Wikipedia:Featured article candidates


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

  • Featured articles ←
  • Featured lists
  • Featured pictures
  • Featured sounds
  • Featured portals
  • Featured topics

Featured article tools:

  • Featured article criteria
  • Featured article candidates
  • Featured article review
  • Today's featured article
    • This month's queue
    • Main page requests
    • Today's featured article statistics
    • Most viewed today's featured articles
  • Featured article log
  • Featured article statistics
  • Former featured articles

Related pages:

  • Good articles
  • Good topics

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk and Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, is widely regarded as Brazil's greatest soldier. He fought in his country's independence war and several other international wars. He also quelled rebellions in the early reign of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. Not only that, he was a member of the Conservative Party, became senator for life and was prime minister in three different occasions.

As you can see, this is a man who did a lot in his lifetime. To bring so much information in one short, single place, Astynax and I had to do a lot of homework. It took almost six months to bring this article from this to its present form. As we usually do as a team, I wrote the article and Astynax copy edited it. Not content enough, we asked Clarityfiend (from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to improve whatever was necessary on grammar, prose, or anything related to it. Fifelfoo was also kind enough to check all sources on the peer review we requested. Having said all this, we believe the article is good enough to be ranked among other Featured Articles.

The ones who had a chance to take a look at both Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil will certainly feel at home here. Have a good reading. Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now ready. Since it gained GA status and it's last FA nomination, it has been expanded, peer reviewed and copyedited. It now has a fairly compelete overview of the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hip-hop dance

Nominator(s): Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it gives a thorough overview of an urban dance style that has had a big commercial impact not just in the U.S. but also on an international level. I'm actually surprised at myself for nominating this article for FA because when I first started editing it, that was not my intention. At the time I began I just wanted it to be accurate. Last year, an editor translated the article to Portugese and it received FA status on the Portugese language Wikipedia. Earlier this year a large portion of it was reprinted in a book and the publishers correctly attributed Wikipedia for it (see talk page). Last month I found another book that copied a small portion of the article almost verbatim without mentioning Wikipedia or creative commons at all. I do feel this article meets the criteria and for this reason added to the Portugese FA and the two publications (the second book being the catalyst), I felt it was time to take this article to FAC. I do not think any details have been left out but please note that this article has been split twice into History of hip-hop dance and Hip-hop theater. As a reviewer if you feel the article is lacking in either area be advised these topics needed to be split off in order to keep the Hip-hop dance article from becoming too big. // Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tetrabiblos

Nominator(s): -- Zac Δ talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because it provides a comprehensive and well-researched report of a famous book by a notable name in the history of science. The book has held a position of great influence historically and although its subject matter is quite complex, it continues to be of interest to many scholars. Astrologers still refer to it, and historians of the classical culture need to be aware of its arguments, the extent of its impact, and the principles that extended into the other 'liberal sciences' of that era. The creation of this article ranked high on the ‘to-do’ list of a number of wiki:projects for several years, but it wasn’t created until September this year. It has had a lot of time and effort invested into it over the last 3 months to ensure it is clear, comprehensive and based on the best available sources. I believe it now meets the criteria necessary to achieve FA status. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

Nominator(s): Jivesh 1205 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, two failed FACs, and one copy-edit by by an experienced copy-editor. Most importantly, "Single Ladies" documents one of the most culturally significant pop songs of the decade... Many people around the world know this song for its catchy hook and its viral dance video. The fact that it is still in the top 400 of US iTunes nearly four years after its release in late 2008, further supports what I mentioned. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. You help and suggestions are most welcome. With that being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh 1205 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)\

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

  • "All the singing ladies, all the singing fellas [...]" - don't need that ellipsis
done I have removed it. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 4: do you have an album ID or catalog number?
Well, i cannot understand why you are asking me about this? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Album numbers are a good thing to include where possible as they make the source easier to locate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not have a physical copy. Can i ask someone else or it is necessary that i own one? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to ask someone else. You might also be able to find that info online. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is 0088697417352. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
May I remove all the locations? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
done I have removed all the locations to maintain consistency. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspaper, and if so how these are notated. Compare for example FNs 31 and 33
Well, this is difficult to do. Simply because it depends on whether I use cite web or cite news. The Times is a magazine, which means I should use cite web while The Guardian is a daily newspaper, which implies i have to use cite news. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
done I have removed the locations and checked for correct usage of cite news and cite web. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Times is a UK newspaper; it publishes magazines and supplements. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
True. I have fixed that. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Can you please exemplified this? I actually did not understand. Thanks. Jivesh 1205 (talk)) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the FN. This has over 200 references. Actually, the website is down temporarily. I started feeling dizzy searching for it. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Need a bit more. What are the author's qualifications, and what is the magazine's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Nikki, what exactly do i need to provide? Things like where the author has worked before? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
These are all i could find. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this reference along with its associated prose. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Comic Book Resources has been described as "the premiere comics-related site on the Web" by by the University of Buffalo's research library. It is also the favored research and news site on comics and graphic novels by American Libraries and Universities. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced this. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 44: this doesn't match the formatting used for earlier Billboard refs
I replaced cite news with cite web. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check wikilinking for consistency
done Jivesh 1205 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid using leading zeroes (ex. FN 85)
Good? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you format TV episodes
Please explain further. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. You have two citations to TV shows: one with season/episode at the beginning, one with it at the end. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please provide me with the FNs. Please. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently FNs 126 and 168. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please check now. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Publisher listed for this source seems to be incorrect.
done I have replaced this. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Greetings Sandy. I will change my signature temporarily. By the way, the sources i have defended above were already defended in the first and second FAC. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

With all respect i owe to you, did you read that paragraph and did you know what happened at the VMAs in 2009? Do you know about the coverage it received?
I don't see why i should avoid "avoid single-paragraph sub-sections"? Do you think it is better to present a whole lot of information under a same section? Our aim on Wikipedia is to facilitate reading. That is why we have sub-sections.
And it is better to list the countries that way. Do you realize saying many countries will be confusing? What if people start thinking that the song made the top 10 in Europe when that's not the case? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are not very active from what i see. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you write "very, very tangentially related to this song"? Well, let me explain now:

  • While Taylor Swift was making her acceptance speech for winning Best Female Video for "You Belong with Me", Kanye West got onto the stage and interrupted her; he took her microphone, saying: "Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!", referring to the music video of "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Angered, he flipped off the crowd. His behavior was not appreciated at all. Celebrities, bloggers, newspapers, and even U.S. President Barack Obama complained. This whole situation, which has a direction connection with "Single Ladies", was termed as Kanyegate. You can go on Google any type Kanyegate and see the number of articles that will appear. All of them will mention "Single Ladies". Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — I read the article a few times and really impressed me with all that information that it possesses. From the concept, recording and release to the composition, critical section and etc. I also had a look at the references, but as I seem there is also not a problem with them. The only thing that I found slightly disturbing is the repeating of "Single Ladies" in the lead. Instead it could be use, the song, the single or eventually it. All in all the prose is good. — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I will address your concerns shortly. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please check. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
All in all good, but you could also change this:
  • As of November 2009, "Single Ladies" had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. → As of November 2009, it had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, i think it should remain as such because i previously mentioned "Single Ladies" as The song and then listed a number of countries, followed by the use of a connective and. So, just to avoid confusion, it better remain like that. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it's obvious that you are talking about "Single Ladies", but nevertheless ... my support still remains — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark Satin

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this biography for featured article status because I believe it now, finally and truly, meets all the FA criteria (it recently received "B-class" ratings from the Biography and Journalism projects). I first nominated it for FA status three months ago (August 11), and after some initial resistance on my part, learned to take advantage of some wonderfully detailed critiques. Last month I put it through a productive peer review, and have spent much of my spare time since then getting it ready for this moment, as you'll see if you click on its "History" page.

One reason I've stuck with it is I feel it covers underreported ground. Its subject played major roles in three noteworthy but unconventionaal political movements over five decades: Vietnam War draft dodging in the 1960s, New Age politics in the 1970s–80s, and radical centrism in the 1990s–2000s.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

So, enjoy. - Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nice work since last time! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and for these very useful comments! - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspaper sources
Done: Because you want me, as indicated below, to use the formal name for The New York Times (i.e., to insert the "The"), I decided to use the formal name for all 13 newspapers I've referenced. That left four without locations in their titles, and for those I placed the nane of the relevant city or region in parenthesis immediately after the papers' names every time I mentioned them in the "References" section - thus Daily Herald (suburban Chicago), The Globe and Mail (Toronto), National Post (Toronto), and The Province (Vancouver).
In order to be more thoroughly consistent, I then made sure I was using the formal names for all magazines and organizations as well. I had to change a couple - e.g., The Washington Monthly, not Washington Monthly. I saw no need to identify the home offices of of the magazines or organizations, though. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 12: is this the correct formatting wrt publisher?
Done: Your suspicion was well-founded, the APSA puts a colon after the PS (on the copyright page and on its website). So I changed it accordingly. APSA does not use a colon in the cover design, and the title of Wikipedia's page on the magazine does not use a colon either, though the first sentence of Wikipedia's article does include the colon. APSA does use the ampersand. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 37: can you explain how this source is compliant with WP:SCHOLARSHIP, specifically the point about theses?
Done: Roth's master's thesis on the draft dodgers is so good - so much better researched and less ego-driven than most of the books I've read on the subject - that after a while I stopped thinking of it as a thesis, ansd stopped thinking about MOS. Sorry!
I have now removed six of the seven references to Roth (and substituted other sources or material where necessary). The last reference, at the end of the Manual sub-section, simply uses Roth as an example of contemporary graduate-student interest in the Manual, so I assume he can remain there. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The New York Times, not New York Times
Done: Have now changed this every time it's come up in the text and references. Plus, this comment led to a substantial change in how I've cited newspapers and other periodicals; see first point above. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 67 and similar: not sure the "newspaper (Canada)" is needed
Re: "newspaper". Done: In my "References" section, I stated whether periodicals were newspapers, magazines, or journals whenever it was not obvious from the information given. Your comment plus my gradual immersion in Wikipediana makes me realize this is unneccesary (and in some close cases probably POV). So I have eliminated all 22 instances of this, including the one you cite. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: "(Canada)". Done: This is embarrassing: Thanks to your comment, I see that I tried to identify countries for all publications from outside the U.S. And I like to think of myself as a global citizen! Sad. I have now eliminated all country references. (Anyway, nearly all the publications and publishers I cite have Wikipedia pages.) - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 77: page(s)?
Done: My error. I added pages (actually, chapter numbers) to Ferguson, and did another page check for all my references. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 80 and others: use dashes for page ranges
Done: Thanks. I re-checked every dash, and found two more hyphens ... they're dashes now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 90 and similar: should note language rather than country
Done: There were two instances of this. I took out the countries and added the words, "____ language publication." - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how magazine issues covering multiple months are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Done: I decided on closed en-dashes, and made sure they're between all months (and seasons) now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your great help. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Babel, avoid {{done}} and other templates on a FAC page. It slows down the loading time when all the FACs are pulled up on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed tick marks, pls see WP:FAC instructions, and pls thread responses correctly to minimize size of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, SandyGeorgia and Dank. I have cut back the threads and bolded the Dones. - Babel41 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've copyedited this a couple of times. It's different, but all good biographies are different, and they're a welcome addition at FAC, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona (BB-39)

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

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

  • Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
    • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
      • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
        • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now? [Sturmvogel 66]
            • Better, though I don't think that the date Arizona became a state is needed - this adds some scope for confusion for no benefit. Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) should be linked, and the years seem unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Agreed and I forgot to link Greco-Turkish War earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
      • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
        • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not as sanguine about the state of historical knowledge among the general populace as you seem to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
      • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it. [Sturmvogel 66]
        • Done.
    • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
      • Reworded.
    • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
      • Reworded.
    • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
      • Deleted, TMI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
      • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
        • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
      • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
        • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
      • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
        • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
    • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
      • Idle when anchored, mostly. How would you suggest rewording that bit? [Sturmvogel 66]
        • Replace "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona's service was filled with training and idleness" with something like "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona only put to sea for routine training exercises". Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
      • True, the offending bit has been excised.
    • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
      • How does it read now?
        • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Supplies of fuel were not limited, per se, only the money to purchase them. I suspect that the normal cruising to anchored ratio before the Depression was on the order of 1:1, but these numbers show 1:2. Unfortunately, there's no handy tally anywhere to make the comparison with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
      • Agreed, let me find a source as to why.
        • Samuel Morison's official history would be a great source. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Found one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
      • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
        • A straightforward account of the damage would also act to debunk the mistaken accounts and would be much easier to read. You could add a footnote discussing the confusion over the reports if this is notable enough to cover as it's not really necessary in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Done, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
      • I've deleted the Japanese bit as unimportant, but I've reworked the awards and recognition section a bit. How does it read now?
        • Looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
      • Probably just the latter, but I'm just repeating the verbiage from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Deleted.
      • Thanks for taking the time to enumerate these issues. I agree that it was a bit rushed and I'll start addressing them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

    • It's sourced already.
  • Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
    • Done.
  • Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
    • I think that this has been cleared up.
  • No citations to Hone or Jones
    • Moved.
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
    • There is no requirement that an article have one or the other. However, in this article, there's an issue with periods versus commas in citations, and I will address that next time I am at a computer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 27: linking
    • Done.
  • FN 23: italicization
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
    • Not sure what you're referring to here. If it's USS, we're replicating the usage in the source documents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 58: formatting, missing date
    • Not sure what you're referring to here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
    • Done.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
  • Further reading should use same formatting as References
    • Done.
  • Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
    • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
      • See next reply. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
    • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
      • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
    • Yes, evolution.
      • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I've done so much work on it in the past 4 months to make sure it meets the criteria this time-SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The toolbox gives the wrong edit count; this is the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • FN 7: can this be split? That's a huge page range for verification pursposes
    • It's all for the system requirements
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This?
    • They're notable-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I've never heard of any of them, and I spend even more time with video games than I do with Wikipedia (as if that were possible). That however, is a poor argument. A stronger argument is that none of those sites are built into the video game reviews template, and none have their own articles. It shouldn't be hard to find replacements from more notable sites, considering that this game was heavily, heavily covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, even if they are notable that doesn't matter - notability does not equal reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Firing squad is a gaming site started by Dennis Fong. A rationale for its reliability is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness in the collapsed section titled "Issues resolved, Ealdgyth".
          The VG project considers Square Enix Music Online is a situational source, in that only content posted by the site's staff is considered reliable. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII/archive2. I'd say that the reliability here depends on what the source is being used for.
          I wouldn't consider the others reliable, and also recommend that replacement sources be found or the content removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
  • FN 23: formatting
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • BethBlog or Beth Blog? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Done, it was actually Bethesda Blog-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image review - Nothing has changed since my last image review, so this is still good.
  • Comments A few things I'd change:
    • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, with the remainder termed minor." - this statement, while correct as is, should specify that there is a difference between major and minor skills, or failing that, be removed from the lead. Consider "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." or something else along those lines.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "praised for its impressive graphics at the time" in the lead - I would consider removing "at the time", as it's automatically implied. We don't dis on Halo 1 because Halo 3 had better graphics.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Jauffre tells the player that the only way to close the gates permanently is to find someone of the royal bloodline to retake the throne and relight the Dragonfires in the Imperial City." - it needs to me mentioned that the Amulet of Kings is used to light the Dragonfires, thus implicitly informing readers unfamiliar with the game that the amulet is more than a MacGuffin.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Same section (generally) as the above quote, consider mentioning that Jauffre is the grand master of the Blades.
      • DoneSCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Oblivion features dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, and sunny and overcast skies, along with the darkening red sky near Oblivion portals." - the second half of the quote, after 'skies' is awkward, mostly because the way it is worded, it assumes that people would have already know about that feature.
      • Removed-SCB '92 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Wherever this was not possible, the screen displays a message stating "You cannot go that way, turn back". However, the team still built in viewable landscape several miles in." - the second half of the quote, starting with 'However' is awkwardly worded. Consider replacing "in" with "past the point in which the character can no longer proceed", or something less wordy than that but which conveys the same information.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Soule had worked with Bethesda and Todd Howard back during the creation of Morrowind,..." - this sounds unprofessional. Consider removing the word "back"; I think that's all that's needed as the article has previously established that Morrowind came right before this game in the TES chronology.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "he soundtrack was generally positively received, with GSoundtracks awarding it 4/5 stars, calling it a "conventional but atmospheric fantasy score",[64] and Square Enix Music a 6/10, criticizing its "monotonous action tracks"." - Here we have a positive review and a mediocre review connected by an 'and'. I don't feel that structure works well. Consider using a 'however' or 'but' type connector (which will necessitate a bit of tweaking to at least the second sentence.
      • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Most of the stuff in the "Further Reading" is either a) already entirely covered by the article, b) rendered incorrect by the article, or c) a boring stub written by someone know one's ever heard of about something no one really cares about. My recommendations: remove the 3rd, 7th, and 8th items on the list. The third is behind a freewall, and isn't worth getting an account for, and the 7th and 8th are kinda useless. Also, consider axing the whole section.
      • And done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's it. In the future, please remember that the audience hasn't necessarily played the game you're writing about, you can't make leaps of inferrance that assume that they know the game. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Media comments: I think these issues need addressing

  • 5 non-free media is a lot to me (File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg seems like it offers least to the article).
    • removed-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use.
    • done-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • By resize, I meant reduce the size of the uploaded files, rather than the displayed size in the article (Personally, I rarely adjust the size in articles because the default works best). I think 460×345 is a little too big for fair use. If you don't have the software to do this, you can tag the image with {{Non-free reduce|type=screen}} for a bot to take care of it in a week or so. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
        • (edit conflict) Put them back to the size they were before please. There are numerous reasons to have them in the standard thumbnail size (primarily because at the smaller size, you can see so little that the images are essentially useless). If you happen to be talking about the dimensions of the images themselves, as the person that did the resizings, I can tell you that they are the right size; they're under the limit by 43,100 pixels. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Undone; so I guess guyinblack's comment "I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use" is contradicted by Sven Manguard?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, we are in disagreement over the dimensions of the file. But in agreement on the display size within the article.
              The general limit I'm assuming is .1 megapixel, which is 100,000 pixels. But 460×345 is over that by 58,700 pixels. Both can be reduced further without significant loss of quality and identification. The image with the menu has a stronger argument for a larger size because of the text, but even then the text can be listed in the description of the file page like File:MarbleMadness-diagrams.jpg. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
              • The limit is 160,000 pixels, what you would get if you had a 400x400 square image. It's done by pixels, however, because as this image illustrates, not all files are square. If you don't believe me, use the reduce template. DASHBot will remove the template without resizing the image, because it's already of an appropriate size, (i.e. under 160,000 pixels.
                • Then we have conflicting information. I get mine from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image resolution. Where did you get yours from?
                  Also, DASHBot was approved for smaller resizing. I'm not sure when or why that has changed? (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
                  • I'm not sure when it was changed, or where, but I've been doing file work on a nearly daily basis, and in that year it's always been 160,000 pixels. The 160,000 pixel guideline is the one stated at at the top of the resize category, and is the number that the manual tool used before DASHBot came into service. I've done hundreds of resizes, on one's ever brought up 400x400 as being too large. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
                    • Given the circumstances, I won't pursue this further. I still recommend reduction though. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
  • File:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg needs an updated description to reflect the resize. Sven Manguard Wha?
    • done (I think)-SCB '92 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Reign of the Septims.ogg is a 30 second sample of a two minute song. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, the sample should be 10% of the length with a maximum of 30 seconds. So this one should be around 11 seconds. The FUR is very sparse for FA too.
    • Um... I do not... really know... what/how to do...-SCB '92 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Typically, the file needs to be shortened in a audio/video program. If you don't have access to this or know another editor that does, you can tag the file with {{Non-free reduce|type=audio}} and someone (or a bot) will come along to take care of it. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
        • (edit conflict) Yes, that is in fact what the MoS says, however this is a textbook case of 'when to throw the MoS out the window'. A 10 second sample is useless, and there is no good reason to cling to the 10% rule when it makes the file so short as to remove any value from it. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • DAHSBot cannot resize non-image files. There are only a small number of people that handle the sound file reductions, and I happen to be one of them, however for the reasons I discussed above, I don't intend on doing it for this case. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • So what should be done then? leave it as it is or remove the audio sample altogether?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I recommend shortening the file or removal, but Sven and I are still discussing how guidelines apply.
                File:Kingdom Hearts - Dearly Beloved.ogg is 7 seconds and gets the job done. I think the portion from 14 to 25 seconds is a good sample (a sample by definition provides a limited amount). Applying guidelines stringently is part of the FAC process to identify Wikipedia's best. Unfortunately, it is especially difficult when dealing with non-free media. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
                • I certainly would be opposed to removal. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples wasn't written by file workers or NFCC experts, as far as I can tell. It's an irrational restriction, one that's not used by any other website (iTunes has a 1:30 second preview for a 4:00 song, and I've never seen a preview less than 30 seconds). Ultimately, the 10% restriction, which is in a guideline, is more restrictive than the NFCC, which is policy. In cases where guidelines hamper the encyclopedia, IAR comes in. I feel that this is one such case. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • What iTunes does with its previews is between itself and the copyright owners of the music. The site is trying to sell music, while Wikipedia is trying to educate via a free encyclopedia. To that end, Wikipedia needs to be restrictive in its use of non-free content.
                    To try to move this forward, what do you believe is gained from the 30 sec clip as opposed to the 11 sec one I suggested, and how does that benefit the reader? (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
                    • I suppose then that it's a matter of opinion. I don't think you can get an understanding of a piece of music in ten seconds. You have the MoS on your side. I tend to view the MoS's section on files (which is outdated and was not written by people who actually work in files) as good for little more than kindling, and have already invoked IAR in this case. There is no way to proceed unless one of us drops the issue, an RfC is held, or an FA delegate make a decision him or herself tell us to cut it out. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
                      • Sven- Having worked in files myself, I have to say that the MOS is not impossible to work within. The key to working within the guideline is picking media that offers the most bang for the buck. Unfortunately, most media upload for video game articles is rather old was probably selected arbitrarily.
                        That being said, it might be worth switching out the current file with something that is selected to provide the most information, rather than working with something that is not the most representative piece. Otherwise, a rationale should be provided as to why a 30 second sample is needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
  • Not a deal breaker, but using {{Non-free use rationale}} would nice. It's more professional looking than a simple bulleted list.

(Guyinblack25 talk 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

No offense, but I've already done a media review for this article, twice actually. I've never seen an article get two media reviews in one nomination before. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I know. But the prose and citations get multiple reviews from different editors, why not media? The large number of non-free media made me take a closer look. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
Five is nothing compared to some of the things I've seen. We have a few articles with non-free images in the triple digits. Yes, it's sad, but true. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaning toward support—I reviewed this article during the PR and I believe that most of my concerns were addressed. It seems to be in good shape overall, and it stands up fairly well to a direct comparison with the The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind article. However, there are a few elements of the latter that should perhaps be covered in the former. For example, the Morrowind article describes how skills are improved, whereas Oblivion does not. The primary editor may want to compare the two and see how the Oblivion article may be improved. Otherwise, I think this article is FA worthy. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the GameBanshee and GamesFirst articles are transcripts of an interview; I think I saw somewhere in Wikipedia (might be a GAR) where a YouTube video (unreliable source) was used as a reference and it was okay because it was a recording of an interview-SCB '92 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Article is pretty good, but I have a gripe with the reviews box in the Reception section. I assume someone mentioned this before in a previous nomination. It's a really big box. I support the usage of the template when used sparingly, when scores are only included when mentioned in the text, etc. but this box is really wide. For people with smaller screens than your typical 21", it's gonna take up half the article width (which it does for me; even though I have a large screen, I shrink the article width to a readable size). I assume that the three system scores for GameSpot are on one line so that the box isn't too long, but if the Awards were removed, then it would be a more manageable size. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • So just to be clear, do you want the reviews box changed to a different template, eg the VG Reviews one?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't remove the awards, all of the award winning articles I've seen have had the lists of awards. You can, however, add the collapse functionality (where the word "[hide]" appears) to the template, which I see as a good compromise between retaining the information and making the article as readable as possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • SCB- switching to {{Video game reviews}} would provide the hide function that Sven is talking about. (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
          • done-SCB '92 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, looks much better, in both small- and large-width browsers. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw GameBanshee being used twice as a reference in the BioShock article, which is an FA; why shouldn't this article use it as a reference?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the best argument to use a reference. Standards were different, doesn't look like much of a source check was done, etc. The interview does look really useful, though. And if it's owned by UGO, then that's a plus... Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
So do you think GameBanshee should be kept as a source, along with GamesFirst, as the articles are exclusive interviews with Bethesda Softworks' producer Gavin Carter; and also, do you currently support or oppose the article to become an FA-SCB '92 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable source to use, I guess, but WP:RS is not really my field, especially here at FAC. And you can't really pressure me to vote one way or the other; I'll do so if and when I do a thorough review. Others will do so when they feel like they're satisfied with their assessment of the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: So I think the references to GameBanshee, Game Chronicles and GamesFirst should stay because they are exclusive interviews with Gavin Carter; there's an argument about the audio sample—though I think it's easier to remove it altogether—and there's also an argument about the size of the uploaded images; I'm also trying to find a source to replace TweakGuides.com-SCB '92 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't really need to post updates, although I don't see how it could hurt either. As for the images and the sound, at this point, you don't have to do anything. On your end, all the files are fine, and it won't effect this article's passing or not passing. When Guyinblack25 and I settle our disagreement, any changes that would me made would be made directly to the file(s), and wouldn't involve editing the article itself. Don't lose sleep over this, and don't let this distract you from any other concerns that might get raised. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that; I'm just wondering where to go from here, as I have basically addressed all of the issues discussed so far; I'm just waiting for more comments for suggestions to improve this article further, if needed, otherwise a consensus in its current state-SCB '92 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Sven, I'm sorry but that is not the case. FAC is a package deal that covers the files used in the article (criteria 3 at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). Nominators must be prepared to address concerns brought up either by defending the decision, correcting it themselves, or getting someone else to correct it.
While there are plenty of other articles with more than 5 non-free media, four such files in a video game article at FAC is beyond the norm and sufficient reason should be given for inclusion. I hate to be the bad guy here, but something needs to be done to address my media concerns. Otherwise, I will have little choice but to oppose the article. Whether my concern has any merit will then be up to FAC delegate.
That being said, I will help with shortening the audio file if that is the route you want to take. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Walking Liberty half dollar

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

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

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

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

Support: More comments:

  • In "Background and inception", you start of two consecutive sentences with "The Barber coinage..." Maybe the second could be "The coins..."
  • ...and that's the only flaw I could find. Great article! I've enjoyed this recoinage series. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, one more: do you think linking to Palladium coin might be useful in the last section? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch! I had no idea there was such a link. I will make the changes shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Those are done. Thanks for the praise btw. It's been a fun series.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Comments

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

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

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

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

  • Support - I have reviewed this article twice prior and feel that it meets all the criteria. Dough4872 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • I cannot convince FN 3 to load on my computer - can you confirm that it works on yours, and if it is a multi-page source (I can't tell) can you specify page number?
  • FN 69: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • FN 3 is multi-page and fixed. FN 69 is the the item I mentioned in my PS to the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979  03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose' see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through WP:USRD's A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them.  V 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --Rschen7754 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I recently reviewed the article at an A-class review and I am satisfied that it meets FA criteria. Royalbroil 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • Comment from the nominator: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) is working on copy editing the article for me. I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days. Imzadi 1979  02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oswald Watt

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

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

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

  • Be consistent in whether Cutlack short citations have a direct link to the source
  • FN 32: check title
  • What is ACT? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All actioned, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I've made these changes to the article (most very minor) and I think that it fully meets the FA criteria. I didn't think that it would be possible to get this article across the FA line when it was up for an A class review, but Ian clearly has done so - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • "grazier" isn't the most common word in AmEng; could you say something like "before raising cattle" instead? I don't like to force people to click in the very first paragraph (or worse, not click and get the sense that the article is over their head). - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I always thought "grazier" was reasonably intuitive since it suggests "grazing", which is a common enough term. "Raising cattle" sounds (to me) a bit more hands-on than I suspect he was. The alternative that comes to mind, if you really feel it's a prob, is changing "setting up as a grazier" to "purchasing cattle stations" -- it also includes a link but might be still more intuitive for those poor uneducated AmEng speakers... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer that, yes. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, done -- I'll leave "grazier" to the infobox and main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

M-185 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC); Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Jesus Christ, its been two years since I've been here, when Tropical Storm Marco (1990) was promoted, and I've been drooling for a while to get back to FAC, but have had nothing to nominate. Finally, after persistent nagging of Imzadi, and me having taken a weekend vacation in Bennington, Vermont, I'm finally back. This article was a work in progress in 2008, that sort of died out, became active again in 2010, and finally now in 2011 is up for FAC. M-185 is my first time nominating a non-northeastern roadway for featured article status, considering all my other nominees have been in New York (or one in Rhode Island that ultimately failed.) Because my college schedule this week, after taking Thursday off, will be nuts, I'll try my best to get most of the stuff listed. Great to be back though. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
  • FN 5: retrieval date?
  • FN 13: "pp. 28M+"?
  • FN 25, 26: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All fixed except the last two bullet points: that article from The Detroit News spans several pages (28M, 30M and 31M), and the archive database does not indicate which of those three pages in the print edition contains the specific information. As for the other two footnotes, my copies of the articles lack page numbers; MDOT used to assemble a newsletter called Who's Talking about Michigan Transportation that includes photocopies of newspaper and magazine articles, usually without page citations. Until such time as a library that contains copies of the papers replies, I can't supply any page numbers for them. Imzadi 1979  06:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I anticipate supporting; I reviewed this article for ACR back in 2008. It's been 3 years though, so I'll probably take another look before making it official. --Rschen7754 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I have looked over this article and offered suggestions for improvement beforehand, therefore I feel it meets the criteria. Dough4872 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose' see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1#Coordinates discussion --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with a minor change. The article is well written and is consistent with my recent trip/trek on about 2 miles of the highway.
    • "Independence Day weekend in 1986" - People outside the US may not know the date. Either link to the article or even better explain the date as July 4 or early July. Royalbroil 13:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • All done. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and one comment to help the rest of the world, including us poor Brits, could you please link or gloss short ton and long ton. We only have one kind of ton, and the rest of the world doesn't have any Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Basic information seems to be missing from the lead; there is no clear indication given of where Mackinac Island is, what lake or sea it's in, what mainland town or city it's near, etc The map is unhelpful as it carries no indications of geographical location and could be of anywhere. I see a reference in the lead to the Lake Huron shoreline, but that's not enough. Please remember that most of your readers won't know where the Straits of Mackinack are, and they should not have to use links to other articles to find out. Links should be for pursuing additional detail, not for finding out basic facts. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from a co-nominator: I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days, however Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) should be able to deal with anything related to the article in my absence. Imzadi 1979  02:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Rehab (Rihanna song)

Nominator(s): — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I really think that the article is close to the FA criteria. This is the third nomination of "Rehab" and I really that it really progressed since it was nominated for first time. During its history, it got a number of copy-edits and also one major peer review that lasted for nearly two months. I plead all the users that Oppose, to put the comments on this page. Thanks — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS Check by Wikipedian Penguin

  • Pictures need alt text.
  • Ellipses are not used in the beginning of quoations.
  • With respect, reviewer, where does the MOS say that? WP:ELLIPSIS - "Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation,... " Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello, Baffle gab1978. I respect you in the sense that you are a fantastic copy editor. However, ellipses are never used in the beginning and end of quotations unless the reader may mistaken it for a complete sentence and meaning is lost. It is not needed here as the quotes are integrated into the prose. "Over the couse", I assume, would mean within the quoted text, not outside of it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, WP. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Spaces between dates and ellipses need non-breaking spaces.
  • Image size should not be forced unless there are exceptions.
  • Check for WP:OVERLINK. Articles should not be linked more than once in the body of an article.
  • Check again. For example, Good Girl Gone Bad Tour is linked 2x. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Album notes citations need page numbers.
  • Not covered by MoS, but check for colons vs. commas when following words such as "said" and "wrote".
  • When you say "This guy wrote:", you are better off using a comma (,) instead of a colon (:). So instead, "This guy wrote,". Same for "this guy said". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation inconsistencies remain, such as usage of parentheses. Some EW refs have Time Inc in brackets, whereas others do not. Same with Billboard references.
  • Why do the Year-end charts follow a different format in terms of chart names than the weekly charts?
  • Trim down the usage of quotes.
  • Removed some sentences as a result of death sources... What do you think now?
  • I still think the article is a bit dense on quotes. Try shortening and re-wording some of the longer full-sentence quotes, maybe? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Baffle gab trimmed a lot of quotes in the article for me. I really think that looks good now:). — Tomica1111Question Existing? 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Actually by accompanying I mean, she was with Timbaland while he was a special guest on Timberlake's tour. So three of them were on his tour together. But I don't know how to re-word it. Rihanna also said similarly in the source interview. However, I changed the other sentences. — Tomica1111Question Existing? 09:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Penguin, I agree with most of your points, but alt text is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about supporting. But there are still some prose issues that confuse me, such as "Rihanna responds with the ad-libbed the song's hook" and "The video premiered worldwide on MTV on November 17, 2008", where your use of "on" is repetitive. Remember, the prose must be engaging and professional. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on compliance with style guidelines, images, references, content and prose. However, I would still like to see what other reviwers think. Good work! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Quick comments
  • Ellipses can be found here and there, and at the start of a one-word quotation. This was not introduced since the last FAC and I suggest massive fixes. --Efe (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • MOS issues with quotations, as pointed out by Penguin and Efe above
  • Title given for FN 1 doesn't match that of the source
  • Check for typos in refs, for example in the author name for FN 1
  • Be consistent in how magazine publishers are notated
  • What are Quentin Huff's qualifications as a music reviewer?
  • I really think that Huff is a qualificated reviewer because he is present on lot of Good and other articles on Wikipedia.— Tomica1111Question Existing? 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you point to an FAC or RSN discussion about him? WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a good argument in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of your archive links, for example this one, return errors
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking
  • Your options are: link terms on every occurrence in footnotes; link terms on first occurrence in footnotes; don't link terms in footnotes. For each potentially linked term, you must apply one of these options, and do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This doesn't appear to be the right link for FN 31

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


  • Support - Though not one of my favorite songs from Rihanna, I feel as though the article is very well-written and comprehensible. Well done you guys :-), Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - the inaccessible reference urls I noted here are now repaired. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Production and recording is still lacking for me, and seems padded with quotations in the second paragraph that add nothing to what actually went on in the studio.
  • Prose remains choppy in ares: "After performing a show in Chicago, Rihanna and Timberlake went to a studio to collaborate. They later went to New York City... where he began writing a song for her.." Well, what was the result of their first session, after the show in Chicago? If nothing notable came out of it, why is it mention here? And, the song that he began writing for her in New York, was it this one? or was it another song?
  • "Timbaland and Timberlake worked together on the latter's album FutureSex/LoveSounds in 2006;" What's the notability of this point? Why not just give it a cursory mention, as in "Timberland also recruited the help of American pop singer and musician Justin Timberlake, with whom he had previous collaborated." Here, the last clause of the sentence serves as just a "fyi". Also, Timberlake and Timbaland have worked on many other songs since his album, so don't limit their work to Timberlake's album.
  • "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from the low note of F3 to B4"-- F3 isn't low, by many people's standards. I'd suggest saying "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from F3 to B4".
  • "Rihanna told Entertainment Weekly's Margeaux Watson: "'Rehab' is a metaphorical song. Rehab really..." Paragraphs need a topic sentence. But beyond that, please introduce your quotations properly. At least try and hint to the reader what to expect from the quotation, or what the quotation is trying to support-- "In an interview with EW, Rihanna explained the meaning behind the lyrics of the songs: 'Rehab' is a metaphorical song ...'."
  • This is more of a personal thing, and I haven't yet consulted the relevant Wikiproject. But why has the section "Live Performances" become such a staple in these articles? What makes some performances more notable than others? And if none is more notable, then are you going to include every single live performance of the song she has ever done? And if she performed it tomorrow, would you add it to this article too? And, as expected, this section is the lengthiest.
  • Well I think that the performances were notable and critics noted and commented it. I don't see nothing bad in having a good big live performances section.— Tomica1111Question Existing? 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ""Rehab" received both positive and negative reviews from music critics." Doesn't make sense. Almost all releases have received both positive and negative reviews. Your job is to weigh them and say if they were generally positive, generally mixed, or generally negative.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the article. But in all good conscience, I cannot support. Not yet. Orane (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Rehab_(Rihanna_song)#Production_and_recording. Orane (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seen, responded and copied the paragraph in the article. What you did was really marvelous. I also made some c/e. Thank You... logically comes the question ... Are you satisfied how the article looks now? — Tomica1111Question Existing? 12:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Warkworth Castle

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

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

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

  • Further reading and Bibliography formatting should be the same
  • Probably worth noting that ODNB is subscription-based. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added Template:ODNBsub to each of the ODNB citations. I think the differences between the formatting of the further reading and bibliography sections were the absence of the location where the book was published and an ISBN, both of which have now been added. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Specialist content

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

Spot checks

  • Did Creighton; citations were accurate and no evidence of close-paraphrasing.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments
I think I read everything. I might check it over again once the issues are addressed. For the prose, I just gave some examples. That doesn't mean its all there is.
  • Wikilink
  • Parliment (parliment comes up several times in the article)
  • Bamburgh Castle
  • Anglo-saxon period (Anglo-Saxon England)
  • Scottish Wars
  • coat of arms
  • Why is John Lewyn redlinked, but none of the other nobles who don't have an article not redlinked?
Bamburgh Castle and the Anglo-Scottish Wars are already linked. John Lleywn is linked because as architect of Bolton and Warkworth Castles ad Durham Cathedral he is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and ideally would have an article. Which other people do you think should be linked? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Roger fitz Richard is probably the one that came clearly to mind as he was mentioned several times. However, I do not claim to be an expert in knowing which of these people are notable or not, just wondering why you thought only John Lewyn was.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There was originally a link to his article as it happens, but if you check the article's talk page there some background as to why I chose to remove the link. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Prose
    • Remove some passive tense such as "In the late 19th century, Warkworth Castle was refurbished by the dukes" -> "In the late 19th century, the dukes refurbished Warkworth castle"
    • "When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain" -> "When and by whom the castle was founded is uncertain"
      • I'm not convinced that the suggested change would be an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • " When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, " -> "When he died in 1240, his son,"
      • Though your suggestion creates a simpler sentence, the current phrasing, was chosen to avoid repeating the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • At the very least remove own. It's a redundant usage as his already implies that the son was fathered by him. Better would be to figure out a simplistic way of phrasing it that doesn't repeat the other sentance, but that's obviously harder to do.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • This has been addressed by implementing Dank's suggestion below. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "one and a half - hyphenate
      • Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • now-ruined - rephase to not use hyphenated word
      • It's not clear why "now-ruined" is undesirable. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neologisms and new compounds While the prefix "now-" is not specifically mentioned in that list, it's being used in a similar manner.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "The high end – next to the withdrawing chambers – was for the earl and his family, and the low end – next to the kitchen and other service rooms – for the rest of the rest of the household." Don't use 2 sets of emdashes in 1 sentance. Either change to comma, paretheses or split it into 2 sentances.
      • Fair point, I have switched to parenthesis. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What existed before the Norman conquest? Was there any kind of fortification?
  • No. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A little info on what the Treaty of Durham would be nice. The reader shouldn't have to click on it just to find out the basics.
    • I've added some more context. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The info about when the castle was presumably founded by Henry II should be moved to right after the declaration. The sentance at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place at the end.
Could you be more specific, which sentence are you referring to? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the sentence is out of place at the end, but I think it makes more sense prefixed by a "though", and I made the edit: [Warkworth may have been surrendered to Henry II], "though it is possible that Henry II founded Warkworth Castle in 1157 to secure his lands in Northumberland ...". - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
"When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain, though traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible." - That sentance seems to be acting a the intro for the remainder of the paragraph and yet it leaves out a crucial info about the possible date mentioned much later. IE, the final sentance contradicts the assertion that there is no ideas about what dates "may" have been the founding while making the asertion that Henry is recognized which is explained later and thus the reader is not suprised when there is info about the founding at the end by Henry, but would be by relative and more speicifc date.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that statement does act as an introduction of sorts, but an introduction doesn't need doesn't need to summarise what comes next. It does not say "there is no ideas", just that there is uncertainty. The various possibilities are then laid out, so there is no contradiction. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
However, when reading that first sentence it makes it sound like no actual dates are known, but the last sentence gives at least 2 possible dates. That may not be a direct contraindication in fact with the summary sentence, but it gives the uninformed reader the idea that there are no clear dates period.Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't do given that it says uncertain, which is different to unknown. A reader doesn't need to be knowledgeable about Warkworth Casltle to know that uncertain means there could be a range of possibilities. This isn't a situation that can be painted in black and white terms and I'm going to stick with the current wording. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.Jinnai 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Catholic Thomas Percy joined the rebellion". Either remove the descriptor Catholic or explain before this why its important to note he's Catholic
It's important that Thomas Percy was Catholic because it was a rebellion of Catholics, as made clear by the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess it must be the lack of the info on Queen Elizabeth I's religion that makes the statement seem off.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess I took it for granted that readers would know Elizabeth was Protestant, I've now clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I knew that, but not everyone is Christian or knows about the Catholic-Protestant wars.Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "d (he was fined £30,000 and held in the Tower of London)," - is that relevant to the article?
Yes, because it illustrates that Percy was in financial troubles and not free to directly control his property. Without that, when the earl's financial troubles are mentioned later the reader would be unaware of the cause. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The last paragtaph in Dukes of Northumberland doesn't seem to fit under that section name. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else. Even "Dukes of Northumberland and beyond" or something more generic like "Late 17th century to present". It shouldn't be broken up though as that would make the sections too small.Jinnai 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed the section title as per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Updated comments.Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • In Warkworth Castle#Layout, I don't believe I've seen subsections denoted by bolded words rather than subheadings before at FAC. Do other articles do this? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've not noticed it in any other FAs, I just thought I'd try something different to avoid making the table of contents too long, but I'm more than happy to switch to conventional subheadings. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • On the points that aren't that important, my strategy at FAC is to try to avoid rocking the boat, so I think the edit you just made is a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger died in 1214 and was succeeded by his son, John. When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, Roger, inherited.": This is mentioned above. Personally, I'd go with: Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger was succeeded by his son John in 1214, who was succeeded by his son Roger in 1240.
  • That avoids the repetition of "died", so works for me. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The now-ruined 15th-century building replaced an earlier hall on the same site, dating from about 1200,": This is mentioned above. The previous paragraph deals with another structure from around 1200, so per WP:Checklist#chronology, I recommend you move the information on the earlier hall that's in this sentence up to the end of the previous paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a tricky one. The section isn't arranged in a chronology so much as a tour so I'll have to think about this. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood the sentence ... now I agree that we can't move bits of it up to the previous paragraph. I think it could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It might help that I've swapped the information on the Lion Tower and great hall as the great hall was the more important building. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Warkworth Castle was undefended. Its defences at the time were described as "feeble".": I'm not sure I know what it means for something to be undefended with feeble defenses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, the first bit refers to Roger's action, ie: me made no move to defend it. I've changed it to make this clearer. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "when his son Robert was one-and-a-half": It's not wrong, it's just that it's not often that the "half" is significant enough to mention, so, "... was one year old", maybe. But if the historians think it's important, I'm not in a position to argue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, so I've changed it per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A year later, John made the Crown inheritor.": I'm not positive people will understand. Also, did he leave everything to the Crown in his will, or just the family estates, or just the castle?
  • As it happens I posted the relevant bit from Godall on the article's talk page. I'm cautious of saying John wrote the king into his will because that not what the source says, but it's pretty much what happened. I've clarified that it was all of his property that John gave to the king and it now says "A year later, John made arrangements so that on his death the king would receive all of his property." Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The years between roughly 1310 and 1330 were characterised by the inability of the English ...": I'd prefer that you either attribute that or shorten it to: "Between roughly 1310 and 1330, the English were unable ..."
  • Yeah, I see the problem here, I've changed it to "Between roughly 1310 and 1330 the English struggled to deal with Scottish raids in northern England". Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "[Percy] would be paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms. In exchange for the annual fee, in 1328 Percy was promised the rights to the Clavering's property.": I don't follow, unless "would" is in the sense of "would have been" here. Was he in fact paid 500 marks a year for life? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He was, "would" was a result of me using the wrong tense there. Is the bit about exchanging the fee for the Clavering's property clear? Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't really follow. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I expressed myself poorly, the bottom line is I changed it to "Henry de Percy ... was in the service of Edward III and was paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms". Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "the march areas": could use a link.
  • So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down almost halfway, to Percy family. These are my edits. I plan to come back to FAC reviewing within a week, after I get USS Arizona (BB-39) started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. [Disclaimer: I'm running a fever today, so I'm just going to throw out some suggestions ... I hope they make sense.] - Dank (push to talk)
  • The only thing left over from above is: "for they have the hertes of the people by north and ever had": Although WP:MOS#Attribution only asks for in-text attribution for a full sentence or more, Chicago (Ch. 13) wants in-text attribution for any significant quote, and I recommend attribution here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC) [The footnote doesn't tell us who said it, either.]
  • Sorry I didn't get to this immediately, I've now clarified the quote was from John Hardyng. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the 1380s John of Gaunt, a rival since 1381 and son of Edward III, rebuilt the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle which may have driven Percy to enhance his own main castle. On the other hand it has been suggested that the earl was spurred by a programme of building at the castles of Brancepeth, Raby, Bamburgh, and Middleham, and Sheriff Hutton by the House of Neville, a family becoming increasingly powerful in northern England.": I'd structure this along the lines of: Percy may have enhanced his main castle to compete with John of Gaunt, who rebuilt (was rebuilding?) the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle, or the House of Neville ... - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That simplifies things nicely, so that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "similarities between the keep and work at Bamburgh Castle": If "work" means parts of Bamburgh, which parts?
  • I've clarified the situation by changing the sentence to "Architectural similarities between Warkworth's keep, Bolton Castle, and the domestic buildings at Bamburgh Castle". Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The earl's 14-year-old son claimed to be a loyal to the king but that he was not to be able to formally surrender the castle,": There's probably a way to say that in fewer words.
  • I've had a go at rephrasing it and have temporarily undone your further change. The thing is the surrender hinged on the son's claim not to be able to do it formally, ie: giving an exuse rather than flat out refusing. The quote from the source is below. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
At Warkworth, the king's officer was met by Percy's 14-year-old son, who declared himself a loyal subject but regretted that he did not have the ceremonial trappings necesssary to surrender the castle formally to the king, and on this absurd pretext kept control of it.
What does "ceremonial trappings" mean here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question, but unfortunately Goodall doesn't explain. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Towards the end of the century the curtain wall was pulled down around 1752 was rebuilt.": ?
  • I got into a tangle there, but I've moved mention of the rebuilda couple of sentences earlier where the demolition is mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Moving from the bailey east of the tower, turning south took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": From the bailey towards the east, or the bailey that was east?
  • I've changed it to "Entering through the east of the tower from the bailey", hoping that it makes it clear the bailey was on the east of the tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The northern door led to the great hall, and west to a cellar under the great chamber.": I don't follow.
  • I've changed it to "The northern door led to the great hall, and the western door to a cellar under the great chamber", does that clarify things? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I still think the sentence about the 14-year-old son raises a question it doesn't answer (see above), but I'm out of time, and on balance, I have no problem supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge

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

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

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

  • Multi-page sources like FN 39 need page numbers
  • What is AIDU?
  • External links could be culled a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Page numbers have been added, external links have been reduced and the full title of AIDU (Aeronautical Information Documents Unit) has been included. Harrison49 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Link to ACR with spotchecks: WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Uxbridge. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, one niggle station was open to the public, and a public footpath was open across the site until 1988 repeats "open" and "public". The second "open", at least, could be replaced by ran across Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    I've changed that part of the sentence to read "the station was open to the public, and a public footpath ran across the site until 1988; it reopened in 2011." Harrison49 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Glen P. Robinson

Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced, comprehensive summary of this (living) man's life. I ran the article through peer review a couple months ago, so hopefully the most glaring issues are taken care of. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Don't notate titles in all-caps
  • Need page numbers for multi-page sources like FNs 12 and 13
  • Magazine titles should be italicized
  • FN 21: publisher?
  • FN 24: publisher?
  • Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Older nominations

Kenneth R. Shadrick

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

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

Comments.

  • I'll need some help on this one. Just from the lead:
  • "subsequent reports indicate he may not have actually been the first casualty of the war." and "subsequent reports indicated that he may not have actually been the first American killed": See WP:Checklist#repetition. Also: "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war" and "Higgins subsequently identified him as the first soldier killed in the war.", and "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war".
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "the identity ... remain unknown": singular subject, plural verb
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "since the identity of other soldiers killed before Shadrick remain unknown, he is still often cited as the first US soldier killed in the war.": Simpler would be to say that he's the first casualty who has been identified.
    • The problem is that they know the names of most of the ~130 who died at Osan, they just don't know who died there first, and who might have been captured and died later, etc. A slight difference. —Ed!(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "as a result, received national attention after his death.": omit the "as a result" per WP:Checklist#because. Readers will be able to make the connection. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. "Skin Fork" isn't a county in WV.
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check throughout: WP:Checklist#second comma, WP:Checklist#because.
    • Sorry about that (I'm used to writing in AP Style at work) I think I've fixed any instances of that. Did I miss any? —Ed!(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Throughout his childhood, Shadrick was described by his family as "an avid reader" who": Does the source really say that they kept describing him that way, or does it say that he was an avid reader throughout his childhood? If the latter, then move "throughout his childhood" to just before "who".
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick enrolled ...": In this paragraph, too many sentences start or almost start with "Shadrick". Do some fiddling with this please.
    • Converted some nouns to pronouns. —Ed!(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick's father donated five dollars so Shadrick could buy one for himself": If he gave the money to Shadrick to buy it, "donate" doesn't work. (It's sometimes used in an ironic sense, but that wouldn't work here.)
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "he reportedly dropped out of school": Sorry I don't follow ... did he drop out of school? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Reworked. —Ed!(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Magazine titles should be italicized
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why the different formatting on FN 9?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 15: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Added. —Ed!(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review – No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, but I would consider putting "an avid reader" in quotation marks as there is a 2% match with the source used.[1] Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Oppose Comments for now.

  • This sentence appears twice in the Lead, "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war".
    • Trimmed the redundancy. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

    • Trimmed the redundancy. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Comments [by Giants2008]

  • Early life: There are so many important links here that I doubt something as well-known as Japan needs a link.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't think "Post" should be capitalized in "Post-World War II occupation duties."
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Misidentification: The spaced em dash in the quote can be converted to something friendlier to the MoS. We are able to make basic stylistic changes like that in quotes.
    • Made it an endash. —Ed!(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Minor point, but the Magazine in Time Magazine is italicized in the body of the article, but not in the first citation. I'd imagine that both should have the italics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually the proper name of the magazine is just "TIME" so I standardized it that way. —Ed!(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • See WP:ALLCAPS, which links to our style guideline on trademarks. I made the edit (Time). - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Support. I'll live with the present arrangement, although I'd prefer to see the italics myself. That's all the comments I can muster, so I'll support now. Writing, sourcing, etc. all seem up to par. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Any thoughts on "In his early life, he enjoyed reading and hunting" in the lead, guys? I enjoy stuff like this in the text, but I'm just a little uncomfortable with it in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • MOS:FLAG states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." That doesn't seem to be the case in this article.
    • It's possible this (and other WP:NOICONS issues) aren't settled; we may want to discuss this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, I'd be surprised if it didn't effect more articles than this. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Is there a standard policy on this? I've seen this practice pretty commonly in infoboxes, especially in unit and person infoboxes. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I honestly don't know where WP:MILHIST stands on this (if it has a coherent stance). I don't edit much in the field of modern military biographies, but MOS seems fairly clear on this. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the lead would benefit from a couple more dates, ie: what year did Shadrick drop out of school in, and what year did the Korean War start.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the fact Shadrick liked reading and occasionally went hunting belongs in the lead.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Higgins later reported that he was the first soldier killed in the war, a claim that was repeated in media across the country": across which country, the US or South Korea?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood, who had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines": the assertion that Shadrick had a range of interests seems like a framing statement, so in my opinion would go better at the start of the sentence so it would become "Shadrick had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines, and was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood".
    • Well, westerns and magazines are the types of things he liked to read avidly. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "(American) football" looks odd. As this is an article on an American subject maybe you could ditch the qualifier "(American)", or at least the brackets as they're not really necessary.
    • That was mine; I'm fine with losing the parentheses. If we omit "American", a lot of readers will understand that to mean soccer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The intention was pretty clear, but my thinking was that Americans will most likely make up most of this article's readership, and WP:ENGVAR may cover the matter. The simplest solution would be ditching the brackets as it would leave no ambiuity. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick's division was the closest to the Korean War": the Korean War is an event rather than a location, so this should be changed to a geographic point of reference.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering Shadrick's claim to fame is being misattributed as the first American soldier killed in the war and the lead mentions the Battle of Osan saw the first American battle fatalities, why is this not mentioned in the outbreak of war section? We're told that the 21st Infantry Regiment was routed, but not how many losses it suffered.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick's family heard of his death from a neighbor who had heard his name on a radio broadcast": this can be rephrased to avoid repetition of "heard".
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shadrick's body was returned to the United States, and on June 17, 1951, a funeral attended by hundreds of local residents was held in Beckley, West Virginia.[3] The funeral was set to coincide with the anniversary of the start of the war and Shadrick's death.": there's a repetition of "funeral", perhaps the second one could be replaced with "service"? Why was the funeral a year after Shadrick died? And if Shardick died on July 5, how was June 17 the anniversary of his death?
    • It was intended to coincide with the start of the war. The date wasn't exact, but from what I see, they weren't amining for the exact date, or there was some kind of logistical problem because the funeral was well planned for the 17th. —Ed!(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed "and Shadrick's death". - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Dank's change sorted things out. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The awards and decorations section should be rearranged so that each description is next to each badge it relates to. The current arrangement of two separate tables is odd.
    • There has been no particular agreement on the placement/organization of decorations, but there has been a lot of discussion about it. I'd prefer to hold out for some kind of universal policy on decorations sections in articles. —Ed!(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. I wish I knew the answers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hurricane Gert (1993)

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

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

Confirming that User:12george1 is co-nomming. Auree 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and comments to come. HurricaneFan25 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Whose support is this (it's unsigned), and why is an editor supporting with such a long list of concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The support and comments were from User:Hurricanefan24. I added his signature and the time he made the edit. Auree 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Multiple pages should be notated using "pp." not "p."
  • check publisher for FN 17
  • Not too sure on this one. Should it be "Congreso Iberoamericano sobre Desarrollo y Ambiente"? Auree 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 32: page(s)?
  • FN 41: publisher?
  • FN 43: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the rest has been addressed. Thanks for the review as usual Auree 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. - right, reading through now (well, not while I type this) and jotting notes below (I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go - revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
where as much as 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured - just a query as I'm not familiar with these articles, is it usual to go to this degree of accuracy in precipitation?
Yeah, if such a specific total is available. It's even preferred most of the time (for meteorological accuracy). Auree 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what a circulation is in this context.
How does "wind circulation" sound?
sounds fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its cloud pattern continued to organize - does "organize" have a specific meaning here, if we just mean "gather" then I suggest "coalesce" might be better...?
Hmmm... I'm not too sure about this one, since it is a pretty common term in meteorology. I really like "coalesce" though, and I'm all for using it since it conveys the same meaning. I'll ask around at the WPTC chat Auree 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
ok. cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
radio stations broadcast warning messages to aware the public - hmm, can't use "aware" as a transitive verb like that (?) - I'd go with "radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public"
Very true! Good call Auree 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Gert showed signs of intensification - why not just " Gert showed signs of getting stronger" or "intensifying"
I don't see much of a difference, but would "strengthening" work? Auree 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
yup. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Although Gert's center remained off the coast of Costa Rica, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across the country. - why not just "rainfall"? Is there a meaning in precipitation that is not in rainfall. I always try to use a plainer word as long as meaning is not compromised.
Rainfall would work better here, yeah. Auree 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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


  • Support - Nice work, good article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. YE Pacific Hurricane
  • Comment, some nitpicks:
    • The high terrain quickly disrupted its structure, and Gert entered the Pacific as a tropical depression by September 21. — can you be more exact as to where Gert re-emerged over the sea? It could have been over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or over the Sea of Cortez, and this sentence is arguably correct. Please be more specific, as not everyone can look at the track map and see it emerged near Cabo Corrientes.
      • If you can find a source to the location (which I didn't), I'd be glad to add it. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You could use the best track to show what data point it was at when it entered into the Pacific. (Which would be Nayarit) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Awesome, thanks! Added that to the MH now—should I add it to the lede as well? Auree 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Considering that you went into detail on how it moved over Central America, I say yes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Added. Auree 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • A tropical wave, or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south, moved off the African coast well south of Dakar on September 5 and tracked rapidly westward across the tropical Atlantic. — use em dashes here, they work better for the interruption to explain "tropical wave"
      • Alright. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Owing to favorable tropospheric conditions aloft, the system began showing signs of development, — did the source mention anything about what made the upper-level conditions favorable (e.g. an anticyclone)? Also, link "development" to tropical cyclogenesis
      • Unfortunately, it didn't, though I did add the wikilink. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Its cloud pattern continued to coalesce, and the NHC upgraded it to Tropical Storm Gert on September 15.[3] — the lede mentioned that Gert briefly attained named-storm status, so add a timestamp here, so the reader can compare it to the landfall time you mention in the next sentence.
      • Yup, added. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved back inland near Belize City by the next day, allowing minimal opportunity for development — get rid of "by", and would "redevelopment" be better in this case?
      • Removed "by," but since I already mention it regained TS status redevelopment seems redundant. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Maybe "even more intensification" would be better, then. "Development" is borderline jargony, and thus I'd avoid it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Disagree here. WP:WPTC/J states that "This term is self-defining so a wikilink should be sufficient," and a wikilink had been added. I think with the previous mention of it (and elaboration on how it developed) and the commonness of the term, a reader would understand. Auree 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Don't entirely agree, but this is so minor that I'll write this one off to "author's style". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Inland, a ridge of high pressure forced a weakening Gert to turn back to the west-northwest. — this sentence made me think at first that there was a mesoscale ridge of some sort over Central America, which sort of goes against the requirement for ridges having to be synoptic-scale features. Please reword this to something like "Once a weakened Gert was inland, it began to feel the effects of a high-pressure ridge, and turned back to the west-northwest" or something similar.
      • Changed to your suggestion. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The deepening convection consolidated over open waters with light wind shear, — you just said that the storm was weakening, so this makes no meteorological sense. (Yes, I know what you are trying to say. You need to explicitly say that Gert began to re-intensify once it entered the Gulf of Mexico.)
      • The way you reworded it sounds good for me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • On September 20, data from an air force aircraft indicated that the storm had evolved into a hurricane — Mexican Air Force? (I know it's not, say it was a USAF plane explicitly, as the lay reader doesn't know that.)
      • Meh, guess it couldn't hurt. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Once inland, the storm accelerated and rapidly weakened over the mountainous region; — mention the Sierra Madre Oriental explicitly, as you mention it in the Impact section by name.
      • Mentioned. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Gert entered the Pacific Ocean later that day, where it was reclassified as Tropical Depression Fourteen-E.[7] — why didn't it keep the same name? (Link to the relevant article, tropical cyclone naming.)
      • Linked. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert[nb 1] for coastal regions on September 14,[13] which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast the following day.[14] — can you really say that the warning issued by the RSMC is an upgrade to the alert issued by the national meteorological organization? I like how you mention both, but I don't think that saying it is an "upgrade" is correct.
      • How does "replaced" sound? Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • It is still wrong. The alerts were issued by agencies in different countries, so the Costa Rican alert would remain active regardless of what warnings the U.S. National Hurricane Center issued. The current version of the text removes the "upgrade" text, which is an improvement, but I'd still mention explicitly who issued the tropical storm warning. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, the source doesn't address who issued what. Auree 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Then just leave it as is. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • National television and radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public, while emergency crews were dispatched in case conditions would warrant. — "would" is the wrong tense.
      • What should it be? Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • "warranted", or if you want to go all out, use "were to warrant". In either case, it might be better to say "warrant {intervention | rescue | whatever}". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Tweaked. Auree 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Gert was a large and tenacious tropical cyclone for most of its lifespan, — "tenacious" is a borderline WP:PEACOCK term. (Never thought I'd say that in a hurricane FAC…)
      • Well, it survived all the way through Central America, and one of the highest terrains in the Americas while retaining its tropical cyclone status. What else would you have me use to express that? Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think it needs to be expressed, as the tone becomes borderline unencyclopedic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • George removed it altogether. Auree 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • There, the flooding affected 24,000 people and made communication with surrounding areas with limited road network nearly impossible.[15] — "limited road network" sounds awkward. I suggest "limited connectivity to the road network" or something similar.
      • Removed "limited road network" altogether. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Perpetual heavy rain in the wake of the storm aggravated the situation, — it's still going on? o.O (Use "continued" here.)
      • Tweaked. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain donated over $300,000 in aid.[22] — each, or in total?
      • Combined. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Although most of the affected population was aided within days, the limited road network caused a large delay in relief efforts to the hard-hit Mosquitia Region. — "received aid" would sound better here, and you used "road network" in the previous paragraph before. "Highway system" or something is equivalent and adds variety.
      • I agree with "received aid", just have bad experiences with it in previous reviews. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Now it says "received aided". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Gah, fixed. Auree 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The governments of Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided $310,300 for the purchase of relief items. — again, is this a lump sum, or a contribution by each?
      • Combined. Auree 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of my complaints are stylistic, but there are some accessibility and jargon complaints in there as well, and I would like to see these addressed before supporting. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Awesome review, just what the article needed. Quick comments have been addressed, and I'll look into the other stuff. Auree 03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Struck most items, but a few are still outstanding. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, all my points have been addressed to my satisfaction. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Where could I request these? Auree 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Woot, thanks! Auree 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There are far too many errors in the "publishers" of Spanish-language sources for me to determine quickly if these sources are reliable (every single one I checked was wrong). Also, when listing some obscure national commission, you should give the country. Auree, do you speak Spanish or are you using an online translator? When you find a PDF in Spanish, you sometimes have to follow that PDF back to where you got it to figure out who published it, and if the case is some student at some University, that may not be a reliable source. You haven't identified the CRID as a publisher, and it even has an English section of its website. Unless Titoxd (who speaks Spanish) has time to get to all of this, I will have to do it ... Please ask Titoxd if he can have a look with the aim of fixing the publishers, adding locations when they are country-specific entities, and checking that Spanish-language sources are accurately represented in the article. If he does so, he can ping me-- if he can't, pls ping me next week and I'll get to it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Auree knows Spanish, so he can probably double-check himself. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, YE (excess bolding removed). OK, following on Nikkimaria's original comment (above), here's the first one I found-- the rest are similar and need attention:
        (Spanish) "Las inundaciones causadas por el Huracan "Gert" sus efectos en Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas y Veracruz" (PDF). El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil. p. 1. http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/spa/doc15060/doc15060-1.pdf. Retrieved 2011-10-26. 
        This is publshed by www.crid.or.cr -- they have a website, and they have an English-language section of their website, hence they have an English-language publisher name. On the other hand, our readers will have no idea what "El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil" is or to what country it pertains. Next, if this was in fact actually published by some Costa Rican entity and then merely re-published by CRID, is it reliable? Should we have a "work" parameter as well as a "publisher" parameter on these sources? Titoxd will know, but the citations need to be cleaned up for two purposes-- should links go dead, our readers need to have enough info to know where to find them, and we need to know if these sources are reliable (that is, who actually published them, including the first publisher, what country etc). I found another one that was accessed on some library (El Salvador I think, but can't remember now) that appeared to be some sort of student publication, but I didn't check closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        For the record, real-life commitments prevent me from doing anything substantial in Wikipedia for the next month. (A couple of conferences and finals will do that to you.) I can't check the citations in a time frame that is reasonable for the purposes of this FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and pointing this out, Sandy. First off, I would like to clarify that I can fluently read/understand Spanish (I grew up with the language). Admittedly, I'm not the best at citation formatting, and I will have to check out the publisher issue. I'll ask others like Titoxd to help Auree 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to know you speak Spanish, that helps-- PS, I haven't looked closely enough, but I'm also wondering if the CRID is hosting copyvios? Do they have the rights to re-publish those PDFs? Similar on others-- I'm sure you all can sort this without me, then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is everything we need to know about CRID, which seems pretty authentic. The document on the effects in Mexico was originally published by CENAPRED, so I'm not sure how to format this. Auree 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Titoxd helped me with some of the issues offsite, though I'm not sure if they have been fixed properly. It would be great if you could take another look. Auree 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at your diff of changes, and it still needs more ... not all have locations, and there are multiple (different) websites that indicate the same publisher. Are some of these being republished? For example, the CRID one is, I think. You may solve some of this by listing the original publisher under the Work parameter, and the website where you found it hoseted under the Publisher parameter-- remember that if those links go dead, folks need to know what to search on, and in many cases, the website you found it hosted on is not listed as the publisher. Give it another go, and I'll have a look later ??? Are you sure none of those websites are hosting copyvios? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way (unrelated to whether this article meets FA standards), if you all are going to be using Centro Regional de Información sobre Desastres a lot for citation, it needs an article at either there or Regional Disaster Information Center, and CRID needs a hatnote at top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll have a go at it once more. How would I best go about adding locations (if required) to those that apply to Central America/Latin America in general?
Edit: I've implemented your publisher/work suggestion to the sources, though I think I went a bit overboard with the locations... Auree 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Auree, I'll continue this on talk here so we can get it sorted without filling this page-- it may seem minor, but since you are likely to use these same sources often, we should get it sorted once and for all-- that will aid your future articles. Our goal is to make sure that if any of these websites go dead (government entities have a way of doing that in Latin America :), future editors and readers can still figure out where to find the original reports. Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your efforts, Sandy. You did help a lot, and I appreciate your determination to improve the citation formatting for this article. I will continue working toward achieving a more professional standard of sourcing. Auree 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments - Excellent article. Undeniably the best account of this storm available anywhere, which is my #1 criterion for FA status. That said, I have some comments regarding the met. history.
  • A tropical wave—or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south - if you're going to describe it in the context of a "trough", you should mention that an EW is an inverted trough.
    I'll chime in here. Saying that easterly waves are inverted troughs raises the question, "What is an inverted trough?" Answering that is not the point of this article, and is too off-topic for my taste. I'd replace it with "area of low pressure". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to its position at a relatively low latitude, interaction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone - dangling participle as far as I can tell, unless I'm interpreting this line incorrectly.
  • the system began showing signs of development, as the deep convection organized into well-defined curved rainbands. - "as", here, is irritatingly vague. I'm not sure whether to interpret it as "while" or "since/because". It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's disconcerting to read something and not know its intended meaning.
  • By that time, it had retraced toward the north-northwest under the influence of a mid- to upper-level trough over the eastern Gulf of Mexico. - I'm having a hard time visualizing this. "Under the influence of" could mean any number of things.
  • Changed to "in response to". Auree 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved - grammatically, "it" modifies "the storm's duration", which I'm sure isn't the intended meaning.
  • Once Gert was inland, it began to feel - example of a phrase that could be simplified. "Once inland, Gert began to feel..."
  • After crossing the Yucatán Peninsula and decreasing in organization,[7] it entered the Bay of Campeche as a tropical depression late on September 18 - I wouldn't use the pronoun "it" in a sentence that doesn't mention the subject by name or type ("Gert", "the system", "the cyclone", "the storm").
  • Don't really agree here, it's quite obvious from the preceding sentences (and entire article). Auree 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • that the storm had evolved into a hurricane with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) - "evolved" is incorrect here; it simply strengthened.
  • Its forward motion had slowed slightly due to a shortwave trough to its north,[11] allowing the hurricane more time to organize over water. - weird sentence structure in general. I still don't like using "it" in the absence of an immediately preceding subject. Also, you should try to explain why the shortwave caused the storm to slow. Did it suppress the storm? Lend extra vorticity to the hurricane causing it to deepen vertically and in turn become embedded in a different steering pattern? Spin up a superstorm akin to 1993 which phased with two other sources of upper-level energy and encircled the globe, ensuring Gert couldn't gain latitude?
  • I could try, but that'd be OR. The source doesn't mention anything else. Auree 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed here. This definitely goes into the range of synoptic analysis, which is blatant OR for our purposes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Gert subsequently attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, reaching winds of near 100 mph (165 km/h). - "near" is confusing, since 100 mph is the exact unit used elsewhere in the article.
  • with its eye moving - poor structure; see if you can rephrase.
  • I'll try... any suggestions? Auree 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Although deep convection waxed and waned in intensity, satellite observations - another dangling participle-type thingy...
  • No redevelopment occurred due to cold waters - this is more obvious, but I still don't like "due to" without any indication of cause and effect.

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

Thanks for commenting, Julian Auree 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - enough of my concerns have been addressed to justify supporting. The information and quality of presentation in the article is very consistent with FA status. Juliancolton (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the nominator solicited my involvement in relation to citations, and I will be commenting at this FAC's talk page. In brief summary: I'm a bit disturbed that some high quality reliable sources aren't sufficiently well referenced; given that this is a gnomish problem I might just muck in one day and fix it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Persoonia levis

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

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

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

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

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

  • Include both authors for Wrigley citations?
not sure how to do that with sfn template - will read up on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
was one book. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
tricky one as the first of the periods is an abbreviation in the publisher ("co." for "company"), and the second one is a routine period. Theoretically it'd look better to only have one there but does one period do two jobs...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The cite book template documentation recommends leaving out "corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc".", which solves the problem of double periods, so I did that here. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Looking good. A few thoughts-

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

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

I've had a look at your fixes, and it's looking better. I'm going to hold off support for now to see if anyone else raises anything. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I uploaded a few more photos which I took today onto commons (in the species category) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. No other problems have been forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks - much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment article should use a consistent citation method throughout (WP:CITEVAR), so you should use short citations and place full citations in a separate section (example), as you did for Wrigley's work, or place all full citations in footnotes. — Z 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Given there were only three pages reffed in the book anyway, tweaked to single ref now Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I just created this template to fix the lack of navbox, you can use that if you'd like, but the problem is red links, which usually should not be used in navboxes. — Z 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
(chuckles evilly) but zey von't be redlinks for long.....mwahahahahahaaaa. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. — Z 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks (and ditto for two supports below)! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and comments. Just two niggles, otherwise fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought we didn't link continents and countries now.
  • At its first occurrence, 5 m converts to 16 ft, at the second it's become 17 ft... very disorientating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
oops. unit conversion fixed and continent/country de-linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comments – In the interests of efficiency, I took the liberty of making several copyedits that I would usually bring up here and make you do ;) Please revert anything you don't like. I'm close to supporting, but have some minor issue first: Sasata (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"'look ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • the Westen 1995 source is over 50 pages, and I think it needs to be cited to individual pages to help the reader who wants to verify the claims
was the chapter on the genus - extracted the four pages specific to the species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • the wiki Commons link in the references section prevent the refs from being two columns... nothing major, but it bugs me
tried rejigging - commonslink in cultivation segment now. 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It also bugs me that the Dist & Habitat header is pushed right by the image in the preceding section... perhaps move to the right?
I chose a flatter more horizontal image so it wouldn't jut down so much - does that help? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think some of those old Latin texts cited in Taxonomy are available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, and directs links to the cited pages would be a nice touch
The cavanilles one was in some spanish website which I can't find now (frustratingly), but is on google books. I'm keeping looking. The botanicus.org site has Persoon (1805) and Brown (1810), but I can't link to page directly, however clicking on the page in the left-hand column links to the correct page there (so is two steps). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I added the direct links (you can copy the link given under the page listing when that page is being displayed). Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha thanks, I'll remember that next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

White-necked Rockfowl

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating the White-necked Rockfowl article because I believe it is a comprehensive overview of the species, well-written and well-illustrated with the materials available, and that it meets the criteria. The White-necked Rockfowl is an odd, elusive species, composing half of a unique family of African birds. It nests in caves and rarely flies for any considerable distance. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author sources
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate initials
  • Retrieval dates in YYYY-MM-DD format should use hyphens
  • Not sure this ref is really helpful or necessary
  • Some books missing ISBNs
  • Multi-page refs like FN 32 need page numbers
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • FN 30: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge I have addressed your concerns. Except for the editors of Handbook of Birds of the World, all multi-author sources are presented in the same way, and the format for citing multiple editors doesn't seem to permit a different presentation to allow HBW to conform. Per the dictionary reference, it is supporting how the word "pied" is derived from "magpie" and therefore supports the use of the Latin word for magpie in the genus name. At least one bird editor desired clarification on this linguistic chain, and the ref is supporting that. I've left it in for the moment. Thank you for looking at this. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A better ref for the derivation of "pied" from "magpie" is Brookes, Ian (editor-in-chief) (2006). The Chambers Dictionary, ninth edition. Edinburgh: Chambers. p. 1138. ISBN 0550101853.  Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC) just seen Shyamal's edit
Shyamal's book disproved an internet resource, therefore removing the need for the dictionary reference. ISBN has been added to the new ref. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 1 overlink fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments - great article on a rare and poorly known species.I made a few changes, feel free to revert if you don't like them. Some comments:
    • Perhaps give the family name in the first line? While using informal names is fine, I think this is significant enough to warrant inclusion as well.
    • Lead says This bird is believed to be long-lived., Text says This species is long-lived.. Why the uncertainty in the lead but not the main text? How long is long, or is that not known? Do we have any ages for zoo specimens?
    • The head is nearly featherless with bright yellow skin except for two large, circular black patches located just behind the eyes. Is unclear if this means the black patches are feathered or not.
    • Despite its secretive nature, some natives of Sierra Leone considered the species to be a protector of the home of their ancestral spirits. Non sequitur. Why would the secretive nature (or not) have any bearing on the belief systems of locals? Also, and this is personal taste, I dislike the term native. It may not be meant in the colonial sense, but it could stand to be reworded a bit.
    • I'd suggest that conservation is a subheading of Relationship with humans.
  • This is good and I'll support soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing, and good catches. No reference puts a number on the species' lifespan, though the reference used does state it is a long-lived species. I'll think about moving conservation under Relationship with humans; while the White-necked Rockfowl's section almost entirely deals with humans, I like a roughly standard template for headings, and in some cases Conservation may have little to do with humans; for example, what I've read suggests that the Labrador Duck was going extinct naturally and that humans had little impact. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it shouldn't be inflexible, but in this instance the decline and efforts to save both strongly involve us. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; Great, thanks for the changes. I've contacted a Flickr User to see if we can't get a photo of a live bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I wonder, since you mention the Grey-necked Rockfowl in the text and its range is displayed on the map, whether it is worth noting that in the map's caption. Given they are said to be related, this helps geographically to illustrate this.
  • "Two eggs are laid twice a year." This isn't mentioned in the body, at least not in these definite numbers (rather "One to two eggs").
  • "It used to be believed that the rockfowl rarely ventures far from its breeding grounds; however, new information suggests that the species has a much broader range than previously thought." Aside from a brief history of study of the Rockfowl, this doesn't really say much. Is it known how far the bird may venture?
  • Some repeating of cites. If several sentences are covered by the same source, it should be fine to have a single cite at the end of the last sentence.

I made a few minor edits to the text; review and revert as necessary. Apterygial (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. The first two changes have been made, and your differences look good (and taught me some things). It is not known how far the White-necked Rockfowl ventures; however, the fact that it does is of interest, particularly as it appears that the Grey-necked does not, and as earlier reports contradict this, the history of rockfowl thought bit clarifies this for readers who may read an older resource. I also removed two extra refs where the following sentence implied continuation of thought. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. My personal attitude is that one cite can follow several sentences if it can support it; continuation of thought is not important. But I can see your logic, and it's far from a sticking point. Apterygial (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with the changes with the article that were made following my suggestions. Apterygial (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I did the GA review for this, and also did an early ce when it came here. Looks worthy of the star to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Diffuse panbronchiolitis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The text switches between serial commas and non-serial commas in a few places. Please be consistent, where possible.
  • Done. I try to use serial commas only to seperate lists, i.e. "A, B and C, and D, E and F." Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "...and excessive production of pus-filled sputum prone to occur with...": I think this statement is missing an article (the), as in either "the excessive production" or "the pus-filled spetum prone to occur".
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "This eventually becomes life-threatening...": 'eventually' is vague. Perhaps an average interval from onset could be listed?
  • Copy edited. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "...between HLA-B an HLA-A...": 'and'?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Another gene, though not a part of...": "candidate gene"?
  • Done. Copy edit, as this one is not referred in the texts as a candidate gene. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "...asthma and chronic bronchitis by its rapid progression...": 'rapid' is vague.
  • Chopped. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "purulent" seems to be unlinked jargon.
  • Changed to "pus-filled". Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The diagnosis of DPB requires analysis of the lungs and bronchiolar tissues...": does this usually involve taking a biopsy?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of overly long paragraphs (beginning with the wording listed below). Can these be split for less tiresome reading?
    • "DPB and bronchiolitis obliterans..."
    • "The successful results of macrolides in DPB and similar lung..."
    • "Around 1985, when long-term treatment with the macrolide..."
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Has this disease been observed in descendants of East Asian immigrants to the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere? It would be interesting to mention this in either case.
  • Done. Yes there is :) I added this, cited from another secondary src. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Some information on current research efforts would be good, if available.
  • Working on.... Rcej (Robert)talk 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll wait for this. Thanks. RJH (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the research is basically the search for a DPB-causing gene. I can't really go further than the basic fronts. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Comments by Axl

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

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Fixed. But do you know how to keep your spit out of your hack-ups? Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
From "Signs and symptoms": "... bronchiectasis, a life-threatening condition that can lead to respiratory failure." Again, this looks rather alarmist. Bronchiectasis is not usually a life-threatening condition. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"MHC controls human leukocyte antigen (HLA)." No! HLA is human MHC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No, HLA is part of MHC. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
After some digging around, I have found that technically you are right. My apologies to you. In my defence, many sources conflate HLA and MHC, as indicated in the first paragraph here. (Really we're both right, depending on the definition used.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see much change at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If I supercede the source, that is speculation. I have "After further study of this localized area between HLA-B and HLA-A, it was concluded that a DPB susceptibility gene is located within a 200 kb (kilobase, or 1,000 base pairs) region of the 300 kb telomeric class I HLA, near the HLA-B locus at chromosome 6p21.3.". That was the conclusion, and for context purposes, we need "After further study of this localized area between HLA-B and HLA-A, it was concluded that...". If we just have "The gene is located...", the reader would feel like we left something out. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


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

  • Copy edited. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't been much change here either. I don't think that these details about candidate genes should be in this article. Much of it could/should be moved to articles about the genes themselves. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed the phrase "candidate gene"; but are you suggesting I remove all mention of the genes themselves from the cause section? The journals haven't from the etiology. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources:-

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 10:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 10:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

28: Homma, "Diffuse panbronchiolitis in rheumatoid arthritis"

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 10:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Removed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Just curious, but if I can't write as comprehensive of an article without primary sources, what can be done? I think the secondary review texts probably are covering everything we have in some way; if those are citing the same primary sources I was once citing, would not citing those secondary sources suffice whether or not they explicitly state the corresponding information from the primary source that is covered in the Wikipedia article? Rcej (Robert)talk 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS is only a guideline. There is room for editorial discretion.
" if those are citing the same primary sources I was once citing, would not citing those secondary sources suffice whether or not they explicitly state the corresponding information from the primary source that is covered in the Wikipedia article? "
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If secondary sources contain the same info as primary sources, it is preferable to use secondary sources as the references. If primary sources contain info that is not present in secondary sources, this casts doubt over the relevance/inclusion of that info in this general encyclopedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the wording. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I asked this question on 1 November. See below. Graham Colm (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  • Comments by Looie496

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

Respectfully, I beg to differ. I am a layperson, and I believe the average literate adult could grasp the lead as well as I. Terminology is clearly linked or defined; but if you will specify the problematic content, I will certainly edit accordingly :) Thx! Rcej (Robert)talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Looie that we can do better in some sections, and will go through as the FAC advances ... but in the lead for now, is it possible to do a better job of explaining the immune susceptibility without obliging the reader to click on the haplotypes? I recognize it's not always possible, but we can try, and it's not always necessary to give specifics in the lead:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me note that I've placed a draft for a revised lead on the talk page of the article, see Talk:Diffuse panbronchiolitis#Proposed draft of revised lead. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Addressed on article talk. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


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

  • Axed. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And should Cystic fibrosis be specifically mentioned in the Differential diagnosis? It is a similar disease that does not occur in east Asians. Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No. CF is not a dd consideration with DPB. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some sourcing upgrading may be needed-- we shouldn't be using primary studies except in limited situations (see WP:MEDRS).

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

  • Good src, and contains four case reports. It is a peer among the large number of secondary src review papers I cite in the article. I'll definitely use it if the disease status quo can be updated from it, or replace a primary :) Rcej (Robert)talk 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

and the genetics material is currently citing primary studies, case reports, and comparative studies, when there is a recent review (2011) by some of the same authors:

  • Will do!! Rcej (Robert)talk 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, this 2011 abstract is less than the full text secondary src journal reports I'm citing, and asserts the same info. I'm not certain which sources would be beneficial to swap out for this one. :) Rcej (Robert)talk 05:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check over your sources carefully to make sure you aren't using primary studies, and are accessing secondary reviews when they are available. To find reviews, go to PubMed, type "Diffuse panbronchiolitis" in to the search engine, and when you get the results, click on "Reviews" at the upper left. For any given PMID, click on the + to expand "PUblication type" in PubMed to see if it's a review (some are misidentified). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saving the ref overhaul for last! btw, I've been a PubMedaholic since '07 ;) Rcej (Robert)talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's confusing-- I can't support a med article that is based on primary sources, and I would think correcting the sourcing would be the first priority, alternately, withdrawing the FAC while the sourcing is upgraded? The one review I posted above seems to indicate that the text is incorrect or outdated ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of one more case report that was cited, then re-cited with a secondary; but the majority of my sources are either secondary or just there for reference purposes without being cited for content (i.e. some in the Epidemiology section). But if you are asserting that the majority of the sources for the article are primary and/or outdated, you'll need to point them out. I can't completely re-reference a 48-source article based on a non-specific claim. I'd greatly appreciate your help in weeding them out :) Rcej (Robert)talk 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "just there for reference purposes without being cited for content". If they aren't the sources you used to supply and verify the article content, take them out of the references section. If you can explain more why you want to cite those papers, then perhaps we can find an alternative section for them to go in, if necessary. Colin°Talk 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! All that I mean is, i.e. in Epidemiology, I am using refs PMID 1504438 and PMID 10511794 to merely establish, respectively, that DPB has been reported in Korea and Thailand. Rcej (Robert)talk 06:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally looking very nice, though this is certainly not a subject about which I know anything.

  • "an irreversible lung condition that involves enlargement of, and damage to the bronchioles, and pooling of mucus in the bronchiolar passages" Could this be rephrased? "enlargement of, and damage to the bronchioles," is the problem bit, I think
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "confused with bronchitis" Link?
  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "primary bronchiolitis include bronchiolitis obliterans, follicular bronchiolitis, respiratory bronchiolitis, mineral dust airway disease" Are primary bronchiolitis and/or the unlinked conditions worth linking/redlinks?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "In DPB, a variation of TAP2 was found very likely to be associated with the disease." Odd phrase
  • CE'd. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps consider a picture of one of the bacteria species mentioned? Visual interest can't hurt. Your call.
They are both Gram-negative bacilli – just tiny, red, rod-shaped bacteria - I don't think pictures would be informative.File:Haemophilus influenzae Gram.JPG and File:Pseudomonas aeruginosa Gram.jpg Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "neutrophil granulocytes" Link?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree a link might help, but these are just the type of white blood cell that constitutes pus so a definition in brackets might be enough for some readers. Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "include strong cough with large amounts" a strong cough?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention blood gas a few times before explaining it.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You are right, this needs to be explained earlier. (It's just the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels). Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on the history section at the bottom, but if that's what the WikiProject says, go with it, I guess. I think it needs to be reworded a little if it is placed there; the opening seems odd for something so far down the article.

The article is very well written, and, despite my non-expertise, I didn't have too much trouble following. I will have to defer to experts, but I would be inclined to support if the small issues I've raised are resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Sections does not specify an order. It states "The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition" It goes on to give examples or cases where varying the order can help, including an example where the history section is at the top. If editors think an article is improved by having different headers or a different ordering, then they should feel free to make the change. Colin°Talk 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62. I intend to do a full prose review, but before I do, there is one structural unrelated comment I must make: I believe the History section should be expanded. This can be partly resolved by stealing the historical content from Prognosis, which I think is a necessary step anyway. Any subsection which is not called History should describe the current state of knowledge in that area. It is confusing to just arbitrarily litter the entire article with historical tidbits when there is a section which is intended to cover such information. It may also be helpful to add to the History section some snippets about the history of treatment, or perhaps how our understanding of the causes of DBP has changed. I like broccoli.

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "In spite of the improved prognosis, DPB still has no cure" Why is this sentence not in the lead? I would think that the availability of a cure is one of the most important pieces of information available about any disease.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "DPB can be distinguished from these by the presence of lesions that appear on X-rays as nodules in the bronchioles of both lungs" I don't see why the X-rays bit should be mentioned here. That is better suited for Signs and Symptoms or Diagnosis rather than Classification. Ten years from now, the way in which the disease is diagnosed may have changed, but the classification may stay the same.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Signs revealed via lung X-rays and blood gas evaluation, respectively..." This seems like a very weird way of constructing this sentence. I'd prefer to see it the other way around: "Other signs include dilation (enlargement) of the bronchiolar passages and hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood), which can be detected via lung X-rays and blood gas evaluation, respectively."
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "HLA-B54 is associated with DPB in Japanese" Might there be some way to disambiguate the language from the people? Even putting "the" in front of "Japanese" would be sufficient, I think. Another option would be to swap out "Japanese" with "those from Japan".
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "by allowing increased disease susceptibility" Susceptibility to this disease? Or to diseases in general?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Further, it was possible that a number of..." Not sure that I understand why this is in the past tense. Is this no longer possible? Perhaps the phrase "believed to be" is missing...?
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Genes within this area of HLA include TAP2 and C6orf37." I am of the opinion that paragraph-opening sentences should not use "this" to refer to items in the previous paragraph. There are two options to avoid this: rewrite the sentence to explicitly state what "this area" refers to, or rejigger the paragraph splitting for great justice.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "TAP2 (Transporter, ATP-binding cassette, MHC, 2)" Err... who exactly is the intended audience of the parenthetical content? I suggest deleting it. If the reader is curious to know what seemingly-arbitrary string of characters are associated with TAP2, he or she can navigate to TAP2 and find out there.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The same is true of "C6orf37 (Chromosome 6 open reading frame 37)", although this one is slightly less mysterious.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Inflammation is a normal part of the immune response" I may be the only person who thinks this, but I think it may be helpful to insert "human" before "immune response". It's entirely possible that a reader will jump down to Pathophysiology without reading anything else, in which case it would not be clear what species is/are being referred to.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 05:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The diagnosis of DPB requires analysis of the lungs and bronchiolar tissues, the sinuses, blood and sputum." I'm not sure I understand why there are two instances of "and" in this list.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 05:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Severe inflammation in all layers of the respiratory bronchioles, and lung tissue lesions that appear as nodules within the terminal and respiratory bronchioles in both lungs are the distinguishing features of DPB, and confirm its diagnosis." The first comma in this sentence confuses the crap out of me. Assuming I've interpreted this correctly, here is how I would rephrase it: "The distinguishing features of DPB which confirm its diagnosis are severe inflammation in all layers of the respiratory bronchioles, and lung tissue lesions that appear as nodules within the terminal and respiratory bronchioles in both lungs."
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 05:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "the bronchiolar nodular shadows visible on lung X-rays" I assume that "shadows" has some particular meaning in the context of X-rays, but as a non-medical dude, I don't know what it is.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "When either disease is diagnosed in a Japanese individual, the differentiation between them is routinely examined." I don't understand the significance of this sentence. It reads as though it will be elaborated upon in the sentences that follow it, but it immediately transitions to rheumatoid arthritis. Confuzzled!
  • The context is from above, but made a copy edit. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "In DPB, the nodules are noticeably and typically more restricted to the respiratory bronchioles" The adverbs "noticeably" and "typically" seem to contradict each other in this context. The former implies that the restriction is always true and is always noticeable, while the latter implies that the restriction is generally true, but there may be exceptions. Which is correct?
  • Fixed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Long-term treatment in DPB denotes that an individual with the disease has been or will be treated with erythromycin for an indefinite period lasting longer than two or three years, depending upon the success of treatment." This sentence is just a giant mess o' words. I can't suggest improvements because I really have no idea what it is trying to convey. Perhaps you would be so kind as to try and explain it here?
  • Fixed in the article. But seriously, do you want a perfectly qualifed english sentence, of which you have not identified a syntax nor grammatical error, explained to you here? :) Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Much better. And seriously: while it is often the case that incomprehensibility is the result of grammatical or syntactical errors, it is still possible for a correctly-structured sentence to be confusing. Modern legalese contains plenty of examples of sentences which are correct without being comprehensible.
  • "and stopping treatment for a while in such cases has been studied." I don't think this clause is necessary.
  • Axed. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "This curative effect is considered to be in play" I'm not a fan of the highly informal and somewhat ambiguous phrase "in play".
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "DPB symptoms eventually return and treatment is quickly resumed." ...unless, of course, treatment is not resumed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A journal report from 1983 indicated that untreated DPB had a five-year survival rate of 62.1%" I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, this report is so old that its findings hardly seem relevant in 2011. A lot changes in 28 years! On the other hand, it's true that the treatment options will have improved, but that wouldn't have any effect on the untreated survival rate, right? But on the first hand, it's possible that our diagnostic capabilities have gotten better, which would mean that DPB would be identified earlier, which would inflate the statistic of how long it is possible to survive untreated. Merh. I would love to see a more recent source for this kind of statistic, but I'm also open to other suggestions or arguments.
  • "In DPB cases where successful treatment with erythromycin has resulted in a curative effect, which sometimes happens after a treatment period lasting longer than two years, treatment has been allowed to end for a while." This seems a bit redundant, as the cessation of treatment was mentioned just a few paragraphs earlier.
  • "DPB has a high prevalence among Japanese, at 11 per 100,000 population" I wouldn't describe that as "high". Perhaps "the highest" would be better?

Review complete. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, no overlinking (considering the topic's length and complexity). GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment—The bottom half of the article has a "wall-of-text" feel to it. What do you think about breaking up the flow with a picture of erythromycin in the Treatment section? Adds a bit of visual interest and is certainly of relevance, as a major treatment option. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Overall, the article looks good. Here are some things that are commonly mentioned in other sources that may warrant inclusion:

  • Japanese diagnostic criteria
  • CT findings (perhaps the image from this article can be included as well, it seems to have a suitable license: [2])
  • I'm not the most proficient with the image license stuff, so if anyone wants to jump in and get it, much appreciated. :) Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded File:HRCT scans of diffuse panbronchiolitis.jpg. Sasata (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added it to the article. Some text about the role of CT still needs to be added. --WS (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Relationship with smoking
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Prognosis with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection (very bad)

Some other remarks:

  • The list of symptoms probably only needs one or two reference instead of four.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "DPB is not age-related." - what does this mean? (especially considering the article also says onset is around age 40, and other sources quote peaks around 20 and 50 and almost no cases <20)
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The disease is slightly more common in males, the difference above females being negligible." - what is negligible? the ratio seems to be around 1.4-2:1
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why have the epidemiology and history sections been merged? I think they can easily stand on their own.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The diagnosis section could use some attention, with the diagnosis part explained a bit clearer.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The differential diagnosis part should be shortened a bit.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the treatment section contains some vague statements like "stopping treatment for a while in such cases has been studied." and "curative effect" (some of it explained later in the prognosis section).
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Current survival figures should be in the prognosis section, not under history.
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

--WS (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I will have to rewrite much of the Cause section, to get rid of primary sources, and mainly to be concurrent with the state of things as per the 2011 review of the genetics of DPB (PMID 21303426). I'll have it ready in a few days. :) Rcej (Robert)talk 06:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Rcej (Robert)talk 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Support --WS (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support – It would be nice to see those two red links "stubified". Graham Colm (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. in Europe

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently undergone a copyedit which has improved the prose, which was the main issue when the article went to GAN. A peer review was recently undertaken which helped improve the layout of the article and improve it for non football readers. All in all, I believe the article is ready to be considered for promotion. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Include both authors for Ponting refs?
Steve Hale, the co-author is a photographer, it's ponting that has wrote the book, I can include him if you want? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
done NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format
scanned through the article and I can't find any inconsistent dates, could tell me which were the offending dates please? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
" Retrieved 12 September 2006" vs "Retrieved June 6, 2011". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
done NapHit (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
LFC History is a highly reliable site, the authors of the site have recently released a book entitled Liverpool F.C. the complete record using info from their site. Statistics from the site have been regularly used on the club's official site, and the club has recognised the site's work. I think all this make it highly reliable. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Your first sentence isn't really relevant, but the second helps. Do you know who the authors are and what their qualifications are? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the sixth paragraph on this page will clear up any reliability issues. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 71: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
added the page NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have only read the lead, and I find the first paragraph dense and difficult. There is probably too much detail, and the organisation of material is confusing. Specifically:-

  • The opening sentence: "Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, whose team has regularly taken part in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions, winning a British record total of eleven trophies since their first appearance in 1964". is very clumsily phrased and far too long. Is it really necessary to say that Liverpool Football Club is based in Liverpool? Try to redraft as two succinct sentences.
  • "Qualification for English clubs is determined by a team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions." That wording implies that the qualification rules for other (non-English) clubs are different – is that the case? Also you need to clarify what the "qualification" is for, e.g. "European tournament qualification is determined..." etc
  • "From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool regularly qualified for the primary European competition, the European Cup, by winning the former Football League First Division." What does "regularly" mean here? The implication of the word is thst they won the first Division every year, which of course they didn't.
  • " Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been achieved either as runner-up or finishing in the top four of the Premier League". Eh? "Either as runner-up or finishing in the top four..." doesn't make sense (and nothing about winning either). You need to find a simpler way of saying that the top four clubs in the Premier League qualify.
  • The final sentence of the opening paragraph does not adequately introduce the other European competitions, and the wording "Liverpool have also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup..." is imprecise.

As the first paragraph of the lead is likely to be the first part of any article which is read, it is particularly important that it offers a clear and coherent introduction to the article. At present I think this doesn't quite do that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd had a go at redrafting the paragraph and I'm happy with everything apart from the last sentence, which I'm going to redraft a few times to see if I can introduce the competitions better. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you have tried to address my points, but I don't think the lead works as it is. The first paragraph mixes details of Liverpool's performance with qualification rules that have changed over time and are quite hard to explain or follow. Elsewhere there is unnecessary detail, e.g. "Liverpool's first match in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland." That's not necessary in the lead. Instead of trying to patch and stitch, I've written a shorter lead which I think works better. You will find it here. Please feel free to adopt it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it was a mess, I've incorporated your lead, which flows a lot better, thanks for that, I appreciate the help. Any further comments on the article would be welcome. Cheers NapHit (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made a couple more tweaks, to clarify the difference between the old European Cup competition and the present Champions League. Please check the these changes make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the successor trophy bit, as they still get the same trophy its just a different name, perhaps the best method would be to simply have European Cup/Champions League and then explain that it was rebranded in 1992? NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • European competitions: "This was later expanded, based on the countries rank in the coefficients...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of "countries".
  • Paisley years: "As the 1975–76 League champions". Capitalizing League seems inconsistent with the rest of the article so far.
  • Fagan years: "Liverpool won the first leg at Anfield 1–0, their tactic in the second leg of withdrawing Dalglish into midfield put Benfica's game play into disarray". Comma clearly should be a semi-colon.
  • Benitez years: Don't need a second penalty shootout link, especially since this one's a general article, not specifically on the soccer version.
  • Repetition from one sentence to another here: "Dudek was replaced by Pepe Reina. Reina...". Try to avoid this if possible.
  • Another one here: "and again faced Chelsea. Chelsea progressed...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Giants I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Giants I put the apostrophe on the wrong sentence it should be right now. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments by User:Dweller

Kudos on a great article. I'm enjoying it immensely, as, like many English fans of other teams, I have a soft spot for LFC. However, I do have some observations, please bear with me. Comments will follow, below. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I'm doing some minor c-e as I go through the article, but here we go with my comments to-date... apologies, I've not read the above (TLDR), so they may conflict with or repeat things said before:

  • article title is too colloquial for my liking. It's also bewildering for non Brits - of course Liverpool F.C. is "in Europe", as is Halifax Town F.C.. Permanently, by dint of geography, not footballing ability. I know it fits with the other seven club articles in Category:English football clubs in Europe, but I don't think that they're Featured. The parent article English clubs in European football is much better titled. Sorry, that's an annoying one to start with.
Ye, that has been mentioned before, it is fairly ambiguous. I think titling it along the same lines as the parent article would be the best choice. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's an easier one to deal with: "club" appears three times in opening sentence.
  • "that has been" implies it is no longer
  • first mention of each trophy should be wikilinked
  • comments on methods of qualification for Europe are way too detailed for Lead - it's an entire sentence utterly unrelated to Liverpool F.C.

More to follow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, I've dealt with a few, but I have work in the morning so going to bed in a bit, will address the rest tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • small point, but I believe RS usually talk about English clubs being "readmitted", not "reaccepted" (I'm a Norwich fan - no history of crowd trouble and we'd have qualified twice during the period of the ban, grr)
  • The section on European competitions seems massively overblown. I appreciate the rigour, but really just want the reader to understand what the various trophies are/were and roughly get an idea of their hierarchy. But mostly, it should be covered by a main article hatnote. I think you could make this an introduction section, which would then explain that in the early years of the competitions, Liverpool didn't play. You'd then explain something that is significantly missing from the article: why didn't Liverpool participate from inauguration of the competitions in 1955 until their first campaign in 1964. Sorry, I know that's another horror comment to get at FAC.
ok I think I've addressed all your concerns now, I've moved the page to reflect the name of the parent article. I've rewrote the section on the competitions per your comments, I'm unsure on the title though and how it should be implemented. I'm not sure whether it should stay as it is or be put into the history section. Anyway I hope the article is in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please check that all citations follow a punctuation mark, per WP:MOS --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

  • "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served ...": Not your fault, you (and others) are following that awful advice in WP:LEAD ... but I just can't see it. "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment served ..." - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Made up mostly of German immigrants, it was also known as ...": Just an idea, this would be a little tighter: "Mostly German immigrants, they were also known as ..."
  • "Cameron Rifles,": See WP:LQ
  • "1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting.": had finished
  • "Washington, D.C..": oops
  • "re-organized": hyphen in BritEng, no hyphen in AmEng
  • "They moved to Hunter's Chapel, Virginia, and camped there for the remainder of the winter. While there, Betge came into conflict ...": No big deal, but someone's probably going to complain it's not tight enough ... how about this? "They camped for the remainder of the winter in Hunter's Chapel, Virginia. Betge came into conflict ..."
  • That covers the first section, and I probably won't have any trouble covering the copyediting in my self-allotted two hours ... but run through the rest looking for similar problems before I get started, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I do like my language to be concise. I've gone over the rest of the article with that in mind, but if you see any other problems, let me know. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your fixes. I get that there's an argument the other way, but I still don't like "In all, 1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting." If you don't like "had finished", it can be reworded.
  • "Colonel Betge protested against what he considered the mistreatment his regiment": something's missing.
  • "Frémont's force of 15,000 combined with the 10,000-man division of Brig. Gen. James Shields to converge on Jackson south of Massanutten Mountain.": most readers are going to read "combined with" as "along with", then they'll have to back up when they realize the sentence doesn't seem to have a verb.
  • "they did lose two men killed": a little informal. "two men were killed" works I think.
  • "April 2, 1863": WP:Checklist#second comma needed. Search for 1863 to catch the others.
  • "the 68th crossed the Potomac and arrived in Virginia on July 16 and took up guard duty": The two ands don't work.
  • "it and the rest of the XI Corps was": were; compound subject.
  • "As the 68th had no colonel since von Bourry was cashiered": one of the verb tenses is wrong ... it could be either one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed all of these. I wasn't against the "had finished" language, I just missed it last time around. Should be good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:68thNY_Gettysburg.png: since this is 3D, you need either copyright info for both the image and the monument, or a freedom of panorama tag.
    • The pic is from 1900. The monument has been there at least that long. I'm not sure what you want me to add -- freedom of panomara doesn't apply in the U.S., according to that link. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • My mistake, struck. Just explicitly state that the licensing tag applies to both the artwork and the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • OK, I added that detail with a citation. The monument was dedicated in 1888. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Acw_bs_7a.png: on what source(s) was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The portal picture? I have no idea. I can remove it if it's a problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • According to the page's description, the creator made it himself and releases it to the PD. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it appears to be derived from pre-existing flags, which need to be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
          • The user who created it hasn't edited in eighteen months, so I doubt we'll get any clarification from him/her. I'll just comment it out for now, if that's OK. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your image assessments before, but I think this one is a little too cautious. There's nothing to suggest that the creator of the image did anything but draw a combination of two well-known images. That said, I'll be glad to take it out for the good of the article -- I don't think it's that important and the portal is linked on the talk page already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I left a note on the image's talk page. Until a satisfactory response, I'm happy to leave it commented out. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks clear 3/12 sources; 5/79 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I was concerned about your reliance on Fritsch, as it is a primary source. However, I note two things: 1) the text was edited prior to publication, not a great but better than nil; 2) Every thing solely cited to Fritsch is a matter of simple appointment or manoeuvre, no analytical content is cited to Fritsch, and the documentary analysis required to produce these statements would be trivial synthesis. (Grind teeth, accept use).
    • NYT at fn5;6 clear; Coffey fn4, 70, 76 clear.
    • From the style of summarisation of NYT and Coffey I have no doubts that this is clear of plagiarism and that the citations correctly support the sources.

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article for the reasons previously stated. The article has been carefully rewritten following the withdrawal of the first nomination; the previous nomination apparently fell by the wayside through lack of activity. On successful promotion, I hope to submit for TFA on 10 December, first anniversary of the award ceremony. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - ex. [12][49] instead of [49][12]
  • According to this, Netease is a news aggregator - was FN 40 originally from a different source?
  • FN 64: page(s)?
  • FN 63: I'm not sure citing a search-engine results page is the best approach here. Is there no secondary source that draws this conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • footnotes now in numerical order
    • FN 40: the citation, together with its accompanying text are removed as minor coatracks to the article.
    • FN 64: page number - hard copy request under way. will update asap
    • FN 63: presumably you meant FN73? Now replaced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I should probably preface my vote by noting that, according to the nifty tool at the side, I am the second highest contributor to this article. That said, I believe I am still objective enough to vote. I just ran through the article, making some small copyedits as I went (please check over them to make sure I haven't messed anything up), and I believe the article meets the criteria – it's well-written, well-referenced, presented with a neutral POV and follows the MoS. I'm sure Nikkimaria's comments and anyone else's will be resolved by Ohconfucius. Jenks24 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, wikilinks look good, one problem with WP:LEAD:

  • There was apparently some misunderstanding in the last FA-discussion. Direct quotations, and contentious material about living persons, must be attributed with a reliable source immediately, regardless of their placement in lead or not. References for most other non-contentious or summary informations (except those 2 cases) can be placed in the main text. Please see WP:V, WP:LEAD and especially WP:LEADCITE for more information. In the actual lead i would cite all quotes (or rephrase them in your own words, where possible) and the 2-3 most controversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm glad I didn't remove these outright, choosing instead to comment them out. The refs are now reinstated; I did a corresponding reordering of refs. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead says the award was "bitterly attacked by the PRC government and the state-owned media." Who is deciding that the attacks were "bitter"? And that they were attacks rather than legitimate grievances? The sentence "The government strongly denounced the award, and summoned the Norwegian ambassador in Beijing to make a formal protest", uses appropriate neutral language, and I'd like to see more of that, and less of the "bitter attacks". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In the Chinese media section: "Students, apparently unanimously..." apparently comes from the source, though is this comment factual or a personal viewpoint with implied negative tones? Is there widespread concern that the students' view were not unanimous, or is just that particular writer who is saying this? Either way, a rewording for clarity and to avoid the suggestion that it is Wikipedia which is casting doubt on the China Youth Daily report would be useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "people with ulterior motives" is put into the mouths of the students. This is not clear from the source, which says it is "used twice in the article". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Liu Xia. "Chinese police cordoned off the area and to prevent her from giving interviews" - this is not given in the two sources cited. The police cordoned off the area, though the Guardian says the police were guarding her house and wouldn't let journalists in, but they didn't know why - and then they do a phone interview. The other source has Liu Xia saying "They want to distance me from the media." But that is her opinion, and should be presented as such. Also, the sentence needs sorting - is it meant to say "Chinese police cordoned off the area to prevent her from giving interviews" or "Chinese police cordoned off the area and prevented Liu Xia from giving interviews"? Neither of them suitable anyway. To get the balance right you'd need to have both sides - the police said they were guarding her, she says they wanted to distance her from the media. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"Temporary blue hoardings, supposedly construction barriers" - I assume supposedly is taken from the journalist's opinion that the building work was "a peculiar coincidence". It's difficult to mention the barriers without making a leading statement. Perhaps, "By what the Guardian's journalist called 'a peculiar coincidence', construction barriers were erected on both sides of the road at the southern entrance of the residential complex, obscuring the estate." SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I note and accept your modification to the text. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship" and "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities". Where is the evidence for this? A little later in the article we are told "Web searches using Chinese search engines for "Liu Xiaobo" in Chinese without attaching the words "Peace Prize," gave information about Liu", which suggests that before the announcement there was no censorship - and, indeed, after the announcement, it was only the Nobel Prize nomination that was being censored as people were still able to access info on him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have provided further refs to back up that assertion. There's also this. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The link you provided says: "Many have commented in the days since the award that Liu Xiaobo is far from well known in China, and that his victory will never be significant there. This is irrelevant as well as untrue." There appears to be a lack of clarity regarding how eminent he was as a scholar and how much the public were aware of his role in the Tiananmen Square protests and Charter 08. Sources such as the Guardian also talk about him doing prominent things, then says "Thanks to China's strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country.". I feel a nuanced approach to this aspect might be appropriate. A close reading of the more detailed sources, such as the emagzin article below, indicates that he had some form of public presence, but that his publications were banned. This banning appears to have been escalated by some media sources into the public totally forgetting him, as though a widespread brain washing had taken place. How little known could he be, when shortly after Tiananmen Square he was interviewed by the state media? So, banned, yes, unknown, it doesn't appear so. An approach might be to remove the definitive statement saying: "a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship", as well as "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities", and to have a section on Liu Xiaobo which summarises the main points of his life and would include the banning of his publications, and would mention that the media in reporting on the nomination would say that due to "strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country". That would balance the statement, and would move it from a known fact to a media comment. While we should report what sources are saying, we shouldn't present one version as fact, especially when we have sources which present an alternative view. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading this as well as our own article - Liu Xiaobo, it seems he was known to the Chinese public, though his books were banned, and he was jailed several times. He is mentioned as "rising to great prominence in 1986". I would think it helpful to have a summary of the man in the article perhaps as the first section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this is a tricky topic in regards to NPOV as most of the reporting appears to jump on the bandwagon of any Chinese dissident is immediately worthy of Western support, and few commentators have looked closely at Liu Xiaobo's rather right-wing writings. There is considerable opaqueness, and even a simple fact like how well known he was/is in his homeland cannot be pinned down. The urging of the Chinese authorities that he is little known in China have been taken up only too readily by journalists; though as one of the most public figures in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, who was afterwards frequently denounced on state TV, I find this odd. And when the state's own newspaper in an effort to show how little known he was, indicate that only 28% of people in Shanghai knew of him,[3] I'm sensing a poorly constructed smokescreen. I think the article is moving in the right direction as regards neutrality and pinning down the facts, and is laudably attempting to present all sides of the story, though I still get the impression that the article is an attack on China's human rights record. It may be that the nature of the topic is that most sources will be biased, and we can't move too far from that without going into original research. However, we can limit any potential bias by the way we present information, and that items which may be seen as negative toward the Chinese authorities are not all foregrounded with the balancing statements coming much later in the paragraph/section/article. I have made a few adjustments here and there in the article which indicate what I mean, though there are other areas which still concern me, such as "the country's Chinese-language media launched a concerted assault on Liu", and I compare that with this more sober line from 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: "There was widespread criticism of the Nobel Committee's decision from commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum." I think a little less of the emotive military language would be helpful. Having said that, I do find that within the article there is a commendable amount of material gathered from all sources. I feel reassured by the end of the article that all aspects have been covered, including criticism of Liu from The Guardian.[4] I am still just a little bit concerned that the tone may be inclined to be critical of the Chinese government rather than neutral. I think we're almost there, and I wish I could spare more time to help out, but I am off to France in a couple of days to take part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, and I have a few other on-Wiki matters to sort out before I go. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment, inclined to oppose. Sampling the first three paragraphs of the "Nomination and announcement" section of the article, it seems to need a bit of a work-over. I also fully agree with SilkTork's comments, most of which now seem to have been addressed. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't Nobel Committee be wikilinked?
  • "The monetary component of the prize is 10 million Swedish kronor (US$1.5 million)." Obvious tense issue: out of date.
  • "Although the Nobel Committee has had a policy of confidentiality of nominations for 50 years" Another tense issue.
  • The Huffington Post reference (Ian Macdougall, 2 February 2010) is dead.
  • "Also on the list were six Chinese dissidents". The source doesn't say there were six, it just mentions six of "A number of Chinese dissidents".
  • "who was jailed for 11 years on 25 December 2010". Seems to be the wrong year. 2009 maybe? And how do we know the exact date?
  • "wrote to lobby on his behalf". Wrote to whom? Publicly or privately? That's important, I would think.
  • "Xu Youyu, and others, wrote an open letter in support of Liu". Was it the same open letter? The source doesn't suggest so. It suggests Xu wrote an article and others joined in an open letter and doesn't suggest they are the same.
  • "The Chinese foreign ministry asserted that awarding Liu the prize would be against Nobel principles, and warned that it would damage ties between the two countries." What two countries? It's not apparent from the context that the article is talking about Norway.
  • "On 7 October 2010, Norwegian television networks reported that the imprisoned Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, was the front-running candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize". Howcome Liu's suddenly introduced by his full name and "imprisoned Chinese dissident..."? He's been "Liu" in the two previous paragraphs. Also we already know that this article is about "the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize".
  • "experiencing a noticeable increase". "noticeable" seems redundant in the context.
  • Thanks. The specific points you identified have been treated. There may have been connectivity problems with the Huffington article – it's working for me. I will make another pass through to see what others I can pick up. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment this article is well-written and remarkably comprehensive, my only concern is that {{Cquote}} and {{Rquote}} aren't used properly. See the templates' Template documentation. The article should use {{Quotation}} and {{Quote box}}. Also, regarding the "Nobel Peace Prize Concert" section—How was this event received in the press, if at all? There was most likely some kind of commentary somewhere. Did any of the performers or hosts make statements about the prize itself, the recipient, the concert, or the ceremony? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was unaware as to the prescribed use of the {{cquote}} template, but consider it more aesthetically pleasing than the {{quotation}} template. However, so as not to be in breach of the conventions, the quotes have been reformatted. As to commentary on the concert itself, that which did exist seems to have disappeared from search engine results. To avoid needing to develop the section on this non-central subject, I merged it into the preceding one. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Your work on this article is highly commendable, especially your commitment to balanced global perspectives on a controversial, relatively recent topic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The infobox is a bit confusing. Some of the fields is about "2010 Nobel Peace Prize" and some is about "Nobel Peace Prize". I don't think it is useful to have the first and last awarded fields in every article about "xxxx Nobel Peace Prize". It will also look very strange in december when "Currently held by" is updated. Then the winner of the 2010 award, which this article is about, will not be mentioned in the box but the 2011 winners will. I suggest removing the three last fields and add a field for the 2010 winner. The fileds for location etc may be useful to keep if it has changed (I don't know if it always have been in Oslo) but fields that will be exactly the same in all "xxxx Nobel Peace Price" articles seems unnessecary. Iusethis (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Media Review This page is surprisingly not blocked in the PRC. My only issue is that I'd appreciate it if someone could translate the Chinese descriptions into English for the images that do not have English descriptions on their file information pages. It's not a requirement, but it is a kindness. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • P.S. Looks like Wikipedia is going to get blocked in China for a few days after the 10th. Yay me.
  • Spotcheck concern 3/153 cites for supporting their claims, plagiarism, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • fn50 (Branigan 10 Dec 2010) clear
    • fn100 (Dasgupta, Saibal 13 Oct 2010) "conspicuously silent" may be an overstretch. Please check any emphatic claims against their sources, or respond to this concern inline, as to why it isn't an overstretch?
    • fn150 (news.com.au 13 Dec 2010) clear

Blonde on Blonde

Nominator(s): Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it is of FA quality. We are looking forward to the review process and to hearing any feedback reviewers may have. Thank you. Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Quick Comments Fantastic album, but it needs some MOS editings. For example it fails WP:NUMBERSIGN. Also a little bit curious is the "easter-egg" linking of "US Top Twenty" to "Billboard Hot 100". They might charted there, but the name of the chart is different. Can you explain what "faddism" means, maybe link it to Wiktionary or explain it in brackets. "Side Four" doesn't need to be written in capitals. --♫GoP♫TCN 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Great Orange Pumpkin, thank you for your comments. I have changed all of the #s to No., removed the capitals from Side Four, and removed the "easter-egg" wiki-link that you mentioned. I will see what I can do about "faddism" in the next day or two. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Faddism" has been wiki-linked to fad to explain term. Mick gold (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
ok nice.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Note 3: page(s)?
  • Can you provide catalogue or album numbers for the album notes cited?
  • No citations to Buckley 2003 or Janovitz
  • Check for naming consistency - for example, "Faber and Faber" vs "Faber & Faber"
  • What is MBL?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. MBL is Marine Biological Laboratory, a research center for biology and ecology in Massachussetts. MBL hosts academic lectures known as the Falmouth Forum Series. It was at this Forum that noted literary critic Christopher Ricks gave a lecture on the accusation of misogyny in the work of Bob Dylan, John Donne and T.S.Eliot. A point from Ricks's talk regarding "Just Like A Woman" is footnoted to the Famouth Forum Series, MBL.
Of the reliable sources you query, I thought the Pop Matters review read more like a self-indulgent blog than a professional review, so I removed it. The point made by about.com is made by 2 other reputable books, so it is unnecessary, and has been removed. The Michael Gray blog is a ref because Michael Gray is among the leading authorities on Dylan and author of The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Al Kooper, who played keyboards on every track on Blonde on Blonde, posted an attack on Gray's website, stating that Gray's account of the recording dates of Blonde on Blonde in his Encyclopedia was inaccurate. It seems important to acknowledge this disagreement about recording dates, through a reference to Kooper's attack. Mick gold (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have now added a page for Note 3. In the actual document all four pages seem to be mistakenly labeled 19 (?? Or does the 19 refer to the document number?). In any case, it's the third page, so I labeled it page 3. I have removed Buckley 2003 and Janovitz from the References section, and made the mentions of "Faber and Faber" consistent. I still have to look into adding catalog or album numbers for the cited album notes. Thank you for pointing these things out. Moisejp (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now added publisher id numbers for the four albums whose notes we cite. Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment

I've only read the intro, but already, a few prose issues jump out at me.

    • This may be personal taste, but avoid awkward "future-past tense" expressions (that's my weird way of describing them) such as "only one track that would make it onto the final album", " a song that would later evolve into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan would not attempt the song again, but one of the outtakes from the January 21 session would ultimately appear 25 years later on". I think you should shoot straight for the past tense: "only one track made it onto the final album", "a song that evolved into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan did not attempt the song again" etc etc etc.
    • "Successfully completed" is redundant. "Complete" is an absolute term, and it can't be "unsuccessfully completed".
    • Review your use of "that vs which", and which one requires a comma in front of it, based on its part of speech.
    • You have a number of noun+ing expressions.
    • Is the Billboard's Pop Albums chart the same as the Billboard 200? If yes, can you just say so? Billboard has many genre charts, and using Pop Album chart may give the impression that you're referring to one of these charts.
    • I'm not sure "Top Twenty" is supposed to be capitalized. Ditto for "Just Like A Woman".
    • If you're going to use a quotation, you have to cite it...even in the intro
    • What exactly is a "a New York literary sensibility"?

Will review the body in a bit. I've read bits and pieces, and it appears well-written. Orane (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Skimmed a bit more. Singles do not chart on the Billboard 200. Orane (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Orane/Journalist, thanks for your comments.
I've tried to fix the dodgy future tenses you pinpointed. Ditto "successfully completed". Ditto citing quotation in lead.
Bob Dylan: Lyrics 1962 - 2001 has "Just Like a Woman", so do critical works Wicked Messenger, Marqusee, and Revolution In The Air, Heylin. So I've tried to make this consistent.
What is a New York literary sensibility? Good question! This point is made most fully by Marqusee, who is quoted in Legacy section: Dylan "took inherited idioms and boosted them into a modernist stratosphere." Wicked Messenger, p.208. Marqusee writes of Dylan combining the musical language of Nashville and the blues with modernist themes, such as the "radical destabilization of the singer's consciousness". So I've changed lead to: "Combining the expertise of Nashville session musicians with a modernist literary sensibility" I hope this is clearer. Mick gold (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. Not to sound too hasty, but just wondering about my other concerns. Also, in the singles section, you're using contractions, which is usually discouraged in formal writing. Instead of "didn't chart", how about "—" or "N/A" or something similar? Orane (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Orane, we will try to look at your other concerns within the next day. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Singles section now has "N/A". Mick gold (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Orane, regarding your other concerns. I have changed "Top Twenty" to "top twenty". GrahamColm has changed a number of whichs to that, and one case of "with (noun) -ing" (thank you, GrahamColm). I will scan through to see if I can find any others, but please let us know if you notice any more that I miss. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Great Orange Pumpkin dealt with the Billboard 200 issue. [5] In my scanning, which will be later today, I will see if I notice any other cases of that. Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
"The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's Pop Albums chart in the USA, eventually going double-platinum, while it reached No. 3 in the UK". I was referring to this sentence in the intro. Is the Billboard Pop Albums chart the Billboard 200? Also, as a suggestion how about rewriting the sentence "The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's 200 Chart in the USA and eventually went double-platinum, and reached No. 3 in the UK." Other than that, you have my support. Orane (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have changed that sentence to almost exactly the way you proposed. I also went through the article to see if I could spot any more bad cases of "which" or "with noun -ing", but didn't find any. Thanks again for pointing those things out. Moisejp (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job Moisejp. My concerns have been addressed. Article is amazing. Orane (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • More comments
    • "a song recorded during the Highway 61 sessions that was rejected." – why was it rejected? would still now why :/
    • What is "half-ideas"?
    • I think "box-set" without the hyphen
    • As per WP:DECADE, "1985's" is incorrect
    • "sitting in on drums" – is that some kind of typo?
    • "A Studio" or "A studio"?
    • Ref 39 doesn't work correctly.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, my fault. Sorry :P.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Great Orange Pumpkin. We don't know why it was rejected. We know it was recorded during the Highway 61 sessions, but not included on that album. This has been re-written.
      • Half-idea, box-set, 1985's, sitting in, all re-written.
      • Studio is capitalized when it is a proper name. Thus: "Blonde on Blonde was Bob Dylan’s seventh studio album. Recording commenced at Studio A, Columbia Recording Studios, New York City. Frustrated by the lack of progress in the studio, the musicians re-located to Columbia Music Row Studios, Nashville, Tennessee". Mick gold (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • GreatOrangePumpkin, hi. About Ref 39, it is now fixed but you may or may not be happy with my solution. If you have a better solution, let me know. I believe it was you who italicized Billboard throughout the article, which is great. But in the ref links (39, 105 and 122—and now also 106, which I have added Billboard to for consistency) italics seem not to work. In the |ref=CITEREF}} part of the References, I tried to add italics and the links weren't working. (I also added italics to Blonde on Blonde to the ref links, reasoning that if Billboard should be italicized, so should Blonde on Blonde.) But when I removed all the italics, everything worked fine again. Well, my reasoning has always been that in the actual text, of course, italics are necessary. But ref links seem to me to be kind of a special category which is almost just an arbitrary name that we're calling this link, and so for me, not having the italics in them seems acceptable. If you don't agree, fair enough, but if not, do you have another solution? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Clarification: When I say "arbitrary name" of course I don't mean the ones that are an author's name and a year, I meant the ones for web pages without an author's name. But even then, I use the word "arbitrary" very loosely because I actually do like to consistently use the title of the web page as both the title= in the References section entries and the ref link name in the Footnotes section. I guess I used the word "arbitrary" to suggest that it could be more flexible, i.e. just as record review titles in magazines often don't italicize the album name, the ref link name is not an actual piece of text in a body of regular writing, but could be considered more like "meta-data" or something. Anyway, again, you may completely disagree with me, and if so I'm all ears for other solutions. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a few edits to the article rather than list my minor concerns here. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a remarkably well done article, I have a few nitpicks and one fairly major objection:
  • I feel like it would make more sense for "Mixing and album title" to be a subsection of "Recording sessions", and for "Release" to be its own section.
  • The "Songs" section is superb; excellent work.
  • "Blonde on Blonde's cover photo is printed sideways to unfold to form a color 12-by-26-inch portrait of Dylan." -- I feel like this could be reworded, right now it's a bit unclear.
  • I really feel that "Critical reception and legacy" needs more about the album's reception at the time of its release. What's there is great but the absence of almost anything other than retrospective acclaim hurts the article's comprehensiveness. This is the only glaring omission. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Brandt Luke Zorn, Thanks for your comments, particularly your praise of the "Songs" section.
  • Your suggestion to make "Mixing and album title" another section of "Recording sessions" makes sense and I've done this.
  • To make "Release" its own section would create a very short section - 147 words. I'll wait until we hear whether other editors agree with your suggestion.
  • This is understandable, but it doesn't seem like a logical subheader of "Album cover and packaging"... perhaps it could be merged with "Critical reception and legacy"? Again, if there were some contemporary reviews that would all flow much better imo.
  • I've re-titled the section "Album cover and release". "Album cover and packaging" sounds like a tautology. For some reason, I still think these two topics, the format of the double album cover and the controversial release date, sit happily together. If others disagree, we can change it. Mick gold (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Description of the gatefold sleeve has been re-written, to try to make it clearer.
  • Much better, this is what I thought was the case but there's definitely greater clarity now. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Your query about the response to BoB at time of release is interesting, but I can't supply it yet. In all the research for this article, in Heylin, Gray, Scaduto, Sounes, Gill and other well-known Dylan studies, I have not come across a contemporary review. Strangely, even Sean Wilentz in his very detailed account of the making of BoB, does not mention one contemporary review. Perhaps my co-editors can help—Moisejp, Allreet and I.M.S.? I'll email some Dylan scholars I'm in touch with, including Gray and Heylin, to see if they can supply something. It would be interesting to find out. Mick gold (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, Mick gold: Shelton mentions a few contemporary reviews. I know your edition is different from mine, but it's right near the end of the Blonde on Blonde section, a page before "Hard Traveling in to Future Shock". There's not too much we can use there, but it could be a start. Moisejp (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Michael Gray has sent me a review that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 3, 1966, which I have added. From Shelton’s book, I’ve taken extracts from reviews by Richard Goldstein and Jon Landau. (Thanks Moisejp!) Craig McGregor’s 1972 anthology of Dylan criticism reprints an interesting essay on Blonde on Blonde which Paul Nelson wrote as the introduction to the songbook in 1966. I haven’t found any negative reviews from 1966. I hope these contemporary comments add depth to the critical reception section, and provide a platform for Dylan’s 1978 recollection of the album’s achievement. Mick gold (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice work, Mick gold! BTW, the Los Angeles Times review have a title and/or a page number? It'd be all the more ideal with those, but if not the reviewers will hopefully not mind under the circumstances. Also, did the Goldstein review say anything that suggested it was "favorable"? Moisejp (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a title or page number for the LA Times. Michael Gray just sent me the text and the date, I'll ask Gray. I wrote that BoB received "generally favorable reviews". The Johnson and Landau reviews quoted are clearly favorable. The Goldstein review argues against the album being viewed as mysterious or forbidding, and calls it (according to Shelton) "Dylan's least esoteric work". I thought "generally favorable" was a fair summary of those three reviews. Mick gold (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, sounds good about Goldstein. Thanks a lot for contacting Gray. I hope it's no hassle! Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Further correspondence with Dylan scholars has brought me a review of BoB which Paul Williams published in July 1966 in Crawdaddy!, the journal he edited. Our article had a quote from a Jon Landau piece published in Crawdaddy! (which Shelton quoted in his book.) But I’ve learnt that the Landau piece was published later, certainly after 1968. Therefore I’m cutting the Landau quote and adding a Williams quote, an interesting comment by one of the most influential rock critics of the mid 1960s. I found the Goldstein quote the least satisfactory contemporary review, so I’ve cut it. Mick gold (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think the level of contemporary reception is adequate and the article is now comprehensive. Great job, this article does justice to what is imo Dylan's best album. I might suggest that some similar work on contemporary reception could be done on Like a Rolling Stone and The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan (The Basement Tapes I'd say is fine). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments

The prose is good. I just have a few concerns:

  • Possibly trivial info: "According to Wilentz, after the take, McCoy shouted excitedly, 'Robbie, the world'll marry you on that one.'" --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, removed. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Stray punctuations marks. For example: The session began to "get giddy" around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "the session's atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight" (no quotation marks). Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with Moisejp's re-write. Just to explain: Wilentz wrote that "around midnight the mood on the session began to get giddy" on p.123 as per cite at end of sentence. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase, but worried that "get giddy" may be considered too colloquial for a WP article, so I put it in quotes to indicate the phrase was Wilentz's. If it works without "quotes", that's fine for me. Mick gold (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I also have the same feeling toward the use of giddy, but as long as its a quotation. Anyway, looking at the sentence, I think there's a missing punctuation: The session atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." There supposed to be an opening quotation mark. --Efe (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I removed the closing quotation marks before piano that didn't have any opening ones. So, about "get giddy", is the consensus then that they should or shouldn't be in quotation marks? Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better. Seems informal IMO if left without the quotation marks. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have reinstated these. Moisejp (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto on leaving the quotation marks in. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:V, all directions quotations must have direct inline citation: "Johnston recalled commenting, 'That sounds like the damn Salvation Army band'." or "'it's not hard rock, The only thing in it that's hard is Robbie.'" --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, quotes cited. Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, linked. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Proper attribution: "the fourteenth take was deemed the best recording" by who? --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, re-written Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Proper dating: "On February 14, as Dylan was starting to record in Nashville," (although I think it can be found on the upper sections). --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Efe, I wasn't sure what you meant with this comment. Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Re-wrote this in an attempt to clarify date. Mick gold (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for internal consistencies: John Lennon's as opposed to John Lennon's (though I prefer the latter. [6] --Efe (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Apostrophes should not be in italics unless part of the italicized title / term. --Efe (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly informal terms such as "licks" in "harmonica licks", --Efe (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed "licks". Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response Mick. Kindly review the entire article. Those are just examples. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Efe, thank you very much for your comments. I will try to address the remaining ones in the next day or so, as well as looking through the article one more time for other instances, as you suggest. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Efe, as I wrote right above, I will look through the article one more time soon to see if I can catch any other cases of issues you mention. BTW, I noticed that in the lead you changed "1965–66" to "1965 to 66". Are you sure that that's best? It looks a little bit unusual to me, but if you have seen it recommended in MOS, I guess it's OK. In MOS I found the example "the 1939–45 war", which may support what we had before. Or, if you really don't like the en dash there, how would "1965 to 1966" be? Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see GrahamColm has changed that to "in 1965 and 1966". That works best of all for me. Thanks, GrahamColm. Moisejp (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix GC. That's the problem actually comes from. From the reader's perspective, it reads like it was recorded in that period. I'm also worried about the glaring use of em dashes. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Still spotted inconsistencies:
  • "On February 15, the session began at six in the evening, but Dylan simply sat in the studio working on his lyrics, while the musicians played cards, napped, and chatted. Finally, at 4 a.m., " --Efe (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed "six in the evening" to "6 p.m." Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Saw two or more successful in one paragraph. --Efe (talk)
In the next day I will do that read-through I've been promising, and I will look out for any excessive use of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have cut two instances of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • POVish terms of interpretation: In acrimonious comments on Michael Gray's website. Just let the readers decide. --Efe (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed "acrimonious". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "After several musical revisions and false starts, the 'fourteenth take was the version selected for the album." abd "It was not until the 18th take that a full version was recorded. The next take, the 19th," Should be either. --Efe (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now spelled out "eighteenth" and "nineteenth". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Released as a single in April 1966, "Rainy Day Women" reached No. 2 on the Billboard singles chart, and No. 7 in the UK." and "became the fifth single released from Blonde on Blonde, making it to No. 81 on Billboard Hot 100" The first one is general. The second one is specific. Aside from that, can you possibly identify what chart specifically was used in the UK (in stances where you use Billboard Hot 100, or simply Billboard with reference to the singles chart)? Just to achieve parallelism. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I will contact our source for the UK chart positions [7] to see if they can give me the official name of the album and single charts. Moisejp (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Efe, I found two more cases where an apostrophe s was improperly in a wiki-link and one case where an apostrophe was improperly in italics. I have changed these. I'm waiting for a reply from The Official Charts website about the name of the UK chart lists. Moisejp (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Efe, I haven't heard back from the people at the Officials Charts website yet. Although I agree that ideally it'd be nice to have a parallel structure with official names for both the US and UK charts, I don't know where to get the info about the UK chart's official name. Would you settle for what we have now? Moisejp (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I think its fine, but its better if that would be fixed at some later date. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Has the article undergone an image review and a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the latter Nikkimaria's specialty? --Efe (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, Nikkimaria generally checks for things like reliability of sources, formatting, missing info, but does not always check for accurate representation of sources or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have improved the FUR for the album cover in anticipation of an image review. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like we're still waiting for both. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


On the whole, amazing! An article that does justice to a major album, and remains readable and controlled. Some quick comments on the content:

  • The lead refers to rankings on the 500 Greatest Songs list, but this doesn't appear again in the article - it probably needs mentioning in the legacy section (where the Rolling Stone list is mentioned) or in the sections on the two relevant songs.
Thanks for your comments, Shimgray. Before changing this, I'm now slightly confused as I've found a new Rolling Stone "500 Greatest Songs Of All Time" list (from 2011 I think) which lists JLAW at #232 [8], and VoJ at #413 [9]. I'll consult Moisejp et al before editing this. Mick gold (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the best thing to do is in the lead simply say that the two songs were ranked in the Top 500 without specific numbers (that could be an idea anyway), and then down below spell out that there have been two versions of this list and give numbers from both lists? It'd be a bit awkward but it would be thorough. Or another idea is to just assume that the 2011 list is the most official and up-to-date and use it. Moisejp (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, maybe the second idea is better. If you have evidence that the "2011" list is indeed the most recent one—but logically it should be, since the other one we use is from an archived version of the website—maybe we should just use that. It is annoying, though, that Rolling Stone would change its numbers after such a relatively short time. Maybe they wanted to include the best of the most recent songs that have come out. Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the 2011 version is the most recent. Let's go with that one. Can you make the ref/cite work, Moisejp? you're more adept at that. Mick gold (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. I may be pretty busy in the next day or two but I'll try to find some time to do that and to help address some more of Shimgray's issues. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly what we decided, but what do you think? I think it works well. I kind of feel funny about dropping any mention of the 2004 list, because that is when the list became famous. But if anyone feels strongly the 2004 list should be dropped, I could do so. Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edits, Moisejp. I think your solution of putting the 2010 Greatest Songs in brackets works well. Footnotes to 2010 work. Unfortunately, there's a problem with the link to 2004 poll. The RS link produces "404 Page Cannot Be Found". But archive link works [10]. One more idea: why not link to specific song JLAW [11] and VoJ [12]. I've tried to fix ref, to avoid Page 404 problem, but please alter if you can see a better way to link ref. Mick gold (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the links. I went back to the 201-300 and 401-500 lists because the song's individual pages don't actually show the rankings. Moisejp (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The "ninth greatest album" is attributed to VH1 and Rolling Stone, but the legacy section only refers to a Rolling Stone list. Given the various results (#2, #16, #9, & presumably others not mentioned), perhaps it might be best to simply say something like "Often ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time..." in the lead?
I've tried to follow your suggestion in the lead. Mick gold (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to extend (or shift) the Rainy Day Woman clip by a couple of seconds? It currently fades out on "Everybody must ...", which seems odd, as it's probably the most recognisable phrase.
The "Rainy Day Women" sound clip is the maximum length possible, which is 10% of the song's length. I remember when I was editing it I was really struggling to get as much as possible in without going over the allowed length and adjusting the start and end point by fractions of seconds to get the most of the verse in. That said, if we extended the ending we'd have to cut from the beginning and I think it'd sound strange not to include all of the "They'll stone you when you're trying to be so good" line. I'd either have to cut the whole line or leave it all in as it is now. And without that line, then the next line, "They'll stone you just like they said they would" would be less satisfying to hear. For me, the sound clip's present state is the best possible solution under the circumstances. It's true we don't hear the very very end of the "Everybody must get stoned" line, but the line is mentioned in the text, and I think people can imagine the ending. If you or other people really feel strongly it should be changed, I could, but unless someone has a brilliant other solution, my personal preference would be to keep it as it is. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah - I hadn't realised the limits were quite so firm. Fair enough... Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pledging My Time has a citation to the 1986 ed. of Shelton; it might be tidier to refer to the current edition, which is used in all other cases.
The 2011 edition of Shelton isn't a straight re-print of the 1986 edition. Some new material has been added, and some material has been cut. One of the things cut was a detailed discography, so the 1986 edition is the only place I've seen that point. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The song draws on Tampa Red's..." is uncited - is this covered by the footnotes in the following sentence?
Done - added source for the mention of "It Hurts Me Too", switching it to Elmore James' version as that is the one that Wilentz compares to "PMT" in his book. Sadly I had to remove the part on "Sitting On Top Of The World", as I couldn't find a source for it. Google books showed a mention of it and "Pledging My Time" in Michael Gray's encyclopedia, but I couldn't see the whole thing and I don't have access to a physical copy. Mick gold or Moisejp, can you help? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added Michael Gray's comments on PMT which connect the song to Robert Johnson's "Come on in My Kitchen", Skip James, and the Mississippi Sheiks' "Sitting on Top of the World". Mick gold (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've moved the Visions of Johanna file up a paragraph as the box was floating a bit strangely otherwise. Unfortunately, this looks quite cramped - I'm not sure there's a good solution here. (Unless you want to add more quotes from the article! There's certainly scope for them - Motion's praise, perhaps.)
  • I Want You seems to be missing a sentence at the beginning - we go straight into a critical quote without any description of the song itself.
I see what you mean, so I've moved a more general sentence to the top of the article. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I preferred the Kooper sentence to the Gill, but your call... Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sad Eyed Lady - would it be worth mentioning (from the article) that it was recorded in four takes? It's a minor detail, but given the length, it seems quite interesting.
Not sure what you mean. According to Olof Bjorner's website [13], there were four takes, but the fourth and final take was the one released. Mick gold (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, that's what I mean - it only needed three attempts before the final take. It seems surprising for something of that length, written only a few hours before! Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Release date -you might want to add something about the LA Times review here, since it predates the first review date quoted. In addition, I presume these are the US release dates - do we know when it was released outside the US, or is this particular morass best avoided?
Both LA Times and Crawdaddy! reviews are from July 1966, so they are given as contemporary reactions to album. Not sure what more to say. I have no data on overseas release dates, but question of US release date is already complicated enough! Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough :-) Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed some ASIN codes from the references, which were in the publisherid field - these are only valid in Amazon's database, and aren't really much use for tracing the item. Unfortunately, while I own the CDs in question, they're in a box a few hundred miles away and so I can't check for the actual codes - there should hopefully be a serial on the item, or failing that you could use the barcode EAN from the back.
Mick gold, I.M.S. or Allreet, do any of you have copy of these CDs handy? I don't have mine with me right now. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added numbers from my CDs. Mick gold (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Mick. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's it... Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I've struck some clearly resolved points - I'm afraid I'm going to be called away for a day or two, but I'll have a run through again on Sunday evening. Shimgray | talk | 00:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Are there any outstanding issues left from reviewers so far that we still have to address? Moisejp (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything I've mentioned above has been addressed, I think. Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - So far the article looks great, I would like to know about the original album photographs; the cover, and the black and whites that are inside the double album. Who, where, and why? As I remember the album was re-released with different pictures, why was it changed?...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Modernist. We do talk about that some already. Basically, the picture of Claudia Cardinale was removed and replaced with another pic because Dylan didn't have permission to use it. I believe that was the extent of any picture changing. We also mention that one of the nine photos was of Jerry Schatzberg. Are you saying you'd like info about more of the photos? Who else was in them and where they were shot? Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Moisejp. We already quote Schatzberg's account of how he came to take the blurred cover photo. All inside B&W photos taken by Schatzberg and selected for sleeve by Dylan, according to Schatzberg's account. We state that the photo of Cardinale was withdrawn because they did not have authorization for its use on album cover. This was only change. As stated, Dylan included a self-portrait by Schatzberg as an acknowledgement of his work. Gill's description of the contribution the photos made to the atmosphere of the album is best critical comment I could find. I've tweaked prose to try to make it all clearer. What more would you like to know? Mick gold (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks, it's all good, I have the original album and I never realized why that photo came out, and I am curious if there are any other issues with them, thanks for the clarification...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Entombment (Bouts)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88

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

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

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

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

  • Lead says "glue tempera" (first sentence) and the image caption (and the last paragraph of the lead section) says "Glue size". Even if technically correct, this could be confusing. The NG page for example says "The muted and translucent colours are due to the use of a glue medium applied directly to the sized linen. The effect would always have been far less brilliant than egg tempera or oils over a chalk ground on panel." But our tempera article talks mostly about egg tempera, so is glue size a form of tempera or what? Update: Since I wrote the preceding, these edits have been made to the article - but that doesn't clear up the confusion - the article now refers in various places to 'glue tempera', 'glue-size medium', 'Glue size tempera' and 'glue size'. The confusion arises from 'tempera' sometimes being used interchangeably with 'egg tempera', and our article on tempera doesn't really help clear up such confusion. I would work out a clear way of handling this and stick to it throughout the article. Also, the source cited says 'Glue tempera on linen', but only on the key facts page. The front page actually cited only says 'glue medium'. Updated at 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The cloth on which the painting was painted was treated with an animal based glue to prevent the paint from seeping through - it was sized with glue. The paint used was water soluble tempera. The technique, referred to in German as tűchlein, is glue-sized, because the sizing allows the tempera to be used, but this does need some clarification. Am thinking about how to word it properly and am working my way through a more technical source to be used, which refers to it as a glue-based medium. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Update: apparently the medium (paint) was mixed with glue (binder) and the cloth treated (sized) with glue. From what I've seen the terminology appears to differ, but from the source I have regarding technique, I belief that our description is correct. It is confusing. Will leave it to Ceoil to clarify more if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we need a seperate article on glue-sizing, I have enough sources, might have a stab later. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • article not posted, but the terminology is more standardisted now and the lead descriptor reads "soft tempera" which is at least mentioned in the tempera article. I do think though, that this article cannot be held accountable for confusion in linked articles. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • we have worked up a (much deliberated) section on technique which we think is fairly clear. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It has improved, but I'm not striking this point as the piped link of soft tempera to distemper (paint) threw me a bit (actually a lot). I know this article can't be judged on other articles, but you are linking to them and I fear readers will first read the distemper article (which says "The National Gallery, London distinguishes between the techniques of glue, glue size, or glue-tempera, which is how they describe their three Andrea Mantegnas in the medium, and distemper, which is how they describe their Dirk Bouts and two Edouard Vuillards.") and then they will read this article (which talks about glue sizing and tempera) and they will get confused (I know I still am). I don't have any good suggestions, but hopefully someone will.

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

  • I have this, and can expand. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to remove the link to distemper if it's causing confusion because most of the sources refer to the paint as tempera. That said, I have found sources that are more technical and describe the paint as distemper. I've sent these on the Ceoil, and he can decide how to proceed. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The new article on glue-size helps a lot. I hope someone will at some point try and make all these articles consistent, but that is more than enough for this FAC. Possibly removing or reducing the number of links later on, from this article to sizing, would help guide readers towards the glue-size article instead. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The link in the lead section to an image is slightly jarring (I see it was added following a comment made at the peer review) - I'm of the view that this use of an external link tends to surprise readers and that is usually a bad thing. I would personally put a link to the image in a footnote, or direct readers to the image in the gallery at the end of the article, rather than sending them off to an image page on Commons. (actioned)
  • Not pushed either way, but seeing that the work is reporduced in the gallery, in this instance the ext link should prob go. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Venetian and patron are common enough to not really need linking, certainly not in the lead (and in the next sentence, Milan is not linked, so the linking is inconsistent). Linking purely to allow people to find out that a Venetian is from Venice isn't really a good use of a link either). (actioned)
  • Removed patron; left Venetian and Milan. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The bit about "muted colours" in the lead seems to jar with "Its colours are now far duller than they once would have been." Does "muted colours" refer to the original colours or the present colours? (actioned)
  • Clarified. The colours of the figures would have been opaque and "dry" origionally but have since darkened from the accumulated films of dirt. The muted equally refers to the restrained conveyance of the figure's expressions, and that idea is reflected in the dour, spare colourisation. If this is not clear I can expand. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The paint seems to have been thinly applied on the Z-spun and tabby linen thread support" - this is a bit jargon-heavy. Is it possible to explain a bit within the article what this means, rather than relying on links? The selvage, stretcher and warp and weft links in this paragraph are similarly daunting if the reader is not familiar with these terms. I suspect the majority of readers here will either skip past this without really understanding it, or will spend lots of time clicking back-and-forth to other articles to try and understand it, which will disrupt the flow of the article for those readers (the colours paragraph, in contrast, is easier to skim as from the context it is obvious that these are colours). (seems OK now)
  • I've reworked this section and trimmed a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There has been quite an amount of deliberation about this, with people mind who have clue about it (TK and Amanda); wheather it was too technical and eye glazing or not. The end result is a sub section with the more obscure bits and pieces now in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The first mention of Campbell is a bit abrupt. What I'd do here is introduce Campbell first as "art historian" or whatever Campbell's role as commentator here is. You do this later for "art historian Susan Jones", and you also do it later for Campbell when you say "Art historian Lorne Campbell". (actioned)
  • Moved the first introduction to Campbell. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The Lamentation of Christ image caption makes a claim that should be sourced and/or mentioned in the main body of the article. (n/a - now removed)
Its obvious but claim removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The work had been lined and restretched" - it's not clear what "lined" means here. (deferring on this)
  • Clarified I hope. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm still not entirely clear. When a linen painting is "lined", is this the process of adding an inner (or underlying) lining as you do with a garment such as a coat, as described at lining (sewing), or is this something different? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • All the sources I have access to simply use the word lined or lining without elaboration. Presumably this was done because of paint seepage through the linen. Am happy to link to lining (sewing) if that would make it more clear, although I doubt it was done to cover or hide seams as is the reason for lining a garment. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I found this paper (from the Tate) on what lining means in this case. It seems it was a way of reinforcing/restoring the existing canvas. It sounds fascinating, but like the stuff about the medium, not really something to worry about too much. I think a link to the 'lining (sewing)' article would be wrong in this case, as it looks like this is something different. Maybe someone will write lining (painting) at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there sources that tell us what Adoration of the Kings shows? (fair enough)
Yes, the Koch journal entry covers it in detail, but it might be off topic here. I could give an easter egg to Adoration of the Magi in the painting title, but dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it is obvious really (that is what I had guessed). It is something I'd explain in a footnote, only because there is no picture of it (unlike the other two), but it's up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is one instance of the spelling "centre" and a few of the spelling "center". (actioned)
  • Have made this consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This bit: "The influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece can be seen in the representation of Christ's dead body, while a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners." appears to repeat this bit: "The figuration and pose in The Entombment is probably informed by a relief seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's Miraflores Altarpiece." (actioned)
  • Removed one of the sentences. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The article says the Miraflores Altarpiece is 1440s, while the gallery caption says "c 1440", which is not the same thing. Similarly, for Altar of Holy Sacrament the article says "c. 1464–67", while the gallery caption says "1464–67". The Transfiguration of Christ gallery caption is missing the year. (actioned)
  • Yeah, and the important fact was that it was 'after' 1440. Fixed re altarpiece, Transfiguration of Christ removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Missed one. The lead still says: "Bouts' 1464–6 Altar of the Holy Sacrament". That not only misses out the "circa" but also gives a different end year for the range (and is not consistent either - it should be '1464-67' or '1464-66'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On this last point, I made this edit, and am noting here so that the nominators can correct it if that is wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • When you say "The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works", does this refer to the earlier bit where Eastlake is "made aware of three companion pieces"? In the earlier section, you name these companion pieces, but in the later section you are more vague, which confused me as it is not clear if you are talking about something different here, or the same thing. (taking this to the article talk page)
  • Yes, it is referring to the same thing. I've tried to tweak the wording without repeating the earlier sentence and introducing more repetition. Hopefully it's more clear now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Still not clear. I think you need to name the three pieces again further down to make it clearer. There is also inconsistency in that the earlier section says 'He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them' versus 'Their tone and size were similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych'. The first sentence seems to say they definitely were the companion piece, while the second sentence equivocates with the terms 'suggesting' and 'most likely'. You seem to have one source saying these are the companion pieces, and another source being less sure about it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Another slight problem, but not really necessary to drag this point out at FAC - taking to article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The external link to "Other works on permanent display in room 63 at the NG" seems gratuitous - readers can reach that page with one click from the more relevant link you already provide. It is fine to have just one external link. If you do keep it, you need to expand or explain the NG abbreviation. (actioned, and now removed in any case)
  • I included as I though the other painting in the room gave context, but have removed for now, undecided. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the further reading section, the "Roy, Ashok. National Gallery Technical Bulletin. Volume 8, 1984" entry is a bit opaque. What is it within that bulletin that you are suggesting readers look at? The whole bulletin? Does the article by Ashok not have a title or did he write the whole bulletin? (removed)
  • Removed for now. Ashok was the editor at the time, the article appears in the biblo of a source I'd been using and looked interesting though I dont have a copy of it, I though it might be handy in the further reading section at least. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, though I see now that you have something there instead from 2 years later. My view on further reading is that it is best really to have read, accessed, or at least flipped through the work you are pointing readers towards, as otherwise you risk sending them to something that doesn't exist (if you give the wrong reference) or something that is not very good. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I can stand over the two that are in the section now. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You have a reference to "van Veen, 297", but the work appears to be Borchert, unless you are referring to another work that is not given in the bibliographic listing (you later cite "Borchert, 203"). Also, one of your sources is: "Johnson, Charles. The Language of Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949", but this is not used for any of the inline cites. Also, is there no author or article title information for "National Gallery technical bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25"? (partially done)
  • I've fixed almost all of these. Can't find an author for the Technical Bulletin, but will leave it to Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One bit not done here. Only a minor matter, but flagging it up here anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To finish, I'd like to echo Brian's comment at the PR: "I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time". This article was a pleasure and a joy to read. Will check back in a few days and likely add my support then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good comments - thank you. Will take a couple of days to get through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've fixed what I can - those I haven't responded to need sources that Ceoil has, so am waiting for his feedback. Thanks again for the review. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Carcharoth thanks for the detailed review, very helpful and very welcome. Sorry for the tardy responce, something came up at work and I haven't been able to give the article any attention during the week. I do appreciate the time you spent. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope what I've struck and replied to above is clear. I'll check back at the end of the weekend, and apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Noting here (and above) that based on the comments and discussion, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. More importantly, thanks for the time and giving us an in-depth review, which has resulted in a substantially improved article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • "the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera." - source?
  • "This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have appeared originally." - source?
  • Missing bibliographic info for van Veen
  • Full bibliographic info for Davies appears three times, and is notated differently on each appearance
  • No citations to Johnson
  • Is the Davies source in French? Should note this
  • Use a consistent punctuation for retrieval dates
  • Be consistent in whether or not your provide publisher locations
  • Be consistent in whether volumes are notated in Roman or Arabic numerals
  • National Gallery technical bulletin or National Gallery Technical Bulletin or The National Gallery Technical Bulletin? Check for consistency
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. Working through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Except for the two uncited sentences, I've fixed these. I think the uncited sentence are probably referenced in the next cite, but will wait for Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
All sorted now,. Though I admit I'm confused as to how to format pub locs for journals and might need guidance and a hand. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to add: I don't normally add locations for journal articles, only the title of publication, unless you want them for consistency? Am a little confused myself on this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
They are mostly from the Nat gall so mostly London, I'd b happier without. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether you include them or not, so long as you do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Found one that hadn't been removed and fixed. Should be consistent now. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a detailed peer review; the issues I raised there have been adequately addressed, with further improvements as a result of the points raised in this FAC. Maybe further fine tuning would benefit, but I am satisfied that as of now the article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, your review was of enormous help in the process. The remianing issues being discussed on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Brian. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - with a few minor issues:

  • I saw "dates it to between 1450-55", I think the en dash should be "and".
  • There are two occurrences of "the the". (one "the The" and one "the the").
  • I saw "an usual".
  • Should this be dirt, "Note the layer of dirth across the midground"?
  • There is a "Bouts's" in the sources, whereas "Bouts'" is used in the text. But perhaps, we can't do anything about this.

Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta Graham, fixed all but two; 1450-55 vs 1450 and 1455 reads better to me; and I'd say the source using "Bouts's" are fairly dated. The others were typos introduced yesterday; TK usually watches my back on these. Thanks again the look is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
But there is "completed between 1440 and 1455" in the Lead, which is correct; and "between 1450–55" further down, which is not. The Manual of Style says, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from". I agree with this because to me it reads between 1450 to 55, which sounds odd to my ears. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've changed to "between 1440 and 1455" because I prefer it that way, and per MoS and your suggestion. Ceoil is overruled here. Thanks btw for reading, the comments and the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I'm anally retentive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That would make two of us. I'll go through and make it as consistent as possible because now it's a little off. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Lots of improvement, and impressive work so far...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Modernist for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Modernist for the support and edits. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Project A119

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a painless GA nomination, and a thorough examination at WP:MILHIST's A-Class review, I feel it meets the criteria and is as comprehensive and stable as an article on a fifty-year-old classified military operation is likely to be. This is a great opportunity to help counter the harsh bias against moon-bombing shown on this encyclopaedia (and every other encyclopaedia too, for that matter). I'm not likely to be available to reply for the next night or so but I should be more than capable of addressing any concerns over the coming week and beyond. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - eg. [2][3] rather than [3][2]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    Fixed the first three (I saw one instance of non-consecutive refs, let me know if I've missed any others). As for the page you're noted, per the CV listed here on the same site, I believe it falls under the expert sources exemption of WP:SPS. GRAPPLE X 13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    That CV is for the site owner; the source you're citing was not written by him, but by Aleksandr Zheleznyakov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    Aha. I had assumed that the site owner would reliably vet what he publishes; however, thanks to Google Translate, I was able to glean this from Zheleznyakov's website, which further led me to this page. Again, this leads to believe that the source is by an expert in the field, more so now that it appears to come from an expert in "Soviet Cosmonautics". Also remind me to check the library for Sex in Space now... GRAPPLE X 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-Links ("Dark side of the moon" can't be resolved), no dead external links, 3 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I checked all the sources for the article when it came up for A-class. And I mean all of them. I think this is a fascinating article, well written and well researched. I had never heard of it. It's good to learn new things occasionally. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment—It's an interesting topic, but a quick read-through suggests that the article needs further improvement. Here are a few concerns I had:

  • (1) The lead contains the unsourced assertion that the "purpose of such an act would be to demonstrate the superiority of the United States over the Soviet Union..." However, the article says that it "was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advances gained by the Soviets". Which was it? If the former is true, why isn't it expanded upon in the body? Superior in what way?
  • (2) "Project A119 was one of several possibilities that the United States investigated..." Possibilities for what?
  • (3) Who proposed the project?
  • (4) "...team of ten people...": this doesn't seem very concise. Were they subject matter experts or just ten random people?
    • Out of curiosity, I attempted to tentatively identify the names on the unclassified report. The following seem to be likely matches: James J. Brophy, Narinder Singh Kapany, William Edward Loewe, Dickron Mergerian, Verner J. Raelson, Carl E. Sagan, and Philip N. Slater; all unconfirmed of course (and so unusable in the article). They're all scientists and engineers.
  • (5) "...weight of such a device, as it would need to be propelled over 375,000 kilometers..." It shouldn't have anything to do with the distance. The chief obstacle is in getting the mass off the Earth and into an escape trajectory. The article needs to clarify this.
    • Clarification: if you have the delta-v budget you need to achieve to reach the target, the distance only matters because of the time of flight. I wouldn't expect the flight time to be a concern given the half-life of the fission materials. Perhaps it was worded this way for consumption by non-technical readers? Possibly the information could be presented as a quote, unless another source can be found that clarifies the reasoning.
      • When I read the original source, the wording was subtly different from what is in the article. Based on this source, the obstacle was that the hydrogen bomb was too heavy for the missile to achieve the target objective. The distance clearly isn't the obstacle because the atom bomb would have to be carried just as far. Does this help? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I've dug up where the Los Angeles Times reported that same Associated Press story, already used as a source in the article. I've clarified things a bit now as a result. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (6) It says the "dark side of the Moon", which is the side of the Moon not currently illuminated by the Sun. However, some readers may find this confusing as it is sometimes used colloquially to refer to the far side of the moon, which would hide the explosion from view. Some clarification would help.
    • I noticed the old wording had been restored. I changed it to the "unilluminated side" for clarity. RJH (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (7) The information about the objective needs to be collected together under one heading so that there is a historical flow to the content. Right now it's partly covered in the first paragraph of the "Project", and again in the "Soviet program" section. In between the two is the research and cancellation sections.
    • Clarification: the "Soviet program" section begins with "Another major factor in the project's conception...". This is a continuation of a previous discussion. It's clearly not a continuation of the "Cancellation" section, so it is out of place. It appears to belong just after the first paragraph under "Project".
  • The May 14, 2000 story in the Guardian appears to have a few details that are not covered in the article. For example, Reiffel subsequent opposition to the idea and the destruction of eight of his reports in 1987. You might also mention that in Reiffel's now unclassified study, the team had proposed placing three instrument package on the Moon prior to the explosion so that they could measure the effects.

There are some areas of the writing that may need a little work as well, but others can do a better job of checking that. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (1) I've amended the lead, (2) deleted the "several possibilities" bit since I couldn't find it in the sources and (6) clarified the "dark side of the moon" mention. (3) I've added in the the Air Force proposed the project, which is supported by the Guardian ref in the same paragraph. (4) I've reworded "a team of ten people" as "a ten-strong team" to be a bit more concise; however, beyond Reiffel and Sagan, it's not known who was on the team. I'd assume experts, obviously, but I don't know what proportion of scientists to military men it was. (5) As for the point on the weight of the device and the distance travelled, I've lost access to the source used for it, though I'm almost certain that it made the case for distance rather than inertia or gravity being the issue - I'll try to track it down again and clarify that, but I'm not sure if it would venture into original research to make additional claims as to the overcoming of Earth's gravity if that's not reported in the source, so I'm loath to add anything of that nature without re-reading that first. (7) I'm also not sure what you mean with the point about information on the project's objective being split up - the "Soviet program" section doesn't cover A119's objective, but it does offer some insight into the impetus behind going ahead with the project, which is relevant to the section as it's specific to discussion on the Soviet counterpart. What sections or lines did you think should be moved? GRAPPLE X 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    One possibility would be to move the first paragraph of the "Soviet program" section into the lead for the "Project" section, as an additional influence. The last paragraph could be moved to the "Cancellation" section, changing "the Soviet program" to "a corresponding Soviet program". But it's your call really. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    I've split the "Soviet program" section up into the other headings as you've suggested. I'm loading up the actual released document now to get looking at it for the claim of landing instruments (it's a big file and the lappy's a slow bastard); and I'll hopefully be able to check the book source for the distance-vs-escape velocity issue this coming Wednesday. GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at this quickly, I don't think I'm going to be able to get it up to FAC standards within my self-allotted 2 hours, if we factor in question-and-answer time, so I'm going to need your help (or someone's help). Please read WP:Checklist and User:Dank/Copy1; there are multiple problems here covered on those two pages. I'll get you started.
  • "a top-secret plan developed in the late 1950s by the United States Air Force with the intention of detonating": It doesn't sound like a plan to intend to detonate, it sounds like a plan to detonate. Please see WP:Checklist#intention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The purpose of such an act would be": Wordy; combine with the previous sentence.
  • "to boost public morale in the United States": to boost US morale changed my mind on this one
  • "which had fallen due to the successes of the Soviet Union": "After" would be better than "due to", and it could be tighter. Please see WP:Checklist#because. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "in the early phases of the space race": raises but doesn't answer the question of how the space race can be divided up into "phases". "early in the space race" is better, at least in the lead section ... you can go into detail about phases in the text if that makes sense.
  • "The details concerning the project came from": actually, not just the details, the very existence of the project. And "revealed" would be more active and more descriptive than "came from".
  • "a retired executive at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration": If he's retired, he isn't there any more. And "retired" has a small WP:DATED problem; assuming he's still living as I write this, he could take up a job at any time ... which wouldn't be relevant to our story here. So: "a former executive of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
  • "researching the theoretical effects": I'm guessing they were trying to predict the effects, rather than simply make theoretical statements about the effects. "predicting the effects".
  • That was all from the first paragraph. Someone have a whack at this please and see what you can do. Once I get started copyediting, I want to get it done within two hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) I think I've covered the points you've addressed. I went with your suggested wording where it was given; and rewrote the first few sentence of the lead to address your first few points. As for the "intention" point, I've changed the phrase to "after the successes" to imply chronology instead of causation. If I've missed anything, or if you see anything else, let me know. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for your work on this (and it's always nice to see new people at FAC). I'm probably going to need some help with more than just the first paragraph, so I'll wait and hope that more help is coming. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    P.S. I've asked for help on my talk page, at WP:GOCE/FA, and at WT:MHC ... and we've got one bite so far, Nikki helped out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. Thanks for you work on the things I brought up; that all looks fine. Please check my tweaks to the lead section.
  • "apparently primarily because": If something is "apparently" true, it generally means it's an opinion, so it requires attribution. I might be able to fix this when I get further along. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what it means for a project to be funded by the US Army but run under the auspices of the USAF. Was the army keeping tabs on how the money was spent? - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Have removed the clause mentioned US Army funding. Not entirely sure where that was meant to have come from if I'm being honest. Perhaps "army" maybe have been a holdover from the article's initial translation and an error on my part. Gone now as it's not in the source (Guardian article). GRAPPLE X 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "targeting the dark side of the terminator": presumably, terminator (solar). I don't understand where the "dark side of the terminator" is.
    • Addressed below, it's to one side of the terminator line, that is not presently illuminated. GRAPPLE X 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "the potential consequences of an atomic explosion on the Moon. The main objective of the program ... was the detonation of a device, nuclear or otherwise ...": The first sentence implies they weren't researching conventional explosions; the second says they were.
    • Have removed "or otherwise". GRAPPLE X 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "detonation of a device ... to cause an explosion": triply redundant, although it probably wouldn't hurt anything to have two of the three words (detonation, device, explosion ... generally, "devices" explode).
    • Have phrased this whole section as "to cause a nuclear explosion that would be visible..." instead. GRAPPLE X 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Another major factor in the project's conception may have been a rumor": This sounds like someone's opinion.
    • Have rephrased this sentence to remove any direct correlation, simply stating that the rumour had been reported. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "planning to launch a hydrogen bomb at the Moon", "by launching a nuclear device at the Moon": Repetitious. Also, I see that one of the sources was in fact representing this as firing a rocket "at" a target on the moon, but that's kind of a cartoonish view of a rocket trip to the moon, particularly in the 1950s ... that is, we should express some skepticism at that image.
    • To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this a little? If the issue is the language (something being fired "at" a target), I don't see how this is a "cartoonish" way of phrasing it - if an area was decided as the location for the explosion, that area would be targeted by the device, would it not? I may be misunderstanding the problem though. Have rephrased the rest to remove the repetition, however, it's just the second point I'm confused about. GRAPPLE X 04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I'm not saying that your words are cartoonish ... that came from the source. In an age before integrated circuits, representing a moon shot as a simple matter of "firing a rocket at the moon" was clearly a misrepresentation. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Aha, I think I get you now. I've rephrased that a bit to remove the notion of "launching" anything. GRAPPLE X 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "an eclipse due to occur on November 7": an eclipse on November 7
    • Fixed. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "News reports of the rumored launch included mention of targeting the dark side of the terminator, a detail which was incorporated into the plans for Project A119; it was also reported that a failure to hit the Moon would likely result in the missile returning to Earth, which would become a factor in the Soviet project's cancellation.": I can't figure out what this sentence is saying. Which detail? How was it incorporated? What would become a factor? Did the news reports say that the problem had already been cancelled?
    • The detail was the target area, I've cleared up this sentence into two sentences which should read more clearly. Also removed the bit about the Soviet project's cancellation. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The project was likely influenced by a similar study initiated by the RAND Corporation in 1956, whose results remain secret to this day.": This raises but doesn't answer the question: if the results remain a secret, how do we know about the study?
    • Ulivi; Harland and Zhou, p.19 - "It was probably based on a still-secret RAND Corporation study, began in 1956, aimed at putting a nuclear warhead on the Moon." That's all the source says on the matter, as it immediately begins discussing Teller's proposals after this sentence. I can't conjecture beyond what's there, though I assume that Teller, Reiffel or both were involved with or aware of the RAND study. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If they don't say how they know about the secret study, I'd recommend leaving out that bit, per Hinting at User:Dank/Copy2. It's not uncommon for writers to imply that they know more than they can say, but unverifiable knowledge usually isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From what I see above, from what I see in the sources, and from the frequest prose problems, I don't have confidence that the text accurately reflects the sources. Does anyone else have access to all the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    About to go through the article now to sort out those issues, but as for the terminator one, the terminator is the boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated sides of a body - so the "dark side of the terminator" is that side just beyond the illumination. Hope that clears that point up for now anyway. GRAPPLE X 04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for your work on this. I've reached my two-hour limit on this FAC, and I only got halfway through. I'll come back to this if it looks like other reviewers have finished it up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • Is the "Armour Research Foundation" a government agency?
  • Image description page for File:ComputerHotline_-_Lune_(by)_(5).jpg seems to indicate that a caption attribution is requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Added an attribution (I assume that's how it's to be done, correct me if I've done it wrong). ARF isn't a government agency, it's a contract research organization working with the Illinois Institute of Technology. Looking at the image in question, I think ARF is credited as the "author" in lieu of the individual authors of the document - would it be better to add the list of ten individual authors mentioned in the document itself? GRAPPLE X 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm confused: if ARF isn't a government agency, how can a work where it is the author be "a work of the United States federal government"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • To be honest, the image was already in use and given its rationale before I came along - I assumed simply that it had been done correctly. My assumption is that the ARF scientists were the authors, but since the work was done for the US Air Force, the research is owned by the government. It was, after all, released by the government under a freedom of information request, which meant it was under their control and not under the ownership of the ARF. GRAPPLE X 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Under their control, but not necessarily under their copyright...is there any way to verify who actually holds the copyright to this document? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
            • It is clearly work for hire, with the copyright owned by the government under contract. There is no copyright notice in the document, just the standard disclaimer of no contractor ownership of patents. Such a notice was required before 1989 in order for the contractor to claim copyright. without it, the government has unlimited rights. See Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Plateosaurus

Nominator(s): HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has matured over time, and many people have made minor improvements since GA status. This includes edits with improvements based on a review of the identical German wikipedia article that ended in an "excellent" rating.

Being the world's expert on Plateosaurus biomechanics I do not know of any recent studies of significance that are not covered in the article, and thus believe the content to be as complete as befits an excellent article. I had several native speakers and colleagues read through the article; whereas all had minor gripes, there seemed not to be any consensus on them. To me, that indicates that improvements can at most be cosmetic.

I have to acknowledge that the article is fairly technical and demanding of less educated readers. However, I tried my best to either link and/or explain difficult words in laypeople's terms, thus I believe that improvements in this respect will be practically impossible without reducing quality. HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can provide PDF of most sources cited for fact checking. email me! HMallison (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Media Review I fixed the description for the map, other than that, it's all good. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Some of the page ranges used are quite large - is it possible to use smaller ones to aid in verification?
  • FN 3: translate author formatting. Also, page(s)?
  • FN 4: page(s)? In general, print-based sources need page numbers
  • Be consistent in how pages are notated
  • What is ATTEMPTO?
  • FN 23: formatting
  • FN 35: need specific page number(s)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for books, and if so where these are placed
  • FN 37: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: As one of the major contributors, I am not an impartial judge; however, I will be around to help with reviewers' issues. J. Spencer (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
partial reply to Nikkimaria
* "Some of the page ranges used are quite large" - sources (not footnotes = FNs! Those are for "sissies") are given according to scientific standards: full citation, with full page range. The habit of pointing to a specific page of a book is nice and useful, because books tend to be very long (but come a new edition, even one with no text changes, and you're f-ed!). However, most sources are scientific publications, and thus it makes little sense to cite a specific page! These sources are highly structured, and thus it is easy to find the relevant passage WITH CONTEXT anyways.
Additionally, to add a reference to a specific page within the given range, which admittedly could be done, is a task taking a whole work week! Just so that people can do an out-of-context-"fact check"? With science papers you need to read the entire thing anyways to check if the paper is quoted correctly. PLEASE REPLY if you really think this necessary, or maybe list the specific claims you would like to see page-sources; if the total number is manageable I'll try to do so. For example, I can at least point to the relevant chapters within Moser (2003), which is quite lengthy - but only if the reader really gains from this. Moser (2003) is not OpenAccess, btw., so I doubt there is a big gain for anyone.
* missing pages for some sources are caused by articles being online-first, thus lacking them. Some have since appeared in print, so it is possible to add pages numbers (will do). Some do not officially have any (e.g., Palaeontologia Electronica papers). EDIT: FN 3, e.g., has still not appeared in print. Do you want me to add "onlien first" to ref text for these cases? /EDIT EDIT: equally, Yates et al. 2011 /EDIT
* missing pages for some old books etc. stem from the book being inconsistently numbered in different catalogs and editions. I'll TRY to fix.
* ATTEMPTO is a publisher (of Tübingen University). Last time I checked they were just ATTEMPTO, not ATTEMPTO Verlag or so.
* will fix formatting inconsistencies.
Thanks a lot for finding these issues! HMallison (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mostly done now; awaiting reply on specific page issue. HMallison (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
At minimum you definitely should include more specific pages for direct quotes. I would prefer also to see them for FNs 4, 6, 35, and 36. (Also, while I didn't do a full re-check, I'm still seeing quite a few formatting inconsistencies here...). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point about direct quotes. I'll see about the mentioned sources, too. However, I still think that it is not sensible to quote individual pages for everything. And yeah, as I said formatting is mostly done, not completely done ;) HMallison (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've never done direct pages for journals, other than to cite the page range of the articles. For books I generally have, or alternately cited the chapter or segment of text pertaining to the subject. I'll take a look at the formatting. Hmallison, I am happy to put the journals into cite format if you're ok with it as it automatically does all the bold/italics/spacing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead! it's very helpful, and if I watch I may learn how to do it properly! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You know what the problem here is, don't you? Most people really write wikipedia articles by stitching quotes from sources they often do not fully understand. That's usually the best laypeople can do, and that's how I'd be forced to write outside my direct field of expertise (which is why I don't). If you write in this way it is very easy to just add the page number to a citation.
An expert, in contrast, has at least half the main sources reliably in his memory, thus is required to re-check them just to add a page number. Heck, I don't know any page numbers for my own papers - why would I? (in addition, some don't have them). That's a huge waste of time. For example, I would need to find 18 specific things I quoted Moser (2003) on in that paper, with each of them being very likely to be mentioned several times.
I guess, if you really insist on conforming to the letter of [14], I won't be able to do it. I happen to have a life. Sorry.
I'll source the nomenclature part. I'll find the page range referring to Plateosaurus in Jaekel (1911). Same for other works that have specific parts on the critter. But I won't rip Moser (2003) apart, nor any other work that deals exclusively with Plateosaurus. If that means no FA status for Plateosaurus, so be it (no hard feelings). HMallison (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
'HELP - is there a way to do this: I want repeat instances citing the same source (e.g., Sander 1992) to point to ONE entry in the reflist (i.e., Sander (1992) is listed only once), but also want to refer each entry to a specific page within that document. It seems that this is not easily possible. Can we have the page number given, e.g., with the superscript number linking to the reference? If it can't be done, sourcing to individual pages would mean that we end up with Sander (1992) listed ten times in the reflist, which is idiotic. HMallison (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We've done the sourcing a bit differently with White-bellied Sea Eagle - see there are page templates with SFN that then link to ref section and to book ref directly below. We can use that way (??) You like? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, that would work - but it is SO "humanities and arts", and so un-"natural sciences" ;) I'll see if I can get this to work so that those refs without need for distinction between pages jump right to the reflist. HMallison (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, what do you think? is it OK if I add this for important topics? HMallison (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean SFN or similar? Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm, it seems to me that it is not possible to have a SFN for those refs that need distinction wrt cited page, but have all other refs show up directly in the list of References. Does anybody know a solution? As a scientist used to "proper" reference lists (ideally alphabetically sorted) what I see at White-bellied Sea Eagle does not really look "pretty" to me. HMallison (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Can this be done with ref groups? HMallison (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems possible, I'll give ti a shot. HMallison (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Casliber, anyone else interested in proper citations: please check the examples I added for the Etymology section [15] and how they show in Notes [16] and References. If this is OK, I'll add page numebrs for everything as I find time (I must caution that they want $13/day for internet during SVP, to next week will see me mostly offline). HMallison (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Valid points - I'm still happy with what I see to pass the article (3 is really minor below). You happy for me to format the refs? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Cas, go ahead with refs. 3) will be addressed once I find a quite 30 minutes. The text needs a bit of clarification on "monospecific" with regards to the additional finds, too.
Regarding ref formatting: I guess that Nikkimaria sees inconsistencies where there are none. I use three different formats for three different things: journal articles, non-edited books, and chapters in edited books. If you assume that non-edited books and chapters in edited books need to be the same, then the refs are indeed inconsistent. However, the different formatting is intentional; I copied the style of a paleo journal. Anything else you find - fire away! HMallison (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe you're just not seeing them ;-). Some quick examples: hyphen instead of endash for page range in FN 58; formatting of the larger work in FN 26 vs FN 57. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Hmallison has not participated at FAC before, hence some of these bits are fiddly. I have tweaked the dash/hyphen things, but now need to sleep. WIll format refs in morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thanks for giving examples! It makes it a lot easier for me. I'm a style editor for a journal, so well versed for finding formatting errors in word docs, but not here. I didn't mean to say that you ONLY see errors where there are none (sorry!), only that SOME things that may seem odd or wrong to you may stem from my (admittedly odd) choice for formatting scheme. And yes, the Special Papers in Paleontology are a problem (good catch!), because even the publisher initially had differing formatting in the PDFs, so that zotero and Endnote etc. extracted them differently. AARGH! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
References all changed to use templates. HMallison (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had an unmentionably horrendous day and had almost zero time to help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries - this way I was forced to learn how to do it - and once I got the hang of it things worked out well and quickly. HMallison (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

that would have been a real surprise, except for where I cite my own work ;) HMallison (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comments (pending discussion on 3 below but that is really minor)- I was an early contributor and did muse on buffing this myself, but someone alot better qualified came along. I have since copyedited it. Looking good overall. I'll jot any final queries for discussion below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1) Commonly, the animals lived for 12 to 20 years at least - not greatly thrilled about the sentence as it sounds odd to me - I think "The animals commonly lived for 12 to 20 years at least." is better, but there might be some other options.
2) Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusual quality - wondering whether there is any ambiguity and that " Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusually good/high quality" is better (?)
3) Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, Liliensternus and Halticosaurus - is it worth saying "Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, and two small theropod genera/theropods/predators Liliensternus and Halticosaurus" (bolded bit - take one's pick of descriptors...)
4) Plateosaurus material has also been found in Greenland - I think it balances if we give where in Greenland (as we have specific localities in all the preceding countries)
Replies to Casliber (I took the liberty of numbering your points for easier referral)
1), 2): Agree, will wait for suggestions EDIT: altered, please check if good now./EDIT
3) will check on amount of material and add that to sentence you suggestedSander 1992 has tables, is more up-to-date. Changed text and source. Halticosaurus is not listed by Sander; I trust him more than the Tübingen Proceedings paper. HMallison (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
4) done as well as I can; have only abstract of relevant paper. HMallison (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - with a few minor comments. I think I see a mixture of US and UK spellings (not many) such as "behaviour" perhaps a quick spell check is needed. Is there a special meaning to "subadults" that "juveniles" does not convey? I think this should be "or" as in "nor of catastrophic burial". And "under 10 years of age" should be "less than". Lastly do we really need to hyphenate "zigzag"? Thank you for an engaging and highly informative contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll spell-check as suggested, fix "or" and "under". No need for a hyphen, but it was suggested by my spellchecker. "subadult" and "juvenile" - I wish there were scientific terms to distinguish between "children" and "teenagers". I and many of my colleagues use "subadult" for the latter, and that is exactly what the P. finds represent: adults and teenagers (i.e., probably fertile or nearly fertile individuals). If you can think of a concise way to make this point in the text I'd be very happy to alter the text. HMallison (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
How about "immature adults"? Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! But you just gave me an idea: "nearly adult" HMallison (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Spellchecking done, Word 2011 UK English. Terms not included there may be wrong in my personal Word dictionary, so please yell if you think something is wrong. HMallison (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
other changes made, I left "subadults" in, but added parentheses with "nearly adult individuals" for clarification. OK? HMallison (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course - thanks for your friendly (and entertaining) responses. Graham Colm (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support

  • 1) Notes H and I are identical, could they be combined?
  • 2)Just a thought, but I wonder if swapping the second and third paragraphs of the lead would help with flow. I think a physical description of Plateosaurus follows on first paragraph which explains the period the dinosaur lived in. The second and fourth seem to focus mainly on the study of the genus.
  • 3)Also in the lead, "taxonomy" is linked (and an explanation given in brackets) on the second occasion rather than first. There is a similar issue with the term "monophyletic" as it's explained in the taxonomy section, but not where it first occurs in the description section.
  • 4)"Average individuals had a mass of around 600 to 4,000 kilograms (1,300 to 8,800 lb)": The word "Average" doesn't strike me as necessary as you go on to give a range. If it was the median (what most people think of when they hear of averages) surely it would have a single value?
  • 5)It's not preventing me from supporting, but could the red dot on File:Plateosaurus cent europ localities2.png be made a bit brighter? I think it's a bit too dark at the moment and doesn't stand out from the black dots.
  • 6)"In contrast, von Huene interpreted the sediment as aeolian deposits, with the weakest animals, mostly subadults (nearly adult individuals), succumbing to the harsh conditions in the desert and sinking into the mud of ephemeral water holes": did he explain why juveniles were not found with the remains? The same question applies to Weishampel later in the same section.
  • 7)Maybe "obligate" could be explained in the article?
  • 8)Could something be added on the Plateosaurus' habitat?

The illustrations are excellent and I feel the article mixes technical terms with brief explanations well. I've made a couple of edits you'll want to check over to make sure I didn't screw anything up. Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(For easier reference I numbered your points, I hope you don't mind)
Many thanks, I am constantly surprised at how many things are left to hone to perfection (as if that could ever be reached)
1) sorry, no idea how I could do this. I could, theoretically, just delete the first, and have the second refer to both sentences. But because of some bad experiences on German wikipedia, and because I dislike the "paragraph citing" in research articles (u don't want me as a reviewer, trust me!) I would rather stick to the present way of doing it. If someone can merge these refs while retaining a ref for each sentence, please do! Done!
2) I'll think about it. Gut reaction is to say no, because paragraph four ties in with three, and two doesn't fit after four. I need to read this a few times in both versions and see.
3) Will fix! (me idiot, should have done a search for first occurrence of linked stuff) Done!
4) Typo! "Adult", not "average! DOH!!! Done!
5) I'll ask the file creator, I am an idiot with these things. You're entirely correct!
6) Huene (1928) says nothing about very young individuals. Sorry! Weishampel & Westphal (1986) have two theories: mud deluge transported babies elsewhere (we know there was no catastrophic death, thus nonsense), or babies lived elsewhere. Also unlikely. IIRC, Probable answer is in Sander (1992): only "correct" weight leads to sinking into mud. I'll check.
7) yep. Will do. Done!
8) Ooff! That is quite a task, I first have to check what the current literature says - if there is any. A plaeobotanist by training I never dug into that mess. I know a lot of stuff that was later found to be incorrect, but I do not know where to find current data. I'll see what my PDF collection has to offer, and what I can get via institutional access. But I do not have high hopes! The area was studied to death a century ago, and the current consensus seems to be that all things published as a resut are not really accurate. I know fro sure that the current excavators are Trossingen think a full-blown study of sedimentology and playnology to be required.
What I can add is some palaeogeography. That's less controversial.
As for the quality of the illustrations: I did my best, and FunkMonk went throught the hassle of uploading it all. So many thanks for the praise. Your edits, btw, all seem perfect HMallison (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I figured out how to do #1. J. Spencer (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You're a genius! HMallison (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Though the article looks great, there are a few questions I have, with the first two in the "Description" section and the rest I have designated:
  • 1) "The arms of Plateosaurus were very short, even compared to most other "prosauropods", but strongly built, with hands adapted to powerful grasping." Something about this sentence is a tad off, perhaps you could divide it into two sentences with the second one beginning with "Despite the length of the arms..." or something of that nature.
  • 2) It seems to me that there are some inconsistencies with tense, it says "The skull of Plateosaurus is small and narrow..." and then later says "The ribs were connected to the dorsal (trunk) vertebrae..."
  • 3) In the "Classification and type material" section, it says "Plateosaurus was the first "prosauropod" to be described,[1] and gives its name to the family Plateosauridae as type genus." Is there any reason the citation is in the middle of the sentence and there is no citation at the end?
  • 4) First sentence of "Valid species" section: "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and confusing." Confusing is a strange word to use here. It sounds a bit informal and could be an opinion, perhaps say "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and there is debate in the scientific community concerning the topic" or something to that extent.
  • 5) "Invalid species" section: "Later, he collapsed several of these species..." What exactly do you mean by "collapsed"?
  • 6) In the second paragraph of the "Growth, metabolism, and life span" section there are a few facts that have no citations with them, such as the one about the varied growth rate probably being caused by environmental factors. I think that we need a citation especially when words such as "probably" are used, since that is a scientist's opinion
Overall, I was very impressed and I have learned so much about the wonderful Plateosaurus. Thanks for all your hard work! Basilisk4u (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
1) I'll split that.
2) The example you give is correct: the skull IS, but the ribs WERE attached. The animals are dead, you know, and the ribs no longer attached at all. but I'll go through the text for inconsistencies ;)
3) I'll check that out.
4) I seem to remember that this is used in a paper, will check and turn into direct quote w source or replace
5) will fix
6) That section is all from one source, and the one case where I used paragraph sourcing. But you're correct: I used sentence-sourcing for all the rest, so need to be consistent.HMallison (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments—The article looks to be in pretty good shape with plenty of detail. Here's a few concerns that caught my eye:

  1. Unless I missed it, there doesn't appear to be any information on fossil dating. A time range is given in the lead, but is not cited.
  2. "...back, and a large, round orbit (eye socket),...": Why the extra 'and' with the comma?
  3. "...both positions determines the air exchange ... determined to be ... ": The double use of 'determine' in this sentence stands out. Can a synonym be used?
  4. "...were only recognized recently": this is a dated statement.
  5. Artistically, that size comparison illustration doesn't look quite right, especially when I compare it to the life restoration illustration and some of the skeletal mounts. In particular, the limbs aren't postured correctly and they seem to be in the wrong position. There are other, lesser concerns about the silhouette.

Sorry for only getting to this so late in the review cycle. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, this will take a long time to get perfect (I have a real life, y'know?), so you're not late but early!
I numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
1) That's an issue.... In Trossingen, the Norian/Rhaetian border may be in the Knollenmergel. However, nothing published on that. I'll add something, and stick to the published wisdome, and use the stratigraphic table for Germany in its latest version.
2) rephrased. Please tell if satisifed.
3) "define" instead of "determine".
4) "in 2010".
5) I agree, this is not really great. I can cobble one up from one of my papers' figures.
Many thanks! HMallison (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

New paper on P. skull in AMNH Bulletin; skimmed it, will add it. Makes odd claim about P. erlenbergensis being valid; no major changes as big study by Moser 2003 ignored. Give me a day or two to add this. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Exchequer of Pleas

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfils the necessary criteria. What other reasons are there? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good enough reason, I guess. And I suppose I'd better play devil's advocate as one of the local counsel. I'll do it over the next two-three days, probably in installments. A quick glance looked really good!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I thank my learned friend for his submission :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Why not include both authors in citations to Fritze?
  • Is Vincent 1903 or 1993?
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Check wikilinking in Bibliography
  • What does UNC stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    All fixed or clarified in the text; I can't find any double periods. Could you point them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, found it :). Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Media review - All good here. Ironholds should do image description pages more often; I got a laugh from the lead image's Author section. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Enjoyable read, but then I'm a lawyer with a liking for legal history. A number of issues:
Lede
  • The lede seems a discouragement to reading, with two rather heavy paragraph. I would like to see much more of a highlights approach, paragraphs of no more than four sentences, and no more than three (in a pinch, four) paragraphs.
  • Attempted a fix; what do you think?.
History
  • "followed the king as he went " Perhaps a more formal term than "went"? In his travels?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • " was the oldest common law court," Perhaps "first", which sets up a pleasing dichotomy between "first" and "last".
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • the word "split" is used fairly often. Consider substituting synonyms.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "There are few other records earlier than 1580," Other than ... and is it actually more accurate to state "known to date from before 1580"?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Dukes were seen " by whom? do not let the passive voice deprive the reader of detail.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Fanshawe's procedures were considered excellent," procedures for what? Courtroom? Administration? Or are we talking form pleadings here?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • " and the Court of Requests became invalid after the Privy Seal was lost, which it was dependant upon for its jurisdiction" I looked at the Court of Requests and am no wiser about what happened to the Privy Seal. I think you need to be a bit clearer. Did someone forget the key to the washroom and it became inoperative?
  • Done, but you may want to read through and check it; not entirely sure it parses. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't tell if this article thinks the ECW ended in 1649, or in 1660. And I think something specific needs to be said about what happened to this court under the Commonwealth.
  • Clarify? And I'm afraid I can't find any coverage of that period.
  • "18th-century Acts of Parliament treated them as the same body, merely referring to "courts of equity" " Would it be more accurately that the acts treated them the same way, rather than as the same body?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why did the court become suddenly unpopular in the 1830s? Presumably its appellate procedure had not changed, or had it? I think there needs to be a bit more exposition here, and also a contrast with appeals from the Court of Chancery, which I gather was more loser-friendly? Does it have a connection with Fanshawe's procedures being considered until the 1830s?
  • It hadn't been; the appellate procedure for other courts, however, had been much reformed. I can stick in a "This contrasted with the Court of Chancery, where..." bit, if that would help? Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there needs to be some cleanup around the Brougham quote, you are diving back along the timeline. Perhaps say that there had long been calls for the merger of the common law courts, and that in 1828, Henry Brougham, a future Lord Chancellor, stated ...
  • Done; will do the rest of the fixes this afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would strike the word "finally". A bit POV.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Jurisdiction
  • "This meant that the King's Attorney General represented the plaintiff, allowing him to avoid much of the legal costs associated with a court case" Perhaps "The king was represented by his Attorney General, allowing him to avoid many of the costs of litigation."
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "the better that they could pay the King; " Perhaps "so that they could better pay the king". Your uses of "king" and "King" appear inconsistent.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • " The court was also used to enforce the law by prosecuting clerics who, while innocent, had come close to committing an infraction ..." This sentence is unclear. It also needs dividing. It's not clear why the AG would have no incentive to compromise. Even if the King isn't going to be on the hook for lawyer's fees, there's always the question of court time and attorney time and effort to be considered. If the AG doesn't have to try the Smith case, he can spend the afternoon playing golf or the contemporary equivalent.
  • Done the first bit. Re the second, I would assume (solely OR on my part) that, given the expectation that the AG would enforce the law harshly, he wouldn't want to participate in any compromise that would weaken the final settlement and lessen him in the eyes of the monarch. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Exchequer was unique in having jurisdiction in matters of both equity and the common law, the latter curtailed after the Magna Carta and reserved for the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas. " After giving this paragraph three minute's hard study, I decided you mean that the common law jurisdiction of the Exchequer was temporarily curtailed by Magna Carta, but later grew back. I would clarify this
  • Done, I think. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that the second paragraph could easily be merged into other material, the first two sentences into the first paragraph of this section and the final sentence into the history section. I'm not sure about the rest of the paragraph, but I'd suggest that it is duplicative of matter found elsewhere, for the most part.
  • "The Exchequer stood on an equal footing ..." This paragraph needs to be clarified as to time.
  • Which paragraph, sorry? Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The incident involving the Red Book, is that King's Bench to Exchequer or the other way around? It's a bit unclear.
  • "a clerk would bring the Red Book of the Exchequer to the King's Bench" seems fairly clear; am I missing something?
If that constituted the transmittal, fine. It could be thought the clerk was coming to fetch the transmittal, placing it in the red book.
  • You mention appeals to the Exchequer Chamber. I thought the problem with the court was the only way out was a (rarely granted) appeal to the Lords?
  • I've rechecked the source, and that's what it says, although this appears to fly in the face of, well...reality. Urgh. Suggestions?

Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess let it go.
Officers
  • " scrapped" The only things that get scrapped in a featured article are made of metal
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If the Treasurer played no real role in the Exchequer of Pleas, than I'd begin the subsection "The formal head ..."
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "detached from" independent from.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "I would lower case war throughout except when being used as part of a title.
  • So "the civil war" as opposed to "the Civil War"? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "a 5th" Perhaps a substitute? I would spell out "5th" as "fifth". Please look at WP:ORDINAL.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Unlike in the Court of King's Bench, the positions were meaningless, in that each Baron had an equal vote in decisions" Well, it wasn't actually meaningless, it determined seniority and precedence. Perhaps a rephrase?
  • Given the Queen's Remembrancer's continuing responsibility for the Trial of the Pyx, did the Court of the Exchequer have any role in it?
  • Not as far as I'm aware. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. An interesting effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for completion. Yes, on the point about appellate procedure, a very brief contrast with Chancery would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jenks24:

  • As Wehwalt says, it's an interesting read and (from the perspective of someone who has never written an FA) it looks like it should pass FAC. I did have some nitpicks, though:

Lead

  • "split from the curia during the 1190s, sitting as an" – not sure why, but I'd change "sitting" --> "to sit"
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "much of this business went to the Exchequer" – sorry for being dense, but what business? Do you mean business that had originally gone to the Court of Chancery?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "drew closer and closer" – don't think the "and closer" is really necessary, but as the Yanks say, YMMV
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "brought by the king" – it's pedantic, but I'd change "king" --> "crown" (or "monarch") as there were queens during the Court of Exchequer's existence
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins

  • "It was originally claimed" – do we know by who? Completely off topic, should I have written "whom" then?
  • No idea, to both :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that "first concrete records" is incredibly formal/encyclopedic in tone
  • Is that a problem? If so, suggestions....? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Ugh, sorry, I meant to say it's not incredibly formal. Basically my suggestion would be to change "concrete" to something like "reliable" or "verifiable". Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the 1190s the Exchequer separated from the curia regis, a process which continued until the beginning of the 13th century" – this feels a bit odd, does it mean that the Exchequer continued to separate further away or that it had rejoined the curia regis at the start of the 13th century?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Increasing work and transformation

  • I think it would be better to tell it in chronological order – you seem to tell what happened in the 1547 to 1612 period before the 1501 to 1546 period
  • Not quite sure how to rearrange, to be honest; suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, just read over that section a few times and I'm not so sure anymore. Feel free to disregard the above this comment. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "it was led by the Lord Chancellor, a political figure who had been intimately involved in the conflict" – possibly worth naming and linking the actual bloke who was reviled, not just his position, unless that revulsion carried over for multiple Lord Chancellors
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Loss of equity jurisdiction and dissolution

  • Looks good

Jurisdiction and relationship with other courts

  • "coming into play" is not that formal/encyclopedic
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "payment of a debt to the King" – again, it would be my inclination to change "King" to "crown" or "monarch"
  • Worth linking "supersedeas" to supersedeas or wikt: supersedeas?
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Treasurer

  • "scrapped" not very formal
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Chancellor

  • Looks good

Barons

  • I would suggest changing "1st Baron", 2nd Baron", etc. to "First Baron" and so on (the MoS does not like ordinals), but if the literature is adamant then I guess it's ok
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Remembrancer

  • "After 1820, the Remembrancer's broad duties were split up by the Court of Exchequer (England) etc. Act 1820. Instead, two masters were appointed" – I don't think "instead" is right here...
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Other offices

  • Looks good

As I said at the top, very nice article. I also made a few tweaks myself, so please check to make sure I haven't screwed anything up. Jenks24 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool; have I missed any of your concerns? I think I got them all. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for the prompt replies and fixes, I believe you've addressed all my concerns. Just had a quick re-read and nothing jumps out at me, so I'm happy to support (I think it meets the criteria for prose, referencing, neutrality, MoS, etc.). Hope you continue writing articles like this even though you've recently been busy spamming people on WMF business :) Jenks24 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support All looks good. Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck, clear ( 9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources) my area of history is labour, not law. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I made sure all pre 1950 sources were used appropriately.
    • fns 6; 19 & 20; 10, 11, 12, 29, 31 & 53
    • fn20 Kerly 272's capacity to support the claim of the Court of Appeals in Chancery is obscure to me, but this may be due to an inability to make basic obvious and permissible legal syntheses?
    • Re Guth (2008): Isn't W. Hamilton Bryson entitled to be identified as the source of these thoughts? Maybe the citation of editors only, instead of chapter authors with their chapter title, is a matter of style in this field.
    • fn12 is maybe a little tightly page numbered given it spreads over multiple (yet adjacent) pages. This isn't bad, its a matter of style, but one I find a little foreign. I've previously noted I was raised on strict Turabian.
    • fn53 is an excellent example of admirable and loose paraphrasing, the way we should paraphrase.
      • On the last point - thank you :). What do you mean with "9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources"? Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I checked 9 citations of 67 citations that existed (~1/7th of the citations); I checked 3 of the 14 sources used (~1/7th). Given that it is a "spot" check, not a thorough check, I wanted to indicate how large of a spot I checked. This lets the delegates and other readers know how representative my issues are—if I check one citation and find something wrong, I could be cherry picking? It lets you determine if the errors (if any) mean you need to go over the work. Given that the only issue I found was with footnote 20 (and I assume the issue is I don't know how to read institutional law sources correctly), that would indicate that there isn't much to worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Argh, I can't actually see the source for some reason - it cuts out that page and the page after in google books, and my normal resource (a wonderful closed archive of classic legal texts) is now not present thanks to the whole graduation thing :(. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Do you mean the Kerly book? Whatabout one of these links? BencherliteTalk 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
            • You, sir, are a bloody lifesaver. Fifelfoo, I seem to have bollocksed up transferring that ref over; now replaced with the actual ref. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Brain

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is ready. I have addressed all the issues that caused the previous nomination to fail, and made many other improvements as well. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - good job for taking on such an important article, but more work is needed. The most concerning deficit is the low citation density - a significant amount of material appears to be unsourced. The citations that are present need to be more consistently formatted, and some are incomplete (ex FNs 21 and 24). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll add the comment that, to me at least, the number of citations looks to be good, but there are several paragraphs where the final sentence(s) are not referenced. The authors might take a look at citing those entries. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There is very little unsourced material in the article -- I would like to say none, but I'm not perfect so that would surely be an overstatement. I have never found a referencing strategy that makes it 100% clear which references apply to which sentences without repeating refs for every sentence -- something I am very reluctant to do. In a few places where sourcing seemed especially unclear I resorted to "bracketing" a passage with a ref at the beginning and a repetition at the end, but in most places the ref that applies to a sentence that does not have a ref of its own is the last ref before it. I can easily add repeat refs at the end of paragraphs if there is consensus that that's the right solution. Looie496 (talk)
This concern has been addressed. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is thoroughly sourced, but often the citation is at the beginning of a string of sentences it supports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: I have now made an attempt to move all refs to the end of the set of sentences they support. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • "Nothing approaching this level of detail is available for any other organism" - source?
Hmm. This is so well known in the field that none of the basic sources bothers to say it. I'm sure there are sources but I'm not really sure how to search them out -- it's sort of like searching for a source for the fact that the earth only has one moon. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Update -- I finally found an article in the Encyclopedia of Genetics that makes a direct statement about the uniqueness of C. elegans, and added it as a ref. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how initials are punctuated
I believe they are all unpunctuated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 8: missing initials
Fixed, I guess -- not sure what ref this was but nothing in that neighborhood lacks initials now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated
I believe I have changed everything to last-first form now, except possibly a couple where CitationBot generated code that I don't understand. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether journal names are abbreviated and if so how
I changed them all to unabbreviated form, except Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, which I abbreviated Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B (Biological Sciences), which I abbreviated Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B (Biological Sciences). Is that good enough? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and stray hyphens
I went through all the refs and didn't see anything like that, but I'll give another scan. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
All now have access dates. The FlyBrain site is itself a publisher -- its existence is the fact that supports the statement in the article. As for WormBook, I don't know how to handle it: it shares aspects of a website, book, and journal, and none of our cite templates seems to deal with it perfectly. In other parts of the article I cited information from WormBook articles using "cite journal" templates, but here the reference is to the fact that WormBook exists. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 32, 34, 36, 71, 79, 81, 82, 84, 123, 127, 134, 139: page(s)?
They all now have either page ranges or chapter titles. All of those are references for broad generalities that basically sum up the message of a whole book or a major part of a book, so they are not easy to pin down to a specific page -- furthermore I don't actually have any of those books on hand and have had to make due with info from Google Books or other web resources. But I think it ought to be okay. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
I think there was only one error, and I have fixed it -- none are hyphenated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
None have locations now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for journals
No journals have publishers now, I believe -- only books. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you notate editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
I think this is now consistent but I'm not sure I fully understand what the cite templates do with editors. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent notation for editions
I don't know what this is referring to, but I'll try to spot it. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Use consistent naming - for example, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins vs Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Fixed, I think, unless I overlooked something. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 73, 75: formatting
Both fixed. (Swaminathan and Safi, in case you forget.) Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 74: are you missing a chapter number or title here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
One of the few refs added by somebody other than me, and I don't have the book, but I heroically managed to get it from Google Books's snippet view ("Metabolism of the brain"). So it's fixed now. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Imazdi 1979

Comment—the citation formatting is inconsistent, and in at least one case, incorrect.

  • With respect to how authors' names are rendered, there is much inconsistency. Most of them are of the form "<last> <initial(s)>" and use commas to separate between multiple authors, while some are "<last>, <inital(s)>" and use semicolons to separate between mulitple authors. It appears that you have used citation templates, but in many cases used |author= rather than using the separate |last#= |first#= to generate the author lists. The latter method, personally, would be preferable since it would ensure that formatting stayed consistent and the COinS metadata would be consistent and correct as well.
I have converted them all to last-first form for at least the first author. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The date for the Hippocrates citation is formatted wrong. Per MOS:DATE: "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space."
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 21 (FlyBrain) and 24 (WormBook) need publisher information, publication date (if applicable), author(s) (if applicable), and an access date for each.
FlyBrain and WormBook are essentially publishers; their existence is the fact that supports the statements in the article. Referring to them is like referring to Wikipedia as a whole. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm taking no position on the academic practice to use only first or first and middle initials for authors, but since you are using that convention, footnote 52 should be changed to follow it for consistency. Currently, the citation lists "Gerhard Roth und Ursula Dicke" as the author, but that should be "Roth, G(erald); Dicke, U(rsula)". In German, "und" means "and", so you have two names there in "<first> <last>" order, which doesn't follow the formatting of the rest.
I had missed that one. Now fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 53, 54 and 128 have full first names. Like I mentioned above, I would convert them to first initials for consistency unless you're going to add full first names to the other citations.
Fixed, I think. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 71 and 92 should indicate that it is a PDF using the |format= parameter of the template.
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 91 and 93 should have a publication date (if applicable) and an access date.
I can't find a publication date -- this online textbook is actively maintained so I'm not sure one would be meaningful. I have added accessdate parameters to both cites. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Lastly, why are the shortened footnotes that refer to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development using the book title instead of the author names? I thought that it was standard to use the author names?

Imzadi 1979  20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Principles of Neural Science is a graduate-level textbook edited by Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel, with most of the chapters written by specialists. Citing it as Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel would therefore be misleading, I think. The other one could be cited as Purves and Lichtman, but the name of the book seems likely to be more meaningful to readers. I will change this if you think it is important. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The referencing appears inadequate, though discussion above indicates that it may simply be non-standard. It is standard to footnote a source for a clause, sentence, or paragraph at the end of that clause, sentence, or paragraph. By not following that standard, it becomes impossible to effectively determine the correct source for a given statement. I cannot support this article until it can be determined whether or not each statement is backed up by the source given. – Quadell (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now moved all refs to the end of the range of text they support (adding a few in the process). Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "In vertebrates, the brain is located in the head, protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell."

Does this imply that in (some) invertebrates, the brain is not located in the head? Not protected by the skull? Not close to the sense organs? (I know the answers, but these need clarification.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see why this needs clarifying, and don't see how to do it without looking silly. I will admit that I don't like the sentence all that much, and would welcome improvments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
How about: "The brain is located in the head, usually close to the primary sensory apparatus such as vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell. In vertebrates, the brain is protected by the skull." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have followed your suggestion but omitting the second sentence, which seems unnecessary and somewhat breaks the flow.Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view, the function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body."

Is it really helpful to include the first part of that sentence: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view"? Why not just say "The function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body." The following paragraph discusses the philosophical implications. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable without some qualifier. The notion of a function implies a purpose or goal. Viewed as a physical object, a brain does not have a purpose -- it is only evolutionary theory that justifies assigning a purpose to organs of the body. I might be over-thinking this, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The mechanisms by which brain activity instantiates consciousness and thought have been very challenging to understand."

I had to look up the meaning of "instantiate". Is there a simpler word? I couldn't find one in a thesaurus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "gives rise to", which may not be perfectly ideal, but hopefully is close enough. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Cellular structure", paragraph 3: "Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses."

I think that this terminology is slightly loose. From Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary: "Synapse: the minute gap across which nerve impulses pass from one neurone to the next, at the end of a nerve fibre." From Guyton & Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology, 21st edition, chapter 45, page 557: "The synapse is the junction point from one neuron to the next." The junction of motor neuron and muscle fibre is properly called the neuromuscular junction. From Guyton, chapter 7 (Excitation of Skeletal Muscle: Neuromuscular Transmission and Excitation-Contraction Coupling), page 85: "Each nerve ending makes a junction, called the neuromuscular junction, with the muscle fiber near its midpoint". Other postganglionic efferent neurons, such as those of the autonomic nervous system, have junctions that are usually called "neuroeffector junctions". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've finessed this issue by removing the phrase "or to non-neuronal cells". I'm pretty certain that the majority of neuroscientists would consider the neuromuscular junction to be a type of synapse, but there is no reason to argue about it, since the sentence does its job without that phrase. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "Although dolphins have values that approach the human level." Does the dolphin's EQ of 4.14 really approach that of humans? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "Dolphins have values higher than those for any primates other than humans...". Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a general comment regarding the inline citations. I agree with RJHall; there are several paragraphs where the final sentence isn't referenced. Unlike Nikkimaria, I don't have a problem with the citation density per se. I am sure that Looie496 has ensured that all of the text can be justified from the reliable sources. However in several places, the source is not indicated. I could go through the article and place "citation needed" tags, but I'm not sure how constructive that would be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now tried to move all refs to the end of the range of material they support. If there is still material whose sourcing is unclear, cn tags would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The reference placement looks fine now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "The other part of the brain that is greatly enlarged in primates is the prefrontal cortex, which carries out functions that include planning, working memory, motivation, attention, and executive control." This sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten that paragraph. Does it work now? Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology": "Neurons are electrically active cells." Aren't all cells electrically active? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No. All cells are electrically charged, but most maintain a membrane potential that is either constant or else changes slowly. I'll see if I can come up with a wording that clarifies the distinction here. Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now rewritten the sentence as "The functions of the brain depend on the ability of neurons to transmit electrochemical signals to other cells, and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells." Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology", subsection "Neurotransmitters and receptors", paragraph 2: "The two neurotransmitters that are used most widely in the vertebrate brain are glutamate, which almost always exerts excitatory effects on target neurons, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is almost always inhibitory." Is the disclaimer "almost always" really necessary? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know the answer, and some sort of qualifier is indeed needed. There is an inhibitory subtype of glutamate receptor, and GABA can be excitatory during embryonic development. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology", subsection "Metabolism": "The brain consumes up to twenty percent of the energy used by the human body, more than any other organ. Although the human brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization." This information is specific to the human brain. I expect that the energy use of non-human brains is much lower. Without the context of non-human brain metabolism details, I don't think that these human-centric stats should be in this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I added that material in response to a request from reviewer RJH, below, so I really don't know what I should do here. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I asked RJH about this; here is his response: "Hi Axl. Well yes I agree. What I requested was some information on the brain's energy usage, with the idea that it would show how that effects the evolutionary development of large brains. The nominator chose to use the human-specific information, but I think it could (and probably should) be modified to talk about any animal with a large brain (given suitable sources). Regards, RJH"
Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now rewritten this section almost entirely, to make it more complete and less human-centric. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions": "To generate purposeful and unified action, the brain brings information from sense organs together at a central location, processes it to extract meaningful information from the raw data, combines the sensory information with information about the current needs of an animal and with memory of circumstances from the past, and generates motor response patterns that are suited to maximize the welfare of the animal." Can this long sentence be shortened/split? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have broken it up into four shorter sentences -- tell me if it works better for you. Please feel free to edit it if you see any way of improving it. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. (I have made a couple of minor changes.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions", subsection "Motor control": "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by brainstem nuclei, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord." I don't think that's right. There also also other motor cranial nerves: facial, glossopharyngeal, vagus, hypoglossal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Axl is right - none of the Cranial nerves arise from the spinal cord (apart from a bit of XI) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This was a misreading of the source on my part. I've rechecked, and rewritten the sentence to correct the error. It now says, "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by nuclei in the midbrain, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord and brainstem". Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions", subsection "Motivation", paragraph 1: "The motivational system works largely by a reward-punishment mechanism." Should this be an endash? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll take your word for it -- changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several historical comments in the body of the article. While these may be appropriately placed for an essay or a review article, I think that they would be better in the "History" section of this encyclopedic article.

  • From "Anatomy", subsection "Invertebrates", there is extended discussion around Sydney Brenner and Eric Kandel.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Information processing", much of the first two paragraphs should be in the "History" section.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Arousal", paragraph 3 mentions 1950s knowledge.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Homeostasis", Claude Bernard's milieu intérieur.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Learning and memory", includes historical information.
  • From "Research", paragraph 2, details of older 20th century techniques.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here I'm going to balk. These are areas where it seemed to me that a good understanding of the current state of knowledge requires knowing something about the past. If the historical information is simply removed from those sections, I don't think they will work as well for readers. I am open to suggestions about how to reframe those sections, but simply extracting the historical information doesn't seem viable. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Research", paragraph 3: "Recordings of brain activity can be made using electrodes, either glued to the skull as in EEG studies, or implanted inside the brains of animals for extracellular recordings." In humans, EEG electrodes are affixed to the scalp, not the skull. (I don't know if the skull is used in animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that was just a brain glitch on my part -- now changed to "scalp". Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Good pun :-) Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From the same paragraph: "It is also possible to study brain activity noninvasively in humans using functional imaging techniques such as MRI." In humans, EEG is almost always non-invasive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the emphasis in that sentence didn't come through as I intended. I have rewritten the sentence as, "It is also possible to study brain activity using functional imaging techniques such as Functional magnetic resonance imaging—these techniques have mainly been used with human subjects, because they require a conscious subject to remain motionless for long periods of time, but they have the great advantage of being noninvasive." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have adjusted the syntax of the sentence. There is no reference at the end of the sentence; I wonder if it was lost in the wash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, but in any case I've now added a reference for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From "History", paragraph 4: "Reflecting the new understanding, in 1942 Charles Sherrington visualized in somewhat breathless terms the workings of the brain waking from sleep." "Breathless terms"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As in purple prose. I realize that phrase is slightly nonencyclopedic, and I'll remove it if you think it is preferable. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted that introductory phrase. I have left the quotation itself intact. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the references to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development are only chapter numbers, without page numbers. Why is this? (I can try to get hold of these books and dig out the page numbers if that would be helpful.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

All of those textbook references are in support of broad generalizations that are verifiable using any decent textbook on the topic, and in my view a reader who feels a need for more information is better served by reading the chapter than by looking for a specific sentence or paragraph that duplicates the information in the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of citations in Wikipedia is for verifiability rather than directing the reader to a source of extra information.
I now have a copy of Principles of Neural Science. The first instance of a "chapter reference" is from "Anatomy", subsection "Cellular structure", paragraph 3. I have added a page number citation to the first part of the paragraph. Ironically, the second part of the paragraph makes no mention of electrical synapses, despite this being one of the first points of the chapter. There is also information there that could be included in the "History" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Following this message from Looie496, I have decided to withdraw from this FAC. It is clear that Looie496 and I have significant disagreements regarding layout, style and referencing, which will not be reconciled during this FAC. I have tried to make constructive comments, and I have made several edits to the article itself. I am aware that other editors already support the article in its current state, and I submit to the consensus.

As a final request, I would ask that Looie496 reviews my comment regarding motor neurons from the spinal cord; I believe that the article's statement is factually incorrect. I shall take no further part in this FAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would reconsider. I really appreciate the work you have put into this and have found your comments to be very valuable, and I have complied with most of your requests. I am reluctant to follow a couple of requests, and have tried to explain why, but I have not actually refused. I intend to fix the problem regarding motor neurons -- you're right that the current wording is incorrect, but replacing it with correct wording is nontrivial. I am also working on a rewrite of the Metabolism section, which is not easy for me because biochemistry is by no means my strongest area. Let me also note that at this time there are only two editors on record in support of promoting the article, which is not what I would call consensus, so your views are by no means irrelevant. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed and I think this article is FA worthy. There may be other issues to be identified, but the nominator has shown a willingness to address the remaining problems. Good work. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Comments—It's a good article and I enjoyed the read. I think with a little fine tuning it can be an FA. Here's a few observations:

  • As mentioned earlier, there is an issue with the placement of the sources. They should be located at the end of the text they reference. See "Perception", "Arousal", "Development", and so forth.
I have now done this as requested. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I see frequent use of the spaced em-dash. These should all be unspaced em-dashes. See MOS:EMDASH.
This sort of thing is very frustrating. Whatever I do, people tell me I should do the other thing. I personally don't care one way or the other. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, well I think first and foremost it's good to be consistent. The article mixes the two forms; I'd just stick with the unspaced em-dash and point people to the MoS if there is an issue. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have changed all instances to unspaced em-dashes. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. RJH (talk)
  • What does the following statement have to do with the subject? Also, it's expressing an opinion, so it should be sourced.
    Many biologists dislike the term "invertebrate" (which includes all animals that are not vertebrates) because it is not a monophyletic category — that is, it does not describe a group of animals all derived from a common ancestral form.
That sentence is sourced, to a textbook that explains the problems with the word "invertebrate". I originally had the reference attached to the first sentence of the paragraph; somebody moved it to the last sentence. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, what does it have to do with the brain? RJH (talk)
Well, not much. There are three words that make biologists see red -- "primitive", "worm", and "invertebrate" -- and I have a sort of defensive reflex whenever I feel compelled to use one of them. But I've now removed it -- damn the torpedoes! Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As an alternative, might I suggest making it a footnote? RJH (talk)
My personal view is that footnotes don't work very well with Wikipedia's referencing scheme, because the reader has no way of distinguishing a footnote reference from a source reference without looking at it. I am happy to leave it as is -- we can always revisit the issue if somebody complains. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. RJH (talk)
  • "The brain of the octopus in particular is highly developed, comparable in complexity to the brains of some vertebrates." Isn't this true of cephalopods in general? (Cf. Cephalopod intelligence.)
I don't know for sure; I'll see if I can find out. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed that sentence -- I can't find a source that directly supports it, although there are many sources that seem to support it implicitly. I modified the previous sentence slightly as well. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
That's regrettable. However, the current wording does seems to cover the topic fairly well and the Cephalopod intelligence article indicates that the topic of cephalopod intellectual capabilities remains controversial. Perhaps it's best then. Thanks. RJH (talk)
  • "Remarkably, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans." Why is this remarkable?
Well, remarkableness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Many people find it remarkable that closely related genes are involved in shaping the brains of humans and fruit flies, whose last common ancestor was a wormlike thing that existed over 500 million years ago. Even so, the word can be dropped if you are unhappy with it. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
A reason why I have a minor concern here is that the word implies there is additional information that is not being supplied to the reader. For example, does it mean the same as the following?
"Remarkably, despite having a nearly independent evolutionary lineage, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans."
RJH (talk)
I have replaced "remarkably" with "in spite of the large evolutionary distance between insects and mammals..." Will that work? Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That works. Thank you. RJH (talk)
  • "and examined in hundreds of experiments" It is unclear how this is connected with the remainder of the sentence. Is it missing an "and [it has been] examined"?
Changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Should the Homeostasis section mention the brain's role in hibernation?
My knowledge of that is extremely sketchy. What do you think it should say? Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that hybernation provides the brain protection from cold temperatures and low oxygen flow, so some mention might be relevant. Also, it contrasts with the discussion regarding sleep, since the mechanisms and effects upon the brain differ. RJH (talk)
I am open to suggestions, but I don't see this as essential (I'm not even sure hibernation should be thought of homeostasis), and I don't know anything to say about it. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. RJH (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of energy use in the brain or heat regulation.
As the note at the top of the article indicates, that topic is covered in the human brain article -- although not as thoroughly as could be wished. It is really only in humans that the brain is a large enough fraction of the body for that to matter, as far as I know. This is not an area where I have great expertise, though, so there might be literature I'm not aware of. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But all brains use energy and I think it's at least worth mentioning in terms of a cost factor for possessing a large brain. Also, does it need to be explained how energy is transported across the blood-brain barrier? RJH (talk)
I have moved the Metabolism section back into this article from the human brain article, simplifying it a bit and placing it in the Physiology section. Will that work for you? Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. RJH (talk)
Followup: as I said above to Axl, this section has now been rewritten. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Update As of now I have responded to every issue that has been raised, and await further comments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A DAB. Would have fixed it myself but I don't know which link is correct. I would guess cellular differentiation? Albacore (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I was aware of that, and left it as it was because I thought that none of the dab links was appropriate. But looking again, I see that the cellular differentiation article actually does discuss induction briefly. There really ought to be a separate article on it, because it is quite an important process, but I suppose resolving as you suggest is the right thing to do for now, so I've made that change. Looie496 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Anthonyhcole

  • "The autonomic nervous system affects heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, urination, and sexual arousal ..." Should you make it clear this isn't an exhaustive list of ANS functions?
I have added "and several other processes". Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Under Brain#Functions: "(The brain) then processes this raw data to extract meaning." Can meaning be applied to insect and arachnid cognition? I don't know the answer, and can't access the source.
Yeah, that was too loosely worded. I've rephrased it as "It then processes this raw data to extract information about the structure of the environment". Still a bit loose, but it's hard to be completely precise without resorting to jargon or formulations so complicated most readers won't be able to understand them. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Bloody marvelous. Well done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Commentstentative support (but fix nerve error) (on comprehensiveness and prose grounds) - I read through a swathe of this article the other day and got distracted. I must say it is pretty impressive. I'll continue and jot notes below: I can't see any deal-breakers outstanding. I think the article is over the line, and straddles clear English vs scientific accuracy well. It is large and will spot check some sources and prose laterCasliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The Note on topic coverage I'm not sure about - I recognise its utility but find the fact that it looks the same as the body of text disconcerting as it is somewhat meta. I can see some duplication of it with the italicised segment at the top of the page. This is a placeholder, not a deal-breaker per se as I cannot think of an improvement just yet.
I am totally sympathetic to that attitude. I think it's essential to get that information across to the reader somehow, but I am completely open to doing it in a different way if a different way is preferred. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That section disconcerts me too. Would it be better to make it an opening paragraph for the "See also" section of the page? Doing so seems logical to me, but I've never seen paragraph text in "See also" sections before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells - the verb "integrate" strikes me as a bit nebulous here. I'm thinking "respond to" is better, and tossing up whether chucking in the adverb "appropriately" is needed too.
Revised as suggested -- it does seem a bit clearer that way. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: Just noted motor neuron debate above - will look into this later. Gotta run as real life beckons... yes needs fixing - cranial nerves don't arise from SC (except a bit of one or two of 'em). ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Now rewritten, see comment above. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the images in this article haven't been reviewed yet, and there's quite a few of them. Ucucha (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Begin image review - I note that File:Chimp Brain in a jar.jpg was uploaded in 2008 with a note that the licence was appropriate then. However the source on flickr now says all rights reserved....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Once an image has been released under a certain license, the license cannot be revoked. I think it would be possible to find an alternative image, but I'm not sure we need to. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I am a neophyte on images anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have a reasonably solid understanding of copyright law, but not such a solid grasp of Wikipedia's policies regarding image use, so I do need checking up on. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just spent a lot of time learning about Wikipedia's image policies, and my understanding is that Looie is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Status update At this point I believe I have responded to all issues that have been raised, although some reviewers have not yet verified that the responses are adequate. RJHall, Anthonyhcole, and Casliber have supported promotion; Axl is uncomfortable with some aspects but not explicitly opposed. There has not been a complete image review, however most of the images were present during FA3 and were deemed acceptable then. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Media Review A few things:
- Please go through the images and make sure that all of them have a Template:Information template in them, with everything that needs to be there, in there.
I am not aware of any FAC guideline that says it is my responsibility to do that. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There isn't one, however some of the images have the information strewn all over the place, making it rather hard to find it all. It's more of a common courtesy thing, like alt texts. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If it were just a courtesy I would be happy to do it. But the fact is that my knowledge of Wikipedia's image policies is limited, and my approach is basically to assume that things from Commons are usable unless somebody tells me that they aren't. So this is asking me for something that I really don't know how to do. I'll take responsibility for images that I have uploaded myself (which are either entirely my own work or derived from things that I know are licensed appropriately), but I don't want to be responsible for validating things that other people have uploaded. Looie496 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:Horizontal sections of fetal brain.jpg is extremely.. err.. sketchy. Without knowing anything about the user, my first inclination is to call the own work claim bogus. He says it comes from http://www.anatomyumftm.com. I'm kinda queesy so I didn't verify if that's true or not, but the website itself dosen't have a copyright release of any kind. In the absence of that, of an OTRS ticket, or even of a statement saying that Anatomist90 is connected to the website, the image has to go. I've alerted a Commons admin via the IRC, so that image might disappear soon anyways.
I'm not responsible for putting that image there, and even if the permission was somehow okay, it doesn't belong where it was placed or really anywhere in the article. I have removed it. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:Tursiops truncatus brain size modified.JPG is based off of a museum exhibit. Not sure about what that does for copyright status. Is the exhibit copyrighted by the museum? If so, this is tainted fruit, so to speak.
I have removed the image, with some regret, as it is extremely difficult to find usable images for that topic. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:6 week embryo brain.jpg also makes me uncomfortable. Where did the uploader get his information? It's not that I doubt the accuracy, just that it... well... dosen't feel right. Feel free to ignore this one.
The original uploader has created a lot of images like this one, using Inkscape (an SVG image editor). Of course there is never any way of knowing for certain, but I see no actual evidence that the claim of self-creation is wrong -- I've created numerous line drawings of this sort myself. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
That's it. Sorry, but it looks like you've got a bit more cleanup to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is remarkable work. I've just read the article and found almost nothing I could even quibble with. The only comment I can offer is that a navigation template at the end that guided the reader to specific brain-related topics would be very helpful. My support is that of a layperson; I have no knowledge of neuroscience beyond what can be gained from reading science articles in magazines such as Scientific American. I also have not checked the sources or images. With those caveats, I believe this is worthy of FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I notice that a comparison is made to Jell-O. Basically no-one outside North America (I'm not sure about Canada) will know; I understand the source probably does. However, Jell-O could describe a number of dessert products. Can we say that the source meant a gelatin dessert? Perhaps we should say that instead? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it work to just say gelatin? Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Gelatin itself is rather different. Is there a separate comparison in the source? Or perhaps merely link Jell-O to "Gelatin dessert" instead. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've simply removed that comparison. We've gone around on this about half-a-dozen times, and there doesn't seem to be any way to make people happy. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Opposeable Spotcheck concerns (10/145 cites) I am a historian, not a neurobiological anatomist. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Checked: fn 4; 13; 23; 33; 44; 53; 64; 73; 83; 94.
    • I don't see how fn44 adequately supports its citation with 400 pages of pathology, when one sentence of normal function is required to be sourced appropriately.
    • I don't see how fn53 adequately supports the assertion that mammal brains are different to other vertebrates, etc. It supports a discussion on primate / non-primates.
    • fn64 is a 400 page book allegedly supporting two sentences. Try pp. 327; 387ff §"Drug abuse" Also try a bit of courtesy to your readers. 400pg over two major assertions...
    • fn73 misrepresents its source Wikipedia: "The need to limit body weight in order, for example, to fly, has apparently led to selection for a reduction of brain size in some species, such as bats." Safi2005 at abstract: "Relative to the ancestral state, brain size in bats has been reduced in fast flyers, while it has increased in manoeuvrable flyers adapted to flight in complex habitats. This study emphasizes that brain reduction and enlargement are equally important, and they should both be considered when investigating brain size evolution."

1689 Boston revolt

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

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

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

  • FN 51: is this a magazine article?
    • I believe this has been replaced or fixed. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Added missing locations. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - This text from the Lead, "of provincial militia and citizens formed in the city, arresting dominion officials and adherents of the Church of England, who were suspected of being sympathetic to the dominion" is duplicated here: [17] On that website, Wikipedia is not acknowledged as a source. Could the nominator respond to this? Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Quadell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images:

  • All check out as far as I can see, except for Sir Edmund Andros.jpg, where the pre-1919 date of creation needs to be explained further on the description page by reference to the date of death of the collector. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I've replaced the Andros image with one that has better provenance (and is a color portrait to boot). Magic♪piano 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Background: Don't think multiple Massachusetts Bay Colony links are needed in this section.
    • Fixed. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Same goes for Puritan.
  • What do we all think about using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a source? It is a fellow encyclopedia (and an old one at that), which is kind of odd to be using in a potential FA, at least to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It's only use is to cite a relatively uncontroversial point in the aftermath (the duration of Jacob Leisler's tenure in New York). Magic♪piano 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  • The text says "restoration of Massachusetts's colonial charter, revoked by Andros", but a recent edit summary says "Andros didn't revoke or establish charters". - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure at this point who added that language, but it's quite wrong. Andros had nothing to do with the Mass. charter revocation. Magic♪piano 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It was probably me, when I attempted to reword the sentence. I was certainly wrong - Andros did not revoke the charters, and the dominion charter had already taken effect by the time he reached Massachusetts. DCItalk 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering - should any of the events listed in Webb's Lord Churchill's Coup be included in the article's "Aftermath" section? The book includes detailed descriptions of what happened after Andros's overthrow. DCItalk 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No opinion, I'm just dealing with prose on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. "A boat from the Rose, of potential use in this escape attempt, was intercepted by militia": This doesn't feel right to me. If the boat was in some sense intended for his use, I'd prefer "A waiting boat from the Rose was intercepted by militia". If you want to be more specific, that's fine too.
    • The boat came ashore when they saw what was going on, probably to help out in an escape attempt. DCItalk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I went with "A boat that came ashore from the Rose ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • "citing the mob of which they claimed to be "wholly ignorant".": If they knew about the mob, they weren't ignorant of it. Maybe they were claiming not to know where it came from. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The mob was running rampant, hauling off dominion officials and trying to remove supposedly idolatrous objects from Kings Chapel, the Anglican church in town. The council was not a typical revolutionary body - it was a majority of Andros's council, with some old magistrates and officials removed from office because of the dominion charter. From what I can make out, the council was a little astonished by the speed of the locals' reaction, which is why they claimed to be "wholly ignorant" of their rebelling supporters. DCItalk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I guess we can leave it if that's what they said. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Quadell says the "sourcing is reliable", but I'm not sure what that means. There's a lot on the talk page. And, although it's not the question you asked, Magicpiano wrote most of the article in its current form, and he's got a solid track record at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources are reliable, and most can be found on Google Books in an abridged "preview" format. Some (anything by Webb, for instance) can be found in hard copy in a library. DCItalk 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Of the sources used, Lustig's biography of Andros is probably the most difficult to access. I found only a few non-circulating copies (unless you are affiliated with the holding institution) in the Boston area, where one might expect it to be a little more widely available. Portions are available in Google Books preview. Magic♪piano 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck clear 3/13 sources 15/59 citations. I am a modernist, not an early modernist. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Quality: Barns [1923] checked for claims that would be outdated, passes.
    • Palfrey passes (1 cite). Steele passes (2 cites).
    • Webb (12 cites): fn28 doesn't make sense to me, source says 10 January not 19 January, is this an OS/NS issue? It looks like a misreading of 1 January, 9 Days later, 10 January.
      • This is a math/reading error, fixed. All of the dates in the article are (or should be) OS. Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Webb 40a surely "As quoted in...?" This isn't a quote of Webb, it is a quote of a quote in Webb.
      • Are you suggesting that I have to go through all my other feature articles and add "as quoted in" language before such quotes? In context it is clearly not a quote of Webb. (A brief survey of some other FAs indicates similar sorts of quotations, and Webb furthermore does not identify who/what he is quoting.) Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Whatever solution is adopted here, I just want us to make sure we're all agreed that history is hard, and that an accepted style among historians of early modern history (certainly, and some later history, too) is not to insist on saying "I don't know for sure who said this first" every time they believe something is likely true but don't know for sure where it came from. This differs from more modern standards. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • While I defer to Dank on matters of style relating to citation amongst early modernists, I'd suggest emending the text to indicate that we as readers ought to treat that particular quotation as from the "horse's mouth" but backed up by a historian as true, representative, important. I skimmed over the quotes going, "oh this is just a historian's opinion," rather than giving it the true attention it deserved. Perhaps instead of "There he was told that, "…"" we could use "There [the mob/the Bostonians/a delegation/…] told him, "…"". I read "There he was told that, "…"" to mean that the quote was a historian's paraphrase.
            • Good point. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • (Humbly, I was raised on Turabian with the full chain of publications back to the person who cited the document indicated in the footnote, but my period has a luxury and even superfluity of primary sources) Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • While I strugged at first to figure how to phrase this unambiguously given Webb's lack of source ID, Palfrey helpfully explains the document (see footnote on this page, quote is on next page). Magic♪piano 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Is the issue the agentic noun who told Andros off? "The Council of the revolt told him, "…"" appears to be fully supported by the Riggs document in Palfray? As far as a citation, if Webb doesn't identify it, "As Quoted in Webb...; also found as John Riggs (Servant to Sir Edmund Andros) 22 July 1689 "A Narrative of the Proceedings at Boston in New England upon the Inhabitants seizing the Government there" as recorded in full in Palfray… ? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry, you've lost me (as in, I have no idea what you're asking for, or what your issue is, in the above). I've never been asked before to openly source quotes of this sort to this degree (and now wonder why the same level of explication is not being demanded of other quotes in this article). Referencing these sorts of quotations to reliable secondary materials seems to have passed muster in all manner of earlier reviews I've had to deal with. Magic♪piano 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • Two separate issues, at this point they're merely stylistic and do not require action to complete the FAC. First issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for citation purposes: what style you use to cite quotes contained in the work you are quoting. If you are comfortable with your current practice, I am not concerned.
                  • Second issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for prose and reader purposes: making clear to the reader whether you're quoting the historian (Webb), or quoting primary material quoted by Webb (the Council of the revolt). As I noted above, perhaps confusingly, I misread this quote as a quote from Webb; it would vastly improve my reading experience if I knew it was a quote from the revolters which was merely contained in Webb. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                    • Oh, ok. I have added words clarifying what is known of the quote's source. Magic♪piano 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 40b completely fails to support its assertion. No such man is named in the work. Suggest rewrite to match facts as put in Webb for the conditions of arrest.
      • Umm, true. There are other sources that do identify the man and his house; I've added one. (Neither identifies Usher as treasurer, but I'm not going to add yet another citation just to prove that bit.) Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • If everyone knows Usher was treasurer, I'm not going to prevaricate. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't actually know what to do next with this. All observed issues were resolved, but they kind of imply another two undiscovered issues on the scale of "January 19" => "January 10"? How do we deal with a spotcheck that finds minor issues? FAC delegate, regulars, advice? Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I have notified Ucucha. DCItalk 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • N.B. I have checked the references to Lustig against my notes and Google Books preview and am satisfied that they are consistent. Magic♪piano 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am rather confused, as I have been away from this page for some time. I think that the details of the arrest are rather clear: Andros went to meet with the Council, which told him that they'd "have the Government in their hands." He was then taken to Usher's house. At some point (when the 1500 militiamen entered, according to Webb), Andros was taken to less comfortable confinement in the town jail. And, as for quotations, I think that it's fine to quote the text. As long as there's an inline citation near the quote, the reader should be able to tell what content is from primary sources and what is from secondary, eg. Webb. I also don't find it likely that a reader will be overly concerned with this matter. DCItalk 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Kaiapit

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

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

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

  • FN 5: is this one source or two?
  • Kelly: you've included the volume name, but omitted the title of the complete work
  • Given that the Kelly source is self-published, what are Kelly's qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No citations to Willoughby or Coulthard-Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. One source.
  2. Template issues. Corrected.
  3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Toolbox checks

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

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

  • Support Suggestions
    • time format: "1230" - probably should be "12:30" per WP:MOSTIME;
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • title format in References: "A Report on War Crimes against Australians committed by individual members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy" - maybe "A Report on War Crimes against Australians Committed by Individual Members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy", per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • "Against". - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • possibly redundant: "the lead plane was Captain Frank C. Church, who was considered one of the wing's "hottest" troop carrier pilots.[3] King flew in Church's lead plane." (specifically the second "lead" - perhaps delete it and just say "plane");
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "Captain King assembled his troops..." - possibly just "King" per WP:SURNAME;
    • possibly a typo: "The company reached Ragitumkiap, a village with striking distance of Kaiapit" (should it be "within striking")?;
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • possibly incorrect caps: "guessed that Maxwell's Section" (probably should be "Maxwell's section");
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "50 minutes at a time and then rested for ten" (should "ten" be "10" for consistency?)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "The Australians suffered 2 killed and 7 wounded" (should these be "two killed and seven wounded" per WP:ORDINAL?);
      • Done.
    • there is some repetition in this image caption: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. Some 214 Japanese dead were counted after the battle." Perhaps reword. Something like this might work: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. After the battle 214 Japanese bodies were counted by the Australians around their positions." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Heh, Rupert, I noticed the repetition too but for some reason no improvement came to me and I left it -- your wording works well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
          • All my comments have been addressed. I'm pleased to see this battle get some attention. When I first joined the Army, before I crossed to the dark side and became an officer, I went through Kapooka in 12 Platoon, Bravo Coy. The platoon were known as the "Purple Devils" and had an association with the 2/6th Independent Company. Two veterans of Kaiapit, Bill and Eric, used to come to the base and talk to us during our training, and it was then that I first heard about this battle. Anyway, to cut a long story short, good work and thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Situation
    • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
    • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
      • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
  • Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
    • Small wireless set. AWA made them. [18] I'll see if I can dig up something on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Red linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

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

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

  • "Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring, commander of I Corps, Major General George Alan Vasey, commander of the 7th Division, and Major General Ennis Whitehead, commander of the Advanced Echelon, Fifth Air Force, and Allied air commander in New Guinea, met at Whitehead's headquarters.": It's possible reviewers will object and ask for parentheses around "commander of I Corps", etc., in order to keep one comma per element in the series. I don't think it's confusing ... until you get to the last bit. Would it work to write "Advanced Echelon of Fifth Air Force and"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Deleted "and Allied air commander in New Guinea," Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "aptly named Finisterre Range": why aptly named?
    • You think it is not? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Which meaning of "Finisterre"? Finisterre–Huon languages? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • It says and links the Finisterre Range Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Not following. Since neither this article nor that article explains where the name comes from, how can the reader know if it's apt? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
            • From the Wikipedia: "The name Finistère derives from the Latin Finis Terræ, meaning end of the earth," Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
              • Ah, of course. Still ... I've met some of our readers, and that's asking a bit much ;) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "It opened the gate ...": Since there are no commas in that sentence, it would use commas rather than semicolons in AmEng; I don't know about AusEng, but I expect commas are more common.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  • "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
    • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
    • Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
    • Still wondering about this. I'm not necessarily asking for it to be changed—but I am wondering if there is a consensus order for military battle articles and if there is a rationale behind this order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The geography section was something that I invented. I isn't required, although some other editors have adopted it. The alternative would be to merge it with the situation section, if you think that would read better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't an alternative to be to place it before the Situation section and then start the narrative after you describe the geography? I just think it interrupts the flow of the article. If you disagree, I'm willing to hash it out. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Okay, I have moved the geography section to the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
    • Just passing by... Yes, the old WARNORD -- sort of a heads-up in militarise. How would "advance order(s)" sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I actually love the term, but I'm concerned readers won't get it. Advance orders sounds good as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Prefer warning order. Don't think it would confuse anyone because it is in accord with the non-militarese use of the word. Added a bit though to make it clearer what the warning order said. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
    • Could you be more explicit? Reads okay to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe "To be self-supporting, the company had its own engineer ..." or even "The company was self-supporting, with its own engineer ..." What do you think? --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
    • Only one. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Willoughby (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of mistaken Japanese impressions in Willoughby at 224? Please advise.
    • Ooops. Wrong quote. I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Kenney (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of good flying weather on the 22 September 1943 in this source, is this obvious? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I know what happened here! I replaced a reference with Kenney and did not notice it didn't cover the weather too. No worries; Dexter does, so added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
  • Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
    • Not so; it is p. 123 on the hard copy version. I had not realised that the online chapters did not have the same page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
  • Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
    • Yes. Changed to Watson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • As each chapter of each volume of the USAAF official histories was written by a different combination of authors for simplicity most historians reference these books as 'Craven and Cate (editors)' or similar, so the original citation was also OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
    • Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • fn18c should be at p419;
    • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
  • Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Wikipedia:New pages patrol — For the NewPP counter and its template limits, see Wikipedia:Template limits. Shortcuts: WP:NPP WP:Newpp Wikimedia Foundation is inviting former and current new page patrollers to take part in a survey. If you have patrolled pages and would like… …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Ownership of articles — This page is about control over an article s text. For the ownership of copyright in an article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.… …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Glossary — Welcome to Wikipedia, which anyone can edit. Help index: Ask questions · Learn wikicode · View FAQ · Read Glossary · Live Wikipedia editing related help via web chat  …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Portal/Directory — Shortcut: WP:P/D The following is a directory of portals in the English Wikipedia together with who founded them and when, and who maintains them. At present, there are 156 featured portals, of a total of 1099 portals on Wikipedia. Please insert… …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Portal — WP:P redirects here. For new proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For Wikipedia s policy on page protection, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. For its guideline on plagiarism, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Shortcuts: WP:P WP:PORTAL …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — For requests to hide the contents of edit summaries, see Wikipedia:Oversight. WP:SPEEDY redirects here. For the guideline discussing when to end deletion debates early as keep , see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. For the list of current candidates for… …   Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English — Resources for maintenance and collaboration Cleanup …   Wikipedia

  • History of Wikipedia — Wikipedia in the news redirects here. For an overview of Wikipedia mentioned in other media, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media Growth of Wikipedia redirects here. For mathematical models of Wikipedia s expansion, see Wikipedia:Modelling… …   Wikipedia

  • Academic studies about Wikipedia — Content Production A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content In a landmark peer reviewed paper,Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, John Riedl, Creating, destroying, and… …   Wikipedia

  • Portal:Featured content — Overview · Lists · Outlines · Portals · Categories · Glossaries · Indexes Featured content in Wikipedia …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.