reader). Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• A map showing the track of the storm would help here (the closest seems to be the snowfall map, which sort of shows the track). And a 3D animation showing the storm dynamics would help in the next paragraph as well.

• That's quite the tall order! I'm not sure I can do much about this, short of providing more static maps. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah. But if anyone ever does do an animation! There are some nice animations out there (just not for this storm). Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll watch for one. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:December 1969 nor'easter 2.jpg - my US geography is hopeless. I eventually managed to work out (by clicking through to the image page) that this is showing the Gulf of Mexico coast of the southern US states, but it would help if the image caption in the article said that. The description page itself should give a scale or at least identify the extreme points at left and right and at top. And what the symbols and lines mean. Otherwise it is just squiggles on paper for most people.

• Added a bit of geographical context. Surface weather analysis, which explains the "squiggles on paper", is linked in the previous caption. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg has a source linked and an author listed and looks fine, but where did File:December 1969 nor'easter 2.jpg come from? Surely similar links and authorship details are needed there?

• Not sure what happened, but fixed. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• For some of the images, you link directly to the image file as the source. The source link should actually be to the page on which the image is provided, as that page will (should) give details of the image. Ideally provide both, but the important one for verification and information purposes is the page documenting the image details, not the image file itself.

• Not sure I follow unfortunately... Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  For any image, you can have two links: (1) The link to the image itself that you use to download the image; (2) A documentation page that tells you what the image is showing, who made it (i.e. showing that it is freely licensed) and so on. For any image you need at least the latter and if not obvious, both links will help make absolutely clear that the image is what it says it is. For example, look at any Library of Congress image - the links are to the documentation page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see, fixed on the NESIS map. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've struck the objection, but there is a deeper systemic problem here, in that the main meteorology sources seem to be geared to dynamic updates rather than historical records (compare their approach to that of an organisation like the Library of Congress or the New York Public Library). This may produce a problem with later accessing of records. Maybe use of something like WebCite is needed? You encountered this problem yourself in this very FAC where at 15:29, 21 February 2011 you say "I guess they must have changed the wording". Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "As the cyclone deepened" - what does it mean when you say a cyclone "deepens"?

• "Deepen" (for a low pressure system to intensify) is very standard meteorological terminology, and sometimes has a very specific meaning. I'm hesitant to change it to anything else. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "several miles into the atmosphere" - maybe add the word "up" in there?

• Eh, I feel like it would be a little redundant. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "assumed a negative tilt from northwest to southeast" - this is where my mental picture broke down and I wanted an animation!
• The tilt is "northwest to southeast" and the storm is moving "southwest to northeast"? That is consistent with the trough being part of the front and perpendicular to the forward motion of the storm?

• Let me try to explain it for you: broadly speaking, meteorology occurs vertically; different things are happening the further up you go into the sky. At the surface, we have a closed-off (meaning it has a defined center of low pressure) low pressure system. In this case, the low extended several miles up (to the 500-mb level), but at that point, it takes a completely different form. Instead of a closed cyclone, it's a broad, poorly defined, elongated region of lower pressures (a "trough"). This region directly correlates with the low at the surface. These troughs can either have a positive tilt (southwest to northeast), a neutral tilt (due north to due south), or a negative tilt (northwest to southeast). It's like the coordinate plane in mathematical terms. A nor'easter is considered "mature" when its associated 500-mb trough takes on a negative tilt, which allows the surface low to deepen and ride the coast northward. The forward movement of the surface low and the directional orientation of the 500-mb trough are not directly related, however. Also, the trough is a different weather feature from the coastal front, which is a dividing line between two masses of air of different densities or temperatures. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  That does help, but how do you think that can be expressed in the article? Is there something that can be linked to? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm honestly not sure how to explain it without going way off-topic or conducting original research (or bombarding the reference list with 15 sources that have nothing to do with the event). AFAIK there's not much to link to, so maybe that'll be a future project of mine. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The low-level jet intensified to an extremely high 55 m/s (120 mph) as it began to wrap around the low from the south, enhancing moisture and warm air under areas of heavy precipitation." - I had forgotten about that low-level jet. What has it been doing since we last read about it drifting eastward over the southern US states? (This is a serious question, actually, as I had thought the jet had developed into the storm, yet here I find it mentioned again, wrapping itself around the low - it really would help to make clearer the high-level and low-level stuff, with diagrams).

• It's probably been playing proverbial tag with the low, until it stalled and the jet was able to wrap into it. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Again, is it possible to tweak the balance slightly to explain things a bit more within the article? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe an obvious question here, but is this low-level jet different to the winds experienced at the surface, or is it the same. i.e. the wind speeds you may see quoted with respect to this storm, are they the same as this 55 m/s you quote? I ask this because in the article you say "strong winds", "high winds", "bitter winds" and "gale-force winds", but don't use the phrase "wind speed" anywhere and only seem to give one wind speed measurement (55 m/s). Can you not say more on the wind speeds? Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since there probably isn't much in the way of exact surface reports, I've linked Beaufort scale to the in-article mention of gale-force winds to give readers a general idea of what kind of force they're looking for. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Upon reaching New Jersey, the storm center slowed drastically and remained steady in intensity" - you don't give a date or time for this, though it seems a fairly key moment.
• "While located just east of Long Island, the nor'easter began its second phase of rapid strengthening and attained its peak severity" - again, no time or date provided for this.

• I think these two bullets should be addressed. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "While located just east of Long Island, the nor'easter began its second phase of rapid strengthening and attained its peak severity as it approached the Massachusetts coast. [...] snowfall propagated around the western end of the cyclone, reaching as far south as Long Island." - I'm afraid I got lost again here. I had to go look things up on a map with names of states on it, as the maps in the article don't have the names of the states on them, and so were of little use to me. What really confused me was the snow propagating round the western end and reaching southwards - I thought the storm was moving north-eastwards? I was also confused by "just east of Long Island" - does this mean the centre of the storm has now moved out over the coast and is over the sea? You then say it "it approached the Massachusetts coast", which from looking at a map is north-east of Long Island (with Connecticut around there as well). Now, if snowfall is propagating around the western end of the cyclone and reaching as far south as Long Island, that is going backwards to where the storm has just come from, so I am still confused here. Can you make the description any clearer?

• In the northern hemisphere, low pressure systems rotate counterclockwise, or from south to east to north to west and back to south. The back-end precip was simply following the circulatory nature of the low, notwithstanding its directional movement. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Right. It now says: "snowfall propagated around the western end of the cyclone, reaching as far south as Long Island" What is not clear here is where the snowfall is coming from. It is propagating from somewhere to get to Long Island. From where, though? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• From the other side of the storm. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that is obvious from the discussion here, but I'm saying it is not obvious to the reader of the article who has not read this discussion. There is no picture of swirling cyclonic clouds like there are in hurricane articles to give the reader a clue that circular motion is taking place here. You need to make this explicit, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• With cyclone, nor'easter, and low-pressure area linked in the article, I think even if readers didn't know storms rotated cyclonically, they can work it out. Again, I like to assume some reader competence, as otherwise it becomes a jumble of parenthetical and off-topic tangents in order to spoonfeed one or two people who might not have a basic understanding of the atmosphere. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, and as I said below, the linking of nor'easter greatly improves things. I won't press the point here, but I do think you should (after this FAC is over) take time to consider whether people really know as much about the atmosphere as you think they do. I don't think storms rotating cyclonically is something that most people are aware of. Most people know that hurricanes rotate, but most people think of storms as just clouds forming and producing thunder and lightning. Certainly stuff like low-level jets (a point that remains unaddressed) is not common knowledge at all. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• "heavy snowfall in Upstate New York and Vermont" - is this inland, on the left-hand edge of the storm? It would help if you could make clear at some point the width of the storm, so people don't just think it is moving up the coast, but is reaching far inland as well.

• I mention inland snowfall totals and effects numerous times in the article, so I think it should be clear that the storm was not confined to the coast (the snowfall map also clearly indicates this). Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  The word "inland" appears once in the article and the word "interior" twice - those not familiar with US geography will only have those clues to go on. The word "coast" appears ten times. The track in the diagram shows the storm moving along the coast. Can you not phrase it something like "its delayed movement leading to heavy snowfall on its inland western edges in Upstate New York and Vermont."? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the lead I'm very clear about where the storm occurred, and as far as I know, the article doesn't imply or suggest anywhere the storm's effects were confined to the coast. I'm going to assume some reader competence/common knowledge. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article does seem to be silent on whether the storm had any effects at sea. If this is a storm rotating about a central point, and that point is on the coast, and the western edge is far inland, presumably this storm was creating havoc at sea on its eastern edge? You do imply at one point that the centre of the storm moved out over the sea, but nothing is mentioned about the effects of this storm on shipping. Do the sources say anything? Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The storm's effects at sea were probably nothing to write home about, limited to moderate rain and perhaps some choppy waters. Nothing seems to be available on shipping issues. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, though I see some other nor'easters have caused shipwrecks. Wanted to be sure this hadn't happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The storm moved slowly northeastward over the next 24 hours" - is this still the 27th or is this now the 28th

• Should be more clear now that I've tweaked the preceding stuff. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• You switch between using the words "storm" and "cyclone" - this could easily confuse some readers unless you make clear the distinction and that they are the same object at different intensities (or whatever).

• Storm and cyclone are pretty much synonymous. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  To some people, a cyclone is a hurricane. No, really. Maybe add a note somewhere that "cyclone" in this article refers to cyclonic storm systems, not to tropical cyclones? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I linked cyclone, which is a broad term for any low pressure system. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The cyclone was rated by Kocin and Uccellini" - maybe add "meteorological researchers" before the names?

• Sounds good. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• You give Kocin and Uccellini year in the text as 2004, but are silent on when "more recent" is in the next sentence. This phrase ("more recent") will date badly as well, unless you explicitly say the year that the "more recent" data was published or analyzed.

• I'm honestly not sure. The website with said recent data is obviously dynamic, and updates constantly with new storm system ratings, but I have no idea when they rated the '69 storm – except that it was since 2004. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. It's a problem, then. You still need a date. In five years time it will look silly. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's a dynamic list, constantly updated since its inception after the book was published in 2004. Five years is a long time... if Wikipedia is still around then, it can be changed quite easily. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The storm left some communities without power or telephone service for up to two days" - the impact section is very good, but can you be more precise on which two days you are referring to here?

• Two days after the respective communities lost power and telephone service... I don't think there's much else to say about it. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there no way to end the article with something like "normal services had resumed in most of the affected area by XXXX" and give a date for that?

• I think I give a general feel for when certain aspects of recovery were completed, like, for example, the two days mentioned directly above. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• In general, I'm uncomfortable with all the units being in shorthand. I much prefer to see them written out in full the first time they appear, and then in shorthand thereafter.

• Got this I think. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall I enjoyed the article, and the link to the photo was good. Not enough people do that, though I was hoping for more than just one photo! I was going to ask if there were any satellite pictures, but it might be a bit early for that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very detailed review. Yeah, pictures are kinda hard to come by for an old and somewhat obscure weather event, but I think the maps do a good job of illustrating it. I could ask around to see if I can get any satellite imagery from the ATS-3 sat. archives. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the first few sentences of the main article, would it not be simpler to say:

  "Both the December 1969 nor'easter and two severe storms from the previous year, are considered part of the long-term El Niño trend that brought increasingly severe winter weather to the Northeast United States. During the general time frame of the December 1969 nor'easter, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) values ranged from neutral to negative, trending more consistently negative in the days surrounding its genesis."

  Or does that miss the point you are trying to make there? Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's not really accurate, since the storms aren't part of the ENSO period, they're a product of it (although it might lean more toward correlation than causation). Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible that other readers will misunderstand this point, like it seems I have? If so, maybe try and rephrase to make clear what you are saying, or make clearer the connection between the source and what is said in the article. For example, you currently cite the phrase "two significant storms in the Northeast United States" to a list of the worst NESIS storms, but leave the reader to try and work out for themselves that you are (possibly) referring to the storms of 8-10 February 1969 and 22-28 February 1969. Incidentally, linking February 1969 nor'easter should be possible around here. And thinking on this some more, given the political fallout from the February storm, did this give rise to a better response to the December storm? Hopefully some sources will have covered that angle. You could also add this article to Template:United States Blizzards, and consider putting that template on this article (it is interesting looking to see which of those storms are nor'easters). Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re the Lindsay Storm, the December nor'easter and the early February nor'easter affected two different areas, so they're apples and oranges so to speak. Also, it is unknown and unlikely that the December storm met the criteria for a blizzard, so I can't see adding it to the template (or adding the template to it!). I'm not sure where your concern over the storms of the 68–69 winter comes from. I assume readers can count backwards one year and determine which season they occurred in. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the storms affected two different areas, why do you indirectly mention the Lindsay storm in the lead (it is one of the two storms mentioned in this phrase, isn't it? previous winter, which produced two significant storms in the Northeast United States")? I accept your point about the blizzard template (I had misunderstood the difference between a blizzard and a snowstorm). Maybe a template on nor'easters (though I actually much prefer categories to templates)? I'm still not convinced that the bare citation to the list alone is enough here. I would suggest something like:

  "Trends and changes occurred in the major weather oscillation systems both west and east of the United States in the period before and during the December 1969 nor'easter. To the west, the effects of the continuing long-term El Niño had been felt the previous winter (1968-1969), which had produced two significant storms in the Northeast United States, both also included in the NESIS scale. These previous storms were the storm of 8-10 February 1969 and the Lindsay storm of 22-28 February 1969. To the east, North Atlantic Oscillation values ranged from neutral to negative during the general time frame of the December 1969 nor'easter, trending more consistently negative in the days surrounding its genesis."

  The changes are to set the weather oscillation systems in geographical context (west and east) and explicitly name the two previous storms mentioned indirectly in the text, and to link to the one we have an article on. Is there a reason why this would not be desirable? I see above that you said to Hurricanehink that "The effects of NAO are still being debated in meteorology circles" - this makes me worry that you are adding something here that is not completely certain. Do Kocin and Uccellini specifically make the ENSO and NAO connection? Could you not directly quote what they say? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, should have been more clear. All three storms impacted the same general region (as all NESIS storms do – hence the name "Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale", but the brunt of the December 1969 hit Albany, while the Lindsay Storm was worst in NYC. A 75 mile/120km difference. I fear that geographically generalizing the ENSO and NAO as "west" and "east" of the US, respectively, is oversimplification. Kocin and Uccellini don't make an explicit connection between these two patterns and the storm, but, as with every listing in the book, they provide the info for background context that can be used by researchers looking for potential correlations. I've split the first paragraph into its own background section to perhaps clarify that it's meant more as a bit of climatological context than a direct aspect of the storm's genesis. What do you think? Juliancolton (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• That looks good. I do think it would help the reader to be eased gently into the background bit, with a mention of large-scale oscillations before you mention ENSO and NAO, and I do still worry that you need to make clearer that you are citing background context provided by Kocin and Uccellini, rather than a direct correlation they have made. As Hurricanehink's point above seemed never to have been fully addressed, maybe ask him about this? I'm happy to let other comment on this aspect now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another point that struck me is that the size of this storm (geographically) is still unclear. How far outwards from the "centre" did the effects of the storm reach? If possible, this should be described in terms of absolute size (in kilometres) rather than just giving points of US geography that non-US readers may not be familiar with. Did the snowfall extend outwards for 10s of kilometres? 100s of kilometres? 1000s of kilometres? How far out into the ocean did the rainfall extend? The picture at File:GreatBlizzardof2006.jpg gives a good idea of the size that a nor'easter can attain. Would this storm have been of a comparable size? If the sources are silent on this, can you say what the extreme points are at the point of peak intensity? Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea, honestly. I could make a guess, but of course that would be OR. I'd also be very hardpressed to find extreme points, since data over the open Atlantic is minimal to non-existent, and the storm's effects likely extended beyond the US/Canada border where most documentation ends. A satellite picture would indeed be helpful, but again, that luxury simply doesn't exist. At the very least, the surface maps give a good indication of where the precipitation (shaded in gray) covered. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I accept your point that you can't say too much here. It might help to say that the grey areas show precipitation (this is something I hadn't realised, and I'm not sure readers should have to skim the surface weather analysis article to find this out). Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another point about dynamically updated meteorology sources becomes apparent when you compare List of NESIS storms and the current list. In the Wikipedia list, it is "16. December 25–27, 1969; 5.19; 3; Major", but in the current website listing it is "9. 25-28 December 1969; 6.29; 4; Crippling". I was going to suggest that you give the NESIS value/ranking, along with the numbers from the formula used to calculate it, but that may not be wise if this is dynamically updated. Maybe give the current figures "as of 2011" and say in the reference "the latest NESIS value and category for this storm can be viewed at ... which is dynamically updated as the latest figures are published/obtained/modified based on the most recent research"? If indeed that is what is going on here. You could also say that the NESIS value is a measure of area and population affected, which leads me to ask whether it is possible to dig a bit deeper and quote figures for area and population affected by this storm? It just struck me as a bit strange that this is a storm that has been assessed for the NESIS scale, but you don't mention NESIS at all, except in "see also". If there is a reason for this, fair enough, but I think it is a question that needs asking. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't read through your other concerns as of yet, but I'm just going to point out that I mention the NESIS scale in the second sentence of the article. Juliancolton (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• To further clarify, see the footnote in the NESIS list: "In the event that information from these two sources [NCDC and the book] is inconsistent, data from Kocin and Uccellini (2004) is used." In this specific article, however, I've chosen to include both ratings in the interest of fairness. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see now. I apologise for incorrectly stating above that you hadn't mentioned this is a NESIS storm. I had made the error of searching for "NESIS" (the initialism) rather than the full name, and not looking closely enough in the article. I should have realised it was unlikely that this had been missed out! About dynamically updating sources, would you consider raising this at a relevant WikiProject or other location for discussion? Overall, I'm going to strike this objection, but is there a reason you don't quote the NESIS values, seeing as they are from a formula that relate population affected and area affected - and are those figures (area and population) available to cite? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• One point that I am bringing out here in a new bullet point is that the general feel I get as a reader who has a basic (secondary/high school-level) knowledge of meteorology, is that the basic meteorology is not explained enough within the article. There is too much linking out to other articles when in-article explanation would be better. There has to be a balance, but currently I think the balance goes too far towards linking terms and some readers may spend more time clicking and reading other articles than reading this one. For example, I can tell from reading the article that this is not a hurricane, but is an "intense winter storm", but I'm trying to mentally place it with the other weather terms I know, such as 'gale' and 'blizzard'. Would it be correct to apply these terms to at least parts of the storm? You mention gale-force winds, but snowstorm (rather than blizzard) is not mentioned in the lead but is mentioned a lot later on. It would probably help if you linked to nor'easter - I read that article and it explained a lot, but it was not linked from here (I'm aware that linking from within the bold bit is discouraged, but there are plenty of opportunities to link nor'easter somewhere useful in the lead). If I had had a link to follow to that article, it might have avoided some of the questions asked here! Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I found a way to link the nor'easter article in the first sentence. Are there any other outstanding specific examples of things you think need to be explained in-text? Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now that nor'easter is linked, I am happy (though see summary of unresolved bits below), but I do think you need to not characterize minor in-text explanatory prose (which can be worked in so as not to disrupt the flow of an article) as spoon-feeding people. When Wikipedia editors work for a long time in a particular topic area, it can be easy for them to become so familiar with the basic concepts in that area, that they over-estimate what the lay-knowledge of an area is among the general public, and are happy to just link off to other articles instead. I know you aren't particularly receptive to that point of criticism, but if you could consider it and see how other articles are written, that might help you see what level I'm suggesting you pitch the article at. I should actually ask you which level you are pitching the article at? One level below professional meteorologist (e.g. postgrad), or one level above high-school graduate (e.g. university student), or somewhere in-between? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I appreciate I'm often oblivious to overly technical terminology in my writings, so I really appreciate that you've stuck with the FAC all along to help me compensate for it. It's a bit overwhelming when I'm pointed to the potential for confusion, and I'm often not sure how to address it. In any case, I think I'm aiming for somewhere in the middle, where a basic understanding of the weather (ie. the difference between a low pressure area and a high pressure area) is needed. Juliancolton (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for explaining that. I find it helps to look at other articles and see what level they are pitched at, and try and get articles to generally fit within a simple to complex gradient, rather than be very different from similar articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Check out what I did with the maps. Juliancolton (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Thanks for doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary (of unresolved bits raised by me above)

• The low-level jet link, which as I pointed out is effectively an undisambiguated link.

• Take a look at my in-text clarification. Juliancolton (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• The wording of the opening sentences in the main body of the article.
• The dynamically updating sources - would be happier if this was brought up in a wider discussion.
• General level at which article is pitched - again, would be happier if this was brought up in a wider discussion.

The second two are not strictly speaking actionable, but I think the first two are (or should be otherwise addressed or a reason given for not making changes). After that, I should be ready to support or not (am unlikely to oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - following review and discussion above, am now happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and extensive help. I'll keep your points in mind for future reference, with both this article and any others I write. Once I have a bit more time, I'll definitely look into initiating project-wide discussions about article complexity the the dynamic sources. Juliancolton (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [40].

---

Hanged, drawn and quartered

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Being hanged, drawn and quartered was possibly the most grisly punishment that medieval—and well into the 18th century—England had to offer. It was used on men considered by the state to be guilty of high treason, and basically involved being dragged at the back of a horse from the prison to the scaffold, hanged for a short while, then laid out (while still concious) on a table, to have your guts pulled out in front of you and burnt on a fire as you watched. Often your genitals would be on the same fire. All this was before you were beheaded, and then chopped into four bloody pieces, to be nailed to the walls of wherever it was thought you had conspired against your monarch.

There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be submitting a review later on today (PST).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And here it is. I list some prose concerns below, but I am concerned about comprehensiveness. What this seems to be is a well-written prose list of a series of events, with little context to help the reader. For example, legislation just sort of happens. Were there protest movements? Efforts at reform? Bitter opposition in the Lords to the idea of changing one jot or tittle? For example, the 1817 executions mentioned were the source of considerable discussion, Shelley wrote a work suggesting that the deaths were a greater tragedy than the death of the Prince Regent's daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales. Did he have anything to say about the method of execution? I don't know. It seems to me that a bit more context is needed to be truly comprehensive.

Can I ask if the nominator intends to respond or act on my above concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been away working. Am back now and will respond when convenient. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I've made a few additions comprising mostly small expansions of the reasons for the introductions of the various Treason Acts. I'm keen not to head off on a tangent. I'd like to add a little more on the move away from punishment of the body, to removal of the individual's rights, but I haven't yet found a good source to do so. Will keep looking. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also moved the section of text discussed below, into the notes. Parrot of Doom 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but can you do something on the reasons for abolition? The Georgian era, everything was in the newspapers or pamphleted, there's got to be something?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a gradual move from punishing the body, to punishing the individual (or removing his rights). I've read as much in a few places, but it'll take a bit of work to summarise it. I'll sort it out. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but come on, its end came by 19th century legislative action. I'm not just smoking something here (as if) in researching Ashford v Thornton, I found a fair amount of discussion of the legislative attempts to abolish trial by battle, and the eventual success. I really can't believe that hd&q would be any less the subject of writings and Parliamentary discussion. The tension between the tradition of these medieval hangovers and the "modern" penological approach was not an easy thing. Please do your best.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this sentence was the subject of a great deal of hand-wringing, mainly it was caught up in the drive to put an end to punishing an individual's body (rather than removing his freedoms) and also reducing the number of capital offences on the UK's statute books (ie hanging a man for stealing 5 shillings). I've added some context to the lessening of the penalty for treason but in truth if I added much more than I just have, I'd be crossing the line into Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, and I'd rather limit the article mainly to this particularly gruesome sentence. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I won't push you over the edge on this one. Been there myself. I'll look at the article again in the next day or two and either give my opinion or further comments. Did the act which passed the abolition also do other things? That is where it may differ from trial by battle, which was put an end to by a two-paragraph act which only addressed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Forfeiture Act (amongst other things like forcing convicts to pay for the damage they'd caused) basically ended the practice of "corruption of blood", whereby anyone guilty of treason would be stripped of their lands, property, title, etc, without chance of regaining them. Part of it is still in force I believe, traitors can't hold public office in the UK, or vote in certain elections. Basically, if you were found a traitor under this Act, you were either hanged or beheaded, and your "stuff" was no longer confiscated by the state. Drawing, quartering and the rest, was removed from the statute books. I thought to add a bit on attainder but again, it would be straying from the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) BTW, can you ascertain who the person referred to here is? If a future MP was sentenced to receive that punishment, and went on to become an MP instead, that seems very useful in the article. I gather from context the guy was Irish.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably William Smith O'Brien. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• The dates of the reigns of the two listed English monarchs may not be well-remembered. Perhaps put years in parens?

Done.

• "Although some convicts had their sentences commuted and suffered a less ignominious end" Is being hung instead (without all the trimmings) considered a commutation of sentence? I can imagine the plea bargaining. Perhaps another word instead of commuted?

I believe commuted works here, it is in effect a reduction of the penalty for high treason. I'm not particularly attached to the word though.

Perhaps "modified"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "downgraded" this seems rather a matter of opinion. I would accept, however, the word of anyone who has undergone both procedures. :)

I've changed to "changed", its a little less contentious I think.

Treason in England

• " by his justices' somewhat over-zealous interpretation of what activities constituted treason". Again, this seems a bit opiniony, especially since you don't tell us what the judges did. Did the King or his chancellor intervene?

I will look at this to see what I can add to clarify the point.

Execution of the sentence

• I'm uncomfortable with the several "may have"'s in this section. Who is doing the speculating?

Bellamy. Unfortunately most history is speculation, he is just a little more honest about it than other authors.

• "the sheer terror felt by those who thought they might be disembowelled rather than simply beheaded as they would normally expect" Does this have to do with the uncertainty of what "drawn" meant? I would not expect that people at that time were in any doubt.

No. The fear was that if one didn't perform as expected at the execution, one might be treated much more cruelly than his station would deserve. I don't believe there's much ambiguity about the meaning of the word "drawn", its clearly the practice of drawing to execution.

• " Conversely, some, such as the deeply unpopular William Hacket, were cut down instantly and taken to be disembowelled and normally emasculated" Perhaps "were" before "normally"
• The discussion in the next to last paragraph of the meaning of the execution by modern authorities seems a bit out of place.

I'm not sure exactly what section you're referring to here, could you expand? Parrot of Doom 11:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In "Execution of the sentence", the next-to-last paragraph, from the mention of Kastenbaum to the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. Let me have a think about that. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know when you want me to revisit the article, I do not watchlist FACs I am not a nominee on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't think what to do with this, other than shuffle the entire paragraph off to the notes section. It won't fit anywhere else, but I think it contains valuable information that needs to stay. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief subsection, just for the material I mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would break up that section a little too harshly. I'm favouring placing it into the notes section. If nobody else chips in, I'll do that in a few days. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be the best solution, and I don't see it as a drawback, on some of my Nixon articles, a fair amount of content is in the notes, for example United States Senate election in California, 1950--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: In general, an impressive array of scholarly sources (though it's bizarre to see the name of Jeremy Beadle in this company). A few minor points:-

• I believe I'm right in thinking that access to the OED can be done through libraries, as per ODNB, so the access information should be the same. I'm not sure that the link on "draw" goes to the best page, either
• Naish is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
• Publisher location missing from Fielden (2009)
  • All fixed except the last, I have been unable to track down a publisher location for Fielden. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources and citations look fine. As virtually all the online sources are subscription-based, meaningful spotchecking has not been possible. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5#How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB? -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The title seems a bit odd, to me. "Hanged, drawn and quartered" - AIUI, the usual style for pagenames would have it at Hanging, drawing and quartering. I've skimmed the talkpage, which has several discussions on "hung" versus "hanged", but doesn't seem to address this; there was apparently a pagemove dispute many years ago, but no discussion seems to have survived. Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is basically about the sentence and its carrying out - traitors were almost always told they would be "hanged, drawn and quartered" (or variations thereof). Most quality sources do the same. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Traitors_heads_on_old_london_bridge.jpg - if the artist is unknown, {{PD-Art|PD-UK-unknown}} is probably a better licensing option; same with the other unknown-artist images
• File:Jeremiah_Brandreths_head.jpg - source gives author name as "Neele"

Other than that, images look fine, all public domain due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion I think this is a very good article and I realize that what I am going to suggest is a rather big change but it seems rather specific to England eventhough other countries, including the US had such policies at some point. I think it should include a section other countries policies and laws pertaining to Hanging, drawing and quertering. I also notice that there are a lot of red links and I suggest perhaps replacing one of the red links with William Wallace. I believe he is a much more well known figure than many mentioned in the article. I also notice that there is no mention of this form of punishments nickname The Four Horrors and I recommend this be included as well. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does mention that the sentence was used in British colonies in North America, but I do not believe it was used in any other country but Britain. Other countries' punishments may have been similar, but nothing more. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: An interesting article. Here are a few comments:

• "a-quarter-inge" – you quoted it, but what does it mean?
  • I think it'll be fairly obvious to most readers that he was watching his friend being quartered.
    • I figured it meant quartering, but I'm not familiar with older styles of English. The first time through, I thought it might have meant something in addition to quartering. But then again, I was terribly tired when I did the review, so I'll let this pass. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Good Jesu, what will you do with my heart?". – Typo, I'm assuming? Also, the period is not needed at the end.
  • Not a typo, but I've removed the full stop.
• The lead could be a bit longer. Information about political corruption and other trends might merit a summary there. Also "quartered" is defined, but "drawn" is not. I find this a bit odd, especially since "drawn" is the only word whose meaning is disputed. In other words, this should be briefly mentioned in the lead as well. Other topics that could be summarized are public reactions and popular cases. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've often thought about expanding the lead but in truth, I don't think it's necessary, or even possible (to do the article justice). I think this is one of those articles whose subject matter is so gruesome that the basic introduction will draw them in regardless. I've changed "dragged" in the lead to "drawn", that will settle the argument on the meaning of drawn (which I'm fairly certain describes only the transport, drawn has little to do with evisceration). Parrot of Doom 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm still torn on this one. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is more than just an introduction to the article, but also a "summary of its most important aspects." I feel that some of the political history is missing: the discussion of "treason" and the Treason Act, the punishment's use as a political tool and how that gradually brought changes to the judicial system and the use of the punishment, etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • On reflection you're probably right and so I'll have a look to see what I think can be added. I'm very keen not to stray too far away from the punishment itself, as it's that which people will find most interesting.
        • I've noticed the lead expansion you've done so far. The only thing that I think merits a one- or two-sentence mention is the evolution of the sentence: again, it's use as a political tool and the repercussions. I really don't think that will draw attention away from the topic, but highlight how the perception of it changed over time. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
          • The trouble is by adding into the article the use of the sentence as a political hammer, particularly during Tudor England when that was most the case, you'd be straying more into High treason in the United Kingdom. That isn't what this article is about. The article is primarily a detailed account of the use of this sentence, discussion of treason and treason Acts exist merely to provide some context. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Upon further review, I think the lead should be sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Further reading" – I just read WP:FURTHER, and honestly, it didn't clear something up for me. Personally, I've never used a "Further reading" section, and I wonder if it implies that the article is not comprehensive. What kind of details are included in these books? Is there a reason why they weren't cited as sources? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I use further reading simply as a list of sources I've found that have something interesting to say, but which I didn't include in the article. There's a wealth of material on this subject and not all of it can be included. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • One of the books in there I've now used in the article, and given there's only two rather iffy books left, I've hidden the lot. I may unhide it if I find more interesting material. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Since I don't have access to these books, would you please share the general details of what they cover? Do they only provide a summary of specific cases? Would they be an appropriate source for a sub-article? I'm not trying to beleaguer the point, but I do want to ensure the article is comprehensive. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I hope you'll excuse me when I say no. It isn't really for me to start answering such questions, I've done the hard work in developing the article to the point it is now at. If reviewers want to ensure the article is comprehensive then they should be prepared to do their own research. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I looked back, and I didn't realize you had links to the sources. I could only search a sample of one of the texts, and pulled up nothing. But in "Old-Time Punishments", I found interesting information about Lord Coke terming it "'godly butchery,' on account of the divine authority." It also says, "It is stated that this kind of punishment was first inflicted in the year 1241, on William Marise, pirate, and the son of a nobleman." These two bits might be worth including. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
            • William Marise is another name for William de Marisco (of Lundy Island fame), who is mentioned. I've no objection if you want to unhide that section. I was a little terse in my earlier reply, just tiredness I guess, sorry about that. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Don't worry about it. FACs are stressful, and it's easy to misunderstand someone's tone. I wouldn't unhide the section, but possibly bring that one book back as a reference. You don't appear to mention William Marise/William de Marisco's date of execution, which this source provides. (After all, this is the first recorded instance of it.) Otherwise, is it worthwhile to mention Lord Coke's justification of the practice briefly? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Marisco's death is given as 1242, IIRC this comes from Matthew Paris's account. There seems to be some confusion (understandable given the age) but Marisco seems to have sent an unnamed assassin to kill the king, that assassin was captured and drawn, hanged, beheaded and quartered. Marisco fled to to Lundy Island and engaged in piracy before he was caught and executed. Coke's quote sounds interesting but truth be told I've found little to explain it other than guessing that its somehow related to the divine right of monarchs to rule. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • I remember that now... sorry. But what about Lord Coke? Does his justifications of it merit a brief mention? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
                    • I'm not sure how I can answer the question about Coke as I don't know in what context he was writing/talking. There's another Coke quote in the article regarding corruption of blood (attainder) but that came from Bellamy, who is an expert on the subject, someone whose choice of quotes I think I can trust implicitly. The phrase "godly butchery" appears rarely in a casual book search. Maybe it comes from the same primary source as the "corruption of blood" quote, I don't yet know. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
                      • It was on page 201, I believe. Apparently Coke used passages from the Bible to justify the punishment, which the author of the book questioned. Anyway, if you prefer to work from the original source, then I guess this will have to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• The lead sentence sounds a little funny. How about: "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was a penalty in England for men convicted of high treason as defined by the Treason Act of 1351, although the ritual was first recorded during the reigns of King Henry III (1216–1272) and his successor, Edward I (1272–1307)." – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's slightly too vague for my liking as it ignores later Acts that modified the 1351 Act. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I fixed the tense issue, but my point was that "from 1351" immediately following "was" sounds a little awkward. It's not the end of the world. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am just about to add my support. However, I found one typo: "As as happened with Edward Despard..." If I find more, I'll post back. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: On a second read-through, I'm fairly content with this article. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've had this on my watchlist for some time. I think the prose is there, and from my lay perspective, it's a comprehensive, navigable article. ceranthor 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article does not use standard WP:APPENDIX layout. The TOC is way under developed. At the moment if I want see what the arrangements at any particular time I have to read the article down to the paragraph I am interested in. Without more sections it makes it difficult to link from other articles to specific information. For example we have an article about the Interregnum. There were various acts of Parliament passed during that period that makes it unique. There is also the question of why it was that during and after some civil wars the men in open rebellion were treated as POWs while in others they were treated as traitors and HDQed, This issue is not touched upon. There are problems with the section headings. The article covers at least three constitutionally different periods but all we have at the moment are "Treason in England" and "Later history" and Later history seems to be arbitrary why not make the cut at 1707 and the act of Union? There is no section on the "Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland" or of "Great Britain". Whether people executed this way were or are martyred is a matter of opinion, and that POV is not touched upon. The use of the word Catholic without putting qualifying it with Roman is a POV (Anglicans consider themselves to be members of the catholic church). There are inconsistencies in the article over the use of phrases like "After their sentencing malefactors" and "Another victim of the Popish plot," To know why one lot were malefactors and other victim one has to have a much better understanding of the period than can be expected of an average reader of this article and hence could be seen as as presenting a Catholic POV. There are other parts that present a converse view for example "Many Jesuit priests suffered badly at the hands of their captors but were frequently the most defiant; conversely, those of a higher station were often the most apologetic" What does "higher station" mean? "Several captured Jacobite officers involved in the Jacobite Rising of 1745 were executed" under which act an English one or a Scottish one? There is a lot on the treason side missing. For example there is no mention of the several treason acts passed during the Interregnum, or about how they effected Restoration treason acts that had a direct effect on who could be HDQ. There are issue with sources in the article for example there is a sentence about "British colonies in the Americas" yet the source that is used to cover those definitive statements is "Going down hill: legacies of the American Revolutionary War" which will limit the scope both in time and in geographic location. There is a lot more like this that I could mention but which makes me think that this article is underdeveloped and so should not be promoted to feature article. Normally whether this article was a featured article or not this would not be a particular pertinent issue for improving the article through cooperative editing, but as was alluded to in the comment at the start of the Fac "There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet." This was a storm in a tea cup, where many editors objected to the use of an unreliable source in the article. In the end the quoted unreliable source was removed (and I think that the article was improved on its removal). The storm I think shows an ownership problem with this article which I don't think has gone away see for example the comment "I don't think I've ever seen any casual reader ever complain on any article I've authored ...". I think that if this article in its current state was to be awarded a Featured Article Status then improving the article through cooperative edit in would be impaired. -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There are many errors written above to which I should respond, but I am sick and tired of people using the "ownership" tarring brush whenever they've been unable to get their way and so I'll not bother. If PBS has an issue with how I edit articles then he can either do something about it or redact his offensive comments. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the ownership issue comes up here on this page. I fully expect someone else to comment here after my diatribe and this comment but to date on this page although lots of people have asked questions only one person has replied to date. I would usually expect more than just the nominator to answer and fix issued raised. On the article page about ~80% of the last 100 edits have been made by one editor with a further 8% by one editor. Close on 400 out of the last 500 edits have been carried out by the same editor which probably the same percentage as last time. -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment What should that mean to us? It is not unusual for one person to have put in the bulk of the work on an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion relocated to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt when you write "us" who do you mean? -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PBS, having only the nominator(s) reply to reviewer concerns here is common FAC practice - several other FACs currently on the page do the same. Also, I would suggest taking meta-commentary not specifically related to the criteria to either the talk page of this review or article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Having the only the nominator reply is probably something that should not be encouraged, I think it better if more people are involved. Be that as it may, I have bought up a lot of points above, some of which I would normally be involved in fixing ... I wait with interest to hear what the nominator has to say. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The title issue that I raised on the talk needs to be revisited (and the lead fixed accordingly, which I recently did but was reverted). Per the naming conventions and by analogy with hanging, the title should be a noun form, hanging, drawing and quartering, not the current verb form. I have no idea why it was moved from that form in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I still don't think my concerns about advocacy of and reaction to the abolition have been fully addressed yet. As this article is not in a position to be promoted yet, there is time to do so, but I figured I'd post a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(To UKexpat) I don't think there is an issue. I think you may be confusing the practice of hanging with the sentence of hanged. This article is about the sentence, and in just about every reliable source there is, it is referred to as "hanged, drawn and quartered". Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's about the sentence, I can read thank you. Take a look at hanging, by your logic it should be hanged. For that matter, take a look at any of the methods set out at Template:Capital punishment, they are all noun forms, not verb forms, similarly the sentence is "death", not "dying", again a noun form. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(To Wehwalt) I will have a look again to see what I can do to address that concern. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added as much as I think I'm able to. I've found little which suggests that the abolition of HD&Q happened separately from the general softening of England's laws on capital punishment. I've looked right through Hansard and found next to no debate on the subject. I think if anyone can be credited with its abolition, it would be Charles Forster, but again I've found nothing which suggests that he was driven exclusively to doing away with the sentence, his motivation was ending the practice of forfeiture. Amending the law to end HD&Q seems to have been something tacked onto the end of his Felony Bill, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that ukexpat is mistaken in insisting that this article title be changed to "Hanging, drawing and quartering" to match the title of the Hanging article, because these are two quite different kinds of articles. The Hanging article is rather technical, focusing on the various methods employed over the years (short drop vs. long drop for instance), whereas this one focuses more on the legal, social, and historical background of the sentence. Plus, the sentence as passed by a judge would have used the past tense as here, just as the statutory form of words used in the English courts did until capital punishment for murder was abolished: "... you will be taken hence to the prison in which you were last confined and from there to a place of execution where you will be hanged [my emphasis] by the neck until you are dead and thereafter your body buried within the precincts of the prison and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul". Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. P of D has done his best to act on my requests. The fact that there is no material out there is not his fault. The article meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a bit more that might be said about the abolition of capital punishment generally (for instance, there was until the 1860s a Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment), but I'll have to think on including it. I believe that really belongs in another article. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest adding "in 1326" and "1470s" to the picture caption - the reader should not have to click through to the articles to both discover when the event depicted took place, nor that this is a depiction made more than a century after the event.
  • I hadn't even thought about it but such a style would require that I do the same to the other images in the article and I cannot supply dates for all.
    • You mention the other pictures: it did strike me as strange that the 1648 picture had a long in-article caption compared to the other images. It gave me the impression that this caption was written by someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That image has a long name, and is really two images in one pane. That's about the strength of it really. Parrot of Doom 13:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Objection struck, given changes made to other image captions, and I can accept that the lead image can have a less precise caption. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• "hurdle" - had to click this and that felt like I was being distracted and drawn away from this article.
  • Well, that's why we have blue links.
    • I may be cherry-picking, but WP:LINK says:

      Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with a very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence [...]. Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.

      What I would personally do here is link hurdle from where it is first mentioned in the main text of the article, but omit it from the lead section as unnecessarily distracting - I feel rather strongly that readers should be able to skim the lead section and understand it without having to 'chase links'. More to the point, though, the article linked to only mentions the use in executions in passing, hence my describing it as a 'distracting' link. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The alternative word to use is "sled" or "sledge" but that I think applies mainly to more recent uses of the sentence. Omitting it altogether suggests that they were dragged along the ground, which didn't happen often as they'd often be dead by the time they arrived. I've linked hurdle in the body and modified the lead a little. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That does help, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• "during a long period of 19th-century legal reform the penalty of hanging, drawing and quartering was changed"
  • Good point, done.
• "Treason during the High Middle Ages was punished in a variety of ways which included drawing and hanging" - when was the practice of drawing started? We have no article on it, so mentioning it here would be logical.
  • I've no idea when it started, I don't think anyone else does either. One might as well ask when hanging began.
• "The 13th-century English chronicler Matthew Paris"
  • Done.
• "armiger literatus" - totally opaque - needs explanation.
  • Someone else is going to have to do that. The closest explanation I've found is "assassin" but I'm not confident of it enough to explain further.
    • Have you tried to find someone else able to do this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Not really. I've had a hell of a fight getting the article this far, it seems of late that people (not you) on Wikipedia mostly choose to criticise rather than help :/ Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I managed to find a bit more on this, and have clarified things somewhat. Parrot of Doom 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1242 De Marisco was himself sentenced to be drawn, hanged, disembowelled and quartered." - was the sentence carried out?
  • I don't know, and the sources aren't unanimous on this. Some say he was sentenced in 1242, some say he was killed in 1242.
    • My point is that you don't say he died, you only say he was sentenced. You leave open the possibility that the sentence was not carried out. Is that what you intended here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • No he definitely died, I just can't be certain exactly when. The details are in Matthew Paris's chronicles but different sources based on those seem to disagree on when he died. I've therefore left it ambiguous. Better to say nothing than say something that's wrong, I think. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Maybe add "though the exact details are uncertain"? Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• "during Edward I's reign" - is it worth saying when he reigned, or are you expecting the reader to click through to the article if they want to find out this information? FWIW, the dates of the reigns are given in the lead but not down here in the article. Also, at the moment it is not entirely clear that the two examples of Dafydd ap Gruffydd and William Wallace are from Edward I's reign. Also, you say Wallace is Scottish, but fail to mention that Dafydd ap Gruffydd is Welsh (this will not be obvious to all readers).
  • Personally I don't think its that important to add the years a monarch reigned, since the approximate year is implied already by the date of execution. I'm wary of adding too much information to already strained prose. I added the years to the lead at someone else's suggestion, but I could live without them.
    • And the Welsh/Scottish bit I mentioned? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah I missed that, I've added Welshman to the text. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle and Hugh Despenser the Younger" - give years here? Or at the least say that you have now moved on from the time of Edward I to the time of Edward II.
  • I've added Edward II to clarify, but for the above reasons I don't think its helpful to add dates here.
• Why is the bit about the American colonies (1607 onwards, with examples from 1630) put in the section on "Treason in England" and immediately after a discussion of the Treason Act 1351? This is a jump in time of nearly 200 years and across the Atlantic. It jarred immensely when I was reading this - I had to mentally adjust from 14th-century England to 17th-century North America.
  • I think its the best place to put it, since this section deals with the first Act, and not the sentence. I could have placed it into the Later History section but then I'd have to explain why I didn't mention it before then.
    • Fair enough, though a segue of sorts would make this less jarring. Something to tell the reader that you are changing the subject to overseas territories, and explaining why you fail to mention other overseas territories. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (dropping this point)
• In the next paragraph, you jump back to 1552. It feels like you are jumping around in time a bit here. And the intent of the section title "Treason in England" is not clear. Some readers will be expecting future sections on treason elsewhere. Maybe you mean "History of treason in England" or "Legal history", as that is more what this section reads like.
  • I don't see a problem with "jumping around in time". I know for some readers a rough list of executions in chronological order would make more sense but I prefer to read something that deconstructs the history of this practice, and for that, a little leeway is required in how things are presented. I'm not getting into "History of treason in England" because this article isn't a history of treason, it's a history of the sentence for high treason. The "Treason in England" exists to provide context, nothing more.
    • Sure, but if you are going to jump around in time, you should be giving dates. I'll expand on that later. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• It also feels like the legal history goes on a bit too much. It feels like a history of the Treason Acts, which may be relevant here, but the following two sections felt much more relevant to the article.
  • People should understand why this gruesome punishment was used, and in what context. And believe me, there is a lot more I could have included, specifically from Tudor England, on the history of Treason Acts, that I didn't.
    • See what I said below. It is a matter of separating the why from the how, or merging them together in a better way. It would be quite possible to have a section of the article on the legal and parliamentary history relating to this penalty, and to keep that separate from the political and cultural history surrounding each specific sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Dropping this point as well.
• It is also not clear that not everyone convicted of high treason was executed this way. It should be said explicitly that this was one of a number of sentencing options available, and briefly what other options there were, and why this option was chosen instead of other options (or rather, that sometimes the sentence was commuted, I think is the technical term).
  • Can you provide a few examples of people sentenced under the 1351 Act who were treated more leniently, then I can add that to the article to clarify? Parrot of Doom 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You give one example already: Edward Despard. But that is not the one I was thinking of. Will try and remember what I meant here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • He was still sentenced to be HD&Q though, no matter how lenient the executioner was. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Dropped this, as I'm still not sure what I meant here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• In footnote three (nb3), it is not clear who you are quoting. There are hints in the citation, but that needs to be brought forward into the text of the footnote, just as you would when quoting a chunk of text like this in the article proper.
  • Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
• In the "Execution of the sentence" section, you give lots of examples, but are jumping around in time a lot. Anyone wanting to get a sense of *when* these events took place has to click through to articles each time and that get boring very quickly. If you don't have a sense of when these events took place, it quickly just becomes a list with little context.
  • I completely disagree for reasons already stated above.
    • This seems the appropriate point to expand on what I mean here. What I see in this article is an inconsistent approach to giving historical and date context to the events. In the lead you give the years 1351, the regnal dates from the 13th century, and then you say "19th-century" and 1870 and 1998, but you don't give a date for the execution of King Charles I nor do you specify over what time period the Catholic priests were executed at Tyburn (all at once or over several years?). I looked further down in the article to see if you say more on the Catholic priests, but found only scattered mentions and no summary. In the main body of the article, you date the following executions: 1238, 1242, 1283, 1305, 1630 (Virginia) But fail to give a year for the following: Andrew Harclay (1323), Hugh Despenser (1326), Maryland execution date left unspecified, Thomas Prichard (article does not give death date), William Perkins incident (16th century), William Dean (1588), Edmund Gennings (1591), Thomas Ford (1582), John Finch (1584), Edward James and Ralph Crockett (1588, slight context given by mention of Queen Elizabeth), John Payne (1582), William Hacket (no article), Thomas Harrison (1660), John Houghton (1535), Richard White (1584), Thomas Armstrong (1684), and then some slight context by mentioning Charles I. You then start using years again, saying "In 1566 Joseph Justus Scaliger" and "in 1602 the Duke of Stettin" and "William Staley [...] in 1678". So essentially the entire "Execution of the sentence" section completely lacks years. If you insist on this, may I suggest you add a note saying "The following is an overview of how the sentence was carried out - for details of the years these sentences were carried out, see List of people hanged, drawn and quartered" or even "see the following section". The contrast with the 'Later history' section is marked. In that section, you have 1681, Jacobite Rising of 1745, 1781, the following year, but fail to give a year for Edward Despard (1803); then it is back to giving years: 1726, 1789, 1779, 1786. After a brief discourse on legal history, we are back to the examples: 1817, 1820, 1839. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok I see what you mean, I'll take a look and see what I can do. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I thought what you were aiming at was turning the article into some kind of chronological list which is why I initially objected, but adding dates to the article is an easy thing to do and a definite improvement, so I've done it. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• In footnote 5 (nb5) it should say "Harrison's" not "Thomas's". And similarly, in footnote 6 (nb6) should it be "Hugh" or "Despenser" in the phrase "Hugh's corpse"?
  • Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
• Saying "the image on the right" fails those with screenreaders and also risks being nonsensical in some layouts. There should be guidance written (if none exists) on how to properly refer readers to images. In book, readers are referred to "figure X". It is a pity we can't do that.
  • A pity indeed. There are many aspects of Wiki code which I feel are lacking, however, I've looked at the article in a range of resolutions and the image remains to the right of the text.
    • You could say "See Figure 1" and put "Figure 1" in the caption for the image, and then those with screenreaders will know how to jump to the image you are referring to. My point about screenreaders is that "on the right" is useless. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • This sounds a little to me like the discussion on alt text, and we know how that turned out. I think its fine as it is. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Leaving unresolved, but it may come up again in future. Accessibility shouldn't be given lip service because the alt text situation deteriorated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Footnote 6 (nb6) is fascinating. Is there a reason this material has been relegated to a footnote, rather than expounded upon in the article proper?
  • See above comments by Whewalt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • Personally, I think that where you have extensive commentary by historians on particular cases, that should be the meat of this article, not shuffled off to the footnotes. At the least, you should ensure that the material is present in the articles on the people executed, as that is the perfect sort of material to put there. Struck for now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• "oppugned" - difficult word, should be explained or linked somehow, IMO.
  • I am wholly opposed to the linking of uncommon English words. The English language is a wonderful thing and it does people no harm to investigate words they don't initially understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • Good response! Try using it in conversation one day... Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• "decollated" - it is not clear that this means to remove the head.
  • The first two uses of the word in the OED make it perfectly clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • I tend not to assume that everyone has a copy of the OED (is it available online?). Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes its online, but its safe to say that the word is a synonym for decapitation, beheading, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• The end of the article reads too much like a history of capital punishment. If other articles ever get expanded, they will be better places for this material to go, and this one will need reorganising at that point.
  • See above comments by Whewalt. I can't please everyone. Parrot of Doom 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My point is rather than it only takes a very subtle rewriting to shift the emphasis slightly and focus more on the sentence (of HDQ) being covered here, rather than capital punishment in general. Just little mentions here and there in the text that remind the reader that you are talking about capital punishment in the context of HDQ, rather than the general history of capital punishment. The whole paragraph from "The reformation of the laws" to "127 votes to 23" fails to mention HDQ at all (unless the quote "extreme penalty" is a specific reference to HDQ?) An introductory line such as "Use of the penalty of HDQ was affected by the continuing 19th-century reforms on capital punishment. As part of these reforms, politicians such as..." is what I had in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok again, let me have a think and see what I can do. Its unfortunate that most sources speak about capital punishment in general, and not HD&Q, so I've had to pull the whole thing together from all over't'place. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • See what you think of these changes. It isn't perfect, ideally I'd like to say "ultimately HD&Qing was ended by the 19th-century reformation of England's capital punishment laws" since that's almost certainly what happened, I just haven't found out exactly why the 1870 Act contained that paragraph which renders it obselete. Someone put it there, I haven't found out who. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Hopefully you can find a source that is more direct on the topic. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Where it seemed to struggle most was in marrying the details of individual cases and the legal history. It feels in places like some accounts of individual cases have been merged with a rather brief overview of the legal history. Possibly stepping back and considering whether to treat the legal and parliamentary aspects separately from the history of the actual executions, might be worth considering. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - following the review above and the responses, I am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [41].

---

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What does a young Japanese elf stranded on an island with a giant egg have to do with surrealist David Lynch? More than I thought, apparently. This article has been through two previous FACs; the first one failed (quite justifiably) due to a lack of comprehensiveness and MoS issues. These were not resolved with the second FAC, however I think the article as it stands now meets the criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I gave the article a thorough copyedit over the last several weeks. I hope that no 1a concerns arise; however, I take full responsibility if they do, and will try to address them quickly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. Quite a few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. (ignore the IGN ones) --PresN 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support great, really comprehensive article on an awesome game. igordebraga ≠ 17:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Always nice to see a part of your childhood come to FAC. I got this game on Christmas in 1993, and it only took me 12 or 13 years, and numerous online strategy FAQs, to beat it.

• Plot: Repetition is present at the end of "where he is taken to the house of Tarin and his daughter Marin. Marin...".
  • Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Development: There are a couple of unneeded repeat links to other games in the series here (A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time).
• Missing word in "that reappeared Ocarina of Time, among others."
  • Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reception: Electronic Gaming Monthly is linked twice here, and the second usage should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Few comments

• developed after hours by Nintendo staff. - does that mean it was developed in a few hours (taking the port and making the general story line in a few hours), or while they were working on LttP?
• "Assuming the role of Link, the player fights monsters and solves puzzles while searching for eight musical instruments that will awaken the sleeping Wind Fish and allow Link to escape from the island." - you use "Link" twice in the same sentence. Also, I noticed you don't mention anywhere in the lede that the island is a dream
  • The lead used to mention the island being a dream, but I removed it because: A) there was no placed where it fit concisely; B) it seemed like excessive detail. I feel that the plot information, as it stands now, adequately summarizes the main thrust of the game's story. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, fair enough. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Critics praised the game's depth and number of features, despite voicing complaints about its control scheme and monochrome graphics." - despite isn't really an appropriate use of words here, since the latter doesn't contradict the former. Try rewording to emphasize the highlights and downfalls of the game.
• You say in the lede that it does not feature Ganon, but you do mention some form of Ganon in the plot. Just saying...
• There's no more exact release date than August 1993? It wasn't that long ago to get an exact date for such a popular game
• "and causes the shopkeeper to kill the character upon re-entry of the shop" - does the shopkeeper actually kill Link, or does he just go after him to try and kill him? (like the cuccos in N64)
• "In addition to the main quest, Link's Awakening contains side-quests" - any way you could avoid "quest" twice?

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review, Hink. I've taken a stab at rewording the above. The shopkeeper does actually zap Link to death, and I haven't been able to find consistent dates for the game's initial release (even Nintendo doesn't bother). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for the responses. That's odd about the release date, but I tried a Google news search and couldn't find anything conclusive, even in August 1993. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's tool found only mirrors; spotchecks not done
• You don't need to reveal your age, but I'm rather impressed that you were consulting sources for this article way back in "1009" ;-)
• Lots of doubled periods in References
• What is GmbH? vDX?
• Be consistent on whether you provide retrieval dates for archived sites
• Make sure all the Japanese sources have language tags (ex. ref 14)
• Use a consistent date format
• Be consistent in what is linked when
• Page number(s) for ref 45 (EGM)?
• Page number(s) for Carter?
• Publisher for ref 56?
• Ref 60: why identify this ref as a magazine and not the others? Why include a publisher location for this ref and not the others?

I'm not very familiar with sourcing requirements for gaming articles, but it seems like there are a lot of promotional / Nintendo-published sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I think I've addressed most of the above. I've simplified the Nintendo publisher calls, also removing the doubled periods, fixed the improper date. The sources wihtout page numbers means that for whatever reason the copies I found online did not include all the citation information beyond author/date/title/work. Also, all the dates should be formatted in ISO, but that doesn't really work for publications that are monthly or when there is no date release (so those are left simple). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Image copyright review: One free image and two non-free images which both seem to meet WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that File:The Legend of Zelda Link's Awakening platform comparison.png is two images combined into one, so there's three non-free images in total, but it's still okay IMHO. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Read through the article, comprehensive, well sourced, follows all WP protocols. My stance is Support to featured class. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I can't find anything wrong with this article from my area of editing. All the sources are great and all the images are either free or have good NFC resoning. Great work. I will be looking forward to seeing this on the main page. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.

• The article calls this game the fourth Zelda game, but the description at File:Links Awakening box.jpg calls it the third. These should match.
• Per WP:R#PLA, I think bolding the DX title in the lead is reasonable here since the title redirects to this article and it is discussed quite extensively.
• Any more info on ref 45 from Electronic Gaming Monthly? I would think that at least the issue or month are necessary.
• The magazine citations should have the publishers listed.
• 1UP.com and Game Trailers have updated their urls since the pages were accessed. I would be best to update the citations to prevent link rot.
• This is more thinking out loud than a suggestion, but I think there's enough content already present in the article to make a "Legacy" section. But what's there is integrated well enough that it could go either way.

Other than that, the article is in good shape. The prose is well-written, it is informative and comprehensive. Keep up the good work. I'll check back later. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Hey Guy, I think I've hit all your major points above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: I think the article meets the FA criteria, and it has come a long way since its first FAC. Good job David. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

• Support - Another delightful Fuchs article, with Blackwing copyediting to match. I fixed a couple reference date ISO issues that I saw, but I didn't see any other problems. Well done! --PresN 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [42].

---

Me and Juliet

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. My final attempt in the Musical Theatre/Light Opera area is about this one. The musical was an utter flop, though reading it, it probably deserved better. Whatever. Back to coins, Nixon and Canadian politics after this.Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• No citations to Hammerstein's The Hammersteins: A Musical Theatre Family that I can see. Should be listed as Further reading (or omitted)
• Ref 12 is a subcription source, needs noting. This is also true of 29, 33 and 35.
• Ref 28: there are no references in the source page as displayed to Maclaine or Jones. How do you get to the full article?

You have to click on "more" halfway down the page. The URL does not change. Shall I note that in the ref?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it to you - I should have realised that. I'm not at my brightest at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, spotchecks (such as were possible) OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Except as noted, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, looking forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: File:Me and Juliet 1953.jpg really isn't adding anything. Album covers are fine on articles about the album, but they're gonna need some special justification to be used elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the same point made at the FACs for Pipe Dream and Flower Drum Song, and views were that it was OK to have it as there was unlikely to be an article about the album?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in either of those discussions, but I can assure you that that is a long way from current practice generally. The use of non-free content in an article is not dependent on the existence or otherwise of another article- if the album is never likely to have its own article, then that's fine, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the album cover can be used in some other article. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in and agree with J Milburn; missing the album cover does not significantly impact reader understanding as the release is not a major aspect and the subject of critical commentary; as the article for the album does not exist you also can't defend it as an identification piece. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I've deleted it. I have purchased on eBay a playbill for Me and Juliet, many free handouts and publications from the 1950s were published without copyright notice and are now in the public domain. When it arrives, I will look through it and with luck there will be none. Until then, we will have to work with just two images. Maybe I'll put one up of the theatre or something, a modern musical which was not based on an earlier work can be a real pain on the image side. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 2 dabs (Billy Hayes, Some Enchanted Evening); 0 dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, the toolbox is not appearing in this nom, but that's not a big deal. Issues fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I've left some inline comments in the text hidden in <!-- --> tags.
  • I think it might be clearer to follow film layouts in placing the plot before the production information, so that readers understand the framework of the story and mentions of cast members, etc., make more sense.
  • The biggest issue I had reading this is that the musical is described as "in profit" and having made returns, but these descriptors are not elaborated on. Elsewhere the article says it received mixed to positive reviews, but presents some contradictory information on that score. Finally, it is described as a failure, but no benchmarks are given for that estimation (by the prose, I reckon it to be not a smashing success, but hardly a flop.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a failure for R&H, who had raised the bar for themselves. I'll see what I can do with it. No source that I know of gives specific dollar figures for the profit, but that is unsurprising as the only "investors" were R&H and RCA. I'll play with the language and look at your comments. BTW, I said the play got neutral to unfavorable reviews, not mixed to positive. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article only calls the show a failure once, and I should have made it clearer, that is Abbott's perspective. I've cleared that up now. The lede refers to the show as unsuccessful, which I think is indisputable. As to how one measures success? This show did nothing to enhance their professional reputations. If it wasn't a hit, or close to it, it was "What has happened to R&H?" It was much the same with Pipe Dream and Allegro. Only Pipe Dream actually lost money, but they damaged the pair's reputation (today almost blissfully forgotten) and of course, this affected potential investors (although not much), performers and creative help considering offers from them, etc. It was not going to be South Pacific every time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If it's possible to pull in more of that context, that would be helpful (I know of Rodgers & Hammerstein, but I think most readers my generation don't give two wits about musicals anyhow, so you need to provide readers with more of a sense of why it was disappointing then.) Sorry for the mixup, I think I accidentally erased your edits when adding some of my own. This issue is these two sentences: "According to Steven Sondheim, a protégé of Hammerstein, "Oscar was able to keep the partnership together by taking Dick's suggestion, which he did not want to take."[4] As the two discussed the matter...", where "Dick's suggestion" and "the matter" have to be clarified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, taken care of and also your hidden comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The infobox is naff, but that's probably because the image got yanked (see above).
• I stumbled (flow of reading was disrupted) over the term "light bridge" in the lead. Maybe some link or explication is needed? I stumbled on the term "tryout" as well, but was able to work out from context and word-form what that meant. I suppose a light bridge is a bridge for the lighting, but unlike the "wings" (off to either side), I'm unsure as to where a light bridge is located in a theatre.
• In the sentence: "The entire action of Me and Juliet takes place in and close to a Broadway theatre in which the successful long-running musical Me and Juliet is playing", I can see that the circular self-reference is one of the points, but technically the first Me and Juliet in that sentence is the musical the audience is watching, and the second one is a fictional musical-within-a-musical (of the same name). Should there not be some mention that the fictional musical has the same name as the real-life musical? In the synopsis you use the phrase "internal show" - maybe use that in this sentence as well?
• The synopsis has the timing of musical numbers included - it is not immediately clear that is what these bits in brackets are, unless you are used to reading summaries of musicals.
• The start of the Inception section is a bit abrupt. Maybe segue in from the plot summary with something like: "The origins of Me and Juliet can be traced back a decade earlier to the period following Oklahoma!, R&H's first musical, in 1943.".
• "from the dressing rooms to the flies" - I have no idea what "flies" is here.
• The link to 'show-within-a-show' could come earlier, maybe even in the lead?
• "According to author and composer Ethan Mordden" - this is confusing, as I thought initially you were talking about someone hired to work on the play and author the "play-within-a-play" but, but then I realised Mordden was born in 1949. Are you quoting him here more as a later critic or commentator? If so, maybe make clear that he is talking at a distance in time (in 1992), as opposed to the other authors and composers mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, are you really quoting Mordden here? It sounds like you are quoting Mordden as he quotes someone else.

It seems to be Mordden himself, I googled phrases from that and he and us are the only ones that come up exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

From this, it seems to be Mordden imagining or reporting Hammerstein's thoughts. You seem to have cut off "Hammerstein thought" immediately before the quote you give, thus making the 'voice' Mordden's, rather than Hammerstein. Imagine which makes more sense, Hammerstein or Mordden saying "We shall imagine some rather advanced musical of the near future" - that comes across to me as a collective "we" referring to those creating, writing and producing the show. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I can't find anything by Hammerstein saying that. I will look though, perhaps Mordden paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead seems a touch short.
• Contemporary pictures of the actors would be nice (but possibly wishful thinking).

Other than that, the rest of the article reads really well, and I couldn't find any other faults with it. I particularly like the ending. It left me feeling that I'd finished the article on a strong note, rather than finishing abruptly or weakly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just bumping in on that, I love finishing an article with a blockquote, probably two thirds of my articles do that. There is just such a note of closure in closing with a well-written statement by a third party. The reader has had all he can take of the article-writer's perspective by the end of the article, there is a note of satisfaction by giving a second perspective in that fashion. It is a lot better than dropping off the end of the earth, as some articles seem to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will respond in greater detail later in the day, as I have to go to work shortly. Most of them I'll just work through and just note that I've done them as a global note. A quick couple of things—one of the problems with working with musicals of this era is that there is likely to be a shortage of PD images. I have a Me and Juliet playbill coming I hope is PD/no notice, as many free publications were issued without copyright logo in the fifties and sixties. I know of no PD images of the major players. The placing of musical numbers in quotes and parens is the accepted practice for FA musical theatre articles, but to clear up confusion in one, I put a "Musical number:" in the first one and I'll do that here. Many thanks for the thoughtful review, I'll work on this this afternoon or tonight and report back.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've cleared up all your points. Thoughts? I've got the playbill, it is indeed PD/No Notice, and once I've worked on Nikkimaria's comments, I'll be uploading it and using it for the infobox image.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice pictures. All my comments addressed except one (see above). I also have some new comments, but will put those below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea whether Mordden is paraphrasing from something Hammerstein said (and I can't find anything close) or imagining that this is what Hammerstein might have said. And I don't have anything else good describing the show within the show. I can either cut the quote or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you not rephrase the intro sentence to something like: "According to author and composer Ethan Mordden in his book about the duo's works, Hammerstein thought the show-within-the-show was to be:". That would restore the missing context from the book you are quoting from. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. One final point, which I'll throw in here, is that some descriptions out there call this a musical a satire (some say "tongue-in-cheek satire"), as well as a comedy and romance. This article only calls it a comedy and a romance. Do reliable sources call it a satire? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say rarely, and usually well after the fact. I find the argument that they feared being considered satirical, thus they cut "You Never Had It So Good", more convincing. Rodgers, in his memoir (Hammerstein did not write a memoir), gives no hint of it. Possibly, they were gently mocking themselves, there are hints of that in the conflict between the (unseen) producer and choreographer about whether to hire a good looker or a good dancer as the new Carmen. I would call it a round of applause for "the little people" of a theatre. There are some nice photos of the production in Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I went and looked at the LIFE images. You can link to a search for them here. I also found the NYT obituary of one of the people named in the playbill credits image (the only one you don't mention in the article): [43]. For the benefit of those closing this FAC, my support is down in the second set of comments I made. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the conductor ... I usually link to him, but no one ever comments on him so I never have anything to say. I mean the real conductor, not Irving who played the role of the conductor, Dario.

Support - concerns adequately addressed. There are still a few instances where the tone sounds too informal to me, but I think that might just be my personal preference rather than an actionable issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments

• Dab link to Oscar Hammerstein

I don't know where that came from, but it is gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's some wording that seems a bit colloquial to me - for example, "scored another hit", "tells of romance"
• "dismal reviews by critics" is not entirely compatible with "Critics' views were neutral to unfavorable"
• Is "book" a musical theatre term, or was the show actually made into a book?

It is the former and I'll put in a pipe. It means the libretto, the dialogue and lyrics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the girl he is minded to marry" - wording
• "(the lead female dancing role)... (the lead male dancer)" - why the difference?

I felt that there were too many repeating phrases in that part of the article, and looked for things I could vary the wording a bit.

• "with Jeanie standing in as Juliet—Lily has had to leave" - okay, but where's the first understudy?

Good question, but as Larry, who is not an understudy in any sense of the word, sings the duet with Jeanie (probably in place of Charlie), it's one of the weak plot points which probably irritated the critics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "who had just originated Sister Sarah Brown" - is "originated" the right word here?

Yes, that is how you refer to a person who has been the first performer in a role.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Chorus auditions began March 10, 1953, at the Majestic Theatre" - where is this?
• Spell out "%"
• Most of the articles and webpages have full bibliographic info in both References and Bibliography. Also, some note "fee for article" in only one of the two entries - please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are only a half dozen or so, I see no reason not to have the duplication. It saves wear and tear on the reader, and I find most shorthand references for newspaper articles less than satisfactory. If I didn't reply, I addressed it, and I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking comments

Putting here the results of a check I tend to do (where possible) on "what links here". I say where possible, because for some articles with hundreds of links, it is not feasible. But here, even with the templates at the bottom introducing false hits, it was possible to review all the incoming and outgoing links for this article. The results (below) will hopefully be of use.

• Linked from and to the article: James Hammerstein; Isabel Bigley; George S. Irving; Don Walker (orchestrator); Majestic Theatre (Broadway); Finborough Theatre; Joan McCracken; Oscar Hammerstein II; Richard Rodgers; Shirley Jones; Rodgers and Hammerstein; Ray Walston; Bill Hayes (actor)

  All these are standard reciprocal links.

• Linked both ways but not explained in the article: No Other Love (1953 song)

  Possibly a brief mention should be made of the success and later reuses of this song. Currently, the reader is left to click on the link to find out more.

• Not mentioned in the article (but they link to it)

  Whether these should be mentioned/linked in this article is a matter of editorial judgment and what reliable sources say.

  (i) Enzo Stuarti; Janet Pavek; John Michael King. Three people that presumably played minor parts or were part of the ensemble. Whether or not including these three is trivia depends on whether the following (currently in the article) is also trivial: "Among those who played in the chorus during the New York run was future star Shirley MacLaine; Shirley Jones was a chorus girl in the Chicago performances."

Shirley MacLaine and Shirley Jones are stars. Janet Pavek is Janet Pavek. Looking through my playbill, I find John M. King as playing the minor role of "Michael, a chorus boy" and also part of the singing ensemble (MacLaine is listed, I see nothing on Stuart or Pavek, but they might have left the show already). I think this falls under editorial judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ii) Starlight Theatre (Kansas City). Allegedly a venue for a run of some kind in 1955 that is not mentioned in the article. If this can be confirmed, this raises the question of how comprehensive the current mentions of later performances are?

I don't contend that's every one ever given. I can't find anything except Kansas City offhand, but there were probably a small flurry of local performances when R&H released it for local productions, probably around 1955. I doubt they had elaborate stagings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though not all readers will know how this matter of "releasing for local productions" works. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• (iii) A Grand Night for Singing. This musical revue included several songs from this musical.

  (iv) Ella Sings Broadway; Ronnie Hilton. Two articles that describe or mention later recordings of "No Other Love", a song from this musical.

  On reflection, the newly added Como mention in relation to this song is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  (v) State Fair (musical); Pipe Dream (musical). Both these articles mention the reuse of songs from, or cut from, this musical. Two feature in State Fair, while in Pipe Dream, both that musical and this one are grouped together with the sourced comment: "According to David Lewis in his history of the Broadway musical, "The Rodgers and Hammerstein office has, it would appear, given up on Pipe Dream and [Me and] Juliet ever finding an audience ... so these songs are up for grabs."[42]" Both points would seem worth repeating in this article.

Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the material from Pipe Dreaming. I do not think that it is worth mentioning the use in A Grand Night for Singing which is a musical revue, without any plot, with selections from most or all of the R&H works in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Oklahoma!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (vi) Flower Drum Song. Incidental mention, not warranting a reciprocal link.

Yes, as I recall, the FDS article mentions the desperation of R&H after the back to back flops.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (vii) Barbara Carroll. Member of the jazz trio already mentioned in the article, though she is not specifically named.

I could certainly name them, that is no trouble at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they named in the playbill credits? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hischak lists her by name as well, though not mentioning the other two. I'll toss in a mention of Carroll.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• (viii) Beguine (dance). This is presumably the "Latin dance" already mentioned in the article as an influence on the musical.

My sources aren't that specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pity, but fair enough. I do wonder what other sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you are taking an implication I did not intend to make. I have the best and current books about R&H. This seems to be a down time in books about them, but there was a nice little wave about a decade ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Mentioned in the article but not linked: cast recording. Suggest this is linked.
• Mostly not designed to be linked to from articles: List of musicals by composer: M to Z; List of musicals: M to Z; 1953 in music.
• Missing reciprocal links: Jo Mielziner; Shirley MacLaine; York Theatre; Robert Alton; George Abbott; RCA Records.

  This refers to articles linked from this article where 'Me and Juliet' is not mentioned, and/or linked back, but possibly should be. It is not a requirement that this be done, but doing so would improve Wikipedia as a whole, and not just this article, and would usefully help build the web of interconnecting links between articles.

I'll give that some thought, but do not think it should be a factor in this FAC. I've gotten leery about these things since a reviewer had me write an article to fill a redlink--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree it is not a factor. I may, if I have time, throw in some mentions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misdirected link: Mark Dawson. This is a different Mark Dawson (born 1960).

Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I didn't check every outgoing link, but seeing as there was one misdirected one there, it might be worth checking the other ones. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do some clicking.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Only two remaining issues for me are No Other Love (1953 song) (people may be more familiar with this song than the musical, so I think it is worth bringing out some more detail of its subsequent success) and Barbara Carroll. Neither are deal breakers, but I'd be interested to see how you incorporate them, or reasons for not doing so. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do the Carroll bit right now, and TCO has been kind enough to drop some suggestions on the other on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both are now mentioned in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all outstanding concerns meet or discussed above, so am happy to support this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Major issue is that the plot description should be made easier to follow and more interesting. Will include my full comments on the talk page, since I can use sections then and since I've been requested to do such before.TCO (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging your review, will deal with Carcharoth's first and get to yours later today. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Re TCO above, I rather think the dullness may be in the plot itself, rather than in the plot description. I am reading the article and will leave a few comments here, but one thing struck me immediately. Why has the sequence of sections changed from that employed by your previous FA musicals (Pipe Dream, Allegro, Carousel etc), in which Inception and/or Background sections precede the plot summary? Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I was asked to on this page, and I'm interesting in seeing how the experiment goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, are you fully committed to this new layout (which reads more like a tentaive suggestion than a request), or would you consider partial modification if not complete reversion? For myself, I think you need at least some background before sailing into the plot. The best sequence seems to me to be: why they wrote it → what they wrote → what the public thought of it → what became of it. This in my view applies to all staged works, and has to date been used for all featured opera and musical articles. Reversing the first two elements of the sequence sets the article at odds with the others and, I believe, weakens it. But I will read on, and see whether, when I have absorbed the whole article, my view has changed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Brian, since I'm the one who suggested the change I thought I should chime in. My areas of wiki-"expertise" are films and video games, which treat plots in different ways. In video games they introduce the goals and basic overview of the game first before presenting plot. In film articles, meanwhile, it's pretty much universal to put plot first. I asked in this case because the production section was referring to elements of the story, but I found them rather confusing without knowing what part of the story was referenced beforehand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, I agree with David, but in this particular case, I think it reads better to have the normal Wehwalt order (iow what Brian wants). The musical plot here is confusing with all the names and songs. And the content of the musical as a commercial entity is more the story here than the plot (for this play). I really think it will make things go down easier if we go back to the old way (in this case).TCO (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you're suggesting moving it back to after the sections about the preparations before opening night? @Brian, actually, while I favor putting the plot high in the article as I think we discussed regarding Tosca, I'm not carrying a torch for a particular position--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recall. Perhaps you are right. My problem here is that the change appears to have put through solely on the basis of another editor's mild suggestion. If it is to stay this way, I think there has to be some positive justification, i.e. why you think this sequence is better than the other. As you appear to be open-minded about this, in view of the strength of FA precedents in musical/opera FAs I would (equally mildly) suggest that you revert to the earlier order which, as I argue above, has a better logic behind it. But I am susceptible to any strong argument to the contrary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting to feel that anyone, including those well versed in musical theatre/opera, will need to read the plot first to have a good understanding of the work, which is not well known. Therefore, when I talk about a sandbag, it isn't going to mean much to anyone. Instead of being a showstopping moment at the end of the first act, a foreshadowing of the chandelier in Phantom and so forth. That do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your reasoning lost me somewhere there. It's not clear to me what the rationale for the change is, and personally I think it weakens the article. It's way past my bedtime, so I'll leave it for the time being and look at it with fresh eyes in the morning. Perhaps I'll feel differently then. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to look at it again, then. My point is, that putting the plot first makes it possible to refer to the plot with the reader's understanding, a point particularly important as the plot is not well known. That being said, if you feel it weakens the article, I'll move it back down, TCO indicated that he feels it would be better off there and David indicated he does not feel strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Transfer the "Inception" section to before the plot summary and leave "Rehearsals and tryouts" where it is, BUT end Inception at "...more than 300 costumes which would be needed." The remaining sentences go to the start of Rehearsals and tryouts. I have tried this, and it seems to work perfectly well. This arrangement would resolve all my difficulties in this area, and would not affect your concern that readers need plot information before the nitty-gritty of rehearsals and tryouts. Give it a try; if after that, you are still convinced that the plot first stategy woks best, then OK, I'll accept it with whatever good grace I can muster.Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you not wishing to respond to this suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked it. I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a big improvemnt. A few prose niggles added below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, for the reviewers, I've dealt with all your points or else replied, of course it is possible that I missed something, if I did let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. My major concern has been addressed. Good job. TCO (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support subject to resolution of a few prose points:-

• Prose flow could be improved here: "Abbott made major changes in the plot. Hammerstein had only briefly described the show-within-the-show: Abbott hoped that some highlights would be furnished when it was fleshed out." Also, I'm not sure I wholly understand the last of these three statements
• Avoid close repetition: "...was considered for the part of Larry, but lost out because he was considered..." In the next paragraph the word "audition" at the end of the first sentence is redundant.
• "a glittering crowd"...It reads rather oddly. Do you mean they were diamond-encrusted or merely distinguished?
• More odd phrasing: "The show was nominated for no Tony Awards". Not nominating should not be presented as a positive act; this should read "The show received no Tony Award nominations" or similar
• "One source of Rodgers's excitement for the concept that became Me and Juliet was the opportunity to have a truly contemporary score, which might not be possible in an adaptation." Why might a contemporary score not be possible in an adaptation?
• In the next sentence, try to avoid repetition of "score", say "...found its way into the music".

No other points: I did a sources review long, long ago. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support; I will implement these. On the show-within-a-show, Abbot hoped a rather dull show would be redeemed by a spectacular show-within-a-show, so that the internal show would be the star of the show and cause the show to draw rave reviews. On the crowd, I'll see if I can rephrase, although I think they were both distinguished (at least for Cleveland) and diamond-encrusted. An adaptation might be tied to a period and foreclose modern music: Imagine The King and I with a jazz score. Rodgers was always trying to keep up with the times, he did much the same thing in Flower Drum Song (and very notably failed to do successfully in his post-Hammerstein shows)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Could "...might not be possible in an adaptation" become "..might not be appropriate in a period adaptation"? That would clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to avoid the question of adaptations; I think your proposed change, while valid, would push the text too far away from Mordden, and perhaps it is best to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Image check: good Rodgers and Hammerstein images good (used in another FA as well). The Playbill images are good as well; no visible copyright and produced in 1954. All images properly cited and terms listed.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [44].

---

Marojejy National Park

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this article meets the FAC criteria. I should note that some sources (primarily the two dedicated books) are so intricately detailed that I suspect multiple article are needed—such as a "Habitats of ...", "Conservation of ...", "Flora of ...", and "Fauna of ...". I know Marojejy Massif needs its own article, and that is where a lot of the gory details on geology should go. The article is already 52k, which means it has a little room to grow, but I'm worried too much detail will detract from the point of the article. With that said, I feel that I have hit upon all the important points. I also hope that I have avoided any pitfalls, such as WP:NOTAGUIDE. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I did the GA review, and feel the article comprehensively covers the main aspects of the topic. Ucucha 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - An impressive article. The geology section checks out, and the article seems comprehensive to me. Prose is, as usual, very good. ceranthor 21:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: One issue: Ref 6 needs a page no. (the source has 200+ pages). Otherwise, sources & citations all look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot if I added that source, or if one of my French collaborators did. To be honest, I don't have the book. I'm not even sure if it's been digitized. Plus it's in French. If anything I saw it as a reference that points to the original work that was being described. I can see if my French collaborators have access to the book and see if they can get a page number. Alternatively, I can remove the ref. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We found the page number, and it's been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "It covers 60,050 ha (231.9 sq mi) and is centered around the Marojejy Massif" I think this should state explicitly that this is a chain of mountains (especially since it's redlinked and in the lead)

  Mentioned. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "…was set aside as a strict nature reserve in 1952, allowing only research scientists to visit the site." perhaps link nature reserve, and tweak the noun + ing

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Rainforests of the Atsinanana World Heritage Site" could you adjust so the links aren't consecutive?

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Warm, lowland rainforest can be found at lower elevations" Isn't "lowland" redundant?

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think species, bird, reptile and amphibian are high-value links for the lead

  Removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Treks to the summit set out from Camp Simpona, a route that stretches 2 km (1.2 mi) and can take up to 4 or 5 hours." I don't quite understand what this means… does "set out" mean "start from"? Is it not possible to trek to the summit from a lower camp? Also, spell out numbers less than 10.

  Done, I think. The sources don't explicitly state it, but with a hike of 4 to 5 hours one-way, going up and back would make for a very full day, especially if you plan to spend some time on the summit. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "L.-J. Arragon -> no way to find his full name?

  Didn't see anything on Google Scholar or Books. Coming from 1937, I'm not sure if we can find anything easily. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I looked myself and couldn't find anything, other than a few reports that use the spelling "Agaron" "Aragon". Sasata (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Between November 1948 and November 1950, he spent a total of five months collected 4,039 dried plant (herbarium) specimens for study." can we eliminate "a total of"? I understand you're probably trying to convey that the elapsed time is not contiguous, but I think the meaning is not lost if those words are left out. Also, link herbarium, and fix the grammar.

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1998, the status changed as Marojejy became a national park." Shouldn't use "as" if you mean "because" or "since", otherwise the meaning becomes slightly ambiguous.

  Reworded. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "…Marojejy was listed as World Heritage Site…" missing "a"?

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the decree number is useful information, unless it is also specified what organization make the decree.

  I was trying to be comprehensive, especially since the source list these. Upon review of the source, it does mention the Malagasy government, so I added it. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "not understanding why" noun + ing; actually, it might be a good idea to review the entire article for this

  I've done my best with this one. Copy-editing is my weakest skill by far, but I have done my best with the rest of the article. Let me know if I missed anything. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Disputes with the local community are handled with intermediate boundary markers." ? Is an "intermediate boundary marker" a person who handles disputes?

  I've attempted to clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Better, but I'm still not sure how the placement of the markers "handles disputes". Sasata (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the source and made another attempt to clarify. Apparently they place the markers when they have to show the people where the edges of the park are located during disputes. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Both temperature and rainfall vary most with location in the park." Sounds inelegant

  I've attempted to re-word. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "although the bedrock of Marojejy also exhibits a significant amount of gneiss" swap exhibits -> has?

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "a type of high-grade metamorphic rock" I don't understand what "high-grade" means here.

  To be honest with you, it's a geological term that I can't adequately define or find an appropriate link for. Unfortunately, this is all the source says. I'm open for suggestions from anyone who's versed in geology. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  I've linked "high-grade", and that may be the best I can do. There used to be an article about ore grade, but it looks like it got merged into Ore by dumping the basic info in the lead. Either way, the definition is still not perfectly clear to me, although I can see that it has something to do with mineral concentration. If this isn't good enough, let me know and I'll post the question for WikiProject Mining. However, they don't look terribly active. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  "High-grade" means it has undergone significant amounts of metamorphism: it has been at high temperature and pressures for long enough to change quite a lot from its original sedimentary state. Eg. slate is low-grade, schist can be high-grade, but they both start as muds formed into shales. Iridia (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation! In your opinion, is the article worded well enough, and is the link adequate? If not, I would appreciate your suggestions. I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to summarize this information in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the article's text. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• "…the rock at the base of the ancient mountain melted completely and eventually recrystallizing as granite, an igneous rock." recrystallizing -> recrystallized?

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The soil pH is expected to be acidic to neutral." Why just expected to be? Has no-one tested it? Also, link to the more specific soil pH.

  This is what the source said, and it's the only source that mentions soil pH. Otherwise, I've corrected the link. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review up to this point! – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The microclimates also affect plant growth rates, with the wet eastern slopes showing faster growth, the dry western slopes exhibiting slower growth, and the ridge tops hindered by high winds and poor soils." The way it's worded, it sounds like the slopes themselves have differential growth rates, rather than the plants that grow on them.

  Fixed, I think. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt that "species" needs to be linked, but if you think it does, it should occur earlier. I would think that "families" in the next sentence is equally or more worthy of a link.

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• link ground cover

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• "This region covers 38% of the surface area of the park." I'm not sure what "this region" refers to… is it the plant families in the ground cover mentioned in the last sentence, or lowland rainforest in general?

  Specified. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Of the many plant species found around Marojejy …" around -> in?

  I think either is fine, but I changed to "in". – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• How do you feel about bulling citations to avoid having to give penta- and quad-cites?

  Do you mean "culling"? In this case, I don't see a problem with the two instances I noticed. Let me know if I missed any. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, that musta' been the auto spell-correction on my text editor "helpfully" correcting my typo. I meant "bundling", not "culling", but it seems that verb worked too, because I don't see them anymore :) Sasata (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "… although an old nest and traces of its feeding have been found at various elevations." Only one old nest has been found? At various elevations? Or should that be "nests"?

  Only one, so I specified the number. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Nearly half a century later, another wave of refugees settled in the area, this time fleeing French colonists." Unclear: were the settlers running away from French colonists, or were they French colonists that were running away?

  It was "from"—now clarified. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Support—Nicely illustrated, well-written and researched. I'm officially adding the park to my list of "Places to pick mushrooms before I die". I found a few minor nitpicks when I read through the article again, but I'm sure you'll deal with them quickly. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• The latter half of the second paragraph of "Topography and habitat" has three noticeable "result"s in close proximity.

• Fixed, I think. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• seems there's a mix of title case and sentence in the articles listed in "Literature cited"

• I think I've fixed everything. I made sure books were in title case, and journals were (mostly) in sentence case. Patel (2009) was an exception because the title consisted of a formal list: "Primates in Peril: The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Patel (2009) needs et al. italicized, and there's a double fullstop.

• The et al. issue is a problem with the core citation template. I posted the problem here, but I'm not sure if anyone has plans to fix it. Also, it looks like the double fullstop is also a problem with the template. I'll try posting this stuff at Template talk:Citation/core. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions should be grammatically correct ("Map of the Madagascar"? "The Madagascar Paradise-flycatcher one of many species of bird found at Marojejy"?)

  Thanks for the catch. I don't know how I missed these. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Which of the three peaks is Marojejy Massif?

  Are you referring to this photo? From what I understand, they are three mountain peaks viewable from the summit. The massif is actually a range of mountains, and the summit is the highest point. Once I receive a reply from the person who uploaded the image, I will try to clarify. If you can think of a better caption for this summit view, please share it. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  "View of the surrounding mountains from the 2132-metre-high summit of Marojejy Massif"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Good enough! Caption has been updated. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about the video - AGF that the uploader has the rights to the video footage itself, but the background music also has to be considered. Any information on its copyright status?

  To be honest, the uploader sent the file to me first and asked me to upload, but when I asked the same questions you just asked, he didn't reply and proceeded to upload and post the video himself. I have tried since to get clarification with no luck. Since the FA status of the article is very important to him, I will stress upon him one more time the importance of answering those questions truthfully. If he is the owner of the video, I will strip out the audio. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I have removed the audio track and hidden the video code for now. The uploader is contacting his coworkers at the WWF for permission. I will post back when we know more. Otherwise, how do I get rid of the message "Error: title key: Marojejy.ogv not found" when the video finishes playing? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't know - maybe ask at WP:VP/T?

Otherwise images seem fine, although a few are OTRS pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I apologize for the OTRS pending photos. The contributor had previously shared some optional photos with me, but had not given a license. He then went out of the country, and I have been waiting to add the material for weeks. I just got the release last night. Fortunately, OTRS seems to be getting caught up recently, so hopefully it won't take long to process. If anyone needs proof of the license, email me and I will forward the release for your review. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, everything looks okay now. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are some "Literature cited" references indented, and out of order? it looks exceedingly strange! – Peacock.Lane 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is something I've been doing on a lot of my FAs, namely when I'm dealing with books made up of articles. If I do regular citations, the full book citation gets repeated over and over every time I list a source from the book. In some cases, there can be dozens of repetitions—see Lemur for one example. One of the refs in the article can be consolidated because I had thought I would use more material from the book, but only used one chapter. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to make up your own psychedelic, idiosyncratic method, there's little in WP:WIAFA that can prevent you from inflicting it upon the greater public. You should be aware, however, that ever single person in the universe who has ever published anything in any academic journal in any field will look at that reference section and think, "What a bunch of crap!" If that's the way you want to treat Wikipedia, then as far as I know, no one can stop you. – Peacock.Lane 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply since this is an identical issue that has been discussed at other FACs and has been allow to pass. We don't need to be making special cases for one article, but excluding others with the same issue. I would gladly explain my reason for developing this system and my justification for it, but I will only do so if you can take a civil tone. Otherwise, I am done discussing this. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Here's one person who has published in an academic journal and doesn't think that. Please refrain from hyperbole; I'm sure VH will be willing to have a civil discussion on the best way to handle these references. Ucucha 18:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support — this is a fascinating article. The prose is superb (with one or two exceptions) and is engaging and professional throughout. The images are wonderful. I have three nit-picks: the "in order" as in "in order to" is redundant, I had to Google "delimited by approximation" and why is the soil pH "expected to be..."? Thanks for the virtual tour, it was a joy. Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. "In order" has been removed in all 3 instances, and I've attempted to clarify "delimited by approximation." As for the soil pH, I can only go by what the source says. It did not go into detail, nor did any other source discuss the topic. I wish I could offer more, but there is nothing else available. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [45].

---

USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the requirements of a Featured Article. This article covers the first battle of the Quasi-War, which also happens to be the first naval battle in the history of the United States Navy. This article has been rated as a good article and undergone a Military History A-class review. Since its last featured article nomination it has been copy edited and gone through a Military History peer review.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 circular link (Action of 9 February 1799), no dead external links. --PresN 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think i fixed this (i removed the only mentioning of that former name in the article), but i dont really understand what a circular link is?XavierGreen (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A circular link is when a wikilink on an article points to a redirect back to that article; in essense, linking to itself. Normally, such a wikilink to the present page is disabled and the text bolded (assuming navbox use, I believe), but redirects bypass this feature. I thought that the offending link might have been in Template:Campaignbox Quasi-War, but it looks like your edit took care of it (though I fixed another redirect on the template), and I detect no other redirect issues. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments

• You should consider using the images from USS Constellation that I uploaded, specifically File:USSConstellationVsInsurgente.png, since its a lot more visually appealing and depicts the critical part of the action when the Constellation raked the L'Insurgente's bow (third paragraph of Battle section).
  • I added the image.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Was the article name addressed in your GA/A review already? I think Action of 9 February 1799 should be in the lead somewhere since its DABed from other articles.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• The date should be in the lead: you could say The USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, or the Action of 9 February 1799..., or ...fought between the French Navy and the United States Navy on 9 February 1799.
  • Fixed per above.XavierGreen (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Alternation between United States Navy and US Navy - probably should be consistent about this (I would prefer United States Navy).
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Use Measuringworth.org to put the value of the ship(s) in 2007 dollars.
  • This doesnt seem to be typically done in featured articles. For example the articles on the USS Constitution and USS Constellation do not do this.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, those probably should have it too, its pretty typical: Dreadnaught, HMS Ark Royal, Buildings of Jesus College, etc. Kirk (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Aftermath section could use an image; I think there's an image of the USS Insurgent somewhere; Truxtun is easy to find.
  • I moved the action diagram down to the aftermath section, i dont want to copy to many of the same images from the Constellation article.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• The Battle section doesn't match up perfectly with the story in the USS Constellation (1797)#Quasi War, specifically the part where the 24 pound guns were replaced with 18 pound guns after the battle, and the reason why L'Insurgente had the weather gage in this action.
  • Palmer (p. 98) states that Constellation had the weather gage at first, but that he yielded it volunterally because the ship was heeling. As for the overarming problem, almost every ship in the navy was overarmed to the point where the extra guns reduced the maneuverability of the vessels drastically. I have found a few other sources corroborating that the Constellation's twenty four pounders were removed specifically because of the problems their weight caused in the action, so ive added it in.XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Toll's book Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the US Navy might be a good source to review.
  • Ive read the relevent sections, although it seems he did an extremely poor job citing his work.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Its a valid criticism - I also dislike under-cited books, but this book won two military history awards so its still a good source. Kirk (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• You should qualify ...United States naval victory against a foreign naval vessel. somehow - I don't know if that's exactly accurate considering the existence of the Revenue Cutter service in the 10 years before the Navy was re-founded in 1794, and the United States Navy recognizes the achievements of the Continental Navy as its own. It was the first victory of a United States Naval vessel against a foreign naval vessel after the Navy was re-founded by the Naval Act of 1794.
  • Legally the United States Navy did not exist before 1794, and the revenue cutter service did not attack any foreign naval vessels before the War of 1812. The cutters in the service at its founding were barely armed, only with muskets and occasionally with swivel guns. In the few instances when they met hostile foreign naval vessels, they simply fled. No revenue cutters engaged any French national vessels during the Quasi-War. It is well sourced that this is the first battle fought by the United States navy against a foriegn naval vessel.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know what I was thinking with 10 years - I meant from 1790 until 1798 when the first navy ships were commissioned. Anyways, cutters certainly engaged French privateers during the Quasi-War and you can't be too careful with 'firsts' - it looks like it was both the first victory of the United States Navy & the first naval victory of the United States.
      • Ah, privateers are a different story. The revenue cutter service did fight a handful of engagements with privateers but they were after this action. The navy did make a few captures of privateers before this engagement, and the frigate United States sunk a privateer a six days before this action, but none of those French vessels resisted in anyway (even in the case of the sunken one). There was one brief battle in 1798 between the USRC Unaminity and the HMS Mosquito, but it ended indecisively as both vessels mistook each other for Frenchmen before realizing their mistakes. It was good of you to ask because the early history of the war can be very murkey and confusing at times.XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate - I think this note from an A article is helpful on how to explain the mystery of 18th century ship ratings : USS Chesapeake (1799)#cite note-rating-5 Kirk (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Added a note explaining that it was common for ships to carry more guns than their ratings.XavierGreen (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The wording could be better, but it resolves my issue. Kirk (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reading Brad's comments, I agree with him, and Toll is pretty easy to get at a library and has a good account of this action. If you can't get it someone with a copy might be able to help you resolve some of the inconsistencies (I put some details below, and I would help, but I do not have time, sorry!) Kirk (talk)

Sources and Image Review

• Both images are PD-US and now moved to Commons, no problems with captions
• Coren's and Earwig's tools found no plagiarism, and a few spotchecks found no evidence of close paraphrasing
• Why no dates for notes 21 and 22?
  • Added.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Location for Roberts?
  • added the location.XavierGreen (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem reliable and good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Mostly good;
  • It would be nice if some of the more technical terms or nouns were explained rather than just linked; unless you've got popups installed (i.e., a very small percentage of the editor population, let alone the reader population) you have to navigate away from the page to figure out what a term means, and per web usability standards that's just going to result in lots of people not reading the article. Just a rephrase to explain what a frigate is as opposed to a corvette (such as "light warship, or corvette"), or just another word ("upper or spar deck") can greatly help non-naval buffs.
  • Along the same lines, there are terms linked in the lead that are not linked first-time in body.
    • This is now fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

• "...with the mission to engage..." could this be rephrased as "...with the mission of engaging..." or "...with orders to engage.."?
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...was sailing independent of his squadron..." shouldn't this be "independently", because it's describing a verb?
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "In response, the United States..." should include "to the attacks", right now it's slightly ambiguous whether the response was to the attacks or to the undeclared war.
  • Added.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The 1,265-ton Constellation was officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate, however during the Quasi War she carried..." Would read better as "Though the 1,265-ton Constellation was officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate, during the Quasi-War she carried". The Quasi-War should have a hyphen in all instances.
  • I changed the sentence and added the hyphen.XavierGreen (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...was armed with 40 cannon." Don't know if this is just the terminology, but should this be "cannons", plural?
  • Cannon is the plural form, as deer is the plural of deer.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...and two 24-pounder carronades,[5] however totalling a combined throwing weight of..." could be rephrased as "...and two 24-pounder carronades.[5] However, its total combined throwing weight was..." Also, "totaling" only has one "l" in American English; the same goes for "signaling", which is spelled with two "l"s later in the article.
  • I think i fixed these.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Consequently in a boarding action" could use a comma after "consequently".
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently" could use a comma after "February".
  • Added.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• gale should be linked.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "still unidentified" should be hyphenated
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...and closed to within pistol shot..." this terminology should be either explained or rephrased, perhaps as "pistol range"?
  • fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Having the advantage of undamaged rigging" could use a comma at the end here.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...but receiving damage to her rigging in return." should be "received", past tense.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...disabling the French vessel's 18 pounder guns." should this be "18-pounder guns" with a hyphen?
  • Yup, fixed it.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...but the French ship had by now..." should be "then", the whole article should be in the past tense.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...and take possession of his vessel." should be "the" vessel, as by that point it's unclear who the "he" referred to is (presumably not the victor, but let's just remove ambiguity).
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...one man had died shortly after the action of mortal wounds received from French fire..." could this be rephrased as "...one man had died shortly after receiving mortal wounds from French fire..."?
  • The man died after the action had ended, if i change it to what you suggested it is unclear if he died during the action or after.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Then might I suggest a comma after "action" here? --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the first clause of the sentence and added the comma.XavierGreen (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's better, but instead of "One of the two Americans killed..." could it read "One of the two American fatalities..."?

• Tis done.XavierGreen (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "...however by nightfall..." should be "but" by nightfall.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...condemned as a war prize in favor of the crew of the..." seems kind of hard to read, could this be rephrased somewhat? I'm hesitant to try to rephrase this because I don't fully understand the meaning behind it.
  • There really isnt any way to describe this in laymans terms. As part of prize warfare, captured vessels were sent to Admiralty courts to determine the legitimacy of the prize. The prize could be found a war prize or an illegal capture. If found a warprize she could be condemmed to be sold in favor of her captors or depending on various factors she could be returned to her origonal owners, or condemed to be sold with all or a portion of the proceeds going to the owners. Since this was a French national naval vessel, the L'Insurgente was condemned to be sold with the proceeds going to the crew of the Constellation. I have rewritten the sentence to make it a bit clearer.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• It looks fine now, but it's like David Fuchs said above, the article needs to have terminology and concepts like this explained so that it is in laymen terms. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Fêted" could use a link.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not really an issue, but it could help you better group your notes and avoid naming references if you used {{sfn}}.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately i dont really know how to use that new style of citing, the old sytle is the only one im familiar with.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support on current prose, but will probably need another read-through once Kirk's issues are addressed. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Oppose Brad (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are some fundamental mistakes in this article that can't be overlooked. Example: The French ship raised French colors and fired a gun to leeward (Allen p. 96) means that the shot was fired away from Constellation; not at. A gun to leeward was a signal roughly meaning "Don't shoot I want to talk first."
  • Barreaut claimed he had the gun fired leeward in an attempt to hail Truxton. Truxton claimed that the shot was fired windward and at the Constellation. Regardless Truxton did not want to talk, and told Barreaut after the action that he would fight any French Frigate he met regardless of the circumstances. I personally believe that the shot was fired leeward because of the orders Barreaut had recieved from the French regional commander, Desfourneaux, that ordered French national vessels to avoid fights with American national vessels. In any circumstance i have now changed it simply to say that L'Insurgente fired a gun with no mention of direction.XavierGreen (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And here is presented an article entirely devoted to the battle therefore it should contain the conflicting statements with an explanation. Simply removing the controversy or only showing it from one side is hurting the completeness of the article. Brad (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have added it in a footnote.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• The battle description in the USS Constellation article is a bit overwrought but agrees with the pages written by Toll. I've just reviewed those pages. There are differences that need to be researched. Brad (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which differences do you speak of? Some accounts of the action that i have read use only American sources and differ slightly from accounts that use both French and American sources. As i stated in another comment above, the American and French accounts do differ slightly in regards to how the action started, but beyond that they corroberate with each other quite well.XavierGreen (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Here are some differences from Toll:
      • Truxtun sent the British private signal, recieved a response of the US ensign, send the US private signal, received no response, ship cleared for action, L'Insurgente raised French flag and fired a shot to windward in affirmation.
        • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The weather gage discussion is on page 117 (basically what I mentioned earlier)
        • Added in.XavierGreen (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • When ships closed within pistol shot range (that needs to be changed to a distance btw), the French captain asked for parlay, which Truxtun ignored.
        • Fixed, though no souce gives an exact distance.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The French responded by firing at the rigging, damaging the topmast, which was saved by Midshipman David Porter, stationed in the foretop, climbed up and cut away the slings saving the mast.
      • John Rogers was the First Lieutenant.
        • Its mentioned in the Aftermath section.XavierGreen (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • According to Toll, the US had 3 killed - one of the wounded died of his wounds.
        • The source Toll uses (a letter from Porter) does not itself mention 3 dead, it mentions 3 men wounded and one man shot for cowardice. If you look in Tolls citations (which are few and far between) there is no other citation for the casualties he lists other than the letter from porter which he quotes in the text on page 120.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Some of the confusion may lay in the fact that in offical naval documents of the time, the man shot for cowardice was recorded as being killed in action. Since Toll does not give any specific source other than the one i mentioned above, i don't know if it can be considered as reliable in terms of casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • <sts just a few details here and there; probably resolvable in this FAC. Kirk (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Has this FAC been abandoned? Just wondering. Brad (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator has been essentially absent since mid-month. I wish we had gotten a status update or statement of intent. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • He's recently returned to editing. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have gotten ahold of Toll and will address the remaining comments today and tommorrow.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I crossed out everything except Porter's rigging adventure; I blew through Toll looking for example differences so I made some mistakes, my apologies. Looks good! Kirk (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Wheeler p. 7 should be p. 6.. I think. P. 6 is not very clear in backing up a 'first victory'. Roberts p. 47 backs up what Toll says about David Porter and the rigging but Roberts p. 45 claims that Constellation was carrying 48 guns..? Where did that come from? Brad (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason why i am hesitant in including the rigging portion is that i am not 100% sure it actually occured. Palmer states that the Memoir of David Porter by his son Admiral David Dixon Porter contains elements that are not consistent with other primary source accounts and that some portions may be embellisments of the facts. Since toll didnt list a source i couldnt be certain where the rigging story came from, Palmer does not include it in his work at all. I did find this source [[46]] which alludes to the rigging story as well as the 48 guns you mentioned. In the source above, the rigging story is cited as comming from David Dixon Porters work. After double checking several sources some others also state 48 guns, with the difference being in the number of 18 pounders listed (some say 10 some say 20) though the source for these numbers is usually not listed. Perhaps footenotes would solve these issues.XavierGreen (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ive added in a note about the sources differing armaments, added in the info on Porter in the topmast, changed the citation of the First Victory to page 6, as well as added an additional source to back up the assertion.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I struck my oppose. Usually it's a matter of weighing sources when they disagree with each other. If you have 5 sources and 3 mention Porter and 2 do not then majority wins etc. One last thing, in the bibliography some listings have the OCLC numbers and some don't. All listings should have them displayed or not displayed; not a mixture. Brad (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I've added the missing oclc numbers.XavierGreen (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'm doing some light copyediting; there's not a lot of work here. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)

• "held the weather gauge": Can you rephrase in terms readers will be more likely to understand? I know they can click, but most won't.
  • I think the term is more understandable now, i added that the weather gauge is an advantageous position in the wind.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• "the other was killed for cowardice by Constellation's Lieutenant": I expected "executed" here; would that be accurate?
  • Yea, since the navy didnt have any qualms about it that would be correct.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I recommend consistency: go with either "Insurgent" or "L'Insurgent".
  • I think ive used L'Insurgente for events that occured when the ship was in French service, and Insurgent when it was in American service after it was captured. The name was formally changed to Insurgent when she was placed in American service.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right, I can see all the reasons for switching back and forth now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments'
  • I doubt that beautiful painting atop the article is public domain. If you go to the source (here), it says "Courtesy of the artist". That would not be necessary if it were PD. Now, the photograph may be PD, but...
    • If you look at the bottom of (here) it states that the image is in the Public Domain according to the best knowledge of the Navy.XavierGreen (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I see it now, thanks.
  • "after three hours of combat." I see two sources that make that an hour and a quarter. I won't {{fact}} tag it, but... besides, is this mentioned in the body of the article anywhere? – Peacock.Lane 00:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have removed it from the lead since it isnt mentioned anywhere within the body of the text.XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that's an important detail of the battle. You should research it carefully and put it in the Battle section. After that, it can either be put in the lede or not; that's a judgment call, and both ways are probably OK. – Peacock.Lane 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ive added it in, the engagement lasted one hour and fourteen minutes. The action with the La'Vengence lasted for 3 hours so i must have used that figure mistakenly at first.XavierGreen (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Any French teachers lurking? Should it be "L'Insurgente" or "the L'Insurgente", since I assume that "l'" means "the"? I'm leaning toward the former. The book Truxtun of the Constellation has that usage... I queried at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. – Peacock.Lane 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Though i know virtually nothing of French, ive seen it written in both styles in a number of accounts (with some works actually using them interchangably).XavierGreen (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Truxton claimed the L'Insurgente's shot was fired windward to signal a fight"... I just saw another source in Amazon.com which stated that he windward shot was signal that the French ship was flying her true colors after striking the US flag and raising the French...– Peacock.Lane 01:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Which source is that? It is well documented that the French captain claimed he fired to leeward which was a common naval signal to tell another ship that they wished to communicate, while Truxton claimed that the shot was fired to windward at his vessel. If you read relevent French accounts, they describe how the Governor of Guadalope issued strict orders to the French national vessels under his command not to provoke or engage American warships. Barreaut himself was quite beffudled during the action, and to his officers and Truxton claimed to not understand why the Americans were attacking him.XavierGreen (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• More review needed. Just doing spot checks, I found problems with the writing in "Aftermath":

• How does a "fatality" die?

"fatality" is synonymous with "casualty" in the WNW thesaurus, and it's acceptable to say that one casualty died of this while another died of that. It wasn't wrong, but it certainly was redundant, and I've fixed that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "troublesome 24-pounder guns were removed and replaced with 18-pounder cannon" One cannon? Many cannons?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I brought up the issue of "cannon" earlier in the review, and it seems that both "cannon" and "cannons" are acceptable plural terms (though I personally think "cannons" reads better). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There were two "cannon" (plural) and one "cannons"; now all 3 are "cannons". - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, though both plural forms are correct the form used should be consisted as it now is.XavierGreen (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Replying to Andy's request: I did another copyedit. Here's the diff. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [47].

---

Malmö FF

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the Wikipedia:FA criteria. As of present the only FA of a Swedish football club is IFK Göteborg, therefore I have worked hard in the previous year to improve this article, with the help of a peer review and copyediting from Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS I managed to get the article promoted to GA status. After the promotion I once again got the article peer reviewed to prepare for FAC. After the latest peer review I have done some final small detail edits to ensure that the article has what it takes to become an FA. In conclusion, I believe that the Malmö FF articles satisfies the FA criteria and that the article is good enough to become the second only Swedish football club FA. Thanks! Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In defense of the images used in the article, User:Fasach Nua's copyright tag on the article
I don't know if Fasach Nua is referring to a specific image or if he thinks that there are too many images in the article since he hasn't motivated the tag anywhere yet. In defense, I believe that every picture in the article is of fair use and acceptable copyright status which has been labeled accordingly and that every image is necessary to further illustrate and enrich the article. The are ten images in the article with the team logo in the infobox included, this is equally as many as in featured article Manchester United F.C., one more than in Arsenal F.C. and less than in Aston Villa F.C.. Since these articles are prime examples of FA's, why is the number of images a problem in this article? Thanks. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FN has a habit of tagging articles while marking edits as minor, and then failing to engage in any other way. User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Calgary_Hitmen shows an example. Take his image reviews with a pinch of salt. - hahnchen 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of images in there under that curious "PD Sweden" tag- could you please explain to me the difference between a photographic work and a photographic picture? J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've done some research into Swedish law and I found that "fotografiska bilder", photographic pictures are pictures that has been taken by anybody whereas "fotografiska verk" are pictures taken by a professional photographer, this is weird since the license tag specifies that images of the press fall under "fotografiska bilder". Perhaps an image with an unknown author as in the case of most of the older images in the article is a "fotografisk bild"since the photographer is not known. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Reckless182 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So far I've only been able to find information about this in Swedish. According to the swedish wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkshöjd, an image is a fotografiskt verk if it has "verkshöjd" (uniqueness or orginality). Thus images that could have been taken by anyone are fotografiska bilder and free if taken before January 1st 1969. Reckless182 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now based on my research added more info and clarified the image licenses for all images in the article with the "PD Sweden" tag. They should all be correct and no longer a problem. Reckless182 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: As all the sources are in Swedish (I assume this is true of the two books, and they should be marked accordingly) I can't check these for reliability or for copyvios. I have checked the formats, which are generally in good order, though the books should be in alphabetical sequence. A couple of general issues:-

• It is not always clear where information in some of the tables has come from. For example, the "On loan" section has no citations.
• Data such as seasons' results should be cited directly to a source, not to a linked WP article.
• The second paragraph of the Stadiums section has uncited information relating to ground capacity.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The concerns above are addressed and should all be fine now, if there is anything I've missed please inform me. The only section I'm having trouble finding a good source for is the "Season results", Since this section will be updated every year it is troublesome to find a source which updates accordingly. I could source http://svenskfotboll.se/allsvenskan/tidigare-ar/ but then the user would have to click on each year to actually verify the claim. I could also use the book by Rikard Smitt but in terms of season results this is already outdated. I'm open for all suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have struck the issues that you have resolved. I can't really help with sources for the seasons' results as I have no idea what statistics are published, on or offline, for Swedish football clubs. The link article, List of Malmö FF seasons, is no use as it doesn't cite any sources. I'm afraid some digging and delving will be necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can source each individual season from the official club yearbooks. Neither Malmö FF or The Swedish Football Association keeps an updated record online with this statistics. As I am at university at the moment I can't look up the yearbook sources until Wednesday night. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources added for all seasons. Will that solve both the remaining issues? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Section was removed to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism, check the talk page of this FAC for the discussion. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have informed Brianboulton about these changes but have received no response since 7 February, I have left two messages on his talk page, the latest on 14 February. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NeutralOppose, mostly on prose and related issues

• "affiliated to" -> "affiliated with"

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:HYPHEN - check for correct hyphen use throughout

All hyphens, en dashes and em dashes are now used correctly throughout the article. The article uses spaced en dashes instead of em dashes consistently, as permitted by WP:EMDASH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Needs editing for tone - should be neutral and encyclopedic throughout

One subheading has been reworded and a couple of sentences have been reworded to make the article more neutral. See also Talk:Malmö FF for discussion on how to make the article more neutral. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 1970s the club won Allsvenskan in 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975 and 1977 as well as Svenska Cupen in 1976 and 1978" - grammar and redundancy

Fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Still needs prose tightening/minor copyediting throughout, as there are several instances of grammar errors, wordiness, and awkward phrasings

Me, User:Demiurge1000 and User:Oldelpaso have copyedit various sections of the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1998, midfielder/striker Yksel Osmanovski became the first Muslim player for Sweden, when Sweden lost 1–0 to the USA" - lacks closing punctuation, does not identify the venue for this game (Olympics? World Cup? Some other tournament?)

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence has been removed due to discussion, see below. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Several short choppy sentences and paragraphs

I think the paragraphs are fine. I've looked them over and they all treat different subjects and would be confusing if put together. Could you specify an example if you still disagree? --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1990, defender Jean-Paul Vondenburg became the first black player playing for the Swedish national football team, in a game against the United Arab Emirates." - source doesn't verify that he was the first black player for the team

I've looked everywhere for sources for this one, this source (http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/doinggoals/2010/03/) is the only one I can find online. The problem is that it is a blog, BUT it is a part of http://www.thelocal.se/ which is a reliable source. Can I use it or should I just remove the sentence? The problem is that the sentence of Osmanosvki will make no sence on its own with him being the only example of multi-culture. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES says "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". WP:NEWSBLOG covers the issue at hand specifically; "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" (my emphasis). The particular blog in question is listed at thelocal's website as being under "Readers' Blogs" (of which there are several dozen) as opposed to "The Local's Blogs" (of which there are two dozen). Clearly the blog in question is not written by a professional, but one presumes that the site would exercise a certain amount of editorial oversight on the readers' blogs that they choose to permanently feature on this section of their site. So the reliability of this particular blog as a source is borderline. Does it or any other source discuss the multiculturalism of the club in general, or do they just state facts about the background of some of the players? If the latter, should the article discuss it in this way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that explanation. I can't remember any other source discussing the matter of multiculturalism. Its a known fact that the city of Malmö and youth teams of Malmö FF are of many nationalities but maybe this is not something for this article. I'll contemplate on removing the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to remove the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Finally, a recurring sketch in the second season of the comedy sketch show Hipphipp! involved a group of Malmö FF fans singing and chanting while performing everyday tasks, such as shopping or operating an ATM" - I'm not seeing this in the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, added new source, the only one I could find. There is a clip on Youtube but I doubt that I could use that as a source? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the other issues with copyediting, User:Demiurge1000 who copyedited the article this December has informed me that he will respond to claims regarding prose and related issues within the next day or two. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I must be getting slack as I missed two peer reviews on this. Fundamentals look fairly solid from a football point of view. Minor issues listed on FAC talk so as to avoid cluttering this page. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All issues fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, provided prose reviewers are happy. Structure, comprehensiveness and neutrality all looking good. On the prose aspect, I've done some light copyediting, but will now be offline for a few days and thus unable to do any more. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• First years in Allsvenskan and early glory: En dash needed for 7-0 in second paragraph of section.
• "this was the first step of many that lead to the most successful era in the history of the club." "lead" → "led".
• Colours and crest: The en dash in "all–white" should probably just be a regular hyphen.
• "in accordance with the clubs main colours...". "clubs" → "club's".
• Rivals: There's no need to be linking 1930s, as that link has no real value for this article.
• "Minor rivalry because of geographical closeness exists with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BolS". I'm not a big fan of the grammar or flow in this sentence. Would "Because of geographical closeness, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BolS" be any better?
• In popular culture: Last word in "which portray the club from both supporter and player perspectives during the 1997 and 2000 season" should be plural.
• Again, you don't need a link to a decade range (1940s).
• Statistics: Remove capitalization from the first word of "All-time Allsvenskan table."
• The all caps in the title of reference 26 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All issues now fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, current reference 25 has a title word with all capital letters. Zap the caps the same way you did with my last comment above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support – Article is in great shape, but only one quibble. There are too many paragraphs and sentences that are starting with wording "Malmo FF are/were/have...". It makes me feel that this article is a some sort of a compilation of thesis. Bit of rewording and I'll be happy to support. Utinsh (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of rewording. I hope you think it looks better now. Reckless182 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments taken care of Utinsh (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate! Reckless182 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support - reading through now. Looks good. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:ref 25 appears to be a dead link....

Replaced with ref to the actual magazine article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ref check - in ref 34, how do we get "most loyal and active fans"?

Sentence removed, leaning POV. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• More review needed. On first glance, I see violations of MOS:CAPTIONS, curly quotation marks in violation of MOS:QUOTE, etc. Image review also required. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now tried to rephrase the captions to make sure that they do not violate MOS:CAPTIONS, please do tell if there is a specific caption that has these problems. I have also removed the one and only use of curly quotation marks. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've further tweaked three of the captions and I believe they now all meet MOS:CAPTIONS. I've also confirmed there are now no curly quotation marks in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review - doing an image review now, will post below when done. I've also read the captions used in the article, and I have two comments: (a) The first caption "Malmö IP in 1910" is a bit disconcerting. I had to read the adjacent text to learn that this was a football ground. Maybe say more precisely what is shows (the entrance?); (b) The second image says "The Malmö FF team of 1944" - should that not say 1943-4 or 1944-5? Compare to the image further down the article: "The Malmö FF team of 1948–1949". Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The copyrighted logo image is used under a non-free use rationale and the paperwork and rationale look fine. The link to the source works as well (for now).
  • The football kit images are created in a strange way I've never seen before. I hope that is all OK.
  • Of the remaining eight images, four are user-uploaded images and the licenses all look fine, though File:Malmö stadion.jpg could do with a bit of tidying up on the image page. The other four are uploaded under "Fotografisk bild" (see discussion at the start of this FAC). I'm not going to pretend I understand "Fotografisk bild", so I'm passing on that aspect of this article.

  Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the image review. I've changed the captions of the two pictures you mentioned above, I hope they are OK now. The image page of File:Malmö stadion.jpg has also been cleaned up. For the four uploaded pictures under "fotografisk bild" I have tried to clarify these as much as possible to make them verifiable. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes and updates. I think the images and captions are fine now, as long as "Fotografisk bild" works out OK, but that was discussed above, as I said. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to notify that I have replaced one image with another. File:Swedbank_stadion_29_june_2009.jpg has been replaced by File:Pano of Swedbank Stadion.jpg which is a panorama picture. The new image has been uploaded by a new user (PGN) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license so it should check out OK. Can this confirmed? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New image is also fine. The article looks fine as well, but I would need to read it through properly to be certain. Let me know if that is needed, as I may have time later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Layout changes and added content - I merged the "Supporters" and "Rivals" sections into a new section called "Supporters and rivalries". I think this looks better and I've seen it the same way on a few other football club FAs. I've also added a new section called "Footnotes" which is self explanatory. I added a footnote to fully explain how the title "Swedish champions" has been awarded over the years. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Finetooth comments. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-December and proofed the latest version today. I made quite a few minor changes today, but here are other things to consider:

Early years

"They won this division in the first season, and were promoted to Svenska Serien Västra, the highest level of competition in Sweden at the time. However, they were relegated after a single season... ". - Rather than linking "promoted", which readers already understand, I would link "relegated", the less familiar word.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Successful 1970s...

Since you use Svenska Cupen in this section, perhaps the lead should say Svenska Cupen rather than Swedish Cup.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"After a period of respectable positions in the league under the management of Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985." - The sentence structure suggests that Hodgson had respectable positions under Blunt and Grip. Recast as "After the team performed respectably under managers Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985"?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, even though the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989." - Rather than the confusing "even though", should this say "after"? Then the explanation in the next sentence might appear, in shortened form, in parentheses as "Between 1982 and 1992 Allsvenskan had play-offs for the best teams after the regular season was over.)"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the 1990s were disappointing" - The sentence, aside from the misplaced modifier, seems to violate WP:NPOV in that the results were only disappointing to the team and Malmö FF fans, presumably, and a cause for joy in certain other quarters. Maybe: "Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the team did not excel in the 1990s".

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Supporters and rivalries

"Supras Malmö is the most visible group in the main supporter stand at Swedbank Stadion today? - Delete "today" as vague and unnecessary since 2010 appears a couple of sentences later?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Because of geographical proximity, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BoIS, which are both also located in Scania." - I would move this orphan paragraph up a bit by making it the first sentence of the paragraph that begins "The main rivals of the club are... ". The idea of rivalries would hold the merged paragraph together; the minor rivalries would segue into the main ones. Then the paragraph about the special rivalry with IFK Malmö would end the section.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stadiums

"by ladies team LdB FC Malmö, who were previously the ladies section of Malmö FF." - I think "women's" is preferable to "ladies", which seems a bit archaic, probably not accurate, and possibly condescending.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Present day capacity is 7,600" - Replace the vague "present day" with "Capacity in 2011 is..."?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

"The two films are now seen as classic portrayals of the club." - This seems a bit POV-ish in that "classic" is an overstatement and the passive voice avoids saying who regards the films in this way. I would simply delete this sentence.

I agree, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Current squad

"Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules." - Should this be tightened to "Flags indicate national teams as defined by FIFA rules"?

Sorry, nothing I can do about that since that is a default text which automatically appears with the "Template:Football squad start". --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There must be a way to converse with the template editors, though that's not something I've ever done. Is there really nothing we can do if a template contains an error or, in this case, inelegant prose? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe we can add a request to Template talk:Football squad start. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I leave this for you to decide. The difference is small, but the template repeats itself in many articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

WP:MOSBOLD advises against double bolding and suggests using italics for emphasis, if necessary. Double-bolding plus bolding plus wikilinks makes the statistics section look like its yelling at the reader. To calm it down, I'd remove all the double bolding, and I'd try italics for sub-sub heads like "Winners (16)". I think it would also be best to unlink all of the seasons so that the sea of blue becomes a nice, calm black.

I removed the bolding from runner-up and tiers. For some weird reason I can't see the result of my edits, I'm not sure why. I decided to keep the bolding for the winner titles as well as the links for the seasons. I know from experience that I would want to know more about a specific season when reading a section like this. See the FA article Arsenal F.C. for an example on the same usage of bolding and links. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The section looks slightly better, but the double bolding is still there. (The wikilink automatically adds bolding; the second layer of bolding has been added by hand and can be removed.) Also, although I'll defer to your experience with the specific-season links, why link the same ones multiple times? For example, 1943–44 is linked under "Swedish Champions" and again under "Allsvenskan" and again under "Swedish Champions and Svenska Cupen". The row of links under "Swedish Champions" is almost an exact duplicate of the row of links under "Allsvenskan". What is the point of this duplication? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Double bolding now removed, but is wikilinked text really in bold? Also removed duplicate wikilinks, all links left are to different articles and thus all left should be necessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. To me, the section looks better than before. My point, really, was that using emphasis of any sort for too many things reduces the impact of all emphasis. If everything is important, then nothing is more important than anything else. I would probably not bold the Winners either, but the difference will not stop me from supporting promotion. Also, your question about wikilinked text and bolding caught me up short because I've been conflating them. You are right. They are not the same, and I will stop saying they are: ouch, ouch, ouch. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Club honours

"Both domestic league and cup honours have been won by Malmö FF as well as having been runners-up in European and international cups." - Passive and a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Malmö FF have won domestic, national, and international honours." Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking all but two. Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Striking all and switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• The bit about this football club reaching the 1979 European Cup Final is mentioned several times in the article (five times in fact), but there is nothing at all about their other games played in European competitions. One thing I was looking for is how many times they have qualified to play in European competitions, but I couldn't find that in the article. So I looked a bit harder, and eventually spotted the link to Malmö FF in Europe. That looks good, but there should be some sort of summary of that in the main article. What I would look for at a minimum is how many times they have played in each European competition, and the first and last times, and the fact that they have qualified (as defending champions) for the 2011-12 European Champions League second qualifying round.

Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Added more context under club honours in the statistics section. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would also be worth pointing out how many games the club plays in a season, and when the season starts and finishes (from looking at the Allsvenskan, it looks like 15 games in a league of 16 teams, and the season runs from March to October - that is useful information for the reader that could be brought over to this article). I'm used to the UK football season, and I was surprised to read that the Swedish league was played over that period - must be the weather, I guess!

I've added the fact that the league runs from April to October (March was only last year) in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the number of games? In the UK, it is 38 games. Is it 30 games in Sweden? If so, don't bother to mention (I forgot to double it for home and away). Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, are there any special adaptations to the weather? You could also say what the furthest is the team has to travel to get to matches. Essentially, anything that is done differently in Swedish football compared to other countries is worth mentioning (for example, was the league running in 2010 during the World Cup?).

Is that really relevant fact in this article? Wouldn't it be more suitable for the article about Allsvenskan? --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I've struck this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• You might also want to bring in the most pertinent facts from the various lists and seasons that have their own articles. Other questions I would have are: who is the most expensive player in their history in terms of transfer money (both buying and selling), and who owns and manages the club (is it privately owned or something different)? Are figures available for the turnover, for instance? Player salaries over time (were they fully professional right from the start? If not when did they turn professional?), and comparing that to the money footballers get elsewhere, and where footballers rank in Sweden (can you become a millionaire by playing football in Sweden?).

Working on it. I know which players are the most expensive, bought and sold, the only trouble is that Swedish clubs have a tradition of not making transfer sums publicly known, so getting a source for these claims will be hard as the tabloids are the only ones giving out information in that area, and they're only guessing so I wouldn't use them as a source. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Added what I could source to the new "Ownership and finance" section. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Comment struck. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another example is List of Malmö FF chairmen - that says that Eric Persson "is widely regarded as the most important person in the clubs history to present day." But this doesn't come across at all in the article, all that is mentioned is his election, who succeeded him, and the bit about the club name being added to the shirt design.

Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, added more content about him after the sentence about him being appointed chairman. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• More context is also needed. Compared to the large European clubs, this one is undoubtedly a small club, but how small and how large is it compared to other clubs in Sweden? I did find the following sentence: "Successful sponsor work and player sales also made Malmö FF the richest club in Sweden, a position they still hold." - but that sentence needs to be written so it doesn't get out-of-date, and if figures are available for just how "rich" the club is, you need to give them. Also, who are the sponsors, they don't seem to be named in the article at all.

I have added a paragraph in the lead concerning the financial and legal structure of the club. I hope that it was something like that you were looking for. Will add the sponsors somewhere also. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about sponsors under the new section I mentioned above. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also looks good. That will have to be kept updated, along with changes in players and managers and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also compared this article to IFK Göteborg (the featured Swedish football club article you mentioned in the nomination statement), and I noticed that that one doesn't have a "In popular culture" section. I like the content there, but would the stuff about the documentaries not fit better in the history section? Documentaries are not really examples of "in popular culture". That only leaves the Om Sara and comedy show bits, the latter being trivial, the former less so, but it should be possible to work that in somewhere else. On a more general point, have you looked at the IFK Göteborg article to help plan this article? Finally, on a more pedantic note, the header over there is "Stadia" and here it is "Stadiums" - I don't mind which it is, but some people will.

Will look into that. Yes I have looked at IFK Göteborg, Aston Villa F.C. and Arsenal F.C. to mention a few for guidance. I don't think the section name needs to be changed, most football articles use "Stadiums". --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at a few different FAs and there are some notable examples out there with a similar section. The documentaries should be mentioned somewhere and think the content of the paragraph is unique enough to qualify a section of its own. To place the content in the history section would only confuse the reader I believe. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still slightly wary of the "In popular culture" section (that was the main point I was making here). At a minimum, I would retitle that. It is more brand recognition and/or cultural history than anything else. Carcharoth (talk)

I saw that you renamed it to "Media coverage" which better explains the content of the section. Is that OK for this comment to be crossed out? I understand your concern but with the exception of the Mitt hjärtas Malmö films all are in popular media, even though the two Blådårar films are described as documentaries they are outlined as films and they were even shown in the theatres. I think the section is fine as it is now. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps give some ideas as to what I was expecting to find when reading the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - with the changes and additions made during the FAC, I'm happy to support with the caveat that the standard checks are completed by other reviewers (and also noting that I did the image review, in case that affects things). Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OpposeComments: Although this seems a very well researched and comprehensive article, I think there are substantial problems with the prose. I've read the lead and first two sections so far. There are several parts which are very clunky and do not read well. Other parts are confusing or imprecise so I don't believe it meets 1a. I think a thorough copy-edit would greatly benefit the article. Here are some of the points I found, but there are others too:

• "in terms of total trophies won": In what other way could they be successful? Perhaps cut this.

This sentence was previously criticised for being close to POV after being formulated as "making them possibly the most successful club in Sweden", as you've understood the Swedish football system has been experimented with a couple of times so there are many ways a club could be considered successful, most Swedish Championships (IFK Göteborg), most Allsvenskan titles (Malmö FF), most Svenska Cupen titles (Malmö FF) and the total number of titles which I believe is a good way of defining a club as successful. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "on three occasions when the title of Swedish champions was not decided by the outcome of that league" Clumsy and slightly odd. Presumably this is the highest league, so why was the champion not decided this way, and what is the significance?

Added reflabel note to notes at the end of the article which explains why. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• " This made them the first, and, as of 2011, the only Swedish football club..." Why not just "made them the only Swedish football club, as of 2011, ..."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "For this, Malmö FF were awarded the Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal" Merge with previous sentence? "... to have reached the final of the competition, for which the team were awarded the Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the annual general meeting is the highest policy-making organ": I don't think a meeting can be an organ.

I'm having difficulties finding a better expression for this, this is the definition from the Swedish-English dictionary site I use: "Organ: a government agency or instrument devoted to the performance of some specific function". --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed (see below) --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• " is the highest policy-making organ, the meeting approves the keeping..." Comma is incorrect after organ, should be a period.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club are a legal entity of itself without stocks" Not a great sentence; should it be the club is? And "are a legal entity of itself without stocks" is clumsy.

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "run by a managing director who then informs the chairman of his work on a regular basis": Regularly informs? And informs the chairman of his work sounds odd: presumably the chairman knows what the MD's work is and it is ambiguous whose work we are talking about.

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "in season from April to October": Again, odd-sounding. What about "where the season lasts from April to October"?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead reads like a random assembly of facts.

The lead should summarise the article and I believe these facts are too important to remove, I'm open for suggestions on what do with the paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• History section starts oddly: what is the significance of 19 young players? This is explained in the following sentences, but I think it would make more sense to start with the municipal initiative and Bollklubben Idrott before mentioning the 1910 foundation.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the structure of Swedish football does not come across in this section. As someone who does not follow modern Swedish football at all, I get the impression that domestic football in Sweden went through some big changes at this time which affected the club but it is hard to get the sense of this from the Early years section.

I've added some more content to clarify the situation. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• " In addition to relegation to Division 2, the club suffered bans for the entire board and twenty-six players" What board? Who was on the board, they have not been mentioned till now. Was this all the players? Why were the players punished?

I'm referring to the club's board of directors, I have reworded the sentence to include this. There has been given no explanation in the sources as to why the players were punished, perhaps because they accepted the sums they were given? However I don't see a reason to speculate in the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine if there's no explanation. If Sweden was as fussy about amaterism as England was, I'm not surprised... --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The unofficial version of events suggests..." What unofficial version? Who tells this story, where does it come from and why is it unofficial? This is too imprecise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will address your concerns shortly. What I can tell you right now is that the articles has been properly copyedited more than once by User:Demiurge1000, other editors have also contributed. I do agree with some of your points but I don't believe everything needs to be spelled out as simply as possible. I will look at your points and reply here after I'm done. Thanks for your comments! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A few of the problematic phrases quoted by Sarastro1 are totally unfamiliar to me, so it's likely some of these have come from material that has been added since I last edited the article, mostly extra material added to meet concerns/requests that have been raised earlier in this FA candidacy. There might also be a couple of later sections of the article that have only had my pre-GA copyedit, and not the more extensive reworking after it became an FAC. I'll go over both these aspects again within the next few days, but it probably makes sense if Reckless182 makes any needed changes regarding structure and coverage etc first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to address the comments from Carcharoth (see above) as well as these ASAP. Therefore it is very possible that new content will be added albeit in small quantity. I will inform Demiurge1000 when I have done this. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now done adding new content and awaiting response from Carcharoth and Sarastro1, I will inform Demiurge1000 that he can go ahead with the copyediting. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I did some rephrasing - could you check? I'm not clear, though, what "keeping the books" is (do you mean approving the financial accounts for the year?) and I'm also not clear what this "legal entity of itself" is, but I get the impression it is designed to insulate the board and players from financial claims (e.g. in the event of bankruptcy). Is that similar to a public limited company? Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! looks much better. By "approving the keeping of the books" I mean that every year the board of directors present the financial report for the previous year (which has of course been looked over by auditors already) and the general meeting have to approve that the "keeping of the books" have been done in a proper way or else the board of directors would have to redo the whole process. By "legal entity of itself" I'm referring to the Swedish term "Juridisk person", compare with Legal personality. Associations such as football clubs in Sweden are regarded as "Juridiska personer" when they have a charter of which they follow. Being a "Juridisk person" means exactly what you described in the last sentence, it is designed to protect the management and members of the club from financial claims much like in a plc. Maybe this doesn't have to be explained in such long terms but rather with some terms wikilinks such as "Legal personality" and "Financial statement"? I'm open for suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced "keeping of the books" with "accounts" in the lead. Accounts is Brit-Eng for financial statement or financial report. (Book-keeping is also used this way in Brit-Eng, but it's slightly more informal, and in any case a bit more long-winded.) I'll also make this consistent with wherever else it's mentioned later in the article, unless I find some problem in doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: I'm happy with the responses to my queries, so I've struck the oppose. I would like to read the remainder of the article, but I will wait until the copy-editing is complete as I did spot other prose issues when I looked previously, so feel free to ping me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62:

• "File:MalmöFF-Fans.JPG" is used with the caption "Fans at a home game". I'm assuming that the red-flag-toting fans are not Malmo fans, which makes the caption a wee bit misleading, especially since the red flags stand out much more than the white ones. Possible solutions: Employ a more descriptive caption, crop the image, find an image without opposing fans, or use the image somewhere else in the article where it won't matter as much.

They are indeed Malmö fans, the flag is the Flag of Scania, which is very popular with the fans. The flag is used to express regional identity, as written in the "colours and crest" section a small version of the flag of Scania is also featured on the kit, just below the neck. The image is relevant to the section and I don't see any reason to crop it. WP:CAPTIONS state that an image caption should be succinct so I doubt that such details should be added to the caption. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• When using acronyms, be sure to specify the acronym after the first usage of the full name. See this edit as an example of what I'm talking about. It may be possible that football articles have a different convention on this particular issue, so feel free to revert if I'm mistaken.

I have honestly never seen this used in a football club article. Malmö Fotbollförening and Malmö FF are used in the lead so pointing that out again in the history sectio"n seams unnecessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I manually reverted your edit and clarified the use of the BK Idrott acronym. That should be fine. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead does not adequately summarize all of the content in the article. A common rule of thumb (which I strongly agree with) is that every major section of the article should be represented by at least one sentence in the lead. Colours and crest, Supporters and rivalries, and Media coverage are all (as far as I can tell) absent from the lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the logo and kits in the infobox enough to describe content from the Colours and crest section? It seems unnecessary to specify the logo and kit in the lead when you can see it right beside it. I've added two sentences to the lead concerning the Supporters and rivalries section. I'm having a hard time deciding what to add to the lead from the Media coverage section, nothing in the section seems important enough for the lead, adding a sentence like "Malmö FF have been the subject of several films." would seem out of place in my opinion. I have not seen a fotball FA with this kind of information in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." The infobox is not the lead. The images in the infobox are not particularly useful for those users who are colorblind, employ screen readers, or use text-only mobile browsers. Regarding other football FAs, keep in mind that while existing FAs are certainly useful for giving an idea of how to construct an article, they are not perfect. The reason that you haven't seen football FAs with this type of information in the lead is simply because the reviewers at those FACs didn't notice the issue.

I've added a sentence about club colours, does that solve the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Solid. I think that it would make sense to mention the movies at the end of the last paragraph of the lead, as the topic has the same general feel to it as fan clubs. Even a single sentence listing a few examples would be sufficient. Can has? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a sentence in the last paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments - late, as ever, so my apologies (and sorry if I repeat anything from above), but comments nevertheless...

• Would suggest you bring out "association" in the "association football" link in the opening sentence, to help our non-soccer folks be sure this is about soccer, and not New Zealand football or Canadian football or whatever.

Is this necessary? Association football is linked and thus simply hovering over football will enlighten the reader. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "lost 1–0 to Nottingham Forest" would just say "English club" before Nottingham.. here, again for non-experts.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "78 million SEK " maybe asking a little to much for the lead, but can you put this into US$ or Euro perspective, again again for non-experts in Swedish crowns?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would have put the last sentence of the lead much higher up, before the records etc.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any citations for the nicknames?

Will fix this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Added. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "encourage youth in " switch in "young people" for "youth" here for variety as you go on in the next sentence to say "youth team"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club also defeated..." last club you mentioned was Helsingborgs so this is potentially confusing.

Removed "also". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " 1924-25 season" needs an en-dash.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club earned a ..." reiterate Malmo here.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Malmö FF team of 1943–1944" be consistent with re-using the century, so in other words, this should be 1943–44 for internal consistency.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " next-to-last game" -> "penultimate game"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The last game of the season was won 7–0 against Halmstad BK" interesting, but relevant?

I think its a good example to illustrate how strong the 1943-44 team was. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "For the next nine years, Malmö FF finished in the top three every season." -> "For the next nine seasons, Malmo FF finished in the top three in the league."?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "in forty-nine matches, of which twenty-three were an " see no good reason for this not to be "in 49 matches, of which 23 were an"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "would prove to be crucial ingredients" sorry, this reads like a piece of sports journalism rather than an encyclopedia to me.

Perhaps, do you have any suggestions? --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club's young talents, as well as talents bought" can we think of something better than repeating "talents"?

Changed to "young players" in first instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "hat constantly finished " I would normally see that as "consistently finished"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "After finishing as runners-up for the final two years of the 1960s,..." in what competition?

Added "in Allsvenskan" after runners-up. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " succeeded as Chairman in " why is chairman capitalised?

Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " throughout the entire decade. The decade ended " some repetition here could be avoided.

Changed the last instance to 1990s. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Headings take a jump from 1980s to "start of 2000s".

Added 1990's to the next to last headline. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "a position they still hold" can you put a context (i.e. an "as of") here?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• No need to repeat Madsen's first name.

Removed one instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "148,3 million" we generally use a period as a separator in English.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "this number is excluding player" -> "this excludes player"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The most expensive player that Malmö FF have ever sold is Zlatan Ibrahimović who was sold for 86,2 million SEK to Ajax in 2001, the transfer still holds the record as the most expensive player ever sold from a Swedish football club as of 2011.[54]" - "The highest transfer fee received by Malmö FF for a player is 86.2 million SEK for ZI who was sold to Ajax in 2001. As of 2011, this is the highest transfer fee ever paid to a Swedish football club."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "manufactures" ->"manufacturers"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " The most noteworthy examples are..." according to whom?

Changed to "some examples". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " an automated teller machine (ATM)." why abbreviate if you never use the abbreviation?

I agree, i wrote this as first, this was later changed by an editor in this FAC process, can't remember who. I've changed it back. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Note: flags..." can you force this to the line below the update date?

This is part of the template used for the squad, so its not something that I can change. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Would be good to know which players meet which criteria you've listed here, perhaps make a proper table out of it?

I'll get on it tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Managing Director (Acting)" not sure why acting is capitalised.

Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " the 1964–1965 European season in the European Cup and last in the 2005–2006 European" consistent year format again please.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "of the 2011-12 UEFA Champions League." en-dash needed.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Malmö FF team of 1948–1949" date format.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " (Record)" why bold, why capitalised, where's the reference for each of these record claims?

Removed as I havn't sen this before in a football FA. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Gold medal is mentioned in the lead but never again. This needs to be discussed in the article.

Will do this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support my issues resolved, on the whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Final comments: Looking good, just a few more prose points but not much else. Happy to support after this.

• "Malmö FF were most successful during the 1970s, when they won five Swedish championships and four Svenska Cupen titles. The club first won Allsvenskan in 1944." Minor point, but would it make sense to reverse this info to make it chronological?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Last four sentences in the lead begin with "the". Similarly, four of the first six sentences of the lead begin "the".

I've rephrased some of the sentences to improve flow. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The history of Malmö Fotbollförening dates back to a municipal initiative in 1905 ..." Not comfortable: Why not "The club arose from a municipal initiative..."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Persson is regarded as": Regarded by who?

Repharsed and added source for statement. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, after the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989." Not sure that "after" makes much sense here.

Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "...confirming it as one of the darkest moments in the history of the club." POV? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Most issues seem resolved and the prose seems OK. One other question which occured to me, but may be impossible: do the club have a known playing style, either now or in the past? My support does not depend on the answer! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Very good question. I'm fairly certain that the club were known for a defensive playing style during the 1970s but I have only been following the club since 2002 so its hard for me to tell. What I can tell you is that for the most recent seasons under Roland Nilsson the club have tried to adapt a style with focus on possession with offensive wingbacks (inspired by Ajax and Barcelona). Playing style tend to change a lot under different managers so I think its hard to find a specific style that defines Malmö FF. Something like this would be really hard to find a good source for, but if I do come across a good source in the future I will certainly try to reflect this in the article. Thanks for asking! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [48].

---

Eduard Streltsov

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, well, I hate to be unimaginative, but I think that it's ready, or at least nearly so. I have taken a big step back from it for quite a while, and am now doing my best to look at it objectively. It is, in my opinion, at least very close to FA standard, and so I have nominated it just to put that little bit of extra work into it and push it up to FA, which I think it deserves. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

External redirect resolved. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 02:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• I am not able to comment on the large number of Russian sources. A few general comments:-
• There is evidence of considerable over-referencing. For example, this sentence: "Although he had lost some of his strength and agility,[11] his footballing intelligence was still intact;[11]" - the same citation for two successive phrases. There are numerous similar instances, and also a lack of consistency in approach. For example, in the second paragraph of the "Release and return to football" section there are no citations until the penultimate line. In the third paragraph there are four successive citations to [22]. Also, some minor facts, e.g Streltsov's claimed "drunkenness" is cited twice to the same source.
• 52 citations to a single newspaper article of c. 1500 words seems a lot. This could be construed as over-reliance, but I think is probably more likely to be over-citing such as described above.
• Refs 7 and 8 presently both link to the 1956 Ballon D'Or listings.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've brought the number of reference tags down a notch. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose Comments: I think the article needs a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor. I would offer to help, but my time is limited at the moment. Some of the prose is a little cumbersome and could be tightened up. Reading the lead and the first section threw up a few prose problems. None of them were a big issue, but the number of little issues means I am opposing for now, although it can be easily fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• "Nicknamed "the Russian Pelé", described by Soviet football writer Aleksandr Nilin as "[t]he boy [who] came to us from the land of wonder", and called "the greatest outfield player Russia has ever produced" by British journalist Jonathan Wilson, Streltsov's promising career was interrupted at the age of 20 by a conviction of rape that led to five years in prison." Not sure that the different elements of this sentence fit together. The quotes describe his whole career, but it then says a promising career is interupted. And it is quite a long sentence.
• "Latterly described by Wilson as "a tall, powerful forward, possessed of a fine first touch and extraordinary footballing intelligence"..." I don't really like the sprinkling of quotes in the lead here; they do not seem to relate to the rest of the sentences. Also, they need references as they are direct quotes. The Wilson quote has no relation to the award in 1957.
• "...he gained the seventh highest number of votes, 12, in the 1957 Ballon d'Or." A little clumsy: is the number necessary? And seventh most votes seems ... underwhelming. Maybe rephrase to make it seem more noteworthy, such as "judged by sports journalists to be among the top seven footballers in Europe during 1957."
• I think it may be better if the rape accusation is not interupted by his international career during 1956 and 1957.
• "Although the evidence against him was "confused and contradictory", Streltsov confessed to the crime, allegedly after being told that doing so would allow him to participate in the 1958 World Cup." Allegedly? How reliable is this? If it is in the lead, it should be definite or not there. Also, suggest rephrasing to "After being told an admission of guilt would allow his participation in the 1958 World Cup, Streltsov confessed to the crime, even though the evidence against him was inconclusive."
• "Sentenced to twelve years in the labour camps, Streltsov was released after five years and made a return to football two years later, once again appearing for Torpedo Moscow." Suggest: "Sentenced to twelve years in labour camps, Streltsov was released after five; two years later, he resumed his football career with Torpedo Moscow."
• "At the end of his first season back, Torpedo won the Soviet championship, a feat that the club had only accomplished once before." Suggest: "In the first season of his comeback, Torpedo won the Soviet Championship for only the second time in their history."
• "He went on to return": returned, and alter sentence to past tense.
• "After retiring in 1970, Streltsov died in Moscow in July 1990." "After" looks like he died immediately upon retiring. What about "Streltsov retired in 1970 and died in Moscow in July 1990."
• "Six years later, Torpedo renamed their home ground in his honour": Maybe name the ground here: "Six years later [I'd prefer In 1996], Torpedo renamed their home ground [stadium?] "XXXX" in his honour".
• "in 1999 Torpedo built a monument to him outside the stadium bearing his name." "Outside their stadium"? And presumably this was a statue?

Early life:

• "Eduard Anatoliyevich Streltsov was born in Perovo, a suburb of Moscow, on 21 July 1937, the son of Anatoly Streltsov, a front-line soldier and reconnaissance officer, and Sofia Frolovna." A long sentence, suggest breaking after 1937 and restarting with "he was the son of..."
• "working as a metal worker at the Fraser Cutting Instruments Factory in Moscow to support Eduard and herself": "working ... worker" Finding employment as a metal worker? And do we need to say the factory is in Moscow as that is where they are living?
• ""the only pleasure, the only beam of light among the grey weekdays was football"" Quote needs attributing in the text. If it is not a direct quote from Streltsov, could it be paraphrased?
• "He had been representing Fraser for three years when in 1953 a friendly match was organised between Fraser and a youth team from Torpedo Moscow." Cut the opening to "Three years later in 1953..."
• Presumably he impressed the coach? And we don't need to give his age as 16 as the reader can probably work out 13 add 3!

General points

• There seem to be a lot of unattributed quotes. If they are not quotes by players, I would be inclined to paraphrase. However, if direct quotation is needed, it should be attributed.
• A quick glance at the playing section makes me think there may be a touch too much detail. It is a little "he played X and then he scored Y and then he played X" (not in such grim prose, though!) It looks like a list of games which can be tedious for the reader. However, I haven't read it in any detail, so I could be talking rubbish!
• Some more on his playing style would be good if it is avaliable, such as technique. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I had reference marks on all of the quotes but just took them out to avoid over-referencing! Hmm, I'll put them all back in then. I've just had a quick hack through, but probably best somebody copy-edits this as you say. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've put them back; however, if you are quoting several sections from the same source in one sentence, it only needs a ref at the end. And some of the quotes are just one or two words long, so I don't think you need to be directly quoting these. Certainly you don't need as many as you have. For example, "effectively down to nine men" does not need quoting if you phrase it as "had only nine fit men". And by attributing, I mean you need to say in the text who said it, not just in the ref: "John Smith believes that 'Streltsov was great'."--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've had another go, taken out a load of the quotations and worked on the sourcing and attributing. What do you think now? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks better, I'll look more closely in a day or two. I may be able to attempt a copy-edit at the weekend, if you have no objections. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and was named Soviet Footballer of the Year in 1967 and in 1968." The second "in" is a tiny bit of wordiness that could be removed without affecting the meaning. It would make the wording just a little tighter, which always helps.
• Career: "The Soviets were into the final, but Streltsov missed the final...". The use of "final" is a little redundant, don't you think?
• There are what appear to the naked eye to be simple year links in a few places; it's only when you hover over them that you can tell they go to Soviet league season articles. A handy way to deal with these is to place the link over a phrase like "1957 season" instead of just linking the year.
• "were incriminating photographs of both Lebedeva and of Streltsov...". This is similar to my first comment in that the second "of" isn't really needed and could stand to be tightened.
• There was a comment above about the presence of too many unattributed quotes. To me, the quote about his confession is an example of that, although nothing else jumped out at me in that regard.
• The English and Swedish national teams were linked in a prior section, and the repeats aren't necessary.
• I don't see anything in the body to verify the claim in a photo caption that he "excelled" in his first game back.
• Style of play and legacy: "was founded in order to attempt...". Some more excess writing here with "in order". It doesn't add anything. In fact, I'm not sure if the next one is useful either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The two "in"s and "of"s results from trying to make clear my meaning: I thought that "in 1967 and 1968" could imply just one award for the two years... I've changed it now though. Done the rest. Cheers. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More comments, leaning to supportSupport: I've completed a copy-edit, but another pair of eyes is always good. No real problems that I can see, and the article is very well researched and comprehensive. It is a very interesting tale about a player I had never heard of. Just a couple of questions/points before I support.

• It may be worth having some comments about how his teams fared in his absence. The article suggests he pulled Torpedo up from no-where to title contenders, but yet they managed their first championship in his absence. Did they do well without him?
• Were there any other differences in his play after his release? His record does not seem too different, so how was he able to do so well?
• It seems that the scandal may have restricted his post-imprisonment international appearances as his record was excellent, but is there anything explicitly saying so?
• Anything else about his imprisonment?
• "...and was allowed to return to football..." Allowed to return by...? Who?
• The playing style section is a little sparse. Apart from the back-heeled pass, what made him so good? How did he score? What was his pace like, ability on the ball, etc? I think more is needed here to meet the comprehensiveness requirements, if such info is available.
• Maybe also, a little more on his coaching. How successful was he? How did his teams perform? How did the players rate him? (Again, assuming this is available, but I think it is worth having a good look for it.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a bit more. I've tried to get it all but the coaching, which I can't find right now. I'll have another look later. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Switched to support now, great work. Obviously add the coaching if you find it, though! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They're all public domain except for the top image, for which fair use is claimed. I'm pretty sure it's all lekker. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Need an independent review, though. Please ping Fasach Nua, Jappalang, or another experienced image reviewer. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Earlier image review

There are only five images. I'll have a look at them. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC) (1) File:EduardStreltsov.jpg - this is a copyrighted image used here under fair use claims. More paperwork needs to be filled out here, even before the question is addressed of whether this is a valid claim. Please describe the source properly - currently it is just a bare URL, which is not acceptable. Secondly, it is best practice to fill out a non-free use rationale. I would suggest using {{Non-free use rationale}} and filling in the fields there. Thirdly, I'm not sure that the 'historic' upload tag is the correct one, but I can't remember what tag is normally used when uploading such images. Please look for similar images and model the image information page here on what is used on those image pages. After that, someone will need to assess whether your non-free image use rationale is valid or not. For starters, you need to demonstrate that you have done searches for free images of Streltsov. I suspect this image is ultimately replaceable. Even if it is OK to use it, there is not much information provided - when was it taken is the basic information needed - does the source provide that information? (2) File:Mbnolypkst.jpg - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. The description field should be filled in by someone who can confirm that it is actually showing what the uploader claimed it is showing (or get the uploader to fill it in if they are still around). In terms of the image itself, it is not really the best image - is it not possible to find one from the 1956 Olympics, showing the USSR playing one of their matches? That would be far better for this section. The current image is of the stadium 52 years later (and its not even the right sport!). Australian government sources must have public domain pictures from the 1956 Olympics, surely? (3) File:Hampden Park WP EN.JPG - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. However, I'm not entirely sure the transfer from en-wikipedia to Commons was done correctly. You may want to point this out to an experienced image admin here and on Commons and see if they can fix it (or say it is OK after all, despite my doubts - I think it needs a copy of the original upload log, as is present in File:Mbnolypkst.jpg). And again, this image isn't really that relevant to the article - the stadium 38 years later is not that relevant. Are there no pictures from that era of that match? You could at least point readers in the right direction towards non-free images, instead of providing images of stadia years after the games in question. (4) File:Torpedo-stadium.jpg - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. The picture is not really the best one for what it is trying to show. Is there not something showing the name of the stadium? Personally, I'd drop the picture as it distracts from the other ones (which are all good) and is the weakest image in the article. The umbro advertising is incidental, so not of concern, and I doubt the stadium architecture is copyrighted (and I don't know what Russian freedom of panorama is anyway). (5) File:Reverse of a Russian two-ruble bank coin with a portrait of Eduard Streltsov.gif - since there are whole categories of these on Commons, I'm prepared to assume this one is OK as well. If possible, a link to a page on Commons explaining whether coins really do fall under the law quoted in that license tag would be good. Overall, the article image captions are fine, though I do think the lead image should say how old he is in that picture - the reader shouldn't have to click through to the image page to find that out (and even if they do click through, there is no information there anyway - see the points I made above). Currently, if the non-free use claim fails and the poor and irrrelevant images are removed, you are only left with the coin image. Would you be happy with the only image being the coin one? If not, I think you need to try and track down some more images before this can be considered a well-illustrated article Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Second image review - following the changes to the images, I've reviewed them again. The two coin images are fine (according to the licensing at Commons) and the Brezhnev image is from the Bundesarchiv and is fine as well. The image captions in the article are fine as well. If no freely licensed photograph of Streltsov can be found, I would suggest linking from the external links to one or two pages where such images can be viewed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The article has been improved enough in the last two weeks for it to be made an FA. Spiderone 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak supportComments. Reading through now; may have to finish reviewing this evening if I run out of time.. I found a few areas where the prose was confusing, but those have been fixed. Support is weak because I think the prose is more than workmanlike, but not really high quality. If I get time I will copyedit but I think a weak support is justified as it stands.

• I think there's a little too much recitation of the goals he scored in the main text. Hat-tricks and notable goals, certainly, but for example the first three sentences of the third paragraph of "Early career" are probably unnecessary. You have the full list of his international goals in a table at the bottom, after all.
• The lead doesn't make it clear that he was not allowed to play in the 1958 World Cup; when I read the lead I assumed he was allowed to play while the trial was going on, or under some similar arrangement.
• Why is "labour camps" plural, both in the lead or the body? Did he spend time at more than one? At another point you say "at the camp", so it appears he was at only one.
• "Consequently, 100,000 workers at Moscow's ZiL car factory, the base of the Torpedo club, abandoned plans to march in support of Streltsov": I don't follow this -- they abandoned the march because he was convicted? Does this mean the march was intended to be during the trial but the verdict came in before the march could be arranged?

  Sorry, I still don't follow this. Now it says: "Instead, he was sentenced to twelve years in a labour camp and barred from ever returning to professional football. Consequently, 100,000 workers at Moscow's ZiL car factory, the base of the Torpedo club, abandoned plans to march in support of Streltsov during the trial." It's the "consequently" I don't get. Why would this stop the march? What were they marching for? If you mean that they gave up the march because it was too late, with the verdict already given, then I'd say so: "Plans for a march by 100,000 workers at Moscow's ZiL car factory, the base of the Torpedo club, to show support during the trial, were abandoned when Streltsov was sentenced before the march could be arranged." That's assuming the sources actually support that, of course. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any information on why he was not allowed to return to football with Torpedo immediately following his release?

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have done a lot of work on this this morning. I've attended to most of the photo issues brought up above and have fixed all of Mike's problems, will do some more later. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright; moved coin image up to infobox, added another for the 1956 Olympics and a Bundesarchiv picture of Brezhnev about half-way down. I'm trying to find some more that are relevant, will keep you informed. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All but one of my issues addressed; I will try to have another read through tomorrow and copyedit. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've used your suggestion. I was having trouble finding the words to make it clear, that's all. Thanks – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62:

• Lead balancing: The lead doesn't seem to have any content from Early life. I would insert perhaps just a single sentence describing his transition from Fraser to Torpedo. Also, no mention of "Streltsov's pass" in the lead?
• Reference overlinking: The publisher names should only be linked on first occurrence. "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" in particular is linked far too many times.
• Reference layout: I'm not sure that I like the "General/Specific" scheme going on, especially since one of the "specific references" is actually an explanatory note. I think "Notes" and either "References" or "Bibliography" would be more appropriate.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Okay, all done. I've changed to "Bibliography" and "Notes". – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Good, thank you. What about the inclusion of "Streltsov's pass" in the lead? I do think this would be a good thing to mention, particularly to answer the inevitable question of why Streltsov was such a good player. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • It's mentioned pretty clearly lower down what made him a good player but you're right that it could be mentioned more in the lead. Okay, try again now. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Works for me! Thanks for the time and effort, orange comrade. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 08:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I made a couple of minor edits which (of course) you are free to revert, but in any case, having seen this grow from a stub to a successful GA to this level of comprehensiveness is truly encouraging. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from NortyNort

• In Ref 1, Google translates his father as an intelligence officer as opposed to reconnaissance. Of course this may be completely wrong but I figured I'd comment in case there was an error. In the U.S. military, intel and recon are closely related but much different when it comes to the job preformed and training.
• "Streltsov was dropped from the Soviet team for the first three national team matches of 1968." and "Streltsov was left out of the tournament squad," Why? He was footballer of the year the year prior.
• "which his first wife Alla" He was married twice?
• The "RSSSF" acronym in the references should be spelled out.

Above are just a few comments. Overall, the article was an excellent read and I learned a bit, especially about Soviet football.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Ah, you're right on the first point. I must have made a translation error. Well spotted.
  • Can't find anything on the second point. Maybe he was injured? I don't know.
  • Yah, put that in.
  • Okay, done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing on the second point then oh well. Mainly a curiosity and nicety. But you have address my concerns and I support this article's promotion to featured status.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [49].

---

Luke P. Blackburn

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nineteenth century governor, physician, philanthropist, reformer... and accused bioterrorist! Hope that generates some interest. It's also true. I think this is a comprehensive account of the life of a very interesting individual who was accused of engaging in germ warfare during the American Civil War using yellow fever, the very disease he spent most of his life helping to combat. I look forward to responding to comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Perrin et al: this is cited to the original 1888 book, but in fact the online source is a typewritten extract provided by rootsweb.ancestry.com. How do we know that this is reliable and that the transcription is accurate?
  • I've tried without success to locate this blurb elsewhere. Much of what is cited to it is probably in the Baird biography, but I haven't checked every instance.
• In the bibliography, publisher locations are missing in one or two cases. For consistency, either show all locations or none.
  • Fixed.
• Likewise, consistency necessary betw. retrieved/Retrieved. But retrieval dates are not required for Google book links.
  • Fixed. Looks like there is inconsistency in the cite templates. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources and citations look OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please use |oclc= in {{cite book}} rather than |id= and {{OCLC}}. Rjwilmsi 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly don't even know what OCLC is. Someone else added it to all the places where I cited this book a long time ago, and I've just copied and pasted it a lot! Still, changed here at least. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I've started reading through the body of the article looking for prose issues. I'm enjoying it greatly so far! My comments are located on the article's talk page; please respond to individual concerns there. Once I've run through the entire article, I'll check out the lead to make sure it is well balanced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support happily! Thanks for the time that you've put into this. The interwebs are a better place because of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from talk: Here are some comments on the article's prose:

• "Henry Clay was also a distant cousin, and occasionally visited the Blackburn home." Who is Henry Clay? This sentence would benefit from a few words of explanation about Henry Clay.
  • I tend to forget that non-U.S. folks read these, too, and they aren't familiar with "The Great Compromiser". Fixed.
• "Luke Blackburn quickly became an active member of the community, helping found a temperance society, joining an elite militia group, and becoming the administrator of a local hospital." I find it somewhat confusing that this section's first mention of any military experience finds Blackburn in an "elite militia group". How can it be possible that he could be an elite combatant without any previous combat experience? Unless, of course, he did have previous combat experience, in which case such experience should be mentioned in the article.
  • No, I've found no mention of previous military experience, although you are right that this seems strange. The source does not elaborate, so I'm not sure how this happened. If it is too jarring, I can just remove that, since it isn't all that important to his overall life.
    • Perhaps the simplest solution would be to drop the "elite" adjective. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Done.
• "Blackburn was stricken with grief over the death of his wife, and friends encouraged him to tour Europe as he had often spoken of doing" The connection between these two clauses is not clear. I suggest adding in a phrase like "as a means of easing his grief" or some such.
  • Good point. Done.
• "Too old to enlist in the Confederate Army, he acted as an envoy" What is an envoy? I suggest adding a wikilink or perhaps a link to the Wiktionary entry.
  • OK. I thought this was common enough language, but I've linked it now.
• "but he failed to secure the arms" This phrase leaves the reader wanting more. Do you happen to know why he failed?
  • There may be some additional detail, but I'll have to check the source again.
  • Just double-checked the source. It says "Information about Blackburn's activities during the first two years of the war is sketchy. He served as an unsuccessful envoy for Governor Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky to obtain guns from Louisiana for the defense of the commonwealth,..." then goes on to talk about his service in Sterling Price's unit. There doesn't appear to be any elaboration.
    • Argh! Oh well, we can only summarize information that actually exists. My intuition tells me that "but he was unable to secure the arms" would be slightly less jarring, though I don't really have a good reason for thinking that. Feel free to either employ this wording or not at your discretion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• "After securing sufficient medical accommodations for the wounded" What does "medical accommodations" mean? Does it refer to supplies or to a physical structure in which the wounded could be treated?
  • Clarified.
• "When the offer was refused, Governor Pettus asked Blackburn to travel to Canada to collect provisions for blockade runners there." and "Blackburn was aboard a blockade running ship carrying ice from Halifax to Mobile, Alabama" seem to contradict each other. The first implies that Blackburn went to Halifax, stayed there, and helped gather supplies. The second implies that he travelled back and forth between Halifax and the Confederacy transporting supplies. Which is the case?
  • The sources don't say specifically, but based on my reading, I believe his primary job was staying in Halifax to secure supplies, and that this trip was a deviation from the norm. After the close call, I'm guessing he didn't go on many more such excursions!
• "When word of the plot was leaked to Union officials, they reinforced Boston, Massachusetts" Reinforced how? Structural or manpower? Either one would make sense here.
  • Clarified.
• "Independent of Hyams' testimony, officials in Bermuda had received information that Blackburn had collected a second cache of "contaminated" garments and linens and contracted with Edward Swan, a hotel owner in St. George's, to store them until mid-1865 and then ship them to New York City, presumably an attempt to start an outbreak there." This is an extremely long sentence! I suggest chopping it in half, probably after "garments and linens".
  • Done.
• "The Courier-Journal carried an announcement of Blackburn's candidacy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination on February 11, 1878" In which state was this? Blackburn was zipping all over the place at the time, so it's not entirely clear where he was running.
  • Good point. Clarified.
• "Whatever the reason, even his friends did not believe his announcement was wise." Why not? Because of his inexperience, or because of the allegations of biological warfare?
  • Inexperience. Clarified.
• "Blackburn's first concern as governor was to balance the state's budget." seems to contradict with "Blackburn's primary focus was on reforms to the state's penal system." If the two concerns were addressed sequentially rather than concurrently, I suggest prepending the second sentence with "Once the state's budget had been adjusted," or some such.
  • This was meant to denote chronology, not priority. Check out my fix in the first sentence of "Financial reform".
    • Good stuff, thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1879, 75 percent of the state's prisoners had scurvy due to a poor diet and 7 percent of the incarcerated individuals died." 7% died as a result of scurvy? If so, I suggest appending "as a result". If not, I don't see why the 7% statistic is relevant. People die all the time.
  • The 7% figure refers to the entire prison population. I think it's highly relevant, as did Lowell Harrison when he included it in A New History of Kentucky. Yes, people die all the time, but nearly 1 in 10 inmates in the prison dying in a single year seems a bit abnormal to say the least. That's 67 people dead in one year. I think this merits inclusion to show how poor the conditions were.
    • A valid point. I do think the current phrasing is a tad bit misleading, as it could be misconstrued as saying that 7% of the prisoners died of scurvy. Perhaps we could add "of preventable diseases" to the end? I wouldn't know if such a statement were supported by the source, but if so, I think it adds a nice bit of clarity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm working on this section with Ruhufish below. I'll try to address this in our final solution.
      • See if it is clearer now.
        • Yes, definitely. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "He later successfully lobbied Congress to construct a series of hospitals for boatmen along the Mississippi." I suggest changing "hospitals for boatmen" to "similar hospitals" to cut down on the number of repeated words between this sentence and the previous one.
  • Done.
• "Although he was acquitted by a Toronto court, public sentiment was decidedly against him." Where/when does this statement apply? Surely not everywhere and everywhen, for the people of Kentucky didn't seem to think it was relevant when they elected Blackburn. Consider appending the sentence with "throughout much of the (Northern) United States" or "for the remainder of the war".
  • Done.
• "his liberal pardon record and expenditure of scarce taxpayer money to improve the lot of criminals was unpopular at the time," I don't think that the meaning of "to improve the lot of criminals" will be entirely clear to all readers, particularly those who were born after 1900. While there may be ways to rewrite this particular phrase, I think the simplest solution would be to drop it altogether, especially since this is already a very long sentence.
  • Reworded. I think this phrase is important.

Those are the only concerns I have with the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. Glad you're enjoying the article. Blackburn's is a pretty unique story. I'm going to move these comments to the FAC page so other reviewers can see them, per standard practice. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image copyright notes: All appears to be in order. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments This is an intrersting read and looks quite good. I am leaning towards support, but I have a few comments I'd like to see addressed first.

• The lead seems to deviate from WP:LEAD in some ways.
  • WP:LEAD says The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. - since much of the article is about his time as governor, it seems to me this should be mentioned in the first sentence. Since the second sentence mentions his term as governor and he served a term in the Kentucky House, perhaps he could be identified as a politician in the first sentence? Or perhaps the first and second sentences could be combined?
    • Good point. Fixed.
  • Since the article title is Luke P. Blackburn, shouldn't this name be given in the lead too (not just Luke Pryor Blackburn)? So something like "Luke Pryor Blackburn (commonly known as Luke P. Blackburn, June 16, 1816 – September 14, 1887) was a physician and philanthropist..."? Again WP:LEAD says in part If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance.
    • I'm inclined to just move the article to "Luke Pryor Blackburn". I can't find any preference for the initial over the name or vice-versa in any of the sources.
      • I am OK with moving it - not that big a point either way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as such, nothing important should be just in the lead. However, the material in Until the election of Ernie Fletcher in 2003, Blackburn was the only physician to serve as governor of Kentucky.[1] is only in the lead.
    • I've repeated the sentence under Governor of Kentucky. That paragraph was a little short anyway.
• Still in the lead, Blackburn was sympathetic to the Confederate cause during the Civil War. seems to really understate his work on behalf of the Confederacy - this is a man who went to Canada and Bermuda to help Confederate blockade runners and was accused of trying to infect the North with yellow fever.
  • I was really trying to convey that, during the lead-up to and at the outbreak of the Civil War, he was sympathetic to the Confederate (states' rights?) cause, prompting him to serve the Confederacy during the war. I don't think I can succinctly and eloquently convey that, though, so I've changed the sentence around a little to better fit with your understanding of it. See what you think.
    • Works for me - thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Early life and family section - since there are articles on all the Kentucky lieutenant governors have articles, shouldn't his uncle be named and linked (if an article exists) in His maternal grandfather was a delegate to the 1799 Kentucky Constitutional Convention and his uncle was a member of the state legislature and acted as lieutenant governor in the administration of Governor James Turner Morehead.[3]?
  • There is no article for the uncle, William Blackburn. Lieutenant Governor James Turner Morehead ascended to the governorship upon the death of Governor John Breathitt. At the time, there was no provision for electing a new lieutenant governor in the case of succession; the President Pro Tem of the Senate acted as lieutenant governor in such a case. William Blackburn was apparently President Pro Tem for at least part of Morehead's term. (I can't find any information about him at present). Because of this, he was acting lieutenant governor, but was not elected to that office.
    • I still think his uncle should be named to provide more information and avoid confusion. No need for a red link. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done, and I've reworded the sentence to better highlight that he was acting lieutenant governor, rather than being elected to that office.
• Awkward sentenceJust prior to Cary's birth, Blackburn invested heavily in a failed business venture in the hemp rope and bagging industry and suffered a significant financial loss.[7] I assume he did not invest in a venture which had already failed?? I think this would be clearer as something like Just prior to Cary's birth, Blackburn invested heavily in the hemp rope and bagging industry and suffered a significant financial loss when the business venture failed.[7]
  • Much clearer. Thanks.
• Since other brothers are named later in the article, shouldn't his brother's name be given here too? He did not seek re-election, and in 1844, he and his younger brother opened a medical practice in Frankfort, Kentucky.[7]
  • The source only identifies him as "a younger brother".
• "the federal Congress" sounds odd - why not just "congress" or "the US Congress" in He also successfully lobbied the federal Congress to establish a hospital in Natchez; upon its completion in 1852, he was appointed surgeon there.[5]
  • I'm sure I had a reason when I wrote that, but it eludes me now. Changed.
• Acting on a commission from the Mississippi Legislature, Blackburn lobbied both houses of the Louisiana State Legislature to establish a quarantine at New Orleans to protect cities along the Mississippi River; as a result of this entreaty, the Louisiana legislature authorized him to organize such a quarantine system.[5] - this could be tightened, and does the link to Bicameralism (at both houses) really add anything to the reader's undertanding when the Louisiana legislature is linked a few words later? Tightened to something like this (things that could be cut further if not essential are in [brackets] like this): The Mississippi Legislature commissioned Blackburn to lobby [both houses of] the Louisiana [State] Legislature to establish a quarantine at New Orleans to protect cities along the Mississippi River; Louisiana authorized him to organize such a [quarantine] system.[5]
  • Done.
• More tightening (the previous sentence was about his wife's death) Blackburn was stricken with grief over the death of his wife, and friends encouraged him to tour Europe, as he had often spoken of doing, to ease his grief. Would "ease his sorrow" work here instead- avoids two uses of "grief" in one sentence.
  • Good suggestions. Done.
• "hold an audience with" sounds odd (and isn't the person in power the one who usually holds the audience anyway?) Would it be better as Blackburn traveled to Richmond, Virginia to hold an audience [meet] with Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon wherein he [and] offered to serve as General Inspector of Hospitals and Camps ...
  • That works.
• In Civil War, this reads oddly as Halifax and Toronto are hundreds of miles apart: Blackburn left Mississippi for Halifax, Nova Scotia in August 1863, and he and his wife found lodging in a boardinghouse in Toronto.[14]
  • Not being too familiar with Canadian geography, this didn't strike me as odd when I wrote it, but after you pointed it out, I've reviewed the source and reworded to give a more accurate description of his travels.
• Yellow fever plot - should the article let the reader know this was just as the Civil War was ending (the surrender at Appomattox Court House was a few days before the double agent's report)?
  • Done.
• Is "over" needed in He was held over for trial on $8,000 bond.[26]? Could it just be He was held for trial on $8,000 bond.[26]
  • Done.
• Per Wikipedia:CREDENTIAL, I think Dr. should be omitted in Writing in the journal America's Civil War, Dr. J. D. Haines notes that the Confederate agents who testified against Blackburn were of dubious reputation.[24] J. D. Haines could be described as "professor of History at XYZ University" (or whatever) if that is known.
  • According to this, he is (or was in 2006) a Navy medical doctor. Would you actually spell all that out as opposed to just calling him doctor?
    • 1) I still think WP:Credential says not to do this. 2) Doctor is ambiguous and can also mean someone with a Ph.D. or other doctorate. 3) Historian Edward Steers is a doctor (presumably a Ph.D.) (see here) but is not identified as "Dr. Edward Steers", so the use of titles is inconsistent in the article 4) Describing him as a Navy physician works for me - it avoids the ambiguity of "Dr." and the fact that he wrote an article titled "Did a Confederate doctor engage in a primitive form of biological warfare? The Northern press thought so". makes more sense when he is identified as a physician. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, done.
• Post-war humanitarian work - this could be tightened from Not waiting for Johnson's response—a response that never came—Blackburn returned to the U.S., arriving in Louisville ... to something like Not waiting for Johnson's response—which never came—Blackburn returned to the U.S., arriving in Louisville ...
  • Works for me.
• Should "Louisville's" be added at the start of The Courier-Journal carried an announcement of Blackburn's candidacy...?
  • Done.
• Would it help to end this sentence with a colon and combine it with the next? Might also help to make it clearer these were his second wife's brothers. Two of his wife's brothers also held political office.[33]
  • Good idea. Done.
• Add something like "his proposal for" or "the idea of" to clarify this To a large degree, his pleas fell upon deaf ears, with the exception of [his proposal for] the state board of health, which was created in March 1878.
  • Done.
• Close paraphrase concerns: page 260 of A New History of Kentucky has the first quote, the second is from the article:

An 1875 study had found that 20 percent of the inmates had pneumonia; the year Blackburn took office another report revealed that three of every four prisoners had scurvy, owing to poor diet. More than 7 percent of the nearly one thousand prisoners had died during the year.

An 1875 study showed that 20 percent of the state's inmates were suffering from pneumonia.[56] In 1879, 75 percent of the state's prisoners had scurvy due to a poor diet and 7 percent of the incarcerated individuals died.[56]

• • How would you rephrase this? The statistics are what they are, and rephrasing them too much could change their meaning.
    • How about something like this (inlcudes the current previous sentence in a modified version): Conditions in the penitentiary were poor and resulted in many illnesses. One fifth of the state's prisoners suffered from pneumonia in 1875. When Blackburn became governor in 1879, the mortality rate of the almost one thousand inmates in the state penitentiary was over 7 percent. Scurvy caused by poor nutrition afflicted 75 percent of prisoners.[62] You could also just quote the two sentences and be done with it, ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I've adopted your wording above.
• I would add the year here (instead of today): This was done, and the rechartered institution, located at Lexington, became known commonly as the State College; today, it is the University of Kentucky.[62] with the date it would be something like This was done, and the rechartered institution, located at Lexington, became known commonly as the State College; in 1916 it was named the University of Kentucky.[62]
  • Done.
• Later life and death - I would move the sentence that he had stated he would not seek further political office at the start of his term earlier in this section. As it is, I assumed he was speaking about his own (re)nomination at the 1883 Democratic nominating convention.
  • Hadn't thought of that. Besides his campaign promise, the Kentucky Constitution at that time prevented him from serving a second consecutive term, but I couldn't neatly work that in. I've moved the info closer to the top now.
• Some WP:OVERLINKing - do consul, telegraph, Negro, Fête, pardon, and President of the United States right before Abraham Lincold really need links? Also Kentucky General Assembly is linked three times in the body of the article.
  • I do typically err on the side of overlinking. Fixed these examples.
• Not an actionable request, but I do not think the locator map for Hickman adds much to the article. What if the Good Samaritan image from his tomb were moved to the "Post-war humanitarian work" section instead, and the full image of his tomb could be used in the "Later life and death" section instead?
  • I guess it doesn't add all that much, but I think I'd rather just delete it than show the tombstone twice (even if one is an extreme closeup.)
    • I would leave the map in - it is better than nothing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to have your comments, Ruhrfish. Hope to gain your support as well. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support and struck where I thought the issue had been addressed. There are a few quibbles left, but trust they will be resolved too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded a photo on Commons which I think would work well in the article and found an image of one of Blackburn's pardons which might work here. Details are on Acdixon's talk page. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable read, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All issues resolved (I hope the Mississippi Boatman image is used). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments

• "By 1863, he was supplying Confederate blockade runners in Canada." - what was he supplying them with?
  • I'm not really sure; the sources don't say. Would it be better to say he was "aiding" Confederate blockade runners? This would include his combating yellow fever in Bermuda and his (apparently sole) attempt at actually doing some blockade running.
    • Yeah, "aiding" would probably work better
      • Done.
• "Any plot of this nature was destined to fail, however. In 1900, Walter Reed discovered that yellow fever is spread by mosquitoes, not by contact." - not mentioned in article text, not sourced
  • I'll work on a source and add it to the end of the last paragraph under "Yellow fever plot" as well.
• WP:OVERLINK
  • I've addressed some of this in Ruhrfish's comments above. Any more glaring examples that you see?
    • Europe for sure, probably some of the countries
      • Fixed these.
• "Blackburn continued his ministrations until mid-July when he briefly returned to Halifax.[17][18] The epidemic on the island continued, and Blackburn returned there in September to continue his ministrations" - repetitive
  • Ick. Quite so. Fixed.
• "a competing theory proposed by Thomas S. Bell" - what was that theory?
  • That cholera was a miasmatic disease. I didn't list this earlier because I wasn't sure that would make sense, but since I notice at second glance that we have an article on the Miasma theory of disease, I think it's safe to state this and provide a wiki-link.
• Why "twenty percent" but "8 percent"? Be consistent
  • I always forget the rules on numerals versus spelling out numbers.
• Use of "in" in References is inconsistent
  • How so? I use "in" when the same author wrote more than one of the sources in the bibliography; otherwise, I just use the author's last name.
    • Ah, okay. I'm used to seeing it used for works within larger works.
• Be consistent in whether editors are first name or last name first
  • Darn copy-paste inconsistency! :)
• Include second and third authors in shortened citations
  • Done.
• University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
  • I suppose the official name is "The" University Press of Kentucky. Changed.
• Page number(s) for Boltz and Haines?
  • Although both articles originally appeared in print, I got them from electronic databases, and those electronic versions are not paginated.
    • Would it be worth including subscription links to those databases?
      • I'm not sure what convention dictates, but I've done so here.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope to eventually secure your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "a $100,000 allocation": Could you put one of those "convert to modern dollars" templates on this and any other mention of sums of money? Thanks.
    • Any idea what the template for that is called?
      • I left a query at Template talk:Inflation. Perhaps we have no options in this case... will see. – Peacock.Lane 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • " by a vote of 125,790 to 81,882" and the relative percentages were...? – Peacock.Lane 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Added.

Thanks for your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. I made all the following edits; feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Natchez, Mississippi", "June 16, 1816", and a lot more needed second commas. I filled them in this time; I may oppose over this many missed commas next time. I know some people like to omit them, but I don't know of an American style guide that supports that. See for instance Chicago 6.17 ("Commas in pairs"), 6.45 and 10.30; The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, at "comma" (the last two paragraphs); and AP Stylebook, at "months" and in the punctuation section.
• "Hyams said he was instructed to sell the trunks' contents to used clothing merchants. Blackburn ... hoped ...": "Hyams said he was instructed to sell the trunks' contents to used clothing merchants, and that Blackburn ... hoped ...".
• "to store them until mid-1865 and then ship them to New York City, presumably an attempt to start an outbreak there.": "... presumably in an attempt to start an outbreak there.". "Attempt" was dangling as an appositive because it didn't refer to any single word or phrase.
• - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [50].

---

Myotis alcathoe

Nominator(s): Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that after centuries of systematic research, we would at least know all the mammal species occurring in Europe. Wrong; new species are discovered every few years. Even then, you'd probably think that whatever new species are found are marginal and occur in small areas. Wrong again. This article is about a bat species first named in 2001 that is now known to occur pretty much all over Europe (and quite possibly, also outside Europe). Our knowledge of the species is still limited, but we are beginning to acquire a good understanding of its ecology and distribution.

This article comprehensively reflects that knowledge; thanks to the help of Thgoiter and several others, I've been able to read almost all of the by now voluminous literature on the species. The article was improved by a review by Sasata and a GA review by Ceranthor, and I'm looking forward to your reviews here at FAC. Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig`s tool found no copyvio, a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I can`t read Swedish or Spanish or Czech or German or Romanian or Slovenian or Ukrainian)
• Niermann and Brinkmann or Brinkmann and Niermann¿ Funkel or Funkelmann¿ Dykyy or Dyvyy¿
  • Fixed.
• Is Sauerbier et al 2006 or 2007¿ Check dates between References and Literature, as a few of them seem to have been mistranscribed
  • Fixed.
• Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Republic of Serbia, 2010 vs Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Serbia. 2009 - which is correct¿
  • Fixed.
• What does EUT stand for¿
  • Triest University Press in Italian. Fixed. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Bibliographic information for Gazaryan is a bit confusing - what kind of publication is this¿
  • Journal article. The journal has the weird name "Plecotus et al.", and they published volumes 11 and 12 together. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• The Hutson entry seems to be using a different format than the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It used the standard citation for IUCN Red List entries. Thanks for the review, and sorry for my sloppiness. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
• Both images are freely-licensed. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support - reading through - notes below all else in order:

..but it was not until the advent of genetic methods.. "methods" scans oddly, invites the reader to think "methods of what?" - why not say "testing" or "investigations"

Changing to "studies". Thanks for your review! Ucucha 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aah, studies! That word eluded me and is a better choice than the ones that sprang to mind first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It;s late here. Will continue reading tomorr now. Goodnight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European Myotis - I sometimes wonder about using genus names as nouns (i.e. should it remain italicised if used like this as a descriptive noun rather than indicating the genus) - I'd have thought a safer wording is "Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European member of the genus Myotis"

..the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of Nematocera flies, - similar issue to the above. maybe either an addjective "Nematoceran" or "the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of flies of the suborder Nematocera,":::Both of these tweaked. Ucucha 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Literature cited section needs work: Journal names must be italics. If there are DOIs for any of the papers they should be given using {{DOI}} mini template (even if you have a full text link, the DOI is still needed). Also look for any PMID, PMC or JSTOR records (latter maybe only needed if no other link available). I expect that the recent papers should have at least one of these indexes available [non-use of {{cite journal}} means citation bot and related tools can't be used to do this for you.] Rjwilmsi 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for any of these things. Ucucha 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a disappointing attitude. I think that the guidance at WP:Citing sources supports all of my suggestions (I was not requesting use of citation templates, merely mentioning a possible quick win). I would have to oppose if none of the suggestions are actioned. Rjwilmsi 23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's your choice. Lots of academic sources do not italicize journal titles and do not routinely include DOIs and PMIDs; Wikipedia should do the same. Ucucha 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Adding DOIs certainly adds some value to Wikipedia. If you want to check sources (we should all be critical!) a DOI link is much appreciated. Jack (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
          • To the best of my knowledge, all sources that are available online have the title linked to the online version, either through the DOI or through a direct link (i.e., to the page the DOI redirects to). Ucucha 12:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I wasn't commenting on this articles references, they all look fine. I meant in general, I just got the idea from your comment that you thought Wikipedia shouldn't include them at all! Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Rjwilmsi, WP:CITE does not require the elements you propose - the only requirement relevant to this exchange is that citation style be consistent, which in this case it is as far as I see. You're welcome to oppose if your suggestions are not implemented, but I would suggest that opposing on those grounds alone will likely not carry a lot of weight. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Also, I've so far written 30 featured articles with this exact citation style. If consensus is that that style is to be changed, so be it, but I doubt that is the case. Ucucha 23:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I scratch my comment re italics, if I mentioned it at all it should only have been as a query. I still think that DOI links are important for verification and accessibility: DOIs are designed as permanent links, PDF copies (while great as free access to full text) don't necessarily have the same longevity (also consider DOI display in offline Wikipedia versions). I don't really think that use of DOIs is a style issue, rather a content one. Anyway, it looks like the article is missing the following three links: doi:10.3161/1508110042176590, ISBN 3440096939 and a PDF. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks for finding those. I've added the ISBN and the BJZ link; however, the DOI doesn't appear to exist. Ucucha 21:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I found that the DOI is listed at [51], which I've linked to instead. Ucucha 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: As always, a well-developed, detailed article. A few comments:

• Any information about how the species manages to be sympatric with other Myotis? Any observations on niche differentiation?
  • Nothing specifically discusses niche differentiation. However, its habitat requirements (described in detail in the article) do appear to be different from (and more restricted than) those of M. mystacinus and M. brandtii. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Has anyone constructed a phylogenetic tree for the genus?
  • There are several. However, there is no consensus on the precise position of this species, so there isn't much of a point in showing one here. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Under "France": "It is caught at caves in late summer and autumn." Why is it caught? For regular scientific studies? Or was this supposed to be past tense?
  • Reworded. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Quercus robur oaks" – The other items in this short list read "limes (Tilia cordata), birches (Betula pendula)". Why not say "oaks (Quercus robur)"?
  • Changed. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all I found the first time through. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to read it again tomorrow before I add my support. I'm too tired tonight to say I gave it a thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: On the second read, it looks good. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support—I gave the article a pretty thorough pre-FAC review, and, having read through it again, can't find anything additional to complain about. Did you know that Ucucha has "a virtual collection of the interiors of bat penises"? I thought my collection of fungi on animal dung was odd...  :) Sasata (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
• "pers. comm. in Skiba, 2003, p. 107" I see a Skiba 209 but no '03.
• Should Funkelmann be Funkel? – Peacock.Lane 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Both fixed; thanks for the check. Ucucha 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [52].

---

L. Ron Hubbard

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

March 13th 2011 will be the centenary of the birth of this highly polarizing figure. The article has long had issues with sourcing and poor organization, unsurprisingly given the controversial subject matter. A recent total rewrite (by another editor) has taken it to a higher level. It seems to me to exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and I look forward to the perspectives of other editors. I can not always access Wikipedia from my day job, but expect to respond to queries within 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Link now goes to the redirected page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• A new editor creates an account, drops an entire article in mainspace a half hour later, and two days later it's at FAC? What am I missing here? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion? Since this book, whose prodded article is also by the newcomer, is not due for publication until July, checking for copyvio etc would be difficult. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me just sort out a potential misconception: Janet Reitman has authored an article with that title, that has been out for a few years now, and published as a book chapter. She has subsequently expanded it into a book with that same title- currently unpublished as you point out. That book is not used as a source in this article. The "Reitman" citations in this article are to the earlier book chapter and so they are verifiable. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved with occasional minor improvements, finding reliable sources etc. for this article going back probably a couple of years. The intention was to get around to a substantive rewrite. However, a newcomer has done a much better job without me, and invited other editors to take it to review. Questions to the editors involved are probably best taken to their own Talk pages. I hope this discussion can focus on the quality of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but this is quite far outside the normal pattern, so it's natural to raise questions. Since this newcomer would not necessarily be aware of all of our guidelines and policies, my first concern would be that someone with copies of Miller and Atack check for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Looking at the refs, the article closely follows the structure of Miller, significantly raising the risk of unintentional plagiarism. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary: you make a fair point. I have paper copies of both books and have been using them in improving some related articles. I'm satisfied that this article is what it should be: original work that is based on cited sources. The full text of both books is online, so nobody has to take my word for it. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a further comment on this, Miller's biography of Hubbard is organised chronologically, so any chronological account of Hubbard's life is going to approximate its structure. The article is definitely an original work, conveying the factual content but not the language of its sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Query interesting read:

1. "The idea may not have been a new one; a few previously," Would that be a few years, months or weeks?

   Well spotted! "Years" now added.

2. "The house became the permanent residence of Hubbard and his children" Would that be his family with Mary Sue or all his children?

   It means his children with Mary Sue. Rather than overload that sentence with clauses, I've deleted mention of the children. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving those two issues.

1. The section on his writing seems to revolve around the dispute as to how commercially successful he was, rather than how good a Science Fiction writer he was. I have to admit that though I grew up on Heinlein and Clarke I haven't read any of his Science Fiction, but some info on total sales, languages translated into and awards won would also be interesting.

   Good suggestion: I will see if there are sufficient sources for this, and report back.

2. I was a little surprised to see that The Infobox describes him as a writer of pulp fiction rather than Science fiction, is that the consensus view on him?

   Looking back at Talk page discussion of this issue, I'm minded to agree with you, but there are arguments either way. It seems that a predominance of reliable sources, including academic sources, describe him as "science-fiction author", though "pulp fiction author" also appears in multiple RSs. Some editors have argued for "philosopher" or a similar label which only appears in Scientology publications, so that won't fly. "Pulp fiction author" conveys not only that he wrote fantasy fiction and other genres as well, but also identifies the era/format of sci-fi in which he is most notable. It could be seen as a compromise. Do you still think it is worth changing?

   I think the change is worth making, the article makes it quite clear what sort of SF he wrote.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His works were all pulp fiction of which a fair number were Sci-fi thus it would be incorrect to simply describes as Sci-Fi. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article body has "a writer of pulp fiction, becoming best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories" which seems the fairest representation, and the infobox is consistent with that. I don't feel strongly either way but will implement WSC's suggestion if there's a consensus among reviewers. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

After sitting on it a day or two, would We be ok with simply author? I still think that Pulp Fiction is most appropriate since it covers all his writing (except for his religious Texts) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Author works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It would also be good to see something in the legacy section along the lines of "he was survived by x children and y grandchildren", in 2???, z years after his death the religion he founded claimed q million adherents worldwide.

   This looks do-able. While the names and birth dates of his children are sourced, I'm not certain of finding sources for who survived him. I will check (over the weekend rather than today) and report back. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks, we can only use what can be sourced, but I think a biography should have this sort of info if it can be found. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There's now a section on the overall success of his fiction in the legacy section (rather than in the section on the Golden Age, since the stats used are much more recent). I've also added a paragraph about his family since his death. I'll see what other editors say about the infobox. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: I have not yet checked out the sources, but I have a couple of points which I think need attention immediately:-

• There needs to be a list of the main books used - all of those, in fact, which are the subject of short citations: Miller, Atack, Streeter, Rolph etc. At present, a reader wishing to check any short citation is forced to look through this very long list of citations to find the book in question
• With 300+ citations, I suggest that two columns in the references section is not adequate and I would make this 3 or 4. This is less urgent than the previous point, but would improve the presentation and reduce the scroll-down time.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I will work on both of these straight away. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Both suggestions now implemented (thanks to ResidentAnthropologist for fixing the columns). MartinPoulter (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tentative OpposeThis looks really good but has too many citations to Bridge Publications and other CoS entities; our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that. Once that is cleaned up I see no reason not to promote Gonna see what I can do to help clean that up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • also the Miller Source makes me nervous, reading it the first time I thought it would be Timothy Miller who is on the Steering committee for the New Religious movement section at American Academy of Religion. Now I am going to go over that sourcing more closely as I am unsure of it reliability. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This source indicate issues of reliability with Miller's Work on LRH Thus I am concerned with its inclusion as one the most cited sources in the document. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Looking more and more closely and am increasingly bothered by stuff here. Offline for a while will check back

Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position.

Atack's book, which is sourced to a similarly high standard, comes to substantially similar conclusions to Miller. So does the recent New Yorker piece. Note this interview in which author says "We've had five fact-checkers involved in this story. Even the head of the fact-checking department weighed in. And one of the checkers was on the story almost full-time since August." If you look up in Nature_(journal) about Hubbard, the short biography you find (doi:10.1038/331125a0) is sourced to Miller and Corydon, strongly recommending the former over the latter. A TV documentary, "Secret Lives: L. Ron Hubbard", followed the structure of the book closely and Miller appeared on camera. In summary, the book is an ideal source for a professional-quality article; so much so that it would be dubious to have a WP biography of Hubbard that didn't use it as a major source.

In fairness to the Scientologists, we need to balance the critical books' perspective, hence the citation of Church of Scientology sites. An article that took on wholesale the idea that the Church's official biography is mythical would be open to charges of non-neutrality. In addition, that official story plays a central role in the Scientology belief system (as per the Rothstein & Christensen refs) and that story is perhaps the principal way in which Hubbard has an ongoing cultural impact. The article would be severely incomplete if it did not present that story, presenting it *as* the official Scientology version and as disputed. This is exactly what the article does.

In summary, let's move on from wholesale arguments about sources to discuss the sourcing of specific statements. I'm open to discussing areas where you think certain sources are over-used, and what you've done in the case of the "most-translated author" claim is a constructive example. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are utilizing sourcing as appropriate and working hard to us the best research available to you. Your lengthy explanation has put my mind at ease about the sourcing concerns. It seems that my concerns while valid in general Wikipedia editing are misplaced here. Your "Church's official biography is mythical as non-NPOV" is interesting argument. I am not anti-Sci, but do have honest concern about the social construction of myth in action thus was a tad concerned to see so many CoS Refs. I do not think that CoS ref are by default unreliable but must be used with care. You seem to be doing a very good job so far on a very thorny article. I am impressed and wish I could be putting more effort in it myself Right now. I am about to go through combing the article some more. I There is so much baggage with LRH and CoS articles on Wikipedia I am glad to see some one is braving it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your understanding, RA, and your recent improvements to the article. As you've seen, I've re-factored a paragraph that was entirely dependent on CoS refs. If there are specific areas of the article which are over-reliant on a particular ref, I'm very open to further improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"theta being" or thetan – an immortal, omniscient and potentially omnipotent entity that had forgotten its full capabilities and was trapped in a "meat body." I am assuming this is quote from the book. IS there any way we can rephrase it so it doesnt sound so bizzare and so we dont need the "scare quotes" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've broken up this long sentence, added a couple of extra references and removed "meat body". That is the term used in Scientology for a person's physical body, but you've got a point that this is a lot for the reader to take on. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Thetan is nesscary Jargon "Meat body" is not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks after becoming "Dr." Hubbard, he wrote to Helen O'Brien – who had taken over the day-to-day management of Scientology in the United States – proposing that Scientology should be transformed into a religion. This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections. The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.)

My concern is this is one the most contentious point in the LRH life. I am not sure we are approaching it neutrally here. Its an establised part of Anti-sci rhetoric but its dubious accusation. However not having the sources in front of me I cannot evaluate how they are sourcing this statement? Do the sources just ask to assume good faith on the thier credbility? or do they actally cite something for these? I would be more comfortable with citation to more neutrally sourcing rather than polemical books. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got a good point that this section needs better sourcing. Hubbard's letter to Helen O'Brien was entered into court records in California. This is the primary source on which the third-party books base that claim. When I next have access to Lexis, I expect to be able to pull up the original source. Maybe a quote would be more neutral than an interpretation?

As for the "make a million dollars" quote, it's not just from the Reader's Digest; I've added a couple more references. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: there *is* a quote from the letter in the article, so that itself isn't a solution. I understand your questioning the sentence "This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections," and will work on an improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: While I accept the necessity of sourcing controversial claims as well as possible, and I've worked to improve the passage in question, I just want to say that I don't accept the broad-brush characterisation of "polemical books". The Times Literary Supplement's review of Miller's book actually used it as point of criticism that the book left conclusions to the reader. The Miller and Atack books have both been praised in reviews for meticulously documented research. In the case of A Piece of Blue Sky, it was actually a point of criticism in a review that Atack's concern to back up his claims with citations got in the way of the story. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This rewrite for NPOV is preferential to me does it seem fair to you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I approve of the Church's response being set out in more detail. Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm uneasy with "allegedly" on its own. That merely implies "somebody says", when we have Miller, the Independent, TIME and Reader's Digest stating it as fact, as well as a Los Angeles Times article from 27 August 1978, ("Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard: official biographies seem larger than life") which gives the same quote. There is also fellow sci-fi writer Lloyd Esbach whose autobiography quotes Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." This is used as a source by Atack and by Reitman. Along with other appearances in books and news, we're into double figures with the RSs that use either of these quotes. Miller quotes two more of Hubbard's friends attributing similar statements to Hubbard in the 40s: see Wikiquote.

I don't want to interrupt the narrative with a long discussion of what exact words Hubbard used. How about "The idea may not have been new; contemporaries later recalled him having said in the late 1940s that the best way to make money would be to start a religion." ? That bases the statement on memory, but the ex-post memory of multiple people. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Perosnally a quote from publication 1978 says a quote from 1948 but no source other mention can be found prior to that source seem dubious to me. I also think the CoS source is equally suspicous for different but fairly obvious reasons. Thus both seem dubious I have reworded it again does this seem a fair compromise between the contesting narratives? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very happy with that. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The citation Walker, Jeff. The Ayn Rand cult, p. 275. Chicago: Open Court, 1999. ISBN 978-0-8126-9390-4 currently is the sources the statement when refering to Battlefield earth series: "They received mixed responses; as writer Jeff Walker puts it, they were "treated derisively by most critics but greatly admired by followers." I am not disputing this more confused what the context was for Walker to make the statement. As it seems an odd and from the looks of it unrelated source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The book deals principally with Rand and Objectivism, but a passage draws parallels with Hubbard and Dianetics. The sentence in particular is "Hubbard and Rand both produced thousand-page-plus novels, treated derisively by most critics but greatly admired by followers (though Scientologists are not required to believe that Battlefield Earth or Mission Earth is the greatest novel of all time)." You can check this by searching on the phrase in Google Books. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Promotion Having reviewed the article I certify this article is written from neutrally using reliable sources that are verifiable. I certify under a good faith assumption that there are no substantial omissions or misrepresentations of material within the sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Resident Anthropologist. WP:RS always needs a certain amount of judgment, especially when it comes to potentially CoI sources, which often are the best sources to back up basic points of fact in particular. However when an article is wholly or mostly based on such sources that does raise questions as to the integrity and balance of the article. That isn't something that can simply be brushed under the carpet no matter how much the nominator wishes to do so. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you spell out your argument in more detail, please, so that it can be addressed? How does the Conflict of Interest policy apply to any of the article's sources? In what sense does the article lack balance or integrity? If this is about the Church of Scientology publications being cited, I dispute that the article is "wholly or mostly based on" them, or that they are presented as factual.

It seems we are having an open discussion here. I've set out my justification for the sourcing at length, and have no problems discussing further, so please Assume Good Faith rather than accuse me of brushing issues under the carpet. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Even with good faith, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying above either. Which ones are "such sources"? Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem to me to be an actionable objection. I can't see what article improvements Quantumsilverfish is asking for. Thanks to Johnbod for reassuring me that I'm not just being dense. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At 21:37, 21 February 2011, I invited Quantumsilverfish to contribute further to this discussion. The account has not been active since making the comment above on 13 February. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer's opposition will not be considered actionable since there is no participate or follow-up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very well-written - some of the few points below relate to quotations rather than the text itself. With essentially two very contradictory narratives in the sources, I think the article does a good job presenting both, with the "official" one largely by quotation, which is probably wise. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• The highlighted (by me) bit in a Malko quote seems maybe odd: "Hubbard's career at George Washington University is important because many of his researches and published conclusions have been supported by his claims to be not only a graduate engineer,...". Probably an accurate quote, but just checking.
• Re Navy service: "that he was only awarded a handful of campaign medals ..." seems begrudging! Suggest a rephrase.
• Another quote check: "Hubbard] has worked on all types of cases. Institutionalized schizophrenics, apathies, manics, depressives, perverts, stuttering, neuroses – in all, nearly 1000 cases." Not "apathetics"?
• The punctuation gets a bit messy at: "The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people[200] that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[180] (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.[201])" Probably lose the last set of brackets.
• "Hubbard, his wife Mary Sue and his secretary John Galusha became the administrators of all three corporations.[206]" - is this the correct term under US company law? Not "directors"? Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. Your first point requires me to consult a reference that I haven't got in front of me, so I'll comment later about that. The others I've fixed: yes, "apathies" is a genuine quote. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Malko quote is verbatim. I'll add comments to the article to indicate the quotes as such. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
  • Please provide evidence (records search) that File:MastersOfSleep.jpg was not renewed. Mr. Hubbard is well-known for enforcing copyrights with extreme vigour.

    See Talk:Fantastic Adventures; I was working on that article recently and verified that all covers are out of copyright; I didn't update this one as I didn't use it in the article. I will update it in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for a valuable contribution, Mike. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • File:Hubbard divorce headlines.png lacks a fair use rationale for this article (and I doubt a sufficient one could be written).

    I'll remove it until the fair use rationale is established. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearing opposition as the issues have been resolved. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• The article seems to me to be extremely long.

  Indeed, it's a long article. Hubbard has been the subject of entire books, as well as chapters or mentions in many other books and a great deal of media coverage, both in his own lifetime and in the 25 years since. The role of the article is to give a summary overview, digesting down this mass of material while being complete enough to be "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." This is what the article does. (Note that I'm not the author: I'm not praising my own work). Hubbard had an incredibly eventful life by any standard, being notable as a Golden Age sci-fi writer, as the creator of Dianetics and Scientology, as a multi-millionaire recluse. In addition, there are widely divergent accounts of his life, and neutrality requires that these be given fair voice in the article. It is customary to break off sub-articles rather than put everything in one article, and that has already been done in the case of Hubbard's publications and his military career. The main article needs to give a thorough overview of the different aspects of the subject's life, and that's what it does. In summary, I don't think having a large amount of well-written, high-quality content is reason in itself to object to an FA. You're welcome to point out specific things that you think don't belong in the article: let's discuss those suggestions. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Not an objection, just a comment. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is it not customary to alternate images left and right as you go down through a page? Stifle (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments. I can't find this custom documented anywhere. Can you point me to where it is required by the Manual Of Style? I know that other articles have reached Featured Status without alternating left and right: it may just be something that's done when a lot of images are packed together to stop them stacking up. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  I picked "customary" rather than "policy" or "MOS" because I am not aware of such a requirement. It's not an objection. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Apologies for misreading you, and thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support shortened version. --JN466 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Moral support. This is an amazing article. Well-written, and I believe even-handed and a real labour of love. It's also long, with hundreds of references, and I am not sure I will be able to offer more than moral support as part of this nomination, as checking the entire article and its references would take more time than I can devote to it at the moment.
• There is one passage I spotted which needs looking at: "Hubbard is the Guinness World Record holder for the most published author, with 1,084 works[315] translated into 15 languages.[316] However, the Los Angeles Times reported in 1990 that Hubbard's followers had been buying large numbers of the books and re-issuing them to stores to boost sales.[317]"
• First, I am positive that the number of languages is wrong and should be far higher; I've seen figures like 65 and later 71, which sound more realistic, and CoS claims that Hubbard holds the world record in that, too. Neither of these sources should be cited; we need someone checking through the most recent Guinness book commenting on Hubbard to see what it says.
• Second, the two sentences don't jell logically; Hubbard's followers' buying books has no effect on the number of books Hubbard has written, or the number of languages they've been translated into; this sort of statement would only make sense if the previous sentence were about bestseller list appearances (probably it was at one time in the drafting.)
• I noticed while googling that Hubbard may also hold an audiobook Guinness record: [53]; might be worth checking out. Cheers, --JN466 01:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was merely going off the most recent source I could find, but indeed thanks for pointing that out he seems to hold three records. One was mentioned earlier in the edit history but was removed by me later. IT seems he does hold the record for most "translate author of a single book." and one for most AudioBooks and one already mentioned in the article.
    • Thanks for finding these guinnessworldrecords.com links! --JN466 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks both for these improvements, which I've integrated into the article. I've also restored the LA Times ref: it would be remiss to discuss sales figures without mentioning that article, although Jayen is right that it made no sense in the context he quotes. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Great, thanks, Martin. --JN466 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Both Atack and Streeter mention that Hubbard also attracted some praise for his performance as an officer: [54], [55]. Could we include that info for balance? --JN466 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• The submarine episode should perhaps mention that Hubbard's crew endorsed his claims of having sunk a submarine; Moulton in particular echoed Hubbard's sentiments that "the decision to deny the presence of submarines was a political one, taken to avoid causing panic among the American public" (Streeter). Note that this doesn't necessarily make the submarine story any more believable, but it demonstrates that Hubbard was able to command considerable loyalty, even in the face of countervailing evidence. --JN466 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine with these suggestions. Sorry for recent absence: day job has been kicking off over the last few days. I will have more time to look at the article (and the recent edits) within the next 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Now implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but oppose. I started reading the article as it seemed well written and interesting. However, I soon realized that it is a humongous article! If this gets promoted, it will go on the mainpage soon, and readers will click to start reading the article but never finish it. I strongly suggest moving a lot of the contents to a new article titled "life of Hubbard". The article is 160k, and a lot of the details about his lie are not actually that interesting to deserved worth mentioning in this article. Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I stroke down my oppose since I think a fair amount of work was done to reduce the prose size from 101 to 82kb. I would recommend reviewers to go back and make sure that the prose in the updated version is still good, but otherwise I have no other notable complaints about the article. Nice job! Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • I reviewed the material shortly after the alterations. Its all good The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For similar reasons to Nergaal above - while the article appears to be well-written, it is much too large (see WP:SS) and could be split into smaller article(s) . Additionally I would still question certain sections (such as, but not limited to, Military Career) as having undue weight (WP:DUE) - the sections may still be warranted but the amount of space devoted to them should be reconsidered, I think. --  Newty  12:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the above two opposes, for reference, the largest current FA is Michael Jackson, which is 646K total page size, 184K Wiki text, and 79K readable prose size. L. Ron Hubbard is 360K total page size, 161K Wiki text, and 101K readable prose size. See Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length. The guideline on size is WP:SIZE; I am not opposing here as I haven't read the whole article, but it does look like this would be at the extreme end of the spectrum for size. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The longest FA in terms of readable prose size seems to be Elvis Presley, at 15,667 words (using the Page Size option in the Toolbox), plus another 944 in the prose-format Elvis_Presley#Notes section, for a prose total of 16,611. As it stands The L. Ron Hubbard article has almost exactly the same number of prose words to read (16,614). --JN466 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment (supported above) The length is I think justified by Hubbard's somewhat complicated life, and in particular by the need to include and balance what are in very many places two completely contradictory and opposed accounts of his life, the official and the unofficial. This is what this article does especially well, it seems to me. There are already many sub-articles, & I think Nergaal's unorthodox suggestion is a non-starter, as this is the "Life of ..." article. Personally I think opposes based on length alone might well be regarded as unactionable. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Nergaal's comment and those since: I've addressed the length issue above in my reply to Stifle, and I totally agree with Johnbod's comment above. I understand the length is a sticking point, though. I think something can be done quite quickly to skip through his early life and some family detail and get more quickly to the "meat" of his major life events: I'll need a bit more time to work on this, and I've asked the original author to help. One of the criteria for an FA is thoroughness, and for this reason - along with the complexity of the subject and the diversity of sources - radical surgery on the article is unwarranted. Thanks Mike and JN for informing the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this review, and especially to Martin Poulter, who has put in a lot of work on the article. I accept that the first version of the article may have been longer than is optimal, so I have just posted a revised version that reduces the word count significantly. Four sections have been merged into two and the word count of every section has been reduced. I have managed this largely through rewording and cutting out some non-essential material. The article is now 325 kB total page size, 138 kB of Wiki text and 82 kB (13,353 words) of readable prose text - a reduction of 19.6% from the original 16,614 words. This is well under the 100 Kb of readable proze size suggested as the limit by WP:SIZE. Compared with the other articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, this would make it somewhere around the 32nd longest featured article, about the same size as Manchester or Columbia River. I hope that this resolves the concerns about size raised by Nergaal and Newty. I don't think it could be reduced much further without compromising its integrity for the reasons that Johnbod has already given.
• Regarding Newty's comments about "undue weight" on Hubbard's military career, I am afraid that is a mistaken view. For Scientologists, Hubbard's military career is one of the most important aspects of his life. The Church of Scientology's chief spokesman has said recently that the veracity of Dianetics and Scientology rests on his military career (cf. [56]), which gives some indication of how crucial it is to Scientologists. Its relative importance to them is comparable to the resurrection of Jesus for Christians or the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, as it represents the point at which Hubbard is supposed to have made his key spiritual breakthrough. Furthermore, Hubbard's military career infuses many aspects of Scientology, most obviously the naval-style uniforms worn by the Sea Org and Hubbard's adoption of naval ranks for Scientology members including himself. The military career section is not even the longest in the article. It provides an appropriate summary of a much longer spinoff article and has as much weight as it requires. Helatrobus (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the improvements, Helatrobus: the article still has excellent flow. I agree about the significance of LRH's military career: It's mentioned extensively in both critical and Scientology sources. It's a centrally important era in his life, and highly contested, so it deserves the treatment that the article presently gives it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Newty's objection has been met, but I wait for Newty's own input. I note that Helatrobus has invited further discussion, and that Newty hasn't been on WP much in the last few days (Nor have I: apologies for that!) MartinPoulter (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delegate comment - I think it would be prudent for any reviewer who supported prior to the 3/1 changes, and who has not done so, to review the article to make sure they feel the same way. It appears the article was substantively altered (it's difficult for me to tell to what degree) and the changes may have had some effect on the narrative, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Poulter, JN466 and Resident Anthropologist have already confirmed above that they are happy. I have left messages for WereSpielChequers and Johnbod to ask them to re-review the article. Of the opposing editors, Quantumsilverfish has not made any edits for three weeks, nor has he responded to queries about his vote. Newty has also not been on WP for several days, as Martin notes, but the other editor who opposed on the grounds of length (Nergaal) has confirmed that he is now happy with the article. The alterations have mainly consisted of rewording and the excision of some non-essential text, mostly in the first few sections. I would be grateful, by the way, if you or one of the other delegates could close this review as soon as possible, as I am keen to secure the March 13 slot on this month's queue in order to meet the centenary date. Helatrobus (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for being proactive there. I will be going through the queue this weekend to promote/archive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On a spot-check, I noted problems with MOS:CAPTIONS. While not showstoppers, if there are any MoS nerds watching that would go through and fix these things, it would certainly strengthen the nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I've cut down the length of captions generally, turned some sentences into sentence fragments, and removed periods from sentence fragments. One caption still has full sentences, but I think it's justified. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re-review I've reviewed the change, and certainly don't think they are an improvement. It was imo unwise to make such cuts, as much of the detail that makes the article so interesting and impressive is lost. It's not really worth damaging an article just to get FA (even if that was necessary to get FA, which is not clear). I'll still Support but rather less enthusiatically than before. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean. It's a pity to lose encyclopedic detail that is not easily available to general readers because of an arbitrary length restriction. --JN466 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I concur, its a waste The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-review, Johnbod. There's still the future option to create a sub-page to preserve the discarded material. The edits have made the article as a whole more accessible, so I don't personally regard them as "damage". MartinPoulter (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [57].

---

Herbie Hewett

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked on it for a while I think that it meets the criteria. A couple of points to note are that there are a couple of issues unresolved from the peer review; I'm currently working on getting these cleared up, mostly involving having a little dig around some offline sources that is taking more time than I'd like. However, please feel free to repeat any of these as a friendly reminder for me to get them done! As noted in the peer review: "Primarily due to the fact that he wasn't an overly prominent player, and due to the time period he played in, there is little information on his personal (and non-cricketing) life. It is unlikely that much more can be revealed on this, although little gems may be gleaned." Harrias ^talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A couple of external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the ESPNcricinfo links, thanks. Harrias ^talk 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Publisher details required for Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game. This was a weekly publication; you should give the numbers, as well as the years, of the issues you are using.
• Likewise, give publisher details for Lillywhite's annual, MCC Cricket Scores and Biographies, The Complete History of Cricket Tours at Home and Abroad, Inner Templars who volunteered and served in the great war (1916) and Dewar's annual.

• With the exception of Inner Templars who volunteered and served in the great war (1916), these sources were all added by User:Nigej. I have left a message on his talk page dated 17 January 2011, asking for most information on these references. If this information is still not forthcoming as we approach the close of this candidacy, I'll have to remove some of the information unfortunately. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I feel this issue should have been resolved before bringing this to FAC, particularly if you yourself have not seen the cited material. The removal of material relating to these refs could substantially alter the article content. Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Being honest, I forgot that hadn't been doing - I had been holding off on nominating the article until we'd worked the issue out one way or the other, but then was glancing through articles the other day, and couldn't remember why I hadn't nominated it. So it's me being a bit stupid I'm afraid. Looking online I've managed to work out a fair bit of information about some of the sources: see numbers 25, 43, 44. Although I haven't see the sources themselves to verify the information, will this level of detail on the references suffice? I can come up with similar for the Cricket: A weekly record of the game, but they would still be lacking issue number. Apologies again for my forgetfulness! Harrias ^talk 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nigej has kindly added some more information for the references he has provided. Harrias ^talk 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Consistency required in page ref formatting. E.g. ref 8: "p. 109", ref 57: "p46" Check throughout.

• Have made them consistent.

• The hyphen in ref 7 page range needs to be an ndash. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 07:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 77: what is the nature of this publication? Book, article or other?

• I'm not sure, this is another one from User:Nigej. I'll endeavour to find out. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

*See my comment above Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed this reference from the article. Harrias ^talk 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 85: Wood → Woods

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 99: it should be stated that this obituary is from Wisden 1922.

• Have clarified this, can you check if the way I have done it is appropriate? Harrias ^talk 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see some evidence of overreferencing in the article. For instance, why are there four citations for his wartime appointment as a Provost-marshal? One would do.

• No single references covers all the facts given in the preceding sentence: each of the four gives something a little different: start date, end date, position and what branch he served in. I will try and clean the duplicates up higher in the article though. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 97 (the obituary) mentions nothing about Hewett's war service; ref 98 only lists his name. These citations are redundant. I suggest you slightly rephrase the sentence so that it reflects the information in sources 95 and 96. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the sentence and the references down to just those two from the London Gazette. Harrias ^talk 07:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all the online sources are archived scorecards, so spotchecking has been highly limited. Other than the above points, sourcing seems adequate and reliable. I will try to return for a more general review later on. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Generally a very good article. Certainly comprehensive. It may benefit from a light copy-edit in places, which I may be able to try in the next day or two if Harrias has no objections. A few points and questions.

• I've moved a list of resolved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1 as this page was getting very full. If anyone has any objections, please move them back. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "but again failed to impress" Who? Critics? Team-mates?

• I don't have access to the source, but given the context I'm assuming he failed to impress the university selectors: he wasn't in the Oxford team in 1885. Harrias ^talk 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, maybe put that it. Was this from Nigej? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was from Nigej: he changed it slightly to "played in a trial match at Oxford but without success." - I've removed the 'but' which seemed superfluous, but I'm not sure if the overall change has made the sentence any less ambiguous? Harrias ^talk 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that covers it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Hewett's emotions were still raw from this loss when Surrey travelled to Taunton more than two months later..." Is this what the source says? If so (and it's David Foot, so I don't doubt it as he has a habit of embellishing his facts!), it may be reaching a little and I'm not sure if we can realistically know if his emotions were still raw or not.

• Changed to "Foot suggest that Hewett's emotions might still have been raw.." but can tone down further if you think it appropriate. Harrias ^talk 11:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it out as it strikes me as one of Mr Foot's flights of fancy (don't know if you ever read his biography of Hammond!), but I've no personal objection to this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the part about Hewett's emotions being raw. Harrias ^talk 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "scoring freely": may not be clear to non-cricketers what this means. And he did not have especially big scores, so does this mean he scored quickly? Freely suggests big scores, I would have thought.

• Have completely reworked this paragraph opening. Harrias ^talk 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Hewett began the 1893 season brightly"... Like freely, not sure about brightly.

• He had a torch on his head: so it was brightly! No, I understand your view on both of these, but as yet haven't worked out what to put instead. I will change them when I think of an alternative (feel free to dive in if you can suggest anything). Harrias ^talk 11:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to "in good form". Harrias ^talk 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The visit of the touring Australians began the process which led to Hewett's resignation from the county." Is this sentence necessary? And if so, it sounds like it didn't just begin the process, it was the process!

• I've reworked this a little. Harrias ^talk 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "he scored 112 "made in less than two hours, and was a splendid display of free and taking cricket without a fault"" Quote needs attributing in the text.

• Not my source, if I don't get a reply from Nigej in a short while, I'll probably cut it out; it's a little bit flowery to be honest. Harrias ^talk 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Attributed, but the quote does not actually make sense. A splendid display of free and taking cricket? I'll ping Nigej for this, but it may just need cutting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nigej replied and suggested taking it out as it was correct but slightly archaic, so I trimmed it back. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• For batting style, anything about his best shots, or his defence?

• Not really from any of the sources I can find. Harrias ^talk 22:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• CA has him playing for Gents v Players at Lords here. Worth mentioning as the next best thing to a Test? And maybe point out the different levels of Gents v Players matches, that the Lord's game was the big one but the end of season ones were less important?

• I've included a bit on this in Later cricket career and life Harrias ^talk 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• I've mentioned this in the lead, but not yet in the article (big no no!) Do you have any reference that backs up the Lord's game being the most significant? And it being the next best things to Tests? I know both of these things, but can't find anything to cite! Harrias ^talk 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look; I've certainly got something to ref this for post 1918, but I might know where to look. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it in the end, and it reads very clearly now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I wouldn't make too much of Somerset's first Championship game; I'm not sure the distinction between a County match 1885 and 1891 would have been that important as I think the start of the "official" Championship was not a big deal.

• Worth mentioning in terms of being their first match back in first-class cricket, or not really too much to bother about at all? Harrias ^talk 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think the part about the CC only just starting, but I probably wouldn't even mention the first match as it does not seem particularly important. The second seems much more interesting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still a little dubious, but only because I believe it was all a little woolly around then, and I don't think they would have seen 1890 as much different to the previous years. But not a big deal at all. To be honest, Blackjack is the man for this and I believe he's gone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe make more of the idea that he really emerged from no-where, after a moderate start to his career, to be one of the best batsmen in the country for a short time. The Wisden obituary suggests this if a ref is needed.
• There are a few bits in his Times obituary which might be useful to add, such as his university matches and his unorthodox style.

• Not having a Times subscription, I don't have access to his obituary. Harrias ^talk 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, Times, 15 Sept 1892 ("County Cricket in 1892", p. 5) "Somerset's many brilliant feats, and the fine play of Messrs. Hewett and Palairet in particular, were a marked feature of this year's cricket."

• Added into Batsman of the Year section. Harrias ^talk 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Had a look at Times, but apart from match reports, there doesn't seem to be anything else helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good generally, though. As I've got quite a long list of comments, I'll move them to the talk page once they've been addressed, if that is OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: a fair bit to tweak around here: I have addressed some of the points towards the start of the article. I haven't signed each reply, hopefully that won't cause an issue. Will continue to cover the points over the next few days. Also, if you have a Times subscription, anything else you can dig out would be grand *wink* Harrias ^talk 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, probably at the weekend. I also was reading the biography of C. B. Fry the other day and spotted something about Hewett having a row with the captain of the ship he was on. I'll dig that out as well if it helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• This bit from the lead feels repetitive: "Insults from the crowd prompted him to feel insulted".
• Oxford and Somerset: The comma before the last quote of the section should be a semi-colon; otherwise the lead-in to it is weak.
• Second class county cricket: Before the last quote in this section, I think "as" is meant to appear after "described".
• County Championship cricket: "expecting an easy win to secure a consecutive championship." Feels like the number of consecutive titles would be a logical one-word addition here.
• Touring North America: Comma needed after George Ricketts. Also, one should be added after Vernon Hill in Departure.
• Spare letter needs fixing here: "David Foot offered s a more tempered opinion". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Giants2008: think I have corrected them all. Harrias ^talk 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Yet another strong cricket article. They never stop coming through here, do they? Writing, sources, etc. are all up to the usual high standard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this some time ago and felt it was close to FA quality then. All of my concerns have been addressed since, and I am glad to support. I have a few quibbles, which do not detrct from my support.

• Two sentences in a row in the first paragraph use "capable" - could one use bechanged to something else?

• Along with the point below from Staxringold, I have changed the first sentence to ".., Hewett could post a large score in a short time against even the best bowlers." Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there supposed to be an apostrophe before Varsity in In his reminiscences, W. G. Grace suggests that Hewett "first won some little renown in Public School and 'Varsity cricket, but it was not until he joined Somersetshire ...?

• This was brought up at the Good article review; to quote what my reply there: "I assume Grace was using 'Varsity as an abbreviation for university. Not sure, but it's what he uses." Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Makes sense, suppose it could also be for "intervarsity", thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOSQUOTE says not to use single quotes as in Hewett scored 113 against the sixteen man 'All New York' on Staten Island,[51] a match in which he was standing in as captain ...

• Removed the quotation marks. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Double quotes would also have worked, your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• He either had a sister (or perhaps was married) to have a brother-in-law Hewett missed most of the match against Kent shortly thereafter, returning to Taunton due to the death of his brother-in-law, during which time George Wood replaced him as a substitute.[68] I know details are sparse, but should his sister be mentioned?

• I've added this speculation at the end of Later cricket career and life. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would not link Reverend in the Personality and style section per WP:OVERLINK

• Unlinked. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand cricket, but I enjoyed this article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple small things

• The lead has "demoralising" where the quote I assume it's referring to has "demoralizing". Should use a consistent spelling. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Covered below. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• On that note, that seems like a somewhat iffy word for an encyclopedic lead. What about "Hewett was capable of surprising bowlers", for example? The bit this is referring to seems to largely be discussing his ability to hit shots in all directions that threw people off guard. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Along with the point above from Ruhrfisch, I have changed the first sentence to ".., Hewett could post a large score in a short time against even the best bowlers." Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also from the lead, "England did not play any Test matches at home in 1892, or else Hewett would probably have won a Test cap." What's the sourcing for that? I understand the point of this sentence (to explain to a reader why he didn't win a Test cap, he didn't have the chance), but this seems like a pretty big statement that I don't see sourcing for. It seems to be referring to the Almanack quote from the Batsman of the Year section, but that doesn't really fully support this sentence. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think ".. Hewett would undoubtedly have been given a place." pretty closely supports my statement? Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake, didn't realize a cap referred purely to making the team (I thought it meant winning something once on the team). Could you link to Cap (sport) so outsiders like myself understand the term? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• My fault: I should have linked that already, I'm normally pretty good at that. Done now. Harrias ^talk 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under Departure from Somerset the sentence "The crowd continued to show....'the decision not to play was premature'" seems like a run-on sentence. Maybe change it to "The crowd continued to show their dismay at the decision, and eventually the Somerset officials asked the umpires to take another look at the ground. Woods supported this decision in his reminiscences, claiming that "the decision not to play was premature.""? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Small thing, but it seems like there are a couple quotes under Later cricket career and life with improper period placement. Lord Hawke's shouting and the block-quote about Mr. "Erbert" have the period outside the quotation marks. Obviously if there was more in the source that's fine, but if the sentence ended where the quote did the period should be inside the ""s. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The source for the Lord Hawke quote has the punctuation out of the quote, and I have changed the Mr 'Erbert one. Harrias ^talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, my issues are dealt with. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: A really good article which has got even better in the last few days, when I've been unable to do anything! I've performed a minor copy-edit, and my only worry is how readable it is to non-cricketers. The above supports reassure me about this, however. It is very comprehensive and readable, and I doubt there is anything about Hewett which is not covered and explained here. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The thing is any article on a topic with it's own language (sports, military, biology, etc) will require a certain amount of knowledge, or clicking through to linked articles on the confusing terms. But so long as the links are there (where available), there's nothing more you can really do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? At a glance, there are problems with MOS:CAPTIONS. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  I was going to review the image licenses and source information, but now you've mentioned MOS:CAPTIONS, I'll look at that as well.

  • (1) File:HTHewett.jpg (on Commons). Used as lead image in infobox - would be nice to have the image cleaned up a bit, but that is beyond the scope of FAC really. Regarding sourcing, I was unable to verify the source information for this image. It was uploaded in October 2010 by User:Harrias and the source given as 'London News Agency Photo'. This is a now defunct photo agency (see here). It is not clear where the "pre-1901" date for the photo comes from. I would like there to be more information about where this image came from, when it was taken, and where the "pre 1901" date comes from. When I searched for this image, I found it for sale at www.cricket-books.com. It is a pity the date is unknown, as that would be nice to put in a caption for the image in the article.

  • Thanks for the image review. I assumed the pre-1901 date came from Hewett holding a cricket bat in the photo, and knowing he played his last high level cricket match in 1901. I searched some on Google images and could not find any other sources for this photo. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• It did come from that, but thinking about it, he continued to play club cricket beyond that, so it could theoretically have been later. I've removed the image until more information can be found out about it.Harrias ^talk 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • (2) File:OxfordUniversityCricketXI1886.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded December 2010. Source: James Lillywhite's Cricketer's Annual for 1887. The image information page does not state who scanned this image from the annual. I presume the uploader, but that information should be added to the image page, or the source of the scan added if someone else scanned it. No author information is given (if the author is not known, that needs to be stated by the uploader). Someone needs to check the annual to see if photo credits were included, as that would make it by a known author who may not have died more than 70 years ago - if no author is known, then the photo is fine both here and on Commons. If there is a known author and the date of death is not known, best to use as a local copy under PD-US-1923. The caption given with the image in the article needs improving though.
  • (3) File:Somerset1892 RedLillywhite1893.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded February 2007. Source: James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual for 1893. Same comments as above. If the user who uploaded it scanned this from a copy of the annual they have, the image information page should say this. Ditto for finding out the information about who originally authored this image (again, see above, but in this case, the photographer is named on the photograph - the "J. Chaffin and Sons" bit - so that information should be put on the image information page and then apply what was said below for image 4). Caption could be improved a bit as "centre" doesn't really tell the reader where Hewett is in the image. Say which row he is in and where in that row.
  • (4) File:Hewett & Palairet.png (on Commons). Uploaded October 2010. This image has a well-filled out information template - please use this one as a model when working on the other images, especially the ones uploaded locally to Wikipedia. The only thing missing there is the date of publication (the date provided is the date the photograph was taken). Copyright is calculated from the date of first publication, not the date the photograph was taken, so if you only know that it was published in From Sammy to Jimmy: The Official History of Somerset County Cricket Club, you need to say when that work was published. The author of the image is named as a Mr Chaffin. Really, to be certain copyright has lapsed in the UK, you need to know when Mr Chaffin died (but that is usually impossible to work out). In this case, it appears to be J. Chaffin and Sons, which is confirmed by looking at this image. That is the same image (this one is a crop and a better scan), and that one says it was published in 1892, so it was published before 1923, so OK if uploaded on Wikipedia. For Commons, you need to be sure that Chaffin died more than 70 years ago. Suggested caption improvement: tell the reader if the record wicket partnership is shown on the board behind them.
  • (5) File:HTHewett1892.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded December 2010. Artwork published in 1892, hence PD-1923 for local uploads on Wikipedia. Source information provided. Author information not provided. Ideally, the source would be checked to see if the artist is named. Image placement seems strange, though, as this one is dated "circa 1890", but the images in earlier sections are 1892, so the chronology is reversed.

  Apologies for going into so much detail there. As numbered above, images 2-5 are likely fine if a bit more information can be added to the image information pages. However, I'm not happy about the information available for image 1. The information is too scanty really, and there is no indication of where it was first published, or who the photographer was. That, coupled with the online auction of the image, makes me uneasy about it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Given the lack of information regarding the lead image I propose to do the following:

1. Remove the lead image
2. Place File:HTHewett1892.jpg as the lead image.
3. Contact Nigej to try and get more information on File:Somerset1892 RedLillywhite1893.jpg and File:OxfordUniversityCricketXI1886.jpg.
4. Move File:Hewett & Palairet.png to purely Wikipedia.

• Taking these steps, would the images be okay? Harrias ^talk 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• That all sounds fine. As I said, the only real objection I see is to the first image (which you are intending to remove). If you can find out more about the image (specifically when it was first published and where), it will be fine. For the other images, they are all fine on Wikipedia (because they were published before 1923), and there is no requirement at FAC (as far as I know) to upload them locally if there is some doubt about whether they are OK for Commons. You may be better off asking on Commons about the images, and then uploading them locally depending on what you are told there (but again, as far as I know, the images only have to meet Wikipedia image policy, not Commons image policy - I only mention it here because of the possibility objections may be raised on Commons in future). Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have done what the first of what I suggested above, and have also cleaned up File:HTHewett1892.jpg slightly. No reply from Nigej as yet, and I haven't moved File:Hewett & Palairet.png: I'm hoping to find out some more about the photographer etc. Harrias ^talk 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Additional comment - I found out a bit more about London News Agency (LNA). See this Google Books search. It seems it was taken over by the Roy Reemer Organisation, though I'm not quite sure when and details are still sketchy. Just in case that helps (which it probably doesn't). Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - article images should also have alt text. See tool at top right of the review page and see WP:ALT TEXT. This is not currently part of the FA criteria (it was commented out in March 2010), but as the alt text tool is still included in the tool box, I still like to check. Having no alt text at all doesn't seem quite right. If this is not actionable, I'll raise this at WT:FAC and ask what has happened since the earlier discussions prior to March 2010. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Per this, I'm striking this comment as not actionable under the FA criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Images, will someone please confirm if all image issues are resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In my view, they are fine as far as Wikipedia and US copyright laws are concerned (all published before 1923). There may be issues on Commons under UK copyright laws as the photographer is known but not their death date, but Harrias has said he is looking into that. You may want to ask another reviewer to double-check this, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [58].

---

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Nominator(s): SkotyWA^T_C 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The 97th edition of the oldest soccer competition in the United States broke an attendance record set in 1929 and was the first time a team repeated as champion since 1983. After a GA review, and an effective peer review, I believe it meets the requirements of a featured article. I look forward to following up on review comments/suggestions as quickly as possible. I invite the editors here to follow the link and learn more about the most recent iteration of this great American sporting event as they review the article. SkotyWA^T_C 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the images. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• "Major League Soccer" is a website, not a print source, so should not be italicised in the refs (per MOS)
  • I was never sure whether these should be italics or not. Thanks for the guidance. I've made the fixes. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• The same is true of "United States Soccer Federation" (though the correct name appears to be "U.S. Soccer"); "TheCup.us"; "NASL.com" (should be written as "North Americam Soccer League"); "AOL Sports"; "goal.com"; "Seattle Sounders FC"; "ESPN"
  • I've fixed these as well and I found a few more web site references (CONCACAF and Columbus Crew websites) and fixed those too. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Have not had time to spotcheck, though. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I will try to review this properly a little later; it looks an excellent piece of work. Just one thing for the moment; the statement that "the Timbers were able to tie it up" will read oddly to British ears. Here, in sporting terms, to "tie something up" means to seal a victory, whereas what you mean is that the Timbers "levelled the score". Would it offend American readers too much if you reworded for clarity? (In Britain, for reasons unknown, the term "tie" is never used in football, as we call it, to denote equal scores.) Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Often WP:ENGVAR comes into play in these discussions and editors end up favoring American terminology for American articles. That said, with your suggestion we can have the best for both hemespheres I think. I've made the change and I found another instance of the word "tied" one sentence later but it was redundant, so I removed it. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the review. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Should "the" be added before Chicago Fire? I think it would help the grammar, but this is tricky with soccer teams.

Yes it should be. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• May I ask what a "bench goalkeeper" is? This is a term that's new to me. Does it mean a keeper who's normally on the bench. In the interest of reducing jargon (something I often can't find), I'd recommend a switch to "reserve goalkeeper" or something like it.

Good point. Changed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Try not to have repeating words like in "off a cross from Steve Zakuani. Zakuani...".

Fixed the one you pointed out and looked through the rest of the article for others. This appears to be the only instance. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Analysis: Is "convinsing" British English or a typo? I can never tell with the Brits (and Aussies)...

I'm not British and this is an article about an American sporting event, so it's a typo. It's entirely possible that they like this way of spelling it though. I dunno. Thanks for catching this, I fixed it. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Remove "to" from "In their last match before to the final".

I think it originally said "prior to the final", but someone changed it to "before" and forgot to remove the "to". Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• First half: The last paragraph is stubby. It looks to me like it would fit in at the end of the previous paragraph. Do you agree?

Agreed. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Post-match: "With his two goals, Sanna Nyassi became the first player since MLS began playing in the tournament...". Well, the league itself has never fielded a side in the MLS Cup. I think the intention here is "first player since MLS teams began playing in the tournament...".

Excellent point. My brain misses nuances like this way too often. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Add "the" before 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The all caps at the start of references 38 and 41 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you so much for the thorough review. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support – My issues have been resolved, and the rest of the article looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Most of my issues were dealt with during the peer review, but I've had another look:

• In the prose part of the match section, players' first names only need to be mentioned on the first occurance (with the obvious exception of the Marshalls).
• I think the referee's name should be removed from the footballbox, to where the assistant referees are. It stands to reason that if you were interested in the assistants and fourth official, you would also be interested in the referee.
• The paragraph beginning "With his two goals," seems needlessly long to me. The MLS began in 1996, so 1994 doesn't carry any additional relevance. The last two sentences don't make 100% clear whether Deleray scored multiple goals in 1994 itself, or whether the last of his multiple goals in Open Cup finals came in 1994. I'd shorten the entire paragraph to "Sanna Nyassi was the first player to score multiple goals in an Open Cup final since Mike Deleray in 1994." and find a home for it in the following paragraph, probably just after the one about Schmid.

—WFC— 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All very good points. I've fixed each one of them as suggested. Thank you for the review. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The only other thing that I've noticed is that there are a few gaps of upwards of 10 minutes. Obviously that'll be because little happened, but do you reckon you could get a few words into some of them? It could literally be half a sentence in each case, and it may even be that one or two of them were so drab that nothing has been written about them, and therefore for WP:V reasons you won't be able to. But as an example I think you need something to bridge between the Crew's first goal and Seattle's equaliser. Even a phrase or sentence as simple as "Against the run of play, Seattle equalized...", "After a period of sustained possession, Seattle equalized..." or "Few chances were created in the period after the goal. Seattle equalized..." would suffice. —WFC— 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(if you were to use the last one, you'd probably need a more gentle introduction than "Seattle equalized", but you get the idea. —WFC— 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this is tough. What's currently in the article are all of the events that were mentioned in post-match write-ups. However, here is the play-by-play article from the club (already referenced in a few cases). It has play summaries for about every 2-3 minute interval in the match. I've tried to strike a balance between detailing every event of the match and only hitting the highlights. I'll go back through that play-by-play listing and try to add some summary statements as you suggest to bridge between the more notable events of the match. I'll try to complete this work within the next day. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Support per my comments here and in the peer review. "Conditional" on the outcome of my last point, but as I've acknowledged, WP:V may prevent us from getting a lot more in, so it's just a matter of one way or the other being convinced that our coverage is as complete as can be. Raising the matter was more in hope than expectation, but either way I think it was worth doing. —WFC— 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on this (life took precedence for a few days). I've gone back through several match reports and filled in a number of gaps in the prose covering the match itself. Here is the diff. Thank you for the suggestion to look at these again. The additions definitely represent more complete coverage of the actual event, so this is great. --SkotyWA^T_C 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It was worth the wait. I have to confess that when I saw the diff in isolation, I was slightly concerned about the balance of the match report- on first sight it seemed rather Seattle-centric. But I read the first and second half sections through as a whole and compared the prose with the stats, MLS Soccer play-by-play and the highlights, and concluded that the balance is fine. However (sorry to keep throwing these one last thing's in) the sentence "Seattle created many dangerous attacks early on as they continued to control the tempo of the game, but could not find a clean strike on goal." needs to be scrapped and rewritten, as it's too close to the source. —WFC— 06:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to: "Despite Seattle's continued control of the tempo of gameplay early in the second half, they were unable to create many scoring opportunities." This contains the same message, but completely different wording. Better I hope? --SkotyWA^T_C 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I can now be considered a full support. Well done! —WFC— 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well written (although American English reads very strangely to me), comprehensive and well sourced. The issues above have been sorted out, and I can't see any other glaring problems. BigDom talk 19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not comfortable about the use of non-independent sources: those of Major League Soccer and their franchises. Perhaps for some basic details of the match but the use here is much more extensive than that. The most obvious example is "The record-setting attendance at this final and the consecutive wins by Seattle were indicators of how "meaningful" the U.S. Open Cup tournament had become". This is a claim that should definitely be sourced independently of the MLS and the competition's participants who have a vested interest in promoting the event. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular sentence came up in the peer review and it was rewritten. The only independent source that covered the growing importance of the tournament was this one, but it doesn't say enough to back up the prose. I've removed the last paragraph completely. Since it was almost removed during peer review anyway, I think this is an appropriate resolution of the issue. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a sample of three paragraphs of the article: the section "First half". I have quite a few prose and sourcing concerns arising from those paragraphs which, as a sample, suggest to me that the article isn't quite there yet.

• Seattle had most of the early scoring opportunities.: What source is this based on?

This was more of a summary statement than a challengable fact. That said, the phrase "Seattle had the better opportunities early" is used to describe the first half in this source. I've added the ref to this sentence. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Seattle midfield Steve Zakuani...: midfielder?

Yup, sorry. This sentence was modified as followup to recent FAC review comments, and I missed this. Fixed now. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• who's should be whose

Fixed. This is one I never get right, so thanks for pointing this out. This was missed by earlier reviewers because it too was added very recently. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some play-by-play content is sourced to footnote 30, which links here. Has the direction of this link changed? There's noplay-by-play analysis there.

The ref names got mixed up. Those should have been pointed at this one. I think the ref name was switched in one of the recent edits causing the whole group to point to the wrong URL. I've fixed them now. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hejduk got forward behind: "forward behind" is not an easy expression to follow.

Completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart: do you "pass the ball into" a person?

Got stuck between two thoughts on this one. "into the area" was the original intention, but it was changed to the person receiving the pass instead. However, this has been completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The content on the Burns goal is too close to the wording of the source. The article says: The play developed on the right side as Hejduk got forward behind the Seattle defense and passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart, who touched the ball to a wide-open Kevin Burns for a low shot past diving Kasey Keller into the corner of the goal. The source says: The buildup came on the right side, where defender Frankie Hejduk got behind the Seattle defense and cut the ball back to forward Steven Lenhart, who set up the wide-open Burns for a low shot to the corner of the goal past diving goalkeeper Kasey Keller. It's largely the same words re-arranged.

I've made an effort to paraphrase and rewrite whenever pulling information from sources for this article. I was obviously lazy on this one. I've rewritten the passage as follows: "The play developed on the right side when Hejduk made a low pass to Steven Lenhart from a forward position. Lenhart touched the ball to Kevin Burns for a low shot inside the far post for a goal." --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Few chances were created after the goal as Columbus' strong defensive play held off Seattle's attacks: This is sourced here but I can't find support for the statement in the source.

This, again, is a summary statement. However, the point about Columbus' strong defensive play was inspired by this text found in that source at the 37th minute: "Columbus is taking a highly defensive posture right now." I don't think I've misrepresented the source, but if you disagree, I'm happy to make changes. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gruenebaum, who was still out of position after the earlier confusion: What earlier confusion? The article doesn't have any reference to earlier confusion.

This was in reference to this text "Crew goalkeeper Gruenebaum hesitated on how to handle the ball" appearing 2 sentences earlier. Perhaps too much of a stretch for the reader? Regardless, if I just remove "after the earlier confusion" it doesn't change much, so I've gone ahead and removed it. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Columbus continued to play defensively following the goal and few scoring opportunities were created before halftime: This is sourced here but I can't find any statement supporting the Columbus playing defensively claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is more of a summary statement than a reference to a direct quote in the source. The only entries in that source between Nayassi's goal and halftime are a clearance, a yellow card, and a hard foul all from Columbus. You may not think that describes defensive play, so I've removed the first half of that sentence. Not much is lost with the removal, so no biggie. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While your comments may be construed as indicating a more systemic problems throughout the article, I don't believe that's the case. Most of the comments were regarding new additions from the past few days at WFC's request. Moreover, of all the sections in the article, the "First half" section was the one that saw the most added (and overall churn) from this request. Please have a look at another section. While I don't expect that any section is perfect, I don't think any will yield as many problems as the "First half" section did (for reasons I've explained). Regardless, thank you so much for your review. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the Second half section now to expand my sample, and I'm sorry I can't support at the moment. Issues:

• Columbus Crew midfielder Kevin Burns: Why is "midfielder" linked all of a sudden? It isn't earlier.

Because until very recently (10 days ago) it was the first occurance of of "midfielder" in the article. I've moved the wikilink to the first occurance which appears in the "First Half" section. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• James Riley is a new player here: needs a wikilink to help the reader.

This was also added 10 days ago (3 edits later) and I mistakenly assumed that he had been wikilinked earlier. Thanks for catching this as well. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• and the ball to bounce out for a goal kick: the source says that Columbus cleared it away, not that the ball went out for a goal kick.

I can't explain this one. It made it through the GA review, the Peer Review, and this entire FA review. I've fixed it to say "and the ball to bounce away before being cleared by Columbus." Thank you for pointing this out. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• crossed a pass: don't you just cross the ball?

Why not. To an American reader crossing a pass makes sense, but so does ball, so I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• offensive-minded substitutions: on what basis are both substitutions offensive-minded, especially the Renteria/Lenhart switch which seems to be between two forwards.

Bringing on a forward with fresh legs in the second half to replace a tired forward is offensive-minded. Doing the same with a defender would not be. Not a problem though. I'm happy to remove the "offensive-minded" qualifier since you disagree. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Seattle made its first substitution in the 85th minute when Sanna Nyassi left the field to a standing ovation. The source says it was the 79th minute and says "huge", not "standing" ovation.

This was my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. The word "huge" seems a little slanted. I'll just remove "standing" and leave it as "ovation". That's exactly in line with the source and still makes me feel goot about being neutral. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The other inaccuracy was the reference to the 85th minute, when the source says it was the 79th.

I missed this comment earlier. Fixed now. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall the prose is tough in places. I think it needs work, but its the apparent discrepancies between article and source that concern me more. They're not huge things, for sure, but there's enough out of the sample to make me doubt whether the article is up to the high standards required of FA. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make an overall statement about the article given that you've only reviewed two sections. As I expected, your very detailed review (thank you!) of the different section yielded fewer concerns than the first which makes me feel great about where the article actually is. I'm not saying that any section is perfect (though you've definitly picked the two least reviewed sections in the article) but I knew that the quality would be much higher outside of the "First half" section. Notwithstanding, thank you so much for taking the time to review another section. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the delegate can be satisfied that my concerns in respect of the two sections identified have been addressed (subject to the 79th/85th minute issue above). I just don't have the time to go through the rest of the article (I'm about to go on a four-day wikibreak) which is one of many reasons why I like to review by sampling sections of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the sections you did. I suspect that you picked the "most raw" sections to review, which is great. I say this because I think the most exciting parts of the article are those filled with data, records, and quotes from players and coaches. Therefore, through the GA review, peer review, and most of the FA review, that's what editors and reviewers tended to focus on and fact check. This is why it's super valuable that you reviewed the sections you did. Thank you for doing that, and I'm glad I was able to satisfy the concerns you raised. I'm feeling much better about the quality after your review. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support As a member of the Sounders taskforce, I am happy to fully support this article. The layout is great and similar to the previous year's (FA). The lead is of an appropriate length. ENGVAR (although it is understandably be a pain for some) is consistent.I love the images and the quotes add some more highlights for those who prefer to skim (I still do not know if it is OK to start a quotebox or image after a third level header but it looks to no longer be prohibited). Some of the details (Leo not being able to start, formations, and so on) are awesome without going overboard. MoS is handled well with annoying (to do) things like nonbreaking spaces coded in (I ran the dash script for a handful of minor errors). The nice work is appreciated since the second half was a little fuzzy ;) .Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I mentioned images but realized that Commons has some images of Sounders players in the earlier rounds. Not sure if they are better than the qupte box in that section but consider using an image. No change would not change my support but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be all for adding another picture to the article, but I couldn't find any images of the early 2010 USOC rounds over at Commons. Can you provide a pointer? Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "Seattle Sounders FC won the match by defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1..." reads a little odd to me, perhaps "Seattle Sounders FC won the match, defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1"?

Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the largest crowd" crowd is repetitive, maybe "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the highest attendance at a U.S. Open Cup final."

Fixed with your suggestion. Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Road to the final" a little evocative/journalistic, maybe just "route to the final" is better?

That's fine. "road to... somewhere" is more common in America than "route", but both make sense, so I'm following your suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• " Later, in the second half," not sure you need "Later" here, it's clear from your description that it would be chronologically later...

Yes, it's redundant. Removed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• " of the game with 10 men on the field." is "on the field" really needed?

Redundant as well, removed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "scored on a volley" okay, perhaps this is USEng, and I'll leave it, but we'd all say "scored with a volley"

Both make sense in USEng, so I've switched it to your suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• No need to repeat first names, e.g. Lenhart, Rentería, etc. Once mentioned in full the first time, just use surnames.

Good suggestion. I thought I had used the full name once per section per player, but I didn't even follow that practice very well. I've cleaned them all up, removing duplicates for 10 different players, such that the first instance of the players name in the article is their full name and wikilinked and all future references are just by last name. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• " 3,411 fans" no, in front of a crowd of 3,411. No idea if they were fans or not.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Andy Iro is overlinked (and doesn't need Andy to be repeated).

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• You should link "expansion club" because the rest of the world doesn't really have that concept.

Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "fans" again. Just be careful here to remain neutral.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Sounders FC hosted their quarterfinal match..." suddenly Sounders FC has become a plural concept. In BritEng this is fine, but you've made a stringent effort thusfar to maintain a singular approach to these teams. Be internally consistent. Or be British and interchange as and when, to make the flow of the language work best.

Good catch. This was subtle and I lost track of it over several edits. I fixed all references to Sounders FC, Seattle, Columbus, "the Crew", etc. to be singular. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "goalkeeper Terry Boss also had two saves in " odd to say "had" saves, he actually "made" the saves...

Good point. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Steve Zakuani, who had just returned from..." again, no need to keep repeating first names for people who are unambiguously identified by their surnames.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "On August 26, 2010, prior to the semifinal matches, U.S. Soccer announced the potential sites for the final, depending on the outcome of the semifinals." repetitive with semifinals. Would be good to reword.

Removed "prior to the semifinal matches" since it's implied that the announcement came first by the ending clause. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "scheduling since it would be difficult for..." that's his opinion, so "since he claimed it would be..."

Very good. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "and within 6 days " six days.

Right, I'm embarrassed that I missed this one. I usually am good at catching these. Thank you. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "had won 9 times and lost 3 in the U.S. Open Cup" nine/three.

Aaahhh! I am ashamed. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "kick off" or "kickoff"? Be internally consistent.

Fixed. "kickoff" is used everywhere now.

• "did not suit up for the game due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations" I have no idea what this means, to "suit up"?

Changed it to "was unavailable due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations". I guess this is an American-ism. Hopefully this makes it work for everyone. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• James Riley is a dab page.

This sentence (and link) was added after the DAB review above. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ongoing repetition of first names which is unnecessary.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this was a great copy review. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article. Hopefully I've addressed all of the items you raised. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support my comments have been addressed, I think the article is in a very good state, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just been through the rest of the article and couldn't find any glaring problems. I've made a few minor prose fixes. Just one thing that I'd highlight -- some of the repeat naming of each team is a little off. For example:

On September 1, 2010, the Columbus Crew visited Washington, D.C. to face MLS club D.C. United in the semifinal match at RFK Stadium in front of a crowd of 3,411.[10] Pablo Hernandez scored in the 17th minute on a penalty kick to give D.C. an early lead which it almost held for the victory. However, in the 89th minute D.C.'s Marc Burch deflected a shot by Columbus's Iro into the net for an own goal, tying the score and sending the match into extra time. In the 98th minute, the Crew's Lenhart dribbled the ball into the 18-yard box and was tripped by D.C. United's Carey Talley to draw a penalty. Guillermo Barros Schelotto took the penalty kick and scored the winning goal. The 2–1 final score secured the Columbus Crew's spot in the final.

Can we do without "Columbus" in the final sentence given the mentions earlier in the paragraph? I think there are a few of these in the article. Otherwise, particularly given The Rambling Man's review of much of the content I didn't sample, I no longer have any objection to the article passing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [59].

---

Parkinson's disease

Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A (what I feel) is a complete article in this important disease. PD is the most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease. The article is considered vital, is considered of top importance by the medicine project and receives almost 300000 visits each month. It has recently been considered a GA after a complete review by a user expert in neuroscience, I feel it covers all the main aspects of the disease without going into unnecessary detail, and I have tried to use as high quality sources as possible. It has been stable for more than a year and while my prose is probably not brilliant it has been copy-edited by several editors, and I only hope that this review will further improve the style so it can be considered one of our best pieces of work.--Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I recently did the GA review for this article. My focus was on correctness, comprehensiveness, verifiability, and understandability, and I believe that it reaches FA level in those respects, although there are parts that could perhaps be made more understandable to a broad audience. I have given comparatively less attention to aspects such as whether the images were properly licensed and the format is completely standard, but I am not specifically aware of any problems in those respects. This is a very important article because it is read by millions of people each year, and a substantial number of them are likely to have their interactions with people with PD shaped by our article -- so it's definitely worth our time to get this right. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from JFW | T@lk 02:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the links are redlinks. In the past I was advised that it might be better to create a stub for the relevant articles rather than having an FA with redlinks.
    • I would say that that is exactly what red links are for: to encourage article creation. It would be great if I created them, but I would say that leaving them for others to create them would also be great, and in my opinion should not affect this FAC, since the article under scrutiny is neither best nor worse by having more articles in wikipedia. Nevertheless I will try to create some of them. --Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I have created several stubs to eliminate most of the red links.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Parts of the NICE/NCC-CC guideline are cited in separate references. Would it be an idea to make this an article reference (similar to what James and I have been doing at dengue fever)?
    • I would rather not have a notes section for references and a references section also for references as in dengue fever. I do not see the advantages of such proposal. Nevertheless I am open for discussion and comments from other reviewers in this issue.--Garrondo (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The reference to Garcia Ruiz (2004) has a dead link (PMID 15568171). Is there a comparable source in English (I suspect there may not be)?
    • I have tried to find a similar article in English but I have not been able to. I believe that this is one of those strange cases were a foreign ref does a better job than an English one... Regarding the link I have simply eliminated it.--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Causes" has only one subsection. Is the level 3 header needed?
    • Not really. Combined.--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In causes, I see no mention of a previous association with glucocerebrosidase mutations (PMID 15525722). Has it been disproven?
    • It was partly there (GBA), but actually was misexplained, since it said that it was a gene common to familial PD also. I have corrected text and added further info on GBA causing Gaucher's disease. Many thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling with the image in "pathophysiology". Clearly, some of the layers moved about when the images were converted to PNG format. Would it be more useful to have a more schematic drawing, or for it to be redrawn?
    • Not sure I understand your comment on layers. Could you clarify?--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It looks like the image was drawn in a vector program, and then while converting to PNG some of the polygons have moved. It might be an idea to contact Mikael and ask him to look.
        • I do not see the problem. Can you specifically point where is it?--Garrondo (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Epidemiology" has only one subsection. Is the level 3 header needed? Alternatively, could the risk and protective factors be split in separate sections?
    • I have carried out second proposal.--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have fixed some phrasing and grammar issues. There are definitely a few remaining, but I reckon they will be ironed out in the course of the FAC.
    • Thanks for the ce.--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy to support FA status for this vital article. It has travelled a long rocky road, and it is now a source of pride for our WikiProject and Wikipedia as a whole. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments by Axl
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Cognitive and neurobehavioral problems, including dementia, are common in the advanced stages of the disease." I suspect that many readers may not know what "neurobehavioral problems" are. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Left as behavioral alone instead of neurobehavioral.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Current treatments are effective at managing the early motor symptoms of the disease, through the use of levodopa, dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." I am surprised to see the MAO-B inhibitors mentioned in the lead. The DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors are invariably used with levodopa. MAO-B inhibitors are infrequently used. Even the COMT inhibitors are used more often than the MAO-B inhibitors in the modern approach. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I have eliminated the reference to MAO-B inhibitors in the lead. Reason for not commenting about DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors in lead is precisely that they are sistematically used in combination with levodopa, and in the text they are explained under the levodopa subsection, instead of independently.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The disease is named after English surgeon James Parkinson, who gave the first detailed description of it in "An Essay on the Shaking Palsy" (1817). " I don't think that needs to be mentioned in the lead, particularly when the next sentence is irrelevant to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I fully disagree in this case. A believe that a line on history in the lead is quite important. However I am more than open to proposals in how to better integrate the sentence in the lead.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • How about moving the description of James Parkinson later on, where the advocacy action uses his birthday. "PD is a costly disease to society. Several major organizations promote research and improvement of quality of life of those with the disease and their families. Research directions include a search of new animal models of the disease, and investigations of the potential usefulness of gene therapy, stem cells transplants and neuroprotective agents. Advocacy actions include the use of a red tulip as the symbol of the disease, and world Parkinson's day, April 11, chosen as the birthday of the English surgeon James Parkinson, who gave the first detailed description of PD in "An Essay on the Shaking Palsy" (1817). People with PD who have greatly affected public awareness include Michael J. Fox and Muhammad Ali." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I am going to support Garrondo here. In my opinion a brief mention of where the name of the disease came from belongs right up near the top. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I think it is better placed as it is now since it follows the order of the article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Okay, I accept the consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Signs and symptoms", first paragraph: "Non-motor symptoms, which include autonomic dysfunction, cognitive and neurobehavioral problems, and sensory and sleep difficulties, are also common." Are "cognitive and neurobehavioral problems" the same as "neuropsychiatric" symptoms? If so, the sentence should be changed in line with the subsection's title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Clarified to cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric). --Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Neuropsychiatric", paragraph 4. Isn't it worth mentioning dopamine dysregulation syndrome? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Since DDS is more related to medication use than to the disease itself I decided to mention it under the management section. It is actually in the levodopa subsection. I have also added it to the paragraph you mention as this: Impulse control behaviors such as medication overuse and craving, binge eating...--Garrondo (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Other": "PD is also related to several ophthalmological abnormalities ... ." Why not "eye abnormalities"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Even better: eye and vision problems.--Garrondo (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Causes", paragraph 4: "LRRK is the most common known cause of familial and sporadic PD...". Should this be "Mutation in LRRK2 is the most common known cause..."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed: Since the word mutation appeared twice in the following sentece I thought it was clear enough. I have reworded to: Alterations in LRRK are the most common known cause of familial and sporadic PD, with mutations in the gene in up to 10% of patients with a family history of the disease. I have used alterations so as not to use 3 times the word mutation in just 2 sentences.--Garrondo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that it should be "LRRK2" rather than "LRRK". "Alterations" is a bit vague. How about "Mutations in LRRK2 are the most common known cause of familial and sporadic PD, accounting for up to 10% of patients..."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Causes", last paragraph: "Several other mutations in 3 different genes have been found to be risk factors for sporadic PD. Two of these genes are the same as for familial forms of the disease (SNCA and LRRK2). The third is the glucocerebrosidase (GBA) gene...". The preceding paragraph already mentioned that LRRK2 causes sporadic PD. Also, that paragraph mentioned G2019S as a cause of sporadic PD. How about: "Mutations in several different genes—including SNCA, LRRK2 and G2019S—are risk factors for sporadic PD. Mutations in the glucocerebrosidase (GBA) gene are also associated with sporadic PD as well as Gaucher's disease." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • G2019S is a specific mutation of LRRK2, not a different gene. Additionally it would be incorrect to say "Mutations in several different genes": 3 genes are known up to date, witch several mutations in them (over 40 in the case of LRRK2) being related to PD. To address the comment I have: 1-eliminated mention to G2019S, it was probably too specific and prone to mislead readers; 2-Move paragraph on sporadic cases to earlier in the section; 3-Leave last paragraphs on SNCA and LRRK2, since they are related both to sporadic and familial PD. What do you think?--Garrondo (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • From "Causes", paragraph 3: "The most extensively studied PD-related genes are SNCA and LRRK2. Mutations in other genes; including SNCA, LRRK2 and glucocerebrosidase (GBA), have been found to be risk factors for sporadic PD." The second sentence doesn't seem to follow on from the first; the first sentence mentions SNCA and LRRK2 so they are not "other genes" in the second sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Eliminated the "other".--Garrondo (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Pathophysiology", subsection "Pathology": "As the disease progresses, Lewy bodies later attain the substantia nigra...". "Attain"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Most probably a translation problem by my part: intended meaning was "reach". Changed to reach. --Garrondo (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that "reach" is the right word. It implies that the Lewy bodies have moved there from somewhere else. How about "develop in"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Perfect.--Garrondo (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From "Management", paragraph 1: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa, dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." I am not happy about that sentence. There is no mention of the DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors or the COMT inhibitors. I realise that those enzyme inhibitors are described in the section entitled "Levodopa". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What do you think about: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa (usually combined with DOPA-decarboxylase or COMT inhibitors) dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors."?--Garrondo (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's close. However levodopa is not combined with DOPA-decarboxylase. You're also missing a comma after the closing bracket. How about: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa (usually combined with a DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitor or COMT inhibitor), dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 2: "Only 5-10% of L-DOPA crosses the blood-brain barrier." Do the DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors/COMT inhibitors increase the amount of L-DOPA crossing the blood-brain barrier? I don't actually know the answer to this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From the source originating the paragraph:Levodopa is now always combined with carbidopa (co-careldopa) or benserazide (co-beneldopa) to block its metabolism by dopa decarboxylase. This increases levodopa bioavailability by twofold to threefold and reduces peripheral side effects. However, only 5–10% of each levodopa dose crosses the blood-brain barrier, the rest being metabolised to 3-O-methyldopa by catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT). The aim of COMT inhibitors is to further reduce the metabolism of levodopa and thus increase the amount crossing into the brain. Answer would be yes, since the more quantity of L-DOPA is available the more will cross the BB-barrier.--Garrondo (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Isn't it worth mentioning that the enzyme inhibitors increase bioavailability, as well as reducing peripheral conversion? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe, any proposals?--Garrondo (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 2. Change the fourth sentence: "They help to prevent the metabolism of L-DOPA before it reaches the dopaminergic neurons, therefore reducing side effects and increasing bioavailability." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 3: "Entacapone is available for treatment alone (COMTan) or combined with carbidopa and levodopa (Stalevo)." This sentence implies that entacapone can be used as single-agent treatment. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. It is incorrect. It is always used in combination with levodopa. Intended meaning was that existing preparations are either of entacapone alone (COMTan), or entacapone-carbidopa-levodopa (Stalevo). I'll try to reword.--Garrondo (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have changed to "Commercial preparations of Entacapone are entacapone alone (COMTan) or combined with carbidopa and levodopa (Stalevo)". Is it clearer?--Garrondo (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced that COMTan needs to be mentioned. How about: "One commercial preparation of entacapone is combined with carbidopa and levodopa (Stalevo)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
        • We either mention both or none, since both are indicated for PD. Only difference is that with one you have to take two or 3 pills and with the other the 3 drugs are combined into a single pill. I would rather leave both.--Garrondo (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • How about: "Commercial preparations of entacapone contain entacapone alone (COMTan), or in combination with levodopa and carbidopa (Stalevo)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Levodopa results in a reduction in the endogenous formation of L-DOPA, and eventually becomes counterproductive. Levodopa preparations lead in the long term to the development of motor complications characterized by involuntary movements called dyskinesias." These sentences imply that the reduction of endogenous L-DOPA is responsible for the dyskinesias. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so but I will have to check it out.--Garrondo (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually on further reading I have seen that pathophisiology of diskinesias is not clear. I have decided to eliminate the first sentence of the paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Delaying the initiation of dopatherapy ... is also common practice." Is "dopatherapy" a real word? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It is probably used in the source, since I doubt I could create such a word, but nevertheless is probably better to simply use "therapy with levodopa". A fast check gave 25 uses in pubmed.--Garrondo (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Delaying the initiation of therapy with levodopa, using instead alternatives for some time, is also common practice." Are the "alternatives" dopamine agonists? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And MAO-B inhibitors. Added both inside brackets for clarification.--Garrondo (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Dopamine agonists", paragraph 2: "Agonists at higher doses have also been related to a variety of impulse control disorders." Does this refer to dopamine dysregulation syndrome? Low dose dopamine agonists have not been associated with impulse control disorders? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually dopamine agonists have been related to impulse control disorder even more strongly than levodopa. I have changed sentence to: agonists have been related to a impulse control disorders even more strongly than levodopa. Example of dysfunctional behaviors include dopamine dysregulation syndrome, compulsive sexual activity and eating, and pathological gambling and shopping. Only problem is that right now similar info appears in the signs and symptoms section, and the levodopa and dopamine agonists subsections of management. Any ideas on how to avoid duplication? --Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • How about "Agonists have been related to impulse control disorders (such as dopamine dysregulation syndrome) even more strongly than levodopa." There is no need to include the second sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have attended recent talks by experts with yet unpublished data who believe that actually DDS is more related to levodopa and other impulse control disorders to agonists, so while I do not have a ref for it I would prefer to have as an example of impulse control disorder any other than DDS in the dopamine agonists subsection. In my opinion best way out would be simply to do not name any example here as they have already been detailed in the levodopa subsection. Your opinion? --Garrondo (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay. How about "Agonists have been related to impulse control disorders (such as compulsive sexual activity and eating, and pathological gambling and shopping) even more strongly than levodopa." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Done.--Garrondo (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "MAO-B inhibitors": "Evidence on their efficacy in the advanced stage is reduced...". Does this mean that evidence is lacking, or that they are less effective in the advanced stage? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The latter. I have changed the sentence to "Studies on its effectiveness in the advanced stage are scarce although results point towards them being useful to reduce fluctuations between on and off periods." --Garrondo (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Management", subsection "Rehabilitation": "One of the most widely practiced treatments for speech disorders associated with Parkinson's disease is the Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT), which focuses on increasing vocal loudness and has an intensive approach for one month. Speech therapy and specifically LSVT may improve voice and speech function." There is duplication of info in these two sentences. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You are right: changed to:... is the Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT), which focuses on increasing vocal loudness and has an intensive approach for one month. Speech therapy and specifically LSVT... --Garrondo (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Some new text has appeared in "Management", subsection "Dopamine agonists", paragraph 3: "Two dopamine agonists that are administered through skin patches (lisuride and rotigotine) have been recently found to be useful for initial patients and preliminary positive results has also been published on the control of off states in patients in the advanced state." What are "initial patients"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• From "Prognosis", paragraph 1: "However, it is uncommon to find untreated people nowadays and medication has improved the prognosis of motor symptoms...". Should this read "it is not uncommon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope: it is correct: nowadays most patients are treated, so time to dependency has increased and data to the natural history of the (untreated) disease is very scarce and comes from quite old studies.--Garrondo (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The two sections of the sentence: "it is uncommon to find untreated people nowadays" & "medication has improved the prognosis of motor symptoms" do not bear any relation to each other. Why are they linked by the conjunction "and"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• From "Prognosis", paragraph 1: "In people taking levodopa, the mean progression of symptoms to a stage of high dependency takes around 15 years." Really? How do you (or the authors of the reference) calculate the mean time? I expect that there is a positively skewed distribution. What about people who die before they reach the stage of high dependency? The median time would be much more meaningful than the mean time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not really clear in the ref how they calculate the figure. They only give a table with 4 different studies on the issue. Caption states: latencies to reach succesive Hoehn and Yahr stages. I have reworded to eliminate term "median" so it does not led to confusion.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 0

Sources comments: The sources are nearly all from scholarly articles or books and look 100 percent reliable. I have only a couple of format queries/suggestions:-

• Need to be consistent between "retrieved" and "Retrieved"
  • Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Retrieval dates are not necessary when the source is an online representation of a printed source, e.g. The Guardian, Time etc.
  • While not necessary, they are already there. Is it better to eliminate them? --Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I struck the above comment about excess retrieval dates since I think I removed them all. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to carry out any spotchecks. Otherwise I'm confident that sources meet the required criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: three disambiguation links revealed by the toolbox, top left of this page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Curiosity: I don't think it's strictly necessary, but the description of the protective effect of nicotine immediately makes me curious about the effect of lobeline (and Lobelia, so-called "Devil's tobacco"). It's talked about online quite a bit, with both positive^[60] and negative^[61] opinions readily available in scientific-looking sources. If someone has some thoughts handy about the topic, I think it would be an interesting addition. You don't have to go on for very long about it of course. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am no expert in pharmacology; nevertheless sources provided actually do not seem very reliable, and a quick search in pubmed of lobeline+parkinson's disease yields no results; so most probably the effects of lobeline for PD have not been much investigated, and therefore mention has no place in the article. Even the mechanism by which nicoteine protects from PD is very much unknownon. --Garrondo (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I concur that there is nothing showing use of lobeline to treat Parkinson's, except for that 2007 paper from Henan about a rat model of Parkinson's. (That paper has not been cited, according to Google Scholar). The NIH has funded a study of lobeline as a treatment for methamphetamine abuse. Our lobeline article has current references on the drug. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 2 external redirects, see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Here is an image copyright check from Stifle.
  • File:Basal ganglia without Parkinson's disease.png is a technical copyright violation as it is a derivative of a CC-BY-SA image which has been released under GFDL. The GFDL tag must be removed.
    • I am not an expert in copyright laws, and I do not follow your problem here. Could you clarify?--Garrondo (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No problem. An image released under CC-BY-SA and then used to create a derivative work cannot be released under GFDL. One of the images used to create File:Basal ganglia without Parkinson's disease.png falls under this heading, but File:Basal ganglia without Parkinson's disease.png is released under the GFDL, which it may not legally be. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • So here the best solution in your opinion would be to contact the uploader and ask him to eliminate the GFDL license? Could I do it? What should I do?--Garrondo (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
          • You could just remove it yourself. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Done. Thanks for the clarifications.--Garrondo (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Evidence is required that File:NIH PET.JPG, which is sourced to alzheimers.org, is a US federal government work.
    • I have found an even better image (it uses a neurotracer specific for Parkinson's disease), released by its owner as PD. Changed--Garrondo (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Evidence or an explanation is required for the claim that File:Jean-Martin Charcot.jpg is PD due to age, as there is no proper sourcing visible.
    • The national library of medicine states that they believe the image to be in the PD, without giving any reason for it. Nevertheless I have changed the image for another one of Charcot published in an American journal before 1920, and therefore in without doubts in the PD.--Garrondo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose pending resolution of the above.
• One further comment: The image in the infobox, and File:Basal ganglia in treatment of Parkinson's.png should be replaced by their SVG equivalents. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree in the case of the lead image: it is a drawing from a book, which when converted into svg changes its features. It would be something similar to converting into svg an old etching. I'll change the other when copyright status is clarifed.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; I'm not opposing based on that anyhow. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have changed all the brain diagrams to svg.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• All image copyright problems are now cleared. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All the images are on the right hand side, which can lead to white spaces in the article in some browsers. The protein structure of File:GDNF.jpg looks different to that at the source given [62]. There is a link at the source to some programs that I presume allow one to rotate the image, which I haven't done because they look way above my level of knowledge. Is the difference so great that the structure shown is not actually that of GDNF, or are they actually the same but seen from different angles? DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Regarding all on the right: reason is that as there are quite a lot of images if there are some on the left they make titles to move to the middle to the screen. However I do not know what is best or if there is any global recommendation on the issue... Regarding the protein... I actually have no idea of chemistry, I simply searched in commons for an image of the protein, and I assumed it was correct. Nevertheless I do not think that there is any reason to believe it is not GDNF; is it?--Garrondo (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have been taking a look at MOS and I have not seen anything on left-right placement of images. Have I missed something?--Garrondo (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" and has advice on how to avoid stacking of images. This is a minor point though; it isn't a requirement. I've found another picture of GDNF at The EMBO journal (subscription required)—which confirms the structure shown in the figure, so that's OK. I'm just about ready to support, but what are your thoughts on the notable figures section at the end? For me, it concentrates too heavily on Michael J. Fox. I think you should cut both the sentences on his books, which belong in his article rather than here, and then just have one sentence on the foundation. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It seems I missed that one. I have moved several images to the left of the article. What do you think? On the other hand is great to know the image is correct. Many thanks for the checking. --Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I have also summarized info on the notable cases section, reducing the weight on Fox.--Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Support Thanks; meets all criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support—niiiice. It was overlinked with common terms. For example, bias? Risk factor? Injection? I've unlinked. Tony (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and copy-editing.--Garrondo (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support from Lee∴V (talk • contribs)
• Brilliant efforts thus far!
• In the lead, the phrase 'PD is a costly disease to society.' has little context - should be fleshed out with numbers or reasoning or left out.Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably right. I have added two more lines to put it into context. Thanks--Garrondo (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Smoking is protective risk factor - As with anything smoking/alcohol related I'd be very cautious about having this in the lead - it really needs to be put into context, if true it is very interesting but not really a good preventative measure - reduce chance of developing rare disorder whilst greatly increasing chances of various other health issues!Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It has appeared repeatedly in epidemiological studies, and a mechanism of action has been proposed, although as you say it cannot be used for prevention. Any proposals on how to make this clear?--Garrondo (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe it could be emphasized that the modifying factors like smoking are opportunities for understanding the mechanism - or leave out of lead for detailed section, leaving something akin to '.... not completely understood, several modifying environmental factors have been identified' Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Good idead: I have added to the lead the following sentence: ... being the discovery of modifying factors opportunities for understanding the mechanism of the disease.--Garrondo (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I had to revert that -- the grammar is broken so badly that I couldn't understand the meaning well enough to try to fix it. I don't personally see a big problem with leaving this in the lead as it is, so long as it is discussed in more detail later in the article (which it is). Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • No problem with that. I'll leave it as it is for the time being unless somebody has a proposal.--Garrondo (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
            • That's fine, was really just an idea for further thoughts. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made a few edits to comply with WP:MoS. The prose is brilliant, which is often difficult to achieve in medical articles. This is the best medical FAC I have seen in a long time. Graham Colm (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Comments - reading through - queries below Nothing else is jumping out as a deal-breaker before FA status...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In the advanced stages of the disease, cognitive and behavioral problems, including dementia are common - either commas both before and after "including dementia' or none, but not one....:::Thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...insufficient formation and action of dopamine.. "insufficient formation and activity of dopamine " (??):::Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

so diagnosis is mainly based on symptoms with tests such as neuroimaging being used to confirm diagnosis - two diagnoses in the one sentence - I concede it might be difficult to avoid this here...:::Changed to "for confirmation".--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

mitigating symptoms - why not just "lessening" or "reducing"?:::Lessening sounds great.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Parkinsonisms can be divided into four subtypes.. - I haven't seen it pluralised like this. Single as a collective noun?

Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen the word "parkinsonisms" -I would have thought "Parkinsonism can be divided into four subtypes.." or used the term "Parkinsonian syndromes.." Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It does exist (around 80 hits in pubmed) although it may be rare. I have changed to Parkinsonian syndromes as suggested.--Garrondo (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the Classification section you have " parkinson plus" with and without hyphens...needs conforming to one or the other.:::No hyphens now.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we owe it to the readers to try and make the article as accessible as possible. It is looking better and I will support soon. I am just mindful of the discussion below and am trying to look extra hard at accessibility vs. jargon vs. losing meaning Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we lose any meaning by using the word "drowsiness" rather than "somnolence"?

Done--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

how about "stiffness" for "rigidity"

Most source use rigidity, so in this case I would rather leave it.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

is any meaning lost by losing the first two words of "At present, there is no cure for Parkinson's disease..."?

Done... Good catch of "Wp:crystal". Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PD may be less prevalent in those of African and Asian ancestry, although this finding is controversial -why? Do you mean "disputed"?

yeap: changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

repeated inline reference tags to the same reference - If I have a series of sentences reffed by the same source, I often just stick the ref at the end of the series and add <!-- cites previous four sentences --> at the end, os if someone edits it, they can see what the ref actually references. I think this looks better than several same numbers in a row, but not a deal-breaker.....

I add a citation after each line for two reasons: while improving the article it helps me to see what sentences I have checked up against a ref. Second is related to a side problem of WP being edited by anyone: if somebody adds a sentence between other sentences is quite difficult to know if it is backed up by a ref. Adding a ref after each sentence makes it much harder this to occur and unref facts are spotted much easier. I would rather leave refs, but I do not know if there is a consensus for this issue.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine then, I can see your reasoning on that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To conclude, I am not seeing much jargon that can be substituted with more common words without losing meaning. Leaning support once queries looked at. Might look over again too.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Provisional impression: too much jargon in introduction. Needs more histopathology adding to the pathology section including brain cell types. "Festination" is rapid shuffling steps and leaning foreword. I did not see palliation in the article, but I could have missed it. As far as I am aware "paralysis agitans" is also used in modern times. I see problems with the article almost everywhere I look; for example, the article says "Most people with Parkinson's disease have idiopathic Parkinson's disease (having no specific known cause).", actually Parkinson's disease is idiopathic. I can only possibly come to the conclusion that this article is not at FA standard. and that it needs a considerable amount of work to bring it to that standard. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are all pretty minor points, and with the exception of the "festination" issue (which is easily fixed), all of them are dubious. The "palliation" point is strange, since the current treatment of PD consists of nothing but palliation. Since I don't see any real justification for the level of negativity in this critique, I don't see how it can be addressed. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Palliative treatment being treatment at the end of life. The article would do well to describe the gross pathology. Another example is how the section on symptoms starts; "Four motor symptoms are considered cardinal in PD". However, the disease starts gradually, and intellectual capacity is often maintained in the early stages. The article does not give a good clinical picture of the illness. Historical aspects of anticholinergic treatment are missing. I am puzzled by your comment; "Those are all pretty minor points", after I wrote that there are problems everywhere I look. I have not changed my mind, and I do not intend participating in a prolonged discussion. Snowman (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a primary contributor to this article, but I reviewed it and I'm not keen on the idea that I might have missed a bunch of important things. Also I know that there is a reluctance to promote articles as long as justified opposition remains, so I'll address each specific point here:

• Too much jargon in intro. Possibly, but one must be careful to say things precisely.
• Festination. Valid point.
• Paralysis agitans. Understood by doctors but not widely used.
• Idiopathic. This term is used erratically in the literature, and causes trouble for everybody.
• Gross pathology. Belongs in a subarticle in my opinion.
• Intellectual capacity maintained early. The article tries to say this, perhaps not clearly enough.
• History of anticholinergic treatments. Too much detail for this article in my opinion.

When a review says that there are problems everywhere, but nearly all of the specifically mentioned problems are arguable at best, it's hard to know what to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please ponder recent edits to the introduction. Gross pathology is key here - details of the change in the appearance of the substantia nigra in PA is not even mentioned. That intellectual capacity is maintained early in the disease was not properly included in the clinical section. Anticholinergic treatment was the first ever drug treatment of PA, and the discovery of its action was somewhat accidental, and probably would be interesting light reading in the article. I can not understand where you are coming from. I would like to be helpful, although presumptive, and suggest that you have become a little enmeshed with the article, and this may be a time for you to listen more. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you do not find the article good enough. Since most reviewers until this moment disagree with you I hope you could be more specific with your comments. I will try to address some of your comments.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I feel that there is no need for you to express sorrow that I find the article inadequate for FA, and to be honest I think that a patronising approach is not helpful. I would take a long time to catalogue problems I have with the article; nevertheless, for a start please concentrate on careful copy-editing section by section to improve the prose, make the topic more understandable by reducing vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading or erroneous. Quite often reviewers support an article early in the course of an FA, but it can take a further 500–1000 edits before the article is accepted on the FA list. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Still not really helpful. Comments should be addreasseable and to recommend elimination of "vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading" is in itself quite "vague ambiguous and misleading". Do you have any specific examples? Could you give so editors see what are you referring to (I for example have no clear idea). Finally regarding the "erroneous" above: erroneous is quite an strong word. If you feel that there are any errors in the article please point them out so we can correct them. This edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk at 12:55, 14 February 2011

At this juncture, I have suggested a strategy to make further improvements and to correct too many problems to list. I do not plan to watch this page. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back after 2 or 3 weeks, but that is not a promise. I hope that the small parts of the text that I have focused on by way of an examples will give insights in fixing the rest of the article. If you can not see problems yourself, then I presume that you must wait for more reviewers to help out. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would be easier if it was you instead of others, but thanks anyway. I will take a look at your edits in the last few days to see if I can further improve the article following your examples and I promise to include specific info asked for below.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added links to captions of images.--Garrondo (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Regarding idiophatic PD: article is only reflecting a contradiction in sources: while PD is defined as an idiophatic parkinsonian syndrome nevertheless those parkinsonian syndromes which clinically are absolutely similar to PD and for which a genetic cause is acknowledged are also included in the definition of PD. For example Samii et al say: Parkinsonism describes a syndrome characterised by rigidity, tremor, and bradykinesia, of which previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is the main cause. previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is usually asymmetric and responsive to dopaminergic treatment, with no historical or examination clues to suggest a cause for symptoms. but later in the article Setting aside the few individuals with previous termParkinson's diseasenext term who have a known gene mutation or exposure to 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), the cause of this disorder is unknown. previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is probably a result of multiple factors acting together, including ageing, genetic susceptibility, and environmental exposures. Would you need more sources I will search for more, but I hope this is enough.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Looie on the use of paralysis agitans: a search in pubmed for the term yields 1000 items, and many use the term when talking about history, shaking palys gives 28 results, and finally parkinson's disease 38590. --Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless, after a second reading I have fixed it by adding it in the lead in the first line.--Garrondo (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Too much jargon in lead: probably quite subjective: it would be great if you could point at specific sentences or even fix it yourself.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Moreover, on a second reading I disagree... I do not think that it could be make much simpler while maintaining correctedness.--Garrondo (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Great copy edit of the lead. Many thanks for that. I have only partly modified the line on cause, since I felt that it was quite confusing.--Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Thank you for amending that. It often takes me several edits to write a block of text. I might have re-written it after re-reading later. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Your revision looked OK at first, but I have had to amend it to make it clearer. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
              • No problem with me. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pathology: the article already gives info on the issue above what some general reviews in the disease give, so I also agree with Looie that place for that info is a sub-article. The article is already very long and I do not feel that we should give more detail in an already long section.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article is long, and I see a case for putting the history of the science of the subject in a separate article to make way for expansion. To me omitting "morbid pathology" here is like omitting "centre forward" from the "football" article. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will try to include some more info on gross pathology.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have expanded a bit the pathology section, and more specifically the Lewy bodies paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have further expanded on macroscopic and microscopic changes.--Garrondo (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • I will try to include some info on palliative care and history of anticholinergic treatment.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have included a subsection on palliative care. Any comments?--Garrondo (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have looked at it quickly and copy-edited. Provisionally, this section seems adequate. However, perhaps editors will be able to see improvements to it. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ce of the section. I am preparing a few lines on history of cholinergic therapy. --Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have expanded a bit the history section as requested.--Garrondo (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • I will also try to include a few lines that better show how the disease starts, although emphasis in this 4 symptoms is present in most sources.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • We already say that intellectual capacity is maintained in the early stages: Second line of the neuropsychiatric subsection A high proportion of people with PD will have mild cognitive impairment as the disease advances although cognitive disturbances can also occur in the initial stages of the disease in some cases.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Festination: while the term did not appear it was defined in the motor symptoms section. I have included the term. Thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• What about "kinesia paradox"? 86.9.199.117 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • While I suppose you refer to the differential difficulty some patients have when walking as compared to other kind of movements the specific term does not give any results in pubmed nor it is mentioned in the main reviews on the disease so I would say that its place is not the main article but probably the signs and symptoms subarticle.--Garrondo (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have finally added a short description of it, without using the term when describing bradykineasia.--Garrondo (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Arbitrary break 2

Provisional impression (2). The addition of pallor to the substantia nigra has been added in the pathology section. The addition of the history of treatment of anticholinergic alkaloids is brief and shorter than I expected: Was the effect of atropine was an "accidental" finding? I see that some work has been done towards FA status. However, I found numerous issues remain in a few sections I looked at. I think that the article is not up to FA status. I expect that there are too many issues to list through out the article. This page is not on my watch list. Some examples of the issues I found in sections I looked at: Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The red tulip is a particular cultivar according to the text, but the image description of the red tulip on commons does not confirm the cultivar variety. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A red tulip is a colour not a cultivar - I agree that passage is tricky to illustrate as it declares a red tulip is a symbol but the passage uses another red tulip. I am sure there are alot of red tulip cultivars....I'd be inclined to lose the image if not the cultivar intended. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Garrondo has removed the image. What would really be nice would be to have an SVG of one of the tulip cartoons that are used by a variety of PD organizations. Of course this raises all the usual licensing issues, so I don't think the FA should be held up for this reason -- but it would improve the article in the long run if a usable image could be found. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess, that it is not a problem for FA that there is no tulip image. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that it would be helpful if the benefits of thickening agents in drinks is explained. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is specific enough to PD to warrant expansion here - thickened fluids are used in people with strokes or other neurological conditions where gag reflex is compromised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Casliber. A brief mention is enough for the general article. Further details could be added to a secondary article but not here.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant just a quick line with appropriate words to say that thickening fluids help because a more viscous fluid is more cohesive and less likely than ordinary drinks to "splash" and cause chocking when swallowing is uncoordinated. Dysphagia is jargon anyway, and could mean a physical blockage. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also explained gastrostomy.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From OED, preventing is; "The action of precluding or stopping an anticipated act or event." It seems to me that "... both measures preventing choking." would be an over-inclusive statement here. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed to both measures reducing the risk of choking.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in the explanation of pesticides "most frequently replicated relationships" in the Epidemiology section and "Toxins that have been consistently related to the disease are certain pesticides," in the section. Need for the magnitude of the risks of pesticides and agent orange to be specified, and magnitude of the protective effect of smoking. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually do not see any inconsistency. Both sentences say almost the same with different words. Nevertheless I will try to get specific numbers.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the context in the two sections are different. Is there unnecessary and confusing duplication? Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please rephrase last comment. I did not follow you. It would also be important that you looked more carefully before asking for info. Article already said Toxins that have been consistently related to the disease are certain pesticides, such as rotenone or paraquat, and herbicides, with exposure increasing the risk by as much as a factor of two. On further reading of the section I have summarized it since agent orange is only another herbicide, with no more evidence than others and the statement on veterans does not really belong in this article.--Garrondo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the relative risk of smokers versus non smokers as requested.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are direct costs more than indirect costs? Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually is probably almost impossible to say since studies on cost are quite variable on their results depending on country, model of research of the authors, population, etc. I'll take a look into the source tomorrow to see if the say anything more specific on the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case the article should reflect that situation better. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Already in article without going into uneccesary detail. First sentence on costs already says: but difficult to calculate exactly due to methodological difficulties in research and differences between countries.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Research directed towards delivery systems of existing classes of drugs is omitted; once daily drugs and the use of patches. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The drive to find once daily drugs is true in all areas of medicine. Patches might be more specific but are still used and sought in a variety of conditions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Casliber: Main article is not the place to talk about ways of intaking medication. I believe that info on the chemicals used, without going to details or their different preparations is enough, specially since the section on treatments is already huge.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See Treatment Options in the Modern Management of Parkinson Disease by Anthony H. V. Schapira, a review in Arch Neurol. 2007;64(8):1083-1088. Patches are already used in some countries, and a once daily drug seems imminent. There is a lot of details about research in the article, and I think that it is an omission to omit these advances. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know they are already used. Info was formerly in main article, treatment section (since they are already used it is where it belongs), and moved at some point to the secondary article to summarize. I have brought it back per your request: levodopa subsection now says There are controlled release versions of Sinemet and Madopar in the form of patches that spread out the effect of the levodopa. Slow-release levodopa preparations have not shown an increased control of motor symptoms or motor complications when compared to immediate release preparations.--Garrondo (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed a mistake: transdermal patches are dopamine agonists and have shown their efficacy.--Garrondo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

A comment to Snowmanradio and FAC delegates: Most comments from Snowmanradio up to now have been to say that the article lacks this or that piece of spezialized info. I agree with him (or her) that those pieces of info are both interesting and are not present in the article. However I disagree with him on that I do not feel that they should be here to this article be a FA article. FA criteria say that is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. and It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail . Parkinson's disease is a huge topic and there are actually more than 10000 reviews on it in pubmed, so it is clear that we cannot have every interesting info on the disease in the main article. When I wrote the article what I did was to look into general reviews on the disease, following them as a guide on what to include. Point is that many of these proposed additions to an already long article are barely or not mentioned at all in general reviews of the disease. My opinion is that best place for that kind of info is secondary articles and that we would be doing a bad favor to the general reader by including them. --Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am also saying that I think the article is badly written in places and unnecessarily vague in places. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Again: examples would be of great help both to editors to improve the article and delegates to decide on its FA candidacy.--Garrondo (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that you are putting too much of the burden on the reviewers to provide lists of problems. I think I have been clear about the sort of problems that I see in the article. My priority is with other parts of the wiki, and I do not want to spend a lot of time here. I have added a small sample of the sort of problems still in the article below. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• The caption "Handwriting of a person affected by PD; showing micrographia in addition to other abnormal characteristics." This is a part sentence and should not end in a full stop. Other captions have this full stop MoS error. Also, "other abnormal characteristics." is rather vague. Please be clearer. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply eliminated the latter part. More info can be obtained if going to the image description.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The image description on commons helpfully gives the original text that was published with the image of the hand-writing, and there is no mention that the writing is small. Without a scale it is impossible to say if the writing is small or not. The "t" in Cahterine looks shorter than the "t" in the surname, so is the writing getting bigger? Presumably it is original research that this specimen of writing exhibits micrographia. I think you could say with certitude that the writing looks like it has been written with a shaky hand, and Charcot describes it at length. I think that the caption should include where the signature came from. There are hints for writing captions in the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

First historical description of micrographia is posterior to the publishing of the image. Nevertheless one of the most characteristic characteristics of micrography is that writing gets smaller as the person writes. This is clearly seen in the image, since numbers at the right are much smaller than capital letters and numbers at the left. This is usually related to going upward in the sheet with writing which is also seen. Additionally other sign of micrographia is seen in that there is almost no space inside circles of letters such as "a" or "o" even if we do not have a scale. I would say it is more than sensible to say that it shows micrography, although it would be great to hear other people opinions. --Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just looked at the definition of micrographia in the OED, which gives; "Unusually small handwriting, often progressive over time, as a sign of various neurologic disorders, esp. Parkinson's disease." To me the size of the handwriting is unknown. To me the size of the handwriting is not small, and it certainly is not unusually small. I maintain that calling this handwriting micrographia is original research. Any tendency for the letter to become smaller is marginal and counterbalanced by "t" which becomes bigger. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a neuropsychologist I am quite sure of its micrographia, but as you say that is OR and if controverted I will not discuss over its inclusion. I have eliminated mention to micrographia. Just for curiosity: meaning of OED?--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The on-line version of OED, now wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• "It affects to a greater extent the most distal part of the limb, and at onset typically appears in only a single arm or leg, becoming bilateral later." There is nothing here about typical pill-rolling movements. To me this part if the article is written in a verbose vague style without mentioning a typical feature of the start of the illness. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded section to include pill-rolling and frequency of tremor.--Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded description of bradykinesia. --Garrondo (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Rigidity is due to joint stiffness and increased muscle tone" : as far as I am aware the rigidity has little to do with stiffness within joints, at least in the early stages of the illness. The stiffness is because of muscle tone in the early stages of the disease. Perhaps, there are secondary changes in the joints later in the illness. I find that the phrasing in the article confusing. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fully rewritten the paragraph using further sources and expanding content. I hope it is clearer now.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rigidity is due to joint stiffness and increased muscle tone, which combined with a resting tremor produce a ratchety, "cogwheel rigidity" when the limb is passively moved. I doubt if anyone who had not come across cogwheel rigidity would be able to understand cogwheel rigidity from the article. The wikilinked "cogwheel" in redirected to gear, and the word "cogwheel" does not appear in the "gear" article. I think cogwheel rigidity should be explained better as it is one of the basics of the illness. What has resting tremor got to do with cogwheel rigidity? I think that simplicity and clarity of language is needed here. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done per above.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made amendments. Incidentally, it is easier to feel cogwheel rigidity than see it. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article may be more focused with only a small section on the history of the science, and a longer separate article of the history of the science provided. Moot point perhaps. Snowman (talk)
  • History section is not really long, and I would rather leave it. Moreover, a few days ago you asked for further expansion of it.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the history section is brief and in adequate and the topic does not have a main article. The discovery of the use of atropine in parkinsonism should really be expanded to give it a higher priority, and I would say that there are serious omissions here. Please re-think data organisation. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up that atropine importance is underrepresented or is it just your opinion? We have several articles on history of the disease as sources and the only one that mentions disovery of atropine is "The history of movement disorders and says: "Belladona alkaloids were empirically identified as helpful in Parkinson's disease in the latter half of the 19th century. Charcot noted that the anticholinergic alkaloid hyoscyamine (the levorotatory form of atropine) was modestly beneficial for the tremor of Parkinson's disease, as reported in the doctoral thesis of his German student Ordenstein in 1867 (Foley, 2003). In 1887, Wilhelm Erb successfully introduced scopolamine (initially somewhat confusingly called “hyoscine”) (Foley, 2003). Similar preparations were used for generations with at best modest success. Synthetic centrally acting anticholinergic medications were introduced in the 1950s and were soon adopted because they were associated with fewer systemic side effects (Corbin, 1949 K.B. Corbin, Trihexyphenyl: evaluation of a new agent in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, JAMA 141 (1949), pp. 373–381.[Corbin, 1949] and [Dorshay and Constable, 1949])." I will try to get Foley 2003 (PMID 15641199) which is specifically on history of medications.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is something I recall and your solid reply is beginning to cause me doubts on my recollections. I have stored away my older pharmacology books and they are not very accessible. The story I recall wrongly or rightly is that atropine-like drugs were given to geriatric patients to reduce drooling, and it was noticed by chance that parkinsonism symptoms improved. I think it was also used as an example of the chance discovery of drugs, which makes it more interesting. Please do not add this anywhere without a reference to a proper source. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• On my screen there is one area where the text is between an image on the right and an image on the left. There is another area where there is a huge image on the right and a narrow column of text on the left. Image positioning needs attention. Snowman (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • With the variety of screens it is impossible to make everybody happy. The problem of having text between two images comes precisely from comment from another editor who asked to have images at right and left. Regarding huge image: it is a double image so if not that big it was difficult to see anything in it.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the guidelines say to avoid having text between images to the left and right. It is possible to clear the text from the left of the huge image. Web designers should consider a variety of users screens and browsers, and I see no excuse to be expedient here. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose you were referring to the micrographia image. I have put it back to the right of the article.--Garrondo (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is reasonable for the article to provide external links to websites that provide videos showing the signs of Parkinson's disease. External links are used to provide access to websites that provide special resources. Snowman (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but hardly a requirement for FAC. Would anybody propose any link inclusion would be considered.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the gait and tremor needs to be seen to be appreciated, and I think that this article should have links to good external resources, and I would call this a FA requirement here. I have not asked for external links in a review before, but I think this is an exception. External links are meant to guide readers to useful external resources and I think that this article is lacking without such helpful external links. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been searching for 40 minutes and I have not been able to find videos of symptoms in reliable sites (many of them on youtube, but hardly reliable). Only thing found is a comparison of a patient with DBS on and off. My reasoning is that reliable sites (NHS, NIH...)do not show PD symptoms videos so as not to scare recently diagnosed patients and their families. I have added the video to the external links section.--Garrondo (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the reliability depends on the authors of the youtube videos. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but since 99 % there are home made or do not give any info on authorship and copyright is really hard to find anything useful.--Garrondo (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

European Parkinson's Disease Association has a set of videos. There is a link to one of these from the EPDA website, so I presume these will be OK to link. There might be more at other self-help organisations. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I had alredy seen those in the EPDA site. No copyright problems with them. However most of them are interviews with patients, families and experts, and none of them show the symptoms of the disease which was what you initially asked for, and that is reason what I did not even mention them. I am not sure about the usefulness for the article.--Garrondo (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually: in the same youtube channel there are videos from a public Spanish television, which are copyrighted. Adding a link to the full collection of videos would breach WP policy on external links. I do not think adding the youtube channel is appropiate. --Garrondo (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After further searching I have found no appropiately licensed videos per WP:ELNO with images of patients symptoms. At this point I believe the proposal is hardly actionable.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

After even further searching I have added two videos showing symptoms in patients.--Garrondo (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, shaking and gait and so on is shown quite well, albeit with captions and in a foreign language. I think these are helpful. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• It does not come over clearly in the article that non-motor symptoms can start years before the motor symptoms. Snowman (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Just added to the "other" subsection.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that a brief line has been added to the "Other" section. I think that some of the changes that can occur prior to diagnoses could be called psychological or psychiatric, and would be relevant to the "Neuropsychiatry" section. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a line saying that cognitive changes can also occur prior to diagnosis. Among all neuropsychiatric are the best known to begin early in the course of the disease.--Garrondo (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mohamed Ali's diagnosis is somewhat uncertain, I understand. The caption says "Muhammad Ali in 2006, 26 years after diagnosis". It does not say diagnosis of what. A reader quickly looking at the images on the page might think that he had Parkinson's disease. Need strict accuracy with autobiographical details, so I think his image should be removed from a page on Parkinson's disease. More than a week ago I pointed out that some captions had MoS issues with full stops at the end of part sentences, and I am puzzled why such MoS issues are still present in captions. I just removed the full-stop after at the end of the part sentence from this image. I still see other captions with MoS issues. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Most sources say he has PD and he was diagnosed of PD. Text of article already says that some debate this diagnosis. I do not believe controversy should be included in image caption.--Garrondo (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not clear on your meaning with full stops on images. I will eliminate them today (I suppose you only refer to last one in each image).

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It only applies to the end of part sentences. This could be the first sentence or the second sentence. It is all in the MoS, if you have any doubts. Snowman (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you have done it wrong, and this makes me wonder if the editors of the page have read the guidelines or not. I indicated that it is all in guidelines on captions, so do you read up on it? "Presence of Lewy bodies in the brains of those with PD has led to the classification of the disease as a synucleinopathy." This is a full sentence and it needs a full stop. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the caption now reads; "Muhammad Ali in 2006, 26 years after diagnosis of Parkinson's disease". I would call this an over-simplification of the diagnostic issues related to a biography. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to parkinsonism which is probable more adequate: from the source:It has now been 22 years, and quite possibly longer, since parkinsonism began its relentless march through Ali's nervous system. He was diagnosed with parkinsonism, the umbrella term for movement disorders including Parkinson's disease, in 1984, three years after the last fight of his 21-year boxing career. Now, the increasing tremors in his limbs, the painful slowness of his gait, the reports of balance problems and the whispers of falls have led the neurologist who diagnosed him to suspect Ali may in fact suffer from full-blown Parkinson's disease.: He was initially diagnosed of parkinsonism while degenation now indicates PD.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The suspicions of the physician who you have quoted has not been treating M. Ali for a number of years, and it seems to me that he is going on what he has heard indirectly for recent information, which is not ideal for a reliable wiki source for information. I think it would probably be OK to use the part of the reference where he quoted his opinions based from when he was treating M. Ali. Snowman (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"... diagnosis of parkinsonism"; is parkinsonism a diagnosis? Snowman (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial on the neurology now article (also used as source in article) says:To tell it as it's never been told, Wally interviewed Dr. Stanley Fahn - one of the world's leading Parkinson's experts, a past president of the American Academy of Neurology, and the specialist who diagnosed Ali 22 years ago. Having had the privilege of working with Dr. Fahn, I know firsthand that he has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's through his own research program, advocacy efforts and the outstanding clinical care he provides. Although he hasn't treated Muhammad Ali in a long time, Dr. Fahn's vast experience with Parkinson's patients gives him insight into Ali's current condition. Moreover "Neurology now" is as reliable as we can get a source for the society section so we are not the ones to debate over its content.--Garrondo (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that to say "diagnosis of parkinsonism" is correct as it it a syndrome I have changed caption to say "appearance of parkinonism".--Garrondo (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think people know what you mean by "diagnosis of parkinsonism", and on further consideration I think it is likely to be correct as it goes quite a long way in determining the nature of the disorder; although not an exact diagnosis. However, I would say it would be wrong to say "diagnosis of headache", since headache is a symptom. I think in an ivory tower of medicine you would probably get a shower of protestations if you said "diagnosis of parkinsonism". Snowman (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had to amend your version of the caption, since with him the time of diagnosis and the time of first showing signs (the appearance of the disease) are years different. I have written a suggestion for the caption. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first edit of the caption. Regarding the second indicating place of photo I am not so sure. In this case info is completely irrelevant to article, and guidelines also say that captions should be succint. Since info on picture is in its description page in this case I would rather have it simpler.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On second reading I really did not like info per reasoning above, so I reverted to your previous version.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• "<!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS -->" The first sentence of this hidden notice in the text does not appear to me to be consistent with the principals of the wikipedia. Surely, anyone can add appropriate external links if they wanted to. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pathophysiology is about abnormal physiological processes, so it seems illogical to me to have the heading "Physiology" as a subheading to "pathophysiology", because physiology is normal functioning. The word "Pathology" could mean "the study of disease" or it could mean "laboratory medicine", and I think that it is illogical to have this broad heading as a subheading to "Pathophysiology", which is a specific type of pathology. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Intention was to make a difference between microscopy findings from functional knownledge of how the basal ganglia function and are altered in PD. We are not the only ones to make such distinction with same terms: The seminal book by Jankovic and Tolosa has a chapter entitled "Neurophisiology of motor control and movement disorders" (Ch 2), which would be similar to the first section, and another chapter entitled "Neuropathology of parkinsonian disorders" (ch. 22) which would be similar in content to the second section. While I understand your comment I am not sure of a better way to make such distinction. Any proposals would be of aid.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The book uses different chapters appropriately. The article puts several topics under the subheading "Pathophysiology", uncluding topics that are not pathophysiology. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A possibility would be to simply eliminate subheadings. What do you think? Any other ideas? --Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no response I was bold and eliminated subsection titles.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would probably have been slightly better to have started such a general discussion with a request for other ideas on the talk page. I think that the resulting heading is not appropriate and I have already indicated above why this is. Also, I think that the resulting section is probably too big. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall, it was quicker to fix this section myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "However the relationship between the two diseases is complex and still has to be clarified." and "Thus the two diseases, ..."; The section mentions three diseases; Alzheimer's, PD, and dementia with Lewy bodies. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It referred to LBD. Broken paragraph into two for clarity.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The part "Thus the two diseases, especially PD with dementia, may be considered parts of the same continuum." does not make sense to me. This is like saying two things are similar except for one of them. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarified to: Dementia with Lewy bodies is another synucleinopathy that has many similarities with PD. Thus dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease may be considered parts of the same continuum, and this is even more clear for the subset of PD cases with dementia.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The introduction has; "The total burden may reach 23 billion dollars per year in the United States." This seems to have an undue bias towards one nation. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All statistics I have found were country specific. That is reason why I did not add any to lead, but then another reviewer asked for more info, and I simply add that sentence as an example. I could re-eliminate it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Non-motor symptoms, which include autonomic dysfunction, cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric), and sensory and sleep difficulties, are also common.[1]" This is the introduction to the "Signs and symptoms" section. As an introduction, I think it should include brief mention of mood and thought problems. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely is what "cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric)" refers to, just with another words.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A mood problem (ie depression) is not a classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. A thought problem (ie delusion) is not classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded to: neuropsychiatric problems (mood, cognition, behavior or thought alterations),.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Visuospatial difficulties are part of the disease, ...". To me this sounds like a psychological problem and not a psychiatric problems, and it seems out of place under a heading about "Neurophychiatry". What about alcoholism in PD? Snowman (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Visuospatial difficulties is a cognitive problem, not psychological, as it is problems with abstract reasoning or language. Similar to agnosia (although probably less specific). If we (as many sources do) include cognitive problems inside the greater umbrella of neuropsychiatric difficulties the section is its place.--Garrondo (talk)

Regarding alcoholism: not sure on what do you mean. If you ask why is it not mentioned: place would be neuropsychiatry section, close to the other compulsive behaviors, although I do not think it was mentioned in sources. --Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "alteration in the tear film leading to irritation of the eye surface." I find this is rather verbose and vague. I presume this is referring to dry eyes. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed to dry eyes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Individuals with PD may have problems with these cognitive processes." I think that there should be a better account of what problems of executive functions may occur, as the current text not translate to signs and symptoms without prior knowledge. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right: I will clarify later or tomorrow.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any changes. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes, but it could be better. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Neuropsychiatry" section there is a piece on "cognitive impairment" (translates to dementia) in the second paragraph and more about dementia in the third paragraph. Both pieces are about the rates and time of onset of dementia in PD, so I think that they could be incorporated together. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would make a huge paragraph and it can also lead to confusion since although related dementia and cognitive impairment are not the same. I would rather leave it as it is.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I rephrase my point and say "cognitive impairment" is a vague tern and could mean almost anything, so can it be used less often and a specific term used instead where possible. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems less important now after copy-editing by various people. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In terms of pathophysiology, PD is considered a ..."; the rest of this paragraph appears to me to be about histopathology and biochemistry. I do not see anything that would be wholly pathophysiology (ie abnormal physiology). Snowman (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall, it was quicker to fix this myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to see something on uncertainty of diagnosis in the early stages, and the difficulty in the diagnosis of depression; see SIGN guidelines. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis section already says: "On the other hand, diagnosis can be difficult when the symptoms are not fully typical of PD, since parkinsonism can occur due to a range of causes and the difference with PD may be subtle, particularly in the early stages when symptoms may be mild". --Garrondo (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I did read that bit you quote carefully. A difficult diagnosis to make is not the same as uncertainty of the diagnosis. Also, the article does not go into dealing with uncertainty in the diagnosis. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the difference between the two terms? What is a difficult diagnosis? What is an uncertain diagnosis?...My opinion is simply that some sources prefer one use and others the other: Proof is that we have the NICE guideline in the article and you have brought another similar (although more condensed) scotish guideline. The Scotish one uses "uncertainty in diagnosis" the English one "difficulty". When reviewing more or less the same sources the word "uncertainty" does not appear in the whole NICE guideline related to diagnosis, while the opposite occurs for difficult in the Scotish guideline.--Garrondo (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NICE: "Given the error rate in making a diagnosis of PD, even in expert hands, it is apparent that the diagnosis should be kept under regular review." Snowman (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not see your point: that line could be summarised as well with concept of uncertainty than difficulty of diagnosis.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can add this line using uncertainty or difficulty in the section, but with out this extra information, the sense of the uncertainty in diagnosis and the need to review diagnosis is missing. This is an omission. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'I have added: 'Since differential diagnosis may be in some cases difficult patients may be followed and diagnosis re-evaluated and changed if evolution of symptoms is not in line with PD.'--Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On diagnosis of depression: Case is similar to essential tremor below. We have many signs and symptoms and related conditions. in the main article. As there is a secondary article on symptoms in most cases symptoms are only name or briefly described. In no case we say how a specific symptom or comorbid condition is diagnosed. This is the perfect example of an interesting fact too much specific for the main article. I have added it to the secondary article. I believe that sources we have support my decision: Sami's and Davis' general reviews on the disease do not mention it. Neither does the Jankovic article which is centred on symptoms and differential diagnosis. Of the two clinical guidelines NICE guideline only says a line on page 114 (There are difficulties in diagnosing mild depression in people with PD as the clinical features of depression overlap with the motor features of PD.) and the Scotish guideline has a paragraph in page 15 (Accurate recognition, diagnosis and formulation of such disorders is vital, though the process is not straightforward because of the overlap between the cognitive and somatic symptoms of PD and those associated with depression. This may lead to inaccurate diagnosis with some patients with PD being misdiagnosed as depressed when symptoms are caused directly by the PD. In other patients a genuine mood disorder may be missed as symptoms of depression may be wrongly assumed to be caused by the underlying PD.) Taking into account weight given in the sum of these 5 sources main article is not its place.--Garrondo (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think any article on PD must say that alcohol does not have any affect on the tremor, contrasting with essential tremor. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably too specific for the main article. I have added it the signs and symptoms subarticle, to the tremor paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe sources support my decision: I have taken a look at four of our sources: Nice and scotish guidelines do not even mention it. Sami's lancet source, which has a full subsection between the differential diagnosis of PD and essential tremor neither mentions it. Only one to mention it is Jancovik which only says: "There are several clues to the diagnosis of existent essential tremor when it coexists with PD, including longstanding history of action tremor, family history of tremor, head and voice tremor, and no latency when arms are outstretched in a horizontal position in front of the body, although some patients may also have a re-emergent tremor related to their PD, tremulous handwriting and spiral, and improvement of the tremor with alcohol and beta-blockers--Garrondo (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably will not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Seborrhoeic dermatitis is not in the source provided (at least I did not find it). Instead, a quick search found "seborrhoea" in the source. Unfortunately, the wikilink for seborrhoea goes to "seborrhoeic dermatitis", but it is two are not the same. Seborrhoea means oily skin and that is already listed, so I think you just need to remove "seborrhoeic dermatitis". Snowman (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have fixed the faulty redirect. Snowman (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. The wikilink confounded me.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You should have checked the Seborrhoeic dermatitis article and looked it up somewhere else, which has no mention of seborrhoea. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re File:Parkinson surgery.jpg, the "electrode in brain" image. I would like to see expansion of the image description on commons and the caption in the article, as I do not find much there to indicate what the image is about. Is there a burr hole? Is it a general anaesthetic? What is the equipment called? What is happening in the photograph? Where are the surgeons and theatre staff? It might be worth contacting the author. The current caption says; "Placement of an electrode, to be deep-seated in the brain"; however, I have looked at the image at high resolution, and I do not see anything placed in the brain, although something might be about to be put in the brain or something might have been put in the brain earlier. If necessary, see tips on writing a caption in the wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the user that uploaded the image at commons: the image was uploaded in 2005, was the only contribution of the user, has no edited talk or user page at commons and does not have a user page in English Wikipedia. We will have to assume that we are not going to get any extra info. Since an image of neurosurgical operation is not easy to get; much less specifically of implantation of a DBS I would rather have this image in the article even if the image would be improved with further info.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending. I think that the documentation of this image is inadequate. Suggest try asking at user page on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The section "Surgery and deep brain stimulation" should separate destructive surgery with electrode implantation. Presumably, the old surgery was cutting into pathways or nerve centres. I do not know much about this topic; however, the wikilink for "pallidotomy" indicates that this is destructive (a hot electrode is used to obliterate parts of the brain) and looks wrongly placed. I think that the section is fatally flawed. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pending. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The study of the microscopic anatomy of the affected tissues (histology) ..."; Gives wrong impression. The study of diseased tissues is called "histopathology". The line is clunky as well. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• It was quicker to fix this myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... is unusual before the age of 40 years"; I added this to the introduction some time ago, sourced from Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine. I have just noticed, that this fact is not referenced in the article. Please source something like this from one of the reviews and include it in the main body of the article. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Epidemiology section says: The mean age of onset is around 60 years, although 5–10% of cases, classified as young onset, begin between the ages of 20 and 50: I believe it is close enough.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course it is referenced (to Sami et al).--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending: Probably not common knowledge, so I expect this would need a specific reference. Regret my textbook is older than five years, so not ideal for a reference. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Caption: "Stalevo, a commercial preparation combining ...". Are there any non-commercial tablets? Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt that levodopa is copyrighted. Anybody could probably manufacture it in their garage and would not be illegal. Probably not even self consumption for their PD would be illegal. On the other hand selling it would be illegal in most countries (I am not sure even if in all countries).--Garrondo (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a branded combination medication and it manufacture is certainly licensed. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update: I have removed the new image. I see no reason for prioritising this preparation in particular by showing a photograph of the tablets. Whey should this preparation have emphasis above the others? Snowman (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask why not: it is as representative as any of the others and since we can not have all of them we have to choose a prototype. Why do we have the structure of GNDF and not other chemicals? A PET image instead of an fmri? An specific PET image made with an ECAT Exact HR+ PET Scanner and not other machines by other enterprises? an image of Ali instead of others mentioned in the article? If we had Fox would you eliminate him since we were favoring his foundation? Why do we have an image of the US army using agent orange instead of other country also using it? Arent we being anti-american accusing that country of using dangerous weapons? I have reverted your elimination.--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that one drug should not be picked by showing an image, because it gives that one brand too much emphasis. It is a branded drug, it is not generic. We can go on to talk about the selection of the other images. Image removed again by me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Place for that kind of specific subjective individual point is NOT a FAC but the talk page.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the drug has a role. However, this branded combination is not the most widely used drug in PD. It is not the first choice by most in the early stages of the disease. It is not the cheapest. All these comments are objective. I think that this product placement is actionable and is very relevant in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Garrondo, could you state what goal you are hoping to meet by mentioning a specific drug? I do see the value of showing an example of the type of medicine that is actually prescribed. Stalevo gets some credit for having been reviewed in clinical trials, but I can see the argument that another combination could be equally worthy of mention. Is there anywhere we can get data on what medicines are prescribed most frequently? Even if it was just from a specific hospital, or textbook, that said 'pick this drug combination first for a standard PD case.' EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The drug treatment is tailored to the individual patient, so there is no one particular recommended starting drug. The BNF says that the drug combination in the image is useful in end of dose motor fluctuations when not adequately controlled with levodopa and dopa-decarboxilase inhibitors. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not really care on which image to use. Stalevo is used in PD and my only point is that it is better than no image and as valid as an image as any other of another drug.--Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that it would be better not to select one drug to show unless it was the most popular one used, or the first used, and so on. The image I removed was a tipple drug combination formulation, and the I think that the brand placement was inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeap, you have given your opinion several times, as have I. That does not make it more or less truth or more or less consensus. From my point of view both reasonings (image should be only the used or any drug used in clinical practic) are valid. Nevertheless I am so tired of only hearing you and me in this discussion that you can have it your way.--Garrondo (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not heard any reasoned argument to select the triple combination preparation. Your stated view; "I do not really care on which image to use" is not convincing to me. Incidentally, there were three contributors to this thread of the discussion on this image. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That it is a medication specific for PD was reason enough for me, but as I said I would rather not further discuss the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I conclude that the issue is settled and that the image is removed. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re File:US-Huey-helicopter-spraying-Agent-Orange-in-Vietnam.jpg. I think that the image of the helicopter should be removed, as it put too much emphasis on one nation. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and this, similarly to the above is a very subjective, specific, individual opinion which would be best discussed out of the FAC, hearing other people's opinion.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Moreover: the reference we have is specific to the use by the US of agent Orange during the vietnam war and its effects is veterans (although it primary articles it is based on are not specific to veterans.)--Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial and I think that there is no need to highlight this with an image. I think that this image needs proper context and it out of place on this page. I think it should be removed Snowman (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

role of helicopter in war is of not relevancy for this article. Your opinion or any others on the use of any kind of weapons is not a valid reason to eliminate an image. Fact is that agent orange, and its use by US army, has been related to PD by a US government agency. Therefore image is most surely a valid one. Nevertheless I have to point again that such kind of debatable and subjetive proposals is for talk page and not for FACthis edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely, an inappropriate image can be discussed here. My remarks about the helicopter are actionable and belong in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would rather hear other opinions of others and if I have time I will begin a thread in talk page since it is quite subjective issue and you are me are only two people giving their subjective opinion both with partly valid reasons. Nevertheless I reiterate: the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial is a reason of no relevancy for the Parkinson's disease article, and we do have a secondary high quality recent source specifically centre among other things in use of defoliants by US army soldiers. Per such source the image is a valid one. --Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus would most likely minimise subjective ideas. Would make good point for discussion on the article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re File:PET-image.jpg. A normal pet scan apparently. What use is this image to this article? Snowman (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it is made with the specific neurotracer used to diagnose PD shows very well how basal ganglia look in a healthy subject.--Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

... But there is not another to show the abnormal findings in PD, so surely it is as pointless as showing a man walking normally or a normal elbow. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most people know how is normal walking. Most do not know how a PET does. I believe it is useful, you believe it is not. I have stated my reasons you have stated yours. Feel free to start a discussion on talk page of the article to seek opinions by others or bring better image. --Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am looking to reduce page bulk. I think that the best image would be a photograph of a cross section of the brain stem showing a cut surface that shows the substantia nigra. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have looked many times for good free images in the last year and found none. Feel free to bring one better if you find it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus may be formed on article talk page, if discussion started there. May not influence FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The branded formulations of drugs mentioned on the page are only a few of the possible list. I would recommend the removred of branded drug names from the article. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there somewhere in MEDMOS or MOS that says that unless all brand names are named none should appear or is it again a subjective opinion?--Garrondo (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought: info is on articles wikilinked and might be a way of reducing a bit the article.--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Several of the paragraphs are too short. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Several is quite vague. In my opinion only short paragraph as of today is the one on motor signs and symptoms, which I plan to expand as soon as I can. At the begining of some sections there are also some sentences that summarize or introduce the section, but which due to their function I would rather leave as they are.--Garrondo (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is one paragraph consisting of one sentence; see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just expanded it.--Garrondo (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re: File:Shaking-palsy-essay.gif, the full size version of this image is not very big and I think that people with mild or moderate visual impairment will not be able to read it properly. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images - is it justifiable to include text in an image? if so a better resolution image should be used. As the guidelines says, this text in the image is not searchable, so could the text be transcribed onto the image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While probably a good exception to that guideline (as an historical image trying to serve as image for the concept of first seminal description) changed to Charcot image.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus may be gained on discussion on article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here, it may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Omission: there is no mention of lead-pipe rigidity. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pending. An important omission. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... abnormalities in ocular pursuit and saccadic movements, and difficulties in directing gaze upward."; jargon. Websites mention blurred vision and double vision, but no mention in article. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Websites are NOT reliable sources, Jankovic is. Additionally our article says "such as" which means "some examples but not all problems are named". Regarding ocular pursuit I feel is easy enough to understand. Regarding saccades: clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending: The webpage was a PD society leaflet, and I have no reason to question it. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of these issues are open to discussion, but I think others should be copy-edited in the normal course of ironing out problems from this article, without someone having to prompt at every problem. It has not taken me long to find another list of problems, and a bit longer to write a short list as examples. I reiterate that the article needs more careful copy-editing to reduce vagueness, reduce inadvertent ambiguities, and illuminate misleading or erroneous text. I would anticipate that the article needs a lot of work and that it will take quite a long time to reach FA. I would anticipate that most of these problems should be ironed out without needing a prompt at every issue. If there are no editors that can further copy-edit and enhance the prose then the article is not going to reach FA in my opinion. This page is not on my watch list I am not planing to participate in a prolonged dialogue. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back occasionally or after 1 to 2 weeks, but that is not a promise. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On images to Snowmanradio:

• On full stops on captions: After checking MOS I have found point you referred to and tried to fix article. I hope it is correct now.--Garrondo (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Following your recommendation I have expanded caption in micrographia image adding place and date of publication.

Arbitrary break 5

• Support—Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Comment—For the most part it looks FA ready, albeit a long read replete with jargon. Still, it's interesting material. There are a few points that I would appreciate if you could fix before I lend my support:

  • "Clinical evaluation is based in similar tasks consisting such as alternating movements between both hands or feet." This sentence doesn't quite make sense. What is "similar tasks consisting"? Does "...alternating movements between both hands or feet" mean "between both hands or both feet" or does it mean "alternating movements between both hands and feet"?

Former, that is why I used or instead of and.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • "Other motor symptoms include ... are examples of the range of common motor problems..." Please fix the redundancy.

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • "...while the cost per individual per year in the US..." Is this individual patient or the total population?

i will take a look at ref and clarify. I would say that the former.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It was per patient. Clarified in article.--Garrondo (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 6

• Comments by Sasata (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have the time for an exhaustive review of the entire article, so instead I focussed my efforts on one section, "Research directions". This analysis leaves me with the feeling that the article still needs some polish to bring it up to FA standards.
• The section begins by listing the "two key questions" that PD research is trying to answer. The closest following citation does not frame or summarize PD research in this way, so I'm wondering if there's a citation missing here.

I have simply eliminated the mentioned sentences.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "How might those cells be replaced or their loss compensated for?" The "for" at the end of the sentence is awkward; is any meaning changed by just omitting the word?

As eliminated no further an issue.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Currently active research directions include the search of new animal models of the disease" Shouldn't that be "search for new animal models" ?

Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't see gene therapy linked earlier, isn't that bluelink-worthy?

Done

• "However, the tragedy of a group of drug addicts in California in the early 1980s" is "tragedy" WP:NPOV?

I have reworded the sentence... however since they got parkinsonian symptoms for life it was probably quite neutral to say it was a tragedy.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Gene therapy is currently under investigation." This is a weak lead sentence to start a subsection, imho. Sounds like it's being suspected of committing a crime.

I would have never thought of it. Eliminated and reworded. Additionally it was quite redundant in a section entitled research directions.

• Isn't "clinical trial" bluelink worthy, especially in a section called "Research directions"?

It was precisely the copy edit of another reviewer in FAC which eliminated it given as reason overlinking. I really do not care one way or another.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The gene used leads to the production of an enzyme which helps to manage PD symptoms or protects the brain from further damage." That really leaves me hanging… not even a mention of what enzyme it is?

Well, that is the general method, there is not ONE enzyme, but several under investigation and anyway I would say that is very specialized content. --Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "However none of them has been conclusively demonstrated to reduce degeneration." "However" at the beginning of the sentence should be followed by a comma; since the subject is "several molecules", shouldn't the underlined "has" be "have"? (Same question regarding the GDNF image caption)

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "… the best constructed studies up to date indicate …" Is the easter-egg link appropriate (rather than just explicitly stating double-blind, placebo-controlled)? Should "up to date" really be "to date"?

Quite subjetive point. I myself believe that it is precisely an appropiate way to avoid some jargon.

Easter egg links are not in line with guidelines. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed then.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• rodent is overlinked (i.e., twice) in the section

Delinked rodent and monkey.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless use of fetal stem cells is controversial." Like "however", "nevertheless" starting a sentence needs a comma immediately following it.

Checked and fixed full article. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The references need to be swept through with a fine-tooth comb, e.g.:

• the formatting of journal titles is not consistent in that the abbreviated titles do not always have fullstops (eg., #9 "Parkinsonism Relat. Disord." vs. #10 "Parkinsonism Relat Disord")

Added full stops and other fixes to refs.--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Current ref #6 has the page range in the format "508-512" (note the incorrect hyphen), which is not the same as the others; also #16, #28, etc.

Fixed ref 6, however hyphens for pages in 16 and 28 are correct. Are you referring to the isbn number? Does it also have to be hyphenated.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the page range format is inconsistent: all three pages are given for starting and ending pages, compared to others which have only the final two pages given. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Ok, I had not even noticed. Fixed all over article (I think). Is the problem of manually formatting :-) .--Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• have to be consistent in giving states for US cites (e.g. #3 "Hagerstwon, MD:" (note typo) vs. #6 "Totowa:") Fixed by EdJohnston 17:01, 28-Feb-2011.

I am not American and I have no idea on how to do it. If Totowa is the only case it would be of help if you did it. thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not American either, but I think "Hagerstwon" is a misspelling of "Hagerstown". Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• why is ref #24 (Bronstein et al. 2010) in title case?

No idea since I always copy and paste from diberris tool. Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To Sasata, at the top of your list it says that this is a list of problems from one section. I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page? Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. If I find more time I'll go through another section and give more examples, but based on what I've read in the one section (& scanning the refs), some more work is needed to make this one of Wikipedia's best medical articles. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I notice that some editors above have complained about jargon. For a sample of good clarity and avoidance of jargon take a look at a capsule summary of PD in a document from the Royal College of Physicians (Preface):

…the management of Parkinson’s disease must take into account the fact that the mainstay of pharmacological treatment, levodopa, can eventually produce dyskinesia and motor fluctuation. Furthermore, there are a number of agents besides levodopa that can help parkinsonian symptoms, and there is the enticing but unconfirmed prospect that other treatments might protect against worsening neurological disability. Thus, a considerable degree of judgement is required in tailoring individual therapy and in timing treatment initiation...

PD is a progressive neurodegenerative condition resulting from the death of the dopamine containing cells of the substantia nigra. There is no consistently reliable test that can distinguish PD from other conditions that have similar clinical presentations. The diagnosis is primarily a clinical one based on the history and examination. People with PD classically present with the symptoms and signs associated with parkinsonism, namely hypokinesia (ie poverty of movement), bradykinesia (ie slowness of movement), rigidity and rest tremor.

Parkinsonism can also be caused by drugs and less common conditions such as: multiple cerebral infarction, and degenerative conditions such as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA).

Although PD is predominantly a movement disorder, other impairments frequently develop, including psychiatric problems such as depression and dementia. Autonomic disturbances and pain may later ensue, and the condition progresses to cause significant disability and handicap with impaired quality of life for the affected person.

Pushing even more technical terms out of the lead is something to consider. It is of interest that the Royal College of Physicians manages to condense the material now in the third paragraph of our lead into just three sentences (those in the first paragraph of the above small-print excerpt).

The following text in our current lead could surely be moved elsewhere, or made shorter:

The main symptoms are collectively called parkinsonism, or sometimes a "parkinsonian syndrome". They can arise from a variety of causes. Parkinson's disease is often defined as a Parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic (has no known cause), although some atypical cases have a genetic origin.

This has the flavor of 'bookkeeping' on the disease definition, and may not register any meaning at all for a lay person. The second sentence has the air of a contradiction (idiopathic but also of genetic origin). The subtle boundaries of parkinsonism vs PD could surely be moved later in the article (or only vaguely addressed in the lead), and I see some people are already objecting to 'idiopathic.' That is the kind of word that ought to be pushed into the fine print lower down, if at all possible. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it might make sense to move that material out of the lead. The confusion about idiopathic versus genetic, though, is simply a reflection of confusion in the literature. If PD is defined as idiopathic, then the consequence is that as soon as we know what caused any given case of parkinsonism, it isn't PD! Therefore PD becomes mysterious by definition, which is ridiculous. The definition of PD as idiopathic was really meant to exclude parkinsonism caused by certain identifiable forms of damage, not to define PD out of existence as soon as all cases are understood. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The usual maximum number of headings in the introduction is four, with five being used in exceptional circumstances. Can the introduction be formed from four paragraphs here, or is this article one of the exceptions? This long introduction could indicate that the article is too long. Perhaps, the history sections of this article could be substantially shortened and a better expanded main page on the history of the science of the disease could be created. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the number of paragraphs in lead? It is right now 4 paragraphs so I am not sure to understand your comment...--Garrondo (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is four now. There used to be five. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly relevant for the FAC, but I have checked 1 version each day along the whole FAC and there has not been 5 paragraphs at any point (although it may have been at some intermediate version in a single day...).--Garrondo (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake with number of paragraphs. I presume I counted wrong by loosing visual reference points with scrolling up and down unevenly. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To Ed: Less is not always better. In my opinion our third paragraph is more informative than those in the guideline. That certainly has some advantages: if somebody only reads the lead (which many people do) at least they will have some idea on the fact that there are several possible treatments for the disease and its symptoms, which would hardly occur with the introduction of the NICE guideline. Regarding mention of parkinsonism vs PD: I would leave it. The lead is expected to summarize the whole article and if we want "classification" to be included in the lead the difference between the two has to be included. Nevertheless I am open to any proposals.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Ed is User EdJohnston. His last edit is several lines above. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to PD including genetic causes (at the top of this section). It does seem paradoxical that genetic cases are included with the "idiopathic disease" PD, but it does seem to be the case, as seen in SIGN guidelines. I think that every attempt should be made to explain this paradox of terminology in simple and clear English. It is probably easy to see why it could look silly to some (although it is correct), if it is badly explained on the wiki. Perhaps, explanation of the atypical presentations of genetic cases could also be added for clarification. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To Snowmanradio: I have created a history subarticle and summarized in main page.--Garrondo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 7

• Request: This page is getting nearly impossible for me to read, particularly in trying to determine what feedback has been resolved, what feedback is in-work, or what feedback has been left at an impasse. To those of you who have left feedback at length, would you be willing to move sections of addressed feedback to the talk page, or possibly strike it out? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved issues should have a strike through. It would be even more confusing, if relevant parts of this FAR were removed to the article talk page, hence I think that nothing about resolved issues should be removed from this page. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, strike through is fine. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have just looked at every comment I have made on this page and put a strike to the resolved issues. Incidentally, I have been minimising my feedback and just choosing examples from a few sections. Snowman (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Snowman. It is a good strategy. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (3): I do not know when time will be called on this review. I am still finding problems in the article almost everywhere I look. I would like to prioritise my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might be presumptive and I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the progress has been directly in response to reviewers comments, and it seems to me that this is going reasonably well. I hope that the whole of the article is brought up to standard by careful copy-editing over the next few weeks or before the review is closed, and I would like to see more proactive copy-editing that would reduce the work load on reviewers. As a medical article, rather than a general science article, it should be particularly well written; see MedMoS. My view is that a medical topic includes basics that have to be included and correctly emphasised. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The abbreviation 'LB' for Lewy Bodies is only used three times. It would be clearer if we drop the abbreviation and spell it out in every case.

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The link from the Infobox to the GeneReviews book does not work, and I couldn't fix it. It should go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1223. The book is entitled 'Parkinson Disease Overview.' There seems to be some trick with how that template is coded. The template works fine in the Autism article.

No idea on how templates work, nor where to find help to fix it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• JFW commented above on File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg, suggesting that 'some of the layers moved about when the images were converted to PNG format'. I suspect that the image is not broken, but I don't think it has any expository value here. My vote would be to drop it from the article. Certainly the article text does not try to explain any of the terms introduced in the figure or in its caption. Too much detail for this level of narrative, and it does little to help the reader understand the mechanism of PD. What we should get across to the reader is: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (We basically say this in the third paragraph of Pathophysiology).

I agree that the image is probably too specialized for the level of detail of the article. I have eliminated it and the related one in the levodopa section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• To deal with the paradox that idiopathic Parkinson's could have a genetic cause, how about trying to say 'primary Parkinson's' wherever we can, instead of 'idiopathic Parkinson's'. The ICD-10 seems to treat the two terms (primary and idiopathic) as almost synonymous. It would not be puzzling if primary Parkinson's ultimately turns out to have a genetic cause. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See discussion below.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I struck the GeneReviews issue since I was able to locate the document code and fix the link. Also struck out two other items that were fixed by Garrondo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On "idiopathic parkinsonism"

Since discussion on the correcteness-uncorrectness according to sources and clearness-unclearness of explanation on article of the issue of PD being defined as primary and idiopathic, with the addition of genetic forms, has been commented by several reviewers backs and forwards in their opinions it might be a good idea the centralize discussion in this subsection. It might be even better if reviewers cut and pasted their comments in this specific issue and moved them here.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

For the moment I have tried to clarify the situation in the classification section: right now article reads like this: Parkinson's disease is the most common form of parkinsonism and is usually defined as "primary" parkinsonism, meaning parkinsonism with no external identifiable cause.[2][3] In recent years several genes that are directly related to some cases of Parkinson's disease have been discovered. As much as this can go against the definition of Parkinson's disease as idiopathic, genetic parkinsonisms with a similar clinical course to PD are generally considered true cases of Parkinson's disease. Changes include addition of the word "external" to give more importance to the "secondary" term, and the addition of the last sentence specifically stating problems with the definition. Comments and ce would be greatly appreciated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New lead (addressing 'idiopathic')

Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox, a proposed draft for the article lead, which (in my opinion) helps to deal with the 'idiopathic' problem. It also tries to fix three things that bothered me about the existing lead:

1. The opening section was trying too hard to cover all the bases, making it unclear whether it was describing a well-defined disease entity
2. The real test for the disease is the presence of Lewy Bodies. They can only be checked for post mortem
3. None of the therapies can reverse the effects of the disease or cure it. They are just a way to address the symptoms. (This point is made in the sub-article Treatment of Parkinson's disease), but was not stated in the main article.)

Please look at this proposed lead and see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great to me.--Garrondo (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. A further sentence I am hoping to put in the lead is some form of this capsule of PD: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (This would be reworded properly and would be checked against the references before being added). EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree that the revision is an improvement -- I think that naive readers will find it much more confusing. I don't believe that there is any way of briefly explaining the distinction between PD and parkinsonism that readers won't find confusing -- even professionals in the field are often confused by it. The best course of action, therefore, is to keep the explanation in the lead short, and make sure that it does not spread confusion to other aspects of the lead. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sporadic Parkinson's disease

Our article uses the term 'sporadic PD' but does not define it or provide a link to any other article. There is a book by Braak and Tredici, called "Neuroanatomy and Pathology of Sporadic Parkinson's Disease", which appears to use 'sporadic PD' as though it were a synonym for primary (or idiopathic) PD. Should we add 'sporadic PD' in the lead as yet another synonym? EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are a good points. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sporadic PD is the opposite to familial PD, so it is closely related to idiopathic-primary.--Garrondo (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added "The terms "familial Parkinson's disease" and sporadic Parkinson's disease" can be used to differentiate genetic from truly idiopathic forms of the disease. to the classification section.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Provisional impression (4): I have had a close look and edited one of the sections namely the diagnosis section, and I found that the readability problems there were dense. Essentially, I think that the original diagnosis section required re-writing with odd parts being checked against sources, and that work on that section is not completed. Unfortunately, I think that this is representative of many parts of the article. I understand that another reviewer, who is busy, has provided adequate evidence that he would also be able to find multiple problems throughout the article. My overall impression of the whole a article is that it is not up to the standard of an FA article, and that a considerable amount of work is needed to bring it to that standard. My impression is that throughout the article medical terminology is often used not-quite correctly and sometimes medical terminology and phrases in sources appear to have been misunderstood slightly and a slightly distorted from may appear in the article. It would be good if all this could be corrected during this review, but I think that this article it heading towards failing FA status. I think it will need to mature for at least three months and probably longer before returning for another FA assessment. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you mention a sentence in the Diagnosis section that you are not happy about? Your comment implies that the section contains factual errors. Who is the other reviewer that you cite? We can only work on what we know about. I would fix the style in many places if I thought others would accept my changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please make some edits. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• I find the problems dense and there are many issues, so I edited the diagnosis section directly as a quicker way to illustrate problems with the article than making lists here, but this is only apparent if the sequence edits are analysed. I have changed the following line amongst others that I thought had the wrong and a misleading emphasis, I have changed the article from "Common presentations of the disease are usually easily diagnosed." to "PD is generally easy to diagnose when there are many easily recognisable signs and symptoms of PD.". The in-line reference said; "Although the diagnosis of PD is straightforward when patients have a classical presentation, ...". Snowman (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• See other reviews comments above. With this edit I asked him; "I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page?", and he replied with this edit which was his last edit on this page. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to being quite a tendentious question "could exist" is not the same as "he would be able to find". --Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked this for clarification after seeing Sasata's earlier edit. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion as an answer to Snomanradio's comments: Snowmanradio has stated several times that he sees many problems. He has stated that in his opinion the article is not up to FA standard and he seems determined to get the article failed. While I respect him as an editor at the very least it seems paradoxical that many other expert editors in the medical field and FAC have not seen those "many" problems. As of today Looie496, JFW, DrKierman, Leevanjackson, Graham Colm, Casliber, Tony1, and RJH have stated their support and Sasata, Axl and EdJohnston reviewed several sections and made what I think were constructive minor comments mainly on language issues but certainly did not oppose the article. Moreover Snowmanradio has said that there are many errors when following sources and last time he says that he has taken a close look to the diagnosis section and edited it to show what the example of mistakes he has found. I have taken a close look to the edits Snowmanradio made to diagnosis: See differences between his two versions here.

• He has precisely stated that I have changed the article from "Common presentations of the disease are usually easily diagnosed." to "PD is generally easy to diagnose when there are many easily recognisable signs and symptoms of PD.". The in-line reference said; "Although the diagnosis of PD is straightforward when patients have a classical presentation, ...". Regarding content I do not see any better following of the source in his version to the one of the article: Classical, ie normal, ie typical, ie with easyly recognisable signs and symptoms, ie.as many others as language can produce are generally easy to diagnose. Non-classical, ie non normal, ie non typical, ie with non easily recognisalbe signs and symptoms are not easily diagnosed. Moreover: regarding style Snowmanradio sentence is poor with two "easy" in a single sentence. This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is with some sadness that I reply indicating your misunderstanding. Classical tends to mean an obvious text-book presentation; for example, a presentation showing a set of easily recognisable florid symptoms. An appendicitis can present with the classical symptoms, but I this is not the same as the common mode of presentation. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They are actually classical because they are the most common, following your example I am sure that classical presentation is of appendicitis is also the most common with a big difference to the others, so it would be the same to say the "common presentation of appendicitis" than the "classical presentation". Nevertheless in this case I am not saying that your proposal is wrong or that I do not like the word classical, simply that what you point as "huge problems that may embarrass the wiki" may not be so.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that saying "classical presentation" implies a presentation with symptoms and signs that are commonly found in the disease and when they are florid enough to be easily recognisable. Common symptoms can start years before diagnosis is considered or possible. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion of an already accepted issue is completely useless.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am please that you now appear to be able to see the original problem. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Changes to first and differential diagnosis paragraphs are in my opinion minor and only expression related. I am sure he prefers his version. I am not so sure that everybody would think it is better. I am sure they are not reason enough to say that article is clearly months far from being a FA. This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I changed it because of the original line "Differential diagnosis requires distinguishing PD from other kinds of tremors and other causes of parkinsonism.". I think that "Differential diagnosis" was used incorrectly and was certainly jargon. A list of possible diagnoses for a condition is the "differential diagnosis". Snowman (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• While he has stated that article did not follow sources the only error I actually spot right now in the article has been inserted with his edition: He implies in it that there is no definitive test in life as opposed to diagnosis after death. Actually pathological diagnosis is definitive in the sense that it will be hardly be changed since patient is dead, but as of today is far from being definitive in the sense of "conclusive" since other diseases (Mainly lewy bodies dementia) can also show Lewy bodies at autopsy. Similarly to above while it is interesting his change saying "in brain" his language is again far from perfect since to say "after death at autopsy" is quite redundant (can there be an autopsy when you are still alive?) This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Post-mortem" is the word commonly used in the UK for autopsy. This version using "autopsy" as unexplained jargon may not be as understandable in British English. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing: along this long month of FAC in my opinion article is heading towards consensus. At this point 8 reviewers (in addition to me, the nominator) have stated their support, and only one is clearly against it. While this editor clearly against it being a FA has said different times that article is full of errors and problems everywhere he fails again in showing the many errors, and many of his proposed changes and problems are highly debatable. I would welcome further comments from Sasata , Axl Edjonhston and any other reviewer that may indicate how truly far is the article from being a FA since at this point I feel that Snowmanradio is not neutral regarding this article and his opinion should be balanced against others taking this into account.

Forgot to sign.--Garrondo (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wrong: Sasata says here that "I don't have the time for an exhaustive review of the entire article, so instead I focussed my efforts on one section, "Research directions". This analysis leaves me with the feeling that the article still needs some polish to bring it up to FA standards.". Snowman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• All of my comments about this page are backed up by lists of problems found on the page. I wish that this page was up to FA status, but I think that it has potential to embarrass the wiki if it was elevated to FA status at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just corrected the poor version produced by Snowmanradio: now says: A physician would make or suspect a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease mainly from the medical history and a neurological examination by determining the presence or absence of signs and symptoms of PD and other related diseases.[1] Reduction of motor impairment in response to administration of levodopa markedly increases the likelihood of PD.[1] There is no definitive test for diagnosis, but finding Lewy bodies in brain samples at autopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard.--Garrondo (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume you refer to this edit of yours. The minor adjustments are marginal in my opinion. I never said that my version was perfect, in fact I said the section still needs work. The point is that I have removed errors that would embarrass the wiki. However, the line is still an over simplification, because Lewy bodies are also found in Lewy body dementia (which is a different diagnosis to PD). Also, I think that the section is still not quite right, because it seems a bit clunky. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only marginal errors: to say that no definitive test exist in life is wrong since there are no definitive test neither in life, nor when somebody is death.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the point of a post mortem (autopsy in the USA)? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While not perfect it is the best we have, and if there has been symptoms on life LB in autopsy it will serve to reassure diagnosis. Even more important: there may be a person for example with a vascular parkinsonism. In such case no presence of LB in autopsy will serve to rule out PD. --Garrondo (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To SnowmanRadio: In your last several edits to the neuropsychiatric section most changes are in either for good or neutral, but you introduced an error that I have corrected: source says that people have higher probabilities of going to a nursing home, does not say that they have more probability of needing it (although common sense says that this is most probably also true).--Garrondo (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. Some editors would have saved time and just mentioned this in an edit summary for me to see. To me, my version seems a bit better than the original version that said "... a higher probability of attending a nursing home.", and I think your development of my version is even better. I am glad that the end result was good. I am reassured that you can only find this tiny problem with my re-write. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Management section is long

The article is 87,200 bytes including references, while there are 21,800 bytes in 'Management.' So this section is one quarter of the article. There is a main article for Management at Treatment of Parkinson's disease. It is surprising that the Management section would still be so large, since we could employ summary style there. Would editors accept shrinking the Management section by moving some material to the sub-article? EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is an important section, difficult at this moment to summarize without loosing important points. I do not think it is a good idea at the moment.--Garrondo (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of repetition between this PD article and the article on the treatment on PD. It seems that a lot of the treatment article was copied from the PD article. I think that these two pages should be considered to see if data organisation across articles can be improved. Is there anything in the linked page on treatments that is not in the main ariticle? If the long version is going to be kept in the main article, can the pages be merged? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sequence of what happened was as follows: When I got to the main article a year ago the secondary article already existed but in a horrible state: full of primary sources, undue weight, missing data... At some point the main article was better and had more info than the secondary article so I copied most content to the secondary article, substituting most of its content. Nevertheless there is some extra info in the secondary page that is not in the primary page (mainly some info in research directions and some info on surgery and some info on meds for symptoms other than motor.) That, and the fact that in the main article there is no place for more info, but it can be added to the secondary page would make me discourage the merging since most probably what would occur is that it would be recreated soon. It would also be a pity to loose the extra info in this page.--Garrondo (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • "As of 2010... " This is recent. That's OK, but nominators need to bear in mind that they need to maintain this particular section in order to avoid breaking the article's accuracy.

That line was written in 2010. Now that we are in 2011 I have changed it to "in 2010 there were".--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "Other predominant toxin-based models employ the insecticide rotenone, the herbicide paraquat and the fungicide maneb" Are we saying that these chemicals induce Parkinson's? not clear.... oh wait, I see something up in the Risk factors" section. I dunno if internal wikilinks are considered bad form these days (as a form of self-reference, perhaps); if not, then a link here to the prior section might be acceptable.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They do not induce PD in animals. They are used to create an animal model, which is shows some features similar to the human disease and serves (more or less) for research, but that it is far from being exact to the disease. I think internal wikilinks are discouraged. I have clarified as follows: PD is not known to occur naturally in any species other than humans, although animal models which show some features of the disease are used in research. The appearance of parkinsonian...--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "Synuclein proteins being the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered in 1997" The proteins were discovered then, or the fact that they are the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered then? Simple grammar fix.

The latter. Changed to "That alpha-synuclein is the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered in 1997".--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • And by the way, "synuclein protein" is twice given as "alpha-synuclein protein" and once without the alpha. Dunno if that matters. I see a couple relevant WP articles but won't attempt to wikilink as I am not a domain expert (and alpha-Synuclein protein is wl'd in at least one prior passage.

Alpha-synuclein is a protein of the bigger familiy of synuclein proteins. Now the article only refers to alpha-synuclein and synucleinophaty.--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Person-year redirects to Man-hour... is that a valid wl? ... I'm not sure that the meaning of person-time and person-year is clear here; and additional 8 words or so wouldn't hurt.

Clarified inside bracket to "usually number of new cases per thousand individuals in a year". Is it clear enough now?--Garrondo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Please pardon my ignorance, but is there a reason why the "Causes" section is separate from the "Epidemiology" section? Can or should those sections, or any elements thereof, be combined? I do see the term "risk factor" in the former, forex... or should the "Causes" section be retitled "genetic causes" or similar, since that seems to be all that is discussed? Tks.

No ignorance at all. That dichotomy is present also in sources with some separating both sections and others having them together. I decided to have them separated per two reasons: 1-Maintain consistency with the sections proposed in WP:MEDMOS. 2-Risk factors as of today are not proven enough to say that they cause PD, their mechanism of effect is not really known and have mainly been studied in epidemiological studies with all the pitfalls that that kind of research suffers.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "progression time of symptoms to a stage of high dependency may be" dependency on levodopa, or on caregivers?

The latter. Clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "Autonomic disturbances" not defined and no relevant WP article.

It was linked as autonomic nervous system in signs and symptoms. I have added a wikilink to autonomic dysfunction in the signs and symptoms introduction.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "On the other hand a disease mainly characterized" would "case" or "symptom set" a similar term be preferable to "disease" here?

How about "disease pattern"? I have added disease pattern to article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "may delay motor complications but are less effective at controlling symptoms" I thought motor complications were symptoms... do you mean "other symptoms", or...?

Motor complications refers to the secondary effect of long-term use of levodopa, so they are not exactly symptoms. Changed to: may delay motor complications of medication use--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • "become more common with age at onset" means "become more common with increased age at onset"?
  • I added a blockquote; please feel free to remove it if it seems undesirable.

Section (and article) is quite long, and does not add that much, but it is still interesting and well choosed. I have moved to secondary article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Conditional Support. Please consider this a Support when all of my comments above (most of which are minor) are addressed. Congratulations on an excellent article. – Peacock.Lane 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion opened

In the belief that this review is no longer raising major issues and ought to be moved toward an endpoint, I have made a comment to that effect at WT:Featured article candidates#Parkinson's disease FAC -- I'm giving a pointer here so that reviewers will be aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for further opinions of the article at the medicine and neuroscience projects.--Garrondo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Provisional impression (5); A number of editors have done copy editing and correcting mistakes by direct editing to the page, and I think this has moved things on a lot. I would support FA providing some remaining issues listed below are considered. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please rework anything minor errors that I have accidentally introduced, while I was aiming at fixing page structure and bigger issues. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have checked all your editions and fixed errors are you worked. I believe it is done.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pallidotomy (a destructive process) seems out of place in the middle of a section on brain stimulation. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope to work in it on Sunday.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Better sense is made out of the references that say or do not say how toxic some substances are or are not in causing PD. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand your comment.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of the pesticides and so on. One section says that all evidence is equivocal and then the next says a two fold increase in risk of PD. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Omission: Lead pipe rigidity (also listed above). Snowman (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Provisional impression (6): There has been an undertaking to fix remaining problems. I support FA status. Snowman (talk) (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC). See Provisional impression (7) below Snowman (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I too support promotion to FA. Here and there I think the prose style could be better; it sounds waffly and equivocating in areas that really aren't that hard to summarize well. I may have a few more suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With this edit I tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of Diagnosis. Comments are invited. To obtain clarity, it may sometimes be necessary to omit details, but they could be added lower down or in a subarticle if they are believed to be essential. Diagnosis is one of the sections I felt to be 'waffly'. Some of the details appear to be common sense observations that should not require spelling out to our readers. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. What do you think of my modification? I put a comment in the edit summary. Please re-word it as necessary. I like to team up with someone that can write good English when writing something complicated. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (7): I would support promoting article to FA providing the short list of issues above and a number higher up the page that I have marked "pending" are resolved (not many issues remaining). Snowman (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Today I did a 50km trekking and I am death-tired. If I have forces I will take a look tomorrow. If not I will try to finish everything on Monday.--Garrondo (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [63].

---

U2 3D

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured article because I feel as if it meets all the criteria, and has been thoroughly researched and edited. Its previous FAC failed due to needed copyediting; however, users from Guild of Copy Editors have worked on the article since then, as well as members of WikiProject U2 to ensure that this article is up to the needed standard for a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Restart, previous nom. I cannot make any sense of this FAC at all; nominators and reviewers, please do not strike commentary other than your own. Images cleared by Fasach Nua, sources and copyvio reviews still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation fixed (archive link added). –Dream out loud (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - TGabunia (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Taro-Gabunia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support (though it should be noted that I have made minor contributions to the article in the past). I've watched the article for several years, and it has only become better and better with each tweak that Dream out loud has tirelessly made. I can't see any criterion that it may fail, or be considered questionable against, and I have looked long and hard; through this FAC and the previous, A-class review, and the GAN. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Prose need work. From the first two paras of the lead:

3-D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006 - of performances of the rock band U2 during their 2006...

including tracks from the Vertigo Tour's supporting album - I thought tours support albums, not the other way around.

The film's concert footage also includes pol - remove 'also'

was the first ever live-action digital 3-D film - remove 'ever'

was created to experiment - yikes

film technology pioneered by film producer Steve Schklair. After considering filming American football games in 3-D, the company decided to create a concert fil - the word 'film' is used x 4 times

but eventually decided - rm eventually

seven concerts in various cities in Latin America, and two concerts in Australia. - and two in Australia

with up to eighteen 3-D cameras at once - simultaneous

I can see a lot of great effort has been put in, but it needs a little polish yet. Ceoil 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a few changes based on your suggestions, although there were a couple I didn't understand. I don't see what's wrong with "was created to experiment" (seems perfectly fine), as does the opening sentence. It seems as if you wanted me to reword it as U2 3D is a 2008 3-D concert film of performances of the rock band U2 during their Vertigo Tour in 2006. Saying its a "film of performances" makes it seem as if its a montage of random clips thrown together, which it isn't. I did edit the lead somewhat recently, as well as the box office info, but not many other changes have been made in the past several months since the Guild of Copy Editors worked on the article, so there shouldn't really be any other issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A visit by the Guild of Copy Editors, long ago, isn't a guarantee of anything. The prose are stiff and repetitive. I'm offering examples from the first two paras only, and from that think there is a long way to go yet. Ceoil 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit of the entire article. Hopefully, that should address some of your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Status, Dream out loud? This is stalled after a restart—I see some movement but not much. Still needs source review, spot-check for copyvio, etc. Has Ceoil been pinged to revisit comments? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've 'pinged' Ceoil (I like that word. 'Pinged'.), and Dream out loud left notices at WP:FILM and WP:ROCK asking for feedback. I will look around and try to find some editors experienced in source reviews and copyvio checks to see if they have the time to give the article a look over. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Brianboulton has agreed to do a source check when he has time in the next few days. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Doing it now Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: I am not particular familiar with media sources, but as far as I can see, most of these look good. Here are a few mainly formatting points I picked up.

• Ref 7: "ScribeMedia.org" is a web source, not a print medium, and should not be italicised. Same applies in ref 26 (RTE) and perhaps others - please check
• Ref 16: Why is JoBlo.com a high quality reliable source
• Ref 33: I was unable to reach this page - can someone else check it out?
• Ref 58: Who actually publishes this blog? I see National Geographic's name on it, but do they actually publish it? (also 67 et al)
• Ref 65: Copyright held by The Spokesman-Review; is this the same as "7"?

Not spotchecked yet. Will do so when the above issues are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I found one other apart from refs 7 and 26 that I fixed, but there may be more as I'm not too familiar with the article. For ref 33 do you mean that you can't access the webpage or you can't find the info? I can see it, but no page has it's own url. To get to the info you have to click 2) Fushion 3D at the bottom and scroll through the five pages presented. National Geographic is the publisher of the U2 3D blog in all of the refs.Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 16: I don't see why JoBlo.com is not a reliable source. It's a movie critic website that employs professional writers (as opposed to user contributors) and is run by the JoBlo Media company.
• Ref 33: Because it's a Flash website, it can't be sourced directly. Melicans explained above how to get to the information. This page lists all the text from the Flash site in a PHP file but it's pretty messy to read. That page could be sourced alternatively but I thought the site itself would be better.
• Ref 58, et al: This is published by National Geographic. It's a subdomain of U23Dmovie.com, which is published by National Geographic and appears in the site's search engine.[64]
• Ref 65: 7 is a webzine by The Spokesman-Review, which is published by the Cowles Publishing Company, therefore I listed that company as the publisher for the webzine as well.

Hope this clears up any concerns. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources concerns addresses, and spotchecks revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at the last FAC. A very good article. wackywace 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Now I see no issues-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

SupportLeaning support, mostly on prose and MoS issues, with a few comments:

• "the album in support of the tour" - isn't it the other way around?
• Citation needed tag needs to be dealt with
• Why "Jon and Peter Shapiro" but " David Modell and Jon Modell"?
• "The Modells' prior involvement with U2" - what prior involvement?
• "the film was edited incorporating dissolves of at least four frames between shots" - phrasing
• "the latter which said..." - grammar, and it's not entirely clear whether this refers to Spokesman's Review or Disney
• Was the version shown at Cannes 55 or 56 minutes?
• American or British English? You use both "favored" and "favourably"
• There's a bit of overlinking going on - common terms need not be linked, and terms should not be linked more than once or twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Most issues were addressed. The Modell's "prior involvement with U2" is mentioned in the next sentence if you keep reading. I couldn't find any common terms that were linked and didn't need to be, and all repeated links I found are in comply with WP:REPEATLINK. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to reword the "prior involvement" paragraph, as it's a bit hard to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read through the whole paragraph a few times and it seems pretty straightforward to me. Can you be more specific on what's "hard to follow" exactly? –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit of the opening sentence. Hopefully that resolves any confusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily because I still don't think the prose is up to the mark throughout:

• Copy-edit for repetitive word usage. I did a highlight-all for the word "film", and see that it's been used 19 times in the lead alone. After the lead, the word continues to be used once every sentence (on average).
• A number of sentences have excessive redundant wording and/or detail. Some examples, though this needs auditing throughout:

• "Ultimately, 14 songs were selected for the final cut, including one song shown during [for] the film's closing credits."
• "U2 toured Latin America on the fourth leg of the Vertigo Tour in February and March 2006, with eight shows in five cities, all of which would be shot for the film [were filmed], except the first show in Monterrey, Mexico."
• "Owens sought to have only [wanted] 14–15 songs out of 26 appear in the final cut, most of which would be considered [are] among U2's most popular songs tracks." (in fact, this and the first example sentence could be merged.)

• Watch out for overlinking—Buenos Aires (and other cities), religious symbols, closing credits, motion sickness, eye strain, cuts, shots, film screening—I see many of these are linked multiple times; I doubt even once is necessary for some. A lot of technical film-terms have been linked throughout; I wonder if these are useful, as most people are understand their basic concept (for eg: title sequence, distributor, computer-generated imagery).
• Excessive detail, especially in the Distribution section:

• Do "nine of the final film's 14 songs" all need to be named? Do the names of the software that "converted from 2-D to 3-D using several software programs" help the general reader? If anything, I believe these lists detract from the article, make for difficult reading.
• "Prior to the screening, U2 performed..." don't see what this sentence has to do with anything.

• The second paragraph of Screenings is excrutiangly dull, I don't see . Not every last bit of information about U2 3D's release needs to be included here. Almost every major film is shown at a number of Festivals and theatres; there is no reason each showing needs to be mentioned.
• "U2 3D achieved many "firsts" in cinema history"—haven't all (most of?) these firsts already been mentioned in the article? Why do we need to read about them again?

A good job has been done so far building a comprehensive, well-structured article. However, it has now gone too far to the other side, and seems excessively detailed to me. A big pair of scissors to the article's more trivial content and some copy-editing is what is needed.—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started working on addressing these concerns. The specific sentences you mentioned as needing copyedits have been addressed. I've gone through the entire article and probably halved the instances that the word "film" is used. I've cut down on overlinking as best as I could (before you posted your comments, I had eliminated repeat links). I've tried to remove more common terms, but I left a few of the links you had suggested, since they seem relevant (e.g. motion sickness, some technical terms). The sentence about them performing at Cannes is completely relevant, although the way it was phrased, it wasn't explicit the band were at Cannes for the screening to actually perform. The cinematic firsts have been taken out of the paragraph in the Legacy section about sprinkled throughout the article if they weren't previously already. There's still a few things to work on to address your remaining concerns, which I'll try to do in the next few days. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support great work. igordebraga ≠ 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Status in indopug's feedback? Where is the nominator on this? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of recent comments. I am doing a copyedit now based on above suggestions. I had a feeling for a while that there was too much detail in the article, but Indopug was the first to have made any mention of it, so I left everything in there until now. I will give a follow up comment later this evening following my edits. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker has done a great job addressing the above concerns. Like I said earlier, I had a feeling that I may have been too detailed with the article, but not until now (over 2 months into the 2nd FAC) has anyone made any mention of it. I removed a decent amount of information, cutting the article size by over 5kb. I read through it about four times tonight and I think I got rid of just about everything that may not be entirely relevant. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read the article again soon and strike my concerns.—indopug (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you start marking the issues you had with the article as addressed or still pending? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All of my specific comments have been addressed, but I haven't struck my oppose because I retain two general concerns—redundant prose (as my recent copy-editing should testify) and excessive details. Examples for the latter:

• Second para of Background—why the specifics about the giant LED display?
• Final para of Background—don't need four long sentences to, essentially, say "the filming was shifted to the outdoor stadiums of Latin America as U2 were certain that audiences there would respond far more enthusiastically". Bono's statements about Ireland and their absence from Latin America seem excessive. And pretentious.
• First para of Editing—three consecutive sentences mention "14 songs". Cut some detail and club it all into one sentence? Also, the bits about the film's opening and closing songs being selected so despite never actually doing so in concert isn't in the source cited. This makes the information kind of trivial...
• "110 microphones were used to record the concert audio, which included microphones placed on the main stage and around the two B-stages to record the band, and microphones placed throughout the venue to record the audience"—no idea how to improve it though.—indopug (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed these specific examples, but I don't think that the LED display paragraph needs to be cut down. There's not much detail about the LED display so much as its pertinent background information about the Modells' meeting and collaborating with the band and their creative partners, and how it led to everyone eventually agreeing to work on U2 3D. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting is making lots of improvements, so thanks to everyone who's helped out with that. I've read through it tons of times and done all the copyediting I can do, since it can be hard to improve upon your own writing. As far as the sentence about the microphones, I rewrote that tons of times before saving the article. I know it does sound a little wordy but I really couldn't figure out a better way to word it. It was originally two sentences but I merged it into one. Should it be cut back into two? I don't know. Other than that, I think all other issues have been addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to go off-wiki for a while, so I've struck my oppose. Although it's improved, I'm not supporting 'cause the prose and level of detail isn't perfect yet. If you could coax an independent copy-editor to look at this, then nothing like it. Final comments:

• "agreed to the project mainly as a technological experiment rather than a profit-making venture."—as somebody who's very sceptical of U2 and Bono's holier-than-thou antics, I'd be much more comfortable if this were a direct quote, in the article body at least, instead of being presented as fact ('cause, how could we possibly objectively know their real motives?).
• A few "the band"s could be changed to the more succinct "U2" to reduce repetition.
• The microphone sentence: yeah, fuck it.
• I think you missed my comment above about the opening and closing songs . . . Also the info is redundant to the setlist.

Thanks for the article, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it (even though I'm no U2 fan), and learnt a lot about the technical aspects of 3D film-making. Well done,—indopug (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I took care of replacing "the band" with "U2" - one of the simple things in the article that I never realized. As far as U2 making the film as an experiment rather than for profit, I don't exactly see how quoting the source directly would be different. Owens said in the interview "U2 is not doing this for profit reasons. They are completely doing this because they want to be on the forefront of what they think is the future of film technology." I know you are skeptical of U2 and their actions, but I don't think that warrants the need for a direct quote. Also, in response to mentioning the opening and closing songs - their purpose is not to show the reader what the opening and closing songs were (which would be redundant since it's listed in the "Synopsis" and "Setlist" sections already), but rather it is to show that the songs that open and close the film are not the same songs that opened and closed the actual concerts. It further shows how when choosing the songs, Owens decided to go with songs other than the actual set opener and closers. Otherwise I think everything has been addressed. Thank you again for your help and enjoy your break. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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