March 2011

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

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

Gymnopilus maritimus

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source review

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

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

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

Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However" and "moreover" seem overused to me.
  • The species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but can be differentiated from both. Despite the similarities, it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution — the fact that it can be differentiated is axiomatic, I'd prefer something like the species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution
  • The dried cap is turned blackish-red — turns?
  • can easily be differentiated from G. maritimus as it lives among grass — query use of "easily" the id seems to rely on two things; spore size, which doesn't sound easy, and where it is growing. Relying on habitat for id, especially for a species whose substrates are not fully known, may be easy, but seems dubious.
    • The source does specify "easily", but I guess that's not entirely neutral; sure, it's an easy differentiation for a Gymnopilus specialist, but perhaps not the rest of us. I have rephrased, and removed "easily". J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know your feelings about this, but a sketch would make it easy to visualise this thing. Self-made maps, diagrams and sketches (like your cladogram) are perfectly acceptable, especially where no free image can be found
Happy with replies, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ucucha 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

We have a template for it, I assumed it was OK. I added it in response to Jim's concerns. I can move to an external links section if you would prefer, but that would perhaps remove the utility currently offered as something to go alongside the description. I'm happy either way. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT say they shouldn't be in the body of the article, rather in external links. But, Template:External media says to use it inline temporarily. So, I guess we don't worry about it for now, but I don't want to see the fact that it's used here as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reason for other editors to start adding external links to the body of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

HMS Speedy (1782)

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

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

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

I'll leave the image issue to Kirk. On the question of Sarastro's questions, I'd like for reviewers to make their own judgments about the relevance of those questions from the first FAC. If a reviewer says, "Yes, I'd really like to know about this and this", then we'll research it. If a reviewer takes the position that we need to answer every possible question about historical context in order to succeed at FAC, then a more general discussion about FAC standards for ship articles would be helpful. I'm wondering if we would have lost Benea as a contributor (she hasn't edited since September) if we had had such a conversation the first time around, rather than putting the whole burden on her. At the time, I was too timid to say anything, and was thinking it was "not my job", but I should have said something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image in question currently has a date of early 1800's, although the museum has it catalogued without a date. There's a possibility it was in a book with a better citation, and there's two or three images that could replace it at the top if we're so concerned with the outside possibility of a copyright issue with an anonymous work that is pretty obviously from the early 19th century. Regarding Sarastro's questions most seemed like minor things to me; as Dank said we can just leave those questions to this FAC review. However, one specific point; while some of Cochrane's exploits are fictionalized in the Hornblower series, its much more fiction than Master and Commander. I think Sarastro was referring specifically Hornblower and the Hotspur, while the Hotspur is a sloop that's about it as far as simliarity to Speedy goes. I hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an e-mail about the image in question. I did find it in a book, Nelson Against Napoleon: From the Nile to Copenhagen 1798-1801, ed. Robert Gardiner, page 77, no date or creator. Kirk (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to myself

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

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

Fair enough for all of these, if the information is not available it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, I blame myself for not speaking up when I suspected Benea needed some help. On your questions, I've just bought one of the main sources (Henderson) and I'll have to wait for it to arrive; in the meantime, I'll ask for help at MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thanks kindly. Fifelfoo just removed note A in the last edit. But good news ... Benea is back, and she's fighting for the note :) This is a rather complex issue, and I'll look for some economics folks to help us out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really rather not oppose on grounds of original research and being incorrect in fact, which is why I quietly deleted the note using the cost of bread for wage earners in the 18th century to inflate the cost of light warship construction. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The incorrect use of Template:Inflation has been repeatedly raised here. Template:Inflation bares a reasonably clear warning against using CPI to inflate capital goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you back, Benea. Fifelfoo has a point ... and not only about the ((inflation)) template. User:Protonk and many others make the case that when you go back too far (maybe 1800-ish), there's no table you can use to give a conversion that makes any sense in today's pounds, because different things had a different value in relation to each other. So what we're doing currently at A-class is just not to give a converted figure for older ships (and we're flexible on what "older" means). The best link I have for you is this one, which also links to a discussion at the Kenilworth Castle A-class review. It wouldn't bother me a bit to go with Fifelfoo's edit and just omit the conversion, although as Visionholder points out, if we do that, I'll have to re-number (re-letter?) the notes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I quite understand the arguments (I have done post-graduate level economics). It was not in the article originally but was included at another editor's insistence at some earlier review. My main aim to be sure is that this is something that isn't go to go back and forth one way or the other and may lead to reviews being scuppered. Benea (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I was brusque. Was the request at GA or MILHIST-A? If it was at MILHIST then I might go have some words on their policy pages about economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Speedy (1782) (where it was argued that it might be beneficial for younger readers). I argued briefly against it but it seems to be a well-intentioned personal preference on the part of one editor. No particular policy was mentioned, but at the time it didn't seem worth holding a strong opinion about, as the trend seemed to be to put these conversions on many similar articles. Benea (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-lettered now, since it looks like the note is going to stay gone. I can't speak for the other reviewers, but I generally just let people argue these things for a while ... it's the only way to find out where everyone stands. I'm satisfied at this point that we don't want to give conversions (CPI or otherwise) to present value for older ships, castles, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lead

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

From our article of the same name:
British writers generally favor "American War of Independence", "American Rebellion", or "War of American Independence".
- Dank (push to talk)
Yup, I thought that might be the case. I've never heard it worded that way before!-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downman and Brenton

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

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

French and Papal career

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

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


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

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

Note: I have supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, crews were awarded prize money. The awards were Gazetted, which means they are verifiable as to having occurred, but not the amounts. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Got 'em, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems very odd that we are actually reducing the accuracy and detail of the article based on the opinion that fractions are visually 'horrible'. The Builder's Old Measurement is simply expressed as a fraction. Benea (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest they be removed, rather rewritten without the clunky frac template, which distorts the text size. Can't you just write 21/94 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that if you want to add it, Benea. I was concerned that it would be slightly jarring to modern readers, but I often lose these battles :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got reverted by MJRoots. Not a lot I can do about it, Sandy, as long as SHIPS editors are adamant, and MOSNUM seems to require the ((frac)) template. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Shimgray got them. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

John, King of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images

Sources

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

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

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

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

  • Captured changed - agree, it was awkward wording!
  • I hadn't picked up on the Rosamund Clifford story - I'll have a proper search through later.
  • I've had a go at softening the five sons bit.
  • I don't think John's death immediately prompted the shift in loyalties, my reading of the material suggests the defections really begin after William Marshal and Fawkes de Breate's victory at Lincoln (for which Marshal gets the long term credit, thanks to later events at Bedford Castle... ...and Marshal having the better biographer!). That said, the period is murky - let me know if you think it still needs further tweaking.
  • I've changed those two links, and will have a look at the others.
  • Glad you enjoyed the article, and thanks for the edits! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have checked the Rosamund bit. The more current biographies don't really mention this; Warren notes the suspected affair, but doesn't link it to the birth of John. I've tried a quick pull on Google Books, but I'm not finding anything other than the various tales about how much John's mother disliked her. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in to that, and for the changes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • The argument is from David Carpenter's volume (cited later as p.270). The argument seems to go that once the Capetians weren't having to push almost all their money into fighting the war to protect the approaches to Paris, they had a chance to do rather more on the continent. I've softened the language slightly.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not perfect, I agree, but I was struggling to find a better place to put it (the current location is the best chronological place, but doesn't fit thematically). Ideas welcome!Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, although Richard recognised the German Emperor instead. Both Henry and Richard theoretically held lands from the French crown, but never did homage. The literature seems divided on how important John's step was; some authors make more of it than others. I'm not sure I've got the balance here perfect yet.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

  • I tend to do it because I remember when I was a kid always getting confused about how much marks meant in the history books, and at least it is constant across the period (unlike, ahem, trying to convert medieval sums into modern ones!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was never signed actually. It was sealed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm quite with you here - none of the citation references refer to book chapters, each one refers to a specific page number (or numbers) in a volume. Is your concern that that the bibliography doesn't give the page numbers? I don't use AWB, but I'm very happy to alter any repeated references if someone can tell me which ones they are! Hchc2009 (talk)
  • For example, "Curren-Aquino, Deborah T. (1989) "Introduction: King John Resurgent," in Curren-Aquino (ed) 1989" is a chapter by Curren-Aquino in a book by Curren-Aquino. The book is the next reference down on the list. Mmmm, I would consider changing (1989) to (1989a), which would then be followed by (1989b). I would sorta also consider adding page numbers to the first reference, to indicate the page span of the chapter... I put the list of repeated cites on your personal talk page. Remember that you are not required to change them into named refs if you don't want to (except one that looks like it might be missing page numbers, but perhaps I accidentally chopped them off when I copy/pasted) GlitchCraft (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John was proclaimed king of England, and came to an agreement with Philip II of France to recognise his right to the continental Angevin lands at the peace treaty of Le Goulet in 1200." - "his" is ambiguous, and "right" too vague.
  • "famous for his opulent clothes but not, according to French chroniclers, for his taste in wine" could use a link to the relevant article in the history of fashion series - 1200–1300 in fashion, or English medieval clothing. What does the wine bit mean? He didn't drink much, or he couldn't tell the good stuff?
  • Seems accurate to me; the French thought it was very funny that when given the run of the French king's wine cellars, John kept on choosing what were, from their perspective, appalling bottles of wine to drink.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As John grew up, he became known for being potentially "genial, witty, generous and hospitable"; at other moments, he could be jealous, ..." not "potentially" just "sometimes".
  • "John infamously offended the local Irish lords ..." is lords the right word at this date? Chiefs, princes, or something more vague might be better. Later on they are "the native Irish kingdoms", perhaps going too far the other way. Is there an article to link to?
  • I've changed to "rulers" - they were the kings plus associated lords from the accounts I've seen (the later kingdoms bit is precise I think). I've added a link, though its not ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John's policy earned him the disrespectful title of "John Softsword" amongst some English chroniclers..." was this at their conference? Inelegant usage of "amongst".
  • "John accomplished this by arguing that he had failed to get the necessary papal permission to marry Isabel in the first place – " link Consanguinity here or on the next line (or is it Affinity (canon law)? Generally the article seems somewhat underlinked.
  • "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and many of the lands and revenues owed to her were never passed on by John, ..." how would the lands have been passed on? Needs a re-write I think, maybe: "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and did not pass on much of the revenue from her lands, ..." perhaps?
  • "Otto Welf" is an odd way to describe someone who was in 1212 certainly Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, even if the next emperor-elect had been chosen from his rivals.
  • I suspect I picked up that from one of the authors. I've changed, as per your suggestion. 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "within the traditional Robin Hood narrative set" - set? =cast? "who is usually the "swashbuckling villain" to Robin." - opposed to?

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

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

See my support above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for the source review, Brian. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Nils, speaking as someone who's written several of this type of article before and has tried that approach, using one form tends to create an immense amount of repetition that hurts readability even more than alternating forms does. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JKBrooks85 on this matter. All of the different names are introduced in the first sentence of the lead. Varying the names improves readability and is consistent with how previous college football FAs, as well as external sports articles, are written. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should clarify. Obviously, across the sweep of the article, it's desirable to have some variation; however, what I found irksome is when a single sentence/pair of sentences uses a construction such as "Connecticut X then the Gamecocks Y." It's just an opinion, but I think that reads better as "Connecticut X then South Carolina Y." Certainly, I will bow to consensus. Sir Nils (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that point; I tried to make sure that when the teams are compared in a sentence it is as like-to-like, such as "Connecticut X, South Carolina Y" or "the Huskies and the Gamecocks". I'll take a look through the article and fix any issues I can find. If you find any I miss and either fix them or point them out here, I'll greatly appreciate it. –Grondemar 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments:

Thank you for the detailed review! It will take me a couple of days to get through all of your feedback, so I politely request patience. :-) –Grondemar 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did take me a week to get back to you on your request for a review. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, except for the outside jargon review; let me know if you agree. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More Comments:

Comments

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

Comments (cont.)

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

Comment
Would you have a look through the wikitext of the article as it seems to be cluttered with lots of  , please? These make the text hard to read/edit and may produce unnecessarily ugly line breaking, especially on small screens. To the best of my knowledge, the relevant guidelines indicating where to use nbsp are at MOS:NBSP, MOS:NUM#Non-breaking spaces, MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words and MOS:NUM#Unit symbols. I can't find anywhere that would justify things like "Dixon rushed for 126 yards and a touchdown on 33 carries, giving him 1,093 rushing yards on the year", for example. It is correct to write 126 yd as it separates a numerical value from its units symbol per MOS:NUM#Unit symbols, but it's not needed for 126 yards as a line wrap to start a new line with 'yards' is a perfectly good piece of typesetting. I see no reason why a line shouldn't break between '33' and 'carries', and the same applies to things like 'a touchdown'. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the unnecessary non-breaking spaces have been removed. As you probably guessed I completely misinterpreted the MOS to mean that a non-breaking space must be placed between any number and its unit, not just between numbers and unit symbols. –Grondemar 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have thought something along those lines, but I would never be so rude as to say so :). There are some exceptions for most of the "rules" concerning numbers, units, and line-breaks especially where space is restricted (e.g. infoboxes), but you have grasped the general principle and I think the article is better for it.
Support this engaging article. I'm no expert on the subject and can't judge its comprehensiveness, but my concerns on technical issues of style and accessibility have been promptly addressed. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to delegates: the comments on the talk page are minor and I am supporting regardless of the outcome of those points. Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support! I have responded to/addressed all of them on the FAC talk page. –Grondemar 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your edits, Sandy; I further revised the sentence on the Cincinnati game, and went through the entire article again fixing minor grammatical issues and non-breaking spaces in dates issues, including in all of the references. Please review and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. –Grondemar 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

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

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

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

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

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

This is what the list use to look like. See comment below. « ₣M₣ » 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand the gist of the comment below, but this comment is more to other reviewers as well: unlike your list of events from Olympic games (which are generally reasonably well known, and more a matter of what specific events they didn't program in), we're talking characters that may be obscure to some people, particularly those on the Tatsunoko side. If no one else raises the issue, hey, fine, addition later may be ok. But others may feel for this FA to be complete the list needs more explanation. I'm ok without them those see the value in that. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that the current version of the character table DOES link to their respective series/franchise, except in the event where they have an actual character page. That should be enough, right? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moved resolved comments to the talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the only score for CGoH and since its never abbreviated in the article (I don't think anyone other than fans abbreviate it), I chose to leave it in prose. Otherwise, good catch. « ₣M₣ » 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • MOS:CAPTION issue
  • WP:LQ issues: the punctuation for full quotations is supposed to go inside the closing quote (has any of this been checked for MoS?)
  • The use of quotations in the Reception section borders on excessive. Use quotations only when the statement is something memorable and not easily paraphrased.
  • "Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica enthusiastically wrote" How does one enthusiastically write? Quick typing with giddy noises?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asked Tony. « ₣M₣ » 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checkout comments from H3llkn0wz above. « ₣M₣ » 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Yes, changed it to that. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Somerset Levels

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • I see now. You are suggesting an inset showing the position in the British Isles. I have asked User:Nilfanion who created the map for this article whether it would be possible to add this. If not I will contact the map workshop.— Rod talk 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An insert of the British Isles has kindly been added by Nilfanion. Is this the sort of thing you wanted or were you thinking of Template:Location map England with a red dot on it? This would probably be appropriate for an infobox, however I can't find a suitable one as the Levels are not a protected area in the way that Exmoor or the Mendip Hills are.— Rod talk 08:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for these checks - all were working fine a few days ago when I last checked them.
  • The Langport and River Parrett Visitor Centre seems to be affected by the use of toolserver looking to the server as if they are redirects. It gives error 302 "Excessed redirect limit (8)" but if you click on the URL directly it works without problems.
  • The Brent Knoll link works fine for me
  • I'm not sure about the Drainage Boards Newsletter bandwidth problem. The top level of that domain gives the same error, even though it is a .gov.uk (government) domain. I will check again in a day or two to see if the problem has resolved.
  • The 8x redirect was ending up at their main page yesterday; seems to be fine now as does the mysteriousbritain one. I do actually click on the links, the tool server has quirks sometimes. As to the BBC one, I know about the /1/ versus /2/ just being which server it sends you to, but the actual redirect I meant was the /uk/ being changed to /uk_news/. Whatever, It's not a big deal in this case. --PresN 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • As far as I can see, Havinden (1970) is correctly transcibed using the ((cite book)) template. The title is "The Somerset Landscape", it is one volume of a series entitled: "The making of the English landscape". What exactly is your concern? Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed this to further reading - the intention is to give details of other relevant sources which are not directly referenced in the text. I have removed those which are now used as references and hopefully improved the format.
  • I have removed place of publication for consistency
  • I have revised these - hopefully got them all
  • Missed a few - for example 34 and 36
  • Hopefully fixed now.
  • I believe all the books now have page numbers
  • Missed a few here - for example 37. Also, make sure page ranges use ndashes and single pages don't use "pp."
  • I have never understood the mdash v ndash argument but have used citation bot which has hopefully fixed these and found one occurrence of pp for a single page - if there are others I can't see them.— Rod talk 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a copy of Hollinrake, Charles; Hollinrake, Nancy (2007). "Chapter 9: The Water Roads of Somerset". In Blair, John (ed.). Waterways and Canal-Building in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921715-1. to hand but will ask for help or get a copy from the library.— Rod talk 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could only find one .doc & have added format= to this one
  • Done - hopefully got them all
  • Work OK for me but can be a bit slow
  • Consistency improved
  • Still needs work - for example, ref 17 uses "Dovecote Press", 21 uses "The Dovecote Press Ltd." and 71 uses "Dovecote press". Rechecked 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC), still not done
  • Several were in italics as work= had been used rather than publisher= - hopefully got them all now
  • Also check date formatting, how you format works within larger works, etc
  • Sorry I can't see this error
  • For example, ref 18 uses "28 January 2010" and ref 19 uses "2011-02 24"; ref 37 uses "In Blair, John" and ref 132 uses "In B. Purdy"
  • Requested changes Done, but I'm not sure why an accessdate is considered necessary (ignoring date consistency for the moment) for a map that exists in paper form - it has an isbn after all. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced this source as same information is available in the English Nature "Conservation Profile" document
  • Changed
  • According to this page the content on the site is based on Cope, Julian (2011). The Modern Antiquarian: A Pre-millennial Odyssey Through Megalithic Britain : Including a Gazetteer to Over 300 Prehistoric Sites. Thorsons. ISBN 978-0722535998. However I don't have a copy of the book so I'm relying on the web site for this citation, however I was worried about sourcing legends about giants so gave three references.
  • I agree that this isn't reliable, since the it is SPS. I noticed that the 'Landscape of King Arthur' mentioned in a post is on google books though (only in snippet view) but you can confirm that the post is a faithful copy and then cite the book instead. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree this is a commercial site selling coins. I could not find another source for the specific age of the coins in the Shapwick Hoard. I will remove that information if required.
  • It is the site of a campaign group - only used to support the claim that there had been local opposition to the electricity cables. The other details about the proposals are covered in the next ref (currently 115) from the BBC
  • Done
  • Done (this was a formatting error using a capital P for publisher=)

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

  • That has been added since this FAC nomination. I believe it is an accurate description & I will look for a source and contact the editor concerned.
  • I reworded the section and added a citation to cover it. It currently states: "The Levels are a coastal sand and clay barrier about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (O.D.) (roughly west of the M5 motorway). The general elevation of the inland Moors is 3 to 3.7 metres (10 to 12 ft) O.D. and with peak tides of 7.6 to 7.9 metres (25 to 26 ft) O.D. recorded at Bridgwater and Burnham On Sea, respectively, the inland Moors lie below peak tides.(Ref)". Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference added

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

  • The paragraph about climate which is all cited to the single Met Office source has been used on several geography articles in this part of the country (egs Glastonbury (GA), Somerset, Mendip Hills & Exmoor (which are all FAs) & copied many times (with little or no variation) so it is difficult to identify exactly where it was first written, although I probably copied it into this article and should have checked. I will reword this to remove the close paraphrasing & then try to find all the others which use it and revise those as well. Thank you for all your comments.— Rod talk 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now reworded the climate paragraph and replaced the copyvio/close paraphrase paragraph on 40+ other articles which all use it. Thanks for spotting this it was obviously more widely used than I realised.— Rod talk 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits (all of which seem fine to me). I have revised the conflation of Saxon charters & hillforts, changing the chronology in both lead & appropriate section. I've just checked with a couple of the relevant books & it was "local" lords, at the request of the king - commoners were worried about loosing grazing rights. Some overlinking has been reduced since your comment and I will look for others. I have asked Nilfanion about a key for the map giving the heights the coulours represent, but what other features and places would you like to see included, without overcrowding the map? - perhaps I should change this to a lead image and increase its size?— Rod talk 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the hillforts bit, and explaining the commoners - I've added the grazing rights bit. Ideally the map should show the levels themselves as they are the subject of the article, and the features - villages, rivers and motorway referred to in the article. The more incidental the mention of an item the less important to include it on the map - so the listed villages are unimportant as would be a place like Wells which is on the map you are using, but is only mentioned once. ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the map to the lead & made it bigger. The significant rivers are included, so do you feel the M5 motorway should be included & which villages?. I've added the heights the colours represent - but not sure of the best way to do this in the caption.— Rod talk 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the scale is a tad overwhelming, and I'm pretty sure that the lowest altitude bit covers rather more than just the levels. I think that the motorway is such a feature of the modern day that it should be in, but this is one of those articles that would really benefit from different maps for different eras, or one of those graphics that changes over time, in this case showing the flooding of the land in the mesolithic, the Roman era, the post roman era, the Anglo-saxon era etc. Of course that depends on whether it can be done and whether it can be sourced - so I wouldn't oppose FA status for the lack of it. Different maps for different eras would enable you to depict more info without cluttering one map and would give a great way to show the fluctuating shoreline and extent of things like the great flood ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That information exists in graphical form in, "Williams (1970) The Draining of the Somerset Levels" for instance, but under UK copyright law that book is still in Copyright: it is claimed by Cambridge University (not the author). Any work based on it would be regarded as a derivative work and would therefore not be copyfree. Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved to support per the improved mapping. I'd have liked to see a map that actually shows the levels themselves, but accept that we can't use what isn't available under an appropriate licence. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the map, the yellow region on this map is the Somerset Levels and Moors Natural Area (That data is not free, so cannot be used here). The 10m contour is possibly a better match to that region in some places, but to split 0-20 to 0-10 and 10-20 could unbalance the map by giving undue weight to the lower altitudes. As it is the map reflects the information in the lead section, the hills and the rivers - the physical geography. I'm not convinced the M5 is that relevant, its an important road, but its merely something that passes through and has no apparent significance to the Levels themselves. For that matter, the Willow Man is more relevant to the Levels than the motorway. That said, if including the road network (not just the M5) would provide helpful context to the map then it is worth including.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Reaper Eternal

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

  • Cite map reference added
  • Two references added about Burrow Mump
  • Reference added
  • References added for flood & sea defences
  • I'm never sure about too many comma's and tend to go with the copy editing of Malleus Fatuorum and others, but I would be happy to accept your kind offer.
  • Reference added
  • I'm not sure about apostrophes for plural abbreviations either, but I've added them.
  • added
  • I've rewritten this section. The referencing is now better: but, I've using 40-year old references. I need to add a more recent one, and a reviewer would (obviously) expect to see one (or more). (Note to Rod: I hope to find one at the EA-but you tend to be quicker than me at web searching). Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how there can be, as the absence of a single designation is the issue - the various designations which do apply to parts of the levels are included.
  • Natural England has a designation "Natural Area" that applies to this. (See page #7 [11].) Also, this book mentions that SSSIs are patchy on the Levels & Moors, which would indicate a lack of one continuous designation. Apart from these, I can agree that such a reference might prove impossible to find, since it is a reference for a lack of information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference moved to the end of the sentence as it says it is an SAM but I haven't been able to find the number.
Additional comments from Reaper Eternal
  • cite map added
|}

Support apart from a couple of minor comments -

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

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

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

  • There is substantial evidence in the main body to support the claim that "The area has been extensively studied for its biodiversity and heritage, and has a growing tourism industry." but it could be removed from the lead if required?— Rod talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was that "heritage" is a very vague word, and introducing it in this way in the lead wasn't very informative. I will finish going through the rest of the article and see if I can come up with a constructive suggestion. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck this; there's sufficient support in the body, as you say. I don't particularly like this use of "heritage" without qualification but that might be just me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it is clear that the wider levels and moors area contains both the levels and the moors. How would you suggest it is clarified?— Rod talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before reading the article I had never heard that the levels were correctly called the Levels and Moors; I didn't know there was a difference. On seeing that there was, I assumed that the moors would be higher land, since that's a normal interpretation for the word "moor". The first paragraph defines the whole of the Levels and Moors, and I had no trouble with that. Then, since the article is in fact titled "Somerset Levels", not "Somerset Levels and Moors", I assumed that the next paragraph, starting "The Levels are" was also about the entire area. As I said, I can see that this is technically perfectly correct, but I hope you can understand my confusion.
    Perhaps it would help to reverse the order? Suppose the first sentence of the first paragraph were something like: "The Levels and Moors are a largely flat area, with the "Moors" referring to the inland plains, and the "Levels" referring to a coastal sand and clay barrier, roughly west of the M5 motorway"? That can no doubt be improved (I don't like using "referring" twice like that) but sets the context for the reader to see that two different things are about to be discussed; then "Levels and Moors" can be used to refer to both together. That would require a little rework of the subsequent sentences, but not too much, I think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source quoted is somewhat unhelpful. I'm not sure that the editor who used it understood the context. The status of the port appears to be unchanged. The Axe in those days (1840s) would have been used by sailing vessels, so it is possible that they could have travelled up river beyond the port before the railway line "blocked" the route. Changing timscale, the Axe was certainly navigable to Glastonbury Abbey in the Medieval period: that is well documented (but its not in this article and I did not add that section of text, but I do have the reference(s)). I can add it if you like. Pyrotec (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a key piece of information, so if the source doesn't give enough information to allow you to use it effectively I'd suggest just cutting it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a further copy edit. Pyrotec (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's much clearer. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sourced in the archive version of the Met Office site which I've added as a reference.— Rod talk 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've just realized that in fact your original source (footnote 32) was fine -- within the page are multiple tabs, and the rainfall and sunshine tab cover everything you give. I was only looking at the first tab. So I think you can get rid of the new footnote 33 (and in fact one of those footnote 33 links doesn't work for me -- I get page not found). Perhaps a comment could be added in the footnote that the reader should look at the rainfall and sunshine tabs? Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation (77) refers to both archaelogical evidence, i.e. pottery, dated to the Roman era found and recorded at some 20 sites in the locality, and an area marked as "The Saltings" on an 1886 map. The latter is likely to be possibly 18th-19th century. (It's not in the article, but brine was discovered in 1910 and extracted commercially at Puriton for a few years - but its obviously not the site refered to at Burham / Highbridge). Pyrotec (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've completed a pass through. If the above (minor) issues are resolved, and some form of map is added which lets a reader locate many of the settlements mentioned, I think I would be ready to change to weak support. My main remaining concern is that the prose is somewhat bitty. This is to some degree a natural consequence of the topic, which requires you to cover a great many disconnected bits of information under a single heading, but I do feel the prose is less than optimal. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments (which I will address individually) however with reference to the village names and a map - List of locations in the Somerset Levels does exist and includes settlements, as well as individuals named moors and minor rivers and drainage channels. It is linked from the see also section. As discussed above map making is beyond my skills, but the editor who did make it did suggest not making it too cluttered.— Rod talk 09:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I missed that list; I will take a look. As for a map, there are a couple of options to create maps -- User:Kmusser creates top-quality maps on request; and there are also people at the Graphics Lab who can provide maps. I really think they would be a big asset to the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The typo on the map has been fixed. As for what else is wanted from a map, one image can and should only do so much. The current map shows the physical geography reasonably well. Adding a political map to the settlements section would be most appropriate (in the style of the one at List of windmills in Essex) is a sensible way to show the location of the settlements. And if you want a map that shows "everything" a crop of this would do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A crop of the OS map would definitely be helpful; I think that would address a lot of my concerns. The style of the Essex map you give is a bit less helpful, in my eyes, because the reader has to go back and forth between the caption and the map to understand the relative positions of the named places. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Essex map uses numerical captions (to avoid overwhelming the map), but clearly the labels could be put on the image, instead of the caption. My thinking is that the map should be usable at the size it is displayed in the article - if the reader has to click away from the article to interpret it, that's a significant drawback. The harder question is how big the map should be in article - too small its useless, too big it overwhelms the article. FWIW, that OS map is freely licenced and can be utilised.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some points on the map of the talk page to show what towns & villages could be included.— Rod talk 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the map should be usable at the size it is displayed in the article; but surely an article that is specifically about a geographical area makes the best possible case for a large map that spans the width of the screen? If I were reading a physical article about the levels, in a magazine, I would be grateful for a full page map, and I'd keep a finger in that page and constantly flip to it whenever I wanted to check where the Pillrow Cut joined the Brue and the Axe, or to see where it was that Alfred burned the cakes. Perhaps other readers don't read that way, so please push back on these comments if you really don't feel a detailed map is necessary, but I think it would be a big plus. I do like the purely topographic map at the top, which sets the stage for the discussion of the geography, but the Settlements section could easily start with a large map to help the reader locate all these places. The map that is being assembled on the talk page is certainly helpful, and I may support with just that (though I still need to go through the rest of the article), but I think bigger is better here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the map & removed the "list" sentences naming the villages.— Rod talk 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to weak support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
''The Peat Moors Centre to the west of Glastonbury was dedicated to the archaeology, history and geology of the area. It also included reconstructions of some of the archaeological discoveries, including a number of Iron Age round houses and the world's oldest engineered highway, the Sweet Track. From time to time the centre offers courses in a number of ancient technologies in subjects including textiles, clothing and basket making, as well as staging various open days, displays and demonstrations. In February 2009 Somerset County Council, the owners of the Peat Moors Centre, announced their intention of closing the centre and it finally shut on 31 October 2009 The centre "was", but " From time to time the centre offers", then "it finally shut on 31 October 2009".
done
Otherwise prose is good, well referenced and comprehensive coverage of the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment (& support). I have changed offers to offered.— Rod talk 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that was the only issue I noted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated cider as the word is used to describe a number of different drinks across the world e.g. fizzy fruit drinks in Japan, or apple juice in the USA. I think a link is perfectly justified. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"grass" probably doesn't need to be linked but perhaps "Teazel" in the first para of the lead should be linked - and should be in lowercase. Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would say Geography as, although the geology is important, it also covers human geography, natural history etc.— Rod talk 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

ARA Rivadavia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

Background

Construction and trials

Service

References

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

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

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

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

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

SupportComments

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

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

Oppose

Comments

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

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

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

I believe I have addressed your remaining points. Thanks so much for your review – I really appreciate the time you took to put this together. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "designed by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company" begs the question who built it? May I suggest "designed and built by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company".
    Thanks for your review, WSC. You know, I was all about getting the lead sentences right a year ago ... all the good feedback we're getting at FAC these days is making me realize that my focus on Milhist's A-class review hasn't been entirely good for my copyediting ... I'm faster now, but sloppier. I'll have to fix that. I added "and built" and moved this bit from the first sentence to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dank, didn't realize you and Ed17 were collaborating on this. Curious isn't it how this site draws one into lots of milhist editing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Conversion from coal to fuel oil is liable to greatly increase the range, or free up bunker space for other purposes. Could you check whether the range figure was before or after the refit?
    It would be before, as it didn't list the armament alterations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The rumors were partially true; some Argentines in the government were looking to get rid of the battleships and devote the proceeds to opening more schools". Presumably being an Argentine wasn't particularly unusual in that particular Government?
    Done. - Dank (push to talk)
    Thanks, I was thinking of linking that into a history of Argentina article, but History of Argentina (The Radicals in Power, 1916–1930) has the Conservatives in power until 1916, then losing to the radicals. I think that jibes with the bit about socialist gains in 1914, I was thinking of simply replacing Socialist with Radical, but the dates conflict. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh, I wonder if Livermore is wrong in his date of 1914? Socialists can't gain in 1914 without an election... does anyone have a source on this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only book I checked is Scheina's Latin America. It's not there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like both the Radicals and the Socialists made massive gains in 1914 and 1916. The Radicals went from 24% in 1912 to 32%, then 48%. The Socialists went from 21% in 1912 to 36% to 41%. See p. 228 in Jeremy Adelman, "Socialism and Democracy in Argentina in the Age of the Second International," The Hispanic American Historical Review 72, no. 2 (1972), 211–238, JSTOR 2515555. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As she served as flagship I'd expect the name of an Admiral to appear as well as commanding officers.
    My sources don't give any... I may try hunting in the London Times microfilms this weekend for more details on this and the communist oil strike. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some mention of crew sizes and structure would be relevant.
    My sources give a single crew size number, and nothing more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "In 1917, the ship sailed to Comodoro Rivadavia when communist oil workers went on strike" - more detail on this would be interesting, was this to maintain order or to break the strike? ϢereSpielChequers 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that's all Whitley says. I thought the same thing as you when I first read that... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Looking at the pictures I see five twin gun turrets as the main armament but the article refers to 12 main guns, though I suppose it is possible there is another turret amidships. Please could you check this and confirm their layout. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See File:Rivadavia-class battleships.jpg. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My replies are above. Sorry to Dank for overwriting your lower comments, but I didn't feel like restoring "Ed got it" after the edit-conflict. :-) Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing this – I greatly appreciate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate it, V. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Numerical weather prediction

[edit]
Nominator(s): Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources comments

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

That is the full-color version. :) I guess we could get the graphics lab to give us a better picture, but I have no idea how long it would take. Re: reviewers: Who would you suggest? Usually when Hurricanehink needs a copyeditor, he asks me, and in this case, he has already provided one for the article's GAN. So that takes out both of WP:WPTC's copyeditors, I guess. Feline Hymnic provided both a copyedit and a content review. I'm not really sure who to ask. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so unappreciated. I'll take a look, though... Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full colour version is on the NOAA's website: see the external ref. Tony (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. They changed it from when I had last looked at that page (a while ago, I admit). Swapped it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I sort of agree with Hurricanehink. I'm not sure the section needed to be split off, when rearranging the article would suffice. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do agree with the reviewer that there was a strong bias/POV towards history in this article, which is now covered by the subarticle. It's not a content fork because we replaced a long section with a short summary: the two are not in disagreement. We've done this numerous times before within the TC and met projects during GAN and FAC. During FAC, this was done during the tropical cyclone and surface weather analysis reviews, so it's not exactly precedent setting. We'll wait to see what Poujeaux thinks about the change. It does reduce redundancy. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a subarticle on the history, but the historical summary at this point seems a bit short. Maybe bringing in a bit more of the previous content (e.g. the explanation of the different kinds of models introduced, linking to Atmospheric model#Types) would satisfy everyone's concerns. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've brought back so far is perfect. I'd hesitate bringing more back before getting feedback from the reviewer who brought this up. They indicated that previously, the history section led to "some subjects getting explained twice." Thegreatdr (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback was positive, so I think we have the right proportion of history within the article now. As for inclusion of model types, we could do that, but then we'd need to explore what types of models are used within the ocean and air quality, to see if we included them all. I'm going to wikilink to Types of atmospheric models in the See Also section. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the balance and structure of the article look really good now. At the moment you have a glitch with duplication of the last para of the lead and the last para of the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a way of avoiding that, although one of the other editors might. Now that the history section is basically a lead of the History of numerical weather prediction article, we essentially have two summary sections within the article...one with dates for the history section and one without for the main numerical weather prediction article. Because the lead is a summary of the article below, there will be some duplication between the lead and article content. Maybe someone can think of a way of rewording it so it's not so similar. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partially rewrote that part to make it less similar. What do you guys think? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a bit similar, but as RJH says below, you don't need the discussion of chaos in the history section. You could cut the "Even with..." and "This limitation..." sentences from the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes, in fact all three of the 'applications' sections are quite historical in style. IMHO the article could do with significantly more on the current state of the art, from someone who is an expert in the field (without making it too technical). I still don't really think the article is up to FA standard. Poujeaux (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason these feel historical is that they were split off from the History section per a request on the content review. Those sections definitely need revision since they were written with a different purpose in mind. I'll see what I can do, but I will have limited online access this weekend so it might take a bit of time to fix this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about Catch 22. One of the FA criteria is that the page is stable. This article has changed a lot in the last week or so as a result of this nomination! Poujeaux (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That has more to do with edit wars and highly fluid topics, though. While this topic is about a fluid, it is not fluid per se... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'm not expecting all the details. That would be impossible to do, even in the atmospheric model article. However, when one of the main sections of a topic is so short I do expect more details. Nageh (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about this problem last week, which is why the content was initially added to the Atmospheric model article. Have added that content into this article, which will likely need some additional expansion to include nonweather-related examples, such as those used in wave and air quality models. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Looking forward to the progress. Nageh (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more lines dealing with ocean and air quality modeling, which forced additional upgrades to the parameterization and history of numerical weather prediction subarticles. I've also added how far a few of the global models are run into the future...I can't seem to find a reference for how long it actually takes to run them, though through daily use I'd say it's on the order of 2-3 hours for global models and one hour for mesoscale models. The quantities forecast by atmospheric models are the same from which they are initialized (outside topography). Do you think this needs to be restated? This article more than the others I've dealt with through other FAC experiences has caused significant upgrades to some of the subarticles, since they were not in very good shape (or did not exist) to begin with. Two of the subarticles have now successfully gone through the GAN process and passed, while another is currently on GAN. Neither Tito or myself were experts on this topic when we started its editing, though improving this article is changing that quickly. Is there anything significant we're missing from the parameterization section, the way it is currently written? The subarticle can deal with finer points on the topic...just want to make sure nothing major is missing for the purposes of this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for it taking me so long to read the article (though I skipped the Applications section, for now). Let me say that I'm not an expert either. However, missing information on parametrization struck me as kinda obvious. I think the current state of the article deals fairly well with providing an introductory overview. (Nice job!) Here are a few issues that were no clear to me.

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

Excellent! I hope I get to review the Applications section, too, within the next few days (but no promise). Best, Nageh (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a quick read. It seems mostly fine. However, the models cited under section Wildfire modeling are very U.S. centric. Here is a link to an excellent and recent (2009) survey on wildfire models: Title: A review of wildland fire spread modelling, 1990-present, 1: Physical and quasi-physical models Nageh (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I essentially wrote a new introductory paragraph based off that source, and now I'm not entirely sure we need the laundry list of models in the second paragraph of Numerical weather prediction#Wildfire modeling anymore. What do you think? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Did you want to wait for someone else's input before making the change? It seems like that would resolve the latest comments made. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's ok to ax it then that's fine with me. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much of the second paragraph to remove, though. Pretty much everything after "These models include NCAR's Coupled Atmosphere-Wildland Fire-Environment (CAWFE)" seems redundant to me, but I'm not 100% sure whether the first two sentences of that paragraph should get attached as an introduction to the third paragraph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also think so. If some of the models are particularly notable you may single them out but otherwise I'd leave them out. More detail can be provided in the main wildfire modeling article. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuked. How do you think it looks now? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine now. Nageh (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Comments

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

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

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

The placing of references in those three sentences is a bit strange as well. But my main point is that most readers will feel lost after reading that, and it will drive out what they read earlier in the article. Better, in my opinion, to finish on a note that reminds readers what numerical weather prediction is - one technique used is to find a recent good quote from someone authoritative to sum things up. If that is too difficult to do, or too far outside the style of the article, then why not end with a summary of the five applications mentioned and other major or minor applications? That summary would usually go at the beginning of the 'applications' section, but there would be good reasons to shift it to the end here, to provide a readable finishing point for the reader. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see your point, wikipedia article structure allows for a summary at the beginning of the article (the lead), not the end. I have made some edits to the wildfire section to try to make it more understandable to the lay person, per your comments. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes help a bit, but you have misunderstood what I said. I was saying put a summary of the applications section at the end of the article. Currently, there is no summary of the applications section at the beginning of that section - you are just launched straight into five sections detailing those five applications. And regarding the technical nature of that section, see the change made here. It wasn't until that change was made that I realised that slope and terrain are the same thing. Given that the wildfire section was only added during this FAC, I'm not comfortably moving from my limited support until some of the earlier reviewers have had a chance to look at this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made further changes to that section to try to make it more accessible. That said, I still don't think that adding the summary of the applications section at the end of the article would be a good idea. It would be an unorthodox article structure (why not put the summary at the start of the section, like all the other articles do?), and it would ultimately be redundant, as it would summarize the things that were just being said. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The changes help, and I'll strike my objections above. Will have to accept that this is a very technical subject. Overall, the applications section does now seem to have more on wildfire modelling than anything else. Possibly because of the changes I suggested (sorry!). Maybe cut down the wildfire section or expand the other sections? Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Occurrences of the words, still, however, and moreover have been eliminated. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

2009 World Series

[edit]
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Images

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

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

Comments:

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

Comments

Sounds good! Something expaining the three-man rotation as well. BUC (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the note on rest. Don't know how to address the rotation bit, however. The article links to starting rotation, which provides a reader some chance to read further if they so desire. Additionally it notes the rarity of the three-man rotation in the playoffs, saying it hadn't been used since the Padres back in 99. Lastly it contrasts the Yankees to the Phillies' 4 man rotation. Beyond that I'm not sure what to add. Noting the traditional regular season rotation (5 man) I feel would only confuse an outside reader into thinking the Phillies were also strange for only using 4, but that's a pretty normal thing given extra playoff rest. Again, most of this seems like ancillary information that belongs at starting rotation (which is linked) more than it does here. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Additional comments from User:Grondemar:

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

*Comments

Can't quite figure out why File:2009 World Series.svg is necessary- what does it being to the table as far as NFCC 8 is concerned? The FUR is a boilerplate, as well.
  • It serves the same purpose as every DVD cover image fairly used across Wikipedia. Or all the bowl game logos in the Bowl FAs. It is an image expressly designed to represent the World Series, precisely what it's doing in the infobox. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if the FUR didn't keep referring to "the organisation" when we're talking about a sporting event... It reads like (because it is) a boilerplate that's slapped on images when no one bothers to write a distinct FUR. Courcelles 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see anything citing that this was the 105th WS...
"93–69, .574, GA: 6" I know enough baseball to have written a few FL's on the topic... and I'm clueless as to what GA means in this context.
"as reliever J. C. Romero was assigned a 50-game suspension after violating the Major League Baseball drug policy," The source doesn't even mention Romero.
"They became the first World Series champion to return to the World Series the following year since the 2000–01 New York Yankees." Citation?
"500th save against the Yankees cross-town rival" Should this by Yankees' ?
"The Series started on October 28, 2009, which was the latest start in World Series history." First, citation. Second, why was it so late?
Feels like there's some overlinking, especially players. Rivera is linked in the game 2, game 3 and game 4 writeups, for example.

Courcelles 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

USA Today is a newspaper and should be in italics in the citations-- I don't know why that citation template doesn't italicize it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close-- please do additional review to minimize unnecessary linking, check for WP:MOSNUM issues, and review WP:PUNC (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:30, 20 March 2011 [20].

Kennedy half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s):RHM22 (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...we think it meets the criteria. The Kennedy half dollar was the source of great public interest when it was first issued only months after the Kennedy assassination. The double whammy of hoarding and rising silver prices both meant that the half dollar failed to circulate despite massive mintages, and effectively destroyed the half dollar as a coin used in trade. It has never recovered, and the coin is only struck today for collectors. Written at the special request of Laser Brain in honor of Be Nice to the Delegates Week! Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the coauthor of this article, and I hope you will all enjoy it as much as we do!-RHM22 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, it was a missing close bracket, fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Source review

All these things are caused by two editors working on the article and adopting mildly different personal referencing formats, and will be corrected. Sorry, I usually try to check those things before a FAC reviewer is put to the bother.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki, for pointing out all those errors! My apologies for adding so many inconsistencies. I believe I fixed all of them except for the Bowers one, because I don't have that book and I'm not sure of the exact publisher, year, ISBN etc.-RHM22 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Actually, it was Tomaska and not Bowers, but it's fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Tomaska book is part of the Bowers series of guides, you see, and he usually writes them himself, but I'm guessing he's getting on in years, Bowers that is. My goof.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fixed - a few more nitpicks above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think everything has been fixed now. The best way is to put a comma after periodicals and books and a period after organizations, right? In other words, a comma after "Time" but a period after "United States Mint". Let me know if not and I can fix them.-RHM22 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under most circumstance I would agree, but since the Time reference in this case has only a retrieval date, not a publication date, use a period there too. Other references look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

These are now done, though in the case of Jacqueline, I changed the sentence in a different manner than what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

Despite these quibbles, I enjoyed reading the article and think it's the best numismatics article yet. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! All of those are now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support With my limited reviewing skills, I see nothing save a few diction quibbles that are merely personal preference instead of anti-grammatical. I am surprised at how interesting an article can be about such a prosaic topic. I read it with great interest. The only suggestion I have would be to put up a close-up detail image of the later versions for comparison with the heavily-accented hair, which is a bit unclear to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll talk to the photographer and see if he has one of the "normal hair". Thank you for the kind words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose: Support Still Oppose
Inspection
I've rewritten it to make it clear why she felt the quarter wouldn't do. Her reasons for not wanting the dollar (which had not been struck in almost thirty years) are not recorded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her concern was actually with the hair. She wanted the part made less prominent and more highlights in the hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release
Collecting
Other
Thanks for the review. I've already started work to address your concerns and work will continue. I hope you will stay in touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the specific concerns, other than the commas, and have asked Brianboulton (talk · contribs) to copyedit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last point does not need to be changed. The sentence reads (without the parenthesis) like this: "The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar, eliminated silver from the half dollar, and authorized the sale of old Morgan dollars struck at the Carson City Mint."-RHM22 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I've fixed two of the above four. San Francisco is the only mint that still produces proofs, but is that really necessary to add? It's already noted that production moved there in 1968. As for referencing the circulation of the Franklin, I have left that for Wehwalt, because none of my references say anything about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the stricken part above. I found a place to insert the San Francisco information without interrupting the article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've covered all the specific concerns mentioned as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I agree. All of the above comments have been addressed.-RHM22 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)With the exception of 1965 through 1967, proofs have been struck each year in the same metallic composition as business strikes. the sentance implies that business strikes are still occuring. Is that the case as it didn't appear so.陣内Jinnai 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Change to "uncirculated pieces", I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business strikes are still being produced though. All the pieces produced that aren't in either proof or mint sets are business strikes.-RHM22 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the rolls/bags considered that? I guess so, though it sounds odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is tricky, but I would say so, since there really isn't a better word or phrase. The way I would define it would be any coin that is not minted with special or unusual attention.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've found an answer. I replaced "uncirculated" in that sentence with "regular issue".-RHM22 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suits, and thus we don't have to worry about Bicentennial exceptions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check over this tomorrow just to make certain nothing cropped up since the copyedit.陣内Jinnai 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay now.陣内Jinnai 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke too soon. The lead still implies that the Franklin Half dollar was in wide circulation, but its not clear from the prose that was the case.陣内Jinnai 17:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lede revised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the remaining issue is dealt with. I would suggest per the discussion on my talk page that if said source indicates it and isn't already used here to add it as "Further reading" material.陣内Jinnai 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a subscription only NY Times article, I don't know how much use it will be (from 1968) as it is behind a pay/subscription wall. Thank you for your work. You've helped improve the article considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. they were challenging, but the fixes were very important and well worth the effort.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks! I've fixed both of those.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an engaging and professionally written contribution. May I be allowed one tiny, tiny, nit-pick? The meaning of "currently-struck" is not clear to me. I think it means no longer minted, but it could mean the opposite. Sorry, I understand now.Graham Colm (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it means that the coin is currently minted. I can see how that would be confusing though, since "struck" sometimes means no longer used. I'll fix that to clarify.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to switch the first uses of "struck" and "minted", because it both looks better and removes any ambiguity.-RHM22 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "currently-struck" hyphenated? Same for "previously-struck".
  • Demand for half-dollars dropped, with casinos (where they were commonly used) preferring to produce their own fifty-cent tokens." "With" is almost never a good linking word, and certainly isn't here. Is this suggesting that the reason demand dropped was because casinos preferred to produce their own tokens?
  • "... in most years being struck in the range of 20 million pieces ...". "20 million" isn't a range.
  • "The half dollar would go from 90% silver ... The new half dollars would retain their silvery appearance ... The coin would also have an inner layer of 21% silver and 79% copper." Why all these "woulds"? Were they or weren't they reduced from 90% silver etc.?
Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your first three suggestions, but I'm not certain about the last one. The reason for the unusual wording is that the Coinage Act is being discussed prior to passage, meaning that the provisions of the act weren't yet approved. It does look awkward though, and I'd be alright with rewording it if you still think it's important.-RHM22 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, nevermind, I'm wrong. It should definitely be reworded.-RHM22 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, they've been fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:30, 20 March 2011 [21].

Sacagawea dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. This my second dollar coin article to be nominated for FA status. My first, Morgan dollar is also a current nomination, but I was given permission by Laser brain to add this one as well. The Sacagawea dollar, like its predecessor the Susan B. Anthony dollar, proved unpopular with Americans in commerce. Nonetheless, it continues to be minted, now with a reverse that changes yearly. Thanks in advance to reviewers!-RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Comments[reply]

I split in two paragraphs.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded to make it a little more clear. Do you think it's better now?-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that portion of the website was probably deleted after Castle left the House. I removed the link and replaced added simply "United States House of Representatives" as the source. If this isn't acceptable, I may be able to find an old version of the Castle website on archive.org.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know about this. My sources don't indicate the actual reasoning, other than the committee members (except for Castle) preferred that subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've addressed all but the latter, because I don't have any information about that. Let me know if the changes I've made are satisfactory.-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Don't worry overmuch about the last point, it's mostly just curiosity. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. I have carried out spotchecks which elicit no problems

Thanks! I fixed the refs.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last sentence of the article states that the coin is popular in Uruguay, but the source says Ecuador. Also, the word 'however' doesn't work at the beginning of that sentence. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, thanks! I fixed that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I noticed that Mule_(coin) has a paragraph about the Sacagawea dollar. There is no source for that section, but it has some interesting info not found in the mule section of this article, such as the discredited theory that the coins were intentionally struck, the explanation of the accidental die replacement, the state quarter used for the obverse side (Washington), and how much one of the coins sold for. If you can verify that any of these facts are true, I think it would be nice to incorporate them into the article. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about the highest priced example ($75,000). The Washington (or 50 States) quarter and the part about the coins being struck accidentally were already in there. The claim that the quarter die was used as a replacement for a cracked die is likely, but dubious at the same time. Of course, no die would be replaced until its predecessor was worn out, but there is some evidence that at least three distinct die pairs were used, meaning that the coins were likely not all struck on the same day. This really makes you question the Mint's official stance on their origin, since the Washington obverse must have been removed and then another put in its place, but I don't know of any reliable sources that disagree with them on that.-RHM22 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, I'll be sure reply here if I find anything else! Hopefully I'll be able to go over the article comprehensively sometime this week. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I'm going to make some minor edits as I go, and report back here whenever I see something significant.[reply]

Lead

Background

Design History


Unfortunately this is all I have time for right now. I will do my best to come back later today to finish reviewing the article! It's all very good so far! Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your edits, suggestions and the kind words! I have addressed all your points, excepting the political parties. I would prefer to leave them in just to let people know their affiliations. I can remove them if you think they take away from the article, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! Normally I don't put mintage numbers in the article, but since this series is relatively short, that seems like a reasonable idea. Gve me a day or so to format the tables and I'll have them in there.-RHM22 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added the mintages in a sortable table.-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another well written / interesting numismatic article. I am one of the few who goes to the bank and exchanges dollar bills for these. Any thoughts about adding a photo of a vending machine that accepts dollar coins? That would seem to be relevant to the "Reception" section. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That would be fine with me. I'll do a quick check around and see if I can find an image of a stamp machine or something.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this and this (but it appears to show only Presidential dollar coins). I know I've also seen a machine down at the transit authority with a sign indicating it gives change in dollar coins. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first one looks good. Is that covered by freedom of panorama?-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very well written and informing. I learned much just be reading it. Dincher (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and fixes! I've addressed all of your concerns, except those about the denomination capitalization. Denominations are almost never capitalized, and I believe the current article titles (Eisenhower and 50 States) to be incorrect. I fixed everything else though.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still getting image squashing up top, the infobox and the Grams image and the Anthony dollar and the Castle image are really squeezing the text. And date formats are still mixed (date= vs accessdate= should both be same format throughout)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I got it! I didn't realize that the cite templates rendered the dates as Date-Month-Year. Sorry about that! I'm not sure what to do about the images though. I can remove one if you think it necessary. I would say the Susan B. Anthony image could easily be removed without any disruption to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, TRM is on wikibreak, but I removed the Susan B. Anthony dollar image anyway, because it doesn't really add much.-RHM22 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry! I thought you were taking a break from the banner on your talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (by someone who is not an expert on US copyright law)

Other images are unproblematic, although the purpose of the AirBART image could be made clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Grams photo, but I think it's an official portrait. I'll check and see what I can find. As for the AirBART image, that was added to illustrate what is the only major use of dollar coins, as vending machine fodder.-RHM22 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this Congressional website has the same photo of Grams in black and white. Do you think that would be enough?-RHM22 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright section is a little unclear. It says that some images are copyrighted, but also that all Senators and Representative images can be attributed to them.-RHM22 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more prose, MOS, grammar and hyphen vs. endash review (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing these for a while now, and those hyphens and dashes still throw me off! Thanks for the fixes, and I'll look through the article to see if I notice any errors.-RHM22 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I fixed the unnecessary dashes. Sorry for messing that up again. I know it wastes everyone's time when I foolishly misuse the punctuation, but to tell you the truth, I didn't know there was a difference between a hyphen and a dash before I started editing Wikipedia! At the least, I am learning a very useful punctuation technique for other, non-Wikipedia tasks as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Maybe comments can be left on the talk page, and the verdicts can be posted here. For instance, if you leave me suggestions, I respond, and you like the article, you'd just put "support" on this page, leaving the original comments on the talk page. Sorry if that was confusing, I couldn't think of a better way to explain!-RHM22 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support; I only had two comments and one is addressed; the other is a request for more information which would be useful but is not critical. Sandy, per your comment above, I looked for prose and grammar issues and didn't find much -- I fixed a couple of minor issues. I am not a great MOS reviewer but didn't spot anything wrong. I have not checked for close paraphrasing but will come back and do that if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re close paraphrasing: just looked at this source; it's footnote 7 in the current version. The article text is quite close to this source in several places, though I have to admit they are straightforward factual statements that are hard to paraphrase, such as "six obverse and seven reverse designs". I think this is OK, but someone else may want to take a look. Here are the details:
  • Article text: "The Committee was chaired in a non-voting capacity by Philip N. Diehl"; source: "United States Mint Director Philip N. Diehl chaired the committee in a non-voting capacity." Perhaps rephrase to "The committee was chaired by Philip N. Diehl; the role of the chairman did not include a vote on the designs."
  • Article text: "They convened in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts presented by members of the public along with numerous telephone, mail and e-mail suggestions"; source: "In June 1998, the DCDAC convened in Philadelphia. It deliberated about the design concept in a public session. Outside input factored heavily into the Committee’s decisions. The Committee listened to 17 design concept presentations from members of the public, as well as to numerous mail, phone, and e-mail messages submitted by the public". How about: "They met in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts submitted by members of the public, and reviewing many more suggestions received by telephone, mail and email."
  • Article text: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended Sacagawea, the Shoshone guide of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, for the design of the new coin."; source: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended that the dollar coin bear the image of Sacagawea, the Native American woman who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their exploration of the American West." I think this is fine.
  • Article text: "In November and December 1998, members of the Native American community, teachers, numismatists, historians, members of Congress, various government officials and others were invited by the United States Mint to review the submitted proposed designs. Six obverse and seven reverse designs were originally selected for further consideration."; source: "In November and December of 1998, the United States Mint invited representatives of the Native American community, numismatists, artists, educators, historians, members of Congress, United States Mint and Treasury officers and employees, and other members of the public to review and comment on all designs received. Using these comments as a guide, the United States Mint narrowed the field to six obverse and seven reverse designs". This is a tricky one; the date barely allows rephrasing, and some attempt has been made to rephrase the list, which is also rather hard. I think this is OK but others may see a way to improve this.
I have not reviewed any other sources for close paraphrasing -- some I don't have access to but some are online and could be reviewed by another reviewer.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike. This article has given me hyphen and endash fits; will others please review all of my changes to either correct me or learn the distinction between hyphens and endashes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 19 March 2011 [22].

Planet Stories

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another pulp sf magazine from the 1940s and 1950s, with bizarrely dressed women on the cover. How can you resist? Despite the melodramatic cover art, Planet Stories actually published some good fiction, including a very early story in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, and Philip K. Dick's first sale, "Beyond Lies the Wub". It's now one of the most sought after pulps from that era. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More copyediting

  • I have no strong opinion on it, just wanted to float the idea.
  • The sentence now seems to repeat "returned to" (not sure if it did before). The second instance could be changed to "was again reduced to", there aren't many ways to say this, but at least the "again" makes it less like the preceding clause.

--Gyrobo (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the prose. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support; and also for fixing that last issue -- I missed it in the list above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I find this meets the FA criteria and is a welcome addition to the series on sf magazines. I have a few quibbles which do not detract from my support.

Nicely done, image review to follow Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Other than that, sources look good, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mostly addressed, good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a couple of quibbles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Contents:

General issue:

Comments all minor, but...

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Quick comment' - I meant to review this, but for some reason thought the review was finished and was surprised to find it still here. I've scanned it and nothing is jumping out at me, but will give it a thorough reading and review this evening. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few nitpicks:

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments struck. You're welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 19 March 2011 [23].

History of Sesame Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way since its first nomination. Since then, it has received an extensive and thorough copyedit/review by User:Mike Christie. I believe that this article is much improved now, especially its prose, and fulfills the criteria even more now. Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review


Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm very impressed with the work Christine has done since this was last at FAC; it's now a fine article. I haven't done a source or image review but did spotcheck a couple of the sources for close paraphrasing and found nothing to concern me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • That'll work. I'm always wary when folks throw in a money figure in a historical context without explanation, since the value of the dollar has changed so much over time, and I don't have a frame of reference to compare it. "Impressive" answers that question. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, very picky, but much needed. Christine (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I thought picky was what FAC was all about! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:10, 19 March 2011 [25].

Flow (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago I successfully brought Flower through FAC... so I thought that I would try to do it again, but with two less letters. Flow is, like its spiritual successor, an indie video game, originally played millions of times as a free flash game and then successfully used to launch thatgamecompany to prominence on the PS3. As an artistic indie game it didn't get as much attention as the big-budget games, but I've pulled together everything that I could find. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by JimmyBlackwing, so I think it's ready for the spotlight. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment - I may complete a fuller review later, but for now I have a quick question. The article's direct quotes and many of its reference titles use the "flOw" stylization, but the article's prose mostly uses "Flow". Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Trademarks - "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." --PresN 09:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Otherwise, sources look okay, links check out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Reviewed the images; both non-frees have appropriate detailed rationales for their use (the only nit, but not failing, is that the title icon points to the redirect page, but that's acceptable). Rest of article reads well and appears to be very comprehensive about the game's development and reception. Support. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect link fixed. Thanks for the review! --PresN 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H3llkn0wz

[edit]

Resolved comments from —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|content=*Infobox: "Life Simulation" -- "S" should not be capitalized.

  • Done, that article didn't exist when I wrote this.--PresN
  • Changed to "mental immersion or flow".--PresN
  • Any sentence/section that does not specifically call out a version applies to both. I missed one right at the beginning, which I think was the source of your confusion.--PresN
  • "Causes" is right- the creature automatically eats if there's something directly in front of its mouth (1st sentence, 2nd paragraph.) The player is "causing" it to happen, not "making" the creature eat- there's no direct control there.--PresN
  • Since I was reading this sequentially, I got a little confused. Taking into account later comment, I would write it as "In Flow, the player guides a small, multi-segmented creature through an aquatic environment. As the creature moves about, it eats other organisms, grows larger and eventually dives deeper into the sea." I know it's wordier, but at least it gets the point across. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • Changed to "colored".--PresN
  • Do you mean "distinctly-colored" between layers? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • That is a very unlikely article to ever get split out, in my opinion, and I don't see how fictional universe is useful to the reader in this case.--PresN
  • Hmm, see what you mean. Changed to layer.--PresN
  • Hmm, changed. The non-confrontation ones just restore health, they don't drop cells. Only confrontational ones do that. --PresN
  • No, 2 colored ones. One goes up, one goes down. I put in "touching them"; technically the creature does the eating motion but the creatures don't get devoured. --PresN
Nope, the creature just follows the cursor in the Flash version, and follows the six-axis controller in the PS3 version. Hitting any button causes it to do the special move. It should be a bit clearer after the above changes that eating/attacking/changing planes is automatic; you just guide the creature around. Added in the button thing.--PresN
I'll add a bit about this when I rearrange the section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked in the lead, good call. As to the second... umm, that sentence is immediately followed by four cited quotes calling it just that.--PresN
  • Oh, I only looked at lead for now. The second sentence about refs was implying that more mention might be given to the art-related design decisions of the game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Comments

Done, good call. Made it British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA). --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed, thanks! --PresN 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. However, if you could find sources on its free release it had for a period of time on the PlayStation 3 (which I can personally verify as I obtained it through it), that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source, but I don't think it's notable- Feb 13, 2010, three years after release, Sony made it free for one day as a promotional thing. Not a big deal, in my opinion. --PresN 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. Oh well. Good job on the article! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.

The articles looks good otherwise. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just quickly noting that alt text, while nice to have, is not currently an FA requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done done, and as to ref 9 it's an interview with Chen by Ross Miller, who is currently one of the editors at Engadget ([26]), so I'm relying on him as an SPS, not on Joystiq as an RS itself. --PresN 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Everything looks good and I think the article meets the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • All right, I think it meets all the criteria. I notice that you preserve the stylized title in the reception section when it's in quotes; you'd have to check the MoS on whether you're supposed to, but for clarity you prolly can get away with reformatting them to Flow as a minor typographic change. An excellent article I enjoyed reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:36, 19 March 2011 [27].

J. Robert Oppenheimer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist best known for the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process, and the prediction of quantum tunneling, neutron stars and black holes. Worked on the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear weapons. Former featured article (2005-2007) now restored to its former glory with more text and lots more references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, has been on mainpage SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can never again be on the front page. It won't be restored to that much glory! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need this reminder on FFAs so that if they are promoted, the mainpage bolding is done at WP:FA, and the correct accounting is done at WP:FFA ... if reviewers note an FFA at FAC, they could add this red note to help out the delegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean articles like Speed of Light should be removed from the page once they are promoted again? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see DaBomb87 just fixed that one at WP:FFA; doing my homework now to see how it was missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, that was missed, now fixed: [28] [29] Have to remind reviewers and others to watch for these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton

[edit]

Sources comments

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Only limited spotchecking carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Since the article was demoted after a FAR I would like to state what has been done to redress the issues raised. The main issues was the references or lack thereof. These have been tidied up. Templates have been used for all references. Page numbers have been added to all the book references. New references have been found and added. New sources have been located and existing ones verified. In the process, I rewrote some sections of the article. I felt that the there was too much about Oppenheimer's private life and political beliefs and not enough about his career as a physicist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Comment Anybody else think the article would be better off without the infobox in the lead?—indopug (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: image review

[edit]

Images

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review 2.0 - I was asked on my talkpage to complete another image review for this article

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall

[edit]

PresN

[edit]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links bu this is redirecting to a listing of all of the bios they offer, rather than the one you meant. --PresN 00:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth

[edit]

Comments - the following came from a quick reading through of the article. Summary and views afterwards. Please feel free to strike as the points below are dealt with.

Updated to strike the points that have been dealt with. Will respond on the remaining points inline. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point: have you asked any members of WikiProject Physics to have a look, especially at the way in which his science is described in this article, to make sure nothing has inadvertently been misrepresented? I am going to have another look through and concentrate on the science aspects of this article, but someone more familiar with the physics involved here may spot things that others have missed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

[edit]
  • There's still a lot of blue. University of California, Berkeley, was linked twice in the lead, though arguably no link is really needed. First section: Jewish, New York City, Manhattan, Germany, Riverside Drive, third grade, fourth grade, eighth grade, undergraduate. It's too much, and it makes the text harder to read. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: When you quote Jungk quoting Oppenheimer in the lead, I see that on p. 201 of Jungk, but you say p. 109. That seems like a big difference for just a different edition. Also, he translates it as "shatterer of worlds." I agree that destroyer is the more common translation, but then it seems odd to cite Jungk for it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on page 183 of my edition, which is a 1965 reprint of the 1958 edition. Some other editor keeps changing "shatterer" to "destroyer". Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that other editor might be basing his or her opinion on this video clip, which is in the external links. Oppenheimer himself clearly says there "destroyer". I think some explication is needed (it is presumably, just a variability in translation issue), not in the lead but elsewhere in the article, to ensure this aspect of the article remains stable. Also, has this previously been discussed on the article talk page? I would be surprised if it hadn't been, if it has been an ongoing dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an excellent note. I really enjoyed reading that. I haven't struck out my comment above, but that more than addresses any objection anyone could raise, I think. BTW, I left a note on the talk page about another video clip I found. It is from around 1949, and Oppenheimer looks a lot less like someone about to die two years later. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reading it through, I think it would benefit from some more work to even out the flow. The writing is stilted and awkward in places, and reads more like a list of facts at times than a flowing narrative. For example (my bold):

Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations. He was said to be mesmerizing, hypnotic in private interaction but often frigid in more public settings. His associates fell into two camps: one that saw him as an aloof and impressive genius and an aesthete; another that saw him as a pretentious and insecure poseur.[36] His students almost always fell into the former category, adopting "Oppie's" affectations, including his walk, his speech, his mannerisms and even his inclination for reading entire texts in their original languages.[37] His students included Melba Phillips,[38] Stan Frankel,[39] and Samuel Alderson.[40] Oppenheimer became known as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics and developed a reputation for his erudition in physics, his eclecticism, his quick mind, his interest in languages and Eastern philosophy, and his eloquence and clarity of thought.[41]

The second last sentence is just tacked on, where it should be woven into the previous ones, and the last sentence has nothing to do with affectations, and reads like an afterthought. I offer that only as one example of an issue I see throughout the article.
There's also a huge amount of repetition of his name, as though we don't know who the article's about: "Oppenheimer did important research in theoretical astronomy... Initially, Oppenheimer's major interest was the theory of the continuous spectrum. ... Oppenheimer also made important contributions to the theory of cosmic ray showers ... Oppenheimer worked with his first doctoral student, Melba Phillips ... In 1935, Oppenheimer and Phillips worked out a theory now known as the Oppenheimer-Phillips process to explain the results ... As early as 1930, Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron ..."
It's not always necessary to keep repeating his name to distinguish him from the other names mentioned. I can see a lot of work has gone into it, and I think it's nearly there, but it's not polished, and I think it needs that bit of extra polish to get to FA. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

[edit]

Rjwilmsi

[edit]

Bodnotbod

[edit]

Dank

[edit]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly jumping in here to point out another case of hyphenation (I can never work these ones out - I actually noticed the lack of a hyphen in 'Nobel Prize-winning' on an earlier reading, but forgot to mention it). Where should the hyphen be in "Long-range jet-bomber delivered thermonuclear "strategic" weapons"? Also, this has reminded me of a sentence I saw that didn't quite make sense: "Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea of these being protons; he argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge." - looking at the section in question, does anyone know what "these" is referring to there? My best guess is that Oppenheimer rejected the idea of positrons being as massive as protons, but that doesn't come across at all clearly and I'd need to read around this a bit more to be confident of correcting that sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket

[edit]

Support - Racepacket (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Laser brain

[edit]

Del dot

[edit]

Comments My dad and I are going to review the article together--he's a World War II buff and mentioned he's read a couple dozen books on Oppenheimer. I'll relay any comments of his and add andything I see on prose, etc. I have just a couple things right now from my initial read-through:

In general the article looks really great. I'll talk to my dad and add his comments in a bit. delldot ∇. 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a whack at these, Hawk, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Hawkeye7. I don't know if we still do the thing here where you put addressed comments in a collapsey box, but I consider all of that to be dealt with. delldot ∇. 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from delldot ∇.

My dad says it's "a superb encyclopedia artice, I can't see a damn thing wrong with it." He does have some minor quibbles about the writing, so here they are.

My dad called the article "a really professional and excellent job" and remarked on its neutrality and comprehensiveness. I certainly agree that it's well done, a great article overall. delldot ∇. 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide a few months previously, in an earlier section it said she committed suicide on January 4, 1944, over a year previously.

delldot ∇. 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for addressing these. The misunderstandings may have been due to my poor translation of what my dad was saying, I wish I could get him to actually edit. At any rate, we both agree that it's a superb article and I have no problem lending my full support for promotion. delldot ∇. 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

The article needs a good deal of minor MOS cleanup-- please see my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [31].

Eastbourne manslaughter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the death of a 15-year-old "stolid and stupid" boy at the hands of a "distorted" and "lunatic" teacher who may or may not actually have been a nice guy. While you've probably never heard of the Eastbourne manslaughter, the case was important in the development of modern laws surrounding corporal punishment. I believe it to be one of the most complete accounts of the case available (in fact, the only book I've ever seen dedicated solely to the case is a copy of this article - a bargain at only 34 euros!). A quick note about what's missing: images. There are none, as I've found none that are truly relevant, although I'd be glad to consider suggestions. The article received a very helpful GA review (and subsequent copy-editing) from User:Malleus Fatuorum (thanks Malleus!). I feel that this article is at or near FA status, and look forward to your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential images would be Eastbourne Grand Parade, Swinburne in 1860, Lewes Law Courts, and Millbank in 1862. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Added a couple. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. A fascinating tale, well-told. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • Don't know how they would rule on this particular point, but from my experience it seems like British English uses fewer commas. I don't particularly mind one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Thanks for your comments! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your help, Malleus. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple of quickies...

Comments

Overall, I found the article well-written, but am puzzled as to why the article was brought to FAC with two very obvious links missing (did you not find these articles while searching for images? that was how I found them), and one less obvious link missing, and also what looks to me like an unresolved talk page dispute. Possibly obtaining a peer review at a relevant WikiProject might have picked up on this earlier. I'm sure lots will be picked up here at FAC, but could you give a brief run-down of the history of the article writing process? Over what period of time was the article written, who have been the major editors, and what review processes has it been through before arriving here apart from the GA review? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - my image-finding skills are obviously quite limited, and I didn't think to check for images of the judge or barrister. Brief history of the article: I created it in a sandbox in fall 2010, and moved it to mainspace in October, at which time it was nominated and approved for DYK. The talk page dispute you mention was raised shortly thereafter (at that point, the "Chancellor" spelling was the primary one used in the article), and I modified the name and relegated the alternate spelling to a footnote (it was later "promoted" to parenthetical mention). It was nominated and promoted at GAN in November, and further expanded in February and early March. Beyond Malleus' copy-edits, I've been pretty much the only major editor. To respond to your specific points: Locock now linked; Lefevre is linked because it's a notable case in English history but lacks a "case title" like this one has. Existing articles now linked, and I've added a couple of the images you suggested. Both spellings now redirect to this article, but I'm not sure exactly what you're saying with your point about Hopley - could you clarify? I'm aware of both of the "general thoughts" you raise; as to the "article thoughts", 1 and 4 have been addressed in the article, but my sources give no information on 2 or 3. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for pointing out that the Ballantine book is online was that I thought you could link to it, either from the reference (if the page numbers are the same as the copy you consulted), or in an external links section, or as a courtesy link if the page numbers are different. As far as Hopley goes, there is quite a bit of information in the ODNB entry (such as birth year) that isn't in this article. Since his name has been redirected to this article, there is nowhere else for that information to go. When I mentioned metadata, I was referring to things like Wikipedia:Persondata and birth and death year categories, though I don't know whether such things are applied to redirects (the categories could go there) or included here (the persondata could go in either place). This is one of the disadvantages of redirecting names to articles like this, though the advantages probably outweigh the disadvantages. Possibly a note saying that further information on Hopley is available in the ODNB entry? As regards the talk page dispute, as far as I can see, the IP editor was arguing that you are promulgating an error of transcription. My concern is that not enough eyes have been on the article (since it was created fairly recently) to ensure that that content dispute was adequately resolved, so that matter should be considered here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the £180, I know I said what is it relative to now, but on reflection, that isn't that useful. What I was trying to get at (apart from it being a lot of money) is how much was it for Hopley? Was it a lot relative to his wealth/income at the time? Probably your sources are silent on this, but I thought it was worth asking. It did make me wonder, though, where the money for the £2000 bail came from! Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link added for Ballantine - the page numbering is similar, but not exactly the same. There's probably enough information about Hopley to turn that redirect into a real article, so persondata and categories could go there. As you suspected, my sources don't comment on the fee relative to Hopley's income, but given that I did the conversion using "average earnings" that probably gives a good estimate (I suspect that £121,000 would be a lot relative to the income of an average teacher today!). As to the talk page dispute: I appreciate the IP's argument, but it seems to me that since at least 3 sources use the alternate spelling it's worth mentioning. Do you have a different view? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to consider the dates of your sources and what sources they are basing their spelling on. The point about the spelling being the same for 150 years and only being spelt differently recently was a good one, I thought. Personally, I'd relegate mention of this from the text to a brief footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any more thoughts on this? I read the article in The Times from 1960, and that uses the Cancellor spelling. I'm still concerned that only three people (you, me, that IP editor) seem to have picked up on this. Do any of the reviewers here have an opinion on how the matter of this spelling should be handled? The ODNB entry (published in 2006 and with no significant change in 2008) is silent on this, and would surely have picked up on the Chancellor spelling if they had consulted the Parker-Jenkins book (published 1999). Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. Above, at '03:48, 9 March 2011', you said "my sources give no information on 2 or 3". Are you sure about this? I had taken your word for this, but on my recent re-reading of the ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley (a source you use in the article), I noticed the following: "Reginald's elder brother, the Revd John Henry Cancellor (1834–1900)" (this indicates that Cancellor's brother was 25 or 26, which is exactly the sort of context I was looking for (how much older than his younger brother was he?) - I understand that you can't give his exact age, but the ODNB did the correct thing which was to give his birth and death years - why did you not do this? Similarly, the age of the father at the time (and at death) seems relevant - the ODNB says "John Henry Cancellor (1799–1860)", so he died at the age of 60 or 61 (you should also make clearer that the father and the brother have the same name, including the same middle name - that may confuse some who see references to 'John Henry Cancellor' and fail to realise that this can refer to the father as well as the brother); and about the mother (or step-mother), the article of 1960 in The Times (titled 'A Sussex Tragedy', again a source that you use) says "Hopley resorted to beating only after anxious consultation with the boy's father who consented in spite of his wife's 'great dread of severe corporal punishment'". Now, is that article referring there to Hopley's wife or John Cancellor's wife? If the latter, then this pertains directly to the question I asked above about whether the boy's mother was known and alive during all this. You say the father died of a broken heart, and mention the brother, but are silent on the mother. Why? Another of your sources says "Cancellor's family was deeply affected by the case, as they had been "disinclined" to see Cancellor beaten; his father died shortly after the inquest of a "broken heart"." That source says "disinclined", and the article in The Times quotes from somewhere saying 'great dread of severe corporal punishment', seemingly referring to Cancellor's wife. Could you recheck the sources (the one with the 'disinclined' quote is subscription-only and I can't access it)? I've unstruck points (2) and (3) above until this can be addressed or some reason given for leaving out this context. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dates added for both John Henrys. As to the issue of the mother, I would not presume that the woman married to John sr. at the time of Reginald's death was necessarily Reginald's mother - none of my sources explicitly identify her as such, although I will keep looking to see if I can find anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes. I've restruck the original points. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in 1860 there were several Chief Justices. If you read the article you linked to, you'll note that each court had its own Chief Justice until 1875, at which point the three were combined in the post of Lord Chief Justice. I've reworded the sentence in question slightly, and have changed the link for Ballantine. I'll see what I can do about a specialist review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is most of my concerns met. Will take another look in a few days and see how it looks then. If you look around, it should be possible to get hold of a picture of Sir Charles Locock (whether he was Sir or not in the timeframe of the article is probably also worth looking into - he was made baronet in 1857, so the answer is 'yes' it seems). Also, hopefully, when someone comes to work on the articles about the judge and the barrister, they will consider whether a mention of this case is worth it in those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have missed the additional comment I made about Locock, who I think should be referred to as Sir Charles Locock. The ODNB entry says "On his retirement in 1857 he was created a baronet". The ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley refers to him as "Sir", and has the following to say about him: "Anxious to secure authoritative endorsement of the official verdict Hopley accepted an invitation to call on Sir Charles Locock, the queen's obstetrician and an acquaintance of the Cancellor family." this has translated, in the article to the bland "Hopley asked Charles Locock, a friend of the Cancellor family and an obstetrician to the queen, to examine the body and verify death by natural causes". There also seems a discrepancy here between "friend" and "acquaintance" and between "asked" and "accepted an invitation to call on". The article also fails to make the point (that the ODNB makes with the word "authoritative") that as an eminent doctor, Locock's opinion would carry a great deal of weight. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I've also unstruck two points above and returned to the issue of the spelling of the name.[reply]
  • I've added the Sir, switched in "acquaintance" and tried to reword to reflect Locock's importance. I'm not sure "asked" is a problem, so I'll leave that and the name issue open for other opinions/reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: No reliabilty issues. One nitpick: ISBN missing from ref 26. Another point, not strictly related to sources checking: are we seriously to believe that an income of £180 pa in 1859 equates to £121,000 today? That is the problem with Measuringworth; its scholarship looks impeccable and its theoretical basis sounds convincing, but it produces absurd results. This isn't the place for a discussion on the concept of present-day value, but I have long given up on Measuringworth. Because of the totally different economic circumstances that apply as between the present and the distant past, I am inclined to avoid altogether these raw present value comparisons. What would be acceptable, and much more useful, is something like: "...£180 a year (compared with a schoolmaster's salary at the time of £x)", but this may not be possible, in which case I would drop the £121,000. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN added. I've commented out the measuringworth parenthetical for now, will see if I can find a source for average schoolmaster's salary. Thanks for the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the closest comparison I could find. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Thanks. I will try to give the article a fuller reviewer soon - I lived in Eastbourne for a while (though considerably after 1859), yet was unaware of this case until now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a bit, but I don't want to overstate the case in the lead either. See what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "The case became an important legal precedent in discussions of corporal punishment and reasonable limits on discipline in schools." Also perhaps should add geographical context ("in the U.K" or "in British law" or something; whatever seems most standard) either after "discussions" or after "schools" GlitchCraft (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming at this as a total non-expert (but BritEng reader)...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above issues have now been addressed. I disagree with your suggestion to add a comma after "hearing" and that "But..." is incorrect - both seem fine to me as they are. I'm also not sure how to handle the ref placement issue. My reasoning for having them as they are is that they cite only the material inside the parentheses, not the preceding material, and thus are better placed within the closing parenthesis to make that clear. The MoS does not seem to address this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still some USEng in there "sensationalizing" etc, and there's no good reason not to have a comma after "hearing". And while I'm no expert, I was always convinced that formal writing avoided the use of "But..." to start a sentence. As for ref placement, I thought MOS said place them after punctuation where possible. One way of avoiding this kind of indecent ref placement is to use footnotes... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just found the relevant section of MoS, WP:REFPUNC - "where a reference applies only to material within a parenthetical phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate". On the "But" issue, Garner gives a very in-depth explanation with examples supporting its use. (Incidentally, "-ize" is accepted in British English - see WP:IZE. However, for consistency I've made that change). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I would not accept -ize but yes, we're learning from the fact that Brits went all posh and made ize into ise just to stop us being associated with the masses. ize is a bitter pill to swallow, and as yet, won't be proper BritEng (hopefully for some time to come), so -ise works lovely jubbly. As for starting sentences with "But...", what a waste of resources that we're even arguing over it?! A minor reword and it would go away. Anyway, you're determined to keep it, even with a single source to back it up, so I won't pursue that. As for the punctuation, sure, it may be absolute, "letter-of-the-law" correct, but it looks totally repulsive. A footnote in each case would be magnificent – you don't want to do that? Fine, when I get time, I'll do it myself! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"-ize" has been accepted British English usage for some time now, and is preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. The only real issue is one of consistency. The belief that sentences ought not to start with "But" is what Fowler has called a superstition, something taught mindlessly in schools, like the "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" nonsense. And there should definitely not be a comma after "hearing" as you're demanding. (See how I started a sentence with a conjunction there? ;-) ) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I'll defer to Malleus, I'm a mere mortal and I have a lot to learn, I honestly appreciate that. I initially had an instinct to head for -ise as BritEng, but it was only tweaked as a result of inconsistency in the article. As for the "But ... nonsense", I yearn for the day that all my lacklustre education (to be sure) be eradicated and replaced with Malleus' (or Malleus's) superior knowledge. A debate with Malleus is of course one I expect to come out as second, so no point pursuing it. Godspeed!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. For a long time I too thought that sentences ought not to begin with conjunctions, having had that drummed into me at school. It's been explained to me that primary school teachers propagated the rule to counter the tendency of kids to start every sentence with "but", or "and", but I don't know if that's true. And it was (I just can't help myself, it's so liberating) watching a fairly recent episode of QI that made me realise the old '"i' before 'e'" mantra is just plain wrong. A day we don't learn is a day wasted. Unfortunately though, when you reach a "certain age" the new stuff has an apparent tendency to crowd out the old stuff ... I'm talking about myself of course, not you TRM. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Used sparingly, starting a sentence with and (or especially but) can be very powerful. Even as stuffy a reference as my 30 year old Harbrace guide to grammar allows it (and gives examples of how to use it effectively). As long as we pull it off effectively, tricks like this make us look more professional, brilliant, etc.TCO (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [35].

1906 French Grand Prix

[edit]
Nominator(s): Apterygial 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC), AlexJ (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article about very early motorsport, the first large motor race to be called a Grand Prix. On a dusty road outside Le Mans, drivers in huge, rickety cars fought, driving off planks roads, being blinded by tar. It was a miracle no one died. AlexJ has agreed to co-nom; the text is mostly mine, but the images, the video, the map, and a helpful review are his work. Thanks to Finetooth for his peer review and Malleus Fatuorum for his copyedit. Apterygial 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

Sure, the clip is taken from a VHS copy of "Shell History of Motor Racing, Volume 1: The Heroic Days 1902-1914", now out of print I believe. Given that the cinematographs of the time wouldn't have recorded sound, the soundtrack on the film is likely to be later and not authentic, so I've stripped these from the clip before uploading it. What's left should only be original 1906 material. AlexJ (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Sources look reliable and formats are OK. Very limited spotchecking revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an interesting article, covering a niche topic, but some way to go.

Can't do anything about the fact it was held over two days! This was 1906, and the very first Grand Prix. It was some time before it evolved into the hour and a half Sunday afternoon event that occurs today. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it wasn't therefore "a motor race" if it was more than one race, and held over multiple days... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - there wasn't two races, else we'd have two winners etc. To quote The (London) Times newspaper at the time "The race for the Grand Prix of the French Automobile Club will be run to-morrow and on Wednesday" [36]. Similar is the Sydney Times [37] which says "The race for the Grand Prix, the great international motor contest promoted by the Automobile Club of France, took place over the Sarthe circuit on the 26th and 27th of June." Both refer to a race held over two days, rather than races. AlexJ (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, FIAT was still an acronym (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) in 1906. Pretty much all period sources I've come across refer to it as FIAT rather than Fiat. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox doesn't have a parameter that would enable me to do this. It does say above that it was held over two days (the date), and I don't believe the number of days are "distance". Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOSFLAG states that as a rule of thumb, flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes. The way I read that, it isn't a requirement, but there needs to be a good reason to go against it. Consensus on motor races is currently that we shouldn't follow the guideline due to the strong emphasis on the nationality of competitors in the sport, as representatives of their country. Even today, the top three drivers stand beneath their national flags whilst their national anthem is played out at the end of a race. Compare this to the examples given at MOSFLAG, where the nationality of an actor or a company has relatively little relevance in comparison to other details, and may not be clearly defined in any case. Removing the flags in the infobox would require a change of consensus, which implicitly would require a compelling reason to not have the flag. AlexJ (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"numerical level footing". Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were cars. "Vehicles" seems awkward to me. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've knocked out "perhaps". The source says "as if to confirm worst suspicions of French motives and lack of sportsmanship." Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked. The last time I took an article to FAC, I was requested to link all of these things, so I've tried to remain consistent. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "to". I've kept "car", every source uses this, and it's hardly informal. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tar is now linked at the first occurance only, goggles is now unlinked (avoid linking plain English words) AlexJ (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads "52 minutes and 25.4 seconds (52:25.4)". This should help subsequent mentions (I've done the same with Szisz's first day time below). Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're used throughout Grand Prix race articles, including several FAs. They're tucked away at the bottom, so they don't really affect the flow of the article. I find them useful, so I guess this one comes down to personal preference. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have addressed each of your points. Apterygial 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning support: A really good piece of work. Very thorough and prose looks good. Just a few questions, but looks good otherwise.

Will look into a rewording of this, but it's worth pointing out that France didn't have a dominance of motor racing prior to this (prior to the 1905 Gordon Bennett, they'd won 3 out of 5 - superior but not dominant, and only 1 of the last 3). They felt the three car per country ruling was the reason they weren't dominant, as it didn't give all their manufactures a chance to compete and there was a good chance that a problem could strike their three cars. AlexJ (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any clearer:"The Grand Prix was organised by the Automobile Club de France (ACF) at the prompting of the French automobile industry as an alternative to the Gordon Bennett races, which limited each competing country's number of entries regardless of the size of its industry. France had the largest automobile industry in Europe at the time, and in an attempt to better reflect this in the sport the Grand Prix had no limits to the number of entries by a particular country."? Removes any possible POV stuff about dominance etc. AlexJ (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds good. The only tweaks I might make would be to remove "in the sport" as this is unnecessary, and have "no limit" rather than "limits". --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. I used "any particular country" rather than "a particular country", however. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that it made you think of Formula 1, because the meaning in it's first occurrence in the article is where F1 got it's name from - racing to a formula of rules and regulations. The second one I'd agree is a bit repetitive, so I've reworded it for clarity. AlexJ (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't cite this, but I think the French were just fed up with dealing the 'democratic' way the Gordon Bennett races ran; they wanted complete control over the race. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My speculation is; France got fed up and decided to go it alone anyway. Britain and the US continued to object which is why they didn't enter any cars (the article covers the British view that the event was French propaganda) whilst Germany and Italy decided to give in and take part in the event. I'd have to look for sources which confirm that thought. AlexJ (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although, having said that, it looks like the GB might have been ended as an event for racing cars before the 1906 GP ever took place by Gordon Bennett himself. Guess that would explain why Germany and Italy took part in the GP. AlexJ (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been because he saw the writing on the wall; the French were powerful enough that if they wanted to end it he had no power to stop them. I suppose a French boycott would have made the GB races quite hollow. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some maths, there were 34 cars scheduled to start the race to be set off at 90 second intervals meaning it would take just over 50 minutes between the first car leaving and the last one. In the event, the fastest lap turned out to also be just over 50 minutes, so I guess (and I stress I'm guessing here) they'd worked out before hand that it would be a close run thing, and so put this system in place, just in case the leaders came around before the last cars had started, to "lap" them (because the event was run to time rather than track position (like a modern day WRC rally event), it wouldn't have mattered if they were lapped). AlexJ (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I think this sentence just needs clarifying a touch. Could it be rephrased to "Cars assigned the letter "C" were the last away; they formed a single line at the side of the track so that any cars which had completed their first circuit of the track would be able to pass." [or "not be impeded"?] Or something like that. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've currently got "(when) the responsibility for organising the 1906 race fell once more to the ACF, the French completely abandoned the Gordon Bennett races" - does that cover it? AlexJ (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. When I first read it, I assumed that someone else would have carried on afterwards and that it was only the French who abandoned it. Could it be made explicit that these new-fangled Grands Prix replaced them? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "But when Théry and Richard-Brasier won again in 1905, and the responsibility for organising the 1906 race fell once more to the ACF, the French ended the Gordon Bennett races and organised their own event as a replacement, the Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France." Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explanatory note about this (I think it would be distracting from the flow if it was in the text). Looks like the GB races sent off cars at even longer intervals. I believe we have addressed all of your concerns, and thanks for taking the time to review! Apterygial 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing or clearing up my points. I'm happy to switch to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Support I'm struggling to find nits to pick to show I've read it! Anything on the top speeds achieved? Shouldn't AIACR be spelt out at first occurence, with the acronym given after? Or at least that's what I was always taught... Other than those vanishingly minor points, a well-polished and comprehensive article on a notable sporting event. For the reassurance of other reviewers, I've checked the Rendall (1993) (only one I've got) references and they all tie up. Well done. 4u1e (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. The last paragraph of Race mentions that Szisz set the fastest time on the straight, 154 kilometres per hour (96 mph)—which would feel very quick in those cars on those roads. As for the acronym, "Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus" is quite long and would be awkward in the main part of the sentence, and the body is generally known by the acronym. However, I'm happy to change it if it's an issue. Apterygial 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble. Many readers would be surprised by the speed, so it might be worth mentioning. AIACR is already spelled out immediately after its only use, so I don't think you can argue it is any more awkward to put it the other (correct ;)) way round. But this is a very minor point. 4u1e (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As I say, Szisz's speed is already in the article. Apterygial 08:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - sorry, missed that (despite you pointing it out!) 4u1e (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no worries. Apterygial 12:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I peer-reviewed this excellent article about a month ago and thought it quite good. The recent changes in response to the comments above have only made it better. Finetooth (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the article clearly says:

The 1906 Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France, commonly known as the 1906 French Grand Prix, ...

but 1906 Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France does not exist as a redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it myself; will the nominator please make sure to add the correct tags to the redirect (foreign language redirect, or some such thing, that isn't print worthy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. But I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by "tag the redirect". Apterygial 23:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got it now. Apterygial 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this opportunity to thank everyone who commented on this page; as Finetooth said it served only to make the article better. Apterygial 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [38].

Suillus salmonicolor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery Jill is an widely distributed, slimy, and (somewhat) edible mushroom. I have exhausted my sources both scholarly and popular, and think the article is similar in quality to the two other Suillus FAs. Looking forward to your feedback. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. Since it's in the toolbox, are we required to use alt text now? If so, several images need it. If not, never mind. Otherwise, I will offer a full review shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not currently a FA requirement. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article looks good at a glance. Here are a couple of things to chew on while I slowly make my way through the meat of the article.

  • This is more of a template issue. There's a suite of face icons that correspond with edibility (smily for edible, green sickly for poisonous, etc.) and all of them would have to be changed to make them consistent. I think there fine as is (but I guess I'm used to them now). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most are quite stable (Biodiversity library, Cyberliber, Mushroom Expert, Index Fungorum) except for the Google links. I've been meaning to figure out how that WebCite thing works, so perhaps I'll use it on a couple of the outliers. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding more as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: That's it! The article is excellent. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking nice at first glance!

  • Didn't think of it like that; not sure I completely agree with the semantics (if you look a several definitions for "opinion", some of them are worded such that it could be correct to say that a book or a website expresses an opinion), but nevertheless, I have reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it all as closely as it warrants, but it is looking great. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of other thoughts-
  • Pileipellis could do with a link, and the article could do with updating with the details of a ixotrichodermium (which is a wonderful word :) )
  • "especially the cheilocystidia on the gill edge" A little redundant, though I see what you were trying to do
  • What's a "caulohymenium"?
  • I took it out, it specialized jargon. Basically, some boletes have fertile regions on the upper portions of their stems where caulocystidia and caulobasidia may be found, and these are often morphologically different than the usual ones location in the regular hymenium. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to name the authors as well as the books in the edibility section where possible. I also rephrased it slightly, I hope you don't mind.
  • I'd rather not add more names unless they already have Wikipedia articles (hence the D. Arora name drop); interested parties can check the citation to see who gave the opinion. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other than those little points, I am happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Images are all CC-BY-SA, captions are fine, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a comment Since NH4OH doesn't actually exist (see the article), I'd prefer "ammonia solution (NH3)", but no big deal. Happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... in the Suillaceae family of the Boletales order - just a nonactionable style thing as I know you always write them this way, I must say if it were me, I'd find myself naturally saying (writing) " in the family Suillaceae of the order Boletales" (but I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way here...just interesting)
First described as a Boletus in 1874 - I find this jars a bit - I find myself thinking that the italicised genus name refers to the genus and not generally a member of the genus, or if it does then "species" is appended. Personally, I'd feel happier with "First described as a member of the genus Boletus in 1874"
before it was assigned its current name in 1983 --> "before it was assigned its current binomial name in 1983" (and link bolded bit)
S. salmonicolor is different from the species S. cothurnatus "distinct"? (scans a little better and more exact meaning(?))
In their 2000 monograph of North American boletes, Alan Bessette and colleagues list the two taxa separately, noting that the range of S. cothurnatus is difficult to determine because of confusion with S. salmonicolor - they don't mention intermediate forms at the junctions of their ranges do they?
I'd link gastrointestinal to Human gastrointestinal tract, although ideally there'd be something to link "gastrointestinal symptoms" to (I might raise this at WP:MED sometime)
The last two sentences look a bit lonely at the bottom of the Taxonomy and phylogeny section. I'd tack them onto the end of the first para, where I think they easily segue off the last sentence there.

Otherwise looking good. I've been reduced to nitpicking (again) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there's a problem in the page range here:

Kretzer A, Li Y, Szaro T, Bruns TD. (1996). "Internal transcribed spacer sequences from 38 recognized species of Suillus sensu lato: Phylogenetic and taxonomic implications". Mycologia 88 (5): 776–5.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [39].

December 1969 nor'easter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my first FAC in eight months, I present one of my proudest articles, which describes a highly significant, yet mostly forgotten, winter storm event. Drifts of snow following the storm were 30 feet high, which completely cut off some communities from the rest of the world, and proved victorious over snow removal equipment. I created this article in the first couple weeks of the year, and gave it a couple months to be polished and reviewed. My reason for nominating it is that I feel it is among the highest-quality accounts of a meteorological event, aside, of course, from tropical cyclones. The meteorological synopsis is extremely thorough, owing to the excellent research of Paul Kocin and his colleague Louis Uccellini. Notwithstanding my bias towards the article, it is clearly the most comprehensive description of the storm in existence. Juliancolton (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to remedy that to be honest. Juliancolton (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of it.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I like this article! Though I didn't notice any huge problems, I wanted to give you a few rewording suggestions:

"New England experienced a severe ice storm due as a frontal boundary established itself between warm ocean air and a wedge of cold air over interior New England."

I'm not sure what "due" means here. It appears to be a typo, but it could be some type of jargon, so I didn't remove it outright.

Fixed, bit of an "oops" there. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"which, in Albany, surpassed the old record by 17 in (43 cm)."

Maybe this could be changed to "former record"?

Sure thing. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "and a record at the time of $2 million USD was spent on snow removal." could be changed to "and $2 million USD was spent on snow removal, a record at that time."

"Governor Deane C. Davis declared a state of emergency and ordered the National Guard to assist with cleanup efforts."

Since Vermont was mentioned in the previous sentence and not this one, it's possible that there could be confusion as to what state Deane was governor of. Maybe you could add something like "In response," to the beginning of the above sentence?-RHM22 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Really appreciate it. Re the Vermont comment, I think it's generally assumed that the governor corresponds to the last mentioned state, especially within the past two or three sentences. I'll fix it if you think it's that confusing, though. Juliancolton (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, it's no big deal. It was just a suggestion, and I definitely don't think it's necessary at all. Article looks good!-RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, cheers. :) Juliancolton (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Support

  • An infobox would be really useless, since the only thing it would establish is that it was a nor'easter, what its minimum pressure is, and maybe peak snowfall. I only use infoboxes to organize an abundance of stats and details, not to just take up article space. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think further research needs to be done about Vermont. You don't specify where the peak total was in Vermont, just that 29.8 in fell in Burlington. A quick Google search shows this storm is 2nd on record in Burlington, recently surpassed by the blizzard in January 2010. That's a place to start. Also, I quickly found this report on monthly snow records in Albany, which shows the previous record was in 1915. IMO, the article appears to be poorly researched, considering how quickly I found these two items. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I added a definite time frame to the first sentence. Honestly, I don't think it would be possible to determine when the snow from this particular storm melted. I imagine some of it stayed around until March, when warmer weather inevitably takes over, but even then we have to assume The Snow Hole retained a bit well into the dog days of summer. :) Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've actually never heard of mmHg being used in the real world, especially in US-related context. I guess I could add a third conversion if you really wanted it, but nothing else is converted to metric, so I'm not sure how well that would work. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it be written out in full the first time it is used? In print editions, people can't hover or click through to see what something means. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually not sure the convert template can handled it being spelled out, and I think you'd be hardpressed to find inHg being referred to in writings as "inches of mercury". There's a lot people reading print editions can't do, so I think we shouldn't bend over too far backwards to accommodate them when Wikipedia is designed to be read online. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's associated with the storm, but not exclusively part of it... I go into more detail about it later in the section. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention "jet" twice in the article. If someone is unfamiliar with what a jet is, they are left in the dark as to what role a "jet" plays in this storm. Think of it from the point of view of someone who has only ever heard of a jet aeroplane. Also, the link is not that helpful. It takes you to a section of the article jet stream and there the reader is faced with Barrier jet, Valley exit jet, and African easterly jet. Effectively, you have linked to a disambiguation section and left the lay reader in the dark as to what you were talking about in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified that it's a jet stream, which should eliminate the confusion with aviation. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And the other point I made, that the reader following the link is left to work out for themselves what you meant here? If your sources don't say, fair enough, but I was expecting some sort of response here. To my mind, this is effectively an undealt with disambiguation link. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily, but I'm not sure what you're shooting for to be honest. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm trying to do is picture in my mind the developing storm moving over the "southern Gulf Coast states", and then fitting that in with the "localized southerly low-level jet developed by midday over Mississippi and Alabama". Is this part of the development of the storm (i.e. you are going into more detail) or is it something that happened after the storm passed over? i.e. is the jet below, behind, or within (and part of) the developing storm? Carcharoth (talk)
  • The storm more-or-less straddled the coast itself for most of its northward journey, as indicated by the track at File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg. I think the tweak I mentioned above should resolve this issue. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does help. Is it possible to put something like "The storm more-or-less straddled the coast itself for most of its northward journey" in the article? I must confess here that I had not actually seen that File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg contained a track for the storm. The caption only said "Surface weather analysis of the nor'easter", so I mentally dismissed it as some complex diagram and thought to myself "what is really needed is a line showing the route the storm took". But now I look closer, I see that there is a dotted line along the coast - not very easy to see among all the other lines. I would suggest: (a) explicitly telling the reader that this image contains a line showing the route the storm took along the Eastern Seaboard; (b) highlighting that line in a different colour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tweak to the caption does ease my concern, but I'm puzzled as to why you think avoiding further in-text elaboration is a good thing? Are you worried that further in-text elaboration may drift away from what the sources are saying? And regarding File:December 26, 1969 nor'easter.jpg - I presume that can be freely modified? Would highlighting the storm track misrepresent things in some way? I'm striking my objection, but it would help to make clearer that if people want to understand the 'squiggles', they should read surface weather analysis - I found some of the explanation there very helpful. I know you currently link that featured article already, but some readers will be more used to having a key explaining image symbols attached to the image, rather than having to go and read a Wikipedia article. There is, of course, the larger question of whether you are including these images for the reader to examine in detail and attempt to understand them, or whether they are decorative images intended to give readers only a superficial idea of what is shown (the low resolution of the images makes it difficult to examine them in any detail or read the numbers written on them, so they appear to be more decorative than something to be followed up by the curious reader). Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I follow unfortunately... Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For any image, you can have two links: (1) The link to the image itself that you use to download the image; (2) A documentation page that tells you what the image is showing, who made it (i.e. showing that it is freely licensed) and so on. For any image you need at least the latter and if not obvious, both links will help make absolutely clear that the image is what it says it is. For example, look at any Library of Congress image - the links are to the documentation page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck the objection, but there is a deeper systemic problem here, in that the main meteorology sources seem to be geared to dynamic updates rather than historical records (compare their approach to that of an organisation like the Library of Congress or the New York Public Library). This may produce a problem with later accessing of records. Maybe use of something like WebCite is needed? You encountered this problem yourself in this very FAC where at 15:29, 21 February 2011 you say "I guess they must have changed the wording". Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deepen" (for a low pressure system to intensify) is very standard meteorological terminology, and sometimes has a very specific meaning. I'm hesitant to change it to anything else. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to explain it for you: broadly speaking, meteorology occurs vertically; different things are happening the further up you go into the sky. At the surface, we have a closed-off (meaning it has a defined center of low pressure) low pressure system. In this case, the low extended several miles up (to the 500-mb level), but at that point, it takes a completely different form. Instead of a closed cyclone, it's a broad, poorly defined, elongated region of lower pressures (a "trough"). This region directly correlates with the low at the surface. These troughs can either have a positive tilt (southwest to northeast), a neutral tilt (due north to due south), or a negative tilt (northwest to southeast). It's like the coordinate plane in mathematical terms. A nor'easter is considered "mature" when its associated 500-mb trough takes on a negative tilt, which allows the surface low to deepen and ride the coast northward. The forward movement of the surface low and the directional orientation of the 500-mb trough are not directly related, however. Also, the trough is a different weather feature from the coastal front, which is a dividing line between two masses of air of different densities or temperatures. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does help, but how do you think that can be expressed in the article? Is there something that can be linked to? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not sure how to explain it without going way off-topic or conducting original research (or bombarding the reference list with 15 sources that have nothing to do with the event). AFAIK there's not much to link to, so maybe that'll be a future project of mine. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably been playing proverbial tag with the low, until it stalled and the jet was able to wrap into it. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, is it possible to tweak the balance slightly to explain things a bit more within the article? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe an obvious question here, but is this low-level jet different to the winds experienced at the surface, or is it the same. i.e. the wind speeds you may see quoted with respect to this storm, are they the same as this 55 m/s you quote? I ask this because in the article you say "strong winds", "high winds", "bitter winds" and "gale-force winds", but don't use the phrase "wind speed" anywhere and only seem to give one wind speed measurement (55 m/s). Can you not say more on the wind speeds? Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the northern hemisphere, low pressure systems rotate counterclockwise, or from south to east to north to west and back to south. The back-end precip was simply following the circulatory nature of the low, notwithstanding its directional movement. Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. It now says: "snowfall propagated around the western end of the cyclone, reaching as far south as Long Island" What is not clear here is where the snowfall is coming from. It is propagating from somewhere to get to Long Island. From where, though? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is obvious from the discussion here, but I'm saying it is not obvious to the reader of the article who has not read this discussion. There is no picture of swirling cyclonic clouds like there are in hurricane articles to give the reader a clue that circular motion is taking place here. You need to make this explicit, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With cyclone, nor'easter, and low-pressure area linked in the article, I think even if readers didn't know storms rotated cyclonically, they can work it out. Again, I like to assume some reader competence, as otherwise it becomes a jumble of parenthetical and off-topic tangents in order to spoonfeed one or two people who might not have a basic understanding of the atmosphere. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and as I said below, the linking of nor'easter greatly improves things. I won't press the point here, but I do think you should (after this FAC is over) take time to consider whether people really know as much about the atmosphere as you think they do. I don't think storms rotating cyclonically is something that most people are aware of. Most people know that hurricanes rotate, but most people think of storms as just clouds forming and producing thunder and lightning. Certainly stuff like low-level jets (a point that remains unaddressed) is not common knowledge at all. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention inland snowfall totals and effects numerous times in the article, so I think it should be clear that the storm was not confined to the coast (the snowfall map also clearly indicates this). Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "inland" appears once in the article and the word "interior" twice - those not familiar with US geography will only have those clues to go on. The word "coast" appears ten times. The track in the diagram shows the storm moving along the coast. Can you not phrase it something like "its delayed movement leading to heavy snowfall on its inland western edges in Upstate New York and Vermont."? Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the lead I'm very clear about where the storm occurred, and as far as I know, the article doesn't imply or suggest anywhere the storm's effects were confined to the coast. I'm going to assume some reader competence/common knowledge. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does seem to be silent on whether the storm had any effects at sea. If this is a storm rotating about a central point, and that point is on the coast, and the western edge is far inland, presumably this storm was creating havoc at sea on its eastern edge? You do imply at one point that the centre of the storm moved out over the sea, but nothing is mentioned about the effects of this storm on shipping. Do the sources say anything? Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a dynamic list, constantly updated since its inception after the book was published in 2004. Five years is a long time... if Wikipedia is still around then, it can be changed quite easily. Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I enjoyed the article, and the link to the photo was good. Not enough people do that, though I was hoping for more than just one photo! I was going to ask if there were any satellite pictures, but it might be a bit early for that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very detailed review. Yeah, pictures are kinda hard to come by for an old and somewhat obscure weather event, but I think the maps do a good job of illustrating it. I could ask around to see if I can get any satellite imagery from the ATS-3 sat. archives. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that other readers will misunderstand this point, like it seems I have? If so, maybe try and rephrase to make clear what you are saying, or make clearer the connection between the source and what is said in the article. For example, you currently cite the phrase "two significant storms in the Northeast United States" to a list of the worst NESIS storms, but leave the reader to try and work out for themselves that you are (possibly) referring to the storms of 8-10 February 1969 and 22-28 February 1969. Incidentally, linking February 1969 nor'easter should be possible around here. And thinking on this some more, given the political fallout from the February storm, did this give rise to a better response to the December storm? Hopefully some sources will have covered that angle. You could also add this article to Template:United States Blizzards, and consider putting that template on this article (it is interesting looking to see which of those storms are nor'easters). Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the Lindsay Storm, the December nor'easter and the early February nor'easter affected two different areas, so they're apples and oranges so to speak. Also, it is unknown and unlikely that the December storm met the criteria for a blizzard, so I can't see adding it to the template (or adding the template to it!). I'm not sure where your concern over the storms of the 68–69 winter comes from. I assume readers can count backwards one year and determine which season they occurred in. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the storms affected two different areas, why do you indirectly mention the Lindsay storm in the lead (it is one of the two storms mentioned in this phrase, isn't it? previous winter, which produced two significant storms in the Northeast United States")? I accept your point about the blizzard template (I had misunderstood the difference between a blizzard and a snowstorm). Maybe a template on nor'easters (though I actually much prefer categories to templates)? I'm still not convinced that the bare citation to the list alone is enough here. I would suggest something like:

    "Trends and changes occurred in the major weather oscillation systems both west and east of the United States in the period before and during the December 1969 nor'easter. To the west, the effects of the continuing long-term El Niño had been felt the previous winter (1968-1969), which had produced two significant storms in the Northeast United States, both also included in the NESIS scale. These previous storms were the storm of 8-10 February 1969 and the Lindsay storm of 22-28 February 1969. To the east, North Atlantic Oscillation values ranged from neutral to negative during the general time frame of the December 1969 nor'easter, trending more consistently negative in the days surrounding its genesis."

    The changes are to set the weather oscillation systems in geographical context (west and east) and explicitly name the two previous storms mentioned indirectly in the text, and to link to the one we have an article on. Is there a reason why this would not be desirable? I see above that you said to Hurricanehink that "The effects of NAO are still being debated in meteorology circles" - this makes me worry that you are adding something here that is not completely certain. Do Kocin and Uccellini specifically make the ENSO and NAO connection? Could you not directly quote what they say? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, should have been more clear. All three storms impacted the same general region (as all NESIS storms do – hence the name "Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale", but the brunt of the December 1969 hit Albany, while the Lindsay Storm was worst in NYC. A 75 mile/120km difference. I fear that geographically generalizing the ENSO and NAO as "west" and "east" of the US, respectively, is oversimplification. Kocin and Uccellini don't make an explicit connection between these two patterns and the storm, but, as with every listing in the book, they provide the info for background context that can be used by researchers looking for potential correlations. I've split the first paragraph into its own background section to perhaps clarify that it's meant more as a bit of climatological context than a direct aspect of the storm's genesis. What do you think? Juliancolton (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good. I do think it would help the reader to be eased gently into the background bit, with a mention of large-scale oscillations before you mention ENSO and NAO, and I do still worry that you need to make clearer that you are citing background context provided by Kocin and Uccellini, rather than a direct correlation they have made. As Hurricanehink's point above seemed never to have been fully addressed, maybe ask him about this? I'm happy to let other comment on this aspect now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea, honestly. I could make a guess, but of course that would be OR. I'd also be very hardpressed to find extreme points, since data over the open Atlantic is minimal to non-existent, and the storm's effects likely extended beyond the US/Canada border where most documentation ends. A satellite picture would indeed be helpful, but again, that luxury simply doesn't exist. At the very least, the surface maps give a good indication of where the precipitation (shaded in gray) covered. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I accept your point that you can't say too much here. It might help to say that the grey areas show precipitation (this is something I hadn't realised, and I'm not sure readers should have to skim the surface weather analysis article to find this out). Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further clarify, see the footnote in the NESIS list: "In the event that information from these two sources [NCDC and the book] is inconsistent, data from Kocin and Uccellini (2004) is used." In this specific article, however, I've chosen to include both ratings in the interest of fairness. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see now. I apologise for incorrectly stating above that you hadn't mentioned this is a NESIS storm. I had made the error of searching for "NESIS" (the initialism) rather than the full name, and not looking closely enough in the article. I should have realised it was unlikely that this had been missed out! About dynamically updating sources, would you consider raising this at a relevant WikiProject or other location for discussion? Overall, I'm going to strike this objection, but is there a reason you don't quote the NESIS values, seeing as they are from a formula that relate population affected and area affected - and are those figures (area and population) available to cite? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that nor'easter is linked, I am happy (though see summary of unresolved bits below), but I do think you need to not characterize minor in-text explanatory prose (which can be worked in so as not to disrupt the flow of an article) as spoon-feeding people. When Wikipedia editors work for a long time in a particular topic area, it can be easy for them to become so familiar with the basic concepts in that area, that they over-estimate what the lay-knowledge of an area is among the general public, and are happy to just link off to other articles instead. I know you aren't particularly receptive to that point of criticism, but if you could consider it and see how other articles are written, that might help you see what level I'm suggesting you pitch the article at. I should actually ask you which level you are pitching the article at? One level below professional meteorologist (e.g. postgrad), or one level above high-school graduate (e.g. university student), or somewhere in-between? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I appreciate I'm often oblivious to overly technical terminology in my writings, so I really appreciate that you've stuck with the FAC all along to help me compensate for it. It's a bit overwhelming when I'm pointed to the potential for confusion, and I'm often not sure how to address it. In any case, I think I'm aiming for somewhere in the middle, where a basic understanding of the weather (ie. the difference between a low pressure area and a high pressure area) is needed. Juliancolton (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for explaining that. I find it helps to look at other articles and see what level they are pitched at, and try and get articles to generally fit within a simple to complex gradient, rather than be very different from similar articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (of unresolved bits raised by me above)

The second two are not strictly speaking actionable, but I think the first two are (or should be otherwise addressed or a reason given for not making changes). After that, I should be ready to support or not (am unlikely to oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support and extensive help. I'll keep your points in mind for future reference, with both this article and any others I write. Once I have a bit more time, I'll definitely look into initiating project-wide discussions about article complexity the the dynamic sources. Juliancolton (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [40].

Hanged, drawn and quartered

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being hanged, drawn and quartered was possibly the most grisly punishment that medieval—and well into the 18th century—England had to offer. It was used on men considered by the state to be guilty of high treason, and basically involved being dragged at the back of a horse from the prison to the scaffold, hanged for a short while, then laid out (while still concious) on a table, to have your guts pulled out in front of you and burnt on a fire as you watched. Often your genitals would be on the same fire. All this was before you were beheaded, and then chopped into four bloody pieces, to be nailed to the walls of wherever it was thought you had conspired against your monarch.

There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be submitting a review later on today (PST).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is. I list some prose concerns below, but I am concerned about comprehensiveness. What this seems to be is a well-written prose list of a series of events, with little context to help the reader. For example, legislation just sort of happens. Were there protest movements? Efforts at reform? Bitter opposition in the Lords to the idea of changing one jot or tittle? For example, the 1817 executions mentioned were the source of considerable discussion, Shelley wrote a work suggesting that the deaths were a greater tragedy than the death of the Prince Regent's daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales. Did he have anything to say about the method of execution? I don't know. It seems to me that a bit more context is needed to be truly comprehensive.
Can I ask if the nominator intends to respond or act on my above concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've been away working. Am back now and will respond when convenient. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey, I've made a few additions comprising mostly small expansions of the reasons for the introductions of the various Treason Acts. I'm keen not to head off on a tangent. I'd like to add a little more on the move away from punishment of the body, to removal of the individual's rights, but I haven't yet found a good source to do so. Will keep looking. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also moved the section of text discussed below, into the notes. Parrot of Doom 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but can you do something on the reasons for abolition? The Georgian era, everything was in the newspapers or pamphleted, there's got to be something?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gradual move from punishing the body, to punishing the individual (or removing his rights). I've read as much in a few places, but it'll take a bit of work to summarise it. I'll sort it out. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but come on, its end came by 19th century legislative action. I'm not just smoking something here (as if) in researching Ashford v Thornton, I found a fair amount of discussion of the legislative attempts to abolish trial by battle, and the eventual success. I really can't believe that hd&q would be any less the subject of writings and Parliamentary discussion. The tension between the tradition of these medieval hangovers and the "modern" penological approach was not an easy thing. Please do your best.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this sentence was the subject of a great deal of hand-wringing, mainly it was caught up in the drive to put an end to punishing an individual's body (rather than removing his freedoms) and also reducing the number of capital offences on the UK's statute books (ie hanging a man for stealing 5 shillings). I've added some context to the lessening of the penalty for treason but in truth if I added much more than I just have, I'd be crossing the line into Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, and I'd rather limit the article mainly to this particularly gruesome sentence. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I won't push you over the edge on this one. Been there myself. I'll look at the article again in the next day or two and either give my opinion or further comments. Did the act which passed the abolition also do other things? That is where it may differ from trial by battle, which was put an end to by a two-paragraph act which only addressed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Forfeiture Act (amongst other things like forcing convicts to pay for the damage they'd caused) basically ended the practice of "corruption of blood", whereby anyone guilty of treason would be stripped of their lands, property, title, etc, without chance of regaining them. Part of it is still in force I believe, traitors can't hold public office in the UK, or vote in certain elections. Basically, if you were found a traitor under this Act, you were either hanged or beheaded, and your "stuff" was no longer confiscated by the state. Drawing, quartering and the rest, was removed from the statute books. I thought to add a bit on attainder but again, it would be straying from the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) BTW, can you ascertain who the person referred to here is? If a future MP was sentenced to receive that punishment, and went on to become an MP instead, that seems very useful in the article. I gather from context the guy was Irish.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably William Smith O'Brien. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • The dates of the reigns of the two listed English monarchs may not be well-remembered. Perhaps put years in parens?
Done.
  • "Although some convicts had their sentences commuted and suffered a less ignominious end" Is being hung instead (without all the trimmings) considered a commutation of sentence? I can imagine the plea bargaining. Perhaps another word instead of commuted?
I believe commuted works here, it is in effect a reduction of the penalty for high treason. I'm not particularly attached to the word though.
Perhaps "modified"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "downgraded" this seems rather a matter of opinion. I would accept, however, the word of anyone who has undergone both procedures. :)
I've changed to "changed", its a little less contentious I think.
Treason in England
  • " by his justices' somewhat over-zealous interpretation of what activities constituted treason". Again, this seems a bit opiniony, especially since you don't tell us what the judges did. Did the King or his chancellor intervene?
I will look at this to see what I can add to clarify the point.
Execution of the sentence
  • I'm uncomfortable with the several "may have"'s in this section. Who is doing the speculating?
Bellamy. Unfortunately most history is speculation, he is just a little more honest about it than other authors.
  • "the sheer terror felt by those who thought they might be disembowelled rather than simply beheaded as they would normally expect" Does this have to do with the uncertainty of what "drawn" meant? I would not expect that people at that time were in any doubt.
No. The fear was that if one didn't perform as expected at the execution, one might be treated much more cruelly than his station would deserve. I don't believe there's much ambiguity about the meaning of the word "drawn", its clearly the practice of drawing to execution.
  • " Conversely, some, such as the deeply unpopular William Hacket, were cut down instantly and taken to be disembowelled and normally emasculated" Perhaps "were" before "normally"
  • The discussion in the next to last paragraph of the meaning of the execution by modern authorities seems a bit out of place.
I'm not sure exactly what section you're referring to here, could you expand? Parrot of Doom 11:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "Execution of the sentence", the next-to-last paragraph, from the mention of Kastenbaum to the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see what you mean. Let me have a think about that. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you want me to revisit the article, I do not watchlist FACs I am not a nominee on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think what to do with this, other than shuffle the entire paragraph off to the notes section. It won't fit anywhere else, but I think it contains valuable information that needs to stay. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a brief subsection, just for the material I mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would break up that section a little too harshly. I'm favouring placing it into the notes section. If nobody else chips in, I'll do that in a few days. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the best solution, and I don't see it as a drawback, on some of my Nixon articles, a fair amount of content is in the notes, for example United States Senate election in California, 1950--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: In general, an impressive array of scholarly sources (though it's bizarre to see the name of Jeremy Beadle in this company). A few minor points:-

Otherwise, all sources and citations look fine. As virtually all the online sources are subscription-based, meaningful spotchecking has not been possible. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5#How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB? -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Other than that, images look fine, all public domain due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I think this is a very good article and I realize that what I am going to suggest is a rather big change but it seems rather specific to England eventhough other countries, including the US had such policies at some point. I think it should include a section other countries policies and laws pertaining to Hanging, drawing and quertering. I also notice that there are a lot of red links and I suggest perhaps replacing one of the red links with William Wallace. I believe he is a much more well known figure than many mentioned in the article. I also notice that there is no mention of this form of punishments nickname The Four Horrors and I recommend this be included as well. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention that the sentence was used in British colonies in North America, but I do not believe it was used in any other country but Britain. Other countries' punishments may have been similar, but nothing more. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting article. Here are a few comments:

Support: On a second read-through, I'm fairly content with this article. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment What should that mean to us? It is not unusual for one person to have put in the bulk of the work on an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion relocated to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt when you write "us" who do you mean? -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, having only the nominator(s) reply to reviewer concerns here is common FAC practice - several other FACs currently on the page do the same. Also, I would suggest taking meta-commentary not specifically related to the criteria to either the talk page of this review or article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having the only the nominator reply is probably something that should not be encouraged, I think it better if more people are involved. Be that as it may, I have bought up a lot of points above, some of which I would normally be involved in fixing ... I wait with interest to hear what the nominator has to say. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title issue that I raised on the talk needs to be revisited (and the lead fixed accordingly, which I recently did but was reverted). Per the naming conventions and by analogy with hanging, the title should be a noun form, hanging, drawing and quartering, not the current verb form. I have no idea why it was moved from that form in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still don't think my concerns about advocacy of and reaction to the abolition have been fully addressed yet. As this article is not in a position to be promoted yet, there is time to do so, but I figured I'd post a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To UKexpat) I don't think there is an issue. I think you may be confusing the practice of hanging with the sentence of hanged. This article is about the sentence, and in just about every reliable source there is, it is referred to as "hanged, drawn and quartered". Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's about the sentence, I can read thank you. Take a look at hanging, by your logic it should be hanged. For that matter, take a look at any of the methods set out at Template:Capital punishment, they are all noun forms, not verb forms, similarly the sentence is "death", not "dying", again a noun form. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To Wehwalt) I will have a look again to see what I can do to address that concern. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added as much as I think I'm able to. I've found little which suggests that the abolition of HD&Q happened separately from the general softening of England's laws on capital punishment. I've looked right through Hansard and found next to no debate on the subject. I think if anyone can be credited with its abolition, it would be Charles Forster, but again I've found nothing which suggests that he was driven exclusively to doing away with the sentence, his motivation was ending the practice of forfeiture. Amending the law to end HD&Q seems to have been something tacked onto the end of his Felony Bill, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Where it seemed to struggle most was in marrying the details of individual cases and the legal history. It feels in places like some accounts of individual cases have been merged with a rather brief overview of the legal history. Possibly stepping back and considering whether to treat the legal and parliamentary aspects separately from the history of the actual executions, might be worth considering. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [41].

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

[edit]
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does a young Japanese elf stranded on an island with a giant egg have to do with surrealist David Lynch? More than I thought, apparently. This article has been through two previous FACs; the first one failed (quite justifiably) due to a lack of comprehensiveness and MoS issues. These were not resolved with the second FAC, however I think the article as it stands now meets the criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. Quite a few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. (ignore the IGN ones) --PresN 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Always nice to see a part of your childhood come to FAC. I got this game on Christmas in 1993, and it only took me 12 or 13 years, and numerous online strategy FAQs, to beat it.

Few comments

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'm not very familiar with sourcing requirements for gaming articles, but it seems like there are a lot of promotional / Nintendo-published sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.

Other than that, the article is in good shape. The prose is well-written, it is informative and comprehensive. Keep up the good work. I'll check back later. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Guy, I think I've hit all your major points above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the article meets the FA criteria, and it has come a long way since its first FAC. Good job David. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [42].

Me and Juliet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. My final attempt in the Musical Theatre/Light Opera area is about this one. The musical was an utter flop, though reading it, it probably deserved better. Whatever. Back to coins, Nixon and Canadian politics after this.Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

You have to click on "more" halfway down the page. The URL does not change. Shall I note that in the ref?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll leave it to you - I should have realised that. I'm not at my brightest at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, spotchecks (such as were possible) OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looking forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the same point made at the FACs for Pipe Dream and Flower Drum Song, and views were that it was OK to have it as there was unlikely to be an article about the album?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in either of those discussions, but I can assure you that that is a long way from current practice generally. The use of non-free content in an article is not dependent on the existence or otherwise of another article- if the album is never likely to have its own article, then that's fine, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the album cover can be used in some other article. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to chime in and agree with J Milburn; missing the album cover does not significantly impact reader understanding as the release is not a major aspect and the subject of critical commentary; as the article for the album does not exist you also can't defend it as an identification piece. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've deleted it. I have purchased on eBay a playbill for Me and Juliet, many free handouts and publications from the 1950s were published without copyright notice and are now in the public domain. When it arrives, I will look through it and with luck there will be none. Until then, we will have to work with just two images. Maybe I'll put one up of the theatre or something, a modern musical which was not based on an earlier work can be a real pain on the image side. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 2 dabs (Billy Hayes, Some Enchanted Evening); 0 dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the toolbox is not appearing in this nom, but that's not a big deal. Issues fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a failure for R&H, who had raised the bar for themselves. I'll see what I can do with it. No source that I know of gives specific dollar figures for the profit, but that is unsurprising as the only "investors" were R&H and RCA. I'll play with the language and look at your comments. BTW, I said the play got neutral to unfavorable reviews, not mixed to positive. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article only calls the show a failure once, and I should have made it clearer, that is Abbott's perspective. I've cleared that up now. The lede refers to the show as unsuccessful, which I think is indisputable. As to how one measures success? This show did nothing to enhance their professional reputations. If it wasn't a hit, or close to it, it was "What has happened to R&H?" It was much the same with Pipe Dream and Allegro. Only Pipe Dream actually lost money, but they damaged the pair's reputation (today almost blissfully forgotten) and of course, this affected potential investors (although not much), performers and creative help considering offers from them, etc. It was not going to be South Pacific every time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If it's possible to pull in more of that context, that would be helpful (I know of Rodgers & Hammerstein, but I think most readers my generation don't give two wits about musicals anyhow, so you need to provide readers with more of a sense of why it was disappointing then.) Sorry for the mixup, I think I accidentally erased your edits when adding some of my own. This issue is these two sentences: "According to Steven Sondheim, a protégé of Hammerstein, "Oscar was able to keep the partnership together by taking Dick's suggestion, which he did not want to take."[4] As the two discussed the matter...", where "Dick's suggestion" and "the matter" have to be clarified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, taken care of and also your hidden comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It seems to be Mordden himself, I googled phrases from that and he and us are the only ones that come up exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From this, it seems to be Mordden imagining or reporting Hammerstein's thoughts. You seem to have cut off "Hammerstein thought" immediately before the quote you give, thus making the 'voice' Mordden's, rather than Hammerstein. Imagine which makes more sense, Hammerstein or Mordden saying "We shall imagine some rather advanced musical of the near future" - that comes across to me as a collective "we" referring to those creating, writing and producing the show. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but I can't find anything by Hammerstein saying that. I will look though, perhaps Mordden paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the rest of the article reads really well, and I couldn't find any other faults with it. I particularly like the ending. It left me feeling that I'd finished the article on a strong note, rather than finishing abruptly or weakly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping in on that, I love finishing an article with a blockquote, probably two thirds of my articles do that. There is just such a note of closure in closing with a well-written statement by a third party. The reader has had all he can take of the article-writer's perspective by the end of the article, there is a note of satisfaction by giving a second perspective in that fashion. It is a lot better than dropping off the end of the earth, as some articles seem to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond in greater detail later in the day, as I have to go to work shortly. Most of them I'll just work through and just note that I've done them as a global note. A quick couple of things—one of the problems with working with musicals of this era is that there is likely to be a shortage of PD images. I have a Me and Juliet playbill coming I hope is PD/no notice, as many free publications were issued without copyright logo in the fifties and sixties. I know of no PD images of the major players. The placing of musical numbers in quotes and parens is the accepted practice for FA musical theatre articles, but to clear up confusion in one, I put a "Musical number:" in the first one and I'll do that here. Many thanks for the thoughtful review, I'll work on this this afternoon or tonight and report back.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've cleared up all your points. Thoughts? I've got the playbill, it is indeed PD/No Notice, and once I've worked on Nikkimaria's comments, I'll be uploading it and using it for the infobox image.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pictures. All my comments addressed except one (see above). I also have some new comments, but will put those below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have no idea whether Mordden is paraphrasing from something Hammerstein said (and I can't find anything close) or imagining that this is what Hammerstein might have said. And I don't have anything else good describing the show within the show. I can either cut the quote or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not rephrase the intro sentence to something like: "According to author and composer Ethan Mordden in his book about the duo's works, Hammerstein thought the show-within-the-show was to be:". That would restore the missing context from the book you are quoting from. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One final point, which I'll throw in here, is that some descriptions out there call this a musical a satire (some say "tongue-in-cheek satire"), as well as a comedy and romance. This article only calls it a comedy and a romance. Do reliable sources call it a satire? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rarely, and usually well after the fact. I find the argument that they feared being considered satirical, thus they cut "You Never Had It So Good", more convincing. Rodgers, in his memoir (Hammerstein did not write a memoir), gives no hint of it. Possibly, they were gently mocking themselves, there are hints of that in the conflict between the (unseen) producer and choreographer about whether to hire a good looker or a good dancer as the new Carmen. I would call it a round of applause for "the little people" of a theatre. There are some nice photos of the production in Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked at the LIFE images. You can link to a search for them here. I also found the NYT obituary of one of the people named in the playbill credits image (the only one you don't mention in the article): [43]. For the benefit of those closing this FAC, my support is down in the second set of comments I made. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the conductor ... I usually link to him, but no one ever comments on him so I never have anything to say. I mean the real conductor, not Irving who played the role of the conductor, Dario.

Support - concerns adequately addressed. There are still a few instances where the tone sounds too informal to me, but I think that might just be my personal preference rather than an actionable issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

I don't know where that came from, but it is gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the former and I'll put in a pipe. It means the libretto, the dialogue and lyrics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that there were too many repeating phrases in that part of the article, and looked for things I could vary the wording a bit.
Good question, but as Larry, who is not an understudy in any sense of the word, sings the duet with Jeanie (probably in place of Charlie), it's one of the weak plot points which probably irritated the critics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is how you refer to a person who has been the first performer in a role.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are only a half dozen or so, I see no reason not to have the duplication. It saves wear and tear on the reader, and I find most shorthand references for newspaper articles less than satisfactory. If I didn't reply, I addressed it, and I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking comments

Putting here the results of a check I tend to do (where possible) on "what links here". I say where possible, because for some articles with hundreds of links, it is not feasible. But here, even with the templates at the bottom introducing false hits, it was possible to review all the incoming and outgoing links for this article. The results (below) will hopefully be of use.

Shirley MacLaine and Shirley Jones are stars. Janet Pavek is Janet Pavek. Looking through my playbill, I find John M. King as playing the minor role of "Michael, a chorus boy" and also part of the singing ensemble (MacLaine is listed, I see nothing on Stuart or Pavek, but they might have left the show already). I think this falls under editorial judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contend that's every one ever given. I can't find anything except Kansas City offhand, but there were probably a small flurry of local performances when R&H released it for local productions, probably around 1955. I doubt they had elaborate stagings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though not all readers will know how this matter of "releasing for local productions" works. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the material from Pipe Dreaming. I do not think that it is worth mentioning the use in A Grand Night for Singing which is a musical revue, without any plot, with selections from most or all of the R&H works in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Oklahoma!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I recall, the FDS article mentions the desperation of R&H after the back to back flops.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly name them, that is no trouble at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are they named in the playbill credits? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hischak lists her by name as well, though not mentioning the other two. I'll toss in a mention of Carroll.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sources aren't that specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, but fair enough. I do wonder what other sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you are taking an implication I did not intend to make. I have the best and current books about R&H. This seems to be a down time in books about them, but there was a nice little wave about a decade ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give that some thought, but do not think it should be a factor in this FAC. I've gotten leery about these things since a reviewer had me write an article to fill a redlink--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is not a factor. I may, if I have time, throw in some mentions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last point, I didn't check every outgoing link, but seeing as there was one misdirected one there, it might be worth checking the other ones. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some clicking.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Only two remaining issues for me are No Other Love (1953 song) (people may be more familiar with this song than the musical, so I think it is worth bringing out some more detail of its subsequent success) and Barbara Carroll. Neither are deal breakers, but I'd be interested to see how you incorporate them, or reasons for not doing so. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the Carroll bit right now, and TCO has been kind enough to drop some suggestions on the other on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are now mentioned in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Major issue is that the plot description should be made easier to follow and more interesting. Will include my full comments on the talk page, since I can use sections then and since I've been requested to do such before.TCO (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your review, will deal with Carcharoth's first and get to yours later today. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re TCO above, I rather think the dullness may be in the plot itself, rather than in the plot description. I am reading the article and will leave a few comments here, but one thing struck me immediately. Why has the sequence of sections changed from that employed by your previous FA musicals (Pipe Dream, Allegro, Carousel etc), in which Inception and/or Background sections precede the plot summary? Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to on this page, and I'm interesting in seeing how the experiment goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you fully committed to this new layout (which reads more like a tentaive suggestion than a request), or would you consider partial modification if not complete reversion? For myself, I think you need at least some background before sailing into the plot. The best sequence seems to me to be: why they wrote it → what they wrote → what the public thought of it → what became of it. This in my view applies to all staged works, and has to date been used for all featured opera and musical articles. Reversing the first two elements of the sequence sets the article at odds with the others and, I believe, weakens it. But I will read on, and see whether, when I have absorbed the whole article, my view has changed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brian, since I'm the one who suggested the change I thought I should chime in. My areas of wiki-"expertise" are films and video games, which treat plots in different ways. In video games they introduce the goals and basic overview of the game first before presenting plot. In film articles, meanwhile, it's pretty much universal to put plot first. I asked in this case because the production section was referring to elements of the story, but I found them rather confusing without knowing what part of the story was referenced beforehand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree with David, but in this particular case, I think it reads better to have the normal Wehwalt order (iow what Brian wants). The musical plot here is confusing with all the names and songs. And the content of the musical as a commercial entity is more the story here than the plot (for this play). I really think it will make things go down easier if we go back to the old way (in this case).TCO (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're suggesting moving it back to after the sections about the preparations before opening night? @Brian, actually, while I favor putting the plot high in the article as I think we discussed regarding Tosca, I'm not carrying a torch for a particular position--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recall. Perhaps you are right. My problem here is that the change appears to have put through solely on the basis of another editor's mild suggestion. If it is to stay this way, I think there has to be some positive justification, i.e. why you think this sequence is better than the other. As you appear to be open-minded about this, in view of the strength of FA precedents in musical/opera FAs I would (equally mildly) suggest that you revert to the earlier order which, as I argue above, has a better logic behind it. But I am susceptible to any strong argument to the contrary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm starting to feel that anyone, including those well versed in musical theatre/opera, will need to read the plot first to have a good understanding of the work, which is not well known. Therefore, when I talk about a sandbag, it isn't going to mean much to anyone. Instead of being a showstopping moment at the end of the first act, a foreshadowing of the chandelier in Phantom and so forth. That do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, your reasoning lost me somewhere there. It's not clear to me what the rationale for the change is, and personally I think it weakens the article. It's way past my bedtime, so I'll leave it for the time being and look at it with fresh eyes in the morning. Perhaps I'll feel differently then. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for you to look at it again, then. My point is, that putting the plot first makes it possible to refer to the plot with the reader's understanding, a point particularly important as the plot is not well known. That being said, if you feel it weakens the article, I'll move it back down, TCO indicated that he feels it would be better off there and David indicated he does not feel strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Transfer the "Inception" section to before the plot summary and leave "Rehearsals and tryouts" where it is, BUT end Inception at "...more than 300 costumes which would be needed." The remaining sentences go to the start of Rehearsals and tryouts. I have tried this, and it seems to work perfectly well. This arrangement would resolve all my difficulties in this area, and would not affect your concern that readers need plot information before the nitty-gritty of rehearsals and tryouts. Give it a try; if after that, you are still convinced that the plot first stategy woks best, then OK, I'll accept it with whatever good grace I can muster.Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not wishing to respond to this suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked it. I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a big improvemnt. A few prose niggles added below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, for the reviewers, I've dealt with all your points or else replied, of course it is possible that I missed something, if I did let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to resolution of a few prose points:-

No other points: I did a sources review long, long ago. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support; I will implement these. On the show-within-a-show, Abbot hoped a rather dull show would be redeemed by a spectacular show-within-a-show, so that the internal show would be the star of the show and cause the show to draw rave reviews. On the crowd, I'll see if I can rephrase, although I think they were both distinguished (at least for Cleveland) and diamond-encrusted. An adaptation might be tied to a period and foreclose modern music: Imagine The King and I with a jazz score. Rodgers was always trying to keep up with the times, he did much the same thing in Flower Drum Song (and very notably failed to do successfully in his post-Hammerstein shows)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could "...might not be possible in an adaptation" become "..might not be appropriate in a period adaptation"? That would clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it to avoid the question of adaptations; I think your proposed change, while valid, would push the text too far away from Mordden, and perhaps it is best to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: good Rodgers and Hammerstein images good (used in another FA as well). The Playbill images are good as well; no visible copyright and produced in 1954. All images properly cited and terms listed.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [44].

Marojejy National Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this article meets the FAC criteria. I should note that some sources (primarily the two dedicated books) are so intricately detailed that I suspect multiple article are needed—such as a "Habitats of ...", "Conservation of ...", "Flora of ...", and "Fauna of ...". I know Marojejy Massif needs its own article, and that is where a lot of the gory details on geology should go. The article is already 52k, which means it has a little room to grow, but I'm worried too much detail will detract from the point of the article. With that said, I feel that I have hit upon all the important points. I also hope that I have avoided any pitfalls, such as WP:NOTAGUIDE. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: One issue: Ref 6 needs a page no. (the source has 200+ pages). Otherwise, sources & citations all look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot if I added that source, or if one of my French collaborators did. To be honest, I don't have the book. I'm not even sure if it's been digitized. Plus it's in French. If anything I saw it as a reference that points to the original work that was being described. I can see if my French collaborators have access to the book and see if they can get a page number. Alternatively, I can remove the ref. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We found the page number, and it's been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Nicely illustrated, well-written and researched. I'm officially adding the park to my list of "Places to pick mushrooms before I die". I found a few minor nitpicks when I read through the article again, but I'm sure you'll deal with them quickly. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter half of the second paragraph of "Topography and habitat" has three noticeable "result"s in close proximity.
  • seems there's a mix of title case and sentence in the articles listed in "Literature cited"
  • I think I've fixed everything. I made sure books were in title case, and journals were (mostly) in sentence case. Patel (2009) was an exception because the title consisted of a formal list: "Primates in Peril: The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patel (2009) needs et al. italicized, and there's a double fullstop.

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Otherwise images seem fine, although a few are OTRS pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything looks okay now. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I've been doing on a lot of my FAs, namely when I'm dealing with books made up of articles. If I do regular citations, the full book citation gets repeated over and over every time I list a source from the book. In some cases, there can be dozens of repetitions—see Lemur for one example. One of the refs in the article can be consolidated because I had thought I would use more material from the book, but only used one chapter. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to make up your own psychedelic, idiosyncratic method, there's little in WP:WIAFA that can prevent you from inflicting it upon the greater public. You should be aware, however, that ever single person in the universe who has ever published anything in any academic journal in any field will look at that reference section and think, "What a bunch of crap!" If that's the way you want to treat Wikipedia, then as far as I know, no one can stop you. – Peacock.Lane 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply since this is an identical issue that has been discussed at other FACs and has been allow to pass. We don't need to be making special cases for one article, but excluding others with the same issue. I would gladly explain my reason for developing this system and my justification for it, but I will only do so if you can take a civil tone. Otherwise, I am done discussing this. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one person who has published in an academic journal and doesn't think that. Please refrain from hyperbole; I'm sure VH will be willing to have a civil discussion on the best way to handle these references. Ucucha 18:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — this is a fascinating article. The prose is superb (with one or two exceptions) and is engaging and professional throughout. The images are wonderful. I have three nit-picks: the "in order" as in "in order to" is redundant, I had to Google "delimited by approximation" and why is the soil pH "expected to be..."? Thanks for the virtual tour, it was a joy. Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. "In order" has been removed in all 3 instances, and I've attempted to clarify "delimited by approximation." As for the soil pH, I can only go by what the source says. It did not go into detail, nor did any other source discuss the topic. I wish I could offer more, but there is nothing else available. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [45].

USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente

[edit]
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the requirements of a Featured Article. This article covers the first battle of the Quasi-War, which also happens to be the first naval battle in the history of the United States Navy. This article has been rated as a good article and undergone a Military History A-class review. Since its last featured article nomination it has been copy edited and gone through a Military History peer review.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 1 circular link (Action of 9 February 1799), no dead external links. --PresN 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think i fixed this (i removed the only mentioning of that former name in the article), but i dont really understand what a circular link is?XavierGreen (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A circular link is when a wikilink on an article points to a redirect back to that article; in essense, linking to itself. Normally, such a wikilink to the present page is disabled and the text bolded (assuming navbox use, I believe), but redirects bypass this feature. I thought that the offending link might have been in Template:Campaignbox Quasi-War, but it looks like your edit took care of it (though I fixed another redirect on the template), and I detect no other redirect issues. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

Sources and Image Review

Sources seem reliable and good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

I rewrote the first clause of the sentence and added the comma.XavierGreen (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better, but instead of "One of the two Americans killed..." could it read "One of the two American fatalities..."?

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose Brad (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm doing some light copyediting; there's not a lot of work here. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)

  • How does a "fatality" die?
"fatality" is synonymous with "casualty" in the WNW thesaurus, and it's acceptable to say that one casualty died of this while another died of that. It wasn't wrong, but it certainly was redundant, and I've fixed that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "troublesome 24-pounder guns were removed and replaced with 18-pounder cannon" One cannon? Many cannons?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought up the issue of "cannon" earlier in the review, and it seems that both "cannon" and "cannons" are acceptable plural terms (though I personally think "cannons" reads better). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There were two "cannon" (plural) and one "cannons"; now all 3 are "cannons". - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that, though both plural forms are correct the form used should be consisted as it now is.XavierGreen (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [47].

Malmö FF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the Wikipedia:FA criteria. As of present the only FA of a Swedish football club is IFK Göteborg, therefore I have worked hard in the previous year to improve this article, with the help of a peer review and copyediting from Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS I managed to get the article promoted to GA status. After the promotion I once again got the article peer reviewed to prepare for FAC. After the latest peer review I have done some final small detail edits to ensure that the article has what it takes to become an FA. In conclusion, I believe that the Malmö FF articles satisfies the FA criteria and that the article is good enough to become the second only Swedish football club FA. Thanks! Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the images used in the article, User:Fasach Nua's copyright tag on the article
I don't know if Fasach Nua is referring to a specific image or if he thinks that there are too many images in the article since he hasn't motivated the tag anywhere yet. In defense, I believe that every picture in the article is of fair use and acceptable copyright status which has been labeled accordingly and that every image is necessary to further illustrate and enrich the article. The are ten images in the article with the team logo in the infobox included, this is equally as many as in featured article Manchester United F.C., one more than in Arsenal F.C. and less than in Aston Villa F.C.. Since these articles are prime examples of FA's, why is the number of images a problem in this article? Thanks. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN has a habit of tagging articles while marking edits as minor, and then failing to engage in any other way. User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Calgary_Hitmen shows an example. Take his image reviews with a pinch of salt. - hahnchen 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've done some research into Swedish law and I found that "fotografiska bilder", photographic pictures are pictures that has been taken by anybody whereas "fotografiska verk" are pictures taken by a professional photographer, this is weird since the license tag specifies that images of the press fall under "fotografiska bilder". Perhaps an image with an unknown author as in the case of most of the older images in the article is a "fotografisk bild"since the photographer is not known. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Reckless182 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've only been able to find information about this in Swedish. According to the swedish wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkshöjd, an image is a fotografiskt verk if it has "verkshöjd" (uniqueness or orginality). Thus images that could have been taken by anyone are fotografiska bilder and free if taken before January 1st 1969. Reckless182 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now based on my research added more info and clarified the image licenses for all images in the article with the "PD Sweden" tag. They should all be correct and no longer a problem. Reckless182 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: As all the sources are in Swedish (I assume this is true of the two books, and they should be marked accordingly) I can't check these for reliability or for copyvios. I have checked the formats, which are generally in good order, though the books should be in alphabetical sequence. A couple of general issues:-

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns above are addressed and should all be fine now, if there is anything I've missed please inform me. The only section I'm having trouble finding a good source for is the "Season results", Since this section will be updated every year it is troublesome to find a source which updates accordingly. I could source http://svenskfotboll.se/allsvenskan/tidigare-ar/ but then the user would have to click on each year to actually verify the claim. I could also use the book by Rikard Smitt but in terms of season results this is already outdated. I'm open for all suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can source each individual season from the official club yearbooks. Neither Malmö FF or The Swedish Football Association keeps an updated record online with this statistics. As I am at university at the moment I can't look up the yearbook sources until Wednesday night. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added for all seasons. Will that solve both the remaining issues? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section was removed to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism, check the talk page of this FAC for the discussion. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed Brianboulton about these changes but have received no response since 7 February, I have left two messages on his talk page, the latest on 14 February. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralOppose, mostly on prose and related issues

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All hyphens, en dashes and em dashes are now used correctly throughout the article. The article uses spaced en dashes instead of em dashes consistently, as permitted by WP:EMDASH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One subheading has been reworded and a couple of sentences have been reworded to make the article more neutral. See also Talk:Malmö FF for discussion on how to make the article more neutral. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me, User:Demiurge1000 and User:Oldelpaso have copyedit various sections of the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence has been removed due to discussion, see below. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraphs are fine. I've looked them over and they all treat different subjects and would be confusing if put together. Could you specify an example if you still disagree? --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked everywhere for sources for this one, this source (http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/doinggoals/2010/03/) is the only one I can find online. The problem is that it is a blog, BUT it is a part of http://www.thelocal.se/ which is a reliable source. Can I use it or should I just remove the sentence? The problem is that the sentence of Osmanosvki will make no sence on its own with him being the only example of multi-culture. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCES says "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". WP:NEWSBLOG covers the issue at hand specifically; "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" (my emphasis). The particular blog in question is listed at thelocal's website as being under "Readers' Blogs" (of which there are several dozen) as opposed to "The Local's Blogs" (of which there are two dozen). Clearly the blog in question is not written by a professional, but one presumes that the site would exercise a certain amount of editorial oversight on the readers' blogs that they choose to permanently feature on this section of their site. So the reliability of this particular blog as a source is borderline. Does it or any other source discuss the multiculturalism of the club in general, or do they just state facts about the background of some of the players? If the latter, should the article discuss it in this way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that explanation. I can't remember any other source discussing the matter of multiculturalism. Its a known fact that the city of Malmö and youth teams of Malmö FF are of many nationalities but maybe this is not something for this article. I'll contemplate on removing the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I decided to remove the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, added new source, the only one I could find. There is a clip on Youtube but I doubt that I could use that as a source? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other issues with copyediting, User:Demiurge1000 who copyedited the article this December has informed me that he will respond to claims regarding prose and related issues within the next day or two. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All issues fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided prose reviewers are happy. Structure, comprehensiveness and neutrality all looking good. On the prose aspect, I've done some light copyediting, but will now be offline for a few days and thus unable to do any more. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

All issues now fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, current reference 25 has a title word with all capital letters. Zap the caps the same way you did with my last comment above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Article is in great shape, but only one quibble. There are too many paragraphs and sentences that are starting with wording "Malmo FF are/were/have...". It makes me feel that this article is a some sort of a compilation of thesis. Bit of rewording and I'll be happy to support. Utinsh (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of rewording. I hope you think it looks better now. Reckless182 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments taken care of Utinsh (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate! Reckless182 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:ref 25 appears to be a dead link....
Replaced with ref to the actual magazine article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ref check - in ref 34, how do we get "most loyal and active fans"?
Sentence removed, leaning POV. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried to rephrase the captions to make sure that they do not violate MOS:CAPTIONS, please do tell if there is a specific caption that has these problems. I have also removed the one and only use of curly quotation marks. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've further tweaked three of the captions and I believe they now all meet MOS:CAPTIONS. I've also confirmed there are now no curly quotation marks in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the image review. I've changed the captions of the two pictures you mentioned above, I hope they are OK now. The image page of File:Malmö stadion.jpg has also been cleaned up. For the four uploaded pictures under "fotografisk bild" I have tried to clarify these as much as possible to make them verifiable. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes and updates. I think the images and captions are fine now, as long as "Fotografisk bild" works out OK, but that was discussed above, as I said. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to notify that I have replaced one image with another. File:Swedbank_stadion_29_june_2009.jpg has been replaced by File:Pano of Swedbank Stadion.jpg which is a panorama picture. The new image has been uploaded by a new user (PGN) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license so it should check out OK. Can this confirmed? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New image is also fine. The article looks fine as well, but I would need to read it through properly to be certain. Let me know if that is needed, as I may have time later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Finetooth comments. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-December and proofed the latest version today. I made quite a few minor changes today, but here are other things to consider:

Early years
"They won this division in the first season, and were promoted to Svenska Serien Västra, the highest level of competition in Sweden at the time. However, they were relegated after a single season... ". - Rather than linking "promoted", which readers already understand, I would link "relegated", the less familiar word.
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Successful 1970s...
Since you use Svenska Cupen in this section, perhaps the lead should say Svenska Cupen rather than Swedish Cup.
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"After a period of respectable positions in the league under the management of Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985." - The sentence structure suggests that Hodgson had respectable positions under Blunt and Grip. Recast as "After the team performed respectably under managers Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985"?
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, even though the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989." - Rather than the confusing "even though", should this say "after"? Then the explanation in the next sentence might appear, in shortened form, in parentheses as "Between 1982 and 1992 Allsvenskan had play-offs for the best teams after the regular season was over.)"
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the 1990s were disappointing" - The sentence, aside from the misplaced modifier, seems to violate WP:NPOV in that the results were only disappointing to the team and Malmö FF fans, presumably, and a cause for joy in certain other quarters. Maybe: "Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the team did not excel in the 1990s".
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters and rivalries
"Supras Malmö is the most visible group in the main supporter stand at Swedbank Stadion today? - Delete "today" as vague and unnecessary since 2010 appears a couple of sentences later?
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of geographical proximity, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BoIS, which are both also located in Scania." - I would move this orphan paragraph up a bit by making it the first sentence of the paragraph that begins "The main rivals of the club are... ". The idea of rivalries would hold the merged paragraph together; the minor rivalries would segue into the main ones. Then the paragraph about the special rivalry with IFK Malmö would end the section.
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stadiums
"by ladies team LdB FC Malmö, who were previously the ladies section of Malmö FF." - I think "women's" is preferable to "ladies", which seems a bit archaic, probably not accurate, and possibly condescending.
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Present day capacity is 7,600" - Replace the vague "present day" with "Capacity in 2011 is..."?
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture
"The two films are now seen as classic portrayals of the club." - This seems a bit POV-ish in that "classic" is an overstatement and the passive voice avoids saying who regards the films in this way. I would simply delete this sentence.
I agree, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current squad
"Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules." - Should this be tightened to "Flags indicate national teams as defined by FIFA rules"?
Sorry, nothing I can do about that since that is a default text which automatically appears with the "Template:Football squad start". --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a way to converse with the template editors, though that's not something I've ever done. Is there really nothing we can do if a template contains an error or, in this case, inelegant prose? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we can add a request to Template talk:Football squad start. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I leave this for you to decide. The difference is small, but the template repeats itself in many articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics
WP:MOSBOLD advises against double bolding and suggests using italics for emphasis, if necessary. Double-bolding plus bolding plus wikilinks makes the statistics section look like its yelling at the reader. To calm it down, I'd remove all the double bolding, and I'd try italics for sub-sub heads like "Winners (16)". I think it would also be best to unlink all of the seasons so that the sea of blue becomes a nice, calm black.
I removed the bolding from runner-up and tiers. For some weird reason I can't see the result of my edits, I'm not sure why. I decided to keep the bolding for the winner titles as well as the links for the seasons. I know from experience that I would want to know more about a specific season when reading a section like this. See the FA article Arsenal F.C. for an example on the same usage of bolding and links. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section looks slightly better, but the double bolding is still there. (The wikilink automatically adds bolding; the second layer of bolding has been added by hand and can be removed.) Also, although I'll defer to your experience with the specific-season links, why link the same ones multiple times? For example, 1943–44 is linked under "Swedish Champions" and again under "Allsvenskan" and again under "Swedish Champions and Svenska Cupen". The row of links under "Swedish Champions" is almost an exact duplicate of the row of links under "Allsvenskan". What is the point of this duplication? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Double bolding now removed, but is wikilinked text really in bold? Also removed duplicate wikilinks, all links left are to different articles and thus all left should be necessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To me, the section looks better than before. My point, really, was that using emphasis of any sort for too many things reduces the impact of all emphasis. If everything is important, then nothing is more important than anything else. I would probably not bold the Winners either, but the difference will not stop me from supporting promotion. Also, your question about wikilinked text and bolding caught me up short because I've been conflating them. You are right. They are not the same, and I will stop saying they are: ouch, ouch, ouch. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Club honours
"Both domestic league and cup honours have been won by Malmö FF as well as having been runners-up in European and international cups." - Passive and a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Malmö FF have won domestic, national, and international honours." Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking all but two. Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking all and switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added more context under club honours in the statistics section. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the fact that the league runs from April to October (March was only last year) in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the number of games? In the UK, it is 38 games. Is it 30 games in Sweden? If so, don't bother to mention (I forgot to double it for home and away). Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really relevant fact in this article? Wouldn't it be more suitable for the article about Allsvenskan? --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I've struck this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. I know which players are the most expensive, bought and sold, the only trouble is that Swedish clubs have a tradition of not making transfer sums publicly known, so getting a source for these claims will be hard as the tabloids are the only ones giving out information in that area, and they're only guessing so I wouldn't use them as a source. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added what I could source to the new "Ownership and finance" section. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Comment struck. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added more content about him after the sentence about him being appointed chairman. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph in the lead concerning the financial and legal structure of the club. I hope that it was something like that you were looking for. Will add the sponsors somewhere also. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph about sponsors under the new section I mentioned above. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also looks good. That will have to be kept updated, along with changes in players and managers and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into that. Yes I have looked at IFK Göteborg, Aston Villa F.C. and Arsenal F.C. to mention a few for guidance. I don't think the section name needs to be changed, most football articles use "Stadiums". --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at a few different FAs and there are some notable examples out there with a similar section. The documentaries should be mentioned somewhere and think the content of the paragraph is unique enough to qualify a section of its own. To place the content in the history section would only confuse the reader I believe. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still slightly wary of the "In popular culture" section (that was the main point I was making here). At a minimum, I would retitle that. It is more brand recognition and/or cultural history than anything else. Carcharoth (talk)
I saw that you renamed it to "Media coverage" which better explains the content of the section. Is that OK for this comment to be crossed out? I understand your concern but with the exception of the Mitt hjärtas Malmö films all are in popular media, even though the two Blådårar films are described as documentaries they are outlined as films and they were even shown in the theatres. I think the section is fine as it is now. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps give some ideas as to what I was expecting to find when reading the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComments: Although this seems a very well researched and comprehensive article, I think there are substantial problems with the prose. I've read the lead and first two sections so far. There are several parts which are very clunky and do not read well. Other parts are confusing or imprecise so I don't believe it meets 1a. I think a thorough copy-edit would greatly benefit the article. Here are some of the points I found, but there are others too:

This sentence was previously criticised for being close to POV after being formulated as "making them possibly the most successful club in Sweden", as you've understood the Swedish football system has been experimented with a couple of times so there are many ways a club could be considered successful, most Swedish Championships (IFK Göteborg), most Allsvenskan titles (Malmö FF), most Svenska Cupen titles (Malmö FF) and the total number of titles which I believe is a good way of defining a club as successful. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added reflabel note to notes at the end of the article which explains why. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulties finding a better expression for this, this is the definition from the Swedish-English dictionary site I use: "Organ: a government agency or instrument devoted to the performance of some specific function". --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (see below) --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarise the article and I believe these facts are too important to remove, I'm open for suggestions on what do with the paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more content to clarify the situation. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the club's board of directors, I have reworded the sentence to include this. There has been given no explanation in the sources as to why the players were punished, perhaps because they accepted the sums they were given? However I don't see a reason to speculate in the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if there's no explanation. If Sweden was as fussy about amaterism as England was, I'm not surprised... --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will address your concerns shortly. What I can tell you right now is that the articles has been properly copyedited more than once by User:Demiurge1000, other editors have also contributed. I do agree with some of your points but I don't believe everything needs to be spelled out as simply as possible. I will look at your points and reply here after I'm done. Thanks for your comments! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the problematic phrases quoted by Sarastro1 are totally unfamiliar to me, so it's likely some of these have come from material that has been added since I last edited the article, mostly extra material added to meet concerns/requests that have been raised earlier in this FA candidacy. There might also be a couple of later sections of the article that have only had my pre-GA copyedit, and not the more extensive reworking after it became an FAC. I'll go over both these aspects again within the next few days, but it probably makes sense if Reckless182 makes any needed changes regarding structure and coverage etc first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to address the comments from Carcharoth (see above) as well as these ASAP. Therefore it is very possible that new content will be added albeit in small quantity. I will inform Demiurge1000 when I have done this. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am now done adding new content and awaiting response from Carcharoth and Sarastro1, I will inform Demiurge1000 that he can go ahead with the copyediting. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some rephrasing - could you check? I'm not clear, though, what "keeping the books" is (do you mean approving the financial accounts for the year?) and I'm also not clear what this "legal entity of itself" is, but I get the impression it is designed to insulate the board and players from financial claims (e.g. in the event of bankruptcy). Is that similar to a public limited company? Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! looks much better. By "approving the keeping of the books" I mean that every year the board of directors present the financial report for the previous year (which has of course been looked over by auditors already) and the general meeting have to approve that the "keeping of the books" have been done in a proper way or else the board of directors would have to redo the whole process. By "legal entity of itself" I'm referring to the Swedish term "Juridisk person", compare with Legal personality. Associations such as football clubs in Sweden are regarded as "Juridiska personer" when they have a charter of which they follow. Being a "Juridisk person" means exactly what you described in the last sentence, it is designed to protect the management and members of the club from financial claims much like in a plc. Maybe this doesn't have to be explained in such long terms but rather with some terms wikilinks such as "Legal personality" and "Financial statement"? I'm open for suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced "keeping of the books" with "accounts" in the lead. Accounts is Brit-Eng for financial statement or financial report. (Book-keeping is also used this way in Brit-Eng, but it's slightly more informal, and in any case a bit more long-winded.) I'll also make this consistent with wherever else it's mentioned later in the article, unless I find some problem in doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm happy with the responses to my queries, so I've struck the oppose. I would like to read the remainder of the article, but I will wait until the copy-editing is complete as I did spot other prose issues when I looked previously, so feel free to ping me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62:

They are indeed Malmö fans, the flag is the Flag of Scania, which is very popular with the fans. The flag is used to express regional identity, as written in the "colours and crest" section a small version of the flag of Scania is also featured on the kit, just below the neck. The image is relevant to the section and I don't see any reason to crop it. WP:CAPTIONS state that an image caption should be succinct so I doubt that such details should be added to the caption. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have honestly never seen this used in a football club article. Malmö Fotbollförening and Malmö FF are used in the lead so pointing that out again in the history sectio"n seams unnecessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I manually reverted your edit and clarified the use of the BK Idrott acronym. That should be fine. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the logo and kits in the infobox enough to describe content from the Colours and crest section? It seems unnecessary to specify the logo and kit in the lead when you can see it right beside it. I've added two sentences to the lead concerning the Supporters and rivalries section. I'm having a hard time deciding what to add to the lead from the Media coverage section, nothing in the section seems important enough for the lead, adding a sentence like "Malmö FF have been the subject of several films." would seem out of place in my opinion. I have not seen a fotball FA with this kind of information in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD says that "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." The infobox is not the lead. The images in the infobox are not particularly useful for those users who are colorblind, employ screen readers, or use text-only mobile browsers. Regarding other football FAs, keep in mind that while existing FAs are certainly useful for giving an idea of how to construct an article, they are not perfect. The reason that you haven't seen football FAs with this type of information in the lead is simply because the reviewers at those FACs didn't notice the issue.
I've added a sentence about club colours, does that solve the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solid. I think that it would make sense to mention the movies at the end of the last paragraph of the lead, as the topic has the same general feel to it as fan clubs. Even a single sentence listing a few examples would be sufficient. Can has? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added a sentence in the last paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans, thanks mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - late, as ever, so my apologies (and sorry if I repeat anything from above), but comments nevertheless...

Is this necessary? Association football is linked and thus simply hovering over football will enlighten the reader. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will fix this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "also". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a good example to illustrate how strong the 1943-44 team was. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, do you have any suggestions? --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "young players" in first instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added "in Allsvenskan" after runners-up. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the last instance to 1990s. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added 1990's to the next to last headline. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "some examples". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, i wrote this as first, this was later changed by an editor in this FAC process, can't remember who. I've changed it back. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the template used for the squad, so its not something that I can change. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on it tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as I havn't sen this before in a football FA. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support my issues resolved, on the whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: Looking good, just a few more prose points but not much else. Happy to support after this.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased some of the sentences to improve flow. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repharsed and added source for statement. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Very good question. I'm fairly certain that the club were known for a defensive playing style during the 1970s but I have only been following the club since 2002 so its hard for me to tell. What I can tell you is that for the most recent seasons under Roland Nilsson the club have tried to adapt a style with focus on possession with offensive wingbacks (inspired by Ajax and Barcelona). Playing style tend to change a lot under different managers so I think its hard to find a specific style that defines Malmö FF. Something like this would be really hard to find a good source for, but if I do come across a good source in the future I will certainly try to reflect this in the article. Thanks for asking! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [48].

Eduard Streltsov

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, well, I hate to be unimaginative, but I think that it's ready, or at least nearly so. I have taken a big step back from it for quite a while, and am now doing my best to look at it objectively. It is, in my opinion, at least very close to FA standard, and so I have nominated it just to put that little bit of extra work into it and push it up to FA, which I think it deserves. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External redirect resolved. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the number of reference tags down a notch. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Comments: I think the article needs a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor. I would offer to help, but my time is limited at the moment. Some of the prose is a little cumbersome and could be tightened up. Reading the lead and the first section threw up a few prose problems. None of them were a big issue, but the number of little issues means I am opposing for now, although it can be easily fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Early life:

General points

Funny, I had reference marks on all of the quotes but just took them out to avoid over-referencing! Hmm, I'll put them all back in then. I've just had a quick hack through, but probably best somebody copy-edits this as you say. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you've put them back; however, if you are quoting several sections from the same source in one sentence, it only needs a ref at the end. And some of the quotes are just one or two words long, so I don't think you need to be directly quoting these. Certainly you don't need as many as you have. For example, "effectively down to nine men" does not need quoting if you phrase it as "had only nine fit men". And by attributing, I mean you need to say in the text who said it, not just in the ref: "John Smith believes that 'Streltsov was great'."--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I've had another go, taken out a load of the quotations and worked on the sourcing and attributing. What do you think now? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I'll look more closely in a day or two. I may be able to attempt a copy-edit at the weekend, if you have no objections. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

More comments, leaning to supportSupport: I've completed a copy-edit, but another pair of eyes is always good. No real problems that I can see, and the article is very well researched and comprehensive. It is a very interesting tale about a player I had never heard of. Just a couple of questions/points before I support.

Okay, a bit more. I've tried to get it all but the coaching, which I can't find right now. I'll have another look later. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support now, great work. Obviously add the coaching if you find it, though! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier image review
    • (1) File:EduardStreltsov.jpg - this is a copyrighted image used here under fair use claims. More paperwork needs to be filled out here, even before the question is addressed of whether this is a valid claim. Please describe the source properly - currently it is just a bare URL, which is not acceptable. Secondly, it is best practice to fill out a non-free use rationale. I would suggest using ((Non-free use rationale)) and filling in the fields there. Thirdly, I'm not sure that the 'historic' upload tag is the correct one, but I can't remember what tag is normally used when uploading such images. Please look for similar images and model the image information page here on what is used on those image pages. After that, someone will need to assess whether your non-free image use rationale is valid or not. For starters, you need to demonstrate that you have done searches for free images of Streltsov. I suspect this image is ultimately replaceable. Even if it is OK to use it, there is not much information provided - when was it taken is the basic information needed - does the source provide that information?
    • (2) File:Mbnolypkst.jpg - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. The description field should be filled in by someone who can confirm that it is actually showing what the uploader claimed it is showing (or get the uploader to fill it in if they are still around). In terms of the image itself, it is not really the best image - is it not possible to find one from the 1956 Olympics, showing the USSR playing one of their matches? That would be far better for this section. The current image is of the stadium 52 years later (and its not even the right sport!). Australian government sources must have public domain pictures from the 1956 Olympics, surely?
    • (3) File:Hampden Park WP EN.JPG - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. However, I'm not entirely sure the transfer from en-wikipedia to Commons was done correctly. You may want to point this out to an experienced image admin here and on Commons and see if they can fix it (or say it is OK after all, despite my doubts - I think it needs a copy of the original upload log, as is present in File:Mbnolypkst.jpg). And again, this image isn't really that relevant to the article - the stadium 38 years later is not that relevant. Are there no pictures from that era of that match? You could at least point readers in the right direction towards non-free images, instead of providing images of stadia years after the games in question.
    • (4) File:Torpedo-stadium.jpg - user uploaded picture - licensing is fine. The picture is not really the best one for what it is trying to show. Is there not something showing the name of the stadium? Personally, I'd drop the picture as it distracts from the other ones (which are all good) and is the weakest image in the article. The umbro advertising is incidental, so not of concern, and I doubt the stadium architecture is copyrighted (and I don't know what Russian freedom of panorama is anyway).
    • (5) File:Reverse of a Russian two-ruble bank coin with a portrait of Eduard Streltsov.gif - since there are whole categories of these on Commons, I'm prepared to assume this one is OK as well. If possible, a link to a page on Commons explaining whether coins really do fall under the law quoted in that license tag would be good.
    Overall, the article image captions are fine, though I do think the lead image should say how old he is in that picture - the reader shouldn't have to click through to the image page to find that out (and even if they do click through, there is no information there anyway - see the points I made above). Currently, if the non-free use claim fails and the poor and irrrelevant images are removed, you are only left with the coin image. Would you be happy with the only image being the coin one? If not, I think you need to try and track down some more images before this can be considered a well-illustrated article Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak supportComments. Reading through now; may have to finish reviewing this evening if I run out of time.. I found a few areas where the prose was confusing, but those have been fixed. Support is weak because I think the prose is more than workmanlike, but not really high quality. If I get time I will copyedit but I think a weak support is justified as it stands.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have done a lot of work on this this morning. I've attended to most of the photo issues brought up above and have fixed all of Mike's problems, will do some more later. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; moved coin image up to infobox, added another for the 1956 Olympics and a Bundesarchiv picture of Brezhnev about half-way down. I'm trying to find some more that are relevant, will keep you informed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of my issues addressed; I will try to have another read through tomorrow and copyedit. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've used your suggestion. I was having trouble finding the words to make it clear, that's all. Thanks – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62:

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a couple of minor edits which (of course) you are free to revert, but in any case, having seen this grow from a stub to a successful GA to this level of comprehensiveness is truly encouraging. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NortyNort

Above are just a few comments. Overall, the article was an excellent read and I learned a bit, especially about Soviet football.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing on the second point then oh well. Mainly a curiosity and nicety. But you have address my concerns and I support this article's promotion to featured status.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [49].

Luke P. Blackburn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth century governor, physician, philanthropist, reformer... and accused bioterrorist! Hope that generates some interest. It's also true. I think this is a comprehensive account of the life of a very interesting individual who was accused of engaging in germ warfare during the American Civil War using yellow fever, the very disease he spent most of his life helping to combat. I look forward to responding to comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Otherwise sources and citations look OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've started reading through the body of the article looking for prose issues. I'm enjoying it greatly so far! My comments are located on the article's talk page; please respond to individual concerns there. Once I've run through the entire article, I'll check out the lead to make sure it is well balanced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support happily! Thanks for the time that you've put into this. The interwebs are a better place because of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from talk: Here are some comments on the article's prose:

Those are the only concerns I have with the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far. Glad you're enjoying the article. Blackburn's is a pretty unique story. I'm going to move these comments to the FAC page so other reviewers can see them, per standard practice. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch comments This is an intrersting read and looks quite good. I am leaning towards support, but I have a few comments I'd like to see addressed first.

An 1875 study had found that 20 percent of the inmates had pneumonia; the year Blackburn took office another report revealed that three of every four prisoners had scurvy, owing to poor diet. More than 7 percent of the nearly one thousand prisoners had died during the year.
An 1875 study showed that 20 percent of the state's inmates were suffering from pneumonia.[56] In 1879, 75 percent of the state's prisoners had scurvy due to a poor diet and 7 percent of the incarcerated individuals died.[56]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to have your comments, Ruhrfish. Hope to gain your support as well. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to support and struck where I thought the issue had been addressed. There are a few quibbles left, but trust they will be resolved too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a photo on Commons which I think would work well in the article and found an image of one of Blackburn's pardons which might work here. Details are on Acdixon's talk page. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved (I hope the Mississippi Boatman image is used). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope to eventually secure your support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. I made all the following edits; feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [50].

Myotis alcathoe

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that after centuries of systematic research, we would at least know all the mammal species occurring in Europe. Wrong; new species are discovered every few years. Even then, you'd probably think that whatever new species are found are marginal and occur in small areas. Wrong again. This article is about a bat species first named in 2001 that is now known to occur pretty much all over Europe (and quite possibly, also outside Europe). Our knowledge of the species is still limited, but we are beginning to acquire a good understanding of its ecology and distribution.

This article comprehensively reflects that knowledge; thanks to the help of Thgoiter and several others, I've been able to read almost all of the by now voluminous literature on the species. The article was improved by a review by Sasata and a GA review by Ceranthor, and I'm looking forward to your reviews here at FAC. Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

..but it was not until the advent of genetic methods.. "methods" scans oddly, invites the reader to think "methods of what?" - why not say "testing" or "investigations"
Changing to "studies". Thanks for your review! Ucucha 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, studies! That word eluded me and is a better choice than the ones that sprang to mind first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It;s late here. Will continue reading tomorr now. Goodnight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European Myotis - I sometimes wonder about using genus names as nouns (i.e. should it remain italicised if used like this as a descriptive noun rather than indicating the genus) - I'd have thought a safer wording is "Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European member of the genus Myotis"
..the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of Nematocera flies, - similar issue to the above. maybe either an addjective "Nematoceran" or "the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of flies of the suborder Nematocera,":::Both of these tweaked. Ucucha 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, a well-developed, detailed article. A few comments:

That's all I found the first time through. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll try to read it again tomorrow before I add my support. I'm too tired tonight to say I gave it a thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: On the second read, it looks good. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I gave the article a pretty thorough pre-FAC review, and, having read through it again, can't find anything additional to complain about. Did you know that Ucucha has "a virtual collection of the interiors of bat penises"? I thought my collection of fungi on animal dung was odd...  :) Sasata (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [52].

L. Ron Hubbard

[edit]
Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 13th 2011 will be the centenary of the birth of this highly polarizing figure. The article has long had issues with sourcing and poor organization, unsurprisingly given the controversial subject matter. A recent total rewrite (by another editor) has taken it to a higher level. It seems to me to exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and I look forward to the perspectives of other editors. I can not always access Wikipedia from my day job, but expect to respond to queries within 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Link now goes to the redirected page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion? Since this book, whose prodded article is also by the newcomer, is not due for publication until July, checking for copyvio etc would be difficult. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just sort out a potential misconception: Janet Reitman has authored an article with that title, that has been out for a few years now, and published as a book chapter. She has subsequently expanded it into a book with that same title- currently unpublished as you point out. That book is not used as a source in this article. The "Reitman" citations in this article are to the earlier book chapter and so they are verifiable. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved with occasional minor improvements, finding reliable sources etc. for this article going back probably a couple of years. The intention was to get around to a substantive rewrite. However, a newcomer has done a much better job without me, and invited other editors to take it to review. Questions to the editors involved are probably best taken to their own Talk pages. I hope this discussion can focus on the quality of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but this is quite far outside the normal pattern, so it's natural to raise questions. Since this newcomer would not necessarily be aware of all of our guidelines and policies, my first concern would be that someone with copies of Miller and Atack check for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Looking at the refs, the article closely follows the structure of Miller, significantly raising the risk of unintentional plagiarism. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary: you make a fair point. I have paper copies of both books and have been using them in improving some related articles. I'm satisfied that this article is what it should be: original work that is based on cited sources. The full text of both books is online, so nobody has to take my word for it. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment on this, Miller's biography of Hubbard is organised chronologically, so any chronological account of Hubbard's life is going to approximate its structure. The article is definitely an original work, conveying the factual content but not the language of its sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The idea may not have been a new one; a few previously," Would that be a few years, months or weeks?
    Well spotted! "Years" now added.
  2. "The house became the permanent residence of Hubbard and his children" Would that be his family with Mary Sue or all his children?
    It means his children with Mary Sue. Rather than overload that sentence with clauses, I've deleted mention of the children. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving those two issues.
  1. The section on his writing seems to revolve around the dispute as to how commercially successful he was, rather than how good a Science Fiction writer he was. I have to admit that though I grew up on Heinlein and Clarke I haven't read any of his Science Fiction, but some info on total sales, languages translated into and awards won would also be interesting.
    Good suggestion: I will see if there are sufficient sources for this, and report back.
  2. I was a little surprised to see that The Infobox describes him as a writer of pulp fiction rather than Science fiction, is that the consensus view on him?
    Looking back at Talk page discussion of this issue, I'm minded to agree with you, but there are arguments either way. It seems that a predominance of reliable sources, including academic sources, describe him as "science-fiction author", though "pulp fiction author" also appears in multiple RSs. Some editors have argued for "philosopher" or a similar label which only appears in Scientology publications, so that won't fly. "Pulp fiction author" conveys not only that he wrote fantasy fiction and other genres as well, but also identifies the era/format of sci-fi in which he is most notable. It could be seen as a compromise. Do you still think it is worth changing?
    I think the change is worth making, the article makes it quite clear what sort of SF he wrote.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His works were all pulp fiction of which a fair number were Sci-fi thus it would be incorrect to simply describes as Sci-Fi. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article body has "a writer of pulp fiction, becoming best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories" which seems the fairest representation, and the infobox is consistent with that. I don't feel strongly either way but will implement WSC's suggestion if there's a consensus among reviewers. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After sitting on it a day or two, would We be ok with simply author? I still think that Pulp Fiction is most appropriate since it covers all his writing (except for his religious Texts) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It would also be good to see something in the legacy section along the lines of "he was survived by x children and y grandchildren", in 2???, z years after his death the religion he founded claimed q million adherents worldwide.
    This looks do-able. While the names and birth dates of his children are sourced, I'm not certain of finding sources for who survived him. I will check (over the weekend rather than today) and report back. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, we can only use what can be sourced, but I think a biography should have this sort of info if it can be found. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a section on the overall success of his fiction in the legacy section (rather than in the section on the Golden Age, since the stats used are much more recent). I've also added a paragraph about his family since his death. I'll see what other editors say about the infobox. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I have not yet checked out the sources, but I have a couple of points which I think need attention immediately:-

Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I will work on both of these straight away. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both suggestions now implemented (thanks to ResidentAnthropologist for fixing the columns). MartinPoulter (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position.
Atack's book, which is sourced to a similarly high standard, comes to substantially similar conclusions to Miller. So does the recent New Yorker piece. Note this interview in which author says "We've had five fact-checkers involved in this story. Even the head of the fact-checking department weighed in. And one of the checkers was on the story almost full-time since August." If you look up in Nature_(journal) about Hubbard, the short biography you find (doi:10.1038/331125a0) is sourced to Miller and Corydon, strongly recommending the former over the latter. A TV documentary, "Secret Lives: L. Ron Hubbard", followed the structure of the book closely and Miller appeared on camera. In summary, the book is an ideal source for a professional-quality article; so much so that it would be dubious to have a WP biography of Hubbard that didn't use it as a major source.
In fairness to the Scientologists, we need to balance the critical books' perspective, hence the citation of Church of Scientology sites. An article that took on wholesale the idea that the Church's official biography is mythical would be open to charges of non-neutrality. In addition, that official story plays a central role in the Scientology belief system (as per the Rothstein & Christensen refs) and that story is perhaps the principal way in which Hubbard has an ongoing cultural impact. The article would be severely incomplete if it did not present that story, presenting it *as* the official Scientology version and as disputed. This is exactly what the article does.
In summary, let's move on from wholesale arguments about sources to discuss the sourcing of specific statements. I'm open to discussing areas where you think certain sources are over-used, and what you've done in the case of the "most-translated author" claim is a constructive example. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are utilizing sourcing as appropriate and working hard to us the best research available to you. Your lengthy explanation has put my mind at ease about the sourcing concerns. It seems that my concerns while valid in general Wikipedia editing are misplaced here. Your "Church's official biography is mythical as non-NPOV" is interesting argument. I am not anti-Sci, but do have honest concern about the social construction of myth in action thus was a tad concerned to see so many CoS Refs. I do not think that CoS ref are by default unreliable but must be used with care. You seem to be doing a very good job so far on a very thorny article. I am impressed and wish I could be putting more effort in it myself Right now. I am about to go through combing the article some more. I There is so much baggage with LRH and CoS articles on Wikipedia I am glad to see some one is braving it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your understanding, RA, and your recent improvements to the article. As you've seen, I've re-factored a paragraph that was entirely dependent on CoS refs. If there are specific areas of the article which are over-reliant on a particular ref, I'm very open to further improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"theta being" or thetan – an immortal, omniscient and potentially omnipotent entity that had forgotten its full capabilities and was trapped in a "meat body." I am assuming this is quote from the book. IS there any way we can rephrase it so it doesnt sound so bizzare and so we dont need the "scare quotes" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up this long sentence, added a couple of extra references and removed "meat body". That is the term used in Scientology for a person's physical body, but you've got a point that this is a lot for the reader to take on. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx Thetan is nesscary Jargon "Meat body" is not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks after becoming "Dr." Hubbard, he wrote to Helen O'Brien – who had taken over the day-to-day management of Scientology in the United States – proposing that Scientology should be transformed into a religion. This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections.[2] The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people[3] that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[4] (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.[5])
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Winfield was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Streeter, p. 215; Miller, p. 213
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Atack-137 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Methvin, Eugene H. (May 1990). "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult". Reader's Digest. pp. 1-6.
  5. ^ Did L. Ron Hubbard state that the way to make money was to start a religion? Church of Scientology International, 2003, retrieved February 8, 2011.
My concern is this is one the most contentious point in the LRH life. I am not sure we are approaching it neutrally here. Its an establised part of Anti-sci rhetoric but its dubious accusation. However not having the sources in front of me I cannot evaluate how they are sourcing this statement? Do the sources just ask to assume good faith on the thier credbility? or do they actally cite something for these? I would be more comfortable with citation to more neutrally sourcing rather than polemical books. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a good point that this section needs better sourcing. Hubbard's letter to Helen O'Brien was entered into court records in California. This is the primary source on which the third-party books base that claim. When I next have access to Lexis, I expect to be able to pull up the original source. Maybe a quote would be more neutral than an interpretation?
As for the "make a million dollars" quote, it's not just from the Reader's Digest; I've added a couple more references. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: there *is* a quote from the letter in the article, so that itself isn't a solution. I understand your questioning the sentence "This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections," and will work on an improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: While I accept the necessity of sourcing controversial claims as well as possible, and I've worked to improve the passage in question, I just want to say that I don't accept the broad-brush characterisation of "polemical books". The Times Literary Supplement's review of Miller's book actually used it as point of criticism that the book left conclusions to the reader. The Miller and Atack books have both been praised in reviews for meticulously documented research. In the case of A Piece of Blue Sky, it was actually a point of criticism in a review that Atack's concern to back up his claims with citations got in the way of the story. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This rewrite for NPOV is preferential to me does it seem fair to you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of the Church's response being set out in more detail. Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm uneasy with "allegedly" on its own. That merely implies "somebody says", when we have Miller, the Independent, TIME and Reader's Digest stating it as fact, as well as a Los Angeles Times article from 27 August 1978, ("Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard: official biographies seem larger than life") which gives the same quote. There is also fellow sci-fi writer Lloyd Esbach whose autobiography quotes Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." This is used as a source by Atack and by Reitman. Along with other appearances in books and news, we're into double figures with the RSs that use either of these quotes. Miller quotes two more of Hubbard's friends attributing similar statements to Hubbard in the 40s: see Wikiquote.
I don't want to interrupt the narrative with a long discussion of what exact words Hubbard used. How about "The idea may not have been new; contemporaries later recalled him having said in the late 1940s that the best way to make money would be to start a religion." ? That bases the statement on memory, but the ex-post memory of multiple people. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perosnally a quote from publication 1978 says a quote from 1948 but no source other mention can be found prior to that source seem dubious to me. I also think the CoS source is equally suspicous for different but fairly obvious reasons. Thus both seem dubious I have reworded it again does this seem a fair compromise between the contesting narratives? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very happy with that. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you spell out your argument in more detail, please, so that it can be addressed? How does the Conflict of Interest policy apply to any of the article's sources? In what sense does the article lack balance or integrity? If this is about the Church of Scientology publications being cited, I dispute that the article is "wholly or mostly based on" them, or that they are presented as factual.
It seems we are having an open discussion here. I've set out my justification for the sourcing at length, and have no problems discussing further, so please Assume Good Faith rather than accuse me of brushing issues under the carpet. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even with good faith, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying above either. Which ones are "such sources"? Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to me to be an actionable objection. I can't see what article improvements Quantumsilverfish is asking for. Thanks to Johnbod for reassuring me that I'm not just being dense. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At 21:37, 21 February 2011, I invited Quantumsilverfish to contribute further to this discussion. The account has not been active since making the comment above on 13 February. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer's opposition will not be considered actionable since there is no participate or follow-up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highlighted (by me) bit in a Malko quote seems maybe odd: "Hubbard's career at George Washington University is important because many of his researches and published conclusions have been supported by his claims to be not only a graduate engineer,...". Probably an accurate quote, but just checking.
  • Re Navy service: "that he was only awarded a handful of campaign medals ..." seems begrudging! Suggest a rephrase.
  • Another quote check: "Hubbard] has worked on all types of cases. Institutionalized schizophrenics, apathies, manics, depressives, perverts, stuttering, neuroses – in all, nearly 1000 cases." Not "apathetics"?
  • The punctuation gets a bit messy at: "The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people[200] that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[180] (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.[201])" Probably lose the last set of brackets.
  • "Hubbard, his wife Mary Sue and his secretary John Galusha became the administrators of all three corporations.[206]" - is this the correct term under US company law? Not "directors"? Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. Your first point requires me to consult a reference that I haven't got in front of me, so I'll comment later about that. The others I've fixed: yes, "apathies" is a genuine quote. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Malko quote is verbatim. I'll add comments to the article to indicate the quotes as such. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with these suggestions. Sorry for recent absence: day job has been kicking off over the last few days. I will have more time to look at the article (and the recent edits) within the next 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Responding to Nergaal's comment and those since: I've addressed the length issue above in my reply to Stifle, and I totally agree with Johnbod's comment above. I understand the length is a sticking point, though. I think something can be done quite quickly to skip through his early life and some family detail and get more quickly to the "meat" of his major life events: I'll need a bit more time to work on this, and I've asked the original author to help. One of the criteria for an FA is thoroughness, and for this reason - along with the complexity of the subject and the diversity of sources - radical surgery on the article is unwarranted. Thanks Mike and JN for informing the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the improvements, Helatrobus: the article still has excellent flow. I agree about the significance of LRH's military career: It's mentioned extensively in both critical and Scientology sources. It's a centrally important era in his life, and highly contested, so it deserves the treatment that the article presently gives it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that Newty's objection has been met, but I wait for Newty's own input. I note that Helatrobus has invited further discussion, and that Newty hasn't been on WP much in the last few days (Nor have I: apologies for that!) MartinPoulter (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Poulter, JN466 and Resident Anthropologist have already confirmed above that they are happy. I have left messages for WereSpielChequers and Johnbod to ask them to re-review the article. Of the opposing editors, Quantumsilverfish has not made any edits for three weeks, nor has he responded to queries about his vote. Newty has also not been on WP for several days, as Martin notes, but the other editor who opposed on the grounds of length (Nergaal) has confirmed that he is now happy with the article. The alterations have mainly consisted of rewording and the excision of some non-essential text, mostly in the first few sections. I would be grateful, by the way, if you or one of the other delegates could close this review as soon as possible, as I am keen to secure the March 13 slot on this month's queue in order to meet the centenary date. Helatrobus (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for being proactive there. I will be going through the queue this weekend to promote/archive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a spot-check, I noted problems with MOS:CAPTIONS. While not showstoppers, if there are any MoS nerds watching that would go through and fix these things, it would certainly strengthen the nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting this. I've cut down the length of captions generally, turned some sentences into sentence fragments, and removed periods from sentence fragments. One caption still has full sentences, but I think it's justified. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the re-review, Johnbod. There's still the future option to create a sub-page to preserve the discarded material. The edits have made the article as a whole more accessible, so I don't personally regard them as "damage". MartinPoulter (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [57].

Herbie Hewett

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked on it for a while I think that it meets the criteria. A couple of points to note are that there are a couple of issues unresolved from the peer review; I'm currently working on getting these cleared up, mostly involving having a little dig around some offline sources that is taking more time than I'd like. However, please feel free to repeat any of these as a friendly reminder for me to get them done! As noted in the peer review: "Primarily due to the fact that he wasn't an overly prominent player, and due to the time period he played in, there is little information on his personal (and non-cricketing) life. It is unlikely that much more can be revealed on this, although little gems may be gleaned." Harrias talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A couple of external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ESPNcricinfo links, thanks. Harrias talk 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • With the exception of Inner Templars who volunteered and served in the great war (1916), these sources were all added by User:Nigej. I have left a message on his talk page dated 17 January 2011, asking for most information on these references. If this information is still not forthcoming as we approach the close of this candidacy, I'll have to remove some of the information unfortunately. Harrias talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this issue should have been resolved before bringing this to FAC, particularly if you yourself have not seen the cited material. The removal of material relating to these refs could substantially alter the article content. Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being honest, I forgot that hadn't been doing - I had been holding off on nominating the article until we'd worked the issue out one way or the other, but then was glancing through articles the other day, and couldn't remember why I hadn't nominated it. So it's me being a bit stupid I'm afraid. Looking online I've managed to work out a fair bit of information about some of the sources: see numbers 25, 43, 44. Although I haven't see the sources themselves to verify the information, will this level of detail on the references suffice? I can come up with similar for the Cricket: A weekly record of the game, but they would still be lacking issue number. Apologies again for my forgetfulness! Harrias talk 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made them consistent.
*See my comment above Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No single references covers all the facts given in the preceding sentence: each of the four gives something a little different: start date, end date, position and what branch he served in. I will try and clean the duplicates up higher in the article though. Harrias talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 97 (the obituary) mentions nothing about Hewett's war service; ref 98 only lists his name. These citations are redundant. I suggest you slightly rephrase the sentence so that it reflects the information in sources 95 and 96. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the online sources are archived scorecards, so spotchecking has been highly limited. Other than the above points, sourcing seems adequate and reliable. I will try to return for a more general review later on. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Generally a very good article. Certainly comprehensive. It may benefit from a light copy-edit in places, which I may be able to try in the next day or two if Harrias has no objections. A few points and questions.

In that case, maybe put that it. Was this from Nigej? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was from Nigej: he changed it slightly to "played in a trial match at Oxford but without success." - I've removed the 'but' which seemed superfluous, but I'm not sure if the overall change has made the sentence any less ambiguous? Harrias talk 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that covers it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to leave it out as it strikes me as one of Mr Foot's flights of fancy (don't know if you ever read his biography of Hammond!), but I've no personal objection to this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had a torch on his head: so it was brightly! No, I understand your view on both of these, but as yet haven't worked out what to put instead. I will change them when I think of an alternative (feel free to dive in if you can suggest anything). Harrias talk 11:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed, but the quote does not actually make sense. A splendid display of free and taking cricket? I'll ping Nigej for this, but it may just need cutting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej replied and suggested taking it out as it was correct but slightly archaic, so I trimmed it back. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look; I've certainly got something to ref this for post 1918, but I might know where to look. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it in the end, and it reads very clearly now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I think the part about the CC only just starting, but I probably wouldn't even mention the first match as it does not seem particularly important. The second seems much more interesting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little dubious, but only because I believe it was all a little woolly around then, and I don't think they would have seen 1890 as much different to the previous years. But not a big deal at all. To be honest, Blackjack is the man for this and I believe he's gone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at Times, but apart from match reports, there doesn't seem to be anything else helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good generally, though. As I've got quite a long list of comments, I'll move them to the talk page once they've been addressed, if that is OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments: a fair bit to tweak around here: I have addressed some of the points towards the start of the article. I haven't signed each reply, hopefully that won't cause an issue. Will continue to cover the points over the next few days. Also, if you have a Times subscription, anything else you can dig out would be grand *wink* Harrias talk 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, probably at the weekend. I also was reading the biography of C. B. Fry the other day and spotted something about Hewett having a row with the captain of the ship he was on. I'll dig that out as well if it helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this some time ago and felt it was close to FA quality then. All of my concerns have been addressed since, and I am glad to support. I have a few quibbles, which do not detrct from my support.

  • This was brought up at the Good article review; to quote what my reply there: "I assume Grace was using 'Varsity as an abbreviation for university. Not sure, but it's what he uses." Harrias talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand cricket, but I enjoyed this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple small things

Support: A really good article which has got even better in the last few days, when I've been unable to do anything! I've performed a minor copy-edit, and my only worry is how readable it is to non-cricketers. The above supports reassure me about this, however. It is very comprehensive and readable, and I doubt there is anything about Hewett which is not covered and explained here. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It did come from that, but thinking about it, he continued to play club cricket beyond that, so it could theoretically have been later. I've removed the image until more information can be found out about it.Harrias talk 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of information regarding the lead image I propose to do the following:
  1. Remove the lead image
  2. Place File:HTHewett1892.jpg as the lead image.
  3. Contact Nigej to try and get more information on File:Somerset1892 RedLillywhite1893.jpg and File:OxfordUniversityCricketXI1886.jpg.
  4. Move File:Hewett & Palairet.png to purely Wikipedia.
  • That all sounds fine. As I said, the only real objection I see is to the first image (which you are intending to remove). If you can find out more about the image (specifically when it was first published and where), it will be fine. For the other images, they are all fine on Wikipedia (because they were published before 1923), and there is no requirement at FAC (as far as I know) to upload them locally if there is some doubt about whether they are OK for Commons. You may be better off asking on Commons about the images, and then uploading them locally depending on what you are told there (but again, as far as I know, the images only have to meet Wikipedia image policy, not Commons image policy - I only mention it here because of the possibility objections may be raised on Commons in future). Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [58].

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 97th edition of the oldest soccer competition in the United States broke an attendance record set in 1929 and was the first time a team repeated as champion since 1983. After a GA review, and an effective peer review, I believe it meets the requirements of a featured article. I look forward to following up on review comments/suggestions as quickly as possible. I invite the editors here to follow the link and learn more about the most recent iteration of this great American sporting event as they review the article. SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the images. --SkotyWATC 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Have not had time to spotcheck, though. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I will try to review this properly a little later; it looks an excellent piece of work. Just one thing for the moment; the statement that "the Timbers were able to tie it up" will read oddly to British ears. Here, in sporting terms, to "tie something up" means to seal a victory, whereas what you mean is that the Timbers "levelled the score". Would it offend American readers too much if you reworded for clarity? (In Britain, for reasons unknown, the term "tie" is never used in football, as we call it, to denote equal scores.) Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Often WP:ENGVAR comes into play in these discussions and editors end up favoring American terminology for American articles. That said, with your suggestion we can have the best for both hemespheres I think. I've made the change and I found another instance of the word "tied" one sentence later but it was redundant, so I removed it. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWATC 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the review. --SkotyWATC 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Yes it should be. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Changed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the one you pointed out and looked through the rest of the article for others. This appears to be the only instance. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not British and this is an article about an American sporting event, so it's a typo. It's entirely possible that they like this way of spelling it though. I dunno. Thanks for catching this, I fixed it. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it originally said "prior to the final", but someone changed it to "before" and forgot to remove the "to". Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. My brain misses nuances like this way too often. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thank you so much for the thorough review. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My issues have been resolved, and the rest of the article looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Most of my issues were dealt with during the peer review, but I've had another look:

—WFC— 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points. I've fixed each one of them as suggested. Thank you for the review. --SkotyWATC 05:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that I've noticed is that there are a few gaps of upwards of 10 minutes. Obviously that'll be because little happened, but do you reckon you could get a few words into some of them? It could literally be half a sentence in each case, and it may even be that one or two of them were so drab that nothing has been written about them, and therefore for WP:V reasons you won't be able to. But as an example I think you need something to bridge between the Crew's first goal and Seattle's equaliser. Even a phrase or sentence as simple as "Against the run of play, Seattle equalized...", "After a period of sustained possession, Seattle equalized..." or "Few chances were created in the period after the goal. Seattle equalized..." would suffice. —WFC— 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(if you were to use the last one, you'd probably need a more gentle introduction than "Seattle equalized", but you get the idea. —WFC— 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is tough. What's currently in the article are all of the events that were mentioned in post-match write-ups. However, here is the play-by-play article from the club (already referenced in a few cases). It has play summaries for about every 2-3 minute interval in the match. I've tried to strike a balance between detailing every event of the match and only hitting the highlights. I'll go back through that play-by-play listing and try to add some summary statements as you suggest to bridge between the more notable events of the match. I'll try to complete this work within the next day. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWATC 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on this (life took precedence for a few days). I've gone back through several match reports and filled in a number of gaps in the prose covering the match itself. Here is the diff. Thank you for the suggestion to look at these again. The additions definitely represent more complete coverage of the actual event, so this is great. --SkotyWATC 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was worth the wait. I have to confess that when I saw the diff in isolation, I was slightly concerned about the balance of the match report- on first sight it seemed rather Seattle-centric. But I read the first and second half sections through as a whole and compared the prose with the stats, MLS Soccer play-by-play and the highlights, and concluded that the balance is fine. However (sorry to keep throwing these one last thing's in) the sentence "Seattle created many dangerous attacks early on as they continued to control the tempo of the game, but could not find a clean strike on goal." needs to be scrapped and rewritten, as it's too close to the source. —WFC— 06:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to: "Despite Seattle's continued control of the tempo of gameplay early in the second half, they were unable to create many scoring opportunities." This contains the same message, but completely different wording. Better I hope? --SkotyWATC 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I can now be considered a full support. Well done! —WFC— 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This particular sentence came up in the peer review and it was rewritten. The only independent source that covered the growing importance of the tournament was this one, but it doesn't say enough to back up the prose. I've removed the last paragraph completely. Since it was almost removed during peer review anyway, I think this is an appropriate resolution of the issue. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done a sample of three paragraphs of the article: the section "First half". I have quite a few prose and sourcing concerns arising from those paragraphs which, as a sample, suggest to me that the article isn't quite there yet.
  • Seattle had most of the early scoring opportunities.: What source is this based on?
This was more of a summary statement than a challengable fact. That said, the phrase "Seattle had the better opportunities early" is used to describe the first half in this source. I've added the ref to this sentence. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle midfield Steve Zakuani...: midfielder?
Yup, sorry. This sentence was modified as followup to recent FAC review comments, and I missed this. Fixed now. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • who's should be whose
Fixed. This is one I never get right, so thanks for pointing this out. This was missed by earlier reviewers because it too was added very recently. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some play-by-play content is sourced to footnote 30, which links here. Has the direction of this link changed? There's noplay-by-play analysis there.
The ref names got mixed up. Those should have been pointed at this one. I think the ref name was switched in one of the recent edits causing the whole group to point to the wrong URL. I've fixed them now. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hejduk got forward behind: "forward behind" is not an easy expression to follow.
Completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart: do you "pass the ball into" a person?
Got stuck between two thoughts on this one. "into the area" was the original intention, but it was changed to the person receiving the pass instead. However, this has been completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content on the Burns goal is too close to the wording of the source. The article says: The play developed on the right side as Hejduk got forward behind the Seattle defense and passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart, who touched the ball to a wide-open Kevin Burns for a low shot past diving Kasey Keller into the corner of the goal. The source says: The buildup came on the right side, where defender Frankie Hejduk got behind the Seattle defense and cut the ball back to forward Steven Lenhart, who set up the wide-open Burns for a low shot to the corner of the goal past diving goalkeeper Kasey Keller. It's largely the same words re-arranged.
I've made an effort to paraphrase and rewrite whenever pulling information from sources for this article. I was obviously lazy on this one. I've rewritten the passage as follows: "The play developed on the right side when Hejduk made a low pass to Steven Lenhart from a forward position. Lenhart touched the ball to Kevin Burns for a low shot inside the far post for a goal." --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few chances were created after the goal as Columbus' strong defensive play held off Seattle's attacks: This is sourced here but I can't find support for the statement in the source.
This, again, is a summary statement. However, the point about Columbus' strong defensive play was inspired by this text found in that source at the 37th minute: "Columbus is taking a highly defensive posture right now." I don't think I've misrepresented the source, but if you disagree, I'm happy to make changes. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gruenebaum, who was still out of position after the earlier confusion: What earlier confusion? The article doesn't have any reference to earlier confusion.
This was in reference to this text "Crew goalkeeper Gruenebaum hesitated on how to handle the ball" appearing 2 sentences earlier. Perhaps too much of a stretch for the reader? Regardless, if I just remove "after the earlier confusion" it doesn't change much, so I've gone ahead and removed it. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columbus continued to play defensively following the goal and few scoring opportunities were created before halftime: This is sourced here but I can't find any statement supporting the Columbus playing defensively claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is more of a summary statement than a reference to a direct quote in the source. The only entries in that source between Nayassi's goal and halftime are a clearance, a yellow card, and a hard foul all from Columbus. You may not think that describes defensive play, so I've removed the first half of that sentence. Not much is lost with the removal, so no biggie. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your comments may be construed as indicating a more systemic problems throughout the article, I don't believe that's the case. Most of the comments were regarding new additions from the past few days at WFC's request. Moreover, of all the sections in the article, the "First half" section was the one that saw the most added (and overall churn) from this request. Please have a look at another section. While I don't expect that any section is perfect, I don't think any will yield as many problems as the "First half" section did (for reasons I've explained). Regardless, thank you so much for your review. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Second half section now to expand my sample, and I'm sorry I can't support at the moment. Issues:
  • Columbus Crew midfielder Kevin Burns: Why is "midfielder" linked all of a sudden? It isn't earlier.
Because until very recently (10 days ago) it was the first occurance of of "midfielder" in the article. I've moved the wikilink to the first occurance which appears in the "First Half" section. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Riley is a new player here: needs a wikilink to help the reader.
This was also added 10 days ago (3 edits later) and I mistakenly assumed that he had been wikilinked earlier. Thanks for catching this as well. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the ball to bounce out for a goal kick: the source says that Columbus cleared it away, not that the ball went out for a goal kick.
I can't explain this one. It made it through the GA review, the Peer Review, and this entire FA review. I've fixed it to say "and the ball to bounce away before being cleared by Columbus." Thank you for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • crossed a pass: don't you just cross the ball?
Why not. To an American reader crossing a pass makes sense, but so does ball, so I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • offensive-minded substitutions: on what basis are both substitutions offensive-minded, especially the Renteria/Lenhart switch which seems to be between two forwards.
Bringing on a forward with fresh legs in the second half to replace a tired forward is offensive-minded. Doing the same with a defender would not be. Not a problem though. I'm happy to remove the "offensive-minded" qualifier since you disagree. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle made its first substitution in the 85th minute when Sanna Nyassi left the field to a standing ovation. The source says it was the 79th minute and says "huge", not "standing" ovation.
This was my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. The word "huge" seems a little slanted. I'll just remove "standing" and leave it as "ovation". That's exactly in line with the source and still makes me feel goot about being neutral. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other inaccuracy was the reference to the 85th minute, when the source says it was the 79th.
I missed this comment earlier. Fixed now. --SkotyWATC 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the prose is tough in places. I think it needs work, but its the apparent discrepancies between article and source that concern me more. They're not huge things, for sure, but there's enough out of the sample to make me doubt whether the article is up to the high standards required of FA. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can make an overall statement about the article given that you've only reviewed two sections. As I expected, your very detailed review (thank you!) of the different section yielded fewer concerns than the first which makes me feel great about where the article actually is. I'm not saying that any section is perfect (though you've definitly picked the two least reviewed sections in the article) but I knew that the quality would be much higher outside of the "First half" section. Notwithstanding, thank you so much for taking the time to review another section. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the delegate can be satisfied that my concerns in respect of the two sections identified have been addressed (subject to the 79th/85th minute issue above). I just don't have the time to go through the rest of the article (I'm about to go on a four-day wikibreak) which is one of many reasons why I like to review by sampling sections of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the sections you did. I suspect that you picked the "most raw" sections to review, which is great. I say this because I think the most exciting parts of the article are those filled with data, records, and quotes from players and coaches. Therefore, through the GA review, peer review, and most of the FA review, that's what editors and reviewers tended to focus on and fact check. This is why it's super valuable that you reviewed the sections you did. Thank you for doing that, and I'm glad I was able to satisfy the concerns you raised. I'm feeling much better about the quality after your review. --SkotyWATC 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I mentioned images but realized that Commons has some images of Sounders players in the earlier rounds. Not sure if they are better than the qupte box in that section but consider using an image. No change would not change my support but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for adding another picture to the article, but I couldn't find any images of the early 2010 USOC rounds over at Commons. Can you provide a pointer? Thanks. --SkotyWATC 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with your suggestion. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. "road to... somewhere" is more common in America than "route", but both make sense, so I'm following your suggestion. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's redundant. Removed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant as well, removed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both make sense in USEng, so I've switched it to your suggestion. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I thought I had used the full name once per section per player, but I didn't even follow that practice very well. I've cleaned them all up, removing duplicates for 10 different players, such that the first instance of the players name in the article is their full name and wikilinked and all future references are just by last name. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. This was subtle and I lost track of it over several edits. I fixed all references to Sounders FC, Seattle, Columbus, "the Crew", etc. to be singular. --SkotyWATC 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "prior to the semifinal matches" since it's implied that the announcement came first by the ending clause. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm embarrassed that I missed this one. I usually am good at catching these. Thank you. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaahhh! I am ashamed. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "kickoff" is used everywhere now.
Changed it to "was unavailable due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations". I guess this is an American-ism. Hopefully this makes it work for everyone. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence (and link) was added after the DAB review above. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was a great copy review. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article. Hopefully I've addressed all of the items you raised. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support my comments have been addressed, I think the article is in a very good state, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been through the rest of the article and couldn't find any glaring problems. I've made a few minor prose fixes. Just one thing that I'd highlight -- some of the repeat naming of each team is a little off. For example:

On September 1, 2010, the Columbus Crew visited Washington, D.C. to face MLS club D.C. United in the semifinal match at RFK Stadium in front of a crowd of 3,411.[10] Pablo Hernandez scored in the 17th minute on a penalty kick to give D.C. an early lead which it almost held for the victory. However, in the 89th minute D.C.'s Marc Burch deflected a shot by Columbus's Iro into the net for an own goal, tying the score and sending the match into extra time. In the 98th minute, the Crew's Lenhart dribbled the ball into the 18-yard box and was tripped by D.C. United's Carey Talley to draw a penalty. Guillermo Barros Schelotto took the penalty kick and scored the winning goal. The 2–1 final score secured the Columbus Crew's spot in the final.

Can we do without "Columbus" in the final sentence given the mentions earlier in the paragraph? I think there are a few of these in the article. Otherwise, particularly given The Rambling Man's review of much of the content I didn't sample, I no longer have any objection to the article passing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [59].

Parkinson's disease

[edit]
Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A (what I feel) is a complete article in this important disease. PD is the most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease. The article is considered vital, is considered of top importance by the medicine project and receives almost 300000 visits each month. It has recently been considered a GA after a complete review by a user expert in neuroscience, I feel it covers all the main aspects of the disease without going into unnecessary detail, and I have tried to use as high quality sources as possible. It has been stable for more than a year and while my prose is probably not brilliant it has been copy-edited by several editors, and I only hope that this review will further improve the style so it can be considered one of our best pieces of work.--Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: it is correct: nowadays most patients are treated, so time to dependency has increased and data to the natural history of the (untreated) disease is very scarce and comes from quite old studies.--Garrondo (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two sections of the sentence: "it is uncommon to find untreated people nowadays" & "medication has improved the prognosis of motor symptoms" do not bear any relation to each other. Why are they linked by the conjunction "and"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really clear in the ref how they calculate the figure. They only give a table with 4 different studies on the issue. Caption states: latencies to reach succesive Hoehn and Yahr stages. I have reworded to eliminate term "median" so it does not led to confusion.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 0

[edit]

Sources comments: The sources are nearly all from scholarly articles or books and look 100 percent reliable. I have only a couple of format queries/suggestions:-

I have not been able to carry out any spotchecks. Otherwise I'm confident that sources meet the required criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: three disambiguation links revealed by the toolbox, top left of this page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur that there is nothing showing use of lobeline to treat Parkinson's, except for that 2007 paper from Henan about a rat model of Parkinson's. (That paper has not been cited, according to Google Scholar). The NIH has funded a study of lobeline as a treatment for methamphetamine abuse. Our lobeline article has current references on the drug. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 2 external redirects, see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are on the right hand side, which can lead to white spaces in the article in some browsers. The protein structure of File:GDNF.jpg looks different to that at the source given [62]. There is a link at the source to some programs that I presume allow one to rotate the image, which I haven't done because they look way above my level of knowledge. Is the difference so great that the structure shown is not actually that of GDNF, or are they actually the same but seen from different angles? DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the advanced stages of the disease, cognitive and behavioral problems, including dementia are common - either commas both before and after "including dementia' or none, but not one....:::Thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...insufficient formation and action of dopamine.. "insufficient formation and activity of dopamine " (??):::Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so diagnosis is mainly based on symptoms with tests such as neuroimaging being used to confirm diagnosis - two diagnoses in the one sentence - I concede it might be difficult to avoid this here...:::Changed to "for confirmation".--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mitigating symptoms - why not just "lessening" or "reducing"?:::Lessening sounds great.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinsonisms can be divided into four subtypes.. - I haven't seen it pluralised like this. Single as a collective noun?
Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the word "parkinsonisms" -I would have thought "Parkinsonism can be divided into four subtypes.." or used the term "Parkinsonian syndromes.." Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist (around 80 hits in pubmed) although it may be rare. I have changed to Parkinsonian syndromes as suggested.--Garrondo (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Classification section you have " parkinson plus" with and without hyphens...needs conforming to one or the other.:::No hyphens now.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we owe it to the readers to try and make the article as accessible as possible. It is looking better and I will support soon. I am just mindful of the discussion below and am trying to look extra hard at accessibility vs. jargon vs. losing meaning Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we lose any meaning by using the word "drowsiness" rather than "somnolence"?
Done--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how about "stiffness" for "rigidity"
Most source use rigidity, so in this case I would rather leave it.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is any meaning lost by losing the first two words of "At present, there is no cure for Parkinson's disease..."?
Done... Good catch of "Wp:crystal". Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PD may be less prevalent in those of African and Asian ancestry, although this finding is controversial -why? Do you mean "disputed"?
yeap: changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
repeated inline reference tags to the same reference - If I have a series of sentences reffed by the same source, I often just stick the ref at the end of the series and add <!-- cites previous four sentences --> at the end, os if someone edits it, they can see what the ref actually references. I think this looks better than several same numbers in a row, but not a deal-breaker.....
I add a citation after each line for two reasons: while improving the article it helps me to see what sentences I have checked up against a ref. Second is related to a side problem of WP being edited by anyone: if somebody adds a sentence between other sentences is quite difficult to know if it is backed up by a ref. Adding a ref after each sentence makes it much harder this to occur and unref facts are spotted much easier. I would rather leave refs, but I do not know if there is a consensus for this issue.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then, I can see your reasoning on that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To conclude, I am not seeing much jargon that can be substituted with more common words without losing meaning. Leaning support once queries looked at. Might look over again too.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

[edit]

Provisional impression: too much jargon in introduction. Needs more histopathology adding to the pathology section including brain cell types. "Festination" is rapid shuffling steps and leaning foreword. I did not see palliation in the article, but I could have missed it. As far as I am aware "paralysis agitans" is also used in modern times. I see problems with the article almost everywhere I look; for example, the article says "Most people with Parkinson's disease have idiopathic Parkinson's disease (having no specific known cause).", actually Parkinson's disease is idiopathic. I can only possibly come to the conclusion that this article is not at FA standard. and that it needs a considerable amount of work to bring it to that standard. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty minor points, and with the exception of the "festination" issue (which is easily fixed), all of them are dubious. The "palliation" point is strange, since the current treatment of PD consists of nothing but palliation. Since I don't see any real justification for the level of negativity in this critique, I don't see how it can be addressed. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palliative treatment being treatment at the end of life. The article would do well to describe the gross pathology. Another example is how the section on symptoms starts; "Four motor symptoms are considered cardinal in PD". However, the disease starts gradually, and intellectual capacity is often maintained in the early stages. The article does not give a good clinical picture of the illness. Historical aspects of anticholinergic treatment are missing. I am puzzled by your comment; "Those are all pretty minor points", after I wrote that there are problems everywhere I look. I have not changed my mind, and I do not intend participating in a prolonged discussion. Snowman (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a primary contributor to this article, but I reviewed it and I'm not keen on the idea that I might have missed a bunch of important things. Also I know that there is a reluctance to promote articles as long as justified opposition remains, so I'll address each specific point here:
  • Too much jargon in intro. Possibly, but one must be careful to say things precisely.
  • Festination. Valid point.
  • Paralysis agitans. Understood by doctors but not widely used.
  • Idiopathic. This term is used erratically in the literature, and causes trouble for everybody.
  • Gross pathology. Belongs in a subarticle in my opinion.
  • Intellectual capacity maintained early. The article tries to say this, perhaps not clearly enough.
  • History of anticholinergic treatments. Too much detail for this article in my opinion.
When a review says that there are problems everywhere, but nearly all of the specifically mentioned problems are arguable at best, it's hard to know what to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ponder recent edits to the introduction. Gross pathology is key here - details of the change in the appearance of the substantia nigra in PA is not even mentioned. That intellectual capacity is maintained early in the disease was not properly included in the clinical section. Anticholinergic treatment was the first ever drug treatment of PA, and the discovery of its action was somewhat accidental, and probably would be interesting light reading in the article. I can not understand where you are coming from. I would like to be helpful, although presumptive, and suggest that you have become a little enmeshed with the article, and this may be a time for you to listen more. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you do not find the article good enough. Since most reviewers until this moment disagree with you I hope you could be more specific with your comments. I will try to address some of your comments.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that there is no need for you to express sorrow that I find the article inadequate for FA, and to be honest I think that a patronising approach is not helpful. I would take a long time to catalogue problems I have with the article; nevertheless, for a start please concentrate on careful copy-editing section by section to improve the prose, make the topic more understandable by reducing vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading or erroneous. Quite often reviewers support an article early in the course of an FA, but it can take a further 500–1000 edits before the article is accepted on the FA list. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not really helpful. Comments should be addreasseable and to recommend elimination of "vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading" is in itself quite "vague ambiguous and misleading". Do you have any specific examples? Could you give so editors see what are you referring to (I for example have no clear idea). Finally regarding the "erroneous" above: erroneous is quite an strong word. If you feel that there are any errors in the article please point them out so we can correct them. This edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk at 12:55, 14 February 2011
At this juncture, I have suggested a strategy to make further improvements and to correct too many problems to list. I do not plan to watch this page. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back after 2 or 3 weeks, but that is not a promise. I hope that the small parts of the text that I have focused on by way of an examples will give insights in fixing the rest of the article. If you can not see problems yourself, then I presume that you must wait for more reviewers to help out. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be easier if it was you instead of others, but thanks anyway. I will take a look at your edits in the last few days to see if I can further improve the article following your examples and I promise to include specific info asked for below.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to captions of images.--Garrondo (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is long, and I see a case for putting the history of the science of the subject in a separate article to make way for expansion. To me omitting "morbid pathology" here is like omitting "centre forward" from the "football" article. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Numbered list item

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]

Provisional impression (2). The addition of pallor to the substantia nigra has been added in the pathology section. The addition of the history of treatment of anticholinergic alkaloids is brief and shorter than I expected: Was the effect of atropine was an "accidental" finding? I see that some work has been done towards FA status. However, I found numerous issues remain in a few sections I looked at. I think that the article is not up to FA status. I expect that there are too many issues to list through out the article. This page is not on my watch list. Some examples of the issues I found in sections I looked at: Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A red tulip is a colour not a cultivar - I agree that passage is tricky to illustrate as it declares a red tulip is a symbol but the passage uses another red tulip. I am sure there are alot of red tulip cultivars....I'd be inclined to lose the image if not the cultivar intended. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Garrondo has removed the image. What would really be nice would be to have an SVG of one of the tulip cartoons that are used by a variety of PD organizations. Of course this raises all the usual licensing issues, so I don't think the FA should be held up for this reason -- but it would improve the article in the long run if a usable image could be found. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, that it is not a problem for FA that there is no tulip image. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is specific enough to PD to warrant expansion here - thickened fluids are used in people with strokes or other neurological conditions where gag reflex is compromised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Casliber. A brief mention is enough for the general article. Further details could be added to a secondary article but not here.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just a quick line with appropriate words to say that thickening fluids help because a more viscous fluid is more cohesive and less likely than ordinary drinks to "splash" and cause chocking when swallowing is uncoordinated. Dysphagia is jargon anyway, and could mean a physical blockage. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also explained gastrostomy.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From OED, preventing is; "The action of precluding or stopping an anticipated act or event." It seems to me that "... both measures preventing choking." would be an over-inclusive statement here. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to both measures reducing the risk of choking.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not see any inconsistency. Both sentences say almost the same with different words. Nevertheless I will try to get specific numbers.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the context in the two sections are different. Is there unnecessary and confusing duplication? Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please rephrase last comment. I did not follow you. It would also be important that you looked more carefully before asking for info. Article already said Toxins that have been consistently related to the disease are certain pesticides, such as rotenone or paraquat, and herbicides, with exposure increasing the risk by as much as a factor of two. On further reading of the section I have summarized it since agent orange is only another herbicide, with no more evidence than others and the statement on veterans does not really belong in this article.--Garrondo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the relative risk of smokers versus non smokers as requested.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually is probably almost impossible to say since studies on cost are quite variable on their results depending on country, model of research of the authors, population, etc. I'll take a look into the source tomorrow to see if the say anything more specific on the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the article should reflect that situation better. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already in article without going into uneccesary detail. First sentence on costs already says: but difficult to calculate exactly due to methodological difficulties in research and differences between countries.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The drive to find once daily drugs is true in all areas of medicine. Patches might be more specific but are still used and sought in a variety of conditions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Casliber: Main article is not the place to talk about ways of intaking medication. I believe that info on the chemicals used, without going to details or their different preparations is enough, specially since the section on treatments is already huge.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Treatment Options in the Modern Management of Parkinson Disease by Anthony H. V. Schapira, a review in Arch Neurol. 2007;64(8):1083-1088. Patches are already used in some countries, and a once daily drug seems imminent. There is a lot of details about research in the article, and I think that it is an omission to omit these advances. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are already used. Info was formerly in main article, treatment section (since they are already used it is where it belongs), and moved at some point to the secondary article to summarize. I have brought it back per your request: levodopa subsection now says There are controlled release versions of Sinemet and Madopar in the form of patches that spread out the effect of the levodopa. Slow-release levodopa preparations have not shown an increased control of motor symptoms or motor complications when compared to immediate release preparations.--Garrondo (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a mistake: transdermal patches are dopamine agonists and have shown their efficacy.--Garrondo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

[edit]

A comment to Snowmanradio and FAC delegates: Most comments from Snowmanradio up to now have been to say that the article lacks this or that piece of spezialized info. I agree with him (or her) that those pieces of info are both interesting and are not present in the article. However I disagree with him on that I do not feel that they should be here to this article be a FA article. FA criteria say that is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. and It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail . Parkinson's disease is a huge topic and there are actually more than 10000 reviews on it in pubmed, so it is clear that we cannot have every interesting info on the disease in the main article. When I wrote the article what I did was to look into general reviews on the disease, following them as a guide on what to include. Point is that many of these proposed additions to an already long article are barely or not mentioned at all in general reviews of the disease. My opinion is that best place for that kind of info is secondary articles and that we would be doing a bad favor to the general reader by including them. --Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that you are putting too much of the burden on the reviewers to provide lists of problems. I think I have been clear about the sort of problems that I see in the article. My priority is with other parts of the wiki, and I do not want to spend a lot of time here. I have added a small sample of the sort of problems still in the article below. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Simply eliminated the latter part. More info can be obtained if going to the image description.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image description on commons helpfully gives the original text that was published with the image of the hand-writing, and there is no mention that the writing is small. Without a scale it is impossible to say if the writing is small or not. The "t" in Cahterine looks shorter than the "t" in the surname, so is the writing getting bigger? Presumably it is original research that this specimen of writing exhibits micrographia. I think you could say with certitude that the writing looks like it has been written with a shaky hand, and Charcot describes it at length. I think that the caption should include where the signature came from. There are hints for writing captions in the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First historical description of micrographia is posterior to the publishing of the image. Nevertheless one of the most characteristic characteristics of micrography is that writing gets smaller as the person writes. This is clearly seen in the image, since numbers at the right are much smaller than capital letters and numbers at the left. This is usually related to going upward in the sheet with writing which is also seen. Additionally other sign of micrographia is seen in that there is almost no space inside circles of letters such as "a" or "o" even if we do not have a scale. I would say it is more than sensible to say that it shows micrography, although it would be great to hear other people opinions. --Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked at the definition of micrographia in the OED, which gives; "Unusually small handwriting, often progressive over time, as a sign of various neurologic disorders, esp. Parkinson's disease." To me the size of the handwriting is unknown. To me the size of the handwriting is not small, and it certainly is not unusually small. I maintain that calling this handwriting micrographia is original research. Any tendency for the letter to become smaller is marginal and counterbalanced by "t" which becomes bigger. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a neuropsychologist I am quite sure of its micrographia, but as you say that is OR and if controverted I will not discuss over its inclusion. I have eliminated mention to micrographia. Just for curiosity: meaning of OED?--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The on-line version of OED, now wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded section to include pill-rolling and frequency of tremor.--Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded description of bradykinesia. --Garrondo (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully rewritten the paragraph using further sources and expanding content. I hope it is clearer now.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done per above.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made amendments. Incidentally, it is easier to feel cogwheel rigidity than see it. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the history section is brief and in adequate and the topic does not have a main article. The discovery of the use of atropine in parkinsonism should really be expanded to give it a higher priority, and I would say that there are serious omissions here. Please re-think data organisation. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to back up that atropine importance is underrepresented or is it just your opinion? We have several articles on history of the disease as sources and the only one that mentions disovery of atropine is "The history of movement disorders and says: "Belladona alkaloids were empirically identified as helpful in Parkinson's disease in the latter half of the 19th century. Charcot noted that the anticholinergic alkaloid hyoscyamine (the levorotatory form of atropine) was modestly beneficial for the tremor of Parkinson's disease, as reported in the doctoral thesis of his German student Ordenstein in 1867 (Foley, 2003). In 1887, Wilhelm Erb successfully introduced scopolamine (initially somewhat confusingly called “hyoscine”) (Foley, 2003). Similar preparations were used for generations with at best modest success. Synthetic centrally acting anticholinergic medications were introduced in the 1950s and were soon adopted because they were associated with fewer systemic side effects (Corbin, 1949 K.B. Corbin, Trihexyphenyl: evaluation of a new agent in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, JAMA 141 (1949), pp. 373–381.[Corbin, 1949] and [Dorshay and Constable, 1949])." I will try to get Foley 2003 (PMID 15641199) which is specifically on history of medications.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is something I recall and your solid reply is beginning to cause me doubts on my recollections. I have stored away my older pharmacology books and they are not very accessible. The story I recall wrongly or rightly is that atropine-like drugs were given to geriatric patients to reduce drooling, and it was noticed by chance that parkinsonism symptoms improved. I think it was also used as an example of the chance discovery of drugs, which makes it more interesting. Please do not add this anywhere without a reference to a proper source. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the guidelines say to avoid having text between images to the left and right. It is possible to clear the text from the left of the huge image. Web designers should consider a variety of users screens and browsers, and I see no excuse to be expedient here. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the gait and tremor needs to be seen to be appreciated, and I think that this article should have links to good external resources, and I would call this a FA requirement here. I have not asked for external links in a review before, but I think this is an exception. External links are meant to guide readers to useful external resources and I think that this article is lacking without such helpful external links. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been searching for 40 minutes and I have not been able to find videos of symptoms in reliable sites (many of them on youtube, but hardly reliable). Only thing found is a comparison of a patient with DBS on and off. My reasoning is that reliable sites (NHS, NIH...)do not show PD symptoms videos so as not to scare recently diagnosed patients and their families. I have added the video to the external links section.--Garrondo (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the reliability depends on the authors of the youtube videos. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but since 99 % there are home made or do not give any info on authorship and copyright is really hard to find anything useful.--Garrondo (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
European Parkinson's Disease Association has a set of videos. There is a link to one of these from the EPDA website, so I presume these will be OK to link. There might be more at other self-help organisations. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had alredy seen those in the EPDA site. No copyright problems with them. However most of them are interviews with patients, families and experts, and none of them show the symptoms of the disease which was what you initially asked for, and that is reason what I did not even mention them. I am not sure about the usefulness for the article.--Garrondo (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually: in the same youtube channel there are videos from a public Spanish television, which are copyrighted. Adding a link to the full collection of videos would breach WP policy on external links. I do not think adding the youtube channel is appropiate. --Garrondo (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After further searching I have found no appropiately licensed videos per WP:ELNO with images of patients symptoms. At this point I believe the proposal is hardly actionable.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After even further searching I have added two videos showing symptoms in patients.--Garrondo (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, shaking and gait and so on is shown quite well, albeit with captions and in a foreign language. I think these are helpful. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Just added to the "other" subsection.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a brief line has been added to the "Other" section. I think that some of the changes that can occur prior to diagnoses could be called psychological or psychiatric, and would be relevant to the "Neuropsychiatry" section. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line saying that cognitive changes can also occur prior to diagnosis. Among all neuropsychiatric are the best known to begin early in the course of the disease.--Garrondo (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources say he has PD and he was diagnosed of PD. Text of article already says that some debate this diagnosis. I do not believe controversy should be included in image caption.--Garrondo (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not clear on your meaning with full stops on images. I will eliminate them today (I suppose you only refer to last one in each image).
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only applies to the end of part sentences. This could be the first sentence or the second sentence. It is all in the MoS, if you have any doubts. Snowman (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done it wrong, and this makes me wonder if the editors of the page have read the guidelines or not. I indicated that it is all in guidelines on captions, so do you read up on it? "Presence of Lewy bodies in the brains of those with PD has led to the classification of the disease as a synucleinopathy." This is a full sentence and it needs a full stop. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the caption now reads; "Muhammad Ali in 2006, 26 years after diagnosis of Parkinson's disease". I would call this an over-simplification of the diagnostic issues related to a biography. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to parkinsonism which is probable more adequate: from the source:It has now been 22 years, and quite possibly longer, since parkinsonism began its relentless march through Ali's nervous system. He was diagnosed with parkinsonism, the umbrella term for movement disorders including Parkinson's disease, in 1984, three years after the last fight of his 21-year boxing career. Now, the increasing tremors in his limbs, the painful slowness of his gait, the reports of balance problems and the whispers of falls have led the neurologist who diagnosed him to suspect Ali may in fact suffer from full-blown Parkinson's disease.: He was initially diagnosed of parkinsonism while degenation now indicates PD.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicions of the physician who you have quoted has not been treating M. Ali for a number of years, and it seems to me that he is going on what he has heard indirectly for recent information, which is not ideal for a reliable wiki source for information. I think it would probably be OK to use the part of the reference where he quoted his opinions based from when he was treating M. Ali. Snowman (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... diagnosis of parkinsonism"; is parkinsonism a diagnosis? Snowman (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial on the neurology now article (also used as source in article) says:To tell it as it's never been told, Wally interviewed Dr. Stanley Fahn - one of the world's leading Parkinson's experts, a past president of the American Academy of Neurology, and the specialist who diagnosed Ali 22 years ago. Having had the privilege of working with Dr. Fahn, I know firsthand that he has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's through his own research program, advocacy efforts and the outstanding clinical care he provides. Although he hasn't treated Muhammad Ali in a long time, Dr. Fahn's vast experience with Parkinson's patients gives him insight into Ali's current condition. Moreover "Neurology now" is as reliable as we can get a source for the society section so we are not the ones to debate over its content.--Garrondo (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe that to say "diagnosis of parkinsonism" is correct as it it a syndrome I have changed caption to say "appearance of parkinonism".--Garrondo (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think people know what you mean by "diagnosis of parkinsonism", and on further consideration I think it is likely to be correct as it goes quite a long way in determining the nature of the disorder; although not an exact diagnosis. However, I would say it would be wrong to say "diagnosis of headache", since headache is a symptom. I think in an ivory tower of medicine you would probably get a shower of protestations if you said "diagnosis of parkinsonism". Snowman (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to amend your version of the caption, since with him the time of diagnosis and the time of first showing signs (the appearance of the disease) are years different. I have written a suggestion for the caption. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first edit of the caption. Regarding the second indicating place of photo I am not so sure. In this case info is completely irrelevant to article, and guidelines also say that captions should be succint. Since info on picture is in its description page in this case I would rather have it simpler.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second reading I really did not like info per reasoning above, so I reverted to your previous version.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

[edit]
I agree completely. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intention was to make a difference between microscopy findings from functional knownledge of how the basal ganglia function and are altered in PD. We are not the only ones to make such distinction with same terms: The seminal book by Jankovic and Tolosa has a chapter entitled "Neurophisiology of motor control and movement disorders" (Ch 2), which would be similar to the first section, and another chapter entitled "Neuropathology of parkinsonian disorders" (ch. 22) which would be similar in content to the second section. While I understand your comment I am not sure of a better way to make such distinction. Any proposals would be of aid.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A possibility would be to simply eliminate subheadings. What do you think? Any other ideas? --Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no response I was bold and eliminated subsection titles.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably have been slightly better to have started such a general discussion with a request for other ideas on the talk page. I think that the resulting heading is not appropriate and I have already indicated above why this is. Also, I think that the resulting section is probably too big. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it was quicker to fix this section myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It referred to LBD. Broken paragraph into two for clarity.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part "Thus the two diseases, especially PD with dementia, may be considered parts of the same continuum." does not make sense to me. This is like saying two things are similar except for one of them. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified to: Dementia with Lewy bodies is another synucleinopathy that has many similarities with PD. Thus dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease may be considered parts of the same continuum, and this is even more clear for the subset of PD cases with dementia.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All statistics I have found were country specific. That is reason why I did not add any to lead, but then another reviewer asked for more info, and I simply add that sentence as an example. I could re-eliminate it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely is what "cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric)" refers to, just with another words.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mood problem (ie depression) is not a classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. A thought problem (ie delusion) is not classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded to: neuropsychiatric problems (mood, cognition, behavior or thought alterations),.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visuospatial difficulties is a cognitive problem, not psychological, as it is problems with abstract reasoning or language. Similar to agnosia (although probably less specific). If we (as many sources do) include cognitive problems inside the greater umbrella of neuropsychiatric difficulties the section is its place.--Garrondo (talk)
Regarding alcoholism: not sure on what do you mean. If you ask why is it not mentioned: place would be neuropsychiatry section, close to the other compulsive behaviors, although I do not think it was mentioned in sources. --Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to dry eyes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: I will clarify later or tomorrow.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any changes. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, but it could be better. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a huge paragraph and it can also lead to confusion since although related dementia and cognitive impairment are not the same. I would rather leave it as it is.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I rephrase my point and say "cognitive impairment" is a vague tern and could mean almost anything, so can it be used less often and a specific term used instead where possible. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems less important now after copy-editing by various people. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it was quicker to fix this myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis section already says: "On the other hand, diagnosis can be difficult when the symptoms are not fully typical of PD, since parkinsonism can occur due to a range of causes and the difference with PD may be subtle, particularly in the early stages when symptoms may be mild". --Garrondo (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that bit you quote carefully. A difficult diagnosis to make is not the same as uncertainty of the diagnosis. Also, the article does not go into dealing with uncertainty in the diagnosis. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the difference between the two terms? What is a difficult diagnosis? What is an uncertain diagnosis?...My opinion is simply that some sources prefer one use and others the other: Proof is that we have the NICE guideline in the article and you have brought another similar (although more condensed) scotish guideline. The Scotish one uses "uncertainty in diagnosis" the English one "difficulty". When reviewing more or less the same sources the word "uncertainty" does not appear in the whole NICE guideline related to diagnosis, while the opposite occurs for difficult in the Scotish guideline.--Garrondo (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NICE: "Given the error rate in making a diagnosis of PD, even in expert hands, it is apparent that the diagnosis should be kept under regular review." Snowman (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see your point: that line could be summarised as well with concept of uncertainty than difficulty of diagnosis.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can add this line using uncertainty or difficulty in the section, but with out this extra information, the sense of the uncertainty in diagnosis and the need to review diagnosis is missing. This is an omission. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'I have added: 'Since differential diagnosis may be in some cases difficult patients may be followed and diagnosis re-evaluated and changed if evolution of symptoms is not in line with PD.'--Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On diagnosis of depression: Case is similar to essential tremor below. We have many signs and symptoms and related conditions. in the main article. As there is a secondary article on symptoms in most cases symptoms are only name or briefly described. In no case we say how a specific symptom or comorbid condition is diagnosed. This is the perfect example of an interesting fact too much specific for the main article. I have added it to the secondary article. I believe that sources we have support my decision: Sami's and Davis' general reviews on the disease do not mention it. Neither does the Jankovic article which is centred on symptoms and differential diagnosis. Of the two clinical guidelines NICE guideline only says a line on page 114 (There are difficulties in diagnosing mild depression in people with PD as the clinical features of depression overlap with the motor features of PD.) and the Scotish guideline has a paragraph in page 15 (Accurate recognition, diagnosis and formulation of such disorders is vital, though the process is not straightforward because of the overlap between the cognitive and somatic symptoms of PD and those associated with depression. This may lead to inaccurate diagnosis with some patients with PD being misdiagnosed as depressed when symptoms are caused directly by the PD. In other patients a genuine mood disorder may be missed as symptoms of depression may be wrongly assumed to be caused by the underlying PD.) Taking into account weight given in the sum of these 5 sources main article is not its place.--Garrondo (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too specific for the main article. I have added it the signs and symptoms subarticle, to the tremor paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe sources support my decision: I have taken a look at four of our sources: Nice and scotish guidelines do not even mention it. Sami's lancet source, which has a full subsection between the differential diagnosis of PD and essential tremor neither mentions it. Only one to mention it is Jancovik which only says: "There are several clues to the diagnosis of existent essential tremor when it coexists with PD, including longstanding history of action tremor, family history of tremor, head and voice tremor, and no latency when arms are outstretched in a horizontal position in front of the body, although some patients may also have a re-emergent tremor related to their PD, tremulous handwriting and spiral, and improvement of the tremor with alcohol and beta-blockers--Garrondo (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably will not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The wikilink confounded me.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have checked the Seborrhoeic dermatitis article and looked it up somewhere else, which has no mention of seborrhoea. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at the user that uploaded the image at commons: the image was uploaded in 2005, was the only contribution of the user, has no edited talk or user page at commons and does not have a user page in English Wikipedia. We will have to assume that we are not going to get any extra info. Since an image of neurosurgical operation is not easy to get; much less specifically of implantation of a DBS I would rather have this image in the article even if the image would be improved with further info.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending. I think that the documentation of this image is inadequate. Suggest try asking at user page on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Epidemiology section says: The mean age of onset is around 60 years, although 5–10% of cases, classified as young onset, begin between the ages of 20 and 50: I believe it is close enough.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it is referenced (to Sami et al).--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending: Probably not common knowledge, so I expect this would need a specific reference. Regret my textbook is older than five years, so not ideal for a reference. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that levodopa is copyrighted. Anybody could probably manufacture it in their garage and would not be illegal. Probably not even self consumption for their PD would be illegal. On the other hand selling it would be illegal in most countries (I am not sure even if in all countries).--Garrondo (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have removed the new image. I see no reason for prioritising this preparation in particular by showing a photograph of the tablets. Whey should this preparation have emphasis above the others? Snowman (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask why not: it is as representative as any of the others and since we can not have all of them we have to choose a prototype. Why do we have the structure of GNDF and not other chemicals? A PET image instead of an fmri? An specific PET image made with an ECAT Exact HR+ PET Scanner and not other machines by other enterprises? an image of Ali instead of others mentioned in the article? If we had Fox would you eliminate him since we were favoring his foundation? Why do we have an image of the US army using agent orange instead of other country also using it? Arent we being anti-american accusing that country of using dangerous weapons? I have reverted your elimination.--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one drug should not be picked by showing an image, because it gives that one brand too much emphasis. It is a branded drug, it is not generic. We can go on to talk about the selection of the other images. Image removed again by me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Place for that kind of specific subjective individual point is NOT a FAC but the talk page.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the drug has a role. However, this branded combination is not the most widely used drug in PD. It is not the first choice by most in the early stages of the disease. It is not the cheapest. All these comments are objective. I think that this product placement is actionable and is very relevant in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garrondo, could you state what goal you are hoping to meet by mentioning a specific drug? I do see the value of showing an example of the type of medicine that is actually prescribed. Stalevo gets some credit for having been reviewed in clinical trials, but I can see the argument that another combination could be equally worthy of mention. Is there anywhere we can get data on what medicines are prescribed most frequently? Even if it was just from a specific hospital, or textbook, that said 'pick this drug combination first for a standard PD case.' EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The drug treatment is tailored to the individual patient, so there is no one particular recommended starting drug. The BNF says that the drug combination in the image is useful in end of dose motor fluctuations when not adequately controlled with levodopa and dopa-decarboxilase inhibitors. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really care on which image to use. Stalevo is used in PD and my only point is that it is better than no image and as valid as an image as any other of another drug.--Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it would be better not to select one drug to show unless it was the most popular one used, or the first used, and so on. The image I removed was a tipple drug combination formulation, and the I think that the brand placement was inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, you have given your opinion several times, as have I. That does not make it more or less truth or more or less consensus. From my point of view both reasonings (image should be only the used or any drug used in clinical practic) are valid. Nevertheless I am so tired of only hearing you and me in this discussion that you can have it your way.--Garrondo (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard any reasoned argument to select the triple combination preparation. Your stated view; "I do not really care on which image to use" is not convincing to me. Incidentally, there were three contributors to this thread of the discussion on this image. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a medication specific for PD was reason enough for me, but as I said I would rather not further discuss the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I conclude that the issue is settled and that the image is removed. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and this, similarly to the above is a very subjective, specific, individual opinion which would be best discussed out of the FAC, hearing other people's opinion.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Moreover: the reference we have is specific to the use by the US of agent Orange during the vietnam war and its effects is veterans (although it primary articles it is based on are not specific to veterans.)--Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial and I think that there is no need to highlight this with an image. I think that this image needs proper context and it out of place on this page. I think it should be removed Snowman (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
role of helicopter in war is of not relevancy for this article. Your opinion or any others on the use of any kind of weapons is not a valid reason to eliminate an image. Fact is that agent orange, and its use by US army, has been related to PD by a US government agency. Therefore image is most surely a valid one. Nevertheless I have to point again that such kind of debatable and subjetive proposals is for talk page and not for FACthis edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Surely, an inappropriate image can be discussed here. My remarks about the helicopter are actionable and belong in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather hear other opinions of others and if I have time I will begin a thread in talk page since it is quite subjective issue and you are me are only two people giving their subjective opinion both with partly valid reasons. Nevertheless I reiterate: the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial is a reason of no relevancy for the Parkinson's disease article, and we do have a secondary high quality recent source specifically centre among other things in use of defoliants by US army soldiers. Per such source the image is a valid one. --Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus would most likely minimise subjective ideas. Would make good point for discussion on the article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is made with the specific neurotracer used to diagnose PD shows very well how basal ganglia look in a healthy subject.--Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... But there is not another to show the abnormal findings in PD, so surely it is as pointless as showing a man walking normally or a normal elbow. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know how is normal walking. Most do not know how a PET does. I believe it is useful, you believe it is not. I have stated my reasons you have stated yours. Feel free to start a discussion on talk page of the article to seek opinions by others or bring better image. --Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to reduce page bulk. I think that the best image would be a photograph of a cross section of the brain stem showing a cut surface that shows the substantia nigra. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked many times for good free images in the last year and found none. Feel free to bring one better if you find it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus may be formed on article talk page, if discussion started there. May not influence FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there somewhere in MEDMOS or MOS that says that unless all brand names are named none should appear or is it again a subjective opinion?--Garrondo (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: info is on articles wikilinked and might be a way of reducing a bit the article.--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several is quite vague. In my opinion only short paragraph as of today is the one on motor signs and symptoms, which I plan to expand as soon as I can. At the begining of some sections there are also some sentences that summarize or introduce the section, but which due to their function I would rather leave as they are.--Garrondo (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one paragraph consisting of one sentence; see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just expanded it.--Garrondo (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While probably a good exception to that guideline (as an historical image trying to serve as image for the concept of first seminal description) changed to Charcot image.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus may be gained on discussion on article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here, it may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Websites are NOT reliable sources, Jankovic is. Additionally our article says "such as" which means "some examples but not all problems are named". Regarding ocular pursuit I feel is easy enough to understand. Regarding saccades: clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending: The webpage was a PD society leaflet, and I have no reason to question it. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues are open to discussion, but I think others should be copy-edited in the normal course of ironing out problems from this article, without someone having to prompt at every problem. It has not taken me long to find another list of problems, and a bit longer to write a short list as examples. I reiterate that the article needs more careful copy-editing to reduce vagueness, reduce inadvertent ambiguities, and illuminate misleading or erroneous text. I would anticipate that the article needs a lot of work and that it will take quite a long time to reach FA. I would anticipate that most of these problems should be ironed out without needing a prompt at every issue. If there are no editors that can further copy-edit and enhance the prose then the article is not going to reach FA in my opinion. This page is not on my watch list I am not planing to participate in a prolonged dialogue. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back occasionally or after 1 to 2 weeks, but that is not a promise. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On images to Snowmanradio:

Arbitrary break 5

[edit]
Former, that is why I used or instead of and.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i will take a look at ref and clarify. I would say that the former.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was per patient. Clarified in article.--Garrondo (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6

[edit]
I have simply eliminated the mentioned sentences.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As eliminated no further an issue.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I have reworded the sentence... however since they got parkinsonian symptoms for life it was probably quite neutral to say it was a tragedy.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have never thought of it. Eliminated and reworded. Additionally it was quite redundant in a section entitled research directions.
It was precisely the copy edit of another reviewer in FAC which eliminated it given as reason overlinking. I really do not care one way or another.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the general method, there is not ONE enzyme, but several under investigation and anyway I would say that is very specialized content. --Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite subjetive point. I myself believe that it is precisely an appropiate way to avoid some jargon.
Easter egg links are not in line with guidelines. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed then.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delinked rodent and monkey.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checked and fixed full article. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the formatting of journal titles is not consistent in that the abbreviated titles do not always have fullstops (eg., #9 "Parkinsonism Relat. Disord." vs. #10 "Parkinsonism Relat Disord")
Added full stops and other fixes to refs.--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref #6 has the page range in the format "508-512" (note the incorrect hyphen), which is not the same as the others; also #16, #28, etc.
Fixed ref 6, however hyphens for pages in 16 and 28 are correct. Are you referring to the isbn number? Does it also have to be hyphenated.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the page range format is inconsistent: all three pages are given for starting and ending pages, compared to others which have only the final two pages given. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, Ok, I had not even noticed. Fixed all over article (I think). Is the problem of manually formatting :-) .--Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • have to be consistent in giving states for US cites (e.g. #3 "Hagerstwon, MD:" (note typo) vs. #6 "Totowa:") Fixed by EdJohnston 17:01, 28-Feb-2011.
I am not American and I have no idea on how to do it. If Totowa is the only case it would be of help if you did it. thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American either, but I think "Hagerstwon" is a misspelling of "Hagerstown". Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is ref #24 (Bronstein et al. 2010) in title case?
No idea since I always copy and paste from diberris tool. Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Sasata, at the top of your list it says that this is a list of problems from one section. I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page? Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. If I find more time I'll go through another section and give more examples, but based on what I've read in the one section (& scanning the refs), some more work is needed to make this one of Wikipedia's best medical articles. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
…the management of Parkinson’s disease must take into account the fact that the mainstay of pharmacological treatment, levodopa, can eventually produce dyskinesia and motor fluctuation. Furthermore, there are a number of agents besides levodopa that can help parkinsonian symptoms, and there is the enticing but unconfirmed prospect that other treatments might protect against worsening neurological disability. Thus, a considerable degree of judgement is required in tailoring individual therapy and in timing treatment initiation...
PD is a progressive neurodegenerative condition resulting from the death of the dopamine containing cells of the substantia nigra. There is no consistently reliable test that can distinguish PD from other conditions that have similar clinical presentations. The diagnosis is primarily a clinical one based on the history and examination. People with PD classically present with the symptoms and signs associated with parkinsonism, namely hypokinesia (ie poverty of movement), bradykinesia (ie slowness of movement), rigidity and rest tremor.
Parkinsonism can also be caused by drugs and less common conditions such as: multiple cerebral infarction, and degenerative conditions such as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA).
Although PD is predominantly a movement disorder, other impairments frequently develop, including psychiatric problems such as depression and dementia. Autonomic disturbances and pain may later ensue, and the condition progresses to cause significant disability and handicap with impaired quality of life for the affected person.
Pushing even more technical terms out of the lead is something to consider. It is of interest that the Royal College of Physicians manages to condense the material now in the third paragraph of our lead into just three sentences (those in the first paragraph of the above small-print excerpt).
The following text in our current lead could surely be moved elsewhere, or made shorter:

The main symptoms are collectively called parkinsonism, or sometimes a "parkinsonian syndrome". They can arise from a variety of causes. Parkinson's disease is often defined as a Parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic (has no known cause), although some atypical cases have a genetic origin.

This has the flavor of 'bookkeeping' on the disease definition, and may not register any meaning at all for a lay person. The second sentence has the air of a contradiction (idiopathic but also of genetic origin). The subtle boundaries of parkinsonism vs PD could surely be moved later in the article (or only vaguely addressed in the lead), and I see some people are already objecting to 'idiopathic.' That is the kind of word that ought to be pushed into the fine print lower down, if at all possible. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might make sense to move that material out of the lead. The confusion about idiopathic versus genetic, though, is simply a reflection of confusion in the literature. If PD is defined as idiopathic, then the consequence is that as soon as we know what caused any given case of parkinsonism, it isn't PD! Therefore PD becomes mysterious by definition, which is ridiculous. The definition of PD as idiopathic was really meant to exclude parkinsonism caused by certain identifiable forms of damage, not to define PD out of existence as soon as all cases are understood. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual maximum number of headings in the introduction is four, with five being used in exceptional circumstances. Can the introduction be formed from four paragraphs here, or is this article one of the exceptions? This long introduction could indicate that the article is too long. Perhaps, the history sections of this article could be substantially shortened and a better expanded main page on the history of the science of the disease could be created. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the number of paragraphs in lead? It is right now 4 paragraphs so I am not sure to understand your comment...--Garrondo (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is four now. There used to be five. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly relevant for the FAC, but I have checked 1 version each day along the whole FAC and there has not been 5 paragraphs at any point (although it may have been at some intermediate version in a single day...).--Garrondo (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake with number of paragraphs. I presume I counted wrong by loosing visual reference points with scrolling up and down unevenly. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Ed: Less is not always better. In my opinion our third paragraph is more informative than those in the guideline. That certainly has some advantages: if somebody only reads the lead (which many people do) at least they will have some idea on the fact that there are several possible treatments for the disease and its symptoms, which would hardly occur with the introduction of the NICE guideline. Regarding mention of parkinsonism vs PD: I would leave it. The lead is expected to summarize the whole article and if we want "classification" to be included in the lead the difference between the two has to be included. Nevertheless I am open to any proposals.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Ed is User EdJohnston. His last edit is several lines above. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to PD including genetic causes (at the top of this section). It does seem paradoxical that genetic cases are included with the "idiopathic disease" PD, but it does seem to be the case, as seen in SIGN guidelines. I think that every attempt should be made to explain this paradox of terminology in simple and clear English. It is probably easy to see why it could look silly to some (although it is correct), if it is badly explained on the wiki. Perhaps, explanation of the atypical presentations of genetic cases could also be added for clarification. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Snowmanradio: I have created a history subarticle and summarized in main page.--Garrondo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 7

[edit]
  • Resolved issues should have a strike through. It would be even more confusing, if relevant parts of this FAR were removed to the article talk page, hence I think that nothing about resolved issues should be removed from this page. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just looked at every comment I have made on this page and put a strike to the resolved issues. Incidentally, I have been minimising my feedback and just choosing examples from a few sections. Snowman (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviation 'LB' for Lewy Bodies is only used three times. It would be clearer if we drop the abbreviation and spell it out in every case.
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link from the Infobox to the GeneReviews book does not work, and I couldn't fix it. It should go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1223. The book is entitled 'Parkinson Disease Overview.' There seems to be some trick with how that template is coded. The template works fine in the Autism article.
No idea on how templates work, nor where to find help to fix it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFW commented above on File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg, suggesting that 'some of the layers moved about when the images were converted to PNG format'. I suspect that the image is not broken, but I don't think it has any expository value here. My vote would be to drop it from the article. Certainly the article text does not try to explain any of the terms introduced in the figure or in its caption. Too much detail for this level of narrative, and it does little to help the reader understand the mechanism of PD. What we should get across to the reader is: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (We basically say this in the third paragraph of Pathophysiology).
I agree that the image is probably too specialized for the level of detail of the article. I have eliminated it and the related one in the levodopa section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To deal with the paradox that idiopathic Parkinson's could have a genetic cause, how about trying to say 'primary Parkinson's' wherever we can, instead of 'idiopathic Parkinson's'. The ICD-10 seems to treat the two terms (primary and idiopathic) as almost synonymous. It would not be puzzling if primary Parkinson's ultimately turns out to have a genetic cause. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the GeneReviews issue since I was able to locate the document code and fix the link. Also struck out two other items that were fixed by Garrondo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On "idiopathic parkinsonism"

[edit]

Since discussion on the correcteness-uncorrectness according to sources and clearness-unclearness of explanation on article of the issue of PD being defined as primary and idiopathic, with the addition of genetic forms, has been commented by several reviewers backs and forwards in their opinions it might be a good idea the centralize discussion in this subsection. It might be even better if reviewers cut and pasted their comments in this specific issue and moved them here.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I have tried to clarify the situation in the classification section: right now article reads like this: Parkinson's disease is the most common form of parkinsonism and is usually defined as "primary" parkinsonism, meaning parkinsonism with no external identifiable cause.[2][3] In recent years several genes that are directly related to some cases of Parkinson's disease have been discovered. As much as this can go against the definition of Parkinson's disease as idiopathic, genetic parkinsonisms with a similar clinical course to PD are generally considered true cases of Parkinson's disease. Changes include addition of the word "external" to give more importance to the "secondary" term, and the addition of the last sentence specifically stating problems with the definition. Comments and ce would be greatly appreciated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New lead (addressing 'idiopathic')

[edit]

Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox, a proposed draft for the article lead, which (in my opinion) helps to deal with the 'idiopathic' problem. It also tries to fix three things that bothered me about the existing lead:

  1. The opening section was trying too hard to cover all the bases, making it unclear whether it was describing a well-defined disease entity
  2. The real test for the disease is the presence of Lewy Bodies. They can only be checked for post mortem
  3. None of the therapies can reverse the effects of the disease or cure it. They are just a way to address the symptoms. (This point is made in the sub-article Treatment of Parkinson's disease), but was not stated in the main article.)

Please look at this proposed lead and see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great to me.--Garrondo (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. A further sentence I am hoping to put in the lead is some form of this capsule of PD: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (This would be reworded properly and would be checked against the references before being added). EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that the revision is an improvement -- I think that naive readers will find it much more confusing. I don't believe that there is any way of briefly explaining the distinction between PD and parkinsonism that readers won't find confusing -- even professionals in the field are often confused by it. The best course of action, therefore, is to keep the explanation in the lead short, and make sure that it does not spread confusion to other aspects of the lead. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sporadic Parkinson's disease

[edit]

Our article uses the term 'sporadic PD' but does not define it or provide a link to any other article. There is a book by Braak and Tredici, called "Neuroanatomy and Pathology of Sporadic Parkinson's Disease", which appears to use 'sporadic PD' as though it were a synonym for primary (or idiopathic) PD. Should we add 'sporadic PD' in the lead as yet another synonym? EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a good points. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sporadic PD is the opposite to familial PD, so it is closely related to idiopathic-primary.--Garrondo (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "The terms "familial Parkinson's disease" and sporadic Parkinson's disease" can be used to differentiate genetic from truly idiopathic forms of the disease. to the classification section.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (4): I have had a close look and edited one of the sections namely the diagnosis section, and I found that the readability problems there were dense. Essentially, I think that the original diagnosis section required re-writing with odd parts being checked against sources, and that work on that section is not completed. Unfortunately, I think that this is representative of many parts of the article. I understand that another reviewer, who is busy, has provided adequate evidence that he would also be able to find multiple problems throughout the article. My overall impression of the whole a article is that it is not up to the standard of an FA article, and that a considerable amount of work is needed to bring it to that standard. My impression is that throughout the article medical terminology is often used not-quite correctly and sometimes medical terminology and phrases in sources appear to have been misunderstood slightly and a slightly distorted from may appear in the article. It would be good if all this could be corrected during this review, but I think that this article it heading towards failing FA status. I think it will need to mature for at least three months and probably longer before returning for another FA assessment. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention a sentence in the Diagnosis section that you are not happy about? Your comment implies that the section contains factual errors. Who is the other reviewer that you cite? We can only work on what we know about. I would fix the style in many places if I thought others would accept my changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make some edits. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the problems dense and there are many issues, so I edited the diagnosis section directly as a quicker way to illustrate problems with the article than making lists here, but this is only apparent if the sequence edits are analysed. I have changed the following line amongst others that I thought had the wrong and a misleading emphasis, I have changed the article from "Common presentations of the disease are usually easily diagnosed." to "PD is generally easy to diagnose when there are many easily recognisable signs and symptoms of PD.". The in-line reference said; "Although the diagnosis of PD is straightforward when patients have a classical presentation, ...". Snowman (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See other reviews comments above. With this edit I asked him; "I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page?", and he replied with this edit which was his last edit on this page. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being quite a tendentious question "could exist" is not the same as "he would be able to find". --Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this for clarification after seeing Sasata's earlier edit. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion as an answer to Snomanradio's comments: Snowmanradio has stated several times that he sees many problems. He has stated that in his opinion the article is not up to FA standard and he seems determined to get the article failed. While I respect him as an editor at the very least it seems paradoxical that many other expert editors in the medical field and FAC have not seen those "many" problems. As of today Looie496, JFW, DrKierman, Leevanjackson, Graham Colm, Casliber, Tony1, and RJH have stated their support and Sasata, Axl and EdJohnston reviewed several sections and made what I think were constructive minor comments mainly on language issues but certainly did not oppose the article. Moreover Snowmanradio has said that there are many errors when following sources and last time he says that he has taken a close look to the diagnosis section and edited it to show what the example of mistakes he has found. I have taken a close look to the edits Snowmanradio made to diagnosis: See differences between his two versions here.

  • It is with some sadness that I reply indicating your misunderstanding. Classical tends to mean an obvious text-book presentation; for example, a presentation showing a set of easily recognisable florid symptoms. An appendicitis can present with the classical symptoms, but I this is not the same as the common mode of presentation. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are actually classical because they are the most common, following your example I am sure that classical presentation is of appendicitis is also the most common with a big difference to the others, so it would be the same to say the "common presentation of appendicitis" than the "classical presentation". Nevertheless in this case I am not saying that your proposal is wrong or that I do not like the word classical, simply that what you point as "huge problems that may embarrass the wiki" may not be so.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that saying "classical presentation" implies a presentation with symptoms and signs that are commonly found in the disease and when they are florid enough to be easily recognisable. Common symptoms can start years before diagnosis is considered or possible. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion of an already accepted issue is completely useless.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am please that you now appear to be able to see the original problem. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it because of the original line "Differential diagnosis requires distinguishing PD from other kinds of tremors and other causes of parkinsonism.". I think that "Differential diagnosis" was used incorrectly and was certainly jargon. A list of possible diagnoses for a condition is the "differential diagnosis". Snowman (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Post-mortem" is the word commonly used in the UK for autopsy. This version using "autopsy" as unexplained jargon may not be as understandable in British English. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: along this long month of FAC in my opinion article is heading towards consensus. At this point 8 reviewers (in addition to me, the nominator) have stated their support, and only one is clearly against it. While this editor clearly against it being a FA has said different times that article is full of errors and problems everywhere he fails again in showing the many errors, and many of his proposed changes and problems are highly debatable. I would welcome further comments from Sasata , Axl Edjonhston and any other reviewer that may indicate how truly far is the article from being a FA since at this point I feel that Snowmanradio is not neutral regarding this article and his opinion should be balanced against others taking this into account.

Forgot to sign.--Garrondo (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just corrected the poor version produced by Snowmanradio: now says: A physician would make or suspect a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease mainly from the medical history and a neurological examination by determining the presence or absence of signs and symptoms of PD and other related diseases.[1] Reduction of motor impairment in response to administration of levodopa markedly increases the likelihood of PD.[1] There is no definitive test for diagnosis, but finding Lewy bodies in brain samples at autopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard.--Garrondo (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you refer to this edit of yours. The minor adjustments are marginal in my opinion. I never said that my version was perfect, in fact I said the section still needs work. The point is that I have removed errors that would embarrass the wiki. However, the line is still an over simplification, because Lewy bodies are also found in Lewy body dementia (which is a different diagnosis to PD). Also, I think that the section is still not quite right, because it seems a bit clunky. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only marginal errors: to say that no definitive test exist in life is wrong since there are no definitive test neither in life, nor when somebody is death.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the point of a post mortem (autopsy in the USA)? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While not perfect it is the best we have, and if there has been symptoms on life LB in autopsy it will serve to reassure diagnosis. Even more important: there may be a person for example with a vascular parkinsonism. In such case no presence of LB in autopsy will serve to rule out PD. --Garrondo (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To SnowmanRadio: In your last several edits to the neuropsychiatric section most changes are in either for good or neutral, but you introduced an error that I have corrected: source says that people have higher probabilities of going to a nursing home, does not say that they have more probability of needing it (although common sense says that this is most probably also true).--Garrondo (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Management section is long

[edit]

The article is 87,200 bytes including references, while there are 21,800 bytes in 'Management.' So this section is one quarter of the article. There is a main article for Management at Treatment of Parkinson's disease. It is surprising that the Management section would still be so large, since we could employ summary style there. Would editors accept shrinking the Management section by moving some material to the sub-article? EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is an important section, difficult at this moment to summarize without loosing important points. I do not think it is a good idea at the moment.--Garrondo (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of repetition between this PD article and the article on the treatment on PD. It seems that a lot of the treatment article was copied from the PD article. I think that these two pages should be considered to see if data organisation across articles can be improved. Is there anything in the linked page on treatments that is not in the main ariticle? If the long version is going to be kept in the main article, can the pages be merged? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sequence of what happened was as follows: When I got to the main article a year ago the secondary article already existed but in a horrible state: full of primary sources, undue weight, missing data... At some point the main article was better and had more info than the secondary article so I copied most content to the secondary article, substituting most of its content. Nevertheless there is some extra info in the secondary page that is not in the primary page (mainly some info in research directions and some info on surgery and some info on meds for symptoms other than motor.) That, and the fact that in the main article there is no place for more info, but it can be added to the secondary page would make me discourage the merging since most probably what would occur is that it would be recreated soon. It would also be a pity to loose the extra info in this page.--Garrondo (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That line was written in 2010. Now that we are in 2011 I have changed it to "in 2010 there were".--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do not induce PD in animals. They are used to create an animal model, which is shows some features similar to the human disease and serves (more or less) for research, but that it is far from being exact to the disease. I think internal wikilinks are discouraged. I have clarified as follows: PD is not known to occur naturally in any species other than humans, although animal models which show some features of the disease are used in research. The appearance of parkinsonian...--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Changed to "That alpha-synuclein is the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered in 1997".--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha-synuclein is a protein of the bigger familiy of synuclein proteins. Now the article only refers to alpha-synuclein and synucleinophaty.--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified inside bracket to "usually number of new cases per thousand individuals in a year". Is it clear enough now?--Garrondo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No ignorance at all. That dichotomy is present also in sources with some separating both sections and others having them together. I decided to have them separated per two reasons: 1-Maintain consistency with the sections proposed in WP:MEDMOS. 2-Risk factors as of today are not proven enough to say that they cause PD, their mechanism of effect is not really known and have mainly been studied in epidemiological studies with all the pitfalls that that kind of research suffers.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was linked as autonomic nervous system in signs and symptoms. I have added a wikilink to autonomic dysfunction in the signs and symptoms introduction.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "disease pattern"? I have added disease pattern to article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motor complications refers to the secondary effect of long-term use of levodopa, so they are not exactly symptoms. Changed to: may delay motor complications of medication use--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section (and article) is quite long, and does not add that much, but it is still interesting and well choosed. I have moved to secondary article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion opened

[edit]

In the belief that this review is no longer raising major issues and ought to be moved toward an endpoint, I have made a comment to that effect at WT:Featured article candidates#Parkinson's disease FAC -- I'm giving a pointer here so that reviewers will be aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for further opinions of the article at the medicine and neuroscience projects.--Garrondo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (5); A number of editors have done copy editing and correcting mistakes by direct editing to the page, and I think this has moved things on a lot. I would support FA providing some remaining issues listed below are considered. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all your editions and fixed errors are you worked. I believe it is done.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to work in it on Sunday.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not understand your comment.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of the pesticides and so on. One section says that all evidence is equivocal and then the next says a two fold increase in risk of PD. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (6): There has been an undertaking to fix remaining problems. I support FA status. Snowman (talk) (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC). See Provisional impression (7) below Snowman (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit I tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of Diagnosis. Comments are invited. To obtain clarity, it may sometimes be necessary to omit details, but they could be added lower down or in a subarticle if they are believed to be essential. Diagnosis is one of the sections I felt to be 'waffly'. Some of the details appear to be common sense observations that should not require spelling out to our readers. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. What do you think of my modification? I put a comment in the edit summary. Please re-word it as necessary. I like to team up with someone that can write good English when writing something complicated. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I did a 50km trekking and I am death-tired. If I have forces I will take a look tomorrow. If not I will try to finish everything on Monday.--Garrondo (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [63].

U2 3D

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because I feel as if it meets all the criteria, and has been thoroughly researched and edited. Its previous FAC failed due to needed copyediting; however, users from Guild of Copy Editors have worked on the article since then, as well as members of WikiProject U2 to ensure that this article is up to the needed standard for a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. I cannot make any sense of this FAC at all; nominators and reviewers, please do not strike commentary other than your own. Images cleared by Fasach Nua, sources and copyvio reviews still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation fixed (archive link added). –Dream out loud (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3-D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006 - of performances of the rock band U2 during their 2006...
including tracks from the Vertigo Tour's supporting album - I thought tours support albums, not the other way around.
The film's concert footage also includes pol - remove 'also'
was the first ever live-action digital 3-D film - remove 'ever'
was created to experiment - yikes
film technology pioneered by film producer Steve Schklair. After considering filming American football games in 3-D, the company decided to create a concert fil - the word 'film' is used x 4 times
but eventually decided - rm eventually
seven concerts in various cities in Latin America, and two concerts in Australia. - and two in Australia
with up to eighteen 3-D cameras at once - simultaneous

I can see a lot of great effort has been put in, but it needs a little polish yet. Ceoil 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes based on your suggestions, although there were a couple I didn't understand. I don't see what's wrong with "was created to experiment" (seems perfectly fine), as does the opening sentence. It seems as if you wanted me to reword it as U2 3D is a 2008 3-D concert film of performances of the rock band U2 during their Vertigo Tour in 2006. Saying its a "film of performances" makes it seem as if its a montage of random clips thrown together, which it isn't. I did edit the lead somewhat recently, as well as the box office info, but not many other changes have been made in the past several months since the Guild of Copy Editors worked on the article, so there shouldn't really be any other issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A visit by the Guild of Copy Editors, long ago, isn't a guarantee of anything. The prose are stiff and repetitive. I'm offering examples from the first two paras only, and from that think there is a long way to go yet. Ceoil 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. Hopefully, that should address some of your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've 'pinged' Ceoil (I like that word. 'Pinged'.), and Dream out loud left notices at WP:FILM and WP:ROCK asking for feedback. I will look around and try to find some editors experienced in source reviews and copyvio checks to see if they have the time to give the article a look over. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Brianboulton has agreed to do a source check when he has time in the next few days. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it now Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I am not particular familiar with media sources, but as far as I can see, most of these look good. Here are a few mainly formatting points I picked up.

Not spotchecked yet. Will do so when the above issues are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one other apart from refs 7 and 26 that I fixed, but there may be more as I'm not too familiar with the article. For ref 33 do you mean that you can't access the webpage or you can't find the info? I can see it, but no page has it's own url. To get to the info you have to click 2) Fushion 3D at the bottom and scroll through the five pages presented. National Geographic is the publisher of the U2 3D blog in all of the refs.Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: I don't see why JoBlo.com is not a reliable source. It's a movie critic website that employs professional writers (as opposed to user contributors) and is run by the JoBlo Media company.
  • Ref 33: Because it's a Flash website, it can't be sourced directly. Melicans explained above how to get to the information. This page lists all the text from the Flash site in a PHP file but it's pretty messy to read. That page could be sourced alternatively but I thought the site itself would be better.
  • Ref 58, et al: This is published by National Geographic. It's a subdomain of U23Dmovie.com, which is published by National Geographic and appears in the site's search engine.[64]
  • Ref 65: 7 is a webzine by The Spokesman-Review, which is published by the Cowles Publishing Company, therefore I listed that company as the publisher for the webzine as well.
Hope this clears up any concerns. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources concerns addresses, and spotchecks revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning support, mostly on prose and MoS issues, with a few comments:

Most issues were addressed. The Modell's "prior involvement with U2" is mentioned in the next sentence if you keep reading. I couldn't find any common terms that were linked and didn't need to be, and all repeated links I found are in comply with WP:REPEATLINK. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reword the "prior involvement" paragraph, as it's a bit hard to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the whole paragraph a few times and it seems pretty straightforward to me. Can you be more specific on what's "hard to follow" exactly? –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the opening sentence. Hopefully that resolves any confusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, primarily because I still don't think the prose is up to the mark throughout:

  • "Ultimately, 14 songs were selected for the final cut, including one song shown during [for] the film's closing credits."
  • "U2 toured Latin America on the fourth leg of the Vertigo Tour in February and March 2006, with eight shows in five cities, all of which would be shot for the film [were filmed], except the first show in Monterrey, Mexico."
  • "Owens sought to have only [wanted] 14–15 songs out of 26 appear in the final cut, most of which would be considered [are] among U2's most popular songs tracks." (in fact, this and the first example sentence could be merged.)
  • Do "nine of the final film's 14 songs" all need to be named? Do the names of the software that "converted from 2-D to 3-D using several software programs" help the general reader? If anything, I believe these lists detract from the article, make for difficult reading.
  • "Prior to the screening, U2 performed..." don't see what this sentence has to do with anything.

A good job has been done so far building a comprehensive, well-structured article. However, it has now gone too far to the other side, and seems excessively detailed to me. A big pair of scissors to the article's more trivial content and some copy-editing is what is needed.—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on addressing these concerns. The specific sentences you mentioned as needing copyedits have been addressed. I've gone through the entire article and probably halved the instances that the word "film" is used. I've cut down on overlinking as best as I could (before you posted your comments, I had eliminated repeat links). I've tried to remove more common terms, but I left a few of the links you had suggested, since they seem relevant (e.g. motion sickness, some technical terms). The sentence about them performing at Cannes is completely relevant, although the way it was phrased, it wasn't explicit the band were at Cannes for the screening to actually perform. The cinematic firsts have been taken out of the paragraph in the Legacy section about sprinkled throughout the article if they weren't previously already. There's still a few things to work on to address your remaining concerns, which I'll try to do in the next few days. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of recent comments. I am doing a copyedit now based on above suggestions. I had a feeling for a while that there was too much detail in the article, but Indopug was the first to have made any mention of it, so I left everything in there until now. I will give a follow up comment later this evening following my edits. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y2kcrazyjoker has done a great job addressing the above concerns. Like I said earlier, I had a feeling that I may have been too detailed with the article, but not until now (over 2 months into the 2nd FAC) has anyone made any mention of it. I removed a decent amount of information, cutting the article size by over 5kb. I read through it about four times tonight and I think I got rid of just about everything that may not be entirely relevant. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll read the article again soon and strike my concerns.—indopug (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you start marking the issues you had with the article as addressed or still pending? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of my specific comments have been addressed, but I haven't struck my oppose because I retain two general concerns—redundant prose (as my recent copy-editing should testify) and excessive details. Examples for the latter:
  • Second para of Background—why the specifics about the giant LED display?
  • Final para of Background—don't need four long sentences to, essentially, say "the filming was shifted to the outdoor stadiums of Latin America as U2 were certain that audiences there would respond far more enthusiastically". Bono's statements about Ireland and their absence from Latin America seem excessive. And pretentious.
  • First para of Editing—three consecutive sentences mention "14 songs". Cut some detail and club it all into one sentence? Also, the bits about the film's opening and closing songs being selected so despite never actually doing so in concert isn't in the source cited. This makes the information kind of trivial...
  • "110 microphones were used to record the concert audio, which included microphones placed on the main stage and around the two B-stages to record the band, and microphones placed throughout the venue to record the audience"—no idea how to improve it though.—indopug (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these specific examples, but I don't think that the LED display paragraph needs to be cut down. There's not much detail about the LED display so much as its pertinent background information about the Modells' meeting and collaborating with the band and their creative partners, and how it led to everyone eventually agreeing to work on U2 3D. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting is making lots of improvements, so thanks to everyone who's helped out with that. I've read through it tons of times and done all the copyediting I can do, since it can be hard to improve upon your own writing. As far as the sentence about the microphones, I rewrote that tons of times before saving the article. I know it does sound a little wordy but I really couldn't figure out a better way to word it. It was originally two sentences but I merged it into one. Should it be cut back into two? I don't know. Other than that, I think all other issues have been addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need to go off-wiki for a while, so I've struck my oppose. Although it's improved, I'm not supporting 'cause the prose and level of detail isn't perfect yet. If you could coax an independent copy-editor to look at this, then nothing like it. Final comments:
  • "agreed to the project mainly as a technological experiment rather than a profit-making venture."—as somebody who's very sceptical of U2 and Bono's holier-than-thou antics, I'd be much more comfortable if this were a direct quote, in the article body at least, instead of being presented as fact ('cause, how could we possibly objectively know their real motives?).
  • A few "the band"s could be changed to the more succinct "U2" to reduce repetition.
  • The microphone sentence: yeah, fuck it.
  • I think you missed my comment above about the opening and closing songs . . . Also the info is redundant to the setlist.
Thanks for the article, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it (even though I'm no U2 fan), and learnt a lot about the technical aspects of 3D film-making. Well done,—indopug (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of replacing "the band" with "U2" - one of the simple things in the article that I never realized. As far as U2 making the film as an experiment rather than for profit, I don't exactly see how quoting the source directly would be different. Owens said in the interview "U2 is not doing this for profit reasons. They are completely doing this because they want to be on the forefront of what they think is the future of film technology." I know you are skeptical of U2 and their actions, but I don't think that warrants the need for a direct quote. Also, in response to mentioning the opening and closing songs - their purpose is not to show the reader what the opening and closing songs were (which would be redundant since it's listed in the "Synopsis" and "Setlist" sections already), but rather it is to show that the songs that open and close the film are not the same songs that opened and closed the actual concerts. It further shows how when choosing the songs, Owens decided to go with songs other than the actual set opener and closers. Otherwise I think everything has been addressed. Thank you again for your help and enjoy your break. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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