Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2012

Giraffe

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving this another try. It came close last time but had paraphasing issues which have now been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This article still has an open peer review. Per step one of the FAC instructions, this should be closed before nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I did close it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I closed it. There is a step you have to take on the PR page itself also. --Laser brain (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness - pending source checks for paraphrasing or veering away from sources. I've looked at this article quite a few times that I don't feel up to spot-checking sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just so you know, I listed my biggest paraphasing concerns here. Laserbrain tought that they were good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs and prominent horns." Is it really noted for "prominent horns"? I could see that statement applied to the rhinoceros, but not the giraffe. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia trees, which are important food sources, and can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach." I don't think that the word "most" is required. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males establish social hierarchies through "neckings"." Is "necking" a countable noun, with the plural "neckings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. But you already reviewed the article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been significant changes since my last review. That's why I am reviewing it again. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", "G. c. angolensis": "One genetic study on Smoky giraffes suggests that the northern Namib Desert and Etosha National Park populations form a distinct subspecies." What are "Smoky giraffes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You have changed "Smoky giraffes" to "Namibian giraffes". The article already declares "Namibian giraffes" as a separate subspecies. Why not just delete the sentence and leave the reference? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. It does not declare Namibian giraffes a seperate subspecies, the title states "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis [some subspecific name as Angolan giraffe]". Why on earth would I leave the reference without a sentence for it to source? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean that in the Wikipedia article, placement of G. c. angolensis in the "subspecies" section implicitly implies that it is a distinct subspecies. Therefore saying "this study shows that G. c. angolensis is a subspecies" is redundant. Most of the other subspecies use Pellow as the reference. G. c. angolensis does not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No the study suggests that certain populations of the Namibian giraffe may belong to their own subspecies. Not that the Namibian giraffe is its own subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That wasn't clear to me before. I have adjusted the text slightly. By the way, can Pellow be used as a reference for G. c. angolensis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", is it really necessary to add the disclosure "based on ISIS records" with every subspecies zoo population? An in-line citation is included for every statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You left it for the first entry, which is okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", last paragraph: "Although giraffes from these populations interbreed freely in captivity, suggesting that they are subspecific populations, a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed." The paragraph is already referenced to the BMC article. Perhaps delete "a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed. the first part is not sourced to the study. 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The text now reads "A 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that at least six of of these subspecies—the West African, Rothchild's, reticulated, Maasai, Angolan and South African giraffes—may in fact be separate species as they are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access." I'm not convinced that this is the appropriate conclusion from the reference. I would appreciate other comments about this, especially from anyone with expert knowledge and/or affiliation with WikiProject Mammals. (In WikiProject Medicine, this type of article would be considered a primary source.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, changed it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 1: "Giraffes are capable of seeing in color." Perhaps "Giraffes have color vision"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Thats too close to the source. Can we please not focus on minor things like this? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't become frustrated. The FA standard is deliberately high and I am trying to help you achieve it here.

The word "capable" implies that the giraffe can choose to do this. How about "Giraffes see in color"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "There are at least eleven main aromatic chemicals in the fur." Does "aromatic" in this context refer to "aromaticity"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess. This line was here before I came on to build the article to GA. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have added a wikilink. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 2: "The point of articulation between the cervical and thoracic vertebrae of giraffes is shifted to lie between the first and second thoracic vertebrae (T1 and T2), rather than between the seventh cervical vertebra (C7) and T1, as in most other ruminants." In most other ruminants, is the main articulation between T1 and T2 or between C7 and T1? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

C7 and T1 for other ruminants. It says so clearly. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not say so clearly. The presence of the second comma implies that "other ruminants" refers to the first part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The textbook "Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide" by Marshall Cavendish has quite a bit more info available about the giraffe's anatomy. I can go about adding this, if you think it would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. I got rid of it as a source because of too many errors in it. We have enought RS. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame. There is a lot of anatomical information in Mammal Anatomy that could be added. The only error that I found was the description of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is commonly misunderstood in the literature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article covers all the major anatomical features. LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Information in "Mammal Anatomy" that is not currently in the article:-

• Hooves: up to 6 inches across in males; up to 4 inches across in females
• Unlike okapi, the hooves do not have scent glands
• Neck vertebrae have opisthocoelous joints
• Each cervical vertebra is over 11 inches long
• Unusually small brain, 1.5 pounds, possibly to reduce the energy required to perfuse it
• High heart rate: 150 beats/minute
• Oesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of food
• Like other ruminants, the giraffe's stomach has four chambers
• Small liver
• No gall bladder
• Intestines are up to 280 feet long
• Born feet first
• Males reach sexual maturity at seven years, females at four years

Errors in "Mammal Anatomy":-

• Diagram shows pink tongue
• Left recurrent laryngeal nerve
• Rapid respiratory rate

Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In particular, the last sentence of the "Internal systems" subsection: "The digestive system of the giraffe has a smaller ratio of small to large intestine than that of domestic cattle." seems to have been tacked on to the end of the paragraph about the cardiovascular system. The info in Mammal Anatomy could be used to expand the gastrointestinal text, and used to create a new paragraph. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Internal systems", paragraph 1: "These factors increase the resistance to airflow which gives the animal a slow respiratory rate." I removed the comment about respiratory rate, but you re-inserted it. Mitchell's introduction presents conflicting information in preceding literature. However the study itself goes on to say "these data confirm that allometric respiratory rates for mammals in general and giraffes are similar. The average resting RR that we calculated for the giraffes of the range of body masses in our sample was 10.1 ± 1.5 b.p.m (range 8.3 for the largest giraffe and 14.6 for the smallest)." Also, during exertion, the giraffe's respiratory rate increases while the tidal volume does not. Interestingly, Mammal Anatomy quotes a high respiratory rate. [Disclosure: I am a pulmonologist] Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "both amniotic sac and umbilical cord usually break when the newborn falls to the ground." Surely the amniotic sac breaks before the newborn falls? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of that information was there before but I learned though personal contact with Mitchell that it was wrong. (e. g. the brain, respiratory rate). The other stuff you mentioned (gall bladder ect) is minor as it was also true of other herbivores. I only included stuff unique to the giraffe. "Oesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of food", of course it would! Its a ruminant! I've judged the Mammal anatomy book to be a low quality source. It doesn't even give an author, just the Marshall Cavendish Corporation. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've have found some of the other information in the other sources. I added in the information on the glands, feet-first birth, hoof size intestine length and sexual maturity. Skinner and Smithers (1990) give the giraffe heart beat rate as 85±15 beats per minute. I don't know how to translate that. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the new information.

The giraffe's oesophageal muscles are unusually strong, more so than other ruminants, because of the height of the neck that food must be raised.

The author in Mammal Anatomy is given at the end of the chapter: Steven Swaby. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Provisional support. I have read through the whole article again. It is well-written and comprehensive in scope. All text is referenced to good quality sources. The illustrations are appropriately used and freely available from Wikimedia Commons.

A few minor points concern me, although they are not significant enough to oppose:-

• I would appreciate other opinions regarding the last paragraph of "Taxonomy and subspecies", subsection "Subspecies".
• All of the subspecies are referenced to Pellow ("Giraffe and Okapi") except G. c. angolensis and G. c. giraffa.
• The NASA Quest reference link (Gonzales, "Why giraffes don't faint") doesn't seem to be working at the moment
• The phylogram in "Taxonomy and evolution" is rather complicated.
• The subspecies population numbers quoted in "Taxonomy and evolution" appear to imply a low estimate (as opposed to an average estimate).

I raised the latter two points in the previous FAC; the consensus was that they were unimportant.

I have tried to spotcheck some of the sources, but I am having difficulty extracting the relevant points from the textbooks. I hope that someone else can assist with reference spotchecking. Otherwise, I'll have another go at this next week. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I replaced the cite for the astronaut line. As for #2, the book does list G. c. angolensis but calls it the "Southern African Giraffe". G. c. giraffa is not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference checks:-

1. Grubb, "Giraffa camelopardalis". Fine.

3. Online Etymology Dictionary, "Giraffe". The reference doesn't include the Arabic text. Also, it uses the word "zarafa" rather than "al-zirafah".

5. A Latin Dictionary. Fine.

6. A Greek-English Lexicon. The reference doesn't actually say that the Latin word is derived from Romanization of the Greek word.

10. Linnaeus, "Systema naturae". It is not clear from the reference that this actually describes the giraffe.

13. Brown, "Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe". Fine.

15. Al Ain Zoo. Fine.

16. UAE Interact. Fine.

18. Brenneman, "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis"". Fine.

20. Fennessy, "Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. rothschildi". The reference does not say that G. c. rothschildi may be found in South Sudan. It says "The population is potentially close to meeting the population threshold for Critically Endangered under criterion C, depending on the number of individuals, if any, that survive in south Sudan."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Fixed,put arabic text in parathesis.

6. Fixed.

13. Fixed. Dagg 1971 confirms the Linnaeus classification.

20. Yes, but thats because the country of South Sudan didn't exist then. Any I changed it to "Its presence in South Sudan is uncertain" but I don't see why saying it "may be found in South Sudan" isn't good enough. This seems like a minot nitpick to me. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"May be found in South Sudan" could be interpreted as "Is found in South Sudan". Thanks for changing it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See, we have a problem here. You changed it to "south Sudan", but the south of Sudan is different now than it was in 2010. So that change certainly isn't helpful. Nageh (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I have changed it back. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two comments (for now):

Section Legs, locomotion and posture: Are old giraffes still able to lie down, or do they sleep standing? Can they have non-REM sleep while standing like horses?

Section Internal systems, second sentence. Do you want to say "This difference is larger in the giraffe...", or is the nerve longer, and if there are two of them (left and right) why is the singular being used? And if you do refer to the left nerve, why do you first say "nerve" and then "left nerve" in the same sentence? :)

Nageh (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. As for sleeping, The sources I have available say that giraffes sleep lying down. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's not looking good when you say you did your research but I have some feeling about this and start looking on my own for a paper on Giraffe sleep behavior, and find this: Behavioural sleep in the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in a zoological garden.. Nageh (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No way! FAs are supposed to be our best articles. A little bit more effort on your side is requested. When do giraffes sleep standing and when lying? I am pretty sure you can phrase the sentence as "Giraffes can sleep standing but need to lie down, curled up and with their head resting on their rump or hind legs, to enter REM sleep." I'm not gonna do the research (now). Nageh (talk)

I don't have access to the entire article. The abstract only states that they sleep lying down more often on some nights and standing on other nights. The details of a study are not important for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The one problem is that you didn't do the necessary research. The other problem is that adding such little details can improve the article tremendously in terms of quality. There is a qualitative difference between saying "sometimes they sleep standing and sometimes they sleep lying" and "they may sleep standing but need to lay down for REM sleep, a period of sleep necessary at least twice a day [say]." If you don't do the research I will do it but I probably won't be able to support the article. Nageh (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't fault somebody for not having access to a certain paper. I've collected major sources on the subject (Kingdon, Estes, Dagg, ect) and none of them discuss how often they sleep standing vs lying. Perhaps its not that important.LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Added in that they mostly sleep lying down but old ones do sleep standing up. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is good. I have added another one to stress that the peculiar position where the head rests on the hip appears only in "deep sleep" phases, and is not a general indicator for sleep phases as had been believed in some earlier studies. Btw, in case you are interested in the paper, I have requested it at the Resource Request here. I will continue reviewing the article. Nageh (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have referenced Langman, V. A. (1977). "Cow-calf relationships in giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa)" four times. You cite it when stating "The bond a mother shares with her calf lasts until her next calving." However, according to the information that I have the bond may be a weak one except for the first few days although strong bonds lasting until the next calving have also observed. Can you verify this? Nageh (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, put that it can last that long. Langman seems to have studied them in depth. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, based on the paper lying in front of me, a suckling time of 13 months is at the upper end, and most calfs are weaned after approximately one month. Nageh (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, give two given extremes for weanings. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded these changes a bit, and removed what seemed like redundancy. The meaning is in line in what sources I have, so it should be ok. Check nonetheless. Nageh (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Scientists have tried to mimic the properties of giraffe skin when developing suits for astronauts and fighter pilots." I have reasons to be skeptical about this statement, especially when it comes from a biologist. Pressure suits were developed before it was discovered that biology had invented the same mechanism way earlier. I will see what I can find about it. Nageh (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the giraffe has been studied so extensively afterwards that the statement probably is true nonetheless, even when the pressure suit had been originally invented earlier. I'll leave it at that. Nageh (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Etymology section states that zarafa is perhaps from African origin. However, several sources (e.g., ) state that serafe is being mentioned in the Koran, meaning roughly "the lovely one". Nageh (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I don't know about the reliability of these sources. Nageh (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a problem or a contradiction. There have been other Middle Eastern spellings of the word. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is a translation for it it indicates that the word is of Arab origin. Which is what some of these sources claim. Nageh (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have found a good reference that defeats this claim. I will link it.Wasn't that good. Nageh (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, funny. I have checked a couple of French sources, which I consider more reliable on this aspect due to their Arab influence, and they pretty conclusively state that its original Arab meaning possibly was "moving with rapidness" or "exceeding measurements", though the word probably has Egyptian origin. So the current text is pretty fine, actually. I will link one French source, which is discussing the etymology more extensively. Nageh (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reconsidering. Those books are way too old. I'll leave it at that. Nageh (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"The giraffe can reach a sprint speed of up to 60 km/h (37 mph)." ...over short distances. There is an anecdote about this in this book, but maybe you have a better reference? Nageh (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Nageh (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1. "A giraffe's skull is filled with sinuses.", ...lowering its weight. This may be obvious but I think it is important to point out. I do not recall in which paper I read that, maybe you have a proper source.

Done LittleJerry (talk)

2. "The liver is small and compact." I was going to add: "A gall-bladder may or may not be present.". This seems to be controversial. The most recent source I could find was on pubmed, referenced from this book, but I don't have full-text access. Do you have access?

I'm afraid I don't have access/ LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Depending on which original paper other authors cite a gallbladder either is not present, sometimes present, or always present! :) I have summarized what can be said about it, using three of the best references I could find. Nageh (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

3. It may be important to point out that acacia are an important source of calcium for the giraffe, necessary for its considerable growth rate. I recall having seen a full paper on this but I need to check my sources. – Done.

Nageh (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning support. I cannot find any obvious omissions in content, and the overall presentation is fine, hence I am willing to give a preliminary support vote. However, I suggest that another copy edit run by an independent reviewer is done, some phrases seem a bit stiff. Nageh (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The FAC closer may interpret this as a support. Nageh (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead looks good. I am pleased to see that the lead summarizes all of the main sections of the article. However, there is some clunky phrasing which needs to be addressed: I am now satisfied with the phrasing in the lead.

• "Its specific name refers to its [...] patches of color on a light background, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots." The background of what? At no point does this sentence mention fur. Suggested rephrasing: "Its specific name refers to its camel-like face and the patches of color on its fur, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots."
• "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs and unusual horns." Yikes, never ever ever use the "this and this and this" construction. Possible rephrasing: "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs, as well as its unusual horns."
• "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia trees, which are important food sources, and can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach." This seems to be a very roundabout way of discussing their diet. Better would be: "Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach."
• "While adults are nearly invulnerable to predation" The literal definition of "invulnerable" is "incapable of being wounded". With that in mind, the highlighted phrase is quite misleading, as it wrongly implies that it is not possible to hurt an adult giraffe. It also leaves the reader wondering why the adult giraffe is not predated upon. Height? Speed? The horns? The ability to kick would-be predators in the face?

  "Giraffes, mostly calves, are preyed on by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs." This solves the previous issue, but this phrasing implies that some adults are preyed upon, whereas the previous phrasing implied that that never happened. In a sense, this phrasing is almost contradictory to the previous one, and it leads me to wonder where these "facts" are being pulled from. Source? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Read the section on mortality. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  I see now why the phrasings that have been used to summarize this section have been contradictory—the Mortality section itself is inconsistent: "Healthy adult giraffes are usually not at risk of predation" contradicts "Adult giraffes can fall prey to lions if the cats can make them fall over." This needs to be addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  I gave it a try and improved both wording and organization of that paragraph. I'm a bit concerned about the phrase "if the cats can make them fall over". I know that you tried to avoid copying the source, which says "if the cats can bring them down", but does this really have the same meaning? "Make them fall" brings up a picture where they literally fall, i.e., cannot maintain their balance, which isn't what the source seems to imply. Any suggestions for improvement? Nageh (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Bringing down" and "getting to fall over" may not mean exactly the same thing but think of the situation we have here. When it comes to hunting giraffes, the only way to bring them down is to get them to fall over. The source says "...lions are able to kill even bulls if they can get them down..." LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  I suppose your right. They could possibly hold on their legs and force them to keel or something. Anyway, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Giraffes commonly gather in aggregations that usually disband every few hours." Very mysterious sentence. It's not clear to me why "commonly" and "usually" are both used in the same sentence. It is also not made clear why this behavior occurs.

  The first issue was addressed, the second issue was not. Why do they gather, or why do they disband? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Because most have no strong social bonds. This is explained in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." The current version of the sentence in question, "They gather together in loose aggregations.", is somewhat concerning in this regard. The purpose and significance of this statement is not at all clear. A much better sentence would be something like "Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations because of [insert reason here]." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Additional source spot-checks, at LittleJerry's request.

• Ref 31, OK
  • Article text: "The giraffe can reach a sprint speed of up to 60 km/h"
  • Source text: Data graph supports 60 km/h
• Ref 40(a), OK
  • Article text: "This advantage is real, as giraffes can and do feed up to 4.5 m (15 ft) high, while even quite large competitors, such as kudu, can only feed up to about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high."
  • Source text: Data graph supports measurements and contrast
• Ref 51(b), OK
  • Article text: "The number of giraffes in a group range up to 32 individuals."
  • Source text: "One hundred and eight male, 39 female, and 94 mixed groups were found (Table 1), with group sizes ranging from one to 32." --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing reference checks:-

55. Leuthold, "Social organization and behaviour of giraffe in Tsavo East National Park".

The reference states: "Calves commonly formed crèche groups.... They continued sucking up to 13 months and remained associated with their mothers for another 2–5 months."

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social life and breeding habits", paragraph 1: "The most stable giraffe groups are those made of mothers and their young,^[54] which can last weeks or months.^[55]" How about changing this to "The most stable giraffe groups are those made of mothers and their young,^[54] which can last several months.^[55]"

Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. The actual paper does state that they last weeks to months. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mother and calf bonds are not necessarily the same as calving groups. The text states Often two to four females with calves were associated over weeks or even months. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - Is the image review from the previous FA still valid? Have there been any changes? Graham Colm (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly. The only new image added since them was File:Giraffe koure niger 2006.jpg. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Nominator(s): //Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba). During the previous (failed) FAC User:Nikkimaria raised some concerns about some of the pictures in the article and incompatibility of 1920s Polish copyright legislation and modern American laws. To avoid further problems I simply removed those pictures altogether. I believe the article is ready for FAC now. //Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. Also, I don't believe that the images in question, dating to 1920, are copyrighted anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Archived on 26 February; was consent fom delegates given for this quick renomination? Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ueh, I feel more bureaucracy creeping in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No idea what are you talking about. There were not enough voters in the preceding FAC. If the idea behind coping with WP's backlog is to wait a couple of months between renominations which noone attends anyway, then feel free to take this attempt down. //Halibutt 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I suggest you read the the FAC page: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." This is not bureacracy "creeping in", it's been the rule for ages. You may well qualify for exemption, who knows? But you should try and work within the rules, and be a little less aggressive while you're about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The only issue raised was the pics. I removed the pics thus resolving the issue. If we have to wait for two weeks for this or that reason - fine with me. Not that I understood what would that give us. //Halibutt 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Replying on your talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. WP:Checklist will explain some of these. - Dank (push to talk)

• Done "Polish-Soviet War": en-dash per WP:DASH and per that article. Check throughout; use a dash when the meaning is "to" or "between". (WP is a bit idiosyncratic on this.)
• Not sure "north-east", "defences", etc. aren't American English, but the date format (August 13) seems to be.
• Done "in the area around": near
• Done "counter-offensive": counteroffensive (per Cambridge Dictionaries, for instance)
• "the battle was one of the key parts of what later became known as the Battle of Warsaw.": I don't know what that means.
  • Probably, "a key part" or "one of the parts" "one part" would be better here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Done "Latinik, and part": Latinik and by part
• Not sure"The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions": repetition. "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions"
• Done "modern engineering equipment, making crossing them difficult.": modern engineering equipment for the river crossings
• Not sure"This also inhibited": what inhibited?
• Done "lay in ruin": "lay in ruins" is more common
• Done "WWI": write it out. "First World War" is more commonly used in BritEng articles.
• Done "where Narew flows": where the Narew flows. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Done "a line of World War I Russian and German trenches located west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction in 1915.": a line of World War I trenches west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction by Russians and Germans in 1915.
• Done "three Polish infantry divisions: 11th": ... the 11th
• Done "(Bug river – Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna-Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew-Vistula River).": (from the Bug River to Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna to Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew to the Vistula River).
• Done "newly-arrived": newly arrived
• Done "achieved ... to force rear echelons": achieved ... putting rear echelons
• Done "the front-line service": front-line service
• Done "that is to say soldiers": or soldiers
• Not sure "came not from the east, as expected, but from the north-east. Warsaw was to be assaulted from the east by the 16th Red Army.": I'm not following ... what happened when?
• Not done "14th Red Army ... It was then": Sometimes you use "it" for units, sometimes "they". Be consistent.
• Done A technical point: replace '" by {{' "}} so that it displays correctly.
• Done "counter-attack": counterattack
• Done "News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day. It caused panic among both the government and the ordinary people.": News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day, causing panic among both the government and the ordinary people.
• Done "the Prime Minister Wincenty Witos": Prime Minister Wincenty Witos
• Done "future Pope Pius XI": the future Pope Pius XI
• Done "General Haller, in his dispatch ..., called": More common is "In General Haller's dispatch ..., he called" or "General Haller's dispatch ... called".
• Done "Commander-in-chief Józef Piłsudski": it's usually "Commander-in-Chief" in AmEng; not sure about BritEng
• Done "The loss of Radzymin also caused ...": See WP:Checklist#cause; use a less absolute word than "cause".
• Done "Rozwadowski, and member of the French Military Mission to Poland General Maxime Weygand, even suggested ...": Rozwadowski and General Maxime Weygand, a member of the French Military Mission to Poland, even suggested ...
• Done "a euphoric, but fantastic, report": "fantastic" doesn't usually mean "the stuff of fantasy" these days.
• I got down about halfway, to Battle_of_Radzymin_(1920)#August 14. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WHo added the templates? Please remove them; see WP:FAC instructions (they create errors in the archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed most of the issues you raised above. In the case of two I'm not sure.

• • As to Gen. Haller's dispatch above, would "In General Haller's dispatch of 01:00 hours the same night he called the Polish defeat (...)" be ok?
    • Yes, the text as it stands now is fine. - Dank (push to talk)
  • As to WP:Checklist#cause, would "The loss of Radzymin also forced ..." be ok?
    • As long as the source makes it clear that he had no realistic choice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As to those marked as either not done or "not sure":

• • AmE vs. BE - the article is and should be in BE. However, the WP:DATE states clearly that both formats are fine and doesn't mention anything of one being used in BE articles and the other in AmE articles. Is it really necessary to change all the dates?
    • See WP:STRONGNAT, which is a section of WP:DATE (also called WP:MOSNUM). - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion to change "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" into "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" would change the meaning. All three were understrength, whereas your wording could suggest that only the 8th was. I simply changed that part to "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th". Would that do?
    • Yes.
  • "This also inhibited" This in this context refers to the sentence immediately before this one. Namely: the lack of engineering equipment. Any idea how to word that?
    • In that case, I recommend changing "The Red Army lacked modern engineering equipment for the river crossings. ¶ This also inhibited ..." to: "The Red Army's lack of modern engineering equipment for the river crossings inhibited ..."
  • As to your "what happened when?" remark above - I don't understand what is your problem with the sentence. It doesn't mention what happened when at all, and it wasn't meant to. It merely explains that the Poles expected the attack from the East and the Russians also generally wanted to attack from the east, yet the first fights started to the north-east.
    • What you're saying here is clearer than the way you phrase it there (which is why copyeditors ask questions ... often, the way people respond when challenged is easier to follow).
  • It and they when referring to units. I use "they" consistently when speaking about "forces" and it when speaking about a particular unit. Is that an error?

//Halibutt 11:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • I can't find a problem at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As to date format, I don't believe a battle between Poland and Russia is a topic "with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", as the page you cited says. Neither UK nor US or any other English-speaking country has any "strong national ties" to this topic. As far as I know those countries have no ties whatsoever to this topic, be them strong or weak. Or is there something I'm missing here?

As to "The loss of Radzymin also caused/forced..." - the source uses the word "zmusił", which is most often translated as either "forced" or "caused". However, in Polish it has slightly different meaning than in English as it doesn't necessarily mean that there was no alternative. There always are alternatives in war after all. Not sure how to word that.

All the other issues solved. Please check if the recent changes make the article any better. //Halibutt 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally try to keep my time on FACs under two hours, and I'm over that now. Hopefully someone else will check the changes and finish the copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Too bad, I was hoping for your support once we're finish with this 7th round of CE :) Whom should I poke to continue what you started? All copyeditors I know already did CE this article... //Halibutt 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll post a request at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I finished it up, except that the last sentence is unclear and needs rewriting, without the word "recent" per WP:DATED: "There is a yearly re-enactment of the battle on August 15, organised in Ossów and Radzymin since 1998, in recent years organised by various re-enactment groups and a local powiat administration." - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I made an attempt to reword that sentence. Is that better? Feel free to change it back if it doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That's better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my edits. I have the following comments for review:

• I reviewed this at ACR and it has improved since then;
• minor nitpick, some of the Notes end with full stops and others don't;
• at one point you use the term "First World War", but elsewhere you've used "World War I". Either is fine, but it should probably be consistent;
• the duplicate link checker tool identifies a number of instances of terms that might be considered to be overlinked: 11th Infantry Division (Poland), World War I, Modlin Fortress, Lesniakowizna, Torun. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, done and done :) As to duplicate links, I already checked that thoroughly with AWB. The reason some links are overlinked (3 instances at most, 2 in most cases) is that they appear both in the article, infobox and/or tables within the text. Hence I believe it is better to leave all 2 or 3 instances linked than to leave unlinked name in the infobox and linked in the main body. //Halibutt 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Have all image issues been resolved? And has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All images people had trouble with were removed from the article altogether. Not sure about the spotcheck. //Halibutt 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, I'd like to see a sourcing spotcheck before promoting this article. Ucucha (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. This is truly a wonderful article. I took some time to read it and also check across Google books if the information given here was ok and everything seems reliable. --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - Thanks to Lecen to taking the time to check. I too found spotchecking this article difficult. There is no Google Books preview of "God's Playground: 1795 to the present" for example. Checking "The eighteenth decisive battle of the world:Warsaw, 1920" I found:

• Article: News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day,[40] causing panic among both the government and the ordinary people
• Source: ...and the suburb of Radzymin in the immediate vicinity of Warsaw was lost, retaken and lost gain. On the evening of the 14th Pilsudski received alarming telegrams from Warsaw, painting the situation in most gloomy... (P. 83) The telegrams described in an alarming fashion the general feeling in the capital. (P. 144)

I found no issues. Given these difficulties, and the obvious scholarly nature of the article, I am happy to assume good faith on this occasion with regard to the other sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

American Cream Draft

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been slowly working on this article, on an unusually-colored American draft horse breed, for the past couple of years. It's been through GAN (it's currently a GA) and a great PR by Ruhrfisch. Although it's a bit shorter than my usual FA candidates, I think it's complete, and I have incorporated all sources I've been able to find about the breed. Although I am a Wikicup competitor, this article will not be used to claim points, as most of the work was done prior to 2012. Thanks in advance for any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "It is known for its cream color and amber eyes, produced by the champagne gene; the gene, when combined with a chestnut base color, creates the cream color known as "gold champagne".": I'm a little confused. Does this say the same thing (or close enough)? "It is known for its amber eyes and for its "gold champagne" color, a cream shade produced by the "champagne" gene combined with a chestnut base color." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Almost, but not quite, but I see the awkwardness problem. Hmmm ... Both traits are because of the champagne gene, and the cream color is mimicked by other genes (very similar to palomino, except it's produced by a completely different mechanism). The amber eyes can be seen on any of the champagne shades, the cream color is the gold champagne variant based on the horse genetically having an underlying chestnut coat.. Hmmm. What does everyone think of "It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne," produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the champagne gene."  ??? I'll change it, but I won't complain if you change it back. --Montanabw

  Hey Montana. Giants, any thoughts here? - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'd get rid of the first word in the second use of "champagne gene" to minimize the redundancy, but other than that it looks reasonable. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  got rid of second use. Does it look OK now? --MTBW

  Works for me, I moved just one comma. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Around 1935, however,": What does the "however" mean here? What's in opposition to what?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support - I don't usually see you on biology articles :) I appreciate the copyediting (my prose needs all the help it can get) and believe I have addressed both of the comments above. On the first, I replaced the existing text with your proposed wording; on the second, the "however" was meant to contrast the upswing in linebreeding with the previous discussion on a lack of buyers during the Depression - I have clarified this. Please let me know if you find anything else, and thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks great, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also, Dank. This is mostly Dana's gig, but I was around and the too-complicated wording is probably my fault! Will try to fix anything I can. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa: If the last two words aren't capitalized as part of an official title, the sub-section heading shouldn't have them capitalized. If they are, that should be reflected in the text.
• I see "mid-20th century" in the lead and "mid 20th century" in the body. These should be made consistent in regards to the hyphenation; I'd include them, but that preference isn't strong, and it's more important that they be handled similarly.
• 1990s to the present: "and as of 2006 there is breeding program...". Needs "a" before "breeding".
• Refs 12 and 20 could use the PDF designations that ref 2 has. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Giants! I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Provisional support – All of my comments have been resolved, and I believe this meets most of the FA criteria. I'll hold off on full support until the images have been checked, but the provisional can be considered struck once that happens. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! An image review has now been completed below, by Nikki. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Compare formatting on FN 10 vs 14

• I'm probably being completely blind, but I can't see any difference in the formatting between these two. :( Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• FN 11: is this a shortened journal name?
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki :) I can't find the problem in your first point, could you please explain further? I believe I have addressed the final three points - please let me know if I missed anything. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Think I fixed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, now I see the problem. You have better eyes than me :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments at the top:

• "It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne", produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the gene. The only other color found in the breed is chestnut." Perhaps:
• "It is known for its cream color, gold champagne, produced by the actions of the champagne gene upon a chestnut base color, and for its amber eyes, also characteristic of the gene; the only other color found in the breed is chestnut."

Perhaps a comma after "disease", and after "breed" (since there's more than one "and" hanging around there). Could it be "was developed in Iowa"? Slighty ambiguous at the moment, grammatically. Maybe "became" is better than "went" in formal language; or even "was". Retain "both" only if it's pretty unusual for both institutions to consider a breed critical.

"is reputed" ... you need to distance WP from that claim, when others are boldly made in the vicinity? All appear to be adequately reffed.

There are a lot of ranges in one para: I've tried en dashes to make it easier ... does it work? Tony (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Tony. I made most of your suggested changes to the color sentence, although I kept "known as" because I think it's clearer. Moving on to the rest: Why would there be a comma after disease? Added a comma after breed, tweaked the Iowa sentence, changed "went" to "became", removed "both", clarified "is reputed". The en dashes look good, thanks for adding them - I always forget that feature of the conversion templates. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; but can you find a way of avoiding "known ... known as"? Tony (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "called gold champagne"? Dana boomer (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been tweaked - please let me know if there is anything else that you would like to see. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492:

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support - I'm not going to pretend to understand horse breeding, but for a lay person such as myself it seems fairly complete. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, that's OK - sometimes horse people don't even understand horse breeding. Thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Dana, can you point out to me a recent spotcheck of sources on one of your noms at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I thought this was going to be easy to answer and then discovered it wasn't. In May 2011, Casliber performed a spot check on WP:Featured article candidates/Appaloosa/archive1, which was a team nomination that I was involved in. The last individual nom I can find with a specified spotcheck was in December 2010 at WP:Featured article candidates/Haflinger (horse)/archive1. I honestly thought it had been more recent than that... I have no problem with requiring a spot check of this article before it goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's probably time for another then -- I think I'll just take care of it myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• FN1 (all instances): Required full page range of the cited chapter, not just the first page -- actioned.
• FN8: No issues.
• FN12: Article reads the hair coat, skin, and freckling appear to be lighter, but the eye color is not; source reads The hair coat, the skin, and the freckling appear to be lighter on the homozygous champagnes, but the eye color is not -- phrasing seems a bit close to me, think you can do something with it?
• FN19: No issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian! I've played with the wording from FN12 - you are quite correct that it was a too close, and I'm not sure how that slipped by me. I'm not sure if I made a grammatical mess out of it, though (running a bit short on sleep!), so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look! Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Slight tweak only. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Steamtown, USA

Nominator(s): Ishtar456 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I feel it exemplifies the very best of Wikipedia. I respond very quickly to criticism or questions, but please keep your wording kind. This is the the second time I have nominated this article for FA. The first time was in September, 2010. I withdrew the nomination because of image issues which I believe are resolved. Ishtar456 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. The leading section is a summary of the article. It should not contain anything not mentioned in the main text. Please, expand the main text with the information that is summarized in the lead. Ruslik_Zero 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Response I honestly believed that the lead was a reflection of the article. You tasked me to outline the entire thing here. While doing so I found there was, in fact, a section of the history that was missing. The problem occurred because my research went well beyond the history of Steamtown in Vermont and overlapped with its formation into Steamtown National Historic Site. I ended up dividing the history that I wrote between the two articles and neglected to leave some important parts in this article. I neglected to acknowledge that the two would have to overlap. It was actually an easy fix. I entreat you to view the changes I have made to the article and also check out the outline and I think that you will see that the lead now is a summary of the article. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I support. Ruslik_Zero 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "When it was retired in 1953, having been replaced with diesel power, No. 15 was put into well-protected storage until it was purchased by F. Nelson Blount in 1959." - source? DONE
• "This locomotive was on static display for some time in the 1990s at Valley Railroad in Essex, Connecticut, but as of July 2010, it is awaiting restoration in a storage facility" - source? DONE.
• For newspaper sources, newspaper name should be italicized and article title should not
• Use consistent punctuation for footnotes
• FN 11: page(s)? Well, I don't know, and I don't have the book, but I found the fact in an obituary and added the citation. Do I scrap the book reference because I do not know the page? I hate to scrap a book for an obit., but like I say, it has the fact.
• Be consistent in how page numbers are notated
• "Steam Locomotive dot Com" is not the correct publisher name
• FN 37: publisher?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? I actually found it to be a very reliable source. Becuase of the nature of the subject (not something that would be on the cover of Newsweek) I felt that relying on RR enthusiasts, like this one, to prove the most up-to-date info. When I am done with all the citations, I will look into finding some other sources, but I think of this one as a gem. never mind, I had it backed up with a newspaper article. I put it in the external links section. This? this is a messed up link, have not had a chance to fix it yet, but will soon.
• Don't notate titles in all-caps
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books and newspapers or not

Oppose for now pending citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for taking the time to do this source review. All of these issues will be addressed (one way or another), hopefully this evening.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did not quite make it tonight. I have cleaned up (and accessed) all the citations up to 35. I have 14 more to go. I took out one of the locomotives because the citations were all books with no pages. Some day I hope to fix it, but I took it out for now. I stated in the article that this was probably not going to definitive. I plan to have all the issues address late on March 14. --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through every single citation and used the citation tool (which I did not have when I wrote this) to re-write them. Every single online source has been accessed in the last two days. Some of the details have been updated. I had to ditch two locomotives due to citation issues. I do not think that there are currently any issues with sources at this point. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose and will take a close re-look at sourcing in the morning. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I returned one the the locomotives that I pulled earlier. I have straightened out the citation problems it had.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated source review

• FN 5, 12, 47: page(s)? If you don't have pages because you're not citing the original, indicate what work this was quoted/excerpted/cited in

• 12 has been removed and two other citations now cover the facts cited.
• 5 and 47 are newspapers that no longer link. The news template does not allow for a page. If I put the page number in these two, will I then be inconsistent because the dozens of other newspapers I used that still have links also do not have page numbers? I have them-I put them in originally, but the citation tool does not allow for pages in newspapers.

• {{cite news}}? It should allow pages, at least according to its documentation. If you're using RefToolbar (there are several citation tools, not sure which you're referring to above), you may need to show extra parameters to see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 3: publisher/work? Done
• Use dashes for ranges I have dashes in the ranges, don't I?

• Hmm, thought you hadn't but can't find anything now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods I found and removed one case.

• There are a few others - ex. FN 47. They're caused by a template glitch. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Still there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not I corrected the one case I found.
• Be consistent in how you notate the publisher of Age of Steam Roundhouse - you've got several variations I found only one variation and changed it.

• FN 31 vs 34? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• 31 vs 33 vs 34? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 44: formatting. Done Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, a few other formatting things seem to have gone wonky - for example FN 33. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to do this. I fixed wonky #33. I also went back and restored all the page numbers for all the newspapers (including the two offline). There were some cases in which the newspaper article was transcribed into a webpage (like #4), so no pages were available. In those cases I cited them as if websites. I hope now that you can say there are no source problems so that maybe the rest of the review can proceed. --Ishtar456 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure how, but you seem to have doubled ISBNs on some refs, ex FN 43. 43 also has locations where other books do not, and page notation is wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I know how I did the double ISBNs-all taken care of. I am staring at number 43 and I do not see the location. I know I took the city name out of one of them a while ago, because I could not find the city for the other. I am not seeing a city name now. And I do not know what is wrong with page 78. What do you mean? I might be ready to throw in the towel. Thanks for your patience.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I thought Hinckley was part of the name of the publisher. It is gone now. I guess that means way back when there were only two books there and the other one said London, I was all set, but I removed it per your review. I have added a few books since and left off the cities because I thought I had none for that one so now I am starting to feel like I am going in circles. I really do not see what is wrong with the page. I hope this long source review does not discourage anyone from actually looking at the content of the article. --Ishtar456 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While the source formatting is not perfect, I see no reason why this review cannot proceed as normal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Review Images check out OK, although I wonder why the blurry 1974-era pictures are being used. Are there no better ones available of those particular locomotives?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how I agree with you. I used to have some really beautiful photos on this article, but even though I had the photographer's permission (vie email) I somehow screwed up the licensing. The photographer emailed me about a year ago and said that he would upload them himself, but I never heard from him again. So I am using the old Instamatics that I took when I was 11. I have since become more suave and I now send the link to the commons when I make such requests, that is how I got the great photo of CPR 1246. I had to make requests to about 12 different photographer to get that and not all the engines were as frequently photographed at that one. The infobox photo, that I took, has already been on the mainpage on DYK. Right now, I either have to use my ok photos or have none at all (for those engines) I rather have them there. I rather all the photos on the article were taken at the VT location, but I have stooped to using some from the current site.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm a bit surprised that more aren't available considering the large number of rail fans out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There certainly are a number out there, on rail fan pages, but to use them without permission would be "fair use" and I'm not going there again...--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And quite rightly, but I'm just surprised that they haven't uploaded their pics onto Commons, or at least Flickr.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

At least 80 photos are out there. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It regards to the photos on Flickr: They were taken at the Scranton location. For this article, if I think that VT pics would be better. There are a lot out there (much more than 80) but they are not in public domain. There is not anything on Flickr that I could not get from the government site, but I don't want the article to be too heavy with Scranton photos. I continue to pursue VT. images. And I also don't think my photos are that bad. Besides, not all the engines are even at Scranton. Most of my photos are of engines that were sold. --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care at which location the photo was taken provided that it's of the machine at the time that it was owned by Steamtown or its successor. Why isn't there any history of the Shay pictured in the infobox? Are there any other missing locomotives owned, past or present, by Steamtown? And be consistent in how you caption the pictures; ca. or Ca.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that there could ever be a definitive list of everything that was ever owned by Steamtown. Different pieces came an went at different stages of the history (as the article explains). The most recent trend is to repatriate pieces to their original region or country and sometimes replace them with pieces from the Scranton area. Although that is not for them to do, since the ones that run the best are Canadian. The list on this article is certainly not definitive, but more of a sampling. But you have a point about the shay. I will fix the CA.s right now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Image update, I was just about to call it a night when I got an email from a photographer with 5 new images for the article. Enjoy.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Update: I have added some wonderful new photos. I have added the history of the Shay. And I restored some text that was edited out (several hundred edits ago) that explained that the list was not exhaustive. The person who deleted it thought that the wording was not encyclopedic (wish they had mentioned that to me instead of just deleting it, because I did not see that it was gone and it was important). I have re-worded it. I am not quite sure if there are any source issues at this point. I feel I have responded to everything that has been pointed out to me. I am hoping this review progresses.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good, you might consider writing a comprehensive list of locomotives owned by Steamtown and linking back to the main article. But that's a later project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a reliable source for that. The best I would be able to do would be a rail-fan website. If that is acceptable I would do it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments on prose and comprehensiveness (spotcheck not done) I've begun reading through and will make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert me if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs)

Big Boy weighs 1,250,000 pounds - + metric? done Thanks for the review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Blount used No. 15 first for static display at Pleasure Island, - should that be "a static display"?

wikilink "flue" and "culvert"

Big Boy has remained out-of-doors since its arrival at Scranton, where it is still on display as of March, 2013 - 2013???

The oldest locomotive ever operated in the United States in the Steamtown collection, it is the "oldest genuine Union Pacific in existence and the only Union Pacific 4-4-0 in existence". - could be rewritten and de-quoted. The first senetnce makes it sound like it was oldest locomotive ever operated in the United States and it happens to be in the steamtown collection...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed those issues and struck them out here.--Ishtar456 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed some additional source review comments, made on March 18, and fixed them. I struck out everything that has been fixed so there is no confusion.--Ishtar456 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So, as far as I can see, the lead is ok, the images are okay, I am pretty sure the citations are ok, and the prose is good. What next?--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Update: One of my old blurry photos got 8004 views on the main page on DYK. So two of the old ones have already been on the main page. Just saying. Anything new with this review?--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment, Some minor suggestions. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Could a metric conversion for board feet be added?
• Referring to the photo of the Meadow River Lumber Shay in the infobox might be considered a self-reference to avoid as the term "infobox" is unique to Wikipedia.
• There's a category on Commons that probably could be linked to in the article.

• Thanks for your comments. I fixed the metric conversion and nixed the infobox reference. I also added several of the photos to the category you suggested, but since it is a commons category, it does not link to the article itself.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added a {{Commons category}} to article. Changed to support per comprehensiveness. I like you go into details on individual locomotives in the collection. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- Hi Ishtar4, this nom looks promising, however:

• Five citations in the very first sentence? That really makes it painful to read. It's generally down to the main editor's choice whether to cite information in the lead or leave the lead source-free and pick it all up in the main body, in this case you really should be opting for the latter method. Either that or recast the first sentence to employ just one or two citations at the most.
• Didn't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing above, so we'll need to organise that unless you can point to one in another recent FAC of yours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. This article is actually a repsentitive of a number of firsts. It was one of my first articles, it was my first DYK, and it is my first FAC. It has not had any spotchecks done. When they are done, it should be noted that the principal source for several of the individual locomotives (Chappell) is in public domain as it was research done for the National Historic Site. Even so, I paraphased the information I used from that source and when I did not feel I could do so adequately, I quoted. I have moved the citations out of the lead. I am feeling very hopeful that this will pass soon. Take Care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be fine, given a clear spotcheck. Just one other thing, at the end of the History section you say Many of the pieces of equipment that did not meet the report's recommendations were sold or traded[28] for pieces that had historical significance to the region -- For completeness, that last clause re. historically significant pieces should be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That citation has been added. Thanks again.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment, leaning toward oppose. This is obviously good, thorough work, but I have some concerns regarding the prose. I don't know if it's just me, but I'm seeing a lot of redundancies and some style inconsistencies (have only checked the lead):

• "following his death" I was confused as to whose death for a second, writing "Blount's death" might be more practical

The sentence already says Blount. he is the only person mentioned in the sentence, so I do not see why it would be hard to figure out that "his" referred to him. I have rewritten the sentence, by I don't see why I would say "Blount twice in the same sentence rather than use a pronoun.

• I personally don't see a need to wikilink to Vermont, but if you prefer having the link it might be better to link to Bellows Falls and Vermont separately in the opening sentence.

I do think this is picky. Bellows Falls is a town and Vermont in a state and the article is talking about state regulations in the sentence that the state is wikilinked.

• "some of the collection" feels like a word is missing here. Would "part of the collection" work better?

changed to "some pieces of the collection were."

• "to Scranton, Pennsylvania in" needs a comma not only before but also after "Pennsylvania" (the way you formatted location-state names in the opening sentence was correct)

Done

• "Steamtown, USA continued to operate in Scranton but, failing to attract the estimated 200,000–400,000 visitors that were expected, it was facing bankruptcy within two years, and more pieces of the collection were sold to pay off debt." a bit of a run-on sentence, and it doesn't read too well. The first part is a bit redundant; I think you can tighten this considerably.

I don't see the redundancy, but to keep it from being a run on changed it to "After the move, Steamtown, USA continued to operate in Scranton but it failed to attract the estimated 200,000–400,000 visitors that were expected. Within two years the tourist attraction was facing bankruptcy and more pieces of the collection were sold to pay off debt."

• "In 1986, the United States House of Representatives, under the urging of Scranton native, Pennsylvania Representative, Joseph M. McDade," lots of commas; how much of the information on Joseph M.McDade is relevant here?

McDade is important because a book, which got a lot of attention will be written after the establishment of the National Historic Site, that will accuse Steamtown of being the most glaring example of Pork barrel politics in the history of the USA. I took out some of the commas.

• "voted to approve the spending of $8 million to study the collection and to begin the process of making it a National Historic Site." a lot of redundancy, could be tightened considerably (e.g. "approved $8 million to study the collection and to make it a National Historic Site.")
• "at a total cost of $66 million"
• "had conducted" why the sudden switch-over to the past perfect tense?
• "still remained"
• "Aside from providing concise histories of the equipment, the report also made recommendations as to whether or not each piece belonged in the soon-to-be government-funded collection. " here, "also" is redundant to "Aside from"... can we make this sentence more succinct without losing any meaning? I'm not quite sure what to gather from "concise histories of the equipment", either.
• "several more pieces" → several other pieces?
• I feel that "... while several other pieces have been sold or traded and are located in various locations throughout the United States and Canada" says the same as "... several more pieces have been removed from the collection" earlier, just in more detail. Maybe we could combine or reorganize these two to improve the flow?

Some of these may seem nitpicky, but the prose could benefit from some cleanup and tightening. Auree ^★★ 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for you comments. I made several changes which I think improved it. I just don't know what to make of your not knowing what to make of "concise histories". The study served two purposes 1. It yielded concise histories of each piece of equipment and 2. made recommendation as to whether or not each piece should remain in the collection (as historical significance to the region was a criterion.)--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I reread that bit, and I think my previously reading it out of context is what made it a bit unclear. I'll strike out that bit of the comment. (: Auree ^★★ 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This being my first FAC, I am not sure how this works exactly, but to date there are on this review three "support" and the comments "leaning towards oppose" have been stricken, so I wonder if this will pass or just sit here forever. Can anyone say?--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: F. Nelson Blount was killed when his private airplane hit a tree during an emergency landing, in Marlboro, New Hampshire, August 31, 1967.
• Source: F. Nelson Blount, millionaire industrialist, was killed Friday when he tried to land his single engine plane in a field and smashed into a tree. Blount, 49, was pronounced dead at the scene. He was the sole occupant of the plane.
• Article: Even in its best year, 1973, the Vermont location had attracted only 65,000 visitors.
• Source: ...against its "best-year" total in Bellows Falls of 65,000 in 1973.
• Article: In February 1982, the headlights, handrails, and cab roof of 1293 were damaged when the roof of a Steamtown storage building gave way to heavy snow.
• Source: On February 4, 1982, the locomotive was in the Steamtown storage and shop building when it collapsed at 7:45 a.m. under an unusually heavy load of several feet of fresh wet snow, damaging the upper parts of the locomotive, including such features as headlights, handrails, cab roof, and the like.

No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Hedley Verity

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be. Verity was an English cricketer between the wars who recorded some incredible achievements but still managed to be sniffed at by critics. However, later writing about him has become a little hagiographical. He was killed in the war in 1943 and so became one of cricket's tragedies. I have been picking away at this article for some time now; it is currently a GA and has received a peer review. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - looks promising, some quibbles to start off:

• "slow left-arm" or "slow-left-arm"? The lead makes use of both.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Never someone who spun the ball sharply, he achieved success through determination and accuracy." The two clauses here are too unrelated for my taste to be conjoined in one sentence like that. Also, "achieved success through determination and accuracy" seems a bit too laudatory...

• Both done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Verity was born in Leeds and from an early age, wished to play cricket for Yorkshire." I'm not too familiar with British English style rules, but the overall sentence structure with the comma seems awkward to me.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made some tweaks but (for the same reason as above) am not sure if they were helpful -- feel free to revert.

• All seems fine, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's it for the lead, reads quite well Auree ^★★ 02:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Few more while I have time:

• "where his batting became more productive than his bowling" the use of "productive" here sounds a bit off to my AmE ears... not sure how to fix it, though.

• I think "effective" might be better, but I'm a little wary of overusing this word. I think productive works, more-or-less. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• "team-mates" is the hyphen here correct?

• I think so. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates, but I think it is a matter of preference. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• "At this time, Verity decided to change his bowling style. Wilfred Rhodes, Yorkshire's main spinner since 1898, was considering retirement. While attending the Yorkshire nets, it was suggested to Verity by Rhodes and Hirst that he was more likely to achieve selection if he switched to spin bowling, as there was less competition for places among spinners." Can you fix this up a bit to improve the flow?

• Had a go. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Very much so, thanks Auree ^★★ 00:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Made a few tweaks here and there. Auree ^★★ 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Everything looks good, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I've looked at everything before Second tour to Australia, and what I've seen looks good so far. I only have a few minor points to bring up; hopefully I can read the last half of the article over the weekend.

• Not sure if "left out the English team" would have "of" in British English or not, but it's worth bringing up.

• Yes, it was a typo. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• World record: "and this remains, as of 2012, the best analysis recorded in first-class cricket." Is "analysis" really the best term for what is basically a statistic or figure? I rather like "figure" for this, personally.

• Analysis is the correct terminology for bowling figures: i.e. he had a bowling analysis of 10 for 10. I've added a link. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tour of India: Is it Sind or Sindh for the team name, or can it be both? This article and the article on the club differ.

• I noticed this myself. However, the sources used say "Sind", so I have gone with that. I suspect there has been a change of spelling since Verity's day. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "referring to Verity. Verity...". Try not to have words repeat from one sentence to another like this. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Second tour of Australia: "Nevertheless, took 202 wickets at 15.67...". Something's missing after the comma. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support – I found this to be well-written and can't complain about a lack of comprehensiveness. The cricket bios have been among the best sports-related articles to come through FAC in the years I've been involved here, and this is another fine one. I think that all of the criteria are comfortably met. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources look okay, a few nitpicks:

• Ref 12: title could be more consistent with that of the article

• Not really; there is no need to specify that it comes from Wisden as the ref already gives that. Also, to leave it as "Hedley Verity" does risk confusion with the similarly named article which is his obituary. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was actually thinking something like "Cricketer of the Year – 1932: Hedley Verity" or "Cricketer of the Year (1932): Hedley Verity", but it's more-so a personal preference and not too big of a deal. Auree ^★★ 22:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether locations are given for books or not

• I assume you mean with Wisden? Done. Were there any others? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• ESPNCricinfo: nitpicky, but I think it's stylised as "ESPNcricinfo"

• You are correct! Well spotted, and fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 78, 115, 128, 160: author?

• Ref 78, 128 and 160 done. Ref 115 had an author but 117 didn't. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need designations such as Ltd., Inc., etc (ref 105 and bibliography)

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 107: missing info in title?

• Not quite sure what you mean. If you mean Wisden, see above. If you mean "Second Cornhill Test", I would prefer to keep it consistent with the other Wisden titles for Test matches. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 120, 123, 133, 142: links take me nowhere, not even to subscription required page

• All fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Watch out for doubled periods (ref 158 and henceforth)

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 180: "bowlers who dismissed Bradman" or "bowlers dismissed by Bradman"?

• Correct as it is: who dismissed Bradman. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 189: check formatting. Auree ^★★ 18:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• This ref (which I did not insert) seems to use a template with which I am unfamiliar; what is the specific problem? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• The template produces a formatting style that is inconsistent with the formatting used in the rest of the article. I'd suggest re-formatting it the way you did for other newspaper articles, using the cite news template. Auree ^★★ 22:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, done now. I had to make up a title of sorts, as there doesn't seem to be one that would be appropriate. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

SupportComments: I agree with the above comment that cricketer biographies are among the better sport-related articles in Wikipedia. A slight concern is that these articles tend towards considerable length; 8500 words is about right for a world statesman but may be a bit much for a sportsman. I think the reason for this is that just about every detail of every cricketer's profesional life is recorded and is largely online, and the temptation is to use it all. However, even with that slight bleat I agree that this is well done and very readable. I have made several minor edits in my reading through, and have a few outstanding points:-

• I think the "Professional cricketer" heading should be changed to "League professional". After all, he remained a professional cricketer for the rest of his career.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say a batting average of 5.25 would be considered rather worse than "poor" for any player, let alone a league professional! (Even Monty Panesar's career batting average is around 8.5)

• Good point, removed the comment. (Although Chris Martin's is worse: around 3!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "...culminating in an unsuccessful trial at Warwickshire." A trial with what team and in what match?

• Specified for the county, but it was not a trial match. He simply bowled in the nets, which was common practice for triallists at the time to weed out the lesser players. Ironic really. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clumsy formation with the doubled "batting": "Verity's main contributions to the match came from his batting: batting defensively..."

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In all first-class games in Australia, he took 44 wickets at 15.86..." If these figures include the Test he played in New Zealand, the wording needs to be changed.

• No, it was just for Australia. Tried to clarify this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Overlong sentence for splitting: "He was left out of the final game in favour of Charles Marriott, who took 11 wickets in his only Test,[7] but in other games against the tourists, Verity took 14 wickets in a match for Yorkshire, on a slow pitch probably prepared to negate the bowling of Learie Constantine,[8] and 10 wickets for H. D. G. Leveson-Gower's team at the Scarborough Festival."

• Cut this back to fix. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "the manoeuvres to remove Jardine as captain": to what does this refer?

• Not sure it is relevant, so removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Dunkirk evacuation anecdote seems out of place, and without wishing to be cynical, I have a few doubts...Personally, I would delete it.

• Unfortunately, you are probably right! Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• It may be worth pointing out that the Test against countries other than Australia were generally 3-day affairs.

• I wasn't too sure where to put it, so I added a note to the South Africa series result, as it was directly relevant here (although not to Verity). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Gubby" is a nickname and shouldn't be used in formal prose without explanation. On first mention he should be called G.O. "Gubby" Allen, and thereafter just "Allen"

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• You should explain why "The final match of the series at The Oval was to be played to a finish, no matter how long it took." Australia had already retained the Ashes.

• There was an obscure playing condition that if neither side had won the series by the final match, it would be a timeless Test. Found a ref for this and added it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another over-long sentence that needs to be split: "However, Charlie Barnett, who played in the series but disliked Hammond,[154] believed that Hammond's poor tactical use of Verity cost England potential victories in the second and fourth Tests,[155] and both he and Bill Bowes later contrasted Hammond's deployment of Verity at Headingley with the tactics successfully employed by Yorkshire." Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cut this back. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine; I've upgraded to support. But isn't the lead image rather large for a headshot? Compare Bradman, Headly, Collingwood etc. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I've made the lead image smaller. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: beginning a read through, I don't know a lot about Cricket so I can't comment much on that aspect, but it seems very well written.
• I would have put a comma after "clubs" in this sentence:"His first season was not a success, but after moving clubs he began to make a name for himself." and after "and" and "training" here "Verity joined the Green Howards in 1939, and after training he was posted overseas to India", do you agree?

• Hope you don't mind if I chime in here, Mark, but I also used to be dubious about this when I first started reviewing articles written in BrE. I think this is one of the more subtle stylistic differences between AmE and BrE, in that the former places a comma after a temporal clause while the latter doesn't. Cheers, Auree ^★★ 05:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• While a comma there would be justified, I think the preference in BrE is to omit it, and I personally think it is better without. However, my commas tend to be inconsistent, so please point out if I am not following my own rules! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Hylian, this is real tricky--Sarastro, I don't mind going without, but I saw a few "temporal commas" earlier "In 1931, he was chosen to play for England" & "In 1921, Verity made his debut for Rawdon" so I thought you wanted them. But I have no objection either way. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid I might have changed my mind half-way through like that! So, on balance, I've put a comma here! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think with comparable quantities like "seven times in his 10 seasons with the club" you aren't supposed to switch figures and words, or am I mistaken here? (WP:NUMERAL)

• I think it is a moot point if the quantities of "championships" and "seasons" is comparable. But I have no real preference and have changed this one. Are there any others I missed? (I would prefer to leave examples such as bowling figures as they are: two (wickets) for 100 (runs). This is standard practice in cricket writing.) Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, if it's standard practice that's fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I added in some commas, feel free to revert if I added too many.

• Looks fine; there are one or two I may have left out, but nothing that worries me! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do we need the third comma here? "Between them, Verity and Bowes took 352 wickets in the season,[43] and Verity took 162 wickets at an average of 13.88,[30] to finish second in the national bowling averages."

• No, gone now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The MCC was responsible for the administration of English cricket," Should this be "was" or "were" here?

• Changed to "were". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "England won the match, using Bodyline tactics" Should "Bodyline" be capitalized here?

• The sources usually capitalise it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Verity was hit in the chest and had to be left behind" Hit with a bullet, I presume?

• I'm not actually sure!! All the sources I have simply say "hit in the chest". It could have been shrapnel, and I suspect no-one is really sure of the details. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, understandable. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The last order he gave was "Keep going"." Should "Keep" be capitalized here? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not too sure; I suspect either case could be argued, but you are probably right and I've used lower case. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments are review so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are a few repeated wikilinks in the body, but that's understandable for such a long article.

• They're probably deliberate. I hope. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Verity took eight wickets in the drawn game and scored 55 not out, his maiden Test fifty." & " he hit 10 fours and his second fifty runs came in just over an hour" Why do you spell out fifty here?

• "Fifty" is cricket-speak for any score between 50 and 99; by using figures, there is a risk of confusing a score of 50-99 with an exact score of 50. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "an MCC team was selected to tour India and play Tests there" another "MCC was".

• The MCC always confuses me like this. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• You have names of seasons written down a few, might want to be careful with that when switching hemispheres.

• Bad habit. I've fixed most, and the ones I left (mainly for variety or want of a non-clumsy phrase) I clarified as "English winter". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In the first match, England scored 658 and according to Wisden, the new England captain Wally Hammond, decided to keep Verity in reserve in the expectation of making Australia follow-on" Do you need the third comma here?

• No. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "As Hutton's innings began to assume epic proportions, Verity stayed with Hutton throughout the intervals, helping him to maintain concentration." Maybe replace the second "Hutton" with "him"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied with the responses to my previous comments, and only have a couple more small things to note. I'm confident this is FA quality, the nominator has shown very impressive attention to detail on such a long article. It's a bit jarring to read so much about a sport that I understand so little of, but I'm assuming he's got the technical details about things like "not outs" and "follow ons" correct. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I always appreciate non-cricketers reading an article like this. Thanks for your careful reading, support and helpful comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I contributed at the peer review and see that the comments here have only served to improve the article further. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Good support here, Sarastro -- while I skim through the article myself, can you just remind me when/where you last had a spotcheck of sources at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Last spotcheck here in September. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tks, 'twill serve. Probably be due for another on your next nom -- have to keep everyone on their toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

United States Assay Commission

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The United States Assay Commission was one of those quirky government functions that, alas, has gone its way thanks to cost-cutting Jimmy Carter (although it didn't cost much). It's a short article, enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:US-DeptOfTheTreasury-Pre1968Seal.jpg: most of the source links are dead (the website seems to have been reorganized)
• File:Chas_G_Dawes-H%26E.jpg: source link returns error message
• FN 4: where do the quotes close?
• Passolano or Pessolano?
• FN 16: title is incomplete
• Retrieval dates aren't required for GBooks links, but if you're going to include them you should do so consistently
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations and publishers for journals
• New York or New York, N.Y.? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All those are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: reading through now, no problems found thus far. Made a couple small copyedits.
• I suggest you link "grains" as that isn't a well known unit of measurement (to me, anyway).
• "The procedure was changed so that the Mint Director sent a list of potential candidates for service on the commission to the White House, where final selections were made." Which year was this changed?

The source does not say. The exact quote is "During the early 1950s, however, there began to be considerable agitation among numismatists to gain a coveted place on the Commission and the procedure was changed. The president was now sent a fairly lengthy list (say double the required number) and then he made the final selection, though it remained possible for the director to flag a name for special consideration."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Legislative efforts to revive the Assay Commission by New Jersey Congressman Steven Rothman in 2000 and 2001 failed to get out of committee." Why did Rothman want to revive it? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've answered that in the article now! All these things are done except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, fixes look, good, one more thing: "If coin varying from the standard was found, that was also noted;" Was a word left out here?" looks like a word was left out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed that too. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt attention--this certainly took me less time to read than McKinley did. Everything I read looks fine, so I'm happy to Support pending image check. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: I have reviewed most of the US coinage articles, and find them soothing, probabaly because they are quite unconnected with my normal concerns (Ruhrfisch's closed Pennsylvanian bridges had a similar effect). Just a few issues:-

• Later years and abolition: The paragraph beginning "The 1881 Assay Commission..." deals with assay irregularities which occurred in 1881, 1885 and 1921. Is this a complete list of the years in which irregularities were detected? If so, that's pretty impressive in a period of nearly 200 years.

The source does not say so, and I rather doubt it. Probably the author of the sources choices. I could troll through 180 years of Mint Director's reports, in which the Assay Commission report usually appears, but I feel that using the secondary source means someone else has chosen the highlights and I can't be accused of OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• "...commissioner. Commissioners..." surely avoidable
• "The procedure was changed so that the Mint Director sent a list of potential candidates for service on the commission to the White House..." You have already said, in the previous section, "The usual procedure for members of the public to be appointed to the commission at that time was for the Mint Director to send the president a list of candidates for the chief executive's approval", so I am unclear what procedure has changed.

He (or later, she) now sent more nominations than were needed; as a practical matter the number of assay commissioners were limited to 20 or 30 because of the $2,500 appropriation. I'll make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nitpicking beyond the call of duty: The file description for File:1916 United States Assay Commission.png identifies Barber as standing third from the left, not fourth per your caption, and Woolley fourth not third.

No, if I make a mistake in my editing I want to know about it. I will change the caption for this and the other articles in which this is used. That image actually annoyed me into writing this article, actually. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree the image is horrible. Poor Andrew Lawson's head has evidently exploded, or melted, or become ectoplasm. (this is what he really looked like). Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have it on my list of things to do next time I'm at the ANA library in Colorado Springs, but I don't get to Colorado Springs very often ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• What form did the destruction of assayed coins take? Melting down? Pulverised with sledgehammers? Dissolved in acid? (sorry, I'm getting carried away)

1 and 4, actually. Some were melted down to get a picture of an average fineness, and acids are involved in the assaying process. I did see a source that discusses this, I thought it too arcane, but I will look at it again. Perhaps I should say "destroyed in the process"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• "When Carter stopped appointing public members..." I don't think it is customary (certainly in this article) to refer to presidents by surname-only. It smacks of POV.
• Medals: it's a bit confusing to read in the first paragraph that no assay medal was awarded for 1936 and to find the third paragraph beginning: "The 1936 assay medal was a mule of the Mint's medals..." etc. I got the picture eventually, but it took some sorting out. I would begin the paragraph with reference to the Mint officials' oversight, thus explaining the particular circumstances for that year.
• "Several 19th-century issues are known to have been restruck at a time when the Mint might retain older dies for many years." Meaning unclear. Maybe "Several 19th-century issues are known to have been restruck at times when it was the Mint's practice to retain older dies for many years." If that is the sense.

I'll play with it. Thank you for the review.

Happy to support when these are done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Supporting subject to resolution of image questions if any. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These are done, except as exchanged. Thank you for the review and for going above and beyond to catch that image description error.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough review and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. This article is surprisingly easy to read and enjoy, specially in my case as someone who hasn't considerable knowledge of the subject. Overall, it's very well written and I'm glad to grant my support. --Lecen (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Ficus obliqua

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it got a thorough GA review (thanks J Milburn and Guettarda) and I think it's about as comprehensive as possible, and the equal in prose of other FAs I've done. Have at it. This is a wikicup nomination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Well, you should double check that prose claim :P There's an error in the opening sentence, haha. No worries though, honest mistake. Also, you might want to revise usage of restrictive vs non-restrictive clauses throughout. I'll try reviewing this exhaustively as soon as possible. (: Auree ^★★ 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• damn, how'd I miss that one?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in use of "Retrieved on" vs "Retrieved"
  • fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when you provide state for AU locations, and whether these are abbreviated
  • states unabbreviated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links
  • removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Use a consistent date formatting
  • fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Always use endashes for ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ran autochecker for dashes, and scanned. Can't see any outstanding hyphens....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comments from Jim A few quibbles of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think we link countries, not even Australia
  • delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Western Australia should either be lower case W if it's geographical, or linked to the state at the first occurrence (like Queensland) if that's what it means.
  • linked - the size of the state means the two are almost synonymous anyway... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Northern Territory and Brisbane need links
  • linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Pacific Islands (x2) Not clear why "island" is capitalised. Note that the Pacific Island article (not linked) is internally inconsistent with regard to both capitalisation and definition.
  • Googling the term suggests that the term is official enough to be capitalised as a unique descriptor, so I'll go with that (but can be swayed the other way). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Distribution is a bit vague to say the least; we are told Pacific Islands, but only Tonga is mentioned. Does it occur on Hawaii? Easter Island? I appreciate that you may not be willing or able to list every island, but even Fiji and New Zealand don't get a mention.
  • I have found getting details on Pacific Island distribution generally tricky to say the least. The source says only "throughout pacific islands" which is very frustrating. It definitely doesn't grow in NZ but I haven't seen a source which specifically states that. I'l try and find some more sources for occurrences to give a better idea. found some more details which lists the islands I already know but is good to delineate. However I can only reiterate what the sources say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Buttress, fig wasp — link in lead?
  • yep. linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• fruit ripen x 2 — I can see that this is grammatical, but it would read easier if one or other of the words gained an "s"
• although peak in autumn and winter — is there a word missing?
  • + "they" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• flowers aligning an internal cavity — is aligning the right word here, can't visualised what is meant?
• Victorian — link required to avoid ambiguity
  • linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Preferring high nutrient soils with high water content — too high
  • rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Watling, Dick (2003). A Guide to the Birds of Fiji and Western Polynesia. Suva, Fiji: Environmental Consultants. p. 122. ISBN 982-9030-04-0. Many-coloured recorded as particularly fond of this fig. The pigeon's range in western Polynesia includes Fiji, Tonga, and both Samoas, if that helps.
  • yes - sources for pacific island material has been tricky to come by. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• You make this tree sound quite innocuous, shouldn't strangler fig appear somewhere?
  • annoyingly strangler fig is listed as a disambig page, which if it has a description, probably shouldn't be. Will maybe do some rejigging and then link. bit easter eggy but linked in ecology section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• amenities planting there — "there" may be redundant, shouldn't it be "amenity planting"?
  • done. my other problem was trying to find somewhere to link amenity to..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cas, I'm not far off supporting, but I don't think the range is correct. I had a look around, and found this, this and this which suggest that the correct range, other than Australasia, includes eastern Indonesia and the south west Pacific (not all Pacific islands). This is consistent with the lack of info from islands further north or east than western Polynesia. Unrelated, I found some religious stuff. I'd like you to review these sources and see if you need to tweak. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, nice finds - missed the range on the Flora of Oz page which encapsulates it well (Sulawesi is west of the Moluccas). Fixed up now. I reffed p. 203 of that religious one. Frustrating as there are some pages missing from my googleview but obliqua is mostly mentioned only in passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Images are fine. All Wikipedian/Flickr-user created, licensing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support A few quick thoughts from J Milburn. Delegates, I was a GA reviewer.

• "into dryer habitat" Can "habitat" be used like that?
  • changed to "regions" Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• It may be worth noting how Ficus brachypoda can be differentiated from this species; they are clearly similar. Is it just the range?
  • got a bit - sounds like it is a bit of a visual thing too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• A range map would be helpful, but I appreciate that these are not always possible
  • yeah this is a problem on two counts - the scaling would be tricky, having the east coast of Australia but spanning out to Sulawesi in one direction and out into the Pacific the other, but more trickily I am not sure about the range in the Moluccas, Sulawesi or in New Guinea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The habitat is warm temperate to moist subtropical rainforest as well as littoral rainforest." Could do with a restructure
  • upon thinking about it I just removed the second bit, as it can be both littoral and non-littoral...so...the bit doesn't help and just complicates things. I don't think we lose anything by its removal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• "the Geometer Moth species (Scopula epigypsa)" Remove the brackets?
  • done. dunno how I missed that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• "its small leaves and trunk's propensity to thicken,[30] give it attributes optimal for a tree 10–80 cm (4–32 in) in height" odd comma use.
  • yeah, was to slot ref after. I removed comma, placed ref at end and added a commented out comment stating what the refs are citing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Barlow's specimen from Brisbane won a prize at the Bonsai Clubs International competition in 2006" His only specimen?
  • no idea - thought this was the simplest way of mentioning it without going into that... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • How about something like "Barlow entered a specimen from Brisbane to the Bonsai Clubs International competition in 2006, winning a prize."? J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • yeah, I like that - tweaked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also made a few edits- revert if need be. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes; changes to support above. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - Just a couple of minor comments which don't effect my support:

• Distribution and habitat - The first sentence is quite long and the clauses don't seem quite parallel. Any chance of splitting it up?
• Done. damn these disparate islands making reporting cumbersome.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Uses, "14 m (4 ft) tall " Might want to check this conversion...
• Oops, missed that. left out a "6". done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise looks quite good...another great article! Dana boomer (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

John Francis Jackson

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to our regularly scheduled program of RAAF officers, I present "Old John" Jackson, so nicknamed because at 34 he was considered almost ancient by fighter-pilot standards. He achieved notability not just as an ace but as the commanding officer of No. 75 Squadron in the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. He probably didn't even have to take this assignment, he just wanted to defend Australia when things were looking particularly grim. He was also independently wealthy, yet there was still something of the country bumpkin about him -- witness his Crocodile Dundee moment in the Alexandria hotel... ;-) At Moresby he proved an inspiration to his inexperienced squadron, a warrior who, in the words of a journalist Osmar White, "had done more than conquer fear--he had killed it".

The article has been through GA and MilHist A-Class Reviews. I've also taken the liberty of listing this as a potential TFA for 28 April, the 70th anniversary of Jackson's death in combat, pending a successful (and relatively speedy) outcome here -- thanks in advance for your reviews! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I've just remembered that Harry Chauvel is almost certainly going to be scheduled for TFA on 25 April (Anzac Day for the non-Australians), and we can hardly expect WP to run two Aussie military men within three days of each other, so that last point is kinda moot... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include dates as part of shortened titles
• Be consistent in use of "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on"
  • Those should both be done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Why is 51 formatted completely differently to all other citations to newspaper articles?
  • No good reason at all -- the perils of pinching a line from another article you've worked on that employed a slightly different style... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:P02704.026MemoryLane1942.jpg: do the licensing tags given cover the photo, the memorial, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, both -- do you have a particular concern re. the memorial? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In the 'Early career' section we have "That August, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Reserve, or Citizen Air Force." (Bolding mine). Is there any chance you can expand on what is meant by the word "or"? Was/is this a colloquial term, an alternate official name for the RAAF Reserve, what the RAAF Reserve was actually called back then, ... ??? I clicked the RAAF link and couldn't find any additional information. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Ben. CAF appears to have been an alternate official term -- I could alter "or" to "also known as" or "also called" if that's works better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at John_Francis_Jackson#South West Pacific. I'd link to my edits, if I had made any. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Did some copyediting; revert what you don't like.
  • No prob with any of that -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• "...squadron commander of World War II." Is that preposition an Australian English thing? It sounds odd to my Canadian ear - "during" would seem more appropriate - but it may be a dialectical thing.
  • Heh, to be honest I just felt that "of" had a bit more of a flourish than "during"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• "...before posting to the Middle East in November 1940." Similar here: in Canada, we'd treat him as the object, rather than the subject, of "to post", but I gather that's a regional thing as well?
  • I think it's valid militarese but probably no need to inflict it on the general public... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Jackson made two stafing passes..." Should this be "strafing"?
  • Absolutely -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Subject to the above, support on all criteria except 1(c) (thorough and representative survey) and 2(c). Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Steve, appreciate your time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Purely nit-picks; this is a nice article.

• Not sure if the full date of death needs to be repeated in the lead.
  • Fair enough.
• Early career: "and also had interests in engineering and financial concerns." Minor, but the "also" is a bit of redundancy that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
  • Agreed.
• South West Pacific: Period and space need to be removed before reference 40.
  • Thanks for spotting that one!
• Remove the external link from the publisher of reference 5. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not too fussed either way here but I gathered the standard was to use an external link for the main page of an online source unless a WP article on the entity was available. Also if we drop the link for here I assume you'd be suggesting the same for citation 35? In any case, tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Haven't heard that this is a standard, but it's possible that I've missed it since I don't work with military-related articles. Does anyone know if that is the case? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • AFAIK it isn't an official standard, but I have seen it on many MilHist articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "had interests in engineering and financial concerns" - is there a less...British way to say this?
  • Will check sources and see if I can rephrase while keeping it general and avoiding unnecessary detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "which to his consternation he found was faster than many in the RAAF's inventory" - this is a bit awkwardly phrased, and I'm not sure why he'd be annoyed by this?
  • He was surprised and a little worried that most of his country's combat planes didn't have the performance of a commercial aircraft -- I think I would be too... ;-) I've trimmed it anyway and left it to the reader to contemplate... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "the couple had a son and a daughter" - do we know dates of birth?
  • I have included such things in other bios when I've known the details, so pretty sure no source supplied that for Jackson. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• What's a "dummy attack"?
  • Fake attacks, coming at the enemy plane with the apparent intent of firing but not actually doing so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "his eagerness to return to combat having already done enough" -> "despite having already done enough"?
  • Done, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• What is "sworn for probate"?
  • I've linked probate, but could simplify to "His estate was valued at..." if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "another local RAAF identity" - "identity" seems a strange word in that context if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Local identity" is a fairly common term in such a context in my part of the world -- seemed better than "another RAAF officer who came from the area" or suchlike, but always open to suggestions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "both sources stating that" -> "as both sources state that"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done/tks. Appreciate your time, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: reviewed this at ACR and think it has only gotten better since then. I have the following comments for the review:

• I made a couple of minor MOS tweaks. Please check that you agree;
  • They look good, tks.
• "and a four-minute reel of 16mm footage..." I think there should be a non-breaking space between "16" and "mm" here;
  • I think you're right...
• I spot checked the Australian Dictionary of Biography source and it seemed fine - it supports what is being said in the article and there wasn't any close paraphrasing that I could see;
• I also looked at Gillison. "After playing dead beside his crashed plane to discourage the Japanese fighters from machine-gunning him, he made his way through jungle for over a week to..." Reading this, I didn't quit get the picture that he actually ditched in the sea and had to swim ashore. Perhaps it could be tweaked slightly?
  • Heh, now you've confused me -- I don't actually mention Jackson ditching in the water at that point although, for the record, Gillison says he did on p.545. Or were you meaning to say that I should mention that he ditched and swam ashore?
    • G'day, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was trying to say that I think you might mention that he ditched and swam ashore. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, no worries, maybe I confused myself... Anyway, wilco. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• random Google searches didn't reveal any copyright violations of internet sources. Good work as usual. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your spotchecks and support, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Bal des Ardents

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after sucking the sources dry, I think it's ready. It's about an odd event at the court of Charles VI of France in 1393. Thanks to Sarastro1 for the peer review, and thanks to Ceoil, Malleus Fatuorum, Riggr Mortis and Yomangani for help and encouragement. Note to delegates: spotchecks previously done here and here. Images are all earlier than 16th century. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just a few things (only read the "Bal des Ardents and aftermath" section):

• "...the King by the quick with of the Duchess of Berry..." should "with" be "wit"?
• Louis I, Duke of Orléans- consistency with names? called "Louis", "Orleans", and "Louis of Orleans" in various parts of the article, and he seems to be introduced multiple times just in this section.

Other than these, this section was well written, so good job. Clay^Clay_Clay 06:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these. I've fixed the sentence with the typo and made Orléans consistent throughout. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments of Ruslik0 (after reading the first two sections):

  I think the text needs polishing. I fixed some problems but not sure that all.

  In the sentence "who had been brought from Bavaria and at Charles' uncles." What does "at Charles' uncles" mean?

  "In 1404, Philip the Bold's son, John the Fearless, had his cousin Orléans assassinated ..." However the articles about John_the_Fearless and Louis of Orléans say that this happened in 1407.

Ruslik_Zero 07:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. I've fixed the typos and will try to find someone to polish the prose. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been copy-edited and the prose polished. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Further comments. In the third section: The Monk of St Denis disapproved of the event in his chronicle. The Monk may have believed, as was common, that remarriage was a sacrilege and required community censure in the form of a "wild charivari". The first sentence says that the monk disapproved the event, while the second implies that he approved it. Can you clarify this? Ruslik_Zero 16:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I see what you mean. I've clarified that it was the pagan nature of the censure that he seemed to dislike. Does that work? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case the first sentence is redundant. Ruslik_Zero 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded again slightly here, however I believe it's important for the following reasons: 1., what we know of the event comes from the two chronicles, one written by Froissart (secular) and the other by the Monk who was a cleric; 2., most sources devote a sentence, a paragraph, at few pages to the event, however Veenstra wrote an entire book about sorcery at King Charles' court in which he devotes a chapter to the event with copious amounts of analysis regarding the Monk's beliefs; 3., other sources also mention that the Monk's account is written from the point-of-view of a medieval cleric. Therefore, in my view, the small phrase that the Monk disliked the event because of its pagan aspect is necessary to accurately and comprehensively reflect the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I support its now. Ruslik_Zero 07:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. It's a much improved page because of your review. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Supportwith nitpicks: I commented extensively at the peer review (wrong Sarastro named above, btw!!) and this already outstanding article has improved immensely since then. I have no hesitation in supporting. It is comprehensive, accessible in that it explains quite complicated ideas well for the general reader, and well written. Just a few comments and questions which do no affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• "his uncles dukes of Burgundy and Berry took advantage …": Missing word here?
• "reestablishing": I always assumed it was "re-establishing", but I'm quite likely wrong
• "Jean Froissart wrote in the chronicles": Given that the regular reader will be unaware that Froissart's work was known as the chronicles, it may be better to italicise this and reword as "Jean Froissart wrote in his Chronicles…"
• "the uncles walked in humility behind the King on horseback": Who was on horseback, the king or the uncles?
• "He explains that in folkloric rituals, "The burning did not happen literally but in effigie, contrary to the 'Bal des Ardents' where the seasonal fertility rite had watered down to courtly entertainment, but where burning had been promoted to a dreadful reality."": A slight hangover from the peer review, but did these rituals actually involve ritual burning (I believe the article previously said so)? If so, maybe add a line to say so, as the quote is otherwise explaining something that has not been mentioned.
• "A 15th century chronicle describes the event as una corea procurance demone (a dance to ward off the devil).": Is this referring to the rituals mentioned in the rest of the paragraph or to the specific events of the Bal des Ardents?
• And the whole "Folkloric" section mentions ritual burnings, but unless I am mistaken, there was no intention (aside from the possible motivation of the king's brother!) for burning to play any part. Unless I have misunderstood (which is very possible!), this section is suggesting that these ritual burnings would have several possible applications to the circumstances surrounding the king. But, the "burning" was accidental, so I am not quite sure I see the point. Either way, this is a minor point and feel free to ignore it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support (and sorry about the user name mix-up!). I've fixed all of these but need to think a little more about the last point. What I'm trying to say is that the dance at court with the nobles dressed as wildmen shows that the latent pagan rituals were common enough, or well-known enough, to be re-enacted at court. The irony, of course, is that as Veenstra states, it became a dreadful reality. I've pulled the best quote out of that source that I can but will spend a little more time thinking about how to present this without straying from the sources. Furthermore, the sources seem to hint but don't fully state (because nobody really knows) that, as you say, there was motivation by the king's brother to make the ritual a "dreadful reality". Anyway, I've struggled with this, and will give it a bit more thought as to how to get it right. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've struck my nitpicks in case there was any doubt; I think the Folkloric section works well enough now, and I think the "hmm, was it deliberate?" ambiguity here is fine. A really great article! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The article looks really good to me. Just some minor issues:

• In the lede, Ball of the Burning Men and Le Bal des Savages should both be capitalized. Also, since this article's title is Bal des Ardents, wouldn't it be more consistent to say the Bal des Savages?
• I'd suggest replacing madness with mental illness or something similar.
• In "Charles le bien-aimé", Charles should also be italicized.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The event happened over seven centuries ago so it goes by various names but all the sources I've read use the title Bal des Ardent (links to sources here: , ) with the others as secondary titles. It's a good question, so I'll add sources for the titles and I've italicized throughout. Thanks for noticing that. As for the caps - you don't mean all caps do you? That's not per MOSCAPS, I don't believe. As for the illness - am thinking about what to use for wording. Again, the sources almost unanimously refer to Charles' as being mad, not mentally ill, despite the more modern wording. Will dig around a bit regarding this. Replaced "madness" with "insanity". Thanks for reading and for the comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, my bad. I meant italicized not capitalized. Those are words being used as words, so they should be italicized per MOS.
• The Bal des Savages thing: All I mean is that, since you chose to use the English the rather than the French le for Bal des Ardens, it would make sense to also write the Bal des Savages rather than le Bal des Savages. It's not a significant issue, but it would seem more consistent.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh good, I was a little confused. I've already removed le to be consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. Great job on the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I enjoyed working on it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tuchman 1997 or 1979 or 1978? Seward 1978 or 1987? Check date consistency
• Missing bibliographic info for Nara 2009
• FN 34: punctuation
• Date for Heckscher?
• Crane: check publisher name
• Be consistent in whether or not states are abbreviated
• Gibbons: punctuation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria, for catching these. I've fixed them. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Question This article Dutchess of Berry says she was 14 at the time; and Bal des Ardents says 15; which is true?..Modernist (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking that. Tuchman definitely says 15 and the other page doesn't have a source, so I've fixed it and added a source there. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Interesting read TK...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support! It's been an interesting page to work on. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments reading through...queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2nd sentence of lede has colon splitting clauses, but should be semicolon or dash. Colon separates when 2nd part is list...?

The event led to a loss of confidence in Charles' capacity to rule; - "undermined confidence"?

In 1387, the 20-year-old Charles assumed sole control of the monarchy; he immediately dismissed his uncles and reinstated the Marmousets, - sounds a tad choppy to mine own ears. I'd go with " In 1387, the 20-year-old Charles assumed sole control of the monarchy and immediately dismissed his uncles and reinstated the Marmousets," as it floweth better methinks.

• The above are but minor quibbles - methinks this work verily meeteth the standards of a Featured Article or prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I've verily madeth the suggested changes. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article. Since the last FAC nom it has undergone more improvements, another peer review, and another copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I believe the source and image review from the last attempt still applies as these were not changed. Thanks for your input in advance. DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: It should be understood that the recent peer review only dealt with the lead and plot sections. After an intial readthrough of the article I have several issues :-

• The plot section contains a hidden note pointing out that the plot summary at present considerably exceeds the 400 to 700 wordlength guideline of WP:FILM.
  • I added that note myself to deter IP's from constantly adding to it after every trim I make. As you can see, they seem to ignore it. The word guideline is a case by case basis for films, but I will try to trim it down further. It seems that every time I do, either an IP will add to it, or a reviewer will say it isn't thorough enough. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I made some trims to the Plot. DrNegative (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know when Jules Verne's book was first published under the translated title A Journey to the Center of the Earth, with the AmEng spelling. Unless it was indeed in 1864, it would be more accurate to replace the year in the text with a note: "first published in 1864 as Voyage au centre de la Terre".
  • Added note clarifying. DrNegative (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I understand that the article has been copyedited, but there are some odd sentences. For example:-
  • "The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
    • I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like my misreading of "professorial"; sorry, please ignore this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial for the nostalgia evoked by the film's action-adventure setting." Can you explain what this means?
    • They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, fixed. DrNegative (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later still, "Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures." What "two cultures"? The term has not previously been used. (These three are examples only)
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is a tendency to overdetailing, particularly evident at the beginning of the "Writing" section. Why is it relevant to know that Whedon worked on Toy Story? Why is the very vague wording "about three to four months, plus or minus a few weeks" useful information? Towards the end of the same section we are even informed that Trousdale used spiral-bound notebooks – why is that significant?
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have not carried out a sources review, but three quick points:
  • I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
    • Film articles have used, and at times still use the star ratings when citing a film critic who uses them. It gives a scope of the critic's actual grade regardless of the prose covering him/her within the article. If it is a problem I can remove them though. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, what makes ReelViews.net a reliable source?
    • I would like to quote myself from the previous FAC in regards to your comment: "This is a site owned and maintained by notable web-critic James Berardinelli. Along with his site, he has also had books published which featured his site reviews. Notable film critic Roger Ebert has wrote his book forwards and considers him "the best of the Web-based critics." Rotten Tomatoes also considers him a "Top Critic", a title which they reserve for only the most notable film critics around the world." DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The link in ref 80 returns "page not found"
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Images: There are three non-free images. I don't honestly think that the sketch of Milo and Kida can really be said to vital to readers' understanding. I would accept the other two.
  • I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, be ready to defend your decision if others raise the point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert as far as film articles go, but in terms of its general structure and approach this looks reasonably promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments were handled in the PR; good luck! ResMar 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose (from Steve ^T • C): I see this article has had numerous copyedits, including one from the GOCE; I don't know if it's a by-product of having too many editors' playing with the text, but a review of the lead section alone reveals some issues; I haven't gone beyond this section, but if representative of the rest of the text, it would indicate that the article needs more work before gaining the star:

• Overlinking: common English words and phrases should not be linked; the sea of blue is often unavoidable in the lead, but linking terms such as ensemble cast, musical film, adventure film, linguist, film score, target audience, direct-to-video and cult film will only reduce the impact of the higher-value links around them. Also, and I may be wrong on this point, but I don't believe it's usual to put anchor links in the lead to sections of the same article, such as Atlantis: The Lost Empire#Related works; the table of contents is situated right below, and the lead is meant as a summary of the entire article in any case, so the question arises as to why you're linking one and not the others.
  • I cut down a lot of links and removed the anchor. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do you really need to name so many castmembers? The long list renders the sentence snakelike and exhausting. Do you think it would be a good idea to keep it just to the leads, or at least trim those with very minor roles?
  • Trimmed the cast list to the main characters and most notable stars. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Atlantis was noted for adopting the distinctive visual style of comic book creator Mike Mignola."—I'm not sure "noted" works, or even conveys your intended meaning; "notable" might be better, given that Mignola worked on the film, though its use can be lazy. What exactly are you trying to say?
  • Changed it to "notable". DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• The use of the word "produced" in the first and second sentences is jarring—not because of the repetition, but because of the (near) homonymy: while strongly related, they are slightly different concepts (the job of a film producer and the more straightforward "made by").
  • I rewrote those sentences a tad taking your suggestions into account. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... while James Newton Howard (composer for Disney's 2000 animated feature Dinosaur) ..."—does the parenthetical have any relevance? It's quite odd.
  • Point taken, removed the parenthetical. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, the film performed modestly at the box office and received mixed reviews from critics. With a budget of $100 million, Atlantis earned $186 million in worldwide box-office revenue, $84 million of which was earned in the United States and Canada. Some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—this part begins with a statement summarising the box office performance, then the critical reaction, before returning to discuss the box office in more detail and finally doing the same with the reviews. This approach hurts the flow of the piece, and feels conspicuously structured; do you think it would be better to rephrase to present a more linear telling (and remove some redundancies from the prose to boot)? The following is just a suggestion; it isn't the best writing in the world, but you get the idea:

  "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, Atlantis performed modestly at the box office. Budgeted at $100 million, the film grossed $186 million worldwide, $84 million of which was earned in North America. The film received mixed reviews from critics; some praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others ..."

  • I moved the sentence to follow the box office statement as suggested and rewrote it a tad. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• While we're at it: "... felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—I can't parse this. How can these things hurt the premise?
  • Tweaked sentence, more to the point now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, these issues are just what I picked up from a quick scan of the lead, which at this stage should be the most finely-honed of any section in the article. It's the first that your readers will see, and if it's clunky or difficult to read, it may discourage them from continuing. When you've fixed these, I strongly advise going through the rest of the article to look for similar. From what I can tell, it's a well-researched and comprehensive piece; it'd be a shame if the lack of polish on the prose were to let that promise down. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and your valuable input Steve. I'll continue scanning it over for any tweaks. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lobo comments Support. This is a very thorough article, congratulations on a fine effort. I do however have some comments and a couple of issues, that for me would need to be addressed before supporting.

• "Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)" could be made more concise > "..began after production had finished on..." ?
  • Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a bit confused by the section on "Cast > Milo James Thatch". It says that the character was based on Okrand, but then Pomeroy is quoted as saying it was like a "self portrait"?
  • Removed "self-portrait" statement. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Randy Haycock, stated that Summer was very "intimidating" when he first met her; that indicated how he wanted Kida to look and act on screen when she meets Milo". I'm not keen on this sentence. At the least, I think the "that" should be changed to "this". And maybe "influenced" instead of "indicated"?
  • Changed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "and the role "fits him like a glove". Don't we need a "said" here? ("and said the role...")
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole was allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices". It feels like there's a word missing here too...."by allowing"? "like allowing"?
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The idea for Atlantis: The Lost Empire came about in October 1996". I find "came about" a bit casual.
  • Added "came to fruition". Good? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Disregard that. User:Apo-calypso fixed it. DrNegative (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Having recently completed The Hunchback of Notre Dame.[21] the producer.." We have a random full-stop here.
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Marc Okrand is linked in the language section, but has already been linked under cast.
  • Removed wikilink. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a quote available on why they decided to create their own language?
  • The development section paragraph directly above it has a quote from Wise that states, "Let's get the architectural style, clothing, heritage, customs, how they would sleep, and how they would speak. So we brought people on board who would help us develop those ideas." Do you not feel that this is satisfactory or should I move it down? DrNegative (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The initial draft was 155 pages, much longer than a typical Disney film script (which usually runs 90 pages)". Is this fact covered by the next footnote?
  • Yes. Are you implying that I should replicate the footnote for the prior sentence? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of "Animation" ends without a reference, which I've been told paragraphs always should.
  • Replicated footnote. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• I wonder if there is really a need for the "Digital animation" subheading?
  • Removed it. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The lead currently has this sentence: "The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films produced with full CGI." I don't see any mention of this is the "Animation" section? This surely influenced their decision to use CGI, and is pretty important?!
  • This was in reference to the beginning paragraph of the box-office section in which there were concerns by the directors and reporters over the film's competition with Shrek. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The VHS edition presented the film in its original theatrical ratio with the use of anamorphic widescreen." Ref? Maybe not essential, but preferable.
  • I removed the sentence for lack of a reliable source. It is not really important but will re-add later on if I manage to find one. DrNegative (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The second video game seems to have its own article, that should be linked.
  • Linked, that article was removed and re-added very recently, so I was unsure if a wikilink was appropriate. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it is appropriate to have Ebert's comment singled out in a quote box. It could influence readers' take on the film, which breaches WP:NPOV.
  • Moved quote in to paragraph body. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The "General response" section suggests that the film received many negative reviews. I'm afraid I don't feel that this is accurately reflected in the "reviews" section. Too much weight is given to the positive reviews.
  • I added another negative review. As it stands now, the section has 4 positives, 2 mediocre, and 3 negatives. Does the weight look better? DrNegative (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the last two paragraphs could easily be given their own sub-section called "Interpretation", or something similar?
  • Added sub-section "Themes and interpretations". DrNegative (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The lead says it has become a cult film. We need some mention of this in the article.
  • Added this mention to paragraph regarding Mignola in the animation section. DrNegative (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• A comment on the structure: To me, it feels a bit awkward having the home media/video games/etc stuff come before the critical response. Chronologically, it just doesn't make sense. I think these should come at the end, somehow. --Lobo (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I reorganized the placement of those sections taking your suggestions into account. The only logical place for home-media to be is under release in my opinion. Other FA film articles also place it there. I am not sure where else to place it. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Replies

• Home media could just have its own section, a level 2 heading coming between 'Accolades' and 'Related works'? I personally think that would be fine. The paragraph is big enough to justify its own section. If you really don't like this idea though, I won't push for it. The main thing is that the related stuff is now at the end, that's much better.
  • I made it a level 2 sub header and moved it down. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished production on The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)." This sentence has got longer, not more concise! I was suggesting "Development of the film began after production had finished on THoND."
  • The original intent for the longer sentence was to clarify to the reader that the producers and the directors were both involved with Hunchback, and that chronologically, this film came after it in their timeline, not Disney's. But I changed it to your suggestion anyway, I guess the original intent wasn't being conveyed as I thought it would. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole by allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices while trying to "throw myself into the scene and feel like I'm in this make-believe world". This sentence has become even more unclear. It's a jumbled mess, I'm afraid. Please completely revise it.
  • I split that entire statement into two sentences and rewrote a tad. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the reviews section now, I can see that there is very little structure to it. You've just sort of tagged a review on the end, without really thinking about the best place to place it. I think it all needs to be a bit better organised, with clear indicators of what the film was criticised and praised for. I'm also wondering if the "General response" and "Reviews" subheadings are even needed at all? --Lobo (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The overall structure is following alternating positive, negative, mediocre reviews. Very common is film articles with "mixed" reviews. IMO, the negative review which I added fit perfectly on the end, and captures a reviewer's feelings on the comparison/competition with Shrek (mentioned elsewhere within the article) in relation to the plot. I feel that the quotes/statements from each reviewer sum up and accurately reflect their reviews nicely, without implying that they were cherry picked. What examples/changes would you suggest? This would quite possibly be a major content change which entails a withdrawal of the FAC.

The subheadings are more subjective personal taste at this point. "General response" titles the paragraph from the aggregates and CinemaScore polls, while "Reviews" focusing on the film critics. I think it could swing either way, but I'm open to suggestions. Was that a rhetorical question or are you wanting the headings removed? DrNegative (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the subheadings need to be there. But again, I won't push for it. Just a suggestion for you to consider. As for the reviews paragraph, I'm not asking for any huge changes, I just think it could be better organised. Looking at other FA film articles, the "Reviews" section usually has paragraphs focusing on specific aspects. I think an excellent example for mixed reviews is in Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film): see how it highlights the divisive areas? Or if you just need something more simple, the very recently promoted Jaws (film) goes for a clean break of "positive" followed by "negative". This is also effective, because you can ascertain straight off what was praised and what wasn't. This article doesn't need to be exactly like these, but I just think there needs to be a bit more focus, rather than "on", "off", "on", "off". I hope I'm not being disheartening, on the whole it's an excellent article. --Lobo (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll look into it. DrNegative (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited and restructured the Reception section to a point in which I believe you were going for in your suggestion. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That is looking much better! It feels so much more crafted and professional now, don't you think? I have declared a full support above. Well done. --Lobo (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm nitpcking here, but you now have two consecutive sentences that begin "Critic X disliked the film..." I'd suggest recasting one for some variation.

Ah yes, thanks for catching that, and for your help and suggestions. DrNegative (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - everything in the article looks good to me. However, I think there should be a recapitulation of all reviews and review aggregators (in this case, it's "mixed"). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note -- Re. nominator's comment at the top, while citation and image reviews were conducted on the last FAC for this article, I haven't seen a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio and close paraphrasing. Pls point one out if I've missed it, otherwise one will be required here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the sources have been looked over but the actual spot-checks have not yet been done. Thanks for pointing that out. DrNegative (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Some footnotes are a bit ambiguous, such as "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". These footnotes are relying on the hyperlink to take the reader down to an entry in the Bibliography "Atlantis: The Lost Empire—Supplemental Material (DVD)". The text of the footnotes, without the hyperlink, should not have any ambiguity, that is, should uniquely identify a single source in the Bibliography section. For example: change "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" to "Supplemental material: History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". Another example: "Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02" should be "Supplemental material: Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02"
  • The front of disc #2 has "Supplemental Features" printed on the front of it. Once you load it up, you have a menu tree that branches like the footnotes are labeled within the article. I assumed placing "Supplemental Features" at the beginning of every footnote that referenced that disc would come across as redundant. Per your suggestion, are you saying that you want me to place that in front of every footnote which references disc 2 in the Bibliography regardless? DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The key requirement is that a reader must be able to get from the footnote down to the correct item in the Bibliography without using hyperlinks. So the footnote text must include the name of the Bibliography entry. Thus, "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" is not sufficient. But "Supplemental material: History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" is sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

... feel free to abbreviate to make it more concise. E.g. the footnote could say "Supp. Mat: History ..." and the Bibliography could say "Supplemental Material (cited as "Supp. Mat."), second DVD, 1999, etc". --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I added "Supplemental Features" to each footnote that referred to Disc 2 in the bibliography. I believe this satisfies your suggestion? DrNegative (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good now. If you can clarify some of the wording about the aspect ratio, I'll change my comment to Support. --Noleander (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Confusing: " Despite the film's larger format, the production team worked within a smaller frame on the same paper and equipment used for standard aspect ratio (1.66:1) Disney-animated films for budgetary reasons" - I don't understand what this paragraph is saying. Before this sentence is says they chose to use an especially large format; then the quoted sentence says they did not. Need to clarify if they used the larger format or not. If they did, why then say " the production team worked within a smaller frame"?

A similar issue exists in the image caption showing the two frames: Is it true that the wider one was used in theaters, and the narrower one used on the DVD? If the wider was also used for DVD, then what is the purpose of showing the cropping?

I think maybe the wording could be tweaked to make this clearer to the reader. The widescreen format is larger or wider (longer rectangle in length assuming height was the same), but Disney's animation desks and paper were still the more square 1.66:1 ratio. So to draw the film, the animators had to shrink the rectangle to fit inside their traditional square. The picture conveys more so the advantage of that rectangle (2.35:1 widescreen) once it was projected in theaters. DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that could be clearer. I think the article should clearly say that the movie was made and produced and delivered in the 2:35 widescreen format; and that that format is great, and used for most post-2000 movies; and that the animators had to go through some hassle because some of their animation equipment was geared to the 1:66 ratio. Also try to put it in context: Certainly Disney started making all its animated movies in widescreen soon thereafter, correct? So they just happened to be pioneers? --Noleander (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave that entire paragraph a copyedit and rearranged it a little in an attempt to be more concise and to the point. I also trimmed the caption down on the picture in order to do the same thing. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wording - "Kirk Wise noted its design as a treasure map showing the path to Atlantis." - That doesn't read very well. Maybe "noted that its design was a .." or " suggested that its design could be interpreted as ...".
  • Fixed, used your first suggestion. DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Good article, leaning towards Support once the above are addressed.

Changing to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note – Spotchecks of the sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing are still needed please. Graham Colm (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry for opposing this late into the nomination, but I feel the prose isn't up to standard yet. The article is also difficult to follow in some areas. Samples:

Lead

• "Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, with Don Hahn as producer, it is the first science fiction film in the Disney animated features canon and the 41st overall." Lacks parallelism; suggest "Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk wise, and produced by Don Hahn, it is the first"... also, I'm not sure, but I think it should be "1st... and 41st" rather than "first... and 41st" per the MoS.

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "a sacred book which he believes" restrictive/non-restrictive clause issue -- either add a comma before "which" or change it to "that"

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Instead of another musical, the team decided to do an action-adventure film inspired by the works of Jules Verne." which team?

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films produced with full CGI." Also, I'm not sure what traditional animation is.

Fixed, also wikilinked hand-drawn animation. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Released to mixed reviews, some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others disliked it due to the unclear target audience and absence of songs." "Released to mixed reviews," is a dangling participle (grammatically it modifies "some critics"), plus it's redundant to the rest of the sentence anyway.

Removed the opening of the sentece. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• It might just be me, but the lead ends somewhat abruptly. It suddenly switches from talking about awards to the film's being considered a cult favorite, which is somewhat vague on its own anyway.

This is notable enough for the lead but looking at it chronologically, there is really no other place to put it. The cult status comes over time, well after all of the events which the article depicts. To close the lead with it seems like the most logical place to put it. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot

• "toward" in the lead (and elsewhere) but "towards" in the plot section

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Caught in the midst of an evacuation from the capital city, the Queen of Atlantis is caught" can we avoid her being caught twice?

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "and discover the Atlantean language is the basis" reads somewhat like a garden path; suggest "discover that the Atlantean language..."?

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• ", but upon examining it realizes a page is missing." missing a subject here, almost reads like "it" is the subject

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Returning with Kida," had they ever left? If so, where for? It's not clear as is.

Made it clear that they went on a deep swim to explore. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Rourke mortally wounds the King of Atlantis (Leonard Nimoy) while trying to extract information about the crystal's location, but finds it for himself hidden beneath the throne room." sentence is somewhat vague; technically "it" refers to "the crystal's location", and this is the first time we read about any throne room.

Tweaked this sentence a little in an attempt to make it more concise. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I'm pretty confused to what's going on with the crystals. I'm guessing there's one main crystal that's important with other smaller crystals that are interdependent, but the article isn't too clear.

You are absolutely right, though it is never fully explained within the film. The little crystals are all fully dependent of the mother crystal. The 4th paragraph in the Plot section states: Milo helps Kida uncover the nature of the Heart of Atlantis: it supplies the Atlanteans with power and longevity through the crystals worn around their necks. That is all we have, anything more would be speculation and/or original research. I'm not sure how to make it an clearer without performing the latter. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The surviving crew goes back to the surface and promises Whitmore they" subject-verb-subject agreement type of issue; suggest "The surviving crew members return to the surface and promise to keep the discovery of Atlantis a secret."

Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopping here. Some of these may seem nitpicky, but I really feel they mar the overall flow of the article. It could benefit from an independent copy-editor. Auree ^★★ 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your opposition, thank you for your suggestions of improvement Auree. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your changes have helped, thanks. Unfortunately this was just a look-through of two sections, and I'm not sure how much time I have for the rest (which, on a quick glance, reveals some similar issues). I might leave you more comments on this article's talk page or the FAC talk page, but asking an experienced copy-editor with enough time on their hands -- that is, time to read the entire article line by line -- would be the best approach here (instead of having a bunch of people copy-edit bits of the text). A few of the better ones I've seen around are User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Dank, User:Finetooth, and User:Mark Arsten, though I'm not sure if they'd be up for it (and I think Dank only copy-edits Milhist articles nowadays). Auree ^★★ 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Handling of grammatical theme at the opening:

There was a bit of confusion in dividing the meanings up into the sentences, I suspect; which bits are about the fundamentals of creation, writing, production, and the positioning of the film in the industry context? Which bits are about the voice-over actors?:

"Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a 2001 American animated film created by Walt Disney Feature Animation. Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, and produced by Don Hahn, it is the 1st science fiction film in the Disney animated features canon and the 41st overall. The film features an ensemble cast with the voices of Michael J. Fox, Cree Summer, James Garner, Leonard Nimoy, Don Novello, and Jim Varney in his final role before his death. Set in 1914, the film tells the story of a young man who gains possession of a sacred book, which he believes will guide him and a crew of adventurers to the lost city of Atlantis."

Let me see ...

"Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a 2001 American animated film created by Walt Disney Feature Animation – the first science fiction film in Disney's animated features canon and the 41st overall. Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, and produced by Don Hahn, the film features an ensemble cast with the voices of Michael J. Fox, Cree Summer, James Garner, Leonard Nimoy, Don Novello, and Jim Varney in his final role before his death. Set in 1914, Atlantis tells the story of a young man who gains possession of a sacred book, which he believes will guide him and a crew of adventurers to the lost city of Atlantis."

You can probably do better since you know the topic well. Tony (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I implemented your example into the article as I feel that it flows far better than what was present. DrNegative (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegates Note: I think this candidate is close to promotion. A spotcheck for verifiablity and close paraphrasing is still needed. Any uninvolved editor can do this. Please ask around. Graham Colm (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll do the source review. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Source Review from Noleander

• FN 3:

Article:" English Budget $90–120 million[1][2][3][nb 1] Box office $186,053,725[3]"

Source: Domestic: $84,056,472 45.2% + Foreign: $101,997,253 54.8% = Worldwide: $186,053,725

• FN 12 - Source not available.
• FN 25 - Source not available..
• FN 30 -

Article: and his quote "in a single day and night of misfortune, the island of Atlantis disappeared into the depths of the sea"[30]

Source - Yes, supports that.

• FN 39- Source not available.
• FN 45

Article "At the peak of its production, 350 animators, artists and technicians were working on Atlantis[45]

Source - Book is available onllne in Google Books : I've read it and it does support the material (cannot cut and paste).

• FN 51 -

Article " Mignola was surprised when first contacted by the studio to work on Atlantis." "I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big, sq.."

Source: ""I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big square weird hands," recalls Mignola. "I said to the guy nex..." ""As a reward for the little bit of stuff I did, Francis [Ford Coppola] invited me up to watch a rough cut of the picture," says Mignola. "I assumed it was going to be a dozen guys, but it was just me, him and George Lucas. At that point I was thinking, 'Well, my life has taken an odd turn.' It was pretty weird." ... Mignola's life only got weirder when Disney approached him to adapt his art style to the animated feature "Atlantis: The Lost Empire." During his first meeting with the studio, he was shown enlargements of his "Hellboy" comic pages overlaid with notes on how he did things, in terms he didn't understand."

• FN 62

Article "The film was one of Disney's first marketing attempts through mobile network operators, and allowed users to download games based on the film.[62] "

Source: Cited page from book is available on Google books (cannot cut and paste); I read it and it does support the article's wording.

• FN 81

Article:"James Berardinelli, film critic for ReelViews, wrote a positive review of the film, giving it three out of four stars. He wrote, "On the whole, Atlantis offers 90 minutes of solid entertainment, once again proving that while Disney may be clueless when it comes to producing good live-action movies, they are exactly the opposite when it comes to their animated division."[81]"

Source: - Does contain that material.

• FN 100:

Article : Online Film Critics Society Awards 2001[100] Best Animated Feature

Source :"BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Atlantis: The Lost Empire; Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within ..."

• FN 110

Article: "Atlantis: The Lost Empire is an action game developed by Eurocom for the PlayStation console which was released July 12, 2001. The player controls Milo, Audrey, Molière, and Vinny as they traverse Atlantis and rescue Princess Kida, finally saving Atlantis from doom. Some features in the game unlock others (such as a movie) by finding Atlantean symbols which spell "Atlantis".[110] "

Source: Not fully supporting that material. The source does review the game, but I do not see (a) release date; or (b) rescue Kida.

Conclusion: I see an issue with #110, which needs to be addressed, but overall I detect no problems with fabrication, copyright violations, or close paraphrasing.
End Noleander source review; --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your source review. I copyedited the sentence referencing source[110] to support the material. Removed mention of saving Kida (even though you really do but I cant find a source that mentions it) but if you look closely, the release date is printed near the top of the IGN article under the game title and platform. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Ahalya

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahalya is a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, venerated and condemned and who has become famous in legend due to her seduction by the king of the gods. The article returns to FAC, after two months of several constructive edits and comments (PR and talk) by various editors (in order of appearance): User:Mark Arsten, User:Saravask, User:Indian Chronicles, User:Rothorpe, User:Alarbus, User:Allens and User:Accedie. IMO, Ahalya is ready for another FAC as the improvements in the last two months have addressed the prose and reference related concerns in the last nomination. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments : A scholarly piece of work on a topic of which I know little. I'll go through in more detail later, but just a couple of comments for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Today is not the right day for pleasure." Ahalya protests, maintaining that she imagines Gautama to be Indra as they have sex and that a woman should be a stone, forgoing all thought of pleasure. That night, when Ahalya longs for conjugal pleasure — too much "pleasure"?
  • Reworded.
• It's not clear to me why Buddhist Thailand should have a version of this
  • The Ramayana has many versions across South East India, including Buddhist nations. See Ramakien.
• I'm not sure what is the point of the Zeus legend at the end. There are similar tales in Roman, Celtic and Arthurian legend, and unless there is a direct link between the Indian and Greek versions it seems arbitrary to pick this one.
  • Scholars have linked Ahalya and Alceme (but not any of the other counterparts).

Thanks for your comments. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Zeus reply) That's not clear from your text, is it worth adding a footnote to clarify why you have selected this particular tale? Final comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is scholars like Söhnen and Doniger who relate (select) and contrast Alceme with Ahalya, the Greek Zeus is often compared to the Hindu Indra in other contexts too. The stories may have influenced each other. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Allens that "repercussions" reads better than "consequences"

• Hints of a relationship with Indra in the Brahmanas — bit clunky as a heading, seems more like a summary, wouldn't Brahmanas do?

• How about "Hints of a relationship with Indra"??--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest wikilinking mediaeval, petrification, iconographic, benediction, cyclonic and neurologist.

• mediaeval: no proper article available that talks about Hindu/India in mediaeval times. mediaeval India is a stub. petrification is about the scientific process, not this supernatural one. Benediction, like the Foot washing article (which I wanted to link) are about Christian concepts (not Hindu). Linked others. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• The spelling of mediaeval looks old-fashioned even to me, as a Brit of a certain age, but it's obviously not wrong, so your call.
• Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore (x2). He may be a great man, but we only need to be told he's a Nobel laurate once, I think.
• "Marxist critic" If it's a factual/generally accepted description, you don't need quote marks. If it is a quotation, it should be attributed and followed immediately by a reference.

• Done rest.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I note that there are content-related issues below, but for my part I'm happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose for now The nominator characterizes the issues of the first FAC as those of prose. This is incorrect. The main issue was that the source material had been inadequately digested and was consequently inadequately integrated. Errors of coherence abounded. No amount of corralling of well-meaning and capable copy-editors can resolve that problem. (I'm traveling and don't have much time, and certainly little time to respond, so the delegates may treat my oppose as a comment.) Here are some issues in the first paragraph of the lead:
• "is described in Hindu mythology as the wife of the sage Gautama"
  • It is possible that she is indeed described as "the wife of the sage Gautama," but in the one early translation of the Ramayana that I checked, her first mention is not a description, but rather an allusion. Thus when Rama asks:
    "'O reverend lord, I long to know
    What hermit dwelt here long ago.'
    Then to the prince his holy guide,
    Most eloquent of men, replied : ...
    This was the grove—most lovely then—
    Of Gautam, O thou best of men.
    Like heaven itself, most honoured by
    The Gods who dwell above the sky.
    Here with Ahalya at his side
    His fervid task the ascetic plied."
    It is more likely that she is presented/is depicted/alluded to/appears in Hindu mythology as the wife of Gautama.
    • This seems to be an extract from Bala Kanda, where Vishvamitra describes Ahalya's tale. Most scriptures do not allude to her as the sage's wife, but describe her tale. Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• as the wife of the sage Gautama
  • As before, the author is adamant about making an obscure point about the Hindu sage Gautama Maharishi being the original Gautama, even though the link Gautama pipes to Gautama Buddha, who too is a sage, and likely a better known one. By insisting on "as the wife of the sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]]" instead of "the wife of a sage called Gautama" or "the wife of a Hindu sage Gautama" or "the wife of the sage Gautama Maharishi", the author ends up confusing an average reader.
    • Done. Anyway, "Gautama" is a patronymic of the Buddha/Sakyas, which refers to this Gautama. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ahalya's seduction by Indra, the king of the gods, and its consequences form the central narrative of her story in all scriptural sources for her life.
  • "and its consequences" It is more likely that these are repercussions, since some of them are remote effects, happening thousands of years later.
  • After being told Ahalya is a figure of Hindu mythology, we are told about sources in scripture. An average reader might not make the connection that "mythology" and "scripture" are one and the same here. Why does "scripture" need to be mentioned?
  • We haven't been told the story yet, but yet are being told about "central narratives."

• The act results in a curse being placed on her by Gautama and her subsequent liberation by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu.
  • Do you mean "and in her subsequent ...?"
  • If you are not going to tell us what the curse is, it is better to say "and in the lifting of the curse by Rama" and not "liberation." I can think of some curses (e.g. Adam, because he hearkened unto the voice of his wife, was cursed to eat bread in the sweat of his brow.) whose lifting is not exactly liberation (at least not from some perspectives).
  • I have still not figured out why "an avatar of god Vishnu" is needed this early in the article, when Rama is better known to an average Wikipedia reader than Vishnu.

On what basis are you arguing this on Vishnu vs Rama? Before this article, I'd barely heard of Rama, but was familiar with Vishnu as one of the trimurti. One would think that the deity would be better-known than any believed to be his avatar... Allens (talk | contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Removed and reorganized. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypes of female chastity whose names are believed to dispel sin if recited.
  • The reader is given no clue about why the meager details provided thus far have any remote connection with "virginity," "chastity," and the dispelling of sin. Either don't mention this or at least first hint at a meaningful connection.
  • And if not recited? (Don't put the conditional at the end.)
    • This is as meaningful as it gets in Hinduism. Hindus believe virgins/chaste women help dispel sin.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The revised version looks ok, to me, but I would suggest possibly clarifying who extols Ahalya, something like, "In Hinduism, Ahalya is extolled as..." or maybe "In traditional Hinduism...". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• While her loyalty to her husband and her undaunted acceptance of the curse and gender norms is praised by some, others condemn her as an adulteress and a fallen woman.
  • We have still not been told the story, what meaning does "undaunted acceptance" have then? This is not an abstract for journal article written for an insider crowd. It is the lead of an article in an encyclopedia.
  • Gender norms? What gender norms?
  • Semantically incorrect opposition for a "while" clause. The proper opposition would be something like, "While her loyalty ... is praised by some, it is condemned by others as feebly feminine etc" OR "While some praise her loyalty to her husband, others condemn her adultery."

The author needs to explain the source material in accessible and coherent language. As it stands, the article has many of the same weaknesses as the first FAC version. If the author is planning to ask other copy-editors to work on the article, they in turn will need to ask more often, "What does this mean in simple language?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... in simple language :-}, are you asking for the lead material to be rearranged so that the story is first and then the importance is discussed? Allens (talk | contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Allens: Thanks for your comments. I have addressed the issues in the lead. Please elaborate other issues in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of Fowler&fowler's suggested wording changes to the lead seem Ok, but I disagree about mythology vs scripture. The terms certainly seem to be used correctly to me, just how ignorant do we expect the "average reader" to be? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupported, see below I supported this last time, and read over the article and helped a bit with the copyediting in the mean time. Overall it looks pretty good, a few comments:
• The second paragraph of "Hints of a relationship with Indra" is a little confusing to me, though part of it is all the Sanskrit (?) words, but specifically where you have "although Kaushika (interpreted as equivalent to Gautama) is present in the story". It prompts the question who interprets it that way? You mention Söhnen-Thieme in the next sentence, maybe some note about whether this is the general consensus might be helpful if there's a good source for it.
  • This seems to be the general scholarly interpretation. Both Feller and Söhnen-Thieme say the same. The ref for whole para are 22 (Feller 2004, pp. 132–5.), 23 (Söhnen 1991, p. 73) [Söhnen is now publishes as Söhnen-Thieme]. No other Ahalya-specific references cover the Brahmanas in detail. Added 1 more ref. Please let me know how can I simplify the section more.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Same thing with "(regarded as a later addition to the epic)" in the next section "regarded by most scholars" might be a better way to say it.
  • This is an [almost - if there exists that opposes this] unanimous general scholarly thought. The last Book of the Ramayana (not only the Ahalya episode) is widely regarded as a later addition. I have never come any book says that last Book was part of the original. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In the Uttar Kanda, Indra rapes Ahalya." Having a short sentence like this in between longer ones doesn't seem to flow very well to me.
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Ahalya, engrossed in worshipping the gods, rejects him, considering it inappropriate to have sex at the cost of neglecting the gods." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "the gods" here?
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "When Brahma creates Ahalya as the most beautiful being, she falls in love with Indra and longs for him, but Brahma grants her to Gautama. Even after Ahalya's marriage, the lovers continue to meet in Gautama's absence." Some more explanation might be helpful, you say they continue to meet but it isn't really clear to in the previous sentence that they met and were lovers. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Made it down to "Modern renditions", looking good thus far. I made a few teaks, feel free to revert.
• One thing I saw, in the "Other variants" section you mention Chirakari, he's explained further down, but a little more explanation of who he is here would help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Gautama orders his son Chirakari to behead his "polluted" mother" For the moment, this is enough IMO as the focus is Gautama's reaction.

Thanks for your comments and your edits. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, fixes look good to me, I'll think about that last one and try to finish reading over the article soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "contemporary writers focus on Ahalya.[53] Ahalya has been examined in a new light by several modern writers..." Is there a good way to tighten this up (and maybe avoid the ...Ahalya. Ahayla...)?
  • Reorganized.
• Maybe include some dates in the third paragraph of "Modern renditions". Also, part of me thinks it should be the first or second paragraph in that section.
  • Done
• Try to be consistent about whether "Explanatory notes" (letters) come before or after "Citations" (numbers).
  • Done
• "S. Sivasekaram's 1980 Tamil poem Ahalikai questions Ahalya's life with regard to the stone metaphor that appears in the story:" Reads a bit awkward to me.
  • Reworded. Is it better?
• "The character of Ahalya played by Kamala Kotnis in the 1949 movie Sati Ahalya ("chaste Ahalya") was described as still relevant" Maybe add in-text attribution of who said this.
  • Done.
• "the practice of retelling the classical Ahalya–Indra tale in a contemporary setting is not new." Is there a better way to say this than "not new"?
  • Can't think of one.
• "After death, they reunite in their next birth." A little more explanation might be helpful here.
  • Linked reincarnation. In scholarly literature, "Next birth" is the term used for the life, one is reborn as.
• Do we know what "Vellala" derives from?
  • Source does not have any info about it.
• "Bathing in the tirtha is said to bring pleasure with the celestial nymphs." I'm not quite clear what you're saying here.
  • If one bathes in the tirtha, he will enjoy pleasure with the nymphs.
• The two sentences in the second to last paragraph seem thrown together, is there a better place to put them?
  • Both are related to Ahalya as a symbol of exploitation of women.
• Maybe note in the last paragraph that scholars have made this link, if nothing else it would help fend of complaints about OR.
  • I am unsure where should I put the names. Also, besides the references here, there are many other people who feel the same
• Alright, this is looking good, not too many issues I could spot. Definitely a difficult task to structure all this information, but I think you've basically succeeded. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actioned most of your concerns. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support : Alright, fixes look good, I am now happy to support this article's promotion to featured status. Also, good job to the nominator for sticking with this for so long, researching and writing this must have been a herculean effort. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and your edits to the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a need to link languages like Punjabi and Tamil in the article? Secret of success (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. IMO, linked language articles inform the reader about the details about Indic language: where it is spoken/used and by whom. A Western reader may not know the geographical scope of Punjabi or Tamil. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Then, isn't it sufficient to link them once in the article? In some sections, they are not at all linked, while they are done so in the others. I believe uniformity is supposed to be a necessity here. Secret of success (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I have added links and cross-checked that languages are linked only once and at first instance. Indra and Rama links were linked twice. I have removed the links.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support : Right then, I'm rendering my opinion as support. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced and satisfies all the points of the FA critera. Even the minor issues which were raised have been addressed well. With regards, Secret of success (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the support. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this article for GA and it has improved even further since then, thanks to Redtigerxyz's continual hard work on this and other Hinduism topics, and the helpful contributions of fellow WP copyeditors and reviewers. I believe it meets FA quality standards and hope we'll see many more of your articles here at FAC. Keep up the great work, Redtiger. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article still appears to need an image review and a source spotcheck. Ucucha (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Review : All images have correct copyright and source attribution. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support, the image review and adding more copyright tags on Commons for the images.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed an earlier version of this article and was asked to comment on this FAC. Having carefully re-read it, I find it improved and find that it meets the FA criteria. There does seem to be a missing word in Modern renditions The Ahalya of the Tamil short story writer Ku Pa Rajagopalan (1902–44) also secretly longs for Indra and enjoys [her?] dalliance with him.[54] Well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. her/his dalliance is right, but I used as sort of an idiom as used here.

Support: I've read the article. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, impeccably researched and has excellent prose quality. I didn't notice any glaring issues, and the issues raised earlier appear to have been rectified. It therefore appears to meet the criteria, and as such, i will vote in favour of its promotion. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: Entertaining and enlightening read! No issues.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck needed It is the only thing pending it seems. Many (not all) pages of the two of the most used references are available on Google Books: "The Ahalya Story Through the Ages" by Söhnen-Thieme and "Indra and Ahalya, Zeus and Alcmena" by Doniger. Bhattacharya and some articles in newspapers are linked in the article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Redtigerxyz, given the strong support above, I'll aim to do that spotcheck myself today with a view to closing the review shortly thereafter if all's well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Reformatting of the dates has spoilt some links. Will fix in some time.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck -- no instances of close paraphrasing found but some accuracy concerns:

• FN1 (all instances) -- generally check out but in (b) "created by Brahma" might be inferred but didn't seem to be explicit, only "created"; and in (e) "unsuspecting" Ahalya and "devious" disguise seem to be inferred from the source table but not explicit. I'd have thought these elaborations could easily be supported by additional citations.
  • The table is a summary of the texts elaborated ahead. I have changed to specific pages with explicit "created by Brahma". The theme of "unsuspecting" Ahalya and "devious" disguise is captured in "she takes him for her husband". "The Puranas introduce themes that are echoed in later works ..." is a topic sentence for the next para which justifies the words unsuspecting and devious. FN1 is used as a reference for the Puranas doing so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks re. Brahma, and I accept what you say re. "unsuspecting". I'm still not sure that "devious" is particularly necessary here (any disguise might be considered devious) but it's not a deal-breaker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN8 (b) -- couldn't see the Kama Sutra mentioned on the page cited (or the preceding page); if it's in a footnote in the source (couldn't view it), be worth citing that page as well.
  • It is on page 90 (next page) in this edition of the book. " ... the Kamasutra singles out Indra with Ahalya and Ravana with Sita as examples of men who were destroyed by uncontrolled desire."
• FN34 (a) -- similarly, while the Ahalya story info is all there on the cited page, the attribution to "the 18th-century Telugu rendition of the tale by the warrior-poet Venkata Krishnappa Nayaka of the Madurai Nayak Dynasty" isn't (Venkata only is mentioned in the source's footnote, that at last should be cited as well).
  • Wendy does not name the texts anywhere in the article, but names them in footnotes, which are there at end of the book. I have added the footnote pages in references that give the name of the texts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN34 (b) -- couldn't see the "Today is not the right day for pleasure" quote in the source.
  • "Today is new moon", "Today is full moon", "I'm fasting", "Your fertile period is past." all mean that today is not the right day for pleasure. Hindu scriptures prescribe pleasure when the woman is in her menstrual period, it is not a new moon or full moon or a holy day for fasts. Changed to indirect speech, which is accurate. If this seems to be inaccurate, "by giving reasons based on suitability of the day for pleasure." or "giving some reason or the other".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No, the phase itself is fine, it was just that as you put it in inverted commas, it appeared to be representing a direct quote from the source, rather than a paraphrase -- removing the inverted commas works. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN65 -- the Prema Nandakumar article only seems to mention Pudhumaipithan, not Sreedevi, and I couldn't see a "double standards" quote.
  • That info is there in Richman 2008, pp. 113–4 (f), besides the FN 65 (now 66). "the stories by K. B. Sreedevi and Pudhumaipithan ... testify to Rama's double standard in relation to Ahalya and Sita". In Indian English, double standards is used generally in plural, so that changed it to plural.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The first three points above are pretty minor: while no outrageous uncited claims are made, a bit more is being inferred from the sources than is in fact present in the cited passages; the inferences may be reasonable in themselves, but more care needs to be taken to ensure the citations fully support the article text. The last two are a bit more serious. This is just what I found in a fairly quick check, you should doublecheck and finetune as necessary all the citations along these lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your checks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have cross-checked and rectified page numbers and content for all footnotes. Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will look over those tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, satisfied with the above work, so we can wrap this up now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Dan Leno

Nominator(s): Cassianto (talk) and Ssilvers (talk)

We are nominating this for featured article because we have expanded this biography article using all of the major sources about this subject, and we believe that it now satisfies the criteria for Feature Articles. The article has completed a peer review and was promoted to Good Article. The subject, Dan Leno, was a leading music hall comedian who was also a notable actor in Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We hope that you enjoy reading this article as much as we have enjoyed writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - the article is well written, thoroughly and comprehensively sourced and meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Your support is greatly appreciated. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Declaration of interest: I have made 14 contributions to the article, mostly on minor matter of prose. I also helped peer review the article, when such small queries as I raised were dealt with to my satisfaction. A few points relating to material added since then (or that I missed at the time – apologies if so). They are all minor, and do not affect my support.

• Lead

• the Huntsman is italicised, but your (preferable) practice elsewhere is to put the titles of sketches in inverted commas.

• Fixed. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Family background and early life

• "due partly to alcoholism" – grammatical tweak needed: either "owing partly to alcoholism" or "which was due partly to alcoholism".

• Changed to the latter. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Early career

• "step-father" – but he's a "stepfather" in the previous section

• Changed for consistancy. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Comic Trio (Mr & Mrs Leno and Dan Patrick..." – are there really no full stops after "Mr" and "Mrs" in the source?

• Yes there was. Now added. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• "amongst others, the Varieties Theatre" – "among" would be plainer

• Changed. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1880s

• "The site is now the Lyceum Theatre" – two points here. The site isn't the Lyceum; and the statement is apt to become out of date. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language. Something like "The Lyceum Theatre was built on the site in 18xx"

• fixed. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• This has convinced me that the Lyceum Theatre in Sheffield is a distraction to the reader. I have moved the statement into the footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• "he and Lydia moved" – name not pronoun preferable at first mention in a paragraph

• Re-worded for now. Ss do you agree with this? -- Cassianto (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I put the date back at the beginning of the sentence and clarified above that they were married in 1883. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Pantomime

• "I am inclined to think…" – double quotes for "the cake" but single for 'babes'

• Fixed. Both now double. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Later career

• "After a run of two years…" – nearly two years

• OK, done. I also removed the word "gradually", as it didn't really add anything - it is understood that his loss of interest didn't happen over night. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• "their son, Prince George and his wife, Princess Mary" – Better to refer to them by their titles (created earlier that month), the Prince and Princess of Wales; Leno himself did so in your quote below.

• This change was made in response to a previous comment that we should clarify who is meant for modern and/or foreign readers who are not up on this. I am now changing it to "their son George and his wife, Mary, the Prince and Princess of Wales. Does that cover all bases? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• This change looks good with me. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• That will do very well. Even the most Debrett-obsessed editors (and there are a few of them) could hardly object to that. Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Charity and fundraising

• "Music Hall's first trade union" – in the lead you don't capitalise the generic "music hall"

• Now lower case. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced, copiously illustrated (laptop users with wide screens will find occasional sandwiching of text between images) and well balanced in its treatment of the subject. – Tim riley (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent comments Tim. I hope all points have been addressed to your satisfaction. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why italicize article name in ODNB entry?

• Itals removed. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Should be quotes, not italics. Fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 12: page?

• reference page proved problematic to find again. Replaced with another. -- Cassianto (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 32: formatting. Also, publisher?

• Format corrected. Publisher info added accordingly. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Compare formatting of FNs 9 and 73. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Now consistent. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I peer reviewed this a couple months back, and was impressed by the quality then. I've started reading through, and am again struck by the article's quality. I've made a couple minor copyedits, feel free to revert. A few small questions:

• I'm curious why you used "clog dancing" vs "clogging"?

• I'm led to believe that "clogging" is an American term and "Clog dancing" is British. See here for a comparison. I can change if I'm wrong. Ss what do you think? -- Cassianto (talk)

• I think that clog dancing is clearer to all readers. Everyone reading it will know that we are talking about dancing, not drains. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine then, as you might guess: I am an American--but not a plumber. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also an American, but definitely not a dancer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• LOL! -- Cassianto (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Leno and Danvers formed a close relationship." Did they form the close relationship before or after Danvers joined the act?

• Elaborated on. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Leno's clog dancing had become so good that he won the world championship". Was this in an age group or overall?

• It was overall. Amended. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that "world championship very clearly indicates that it was "overall". The addition of the word "overall" was awkward and did not add anything, so I deleted it. If the contest had a been an "age group" contest, then we would have had to say so, but I think this is better as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "paying sixpence to see young Leno star in" I'm not sure about describing him as "young Leno" again here. He would have been 23, correct?

• Good point. Removing "young". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "three of Leno's best known songs that depicted life". Should "best known" be hyphenated here?

• Hyphenated. -- Cassianto (talk)

• Alright, it's getting late here, I'll be back again tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good set of comments Mark. Thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, back again. Fixes from last time look good to me.

• "The pantomime was a triumph, with theatres reporting record attendance." I'd suggest" "The pantomime was a triumph: theatres reported record attendance."

• Swapped for your suggested alternative. -- Cassianto (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are fairly long quotes at the end of the "Pantomime" and "Later career" sections, perhaps block quotes.

• I took a look at these. They are both less than three lines. It is borderline as to whether they should be block quoted. Cassianto, if it looks better to you to use block quotes, and does not seem to interfere with the nearby images, feel free to go ahead. I previewed it with block quotes and prefer it without, but I don't feel strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No I completely agree with this. I much prefer it without block quotes. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but in the mid paragraph of "Later career" you start two sentences in a row with "Leno".

• I changed a couple of the many "Leno" references to "the comedian". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. This reads a lot better and is a preferred replacement for the over-repeated use of his surname. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are a couple fairly short sentences in the last paragraph, not sure if there's a good solution though.

• One of them is slightly longer now; I think it's OK now, unless someone has a brilliant suggestion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I can honestly say this was a pleasure to read, and I'm thankful for the work the nominators put into it. I'm now happy to Support its promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mark for your comments and your support. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ditto. An excellent PR and some great comments here have helped immensely. Thanks again. -- Cassianto (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support from Lobo. I'm leaning to support this lovely article, which I read through with ease and pleasure, but I have a couple of points:

• I feel like we need a little bit more about the significance of the Grand Order of Water Rats. It is seen as important enough to come in the introductory statements of the lead, but I doubt many people will know what it is (I had to look at the article) and why this was such a significant appointment. When I first read that sentence in the lead, I was sort of thinking "...so what?" Do you definitely think it was an important enough role to be mentioned so early on? It doesn't even get much attention in the article.

• Good point. We eliminated the mention of the Water Rats from the Lead and clarified the information about them below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea to mention in the lead that he started his career primarily as a dancer?

• Yes, definitely we should mention the clog dancing in the Lead. Done. Cassianto, is it true that he was "primarily" a clog dancer, even into the 1870s? When did his comic acting and singing became as important as the dancing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify - Leno was an active clog dancer into at least the early 1870s where he won the belt. According to sources, Leno clog danced professionally until about 1875. Between then and 1885 it was the era of comedy sketches which incorporated dance (unknown if clog) with music hall and pantomime coming in the late 1880s and 1890s. I would say the importance of the acting and comedy commenced around the time he moved to London. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure the "List of Dan Leno performances" should be linked to as the "main article", since you arguably get more information on this page. I think "see also" would be better.

• Good, yes. How about "Further"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• His marriage is currently written about twice. I feel like it could quite easily be removed from the 1880s section, since it didn't seem to have any impact on his career at the time. Either way, I don't think it should get a full on description twice.

• Now it is clarified that Lydia joined the family act, and the repetition is minimized. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Funily enough, I only looked at this earlier and I thought then that this could do with trimming down. Agreed entirely. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Leno was certainly an interesting chap, thank you for your work on the article. --Lobo (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lobo, for these excellent comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot for these points Lobo. A great set of comments! -- Cassianto (talk).

Changes to the article have been made which I'm happy with, and I have switched to a full support. I think the new opening is a big improvement (although perhaps there should still be some mention of his charity work later in the lead?), thanks for that. There's still a bit of repetition re the marriage, but I understand now that there is a need to mention it both times. Yep, no complaints left from me. :) --Lobo (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Progressing well, still needs image review and source spotcheck by the look of it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll ask around for an image reviewer. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Leno4.jpg: source given is British - when was this image published in the US? Current licensing tag may be incorrect, depending on answer. What is its copyright status in the UK? Same applies to File:Dan_Leno.jpg

• Date specified as 5 November 1899 and tags replaced with PD-old-70-1923. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• UK works with the PD-1923 tag should also have a tag indicating their status in the UK. The solution used by File:Leno_magazine.jpg is a good one

• Tag replaced with PD-old-70-1923. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:Augustus_Harris.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tag added. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tag replaced with PD-old-70-1923. Are the images ok now, Nikkimaria? Thanks for your review! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Almost - File:The_Railway_Guard.jpg, File:Leno-Beefeater.jpg, File:Campbell_and_Nicholls_1888.jpg, File:Leno_as_Sister_Ann_1901.jpg, File:Leno3.jpg still need a UK tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I think this is now correct. Nikkimaria, could you just check these and tell me if this tag is correct? Images are not a real strong point for me. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Think so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• I can't help saying that I think the infobox is, in its current shape, a WP:DISINFOBOX. It contains merely info on his date of birth & death – both of which can also be found in the lead. Please kill it.

• OK, done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Reviews were mixed. One newspaper reported that the house roared its approval, while another complained that his English humour was out of date" – The first sentence is a bit short and stubby; please combine it with the next sentence with a colon.

• Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Leno began to drink heavily after performances, and by 1901, like his father and stepfather before him, he had become an alcoholic." – Please move the comma from after 'performances' to after 'and', as the parenthetical phrase is 'by 1901', not 'and by 1901'.

• I added a comma after "and", but we definitely need one before "and", because an independent clause follows the conjunction. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

These are all my comments; I'll be happy to support once my quibbles have been dealt with. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose, esp. grammar and style; perspicuity and comprehensiveness not checked. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, comments and support! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, same goes for me. Your support is very much appreciated. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support I was the GA reviewer and this was one of the cleaner reviews I have done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"née" is such an unusual term for the reader (I never heard of it before editing here) that it might be helpful to link it to something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry it's an English term. Linked. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's just as much an American usage as an English one. It's a short form of the French naitre (to be born) and is commonly used in biographies. It can also refer to the original name of anything. The American Webster's Collegiate Dictionary uses this example: "Cape Kennedy née Canaveral in Florida". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did the convention Theater, municipality, come from. To me it suggests that there are multiple venues of that name. Where as Theatre in municipality or municipality's Theatre tells the reader where it is located without implication. Is this convention common? Although I suspect there are multiple Princess's Theatres I doubt that there is more than one Cosmotheca Music Hall.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Good question. I don't know, so I have changed them all to "in". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• At your leisure, you could changed some of them to municipality's Theatre for variety.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Source spot-check. Not happy with the first two. Many of the sources unavailable but was able to check Anthony.

• Ref 5, close paraphrasing; also, why the discrepancy between "Theatre" and "Music Hall"?
  • Article text: "In 1862, Leno's parents and elder brothers appeared at the Surrey Theatre in Sheffield before moving on to engagements in other cities."
  • Source text: "In June 1862 they appeared for three weeks at the Surrey Music Hall, Sheffield, before moving on to engagements in Manchester, Glasgow, and Northampton."

• re-worded. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 6(e), fails verification
  • Article text: "Leno and Campbell's pantomimes from 1889 were Jack and the Beanstalk (1889 and 1899), Beauty and the Beast (1890 and 1900), Humpty Dumpty (1891 and 1903), Little Bo-peep (1892), Robinson Crusoe (1893), Dick Whittington and His Cat (1894), Cinderella (1895), Aladdin (1896), The Babes in the Wood (1897) and the Forty Thieves (1898). Leno often played the dame opposite Marie Lloyd's principal girl."
  • Source text: Does not mention some of these pantomimes, and does not support last sentence.

• I now have added a reference for the pantomimes. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 30, mostly OK but some close paraphrasing
  • Article text: "Leno took on the role at very short notice and without knowing the dialogue. His improvisational style, and the scenes he shared with Alma Stanley, were so well received that he was credited with saving the flagging production. When Leno and Stanley left a few months later, the producers closed the show."
  • Source text: "He went on stage at the Strand Theatre at very short notice ... 'without knowing ... the dialogue.'"; "But his improvised comedy was so well received that he temporarily saved the show."; "Their joint departure sealed the fate of Atalanta."

• fixed. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 31(a), fails verification OK
  • Article text: "During the 1890s, Leno's biggest rival for the music hall audience was Albert Chevalier."
  • Source text: "... his only significant rival being a newcomer to the variety stage, Albert Chevalier."

• Being an "only significant rival" would surely make one a "biggest rival" would it not? -- Cassianto (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whoops, that was my copy/paste mistake. Sorry. This one is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• No worries. I reworked it anyway :-) -- Cassianto (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 79, OK
  • Article text: "Near the end of his life, Leno co-founded The Music Hall Artistes Railway Association, which entered a partnership with the Water Rats, to form music hall's first trade union."
  • Source text: "In 1906 the Music Hall Artistes' Railway Association, an organisation co-founded by Dan, collaborated with the 'Water Rats' to form the first music-hall trade union." --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• delete comma after "Rats". -- Cassianto (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who contributed time and expertise to help us with this article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes what a pleasure it has been. I am indebted to everyone who has reviewed and commented on this article. Thank you all so much. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

HMS Vanguard (23)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Vanguard was the last battleship built by the British and the last to be laid down anywhere in the world. Completed after the end of World War II, she had a short career before falling victim to budget cut in the late 1950s. The article completed a MilHist A-class review in December and I've tweaked it subsequently to clarify a few things.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• "after the end of the war": after the war
• "The British had enough guns and gun turrets in storage that would allow": ... to allow
• "The Lion-class battleship design was modified to suit the different main armament to save time": I don't follow
  • Is it a little clearer now?
    • I tweaked it; I hope I understood your meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In addition, her design was revised several times, even after construction had begun, to reflect war experience and these changes prevented her from being completed during the war.": In general, two independent clauses are joined by a comma unless the two clauses are relatively short and straightforward. There's a lot of leeway for personal style on this, but the wiggle room doesn't extend this far; a comma is needed after "experience".
• "King George's growing ill health": "ill health" is tough to modify; "growing" might be okay, but I'd drop it
  • How about "declining health" instead?
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk)
• "constraint of": constraint on
• "was the limited capacity available to build large-calibre guns": would "was the availability of large-calibre guns" be wrong?
  • It was really a question of the capacity and time required. Clarified a little, I hope.
• "Using four twin 15-inch (380 mm) mountings in storage offered": Does this mean "Four pre-existing twin 15-inch (380 mm) mountings offered"? If so, that might be easier to parse.
  • Good idea.
• "⅓ of a knot": not everyone will go for this; some will want a conversion.
• "The flat transom stern was retained ... This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern.": I may be missing something here ... it's not clear to me how it was "retained" if this was the only battleship that had it. What previous ship did this ship inherit that stern from? - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Lions, as mentioned in the previous sentence.
    • Okay, so I'm not following "This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern." - Dank (push to talk)
      • The Lions were never built, which clarification has been added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• "of the class, being almost 50 feet (15.2 m) longer and displaced": of the class, almost 50 feet (15.2 m) longer, and displaced
• "Some 2,200 long tons (2,200 t) of this was because Vanguard was overweight.": Per WP:Checklist#cause, be careful about causality, which seems to go in the other direction here.
  • OK, what would you suggest then? She was larger as designed, but, in addition, was overweight.
    • I'm suggesting avoiding causality words unless there's causality. That is, being overweight didn't cause her to gain a lot of tonnage; if anything, it's the other way around. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• "seaboat": Not in Cambridge Dictionaries or M-W as one word ... I'll check SOED if you like.
  • Split
• "Vanguard was well regarded as a good seaboat, able to keep an even keel in rough seas. This was due to the large flare applied to the bows after experience with her predecessors, the King George V-class ships. The latter had been built with almost no sheer to the main deck forwards to allow 'A' turret to fire straight forward at zero elevation, resulting in a poor seaboat that took a lot of water over the bows.": This would flow better in chronological order ... the King George V-class ships did it this way, so it was done differently with different results on Vanguard.
  • Rewritten.
• "exposed surfaces": I wouldn't think asbestos insulation would be on every surface, so I'm not sure what "exposed" means here. Hot surfaces?
  • Clarified.
• "The ship was provided with a powder-handling room above the shell room to mimic the arrangement that turret's hoists were designed to handle and another set of hoists moved the propellant charges from the magazines to the powder-handling room." Comma needed between the two long independent clauses.
• "a 80-pound": an 80-pound
• "her main, secondary and the tertiary guns": See WP:Checklist#series
• "in all except for 'A' turret": a little better is: in all turrets except 'A'
• Except as above, so far so good. I got down more than halfway, to HMS_Vanguard_(23)#Protection. These are my edits. If someone else can finish it up, I'll come have a look, and hopefully support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The thickness ... was 2.5 inches (64 mm) in thickness.": repetition
• "sub-divide": subdivide
• Except as above, so far so good. My comments cover two-thirds of the article, down to HMS_Vanguard_(23)#Career, and this is all I have time to do on this one. I've asked for help finishing up at WT:MHC#FACs that need copyediting attention. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good. Your changes all look good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:HMS_Vanguard_(1946).jpg: source link returns 404 error
  • Pity, excellent image, but replaced.
• FN 45: journal name should be italicized, author format should match other sources
• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for finding the nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: Perhaps I just didn't see it in the article, but what was the requirement that this battleship was intended to fulfill or threat it was intended to counter, i.e. why was this battleship built, what was the justification that was given for spending the immense amount of money to build it, and under which naval expansion plan, budget year, or armament program was it part of? Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• That was laid out in the first paragraph of the Design and description section, although I've added that she was built under the 1940 Emergency War Programme.

Comments A quick look due to lack of time, but the following struck me:

• growing ill health - reads oddly to me, would prefer 'declining' or 'deteriorating'
  • Good idea.
• transom stern - the significance of this feature is mentioned, but not illustrated. Are there any good photographs that might be used to illustrate this feature?
  • Not in any free photos.
    • Got one for you -- look at the September 1952 image here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I rarely remember to check the NHHC website for American photos of British ships. Thanks, Ed. Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• fuel supply was increased to 4,850 long tons - how large an increase was this? --IxK85 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've done some copy editing work to follow on from Dank's work. I looked at the Career section only in this regard. Please check that you are happy with my edits and change as you see fit. I noticed a couple of minor points that I couldn't resolve:

• inconsistent dates: In the infobox: "Commissioned: 9 August 1946", but Career section: "not commissioned until 28 March 1946";
  • This is a little tricky. McCart says that the White Ensign was first hoisted on 28 March, while the ship was still fitting out, but that the formal commissioning ceremony, with Princess Elizabeth in attendance, was on 12 May. I've standardized everything the latter date. Interestingly enough the ship was not formally accepted from the builder until 9 August, after the completion of her sea trials, which must be where that date in the infobox came from.
• the 7 June 1960 decommissioning is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the article;
  • Fixed.
• inconsistent: in the infobox: "Sold for scrap 1960". In the lead: "Vanguard was sold for scrap in late 1959"; in the Career section: "She was subsequently sold to the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain for £560,000 in 1960" (this one is probably my fault, due to my copy edit - for this I apologise - but I'd be obliged if you would adjust whatever needs adjusting to rectify). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching these nits. The exact date of sale isn't given in any of my sources, but I presume that it had to be after she was decomissioned, so I've dropped all references to the date and just gone with the commencement of scrapping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Support -- Reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and after checking changes made since then I'm happy to support for FA. Just to walk through the various elements:

• Prose: I recall mentioning at that ACR that some copyediting might be needed for FAC; with help from Dank and other reviewers the whole thing seems to read well -- I only spotted a couple things I wanted to alter.
• Structure/detail/referencing: All appeared satisfactory.
• Images: I'll take as read Nikki's image check.
• Source spotcheck: Given that Fifelfoo spotchecked Storm's and Ed's Arizona article in December, I don't need to see one here -- I can't of course speak for other FAC delegates on that, obviously my support here means I recuse myself from closing this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support -- I give my full support for this article, which has been improved with Dank's helpful comments. --Lecen (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Chrisye

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. I have invested a significant amount of time and money into the expansion of this article and the results have paid off well. Chrisye, although he did not have an international career, is one of the most famous singers in Indonesia. Over thirty years he released 21 studio albums and collaborated on one that Rolling Stone Indonesia called the best Indonesian album of all time. I'd like to thank everyone who took a look at this, including Drmies, Mark Arsten, and Malleus Fatuorum who copyedited, and Brianboulton and Ruhrfisch who conducted a peer review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I have digital copies of the Kompas references if required. They are in Indonesian, however. I am also hoping that this is TFA for the 5 year anniversary of his death (30 March 2012) so expediency would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found 3 references that have harv errors (using Ucucha's script): 64, 71, and 76. Also, some of the news and web sources don't have a work or publisher defined, and that is problematic for verification. Clay^Clay_Clay 04:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed the harv errors for sure. Pretty sure I got all the missing work / publisher parameters. Diff Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved comments by Mark Arsten (talk) moved to talk at 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, looks like they've been taken care of. Thanks to the quick responses of Crisco and Malleus, I'm now ready to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Since I partly peer-reviewed this last month (Ruhrfisch did much more), the article has had considerable work, including an extensive copyedit. However, I still find some of the prose unsatisfacory. Here are a few examples from the "Band member and early projects" section:-

• "In mid-1975, with several weeks left on his contract, his parents called him from Jakarta..." The grammar is wrong; you need to rephrase, e.g.: "In mid-1975, when his contract still had several weeks to run, his parents called him from Jakarta..."

• Sound good

• "Unable to return to Jakarta immediately, he was easily distracted." I don't understand "easily". I take it to mean that he was distracted from his music and performed badly, but this needs to be clarified.

• Clarified

• "Chrisye refused" is a bit abrupt, with no explanation given

• Double checked the source, reason added

• "Pramaqua Records approached Chrisye and offered him an album" I assume you mean they offered him a contract to produce an album.

• Right

• "He attempted unsuccessfully to buy all the stock and effectively prevent its release, but because the general public considered the album a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor." I'm having difficulty working this sentence out. I would rephrase: "After his unsuccessful attempt to buy up all the stock, the album was released, but because the general public considered it a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor."

• Sounds good.

Another more general point is that from time to time, irrelevant detail seems to creep in. I am thinking of sentences such as "The funeral was marred by the presence of pickpockets, one of whom was captured but released without charge." Also, the "Personal life" section looks threadbare, with some fairly inconsequential anecdotes and little else. I am not sure of the usefulness of the section. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Pickpockets removed. The anecdotes in the personal life section are to illustrate that he was perceived as living simply and trying not to let his stardom get to his head. If a more direct statement is preferred, I'll do so. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Leaning to Support: For the past week or so I have been tinkering around with the prose here and there, making changes and the odd rephrase. The article has been reviewed and copyedited ad nauseam; I think it's nearly there, though I'd like a day or so more, delegates permitting, to nitpick around a few more aspects of the prose. I will be done soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, hope to hear from you soon. Once again, thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have done my final readthrough and have made a few more prose changes (nothing major). The one significant omission is that Chrisye's status per Rolling Stone as third-greatest Indonesian musician of all time needs to be in the article, as well as the lead. And of course it needs to be cited. Subject to that adjustment I will support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• In article as this sentence (currently cited to FN99) "In 2011 [Rolling Stone Indonesia] listed Chrisye as the third-greatest Indonesian musician of all time. Eros Djarot described him as having a great voice, but somewhat shy and generally unwilling to discuss social issues." Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• How did I miss that? Fair enough, I have upgraded to support. I am sure that there will be further nitpicking around the prose, but I don't think there are any major lapses outstanding. There are parts of the article that still don't read easily, but given all the effort that's gone into it (not least by Malleus who has copyedited unsparingly), I think we can accept it for what it is. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments I peer reviewed this and was aksed to comment on the FAC. Like Brianboulton, I find the article improved since then, but still see some rough prose and other issues. Some examples (not a complete list) follow:

I have switched to support with a few quibbles below Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• awkward Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, and were unable to read music.[7][8] perhaps something more like Chrisye and Joris, who were unable to read music, learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio.[7][8] or even just Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, as they were unable to read music.[7][8]

• I like that second one. Worked in.

• He eventually fell ill over a period of several months, during which time the rest of the band left for New York.[13] unclear - was he ill for several months? Did it take several months for him to become ill? Did it take the band several months to go to New York?

• Changed to "for"

• What is the subject of this sentence? Often rehearsing late into the night, the indie project mixed Western rock and Balinese gamelan and was produced collaboratively.[1][18] The band rehearsed, but the project is the album they produced

• Changed to "The band often rehearsed late into the night; the indie project mixed Western rock and Balinese gamelan and was produced collaboratively."

• Awkward and sentence probably should be split The song was recorded in Irama Mas Studio in Pluit, North Jakarta[22] and included on an album with the other contest winners; originally the ninth track, it was rearranged into the lead position to increase the album's marketability after the original format sold poorly.

• Reordered and split

• I brought this up at the peer review as it seems to contradict itself. First they record the soundtrack over 2 months, then we are told that it only took 21 days (less than a full month). Then there is the confusion we read that records a film's soundtrack, but then we elarn that the soundtrack alreay exists and won an award, then we are told that someone has hired CHrisye to record [a cover of?] the soundtrack [or vocals for an existing soundtrack?] That same year, Chrisye and several artists including Djarot and Jockie recorded the soundtrack for Badai Pasti Berlalu over two months.[27] After the soundtrack won a Citra Award at the 1978 Indonesian Film Festival, Irama Mas studios approached the group to do a soundtrack album for a flat fee.[27] With Chrisye and Berlian Hutauruk on vocals, the soundtrack was rerecorded in album form in Pluit over 21 days.[27][28]

• Soundtrack - Two months ; rerecorded soundtrack - 21 days. The sources don't state why, but the soundtrack wasn't lifted directly from the film. He recorded both the original (for the film) and the album. I think it's clear enough there, but I welcome alternate phrasings.

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Badai Pasti Berlalu is linked twice in two paragraphs

• One is the album, one is the film (same title)

• Sorry to have missed the distinction and thanks for clarifying. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent on the little things - is Badai Pasti Berlalu italicized or not?

Fixed

• I do not speak Bahasa Indonesian, but I am pretty sure these do not both translate to the same thing in English "1978 – Sabda Alam (Nature's Order)" and " 1979 – Percik Pesona (Nature's Order)" (copy and paste error perhaps?)

• Fixed

• Overall the article seems comprehensive, but I do think it odd that he took a new name on conversion to Islam (from Christian to Chrismansyah), but the meaning is never explained.

Sorry it took me so long to review this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not explicitly stated in the source, but the name Christian is a Christian name, which would go against his new religion. Think of Cat Stevens changing his name to Yusuf Islam, with the original name more explicitly Christian. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Should his name change be mentioned in the article? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am also leaning towards support, but need a day or so to carefully re-read it and perhaps tweak a few places. Sorry to be so slow in all this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. Once again, thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made a few minor copyedits but find the prose is up to FA standards now. Could this be written to avoid two "themselves"? The group renamed themselves Gipsy in 1969 to give themselves a more macho and Western-sounding name.[2][8] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Name change added and sentence rearranged as "The group was renamed Gipsy in 1969, which they considered more macho and Western-sounding." Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Image check by Noleander

• There are five images: the top two are not freely available (probably) but both have valid fair use rationales.
• The bottom three images are free, and have proper information explaining the source & rights information.
• The three images in commons do not have the {{personality rights}} template, but my understanding is that that template is optional, and not a bar to FA status. Can someone confirm that?
• Conclusion: Images meet FA standards.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added personality rights template to image of Gutawa and Fredly, just to be safe. I don't think a PR template would apply to a grave. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - Comments from Noleander

• Clarify - "drawing on the double-recording technique pioneered by the Beatles" - The term "double-recording" needs to be explained here, or else a link to a WP article (or section) on it.

• Added clarification from Endah source

• Wording - " therefore the two incorporated a lighter style." - the word incorporated could imply there is an album already in place that that amended; but they are creating an album from scratch. Maybe: used, utilized, employed, adopted (but that implies they worked together before), chose to use.

• changed to "used"

• Source? - "While in this state of despair, Chrisye ..." - despair is a rather strong word... can you double check that the source supports it in this context?

• From the source, quick and dirty translation: "What was I supposed to do? I felt as if my career had reached the finish line. This condition made me increasingly frightened. ... In the next few years, my career would fade and I would be forgotten. I often confided in Yanti. 'Will my career only take me up to here? I'm getting older. There are still chances to make new albums, but that will slowly dry up, just like my name will be slowly buried.'" I think that allows despair, but perhaps "intense doubt" would be acceptable?

• More precise: "Several of his albums received certification of silver or higher." - May as well be more precise (some readers may not know what is higher than silver): "Six of his albums were certified silver or gold".

• Done

• Link in caption: "After the success of the Sendiri concert, Chrisye collaborated several times with Erwin Gutawa .." - Readers may find it useful to have a link to Erwin Gutawa in the caption, since they may just be scanning the article.

• Done

• Wording - "Chrisye received three BASF Awards, held by the BASF cassette production up to the mid 1990s, for bestselling albums; ..." - The word "held" is more appropriate for events, not prizes. Maybe "received three BASF Awards for bestselling albums; ...". Also, the fact that BASF stopped giving out the awards in the mid 1990s is a bit irrelevant, and only confuses the sentence.

• Trimmed, and changed to sponsored.

• Book title - "The first, Chrisye: Sebuah Memoar Musikal (Chrisye: a Musical Memoir), was published in 2007 and details his childhood, career, and struggle with cancer. The second, The Last Words of Chrisye, was released..." - Just confirming: the second book's title is English, even though the book is written in Indonesian?

• Yep. Cover visible at Google. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I hope I've addressed all of your comments to your satisfaction. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - A spotcheck of the sources for verification and close paraphrasing is needed please. Graham Colm (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have (copy and pasteable, for G-Translate) digitizations of the offline Kompas sources from after 1985 for whomever does the spotcheck; the earlier ones are PDFs of the entire page. The Endah sources are available at Gbooks (here and Cover here), but only as a limited preview. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecks done -

I'm doing the spotchecks now. --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've finished going through the sources you emailed to me. Final step: can you post (on my Talk page) your translations from the Endah source for these four random footnotes: #15 (pages 96-97), #29 (pages 140-142), #49 (page 246), #65 (page 304). You dont need to translate the entire page(s) ... just the snippet that supports the material in the article they are supporting. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, that's done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources, including the two biographical books by Endah, in written in Indonesian, which I do not read. However, the nominator supplied me with (a) a dozen web-based sources which I was able to translate into English with Google-translate; and (b) some of their own translations of four random selections from the Endah works. I've gone through those, and can validate footnotes #8, #16, #29, #49, and #65. Also, I've scrutinized the tone and emphasis of the sources, and compared it to the tone and emphasis of the article, and they are harmonious. For those reasons, I think the likelihood of source-related problems (deliberate or accidental) is extremely low. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Assassination of William McKinley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It meets the criteria, in my view, which I hope others will agree to. I hope I have captured a little bit of 1901 in addition to covering the assassination, a world where you could have a fair with a Triumphal Bridge, and a straight face. A spoiler: someone dies (two, in fact).Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Are the two panoramas really necessary? The loading of the second image takes lot of time. The article will lose nothing if they are removed.
• Images are good --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the images. I think that, in general, we should take advantage of what resources are available to us to give the reader the maximum amount of understanding that we can. This article throws a lot of place names at the reader that he can't really understand because they all vanished when the fair closed and they disassembled the building. I would prefer to keep them, but let's see what people think during the course of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Missing subtitle on McElroy book
• Olcott: link provided gives only "William McKinley" as title
• Why use both mdy and dmy in references?
• X in Temple of Music image is quite difficult to see at that size
• File:McKinley_last_photo.jpg needs US PD tag, and is a page number available?
• File:Temple_of_Music_postcard.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Mark_Hanna_at_Milburn_Mansion.jpg, File:McKinley_death_Milburn.jpg: page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All those things are done. I enlarged the X photograph. I am reluctant to have the graphics lab play with it because the X seems to be in the image and so the reader should see it as it is. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article recently in a Peer Revew. The nominator addressed all my concerns at that time, and I support it for FA status. --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As per Redtigerxyz, I don't think the panoramic images at the bottom add any useful information. Supplemental information is good, but they would belong better at Pan-American Exposition and Temple of Music, those who are interested will click through. I also think File:Artist PA fair.png is badly pixellated, especially in comparison to File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, 1901.jpg. - hahnchen 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - read this one through and found it to be really engaging and deserving of the FA star. Great job! – Connormah (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Connormah, good seeing you. Hope all is well at Commons?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please go through adding second commas to dates and geographic names. It's tedious for me to do it every time, and it takes no longer to do it right than to do it wrong. See WT:Checklist for support for second commas in modern style guides. (The problem, of course, is that nothing succeeds like excess, and the journalistic writing our culture is awash in constantly drops commas whether it makes any sense to do so or not. As each comma rule dies, the style guides amend their guidance ... but they haven't caved on this one, yet.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the ones I saw. If you see more, and are not inclined to change them yourself, please give me some idea of where you saw them so as to avoid eyestrain on my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the second section are wrong. I stopped there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The missing space before 1901?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any more besides the ones I already changed, but I will be on the outlook for any more. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The intention here isn't to get cranky (though sometimes I succeed in that), the intention is to be realistic about my limits. I often venture outside Milhist at FAC, but when I do, I have more to do ... I'm not as familiar with the subject matter, and I'm not as familiar with what the nominator or wikiproject does and doesn't do well, so there's more to think about. So, I don't mean to be rude asking more from nominators of non-Milhist articles ... I just know from experience that if I don't, then it gets to be too much of a burden, and I stop. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's more to do here than I'm going to have time to do. What's worse ... it's not that bad :) So I don't feel right opposing or making demands, but it's more than I want to tackle. For instance, just in the lead:
• The first three sentences: "The assassination of William McKinley ... The President of the United States, William McKinley ... President McKinley ...": repetition. This is one where I wouldn't repeat the page title in the first sentence, I might say, "William McKinley, President of the United States, was assassinated ...", then go with "he" or "McKinley" after that as needed. "Exposition" can be dropped from one of the two first sentences, too.
• "ordinary citizens": This is a phrase that makes perfect sense to politicians, in the same way that "lower classes" is a phrase that makes perfect sense to the upper classes, but not so much to the lower classes. I'd go with "the public at a reception".
• "when he was fatally wounded by two shots from the gun of Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist.": Tighter would be: when Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, shot him twice. (We don't need "fatally" since we find out he died in the next 3 words.)
• "In the wake of the hard times following the economic Panic of 1893, in which he lost his job, Czolgosz ...": It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's best to avoid two complex introductory phrases, in part because it increases the odds the reader will get lost ... and this reader is lost. Did Czolgosz lose his job in the Panic, or in the hard times following the Panic, or in the wake of those hard times? The "wake" of an event trails the event, so we're talking about some time after the hard times here.
• "Influenced by a speech": Many grammarians grumble that they can't figure out what the word "influenced" means in general. I'm not sure what it means here.
• "Czolgosz decided to kill McKinley, believing ...": I may have missed it, but I don't see in the text below that the decision was an immediate reaction to Goldman's speech. Also, I talk about "decide" a little bit at WP:Checklist#mindreading ... the question is whether the sources are sure that that's what was in his head, and whether we need to say that, or whether it can be reasonably inferred by the reader if you just say what he did. There's also the question of credibility; defendants on trial for murder are not likely to be objective sources of information on their mental state, when that mental state has a bearing on whether they're executed or not.
• "After attempting to reach McKinley ...": "reach" more often means "communicate with"; the readers have to back up when they realize it doesn't mean that here. Not a serious problem, but Garner's, etc., call this a garden path.
• "Western New York": I would probably lowercase "western"; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
• "a turn for the worse": I don't worry about cliches unless a writer overdoes them, and you don't. My contract probably says I have to point them out, though.
• "infection within him": I don't know what this is saying; I wouldn't say for instance "the liver within him", I'd say "his liver". Are you saying "an infection", or does "within" suggest something about the location of the infection?
• "His health quickly deteriorated and he died early the next morning;": The death is a sufficient sign of deteriorating health, I think; we don't need the first part, unless you want to say something more specific about what was happening.
• Having said all that ... I think the lead flows well and includes more or less what I'd like to see. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cogent and thank you. I've made changes to the lede to address your point. No doubt other reviewers will comment regarding the prose as well. I appreciate your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

SupportComment, leaning to support: I learned a great deal from the McKinley biographical article, to which I gave a detailed peer review, and I found this equally fascinating; I knew the generalities of the assassination but not the particulars, and it is a pleasure to see the story so well told. I didn't peer review this, so I am leaving on the article's talkpage a series of quibbles which you are invited to address. Also, I have a few general issues to raise here:

• What, if anything, is the point of noting the geographic co-ordinates? I suspect this is a relic of a one-time obsession whereby every WP article recording an event was thus adorned, but I cannot see any purpose in it.
• I think McKinley's presidential status should be given in the initial declarative sentence: "William McKinley, 25th president of the United States, was assassinated on September 6, 1901, inside the Temple of Music on the grounds of the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. The president was shaking hands..." (In any event there is a stray comma after the word "President")
• I notice inconsistency in capitalisation of "President" in the lead.
• I can't help feeling that the Leech quote that ends the article has lost an important connecting phrase in the ellipsis. As presented, the first part of the quotation has America looking backward, "turned from the challenge and the strangeness of the future"; then, suddenly, it is setting sail "on the stormy voyage of the twentieth century". Unless something is inserted between, the two halves of the quote seem contradictory.

It's actually a fairly long break, I'll add something but the intervening passage is too long to reproduce in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see much value in the See also link, and I thought anyway that dedicated See also sections were now considered infra dig at FAC.

I'm sure these and the minor points on the talkpage can be quickly addressed, at which point I will be happy to support.Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, and for your perseverance. I've done all those thinks, or in some cases another editor did, for which I thank him. I've done my best with the Leech quote, which I think is worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent job on the Leech quote. All other issues properly addressed (we'll probably always differ on the practicalities of comma deployment), and I have upgraded to full support. After your coup with the 1896 speech recording in the McKinley article I was hoping for something equally sensational here – shuffles of feet, shots, screams etc – but I suppose ther are limits even to your resourcefulness. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Air raids on Japan

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a big article on an important topic. It covers the air raids which were conducted by the United States Army Air Forces and Navy and (to a much lesser extent) British Royal Navy against the Japanese home islands throughout World War II. These raids, which included the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of virtually all of Japan's larger cities, killed between 241,000 and 900,000 people and were one of the main factors which influenced the national government to surrender.

I've developed this article with contributions from many other editors over the last year (most notably, User:Cla68, User:Binksternet and User:Jim Sweeney). It was peer reviewed last April, assessed as GA class in September and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in January. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited (including a pre-FAC copy edit from User:Dank over the last few days), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Search throughout for "with" + noun + "being" and look for ways to rephrase. (Garner's has good advice on this at "Absolute construction". Bottom line: that construction becomes less common in print every year, and it's clearer if you either use a semicolon, or state what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence.) The article flows nicely and covers a lot of relevant material. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've just run through the article and removed many instances of 'being' as they were unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Generally looks very thorough.
• Lede "...and killed over 241,000 people" and later: "Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000." The table way down gives 9 different figures, of which this is the lowest, with 300,000 the next lowest. With such a large gap, and no discussion in the article as to why this lowest figure might be the most credible, I think the range should be conveyed in the lede. The infobox has "Estimates vary between 241,000 and 900,000 killed" but personally in the lede I'd say something like " Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000, but most are in the range 300-350,000." Something like that. Whether that should be in the 1st or 3rd para I'm not sure, but it just needs to be in one.
  • Done - I've noted that 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded is the most commonly cited figure, though there are other estimates. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I changed to "at least 241,000 people" in the 1st line to better suggest the uncertainty. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• The second para, much the longest, concentrates on where the attacks came from, and is probably too detailed, and rather congested. It lacks any overview sentence. Here and later throwing in some of the distances involved would help the reader's understanding. Much other stuff is not in the lead.
  • I've now changed the lead as suggested, and added the distances the bomber had to cover from China and the Mariana Islands. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• "the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - capital A?
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Japanese Government" - capital G? Also some "Army"s.
  • I've dropped the capital G in 'government' (as this doesn't appear to have been its formal name), but the capital 'A' in Army seems fine to me, as this is what the organisation was called. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "it was believed that Soviet Union aircraft based in the country's far east posed the greatest threat" - "Soviet" is the adjective, and, though logic obviously dictates that "the country" is the SU, it rather trips the reader. Better:"... it was believed that Soviet aircraft based in the Russian Far East posed the greatest threat". - that should be linked anyway.
  • Done (and I've simplified this para for good measure) Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were embarked aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet which carried them from San Francisco to within range of Japan." All that is needed (unless you say what the range actually was) "is "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were carried from San Francisco to within range of Japan on the aircraft carrier USS Hornet." Does SF need a link?
  • Done. Given that all the Japanese locations mentioned in the article are linked, I think that linking SF is consistent. It's not essential though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "This was the single most effective strategic air attack of the Pacific War.[151]" with one source - maybe "has been described as..."
  • Good point: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "the much greater vulnerability of Japanese cities to incendiary bombs" is mentioned right at the end, but it is never spelt out why Japanese housing & traditional buildings were so much more vulnerable to firebombing in particular - namely that they were largely built of wood and pretty tightly-packed. This should go in much earlier.
  • Good point: I've added some extra material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reading through I thought the early sections lacked flow, then things improved apart from some very clogged listy sections just detailing raids.
  • I've had a go at improving the first sections (I'm presuming that you meant the material in the 'background' section at is seemed the most 'jumpy', but please correct me if you meant more than just this). I agree that the paragraphs listing the raids on minor cities towards the end of the article are a bit clunky, but I couldn't see any way around this: the alternatives used in histories of this part of the bombing campaign are to either very briefly pass over these raids or use a huge table (like the one at Strategic bombing during World War II#United States strategic bombing of Japan, but with extra columns for dates and the forces involved). Neither approach seemed satisfactory or in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I think that covering all the raids in this way provides a feel for the huge scale of these operations. That said, any suggestions for how to improve the presentation of this material would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Were there Allied policies to avoid major historic sites like Kyoto, which I think was never bombed? Were they trying to hit or to miss the Imperial Palace in Tokyo?
  • Yes, Kyoto and the Imperial Palace were off limits to the American bombers. I've added some material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think there are total figures for the numbers of Allied planes and aircrew or personnel involved.
  • I couldn't find any total figures for the scale of the Japanese and Allied forces (and I looked everywhere for them). Given the scale, duration and complexity of this campaign, it would be very difficult for anyone to calculate overall number of participants. I'll add in some more snapshot figures though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've added figures for the peak US bomber and Japanese fighter strengths. I don't think that these are suitable for the infobox, however, given that they varied a lot over time. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to some of your comments, and will work on the rest. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support subject to anything significant in others' comments. I've reviewed the changes but not reread it, so I'm not sure how much flow has improved; I understand the problems here. Other comments above resolved. A fine detailed piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I strongly suspect that I promised to review this when it got to FAC after I missed out on commenting when it was at MilHist A-Class Review, so here I am... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think it's considered necessary anymore to link countries, e.g. India and China in the lead. Linking World War II is also a bit redundant when you're linking everything from Pacific War down...
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The first American Volunteer Group (the "Flying Tigers") began operations as part of the Chinese Air Force in late 1941 using fighter aircraft -- we should be able to name the type of fighter; Curtiss P-40s weren't they?
  • That's correct, added Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• In a similar vein, ...diverted elsewhere in Asia following the attack on Pearl Harbor begs the question where in Asia...
  • Only a few of the unit's aircraft reached Asia before the war broke out, and it didn't become operational - I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Made it to Operation Matterhorn before stopping for the night -- looking forward to continuing tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Resuming, belatedly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Japanese military began transferring fighter aircraft to the home islands from China and the Pacific in early 1944 in anticipation of B-29 raids -- Just curious (and pedantic, as you'd expect!) but does the source explicitly say the Japanese were expecting B-29 raids or just bomber raids in general? I ask because I wonder if the Japanese were aware of the B-29 before it entered service...
  • Yes, the Japanese spotted the arrival of B-29s and base construction in China and India, and I've added some material on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• XX Bomber Command lost 125 B-29s during all of its operations from bases in India and China, though only 29 were destroyed by Japanese forces -- I think that large a ratio of non-combat to combat losses needs some elucidation, either by progressively noting the mounting losses earlier in the section or explaining the big figure at the end, since it seems to pop out of nowhere (by all means point out if I missed something).
  • Good point. The losses were due to flying accidents; I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• LeMay also had most of the B-29s' defensive guns removed so they could carry more bombs -- Might be worth briefly elaborating on why fewer guns allows more bombs; since most of the B-29's guns were in remote-controlled turrets, I assume it was just the weight of the guns being saved, not gunners, or did the turrets go too?
  • Done. All the references talk about the 'guns being removed' or similar and don't go into greater detail (which would probably be excessive for this article anyway). I presume that the modifications weren't drastic as the aircraft needed to be re-armed again (eg, I suspect that the guns, ammunition and gunners were removed, but the turrets and fire control equipment remained in the aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• The start of this firebombing campaign was delayed as XXI Bomber Command was used to attack airfields in southern Japan... -- I don't quite get what this is doing under the Destruction of Japan's main cities subsection when the previous subsection began The first firebombing attack in this campaign was carried out against Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March -- Why wasn't this delay mentioned earlier? It's as though the destruction of the main cities is a separate campaign...
  • To give a very long answer to a short question (though it might help explain why the article is structured the way it is): the historiography of XXI Bomber Command's operations consistently breaks them into a series of campaigns: 1) the (mainly) precision bombing effort under Hansell and LeMay's early raids 2) LeMay's initial major firebombing raids on Tokyo and other cities 3) an interlude where the B-29s mainly went after airfields 4) the sustained firebombing of the main cities 5) (to quote the relevant chapter title of the USAAF official history) "the all-out B-29 attack" where the bombers systematically destroyed smaller cities while mounting a smaller number of precision bombing and minelaying attacks 6) the atomic bombing raids and final attacks (not coincidentally, this is the structure used in the USAAF official history, which remains the main work on the strategic bombing campaign). This paragraph refers to stage 3). I've tweaked the wording at the start of this para to make it clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Only limited attacks on Japanese cities were conducted while the Battle of Okinawa continued. A night precision bombing raid was flown against the Nakajima engine factory in Tokyo... -- I don't care too much about an occasional passive sentence but two in a row's a bit much... ;-)
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sixteen multi-city incendiary attacks were conducted by the end of the war (an average of two per week) covering 58 cities -- Not sure of the expression here, do I assume it means 16 attacks had been conducted by war's end?
  • Yes - changed. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• You have a mix of caps and non-caps for "the task force"...
  • Now all caps (as it was a thing with a name which included 'Task Force'; I hope this is correct!) Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Up to Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa -- more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Last round -- in addition to further copyediting, just a couple of relatively minor points...

• Under Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, when you say ...aircraft being held in reserve to attack the Allied invasion force, I assume you're referring to the planned Allied invasion of Japan. If so, I think "...aircraft being held in reserve to repel the expected Allied invasion" or some such would work better.
  • Given that this is discussing the actions of US aircraft, I think that this is OK; the Allies were deadly serious about invading Japan and were making serious preparations for this at the time of the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • As I say, not a big deal, but just want to make sure my reasoning was clear -- it's not that the Allies weren't serious about the invasion, rather that when you plonk the term in like that it may appear that you're referring to an invasion that did happen. Also, in this sentence you're explaining things from the Japanese perspective (what they were doing with their aircraft) so it made sense to me to treat the invasion from their perspective too, i.e. they were anticipating it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, fair enough: I've added 'expected' to the sentence to make this clearer. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• On this day B-29s dropped three million leaflets on Japanese cities, claiming that atomic bombs would be used to destroy all the country's military resources unless the Emperor ended the war. -- This was a bluff, wasn't it? If I remember the story, the US had few if any bombs in reserve when it made this threat -- if so, think it's a tidbit worth mentioning.
  • That's a good point; I've added a couple of sentences about this. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking as read the reference/image checks Nikki's made below, and I know that Nick's last FAC (Battle of Arawe) underwent a source spotcheck that uncovered little of concern. Based on my own review I'm happy with the prose, structure, and level of detail, so am ready to support -- well done producing this major article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review and changes to the article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why only include one author for Coles 1951 and Tanaka 2009?
  • Fixed
• FN 213: formatting
• Be consistent in whether you cite reprinted works using the original or reprint date
• FN 243 and 248 could each refer to two bibliographic listings
• Why is the Commons link in the References section?
• In the Dear and Foot entry, why is "editors" included in the wikilink?
  • A quirk of the code. I can't see a way around this, so I've removed the Wikilink Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • They all look OK to me - could you please point out the ones which need to be fixed? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought there were two instances, but now it's just Frank 2005. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. I think that this is unavoidable though: the chapter title in the book includes quote marks, and the coding for the chapter section of Cite:book also adds them. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I think it's an allowable to change the chapter title's quotes to single quotes for readability – see for instance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, and thanks for that advice Ed: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for journals/magazines
  • All removed Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hadley: why country here but county for other UK locations?
  • That's the result of a quirk of the automatic reference generator, I think (as well as me not spotting and fixing this, of course!). I've standardised to 'United Kingdom'. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg: source link appears to be broken
• File:Tokyo_air_raid_memorial.JPG: does Japan have freedom of panorama that would allow this usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a very good question. According to the guidance on Commons, it depends on whether it's considered an 'artistic work' (in which case it can't be used) or a building (in which case it's OK). The structure is a fairly solid memorial located in a public park which includes chambers inside of it accessible by a door, so it's in a grey zone. As it wasn't built as an art work and incorporates many features of a building, I think it's OK, but if someone wants to correct me that would be good (due disclosure: I took the photo, so I'm a) familiar with the characteristics and location of the memorial and b) probably a bit biased). I think that I've now responded to all your comments (albeit with a question to one of them). Thanks for taking the time to do such a careful check. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • On further consideration, I've removed the photo: I think that it should be PD, but as its in a grey zone it's not suited for an FA. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are only the losses of the 20th Air Force mentioned in the Infobox?
  • That's a very good point; I'll add in the losses of the other USAAF units and Japanese air units. I've looked everywhere for the losses of the Allied naval units in raids against Japan but haven't been able to find them unfortunately (which makes me suspect that they may never have been tabulated). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is it possible to name the main participating air units, like 20th Air Force, and their commanders in the infobox?
  • Given that there were lots of commanders (for instance on the US side alone there were Wolfe, Hansell, LeMay, Halsey, Spruance and whoever commended the 7th and 13th Air Forces as well as Arnold not to mention the commander of the British Pacific Fleet) and the Japanese command structure was almost as as complex, I think that it would be unwieldy and unhelpful for readers. As an example of the complexity, there was no overall commander of the air campaign on either side, and both the Allies and Japanese significantly changed their command structures on several occasions during the campaign. I normally fill out the infobox, but unfortunately doing so here is impractical. I've identified the various leaders and units involved in the article where relevant. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, scratch the bit on the units; I just trialed adding them to the infobox, and they worked fine. I think that adding the commanders would be confusing though given that no-one had overall command on either side and there was so much turnover. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to see the points Casus and Aftermath of the infobox filled but just realized that they are not included in the english version of the infobox, so forget about this.

Cheers --Bomzibar (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You mention both, the IJAAF and the IJNAF quite early in the article and in the later chapter Japanese military response that they were both placed unter the command of the Air General Army. As this is quite special for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces, maybe it should be mentioned that both japanese Air Forces were seperated in command and that the competition between Army and Navy often hampered the efforts for a joint command.
    • That's a good point; I've added some extra material on the problems the lack of coordination between the Army and Navy caused (the main problem in the defense of Japan seems to have been poor coordination and cooperation). Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With the Commanders it would be possible to name the main commanders at a specific date, 1 August 1945 or somewhen else.
    • That's probably the best approach, but it's still problematic as there was no 'typical' date which can be selected given that the command structures changed so much. I really think that listing commanders would do more harm than good as it would confuse readers. I've identified all the key figures in the article, as well as the main changes to the Allied and Japanese command structures. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

--Bomzibar (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've started reading through, it will probably take me a while to finish, but it looks pretty good thus far. I made some small copyedits, feel free to revert. One small comment, I noticed some inconsistent comma use: "In July 1942 the commander of the American Volunteer Group" vs "In early 1942, forces allocated". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Twelve of the 61 Superfortresses that reached the target area" I think you should write sixty one out here, per WP:NUMERAL. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. Thanks for the comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• My apologies to the nominator, but I don't believe that I will be able to finish my review. I've read from the beginning of the article to the end of the "Attacks from China" subsection--and everything I've read is clearly FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No worries Mark - thanks for having a look at the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks - I have taken the liberty of making a few spotchecks:

• Article: The aircraft then continued to China and the Soviet Union, though several crashed in Japanese-held territory after running out of fuel.
• Source: As their fuel gauges dropped, the Raiders knew they could not reach their designated airfields. One by one, they ditched at sea, bailed out, or crash-landed in China (one crew diverted to the Soviet Union)
• Article: which was subsumed by the United States Army Air Forces, or USAAF, in February 1942
• Source: The Army of the United States is reorganized to provide under the Chief of Staff a ground force, under a Commanding General, Army Ground Forces; an air force, under a Commanding General, Army Air Forces; and a service of supply command, under a Commanding General, Services of Supply; and such overseas departments, task forces, base commands, defense commands, commands in theaters of operations, and other commands as the Secretary of War may find to be necessary for the national security.
• Article: This judgement stated that there had not been "unreasonable disparity" in how civilians, soldiers, and atomic bomb survivors were treated, and that the government had showed "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures"
• Source: In the ruling, Kurono said the government didn't violate the Constitution, stating that the court couldn't find any "unreasonable disparity" between its treatment of ordinary people and soldiers and atomic bomb survivors. (and) While acknowledging the long-term pain and hardships endured by the plaintiffs, Judge Yoshihisa Kurono said Wednesday the government shares no liability as there was "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures."

No issues were found. Graham Colm (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Psilocybe aztecorum

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybe aztecorum is a psychedelic mushroom known only from central Mexico, where it has been used in spiritual and divinatory ceremonies by indigenous peoples for a long time. I've improved the article to the best of my abilities, and am hoping for further suggestions and comments. Thanks for reading, Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• All foreign-language sources should be noted as such
• FN 15 is a huge page range - any way to narrow it? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria, I've fixed both. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images are goods
• "Mandalas on his kneecaps ... " I am not sure if the term "Mandala" (Hindu/Buddhist) should be used in this context for an Aztec god. Something like "circular patterns" should be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Redtigerxyz. Mandala is the word used by the sources, but I agree this might cause some confusion for readers who click on the linked article. I've changed to circular patterns per your suggestion, as the meaning isn't changed. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: spores, variety have linked numerous times in "Taxonomy and nomenclature". Check the article throughout. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've now fixed this, thanks. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments some queries: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

typically in meadows or open, grassy forests with Hartweg's Pine. - hmmm, "with" seems funny when associating a tiny mushroom with a big tree. If we can't say "underneath" then maybe "associated with". More of a style query and not a deal-breaker by any means.

Named for its association with the Aztecs, - dunno, I'd slightly prefer "Aztec people" here for a first mention. Just sounds a tad more formal. Again not a dealbreaker and happy to yield of consensus sees otherwise.

The variety P. aztecorum var. bonetii differs has smaller spores than the main variety, - grammar fix needed

Gastón Guzmán emended - dang, not thrilled about seeing two bluelinks next to each other but I can't think of an alternative......

approximately cylindrical - I must say "approximately" sounds funny with a non-numeric adjective. My inclination would be to use "roughly" or "more or less" or somesuch.

...Guzmán reported the presence of the psilocybin, but not psilocin in the variety bonartii - why the "but" here?

...maintain close relationships with psychoactive mushrooms - I generally think of maintaining close relationships with people or some abstract concept like "nature". I'm thinking maybe "maintain/retain familiarity/expertise/knowledge with psychoactive mushrooms" or something similar

Overall, looking good as usual. Pretty straightforward fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Cas. I've fixed all of the above per your suggestions here, with the exception of the consecutive link ... need to think about how to reword it. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support and comments. Makes me think of the 60s, usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• the following technical terms are not linked at the first occurrence, if at all — spore, mycologist, fibrillose, emeritus.

• adjusted/added linking, except for mycologist (to avoid another consecutive link, and I'm thinking that a reader who doesn't already know what the word means will understand it from the context) Sasata (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "lookalike" seems a bit informal to me, but your call

• Swapped for "similar species". Thanks Jim, Sasata (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Very happy to see this here, and it's good to see an expansion of the religious use section. A few thoughts, but note that I am supporting either way. (Delegates- I was the GAC reviewer.) J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "but this synonymy is not confirmed by either of the taxonomical databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I can't put my finger on why, but this doesn't seem right.

• How about " ... this putative synonymy, however, is not indicated by either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum."? Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's "either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I think it really has to be "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum" or "is not confirmed by taxonomic databases MycoBank and Index Fungorum". Perhaps even "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum, both respected taxonomic databases". The worst thing is, I can't actually say why what you've written doesn't sound right; to my ears, it just seems wrong. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I went with neither ... nor and removed the somewhat clunky "taxonomic databases" (both are linked anyway). Sasata (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• "asymmetrical (mango-shaped)" "asymmetrical" does not mean "mango shaped", which this seems to imply

• Removed this detail from the taxonomy section–it's covered later in description. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Xochipilli (illustration)" Is this MoS valid? Strikes me as an unwarranted self-reference

• Agree; removed. Thanks for the comments and support. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

:*"In 1958, Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann reported a concentration of 0.02% psilocybin and no psilocin, but this analysis was performed on two-year-old specimens" Psilocin isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and as far as I can tell by reading it, the substance has no relevance concerning this plant. So, why mention it at all?

• Psilocybin and psilocin often occur together in psychoactive mushrooms, so it's common to report concentrations of both. But I think you're correct about relevance here, so I've removed its mention. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I wasn't aware of that and I doubt most readers will be. I wouldn't object to it being re-inserted as long as there's a very brief explanation of why psilocin is worthy of mention.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

:*The article twice mentions that the Aztecs used these mushrooms. Is there any more specific information on how they used it? Or is it the same as the way it's used now by people in Oaxaca?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Good point; I've now added "These mushrooms, considered holy sacraments by the Aztecs, were consumed during spiritual and divinatory rituals to induce hallucinatory visions." to make it explicit. Unfortunately, the remaining historical records don't allow us to say much more than that. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Rwanda

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. The last nomination, in June 2011, failed due to lack of consensus and a few actionable objections. Since the start of the last FAC I have addressed these issues raised:

• Fixed formatting issues in the links
• Removed or clarified dubiously licensed media
• Reduced the length of the lead
• Reduced the length of the history section and also reduced the perceived overweight on the 1990-present period
• Modified the text in the lead and demographics concerning Hutu/Tutsi/Twa, to try to clarify the categorisation  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Well done in bringing this article back to FAC. Can I just briefly comment on a couple of details in the infobox? You include two items: "Gini (2003) 41.1 (medium)" and "HDI (2011) 0.429 (166th)". Neither of these measures are mentioned in the text and the first is not cited anywhere. In my view, if these are important measures they should be introduced and explained in the text, otherwise they should be omitted. And if included the sources must be cited. The present links from the infobox on Gini and HDI are of little use, as they go to articles which in my view very few readers will want to take time to read and understand. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just spot-checked several articles on other developing countries, and Gini and HDI are included in the infobox on all of them. These measures are also not discussed in the body of the article in the examples I looked at. They're very important measures and anyone who's involved in international development knows what they are. Your statement that the average reader may not be interested enough to find out what they mean could be applied to probably 99% of the information on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we take it out. It should be available in the case that people wish to educate themselves. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, but if as you say these are "very important measures", why are they not discussed in the text? Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia article, not something written just for those involved in international development. You cannot simply disregard the bulk of the encyclopedia's readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody's talking about disregarding the bulk of the readers. This seems to be a question of precedent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Gini or HDI routinely discussed in other articles on developing countries, and I don't really know what more can be said in the body of the article without either simply repeating the number or going into an explanation of what these indices mean (which is what the linking is for). Many of the points contained in the text box are not discussed in the text. It's meant to be a brief collection of important information where elaboration is more or less unnecessary. Calling code number, what side people drive on etc. What would you want to see in the body of the article related to the HDI or Gini beyond simply restating the figures, and without providing an inevitably lengthy definition of the indices? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done - the HDI is now mentioned in the text (History section) in connection with its rise through the 2000s. And I have decided to remove the Gini as (a) I can't see an appropriate place to slot it into the main body of the article, (b) the figure cited was very old and (c) Gini is just one measure (to do with inequality) that might be of interest when studying a country's statistics; in my opinion child mortality, life expectancy, percentage living in poverty etc. are all equally interesting figures but we don't mention those in the infobox. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is in pretty good shape, but the article is missing a section that is in most other FA level articles on countries (such as Australia), some of it seems to put an unduly positive spin on the country and I have concerns over sourcing. In particular:
  • The article doesn't have equivalent sections on 'Foreign relations and military'

    Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Sections, Foreign relations and military is not a required section for a country article. This reflects the best consensus that could be reached following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Also, Cameroon, an FA which I used as a loose template for Rwanda does not have FR/M. As Lemurbaby says Foreign relations is somewhat covered by Politics. I could add a sentence or two about Military if you think that's important, but not convinced it merits more than that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The history section doesn't mention Rwanda's central role throughout the war in Congo during the 1990s and 2000s (aka the 'Great War of Africa'), and this is brushed over in the 'Politics and government' section.

    I agree, it would be good to add a sentence or two touching on the genocide's repercussions in terms of refugee flow and its role in sparking the war in Congo. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    Done - I have added such a sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "the country's Human Development Index grew by 3.3%, the largest increase of any country" - is this meaningful? Given the results of the genocide, I imagine that its HDI would have been very low to start with, so it's probably not difficult to grow quickly.

    This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    Done - I have included poverty and child mortality reduction stats from that survey. Let me know if this suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

    Looks good, though it would be helpful to say what the child mortality rate is now (eg, is high?) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

    (Done) Hmm... on looking at the actual report (rather than the report of the report), I can't see any actual figures for the child mortality so not sure where the 41% came from - all the report says is that the level is now "about the same as Kenya" which is hardly very scientific! I have now referenced the poverty figures to the actual report, and changed the mortality to use UN statistics between 2000 and 2009, which show a somewhat more modest but still significant reduction of around 38% (suggesting the 41% figure is probably not even correct). Thanks and let me know if this suits  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

    That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems a bit of a stretch to say that what's apparently the 66th least corrupt out of 180 countries "has low corruption levels". Transparency International ranks Rwanda's corruption at 4.0 on a scale where 0 is the most corrupt and 10 the least.

    This can be corrected by putting it into context: "Low corruption levels relative to most other African countries" - and then retaining all the same stats to let people draw their own conclusions about what they suggest for Rwanda's corruption levels relative to the larger world. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    I have followed Lemurbaby's suggestion here. Let me know if it cuts the mustard...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    That helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Done - I'll assume this point is satisfied, unless you tell me otherwise :)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption." - this is referenced directly to the constitition. Does this position actually exist in practice, and is it effective?

    The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Yes it does. they have a facebook page, and a website here. Corruption really isn't a major issue in Rwanda, unlike most other African countries. It's remarkably easy to get things done in this country. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    OK excellent, and that's probably a better source than the old news story. Transparency International appears to have quite a bit on Rwanda on their website as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Done - I have referenced these facts to the Ombudsman's website and a 2011 newspaper article confirming that the Ombudsman applies sanctions to those who don't declare their wealth.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "The economy has since strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at $1,284 in 2011,[3] compared with $416 in 1994" - is this adjusted for inflation?

    The source document should include that information. Since it's IMF I would expect it has been adjusted. I don't believe this kind of detail typically included in the infobox, but if you've found examples that show otherwise, please let us know here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    OK, the source says that they're in current dollars, so the figures are comparable. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The unequivocal statement that "The press is tightly restricted and newspapers routinely self-censor to avoid government reprisals." seems ill at ease with the earlier statements that the anti-democratic nature of the government is merely 'alleged' and 'claimed' by various NGOs. It would be better to just state that Rwanda is a limited (at best) democracy rather than present these as being merely criticisms. I believe that a number of foreign governments have also criticised the Rwandan government in recent years, so the NGOs aren't alone.

    I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: , and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': . As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.

    • Firstly, AFAIK the constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to detail these institutions in the article and present their existence as verified fact.
    • Regarding the HRW and other reports, it is quite correct to give those the time of day, because they are there, they are part of the lexicon of Rwanda, there may be some truth in then, and we should make the reader aware of what those reports say. However, if the article is to remain NPOV, it *cannot* present those as facts, because they are strictly allegations. An alternative view and some inconsistencies in HRW's own line is presented in this article from a Ugandan newspaper. Also, and slightly separate from the question of whether things are free and fair, is the question of whether the government really is the one wanted by the people. In most dictatorships that would be a definite no. But in Rwanda it's not so clear. For example, in this Guardian piece it opines that Kagame "Kagame could win this presidential election without campaigning". So, if that is to be believed, the most favoured person won the election and democracy prevailed.
    • Anyway, the bottom line for me is that if the article comes across as non-neutral then that is certainly unintentional (I personally am extremely agnostic on the question of whether democracy really prevails in Rwanda and am no closer to an answer even after many years living there; interestingly when I once showed the article to a Rwandan he was horrified at the perceived bias *against* the government). And if you and others feel that more article space should be given to detailing the allegations of the human rights organisations, conditions applied to sentences such as the multi-party one etc, or some kind of more rigorous presentation of the "debate" then I would be happy to try to work those in. What I would not support is statements saying categorically that the institutions don't work or that the country is an out-and-out dictatorship because that really would be presenting just one side of the debate. Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    I think that we're going to have to disagree then, I'm afraid. Those organisations are among the real heavyweights of the NGO world, and they all say basically the same thing in regards to the suppression of the political opposition in recent years, so it's well beyond 'allegations'. My suggested approach is that you describe the theoretical structure of the country's political structure alongside a discussion of what things are like on the ground. This would be in line with the approach used in the the (very) broadly comparable FAs Belarus, Cameroon and Chad. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

    My basic concern is that the politics section states that Rwanda's system of government is "based upon a multi-party system." when this isn't actually true based on the assessments of leading monitoring organisations I provided links to. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Nick, just to say that I certainly intend to provide more clarity on the multi-party point, citing the views of HRW as well as the RW government's views on the matter. I intend to get this done within the next week, along with the other points raised, so hoping the FAC will remain open for long enough for you to have another look at it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

    I'm happy to say that the changes to this section over the last few days look very good to me and that my comments here are now fully addressed. The new material is even handed and nicely written - great work. A few of my other comments are yet to be addressed though: I'll strike the others to make them clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

    Great. Glad you're happy with how it looks now. I'll keep chipping away at the remaining points in the next few days. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Are more recent figures for income earned from tourism available than those from 2008?

    Done - I have replaced 2008 statistics with those for January - June 2011. Will keep an eye out for full year stats as and when they become available.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The source for the statement that "Despite the Genocide, the country is increasingly perceived internationally as a safe destination; 980,577 people visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" doesn't state that the country is seen as being a safe destination (though I believe that this is true).

    Done - you are quite correct, although thankfully page 6 of the same source does make that point, so I have referenced that.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    It also notes that only 4.9 percent of this travel was actually holiday tourism (a reduction on the level the year before) and business travel was the most common reason people visited the country, so this material doesn't fit well in a discussion of tourism in Rwanda.

    True, although actually according to the definition mentioned at Tourism (and cited to the World Tourism Organization), business and family visitors still fall under the tourist definition. And the source document being used for this clearly refers to them as tourists as well. Anyway, to try to clarify this point I have included the comment about holidaymakers contributing 43% of revenue despite being only 9% (as of 2011) of the numbers. I have also included the fact that 16% of visitors are from outside Africa. Let me know how that sits with you. thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    OK, that works. However, the lead says "Tourism is a fast-growing sector and is now the country's leading foreign exchange earner, the most popular activity being the tracking of mountain gorillas." which seems incorrect given that business is by far the most common activity. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    Fixed - I have changed the gorilla sentences to more qualitative about thousands visiting per year and prepared to pay high prices rather than stating it to be the "most popular".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The statement that "Rural to urban migration, which was very low before 1994, now stands at 4.2% per year." needs a reference.

    Done - I'm not actually sure where the figure came from (that part was written a couple of years ago), but I have found alternative stats and sources. Interestingly the proportion of urban dwellers has gone down slightly in the past 5 years, having previously risen a lot. The rural population is growing faster than the urban anyway though, so the actual urban numbers are still rising slightly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    The new statement that "Urbanization|Rural to urban migration]], which was previously very, became swignificant after 1994." is referenced to something published in 1995, which obviously doesn't support the implication that this has been a long-running trend. Also, there's a missing word and a spelling mistake in this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    Oops... I have now dropped the sentence about a rural-urban migration increase altogether as none of the sources state the fact unequivocally. This: comments on the matter, but speculates that it might be to do with economic development as well; and that rural fertility rates are also very high, which muddies the water. I have left the urban population statistics (rise from 6% to 16%) in place, so people can draw their own conclusions from the hard facts. As ever, let me know if this suits, or if there's anything else you'd like me to say.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on travel guides for sourcing (particularly Briggs & Booth 2006) Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    The problem with a topic like Rwanda (and I think you're aware of this, as you alluded to it above), is that compared with topics relating to "Western" countries there is very little published material regarding it. Furthermore, what published material there is is overwhelmingly regarding the 1994 Genocide, with far less on other aspects of the country. As someone who has spent some time living in the country, I know many facts that are not written down in any internationally verifiable location. Obviously my knowledge of these facts alone, being essentially original research, cannot permit them to enter Wikipedia. Per WP:V, that makes them true facts but not verifiable facts. However, when those facts also appear in a travel guide, written by someone with knowledge of the country, and published by a reputable publisher, that should give them the sufficient level of verifiability required.

    I have not seen a guideline on Wikipedia that printed travel guides should not be used as sources, and when it comes down to it they are probably at least as accurate as newspaper articles published in the New York Times etc, which are explicitly permitted as sources.

    Having said all the above, I will certainly have another look at the Briggs/Booth refs and see if any of them might be source-able elsewhere. If so then great, but if not, I wouldn't support removing material that is of use in gaining a complete understanding of the country, just because the only way to verify it is through the travel guide. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    I take your point about reliability and fact checking, and we should set a high bar, although a counterargument would be that the vast majority of sources used across WP are non-scholarly in nature. I particular, newspaper articles, which are explicitly allowed if they are from a reputable paper, are probably no more fact checked than a guidebook, likely less so as once written they tend to stand unedited for ever, whereas guidebooks update themselves revision by revision as reader feedback comes to light.

    Anyway, re the reduction of the Briggs/Booth refs, that is a work in progress - I did the History section last night, but then it was getting kind of late so I shut down the 'puter without looking at others further down the article. Hopefully will do more on that tonight.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now all addressed. Full credit to Amakuru for the very positive way they've worked through these issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, if the outstanding issues Nick-D raised above are addressed. I'm living in Rwanda currently and working in development here, so I can speak to the accuracy, scope and neutrality of the article, which is very well-written. Nibiza, Amakuru! Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Great job incorporating the suggested revisions! Lemurbaby (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, Amakuru, you might want to try some of these resources to help clarify in the article some of the points that Nick-D has raised: the 2010 CPIA for governance, transparency and budget management; the 2012 MCA scorecard for control of corruption and institutional effectiveness; the DFID FRA from June 2011 for fiduciary responsibility. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I will look into those. Hope to have a bit of time to work on this shortly; I'm almost done with the Briggs & Booth referencing now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, with the note that of course Nick-D's concerns are valid and should be dealt with. The structure is good, although I would suggest the single paragraph climate subsection is simply included in Geography and that the two paragraph media and communications section is included under infrastructure. Short sections are ugly! This is a concise article, which still covers a wide range of points. CMD (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments reading through now. Hopefully Nick-D will strike through issues he sees as resolved as discussion can be tricky to follow. I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

... period around ten thousand years ago, or in the long humid period which followed, up to around 3000 BC - not fond of flipping between "years ago" and "BC". I think aligning them all is good. In this case the simplest is to change the first one.

Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some plant species are endemic to Akagera - this is true of many places. A number (of plant species) would be good here.

Done - I can't actually find any examples or numbers for this. I have, however, found a source listing some "rare or endangered" species in Akagera, so have replaced the fact with this. Let me know if that suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, much better idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda. - this sentence is mostly superfluous, as the one ethnic group has been discussed in hte preceding section. In fact, I don't think the article loses anything by dropping it altogether.

Done. I have also moved the remainder of the first paragraph to the end of the section as it seemed a bit out of place on its own.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Human rights organisations claim that the government suppresses... - one thing you can do here is list the organisations, which prevents the reader mentally generalising one way or the other. Exactness has its merits :)

Done - I have listed Amnesty and Freedom House. HRW are also mentioned twice earlier in the section; let me know if you want to mention them here too.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)