Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2010

Blue-faced Honeyeater

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is of an equivalent standard to many other bird FAs. It had a thorough GA review and some copyediting from others along the way. I promise to address issues quickly (unless I am asleep). Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with one minor comment:
  • "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity of the two aggressive species were present"—not quite clear; should the "of" have been an "if"? Even then, this can probably be worded better.

Yes, it should be 'if' - I stared at it trying to think of a rewrite.....I could try "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland containing the two aggressive species should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity", but I don't feel that is necessarily an improvement. If you do then change away, I am open to ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is actually better; it puts the patches and the species a little closer together. Ucucha 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also no dabs or dead externals. Ucucha 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support with one minor comment "Anoncotaenia globata (a worldwide species not otherwise recorded from Australia) was isolated from a Blue-faced Honeyeater collected in North Queensland in 1916.[36] The habroneme nematode Cyrnea (Procyrnea) spirali has also been isolated from this among other honeyeater species.[37] The nasal mite Ptilonyssus philemoni" you may want to fill the redlinks, and it's a bit hard to read without following the links. Thanks Secret ^account 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about doing that - there is a stack of taxons to de-redlink in tapeworm and nematode classification..thx btw. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Rather a silly little thing, but I don't like the external links section with no links- perhaps you could keep the Commons box, but add an external link to WikiSpecies with a bullet? Altertnatively, are there any nice bird databases you could link to? J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, a good idea. I added a couple of links which add something. I will look later for the wikispecies linking template, but anyone else reading this is welcome to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 1: language?

Latin Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Refs 3 & 4 lack page refs; are these brief publications? Also, 3 lacks publisher location

yes they are bird lists and brief. added locations Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 9: is a more specific pub. location possible?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 12: What is the journal, who is the publisher?

oops, missed that - it's Emu. I haven't been adding the published to Journals, but it's Birds Australia Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 13: Again, no journal name or publisher is provided. Is this part of the answer?

oops, missed that - it's Emu again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having a read to see what I can see. I know a little about birds, but I'm more used to British garden/sea birds than this :) Mostly just nit-picky, of course- your call.

• "as Bananabird" the Bananabird?

d'oh! fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Systematis Ornithologiae, however he wrote up three separate" This doesn't read that well- rephrase?

Yeah, I had trouble with that bit - how about now as "however he described it as three separate species" ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It has been classified" It was?

Hmm, I liked perfect tense here as Storr's classification is still described as a current option in the literature (although consensus is Entomyzon) rather than a classification which is now completely outdated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

• "estimates show" Can estimates show anything? Surely, they just suggest?

indicate? suggest seems a little wishy-washy Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "ento-/εντο- ("inside") and myzein/μυζειν" Shouldn't the Greek text be italicised too? You're still quoting words as words.

That's funny, I could have sworn the Greek font slanted more than that in the past. Anyway, reason I didn't is that usually the Greek text seems to slope a bit generally, but I have italicised it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "White-quilled Honeyeater, and Blue-eye" Why italics there?

Because they are words-as-words. As in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Words_as_words Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It is called Morning-bird from its dawn calls before other birds of the bush." Who calls it that?

I worded it like that so I didn't have a sentence with "yet another name is..." The source doesn't clarify how local it is, I presume Queensland but it is not spelt out in the source. I can reword if you feel it is more important than repetitiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "bushman" Link?

done to wikt:bushman Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Uw Oykangand and Uw Olkola" Links to these languages? Redlinks if we don't yet have an article (because surely articles should be written?)

okay, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "described below" avoid self references? I see what you're saying, but I think there's probably a better way to do it.

Yeah, I removed it. I'll reread to see if anything needs to be clarified to the description section - do you think it stands ok as is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "intergrade form" What's that? Link?

Linked. —innotata 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article seems to list a lot of synonyms that the taxobox doesn't.

I tended to only list more recent ones there, as many older ones are often over a century out of date. I have listed them now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "recognised by its patch of bare blue" the patch, maybe? To avoid repetition?

changed to "the bare blue skin around its eyes" - would "the bare blue skin patch around its eyes" add anything? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The upperparts including mantle, back and wings are" I'd put a comma after upperparts and after wings

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "grey head, chin and centre of their breasts" a "grey centre of their breasts" doesn't sound right

tried "central parts of their breasts" - could maybe do "middle of their breasts". Tricky. I a ma bit flummoxed otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "A bird banded in May 1990 in Kingaroy in central Queensland was found dead on a road after 8 years and 3.5 months at in September 1998, around 2 km (1.2 mi) away." Interesting, but not really related to what had just been said.

To date, I've always put data on longevity in the description section. I suppose it could go in the behaviour section..I did embellish it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Birds make a soft chirping around nestlings and family members." Sounds like you're referring to birds generally.

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Birds occasionally" Again.

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They live throughout rainforest, dry sclerophyll forest, open woodland, pandanus, paperbarks, mangroves, watercourses, and wetter areas of semi-arid regions, as well as parks and gardens." I can't help feel there is more that could be said about this kind of thing.

You're right. I am digging up a little bit more to add. It looks a bit stubby. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It appears to live in pairs" Plural/singular mess up- "they appear to... and are..." maybe?

made plural Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "When feeding in groups" Repetition.

Tweaked first bit instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "a flock of 15–20 birds seen diving into pools one bird at a time while others perch in surrounding treetops preening." A bit fragment-y- doesn't really tie to the rest of the sentence that well.

Oops. Trying to be a bit too brief. reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The habroneme nematode Cyrnea (Procyrnea) spirali" The what? Links?

I have linked to nematode for the time being, until I can get an article up on habroneme (a subgroup). Actually, Habronematoidea is an article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the feeding section, you talk about how they feed before what they eat- seems to be the wrong way around.

Switched around in insect para - what then how now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "shot hole borers" Link?

fixed..incidentally to the true bearer of the genus name Platypus... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• It'd be great if we could get a sound file of the noises it makes.
• "Birds Nest or Staghorn Fern," A little confusing, wasn't sure what you were trying to say until I clicked the links

I switched them so it'd be less ambiguous Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "grasstree" link?

grasstree redirects to Xanthorrhoea, which is the next word anyway in first mention Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the aviculture section expanded- is this something kept elsewhere than Australia? Is it commonly kept in Australia? Any notable institutions that keep them?

It is rarely kept. Just a few Zoos. I will try and find some material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that seems a very long review. I do like the article, I think it's a good FAC, but I feel there are some more bits and bobs you may be able to clean up :) J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comments Few concerns, but two nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• E. c. griseigularis is found in southwestern New Guinea and Cape York, and was described in 1909 — can we name the ssp authority for consistency with Gould's ssp.

forgot that one. I was going to...anyway, now fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• unlike J Milburn, I'd lose Aviculture. One line section which tells us nothing about how common in aviculture, and legal status only in one state. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is stubby. I'll make a last ditch effort to find some more info to buff it. I was intrigued as it is such an unusual bird to see in captivity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Sarcoscypha coccinea

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarcoscypha coccinea is a small bright red cup-fungus that is commonly covered in mushroom field guides, and, as a type species, is arguably the most important of its genus. I have worked the past few days to bring up the comprehensiveness to a level comparable to other fungal FAs, and have tweaked and copyedited to the point where I think the article is ready for review by the community. Thanks for reading. (This is a Wikicup nomination) Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: All images check out as Creative Commons or public domain. There are no disambiguation links, and all external links are working. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Have we discussed The North American Cup-Fungi (Operculates) being self-published before? Is the guy an expert?

• We haven't discussed Fred Jay Seaver before. He was a PhD & Sc.D., curator of the New York Botanical Garden, chief editor of the (arguably) premier mycological journal Mycologia, and renown as an expert of the Discomycetes (cup-fungi), because of his numerous related publications in addition to the publication of the book we're discussing. I'm confident he meets the criteria for a reliable self-published source. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise what makes http://www.gbif-mycology.de/HostedSites/Baral/Sarcoscypha.htm a reliable source?

• H.O. Baral did his PhD dissertation on the Sarcoscypha genus, and published a lengthy article on the same in the German journal Zeitschrift für Mykologie a year later. His website gives much of the information contained in this article, but updated with more recent literature. I think he also passes the bar for a SPS. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• This one I'll leave out for others, but I lean reliable, especially as it's a fungus we're discussing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Another excellent article fungus article. My only quibble has to do with the distribution. (Yes, we've been here before, and I'm sorry to bring it up.) Once I read the lead and saw the wide distribution, I immediately wanted to know if it was an introduced species. When you talk about the phylogeny, it appears that the species may have evolved in Europe, but no mention is made of why it's found on every continent but Antarctica. The discussion of differences in the North American population implies we may be talking about different species. Has no one speculated in the literature about this? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrington discusses this briefly in her 1998 paper, and suggests that since all Sarcoscypha species form a clade that is sister to the tropical species S. javensis, the genus had a tropical origin. S. occidentalis has the widest distribution of all species, but there was nothing particularly specifically notable about the biogeography of S. coccinea that I saw warranted a mention. I will definitely discuss these matters in the genus article (it's on my "list"). Sasata (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given how much research still needs to be done in this field, I can understand that. (We've only begun to scratch the surface.) Changing to support. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks VH!. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this this morning while I was playing with the fungi portal.

• "which both the fungus derives both its common and species names are derived" :)

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd kind of like to see bullets in the synonym list, I think...

• I'm not totally averse to the idea, except its inconsistent with the way I've done things so far. The disadvantage I see is that adding a bullet point pushes the synonym a few spaces to the right, and increase the chance that some names (which should be given with their authorities) will then wrap to the next line. This is where having a WP:Fungi-specific MOS would come in handy. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with how you've done it; it's just not how I would have done it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea was given its current name by Jean Baptiste Émil Lambotte in 1889.[1]" Perhaps merge that to the paragraph before?

• Ok, paragraphs merged. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have you made redirects for all those synonyms? That would be a nice touch. I know for a fact I've searched for names that are no longer accepted...

• I think further discussion is required with the Fungi project (perhaps even WP:TOL) before I start the precedent of making redirects for synonyms. Synonyms really need to be indicated with their authorities, and there are various taxonomical nuances which have to be considered. I'm sure Circéus would have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know other projects do this, and I have seen other editors do it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• For starters I'd say that whether or not it's done should not, I think, have any incidence on the FAC process. Whether it should be done as a matter of fact? In the current state of affair my intuition pushes me firmly on the "unsettled outside specific projects", if that (I don't think any project actually has it as an official guideline). In general, I disagree with the "authority" bit: only specialist uses author citations in a way that even approaches reliability and regularity. I'd say a pragmatic approach (redirects for the major synonyms) is best. Other synonyms (which may or may not have been created) can be found easily by text search.
  For comparison, the issue is also thoroughly unsettled on Wikispecies, but there I suspect the limited number of regular editor is also a major factor. Circéus (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could give some examples where not including the authority could lead to confusion, and might necessitate setting up dab pages, but agree that if the synonyms are mentioned in the text, a text search will allow the reader to find them. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see why we should not make redirects for synonyms (except in the probably rare case of homonyms, where a dab page is appropriate), but I may be missing something. Ucucha 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Clements and Shear" Who are they? If we don't have a link, could we have the full names? I guess the same applies to the names before, but I know we've had this conversation before... Take it or leave it :)

• I've now linked and redlinked the mycologists (Thanks "heavens" for Fungal Valhalla; someday Wiki will have articles for all those names!))

• Could we perhaps have the recognised subspecies added to that Phylogeny graph thing (which I am really not qualified to understand :P) Actually- I see there are a few subspecies and the anamorph. It'd probably get a little crowded if everything was added.

• I can only add to the cladogram what was given in the publication. A more complete version can be seen at the genus article. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, point taken. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "curliness"- now there's a word it's nice to see in a serious article!

• Curliness is as serious a word as plectaniaxanthin. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "or even white (as in the variety album)." This isn't mentioned in the taxonomy section?

• Yes, there is a slight repetition of info... but it's only a few words, and to me it seems that the info is appropriate in both spots. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that there isn't a repetition of info- that's the only place the variety is mentioned. The variety mentioned in the taxonomy section is S. coccinea var. albida- they the same thing? Why the two different names? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, my mistake, I didn't even notice the spelling was different. Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea is one of several fungi whose fruit bodies have been noted to make a "puffing" sound—an audible manifestation of spore-discharge that occurs under certain conditions where thousands of asci simultaneously explode to release a cloud of spores." Our first fungal featured sound?

• Hmmm, I should pack my microphone next time I go mushroom hunting? Do you think I could get a featured sound for "pfff" ? :) Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "coalesce" is a rather technical term- a link to Coalescence (chemistry) (if that's the right meaning)?

• Yes, it's correct; linked. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it normal for anamorphs to be in a different genus to the normal versions? That just seems weird to me... (Not an issue with the article, you've explained it very well, I'm just intrigued)

• It is odd, but that's how they did things for decades before they were able to use molecular phylogenetics to link the identity of anamorph and teleomorph. There is currently debate in the mycological community about whether this practice should be scrapped (something I think will happen eventually as the old school diehards pass on to their next lives). Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the Rose family, Beech, Hazel, Willow, Elm, and in the Mediterranean, on Oak." Something not quite right about this- perhaps another comma after "and"?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "One field guide calls the fungus "a welcome sight after a long, desperate winter and ... the harbinger of a new year of mushrooming."[42]" Another wonderful little titbit. This really is an interesting article to read!

• I aim to please. And I think you meant tidbit, unless the small red circular fungus evoked a Freudian slip. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "are Red listed in Europe" You're kind of inventing a verb there- perhaps "are on the IUCN Red List in Europe"?

• "Red Listed" is being used this way as a verb now in the literature (see also our own article Red-listed). I've changed the link from Red list to Red-listed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does it work, medicinally? Or was it just superstition?

• Only the Oneida and Iroquois can give you the answer you seek. I unfortunately have to rely on the limited info the sources give me. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the sun's rays" Sun is a proper noun, according to our article

• Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see how the first paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" constitutes a "use". It's useful to the article, but I can't help feeling it belongs elsewhere.

• I see what you're saying. Any suggestions? I could rename "Bioactive compounds" to "Chemistry" and make it a section, and also maybe remove the "Edibility" subheader from the uses section while I'm at it. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• That could work- alternatively, you could slip the explanation of why it's red in the description section. "Why is Sarcoscypha coccinea red?" is hardly up there with "why is the sky blue?", but it has its place, especially with the suggestion about it being a slight evolutionary advantage. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt there's much more to say, so no big deal if you don't know, but is the lectin commercially produced? Sold? Used in any labs? Or did someone just find it, mention it in a paper then forget about it?

• The latter. It's one of those bits of pure research that might be useful someday to a biochemist who needs an alternative way to selectively bind lactose using a chromatography column or something. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• It just feels a shame to end the article with a comparatively uninteresting/unimportant fact, when there is such lovely stuff in the uses section. Perhaps you could have three subsections- edibility, medicinal uses and other uses, something like that... Does it mention in the source why it was used as a table decoration? Because it's pretty? Its colour? Because they're all crazy over there? Something like that? If there was a little more on that, you could offset the stuffy science with some quaint human interest under an "other uses" title. (Your way also works, I'm just throwing another idea into the mix.) J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have rearranged the sections and headers/subheaders a bit so it doesn't end with the boring fact. Would love to include more human interest stuff about the fungus... but it just isn't out there. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably one of your best- I really enjoyed reading it, and it's clear a lot of expertise and research has gone into the article. I have no doubt you'll be able to deal with my suggestions as appropriate as usual. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. All issues addressed. I looked through the Web of Science hits, and coverage seemed good. Ucucha 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Comments:

• It would be preferable for the taxobox to provide an option to make the synonyms list collapsible, instead of the redundant solution used here. I'll try to look into it.

• Thanks for reviewing the article and the copyedits. I'd appreciate a taxobox fix for synonyms. I find myself given full synonym lists more often (for comprehensiveness), and they can be quite lengthy for fungi. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, Australia was not in the northern hemisphere. Most of Africa and South America isn't either.

• I reworded the sentence slightly to hopefully remove the potential implication that they are. Does it read better now? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, "from which both the common and species names are derived", I don't think "species name" in the meaning of "scientific species name" works particularly well. Perhaps just say "common and scientific names".

• Done. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Taxonomy" section, the use of parentheses for the authorities is confusing, as this would normally mean they described the species in a different genus.

• I thought they would be less confusing for a general reader who didn't know about conventions for listing authorities. I don't mind changing the style, but would like further opinions from others, as it's something I do for almost all of the species articles I work on. Comparing the two:

"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia (Schumacher 1803), Peziza aurantiaca (Persoon 1822), and Peziza coccinea (Jacquin 1774)." vs.

"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia Schumach., Peziza aurantiaca Pers., and Peziza coccinea Jacq." Any other opinions before I adjust my synonym-listing paradigm? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Less confusing to the general reader, perhaps, but more confusing to the eye of the reader who knows a bit more of taxonomy. Perhaps use "Peziza aurantia Schumach. (1803)"? Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, that's a good compromise. Done (used full authority names though). Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Phylogeny" is quite vague: what is the timeframe for the first sentence and the third? What does it have to do with "Phylogeny" anyway?

• I added a timeframe to the first, and the third is cited, so the reader can see the date of publication by checking the refs. I added this info where it is as a lead-in to the phylogenetic analysis, as a way to emphasize why the analysis was important—it helped clarify that several species were involved. I could make the "Taxonomy" section "Taxonomy and phylogeny" and merge the two if you still think it's out of place where it is. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's related to phylogeny, but isn't quite. I think merging the sections would be fine. Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the neighboring islands."—the Canary Islands are near Morocco, and are hardly "neighboring islands" to Europe, and Madeira looks like it's about as far from Morocco as from Portugal.

• The neighboring islands phrase is from the source. I tweak slightly by removing the word "the" ("and was later dispersed to neighboring islands.") so it looks less like I'm talking about those islands specifically. Also, I don't know much anything about the geological history of the region; might it be possible that those islands were closer to Europe when the ancestor species dispersed there? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps then just say "on the Macaronesian islands". Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does it also occur on the Macaronesian islands?

• It was thought to until Baral determined that the material collected from there was a different species. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could you clarify that somewhere in the article? Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done, in Hab & Dist. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A titbit Titbit is Brit, tidbit is its coy US cousin (cf the Parus tits (UK), titmice (US), or cock (UK), rooster (US)). Neither titbit variant was derived from anything to do with the female anatomy, although the ancient men's magazine Tit-Bits made the obvious link. A proper review will follow in due course, now a very busy August (Bruges, V festival and family is nearly over Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that titbit of information, Jim! My apologies, JMilburn, for assuming your subconscious mind was in the gutter :) Sasata (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Just a few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Molliardiomyces eucoccinea — Although I can see why you've bolded this, it's not a synonym, and I'm unconvinced that it should be bold (on the same basis that subspecies are unbolded)

• Ok, done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harrington hypothesized that the most recent common ancestor of the two species originated in Europe and was later dispersed to neighboring islands. — do we know if the ancestor is likely to have been a different species from both the extant forms? That isn't necessarily the case, since the ancestral Madeira Firecrest appears to be the same species as the extant mainland Common Firecrest. When did the colonisation occur?

• Harrington's study didn't include any molecular clock calculations, and he really didn't say much more than the speculation I've included in the article already. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The stalks and outer surface are more lightly colored than the interior. — lighter in color

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "beta carotene" — since the compund is more commonly written as β-Carotene, I'd italicise the Greek and hyphenate as "beta-carotene"

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - with a few nitpicks (as opposed to titbits). Engaging and informative, this article is a delight to read. Here are a few suggestions:

• In the the introduction there is a lonely "most" and some readers might pause to think "most what?"
• Here why not put "however" at the beginning of the sentence? - It had been known since the early 1900s however"
• I think the structure of this sentence is confusing, "The cladistic analysis combined comparison of sequences from the internal transcribed spacer in the non-functional RNA in addition to fifteen traditional morphological characters, such as spore features, fruit body shape, and degree of curliness of the "hairs" comprising the tomentum." The problem is caused by "combined". It reads "The X combined Y in addition to Z." I think with would be better than in addition to to give The X combined Y with Z.
• The use of "under certain conditions" leaves the reader guessing. Perhaps a a description of these conditions would make an interesting titbit?

• Buller didn't go into detail about these conditions, so I removed the phrase—it reads just as well without it. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I find the colon odd here, "Depending on their geographical origin, the spores may have a delicate mucilaginous sheath or "envelope": European specimens are devoid of an envelope while specimens from North America invariably have one."
• I didn't like the "while" here, "While in most Pezizales all of the ascospores are formed simultaneously" - how about "although"?

Thank you for a fascinating contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and thank-you for your review Graham. I have implemented your proposed suggestions. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Nikita Filatov

Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is finally there. I got some excellent feedback during the last run at FAC, which I really appreciated. The main issues from the last nomination concerned the lack of information about his playing style (addressed with the addition of a new section), and two references to Yahoo! blogs (both removed, and the material covered with other sources). The article has also been updated briefly with news about the upcoming season and Filatov's arrival in North America, but I think it still meets the stability requirements. Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The caption for the image in the medal record (it simply states, "Nikita Filatov") is kind of strange to me; it's clear from the context that it's Filatov (who else could it possibly be?). I'd prefer to see no caption, or if one must exist, the context of the event he's playing in. I'm not quite clear on infobox image guidelines. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the caption in the medal box to specify the event and award. Previously, there was no caption, so I think it defaulted to the player name, and I am not sure how to force it to not have a caption. Canada Hky (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If needed, the image could be removed from the medal box entirely, as well. Canada Hky (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The sources were okayed at the previous FAC. There have been a few changes, but no problems, all still OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Supported on last nomination, stand by that now. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support article is well written and all encompassing. All prior concerns from previous nomination have been addressed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments I have a few problems with this article. It seems to contain a lot of hockey jargon which makes it hard for the general reader to understand and the prose is choppy. I've read as far as the end of "Professional" so far.

• "Nikita Vasilyevich Filatov (Russian: Никита Васильевич Филатов; born May 25, 1990) is a Russian professional ice hockey winger currently playing for CSKA Moscow of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), on loan from the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League (NHL).": This is a really long opening sentence, lots in it; could it be broken up a little?
  • Adjusted, he is in Columbus for the 10/11 season, so I removed the part about being loaned to CSKA.
• "He was the top-ranked European skater by the NHL Central Scouting Bureau and was selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft." Why is this important? A word about who selected him would be good here. And "top-ranked skater by" sounds clumsy; what about "The NHL Central Scouting Bureau ranked him as the top European skater". And as a non-hockey person, "selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft" means nothing. Sixth out of how many? Selected for what? From who? The main section on this does not make it any clearer: "top-ranked European skater by the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau in both their mid-term and final rankings" does not really explain what is going on. And "selected by the Sudbury Wolves of the Ontario Hockey League": selected how? To play for them?
  • I have clarified the sentence about central scouting. I am not sure how to address the other concerns. I don't think it is being too technical or exclusionary with the way the draft info is presented. I don't really want to go into an explanation of how teams use drafts to ration talent coming into the leagues. I didn't add in how many players were selected in the draft, as that information isn't commonly included in hockey articles, but is readily available from the 2008 NHL Entry Draft page which is WL'd.

I think the problem is that these parts come in a section which is (understandably) stats heavy and so make it very dry. Such info may not be commonly included, but I think even one explanatory sentence on drafting would help the general reader (like me), asell as giving some context for this being (presumably) a notable achievement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to clarify the drafting process, without getting too wordy, let me know what you think.

Fine now. I've copy-edited a little to clear one or two things up and to make the prose flow a little. If I've made any mistakes, simply revert them. The drafting process is clear enough now without going into too much detail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems short and does not really give a summary of his career.
  • Fixed the lead to add a bit more detail of last season.
• "Farm team": Could it be linked, or better yet, expanded.
  • Removed, as it didn't fit with the common usage of the term in hockey hockey parlance.
• What is an "entry level contract"?
  • Standard hockey terminology for a player's first hockey contract, set out by the collective bargaining agreement. I think the term explains itself.

I don't agree that it explains itself, and I'm still not entirely clear. Presumably it is based on a certain wage which increases, as implied by the next sentence. Could a sentence not be added which would clarify and imporove the flow to the next sentence about his salary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good way to explain it, nor could I find another article with it explained well, so I removed the 'entry-level' portion.

• "2008 Canadian Hockey League (CHL) Import Draft" What is this?
  • Added a WL.
• Does General Manager really need abbreviating to GM? Is this a hockey convention?
  • Fairly common sports vernacular, its spelled out on the first occurrence, but it could be switched if it is an issue, I feel it makes the article flow a bit better.

I think that's my point. Should an encyclopedia use sports vernacular? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem, but it was easy enough to remove, and I did so.

• The prose is bumpy. Lots of sentences start with "Filatov", "he" (21 sentences up to the "International play" section begin with these words) or a season ("During XXXX", "After XXXX").
  • Its somewhat the nature of the beast when writing about a single subject, but I will take a run through and try to clear some of these up.
    • Tried to clean this up a bit, let me know what you think.

Seems better now, and I've tried to copy-edit the prose a little to make it flow. The later sections seem fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it very hard to follow this; I think more concessions to the general reader need to be made. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to make this a bit more user-friendly, let me know if there are any further suggestions. Canada Hky (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• You have used scratched and wikilinked it; the dictionary link does not really make clear the meaning. I imagine it is a regularly used term i hockey, but the general reader may be confused. I would prefer a more formal choice of word in a FA which clarified: did the coach ignore him, did he not make it onto the pitch. Simply "the coach left him out of..." would work better.
  • Clarified - was not dressed for the game as a coach's decision. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "unhappy with his ice time" Very slangy; "playing time", "time on the field", even "time on the ice" would be preferable.
  • Fixed Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've tried to link the sentences with the coaching staff improving his defence to returning him to Russia. The chronology needs sorting out: did they try to improve his play, decide it wasn't working and let him go back, or tell him to go back and improve his defensive play?
  • I'll need to work on this section a bit. Basically, he's an offensive player, the coaches wanted him to play at least passably defensively. If he wasn't playing well defensively, he wasn't getting much playing time from the coaches. If he wasn't getting much playing time, he wasn't happy. When he wasn't happy, he wanted to go home. It will need to be changed a little bit from how you phrased it, because it kind of involves three parties (player, coaches, GM), and when shortened it makes it sound as if the coaches said it wasn't working and let him go, which isn't quite what happened. I'll work on getting this fixed up. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Your explanation here sounds good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have clarified this now, and it still reads OK to me, let me know what you think. Canada Hky (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. As an aside (won't affect FAC) how common is this sort of arrangement? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The quote from the regulations about newcomer need an attribution.
  • Is this referring to the "Best Newcomer" award, and the definition in parentheses? Its not so much a quote as the league's definition of the award, and is from the same source at the end of the sentence. I can fix it up a bit, but I just want to make sure I am fixing up the right thing.Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the attribution is at the end of the sentence, that's fine, but I think the text should show it too: i.e. "according to the league's definition".

Added "defined by the KHL as" to the paranthetical statement.Canada Hky (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What comments did he make to the Russian media which annoyed people so much?
  • I haven't been able to find a direct quotes in English from a reliable site, the best I have been able to find is from that cited source saying he was 'dismissive' of the Blue Jackets.Canada Hky (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, maybe make the section about people being annoyed a bit less prominent. The reader may be left wanting to know exactly what he said as it sounds quite controversial as phrased now.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Left in the part about his teammates being annoyed by his departure (which is supported by the cite) and removed the part about his statements and claiming to be misquoted.Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last part of the Professional section seems to be unduly concentrating on current events rather than reporting what was happening. This slightly concerns me about 1e, changing significantly from day to day. This was raised at the previous FAC, and this is obviously going to change fairly soon when the current season unfolds. One solution may be to shorten the part about his uncertain future, but I'm not too sure. It seems premature to have a FA about a 20 year old who has the vast majority of his career in front of him. Are there any equivalent sporting FAs?
  • The discussion about stability was covered somewhat in the last FA. I don't think it is possible to say if stability will be an issue, because it involves a lot of projecting. Really, for anyone who is still alive - things can change quickly. Filatov isn't involved in anything that would reasonably suggest that this article is going to be unstable from day-to-day, and I think that's all that can be said about most living people. It was a bit of a tumultuous season last year, but still not an unstable article. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that if he played for another 10 years, for example, that is an awful lot of content to add. If it is a FA now, is there a guarantee that the future updates will be up to scratch? It is slightly different for others: a sportsman at or near the end of his career is most likely to live a quiet life of retirement and do little else of note. Filatov could potentially have a lot more happen to him. I'm not saying that this means it can't be a FA or that I oppose, I'm kind of thinking out loud!

I understand the thought process, I just think its reasonable that this article won't grow at a pace that outstrips the ability of editors to keep it at a high standard. I think its easier to keep an article to high standards than to get an article there. The framework is in place, and a lot of the content is established. There are not any hockey FAs of players this young, but Henrik Sedin and Roberto Luongo could arguably be predicted to have their careers (and articles) expand at a quicker pace (they are established players in a bigger hockey market) than Filatov. As to whether there is a lot of content to add, that isn't necessarily a given. Both sides are saying the right things about the upcoming season, but things could fall apart and Filatov could become a journeyman (a journeyman with a well-written Wikipedia entry, but a journeyman nonetheless). Also, I think I clarified a bit of the problem with a lean to recentism, with the removal of some of the material about potential conflicts with teammates. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• ""the next best thing to Steven Stamkos." A bit of context here: a word on who Stamkos is? (I know he's linked, but it makes it easier for the reader)
  • Clarified that Stamkos was the consensus top prospect for the draft. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Off the ice, Filatov trains outside of a traditional setting, spending time outside running in sand and lifting trees and boulders." Could this be re-phrased? Not sure about "traditional setting".
  • Clarified Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• If possible, is there any more about his personal life, particularly before his hockey career? E.g. education.
  • I've spent a lot of time looking to add to this section, and there really isn't that much out there, at least not anything backed up by good sources. Canada Hky (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. It may become available in future I suppose... --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Playing style: A little brief, is there any more? I know almost nothing about hockey, but could comments be made about his technique? Also, there is very little in the whole article about the effectiveness of his performances, with the notable exception of the international section. We are given the goals and assists, but any media/coach comments on his success: e.g. a report saying he was really good/bad/indifferent? How good was he expected to be.

My main concern at the moment is 1e. I'm happy with the jargon and access for the general reader now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I accept your point above, and I'm fairly convinced 1e is fine. If you can find some more on playing style, assuming it exists, I will support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added some additional material on his playing style and reception, in the professional section and the playing style section. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously more would be good, but I'm pretty certain that you will have everything available.

• Comment: I always think that the stats at the end of the article should have a reference, just to show where they came from. I know it is not common in hockey articles, but I think it is a good idea. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a reference for the stats. Canada Hky (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: The article has improved significantly, and I am happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After providing a full review during the first FAC, I came back to look at the article and fixed a few little prose issues that I saw. The addition of a dedicated playing style section is something that, in retrospect, was really missing the first time around. I think this meets the standards following the improvements that have been made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The Judd School

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After over a month of improving this article, and several days pondering this nomination, I've finally bitten the bullet, as I can't see how this article could be further improved. Its incredibly comprehensive; if there is a source that covers the topic that I haven't used then I'd genuinely love to see it. From nothing more than a stub, this article has been completely rewritten and is now a detailed article about The Judd School, which is a grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent. Its had a pre-FAC sources and image review, with all problems resolved. I'm confident it meets all the criteria, and I hope you agree. Thanks, Tom Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The external links all check out. There are 5 disambiguation links that need to be fixed:

• Annexe (which redirects to Annex)
• Cross country
• Gymnasium
• Prospectus
• St Albans School (which redirects to St. Albans School)

The image licenses all check out as Creative Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all fixed. Tom (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Oppose Sources Comment: The article relies very heavily on a single source, namely, Taylor, Geoffrey (1988). The Judd School: 1888–1988. Tonbridge: Impress Print Consultancy Ltd. Is this book self-published? The name of the publisher suggests a vanity press. Can you clarify? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if it was self published. I don't have the book anymore (I borrowed it from a library) but I can go back and check, but how would I know? I should point out this is the only source that covers the topic in detail, which is why the article relies on it so. Tom (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of background to the book. I was a student during the centenary year and the book was written by the then deputy headmaster (who was also a history teacher, and had been for long enough to appear in some fairly historic photos in the book itself!) and sold mainly through the school as one of many fund-raising souvenirs. Whether or not it was self-published or published within a fairly tight-knit group of local organisations (more likely small local companies offered to print and publish it at low cost to benefit the school's fundraising), I have no doubt it is a very reliable source. Halsteadk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must oppose on requirement 1(c). Even if we treat the Taylor book as self-published by the school (and thus reliable as a source on itself), an article cannot be primarily based on such sources, which this one is. The same source is also used here for claims not directly about the school itself (like the 1869 Endowed Schools Act, among others) and for extraordinary claims about the school (like its reputation with leading universities, among others), which also run up against WP:SELFPUB. While I appreciate that it is often difficult with school articles, surely many of these claims could be substantiated by other sources not published by the school. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to comments left here:

It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and it is in many ways very well done. I also understand the difficulty of finding reliable sources about schools, and self-published sources are unavoidable to some extent. But this article is based overwhelmingly on the one book and pages from the school website. That would likely be an issue even if the book were unquestionably reliable. Here, it is questionable given that it is self-published. If self-published by the school, it may be reliable as a source on itself. If self-published by the author, it may not be reliable for this purpose at all. I believe the oppose is actionable, since other, reliable, sources could be used instead. I welcome the opinions of more expert source reviewers, who I expect will comment shortly, and will strike my oppose if a good argument can be made for this source to be used in this way.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's going to be hard to find a more reliable or comprehensive source on the history of the school up to 1988, but in terms of reputation with universities it is at best well out of date (and clearly too close to home on that sort of aspect). I would also suggest that with a very active "old boys" network, the book would have been quickly discredited had it been inaccurate - and the author continued to teach at the school for a number of years after it was written! Halsteadk (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some additional comments. Sorry it took so long to get to these:

* It will be helpful for non-British readers to indicate the approximate ages of the Forms mentioned throughout. For example, Sixth Form (approximately age 18). You might link to the terms, as well.

Linked term sixth form. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ages should be included and local terms explained at first occurrence. See WP:WPSCH/AG for guidance on avoiding ambiguity around local terms. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Terms like secondary and grammar school also mean different things in different places. Brief explanations and/or links will help.

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They should also be explained, as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is specialism? British usage, I assume? I have never heard that term before.

The specialism is the subject the school is a specialist in. Specialist Music College is now linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a local usage, please explain it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All it means is the school receives extra funding to develop this subject. I've clarified.Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* I take it the Graduate Schools Examination is not the same as GCSE. Can you describe it briefly?

I assume you mean the General Schools Examination? I can't describe it, because the source doesn't. Everything the source says about it is already in the article. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no way to find out? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. I have looked, but I'm really not sure what he was talking about when he mentioned this, so I've removed it for clarity. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is the Education Act of 1919? What does grant-earning status mean?

Linked. Grant-earning means it earns grants, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear. How are the grants earned? Does this just mean it is publically funded? Maybe just say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've clarified. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "an expressway" for the most gifted students". "imaginative timetables". Whose quotes are these?

They are Taylor's. The citation for all quotes is at the end of the sentence per WP:CITE. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then they should in most cases be attributed to Taylor in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITE clearly says either mid sentence OR at the end of the sentence. I much prefer the latter, and it is at least consistent throughout the article. Can we agree to disagree on this point? Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can cite them either way, the problem is that you frequently quote things like "commercial", "not less than", "on a tentative basis", "much to the Headmaster's distaste" and so on, without saying who said them or why. Are these scare quotes? Direct quotes? Why are you quoting them? I would in most cases either paraphrase them (if there is no special reason for the quote), or attribute them in the text, as in: "much to the Headmasters' distaste", according to so-and-so.

* Evacuated and bombing raids are overlinked.

Done Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is a voluntarily aided grammar school?

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, please explain.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified, I think. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly expand on the Comprehensive System?

I've linked it, to expand I think would be overkill, since the school isn't part of the system. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to explain it, why mention it? A brief explanation should not be difficult. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The Headmasters table looks great, but it is not necessary. None of these folks seem notable in their own right. It should be deleted.

Removed. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Many students come from affluent backgrounds and very few require free school meals; the number of students with disabilities, learning difficulties and special educational need is well below the national average. The majority of students go on to higher education at the end of Year 13". Can you provide more precise figures for these claims?

Unfortunately not. Ofsted makes this assertion, and doesn't provide any further details. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this information available nowhere else? The school? The government? These kinds of statistics are generally published. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've looked on all the government websites. The school does not reveal such information (only to Ofsted, who obviously choose not to publish stats, merely a summary).Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The bullet list of houses should be deleted and included as prose, if at all.

The MoS says lists are acceptable. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists like this should be stated in prose. Please see WP:EMBED for guidance. The use of color is also discouraged. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* All quoted material should be in double quotes. All the single quotes (unless quotes within quotes) need to be changed.

All quotes are in double quotes. The single quotes I've used to distinguish terms, like 'Lawton's' (the name of the building). What should I use for this purpose, if not single quotes? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should use double quotes for this purpose. Please see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.

Done, think I got them all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly describe the Eleven Plus?

I've linked it, plus it is briefly described. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All it says it that it is an exam for 11 and 12 years olds. Is there nothing more to say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the preceding sentence that it is an entrance exam, that is really all there is to say. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* A government inspection in 1952 reported "real brilliance in teaching". Cite the quote. I will stop pointing these out, but there are uncited quotes throughout.

As above, citations are at the end of the sentence. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are quoting the report but you are citing Taylor. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the report, so I've removed this sentence. I'm not sure if he was actually quoting the report, so its also NPOV. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* the act granted the government the power to raise the age to 16. The link in this passage is unintuitive.

Do you think it should be unlinked? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the sentence clarified to it is clearer to what the link will point. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked.Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* "as soon as the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable" cite the quote.

Cited at end of sentence. This is from the Act itself. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* GCSE, O-Level, A-Level and other terms are unfamiliar to American readers. It would help to explain them briefly.

I've linked them.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, please explain. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Explained all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* OVerlinking: Christian Faith, GCSE and O-Level (not first use), P.E. (and spell it out), asphalt, nets, Army,

Done.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* Spell out PSHE.

Done. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* setting occurs in mathematics. What does this mean?

Clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* It seems like the Extra-curricular activities should immediately follow the Curriculum. Can the Property section come sooner?

You're right; I've moved property to after extra-curricular. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* The notable alumni should be listed in prose, not as bullets.

Again, lists are acceptable in MoS. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, prose is preferred, especially in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, I've addressed the majority of them. Thanks also for copyediting! Much appreciated. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Think I've dealt with anything now, let me know if there is anything else and thanks, again, for comments. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Much improved. I have one remaining nit about the quotes, but I expect to support one the issues raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch are resolved. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thinking attributing all quotes disrupts the flow of the prose. All other issues, including those raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch have been resolved. Thanks again for reviewing. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. My suggestion was to either attribute them or paraphrase them, and I would lean towards the latter. Is there any reason to quote the examples I gave or others like them? "Tentative basis," for example? On the other hand, things like "explosive growth" and "inappropriate links" beg the question "says who?" and should be attributed. It should not break up the flow to say "what Ofsted characterized as ..." or something similar. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've either paraphrased or attributed all quotes. :) Tom (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comment: This is a difficult issue. Unfortunately, no British school has yet been the subject of a Wikipedia FA, so we don't have a direct comparison for guidance. School histories in the UK tend to be written by past or present history masters, or by others with close affiliations to the school. They are not written by objective historians, except perhaps in cases of "great schools" that are national institutions. Their publication tends to be funded either by subscription or by donations from local businesses that wish the school well. I have before me my own school history, which fits that template exactly. It's a beautiful job; the writers had access to a wealth of material that anyone outside the school is unlikely to have found. I'm sure the same applies to Taylor's history of the Judd School. The FA criteria require that articles are comprehensive; the required degree of comprehensiveness can only be achieved by leaning heavily on a school history and its rich sources. In the case of this article, about 140 of a total of 225 citations, just over 60%, are to the Taylor book. There is scope for reducing this; alternative sources should be found, especially for information not specifically related to the school, and the proportion of Taylor citations could fall to around 50% which, from my point of view, would be entirely acceptable.

I have checked out the other references and they are generally OK. Around 30 are to school publications or websites, but these provide factual information. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your views Brian. I will attempt to find other references this evening, and I will attempt to venture to the libraries again tomorrow and have another dig, but I'm confident no further print sources exist that cover the topic. Its also worth noting that there is an appendix in the back of the Taylor book, which includes the school foundation document, and old government inspections. I was unaware that this was the first British school FAC, but I really do hope I can resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all reviewers. Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Royal National College for the Blind was promoted to FA today, which might offer some guidance or point of reference. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The RNC doesn't seem to have a recently published history equating to the Taylor book, but as a national institution it has a much higher profile than a local school's, and gets a lot of attention in the local and national press. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – the point (well-made) about the source needs to be addressed in general for schools. My own school had a very similar tome published for its centenary and it had not occurred to me that any doubts would be raised about it being used as a source. Most of the material is not controversial and the author will have used a vast variety of sources to compile the book (school magazines, previous school histories, local newspaper archives, interviews with ex-pupils, teachers etc). Such a book is almost certain to be self-published as its market is very specific; and it will be many decades before there is another one. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this question applies to schools more generally. Some American schools publish similar volumes, particularly old and/or private schools. The quality varies, but some are quite scholarly and excellent. Without prejudice to this article, I would be interested in the discussion, but am unsure what the right venue might be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update regards sources - Right, I have added four additional sources, and referenced whatever possible to alternative sources. I am absolutely confident a) that there are no further sources on the school and b) that everything that is referenced to Taylor cannot be referenced to an alternative source. I hope that this goes some way to satisfying everyone, and I further hope that this issue is resolved so that this can be the first of many british school FAs. Thanks, Tom (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the sourcing to be much more balanced now and applaud the effort to find more a more varied sources. The history after 1939 still relies heavily on Taylor, as do several other sections, like Extracurricular activities (which is a little surprising). On the whole, however, taking the Taylor book as a reliable self-published source on itself, I tend to agree with Brianboulton that the balance is okay. I would like to hear the opinions of other reviewers on the question. I am striking my oppose and will plan post some additional comments that I hope will improve the article shortly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the oppose. I'll look forward to your further comments. Just a quick note regards the Extracurricular activities section, the reason it uses Taylor a lot is because I thought it prudent to cover the history of extracurricular activities, as opposed to simply what is offered at the school at present. For example, the section covers association football, which is not an organised sport at the school today. Tom (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Overlinked. Why is "Kent" as well as the more specific "Tonbridge" linked? Higher educations? Tradesmen? Fur trade? Swimming pool? Curriculum? Gymnasium? Please go through it and unlink the dictionary terms. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Specialist College for Music with English and Science with Mathematics". Can it be sentence case? Generally, subjects are with lower case; but "Art and Crafts department building" should have a D for the title of the section, yes? I see "economics and business departments" ... you could go either way, upper- or lower-cases, but consistency is required. I'm not sure about with with in the infobox. What does it mean? And further down an ampersand is used ... MoS says to avoid if possible.

With Arts and Crafts, I just copied the source. With the specialist status, I copied the website. I've now removed all caps and it is now consistent.

"11 to 18", but en dashes just above?

"turnover of staff: 43 ..."—colon, not semicolon, probably.

Comma after first "Starling".

"followed by the £1.4 million music centre"—might be good in the school newsletter, but here, "a".

"a third of which was made up of public representatives nominated by"—"a third of them public representatives nominated by"—are you on the look-out for excessive wording? An unfamiliar editor stands a better chance.

All others done. I've tried to go through it with a fine tooth-comb, but its difficult when you've read it so many times. Malleus gave it a good copyedit, but there will always be things that get missed. Thanks for your comments Tony, I'll take another good look but please let me know if you see anything else. Tom (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just from a sample in the middle. The prose does need tweaking. Tony (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got one or two word-nerd collaborators for next time? It's so valuable to bring in unfamiliar editors at the mature stages. Tony (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm not really, I generally turn to Malleus for advice on prose though. You're so right about the need for unfamiliar editors, and thanks for your help, which I'd love to use again in the future if you have the time. Tom (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm still going through it and have found very few grammatical issues (those I've found I've corrected, and they were insufficient for me to oppose). I'm leaning towards supporting, however, I do have a concern with regards to the readability. While I have no problems reading it myself, there does seem to be a bit of an overuse of commas semicolons. While their uses are legal, this can make readability more difficult for some readers. I recognize that this isn't Simple Wikipedia, but still I think it would be beneficial to re-evaluate some of these uses of semicolons and remove them where they aren't necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, and for your help copyediting. I've had a look through at all the uses of such punctuation and have revised quite a few. I hope you feel it has been sufficiently improved. Tom (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion, though I think you figured out what I meant. I meant to say there was an overuse of semicolons, not commas. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth Comment The article has many small problems. Some of these can be fixed by further proofing and by the kind of prose tightening suggested above by Tony1. Others have to do with jargon or bits of local history and geography probably familiar to readers in the U.K. but not so familiar to foreigners. Here is a short list of some of the things that popped out at me on a read-through; I'm sure a line-by-line review would find more.

Lead

"Judd pupils generally take ten GCSEs in Year 11, and a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. Its 2007 Ofsted inspection graded The Judd School... ". - If GCSE and Ofsted aren't spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, many readers will not know what they mean. I don't think the links are sufficient by themselves. Perhaps "Judd pupils generally take ten General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests in Year Eleven, and they have a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. An Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection in 2007 graded The Judd School... "? The edu-speak makes us grateful for abbreviations, but still it's nice to know what they stand for.

Done, thanks! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"the lower school is all boys" - This fact doesn't appear in the main text (unless I'm not seeing it). Shouldn't it be included in the Lower school subsection? Seems important and not obvious.

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, English joined music under the first specialism." - How are the two events related? Was English automatically included with music, or did it join music for some reason related to the science specialism?

Think I've clarified.Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see new note below. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War: 1939–1945

"The outbreak of the Second World War on 3 September 1939 delayed the commencement of the Autumn Term until trenches could be dug. As a result, 369 students of the Westminster City School were evacuated to The Judd School." - It's not clear to an outsider whether this means trenches at the school or trenches elsewhere. It's not clear what the trenches had to do with the evacuation of the Westminster students. Weren't the students evacuated to avoid being bombed? How far apart are the schools? Why would The Judd School be considered safer? Readers can click on the Tonbridge link and the Westminster link and figure this out, but it would be better to say directly that Westminster was in London, a target, and that Tonbridge was 30 miles (48 km) or so outside the city and not considered a target (I guess).

Excellent point, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years: 1945–1986

"he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure" - Women were on the staff in 1917, then disappear, then return after 1970. Curious. Would a little more background be helpful or interesting? I assume the first lot lost their jobs soon after the end of World War I, but that's only a guess.

I'd love a little more background info too, but unfortunately haven't been able to find any. I would assume also that they lost their jobs when the men returned from World War I, but I suppose to put that in would be original research. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent years: 1986–present

"Masters also organised the building of the school's all-weather pitch," - Should "pitch" be linked to pitch (sports field)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Governance

"As governors, major decisions were made by the Court of The Skinners' Company... " - What is the meaning of "Court of The Skinners Company"? In what sense is it a court? A court of law?

I've removed Court of to clarify. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As governors, major decisions... " - Governors aren't major decisions.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently a fee of one guinea was... " - Explain or link guinea? Express also as pounds?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"In December 1944, after applying for voluntary aided status, the school was required to adopt new Articles of Government on 31 December; it became the first school in the country to be awarded this dual control." - What dual control? In what sense is "voluntary aided status" a kind of dual control?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Kent Education Committee funded free dinners... " - Free dinners for whom?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"two LEA governors" - What does LEA mean?

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

School structure

Would the bulleted list be better as a straight prose sentence? Are the house colours important, or is this unnecessary detail?

Done, with colours removed. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"which was a successful private school on Hadlow Road run by Mr T. E Grice" - Delete "Mr." Ditto for the other "Mr"s in the article; i.e., "T.E. Grice" and simply "Grice" thereafter.

Done, except I've kept the Mr for those whose first initials or names I havent got. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "a 'Mr X' " with "Mr X" in quotes to show that this is coming directly from the source rather than from Wikipedia be slightly better? I note that "Mr" appears with no terminal period in the text, and I assume that's because the source uses no terminal period. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed one name altogether, and quoted the others. Tom (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lower school

"The lower school currently has an annual intake of around 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7." - In many places the article uses "current", "present", "today", "at present", and "now" to mean something like "at the moment of this writing". Generally it's better to avoid ambiguity by saying something like, "In 2009, the lower school's annual intake was 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7."

I've changed all instances that are liable to change. Other that are long term, like rugby is a popular sport, I haven't bothered because it doesn't read as well. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

"School clubs and societies include: Art Workshop, Bridge Club, Chess Club, Christian Union, Computer Workshop, Debating Society, Design and Technology Clinic, Film Club, French Club, Garden Club, Greek Club, Junior Running Club, Musical Activities, Politics Society, Theatre Club, Voluntary Service Unit, Warhammer Club, Young Engineers’ Club and Young Enterprise." - Rather than using so many capital letters, would "School clubs and societies include an art workshop, bridge club, chess club, Christian union... " be better"? Could the sentence be compressed? Is it necessary to list them all?

Trimmed! Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

"in Year 7 there are even ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ rugby fixtures" - Should "fixtures" be linked or explained?

Changed to matches. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is also a programme of interform competitions" - What is an interform competition?

Changed to inter-house. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeoman's fields

"a 200m running track" - Spell out "m" and hypenate?

Done.Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The site consists of 6.8 acres of level" - Metric conversion 6.8 acres (2.8 ha)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some more and fixed them. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"The 'Yeoman's fields' site: - Wikipedia uses double quotes, rather than single; i.e., "Yeoman's fields". Ditto for other similar instances in the article.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists like this into straight prose when feasible. It would not be hard to group the warriors in one paragraph, the artists in another, and so on, adding a bit of detail to make nice rounded sentences.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Finetooth. I think I've dealt with all of your points, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Regards, Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

This is looking much better. Thank you for the rapid response. I did some further minor copyediting, and I have three more comments.

A couple of the more recent books in the bibliography lack ISBNs. To help readers and researchers, it's useful to add OCLCs for books without ISBNs. You can usually find these and missing ISBNs via WorldCat.

Great, thanks - what a resource. All books now have an ISBN number of an OCLC number, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Notable alumini" section is better than the former list. However, I would remove some links and re-arrange the sentences slightly to avoid "link bump" involving two or more blue links that run together visually. I don't think you need to link World War II, fighter pilot, or Chief Executive Officer (or use capital letters for chief executive officer), and the last link bump could be eliminated by re-casting as "Terence Lewin, former Chief of the Defence Staff and Admiral of the Fleet. Fiddle with the other two sentences to prevent link bump.

Done, I think! 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused a bit by how the "specialism" business works. A sentence in the lead says, "As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, the school selected English to be included under the first specialism." This sentence seems to imply some sort of cause-effect relationship between the granting of the science specialism and the decision to include English in the first specialism. Why wasn't English included in the first specialism originally?

As I understand it, the school was a Music and maths specialist school, before being invited to become a science specialist school. Since maths is automatically included in a science specialism, the school was able to chose another specialism to replace maths with the music specialism. It chose English. I agree this was absolutely not clear, but I hope it is now. 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking Finetooth, and for the time you spent copyediting the article. I hope all issues have now been resolved, and I can definitely see an improvement. Regards, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, all of that was me, I just forgot to login! Tom (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward support, but I'd like to wait a while to make sure that that issues raised by Ruhrfisch, Dispenser, and others have been addressed. Also, the "Mr" question I mentioned above is still open; it's a minor issue and would not prevent me from supporting one way or the other. I'm not sure what the best solution is. One other thing I would recommend is to run future articles through PR before advancing to FAC. The more sets of eyes looking at these things as they near completion, the better. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks, I've resolved all issues now so hopefully your concerns have been satisfied. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved. Switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'elementary'—MoS says double quote-marks. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks again Tony. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Don't see any major problems. ResMar 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Tom (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments

As asked, I originally looked at this article and saw many of the same issues Finetooth pointed out. Now that those have been resolved, I have a few quibbles, but am leaning towards support once these have been resolved.

Lead

• There are two things that I would link in the lead - Worshipful Company of Skinners and The Sunday Times - my rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and on first appearance in the body of the article.

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would clarify who Judd was a bit in the lead - perhaps something like ...it was named after [16th century merchant] Sir Andrew Judd...

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Judd's name need to spelled out in full twice in the lead? Could he be just "Judd" on second mention in the lead? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not clear as to what overall means in ...and league tables published by the BBC based on 2008 A-level results rank Judd as the best boys' state school in Kent, and the fourth best school overall. fourth best in the UK? fourth best overall school in Kent?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Early years

• I really don't understand this sentence - how did the leases in London falling help? To me a falling lease sounds like it bring in less money, not more. The sentence is a bit complicated too - would it help to split the sentence into two? The funds were provided by a loan of £13,000, which was paid back over the next 20 years with income from the Judd Foundation (of which The Skinners' Company were trustees), which rapidly increased when the leases on the Sandhills Estate in London fell in 1906.[4][10][11]

I've clarified. The book uses the term 'fell' but renewed is what is meant. Presumably when they were renewed, high rents could be commanded.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A lease can "fall due" (be up for renewal). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah right ok that would be what he meant then. It just said 'fall' in the book. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War

• I would link Exmouth

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did the 40 Judd boys also flee back to London, or did only those originally from London do so?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years

• If the total number of teachers in one year is known for this era, I owuld add it to provide context - what fraction of the teachers were female or joined and left? Rendall experienced a high turnover of staff: 43 teachers joined and left the school between 1970 and 1986, and he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure.[39]

Done. Tom (talk)

Fees

• I would give the year in Fees were fixed by the governors and could range from £4–8 per year;[57] initial fees charged were £7/10s per year.[8]

Do you mean give the year in which the fees were fixed? If so, done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum

Is "AS-level" a typo for A level? In the sixth form, pupils study five AS-level subjects for one year, which may include general studies... If not, please explain what it is

Its part of the A-level qualification, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Examination

• Should this be called "Examinations" (plural)?

I really don't think it should. I mean both would be correct, but I prefer the singular. Like 'student receive examination as follows'?

Your call, either is OK by me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'm going to stick with the singular. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

• I would link the Shakespeare plays here

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would also make it clearer that Combined Cadet Force is a national program (not just limited to this school)

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does RAF need to be spelled out? It is linked, but the MOS says to generally spell out abbreviations on first use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to stop for now, more to come Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Property

• This might be American English vs British English, but it seems like "a" is missing in Upon its foundation, when it was said to be [a] "temporary expedient", ...

Good spot, thanks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs metric conversion {{convert}} works well although this still restricted the bench length in even the widest of the rooms to nine feet, and 18 pupils

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs English units too or a 200-metre running track

Do you mean convert to feet? I've done that, but I'm not sure its necessary because metres are the standard units for athletics tracks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it is now only 180 metres long ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Don't know how that happened. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does Combined Cadet Force need to be linked a second time here?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am all done with my review. These are pretty minor quibbles, but there are enough of them that I would like to see them addressed before supporting. I see some of the suggestions I made earlier have already been implemented, but I will wait to hear back here before I start striking. I also made what seemed like fairly safe copyedits - please revert if I have made errors or introduced maistakes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Ruhrfisch. I hope you feel your concerns have been addressed. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have switched to support and replied in a few cases above. I agree with Nasty Housecat that brief attribution may be useful in places. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, much appreciated. Thanks for reviewing. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are some redirects to your article that point to sections which no longer exist. — Dispenser 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Can't find any major problems. Have corrected one or two typos and an instance where a phrase was repeated, but prose generally looks fairly good. Also well researched and referenced with some nice pictures. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In terms of prose, it looks pretty solid. I'm looking forward to future work. ceranthor 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and me too! Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few slight inaccuracies in the article, such as the last sentence of the Fees section. To the best of my knowledge, and by the given source, only the parents of boys in the 6th form have to write a letter to explain why they can't contribute. This is a support if anons are allowed to do so. —188.220.161.100 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Liberty Bell

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a little shorter than the Statue, but so's the article if you'll forgive the crack. Hoped to do this article a while back, but a new book came out on the bell enabling this one to finally get done. It was a fun one to do, and I spent four years at college in Philly so I probably saw the bell every now and then. Hope you like it. There was a nom of this article about two years ago by a drive by, but it was withdrawn when Sandy informed them it wasn't appropriate, if anyone wants I will be happy to pull up the text as it is now deleted.Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
• Pet Peeve alert - CT, not Ct for Connecticut.
• You use the Liberty Bell Museum website as a ref, so it shouldn't be in the external links.
• Might cull a few more ELs out also, its a bit .. farmy.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments—
• All pictures need Alt text
• Ref #4: Needs a space between the p. and 7
• Ref #5: I don't think it should read www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk. Although it is a website, the work is actually by Whitechapel or better Whitechapel Bell Factory
• Ref #7: The em-dash should be used instead of the en-dash here. (see Template:Cite book
• Ref #11: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #33: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #50: Only one p.
• Ref #51: Only one p.

CrowzRSA 00:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Libertybell alone small.jpg - No attribution at the source; where can we verify federal authorship? Source parent explicitly says "For many of the images on GPO's Web sites, GPO has purchased the right to use the image. GPO is licensed to use these images on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis. All other rights to the image, including those without limitation, copyright, and all other rights, are retained by the owner of the images. These images are not in the public domain."
  • File:Liberty Bell 150th Anniversary 1926 Issue-2c.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the stamp?
  • File:IkeBicentBack.jpg - Non-2D work. Who created the photo/scan? Ca85? PyroGamer? An external source? What is its license?
  • File:Chiefbell.jpg - I'm not comfortable with the publication "rationale". I probably won't oppose over this issue alone, but more substantial support really ought to be used. 1) No date is given (bell traveled in 1915; this is not a statement of when the complied album was created and distributed); 2) No information on customers or scope of the albums (if albums were compiled for, say organizers of trip, organizers of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, etc. -- as opposed to being for the general public -- it would be considered a limited publication, which is the same as no publication). Эlcobbola _talk 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the last, did you look at the source page? It said the albums were for sale. I will try to find out more about the date though. Regarding the coin, I think we need to settle here, does a scan of a US coin, which is of course PD in most cases, create a new copyright? I would like some resolution here because my next FAC contains several coin images (Shield nickel, if you are interested). That is actually why I chose this article to put up next. I will deal with the other issues later. I agree with you on the GPO. I will look for the best PD image I can find ... I could stop in Philly tomorrow and take my own, but the Liberty Bell is a mob scene in the summer. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It says " to create, for profit, photo albums"; that merely means he was paid to create them. It doesn't address the scope of the assignment. Publication must be distribution to the public, not a "closed" group. We're allowed to take images of 2D works without regard to the creator of the scan or photograph because of Bridgeman v. Corel - a case which does not apply to 3D works (3D works have shadows, angles, textures, etc. not present in 2D works that are sufficient to pass the threshold of originality and thus to provide copyright protection to the creator of derivatives). Releases are indeed required from coin photographers (see File:Pdc 24586.jpg, File:Mithradatesi.jpg, etc.) See also the derivative work case book for some general concepts (e.g. frames are 3D and, thus, cannot be included in uploads of 2D works if not PD themselves). Shield nickel is full of copyvios. Эlcobbola _talk 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I may have one of those coins laying around - I can get a scan and release it, but it may be awhile once I can. Connormah 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You may be interested to know that I went to the Library/Archive at Independence National Historic Park today and spoke with the archivist and with the curator. The curator knew the most about this book, apparently INHP has two copies but the archivist couldn't lay her hands on a copy for me to look at. The curator told me that these were never sold to the public, but were given to officials such as the Mayor of Philadelphia, and at one time there were a fair number of copies floating around. He also was much struck by the photo in question (and two more showing the same individual) and went to Montana to see what he could find out about Chief Little Bear (this was in the 80s). He found no record of Chief Little Bear with the Blackfeet, no one who recognized the guy, and the prevailing opinion when they looked at the photo is that the guy pictured was not Blackfeet, but Sioux. So not only is it clearly not free use, but there are serious issues with that photograph and probably an interesting story lost in the mists of time. Anyhoo, I did take several pictures of pictures from their archives and will upload them and leave you a note when they are ready. They are all ironclad PD, rest assured. Stay tuned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Comments - nice article, just a few little things to take care of and it'll have my full support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Liberty Bell, Independence Hall.jpg is missing a description
• Check licensing for stamp image - pd-self is likely not the correct tag
• Second paragraph seems contradictory - it cracked when first rung in Philadelphia, or it cracked in at some unknown time (potentially 1835)? I think you're referring to two separate cracks, but this should be made clearer
• "The bell has been widely featured...in commerce" - you're referring to commercial usages? Is there a clearer way to phrase this?
• I realize I'm probably the only person to care about this, but...does the circumference figure take into account the crack?

Just as a note (I will address all concerns later), because it does not affect the circumference. The crack did not expand the width of the bell. Yes, the crack is wide near the base, but that is because metal was filed away in an attempt to "repair" the bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is [sic] used for "Pensylvania" but not "Phila"?

One is a variant spelling (it is not an error; you use sic for unexpected, variant spellings), while Phila is an abbreviation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see...struck comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "would be used to good account" - what does this mean?
• Abolitionism is linked twice in the last paragraph of "Early history" due to a redirect
• "Instead, a 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) replica (1,000 pounds for each of the original states) of the Liberty Bell was cast" - somewhat awkwardly phrased. Also, "13,000 pounds replica" sounds wrong to my ear - perhaps "13,000-pound replica"?
• "The metal used included four melted-down cannons, one used by each side in the American Revolutionary War, and one used by each side in the Civil War" - replace first comma with colon?
• "Large crowds mobbed the bell at each stop, which had been restored to its yoke" - phrasing suggests that it is the stop and not the bell restored to its yoke
• "In Biloxi, Mississippi, the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis came to the bell, and delivered a speech paying homage to it, and urging national unity" - commas could be moved around to improve clarity and flow

• Better, but repeats "to the bell"

• Be careful in using "more" - how do you know that no one who saw the bell on its journey west neither saw/kissed it at the fair nor saw it on its return journey?
• "The foundry played along" - how can we be sure of the foundry's motivations here?
• "Archaeologists discovered evidence that the construction site included an area that was once the site of a structure used by George Washington, while living in Philadelphia as president, to house his slaves" - awkward phrasing, and repetitive use of "site"

• Better, but could we switch the last two fragments around - "house his slaves" before "in Philadelphia"?

• "The Justice Bell toured extensively to publicize the cause, and after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, was brought" - awkward phrasing
• Liberty Bell March is in article text and should not be in See also
• Be consistent in using hyphens vs dashes in retrieval dates
• Combine identical refs - I see 21 and 22, but there may be others
• Be consistent in whether shortened refs end with a period or not
• Be consistent in whether weblinks to print sources include retrieval dates or not
• Ref 6472: need publisher location
• Shouldn't link to official site in both infobox and External links

I am too tired to deal with Nikkimaria's concerns and the concerns of Elcobbola which I have not already addressed tonight, I will work on them late tomorrow. Thank you both for your comments, and you, Elcobbola for continuing me on this course of education on image policy.

I have addressed Elcobbola's image concerns, and withdrawn the 1915 image while seeking the information required.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support

Nicely done work by Wehwalt, two comments though

• "but returned to Philadelphia somewhat the worse for wear" - can you reword it, I can't understand what it's meant.
• Philosophical Hall is a red link can you create an article for it.

Thanks Secret ^account 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I have, with mild regret, changed "worse for wear". The regret is because I thought it was a good shorthand way of expressing minor damage, but the FAC reviewers are the preview audience for this article and I respect that. I will work up a quick article on Philosophical Hall and pick up a DYK while I am at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical Hall is now a blue link. I've also nommed it for DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments, leaning to Support: Splendidly detailed, with a few mainly minor concerns which need addressing or clarifying:-

• I have two problems with the first paragraph:
  • First, there is an interesting transitive v.intransitive question. Bells do not ring themselves, so I think that "it is believed to have rung to mark the public reading..." should read "it is believed to have been rung to mark the public reading...".
  • Secondly, ignoring the grammatical purity, since this belief is based on fiction not fact, the statement must be qualified: "it is erroneously believed..." etc

No, we just don't know for sure if it did. I've expanded these points in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But you say in the lead that "the tale is entirely fictional." That's not "not knowing for sure". If the tale is fictional the belief is erroneous. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two things: The tale of the bell ringing on July 4, 1776, which is fictional because no public announcement was made of the Declaration, and we know it comes from Lessing's 1847 short story. The story of the bell ringing on July 8, 1776 is merely uncertain, because no one knows for sure. We know that Colonel John Nixon read the Declaration to the people on July 8 (it had been printed in the papers on July 6, but newspapers were expensive and illiteracy was widespread). We know that there was a ringing of bells, John Adams mentions it in a letter, and Christopher Marshall mentions it in his diary. No record was kept as to whether the Liberty Bell was rung, and there is a school of thought that the decay of the State House steeple was such that it could not have been rung. I've recast the lede slightly which I hope will make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, put it down to jetlag. Sorry, I did indeed confuse the two dates; resolved now Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The format "£150 13s 8d" surely needs some explanation, perhaps by way of a footnote?

  Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Four years later, he returned in his coffin after his assassination..." The tone here is literary rather than encyclopedic; it should be modified.
• Unnecessary repetition of "the bell": "Each time, the bell traveled by rail, making a large number of stops along the way so that local people could view the bell." In fact, I count the word "bell" fourteen times in this paragraph, so maybe some further rewording is in order? Perhaps check for further over-belling.
• Italicising the word "kissed" for emphasis is surely POV?
• I have deleted an uncited bit of trivia which someone added to the end of the "Replicas and popular culture" section.
• Inscription. When you begin a statement "The bell has the following inscription", what follows should be the inscription itself, not a full stop and an intervening sentence. I suggest you open: "The bell's inscription is given below."

Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All done, I think. The problem is the lack of things I can call the subject of this article. Once I get past 1835, I can call it the "bell" or the "Liberty Bell", can't think of any synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty and I think you've done what you can - there's a limit on how much use you can make use of pronouns. I'm sorry that this review has been a bit bleary-eyed, but that's travel for you. All issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and hope the jet lag clears. Well, three to nil, and I'm not aware of anything left undone.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

William de Corbeil

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC) & User:Malleus Fatuorum

I am nominating this for featured article because it's complete (baring Wehwalt finding some obscure newspaper article!) and doesn't have any fair use images. Oh, and it's also a comprehensive look at one of the more obscure but interesting archbishops of England. He was a compromise candidate, not really a monk but not a fully "normal" clergyman either. He built the tower at Rochester Castle, and supervised the finishing of Canterbury Cathedral. He spent most of his episcopate in a dispute with the archbishop of York and thus spent all his time running back and forth to Rome. It's been copyedited quite extensively by Malleus, who is definitely a co-nom on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport Parrot of Doom 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• What is a "witness list"? Parrot of Doom 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the list of witness to a charter or other legal document. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate not everything can be explained to the layman, but it might be helpful to mention that. Otherwise the article reads ok to me, apart from some repetition of William's keep in that section. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've clarified this in the text. (In this particular case it's the list of those witnessing the translation of Cuthbert's bones...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• No citations to Hollister, C. W. (1975). "The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126". Transfer to Further reading
  • Actually I've just removed. It's peripheral to the subject, so since I obviously didn't use it, I removed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Use of "et al" for multiple authorships should be consistent through the references list
  • I'm not seeing any inconsistency. The Hollister Henry I ... Frost isn't an author, she just edited the work after Hollister died unexpectedly. She's not a "coauthor". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Refs 5 and 6 could be combined
  • I could, but the reason they are separate is that it's two different paragraphs. The one that references two pages, splits across the pages, the other is quite distinct from the first one. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not fully understood, But I'm sure that makes sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 15 refers to English Church rather than The English Church
  • fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am not sure why refs 17 and 18 are presented in this way. I use this form when the quotation originates from another published source and is being quoted second-hand. That does not seem to be the case here.
  • acutally it's being quoted second hand AND as the author of the main work translated it. I did not look it up in the original quotation, but it's not the author of the overarching work saying this so I feel this is a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources seem OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CommentsSupport:

• "He is listed early in the witness list, the listing of those who witnessed the event. His position on the list implies..." A few too many lists and witnesses here!
  • "a listing of those who were present at the event." now... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why might his name have been appended later? To give it some gravitas?
  • I can speculate, but my source doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is it worth adding a brief explanation of what primacy means in this instance?
  • I've linked to the various articles in the lead. I think primacy here is self-explanatory enough for the context. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• From what I remember, free election were very rare. Why did Henry allow one here?
  • Nothing in my sources really speculates on why. It's possible that Henry wanted good press or he was just feeling friendly that week. Why Henry did anything is one of those great unknowns a lot of the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• It seems important that William was the first Augustinian canon; could it be made clearer why it was a big deal? Just realised that this is covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He was the first Augustian to become an archbishop in England... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• "...dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries..." What documents? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh. The forged ones that the monks had put forward as proof of their case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could they be mentioned before here, as their dismissal is their first mention. If there is nothing really to say, it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, happy to support. Very interesting, and I think the recent changes make one or two things a little clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments

Good work as always, but I'm more concerned about this article that I've been about many of your other fine nominations:

• A compromise between York and Canterbury was negotiated, which involved Canterbury allowing York the supervision of the dioceses of Bangor, Chester, and St Aspah in return for Thurstan's verbal submission and the written submission of his successors

• St Asaph didn't exist at this point. The actual terms proposed were "Chester, Bangor and another which lies between these two, but is now vacant, owing to the desolation of the country and the rudeness of its inhabitants" (quoted in Charles Johnson, Hugh the CHanter, pp. 206 (text), 207 (translation) ).

• ODNB (the source for this) says "Canterbury should surrender to York the bishoprics of Chester, Bangor, and the unnamed diocese of St Asaph..." I could add in "unnamed" or "future" in front of St Asaph, but Barlow definitely is mentioning St Asaph here (I think we've discussed my opinion of Barlow before...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• and in response he refused to consecrate William; the ceremony was performed instead by William's own suffragan bishops on 18 February 1123.

• Interesting. This is what the ODNB says too. Hugh the Chanter appears to indicate that that Thurstan wanted to consecrate William, but was prevented from doing so by the king.

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The section in the primacy dispute doesn't really provide enough background material. Some is essential. Urban II, Paschal, Gelasius and Calixtus (definitively in 1120) were all hostile to it, and chided the English kings and archbishops of Canterbury for insisting on it, as well as Archbishop Thomas for making a submission ... they claimed it was against the rules set out by Gregory the Great, and that it was an infringement of the Roman see's rights. The section as it stands is confusing/confused. it was indicating that the dispute was new and that the Canterbury bishops had a fair chance of persuading the papacy.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have some problems with the monk versus non-monk section. The message is a little over-stated, and doesn't sit well with Bartlett p. 299, a source used. Canterbury was a monastic bishopric, and Anselm, his predecessor but one, was a monk, and William himself was virtually a monk, being a canon under the Augustian rule (regula, hence "regular canon").

• for this section, I'm relying on Bethell, who is probably the reason you feel the message is a bit overstated. Bethell's backstopped a bit by Knowles also. I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the "Archiepiscopal activities" (now called) is comprehensive. Castle at Rochester is covered in depth, church councils somewhat ... but reading this article you'd think little else happened. A few other things are mentioned, but the organization is not what it could be [I tried to fix this a bit]. There is more stuff in the ODNB #Provincial and diocesan section.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? I'll reread the ODNB and some of the others and see what I can turn up. I'll admit that the core of William was written a while ago, and is one of my "earlier" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you've covered the Augustinian side enough, about the order, about St Osyth's, about any patronage or lack it, [towards the canons holding to this rule] after becoming bishop. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues.

• Indeed, though it is an indication that the section might need balancing/that there might be other stuff out there! :)

• I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th

• I wouldn't say Bartlett is more 13th than 12th century. The centre of graity of his work is probably mid-1100s. If you were waying Bethell against Bartlett, the fact that Bethell was writing in the 60s and Bartlett is writing now should be heavier.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is more that the article itself needs to make the context clear ... as it gives the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB

• I'd need to look into it, as Canterbury is a bit too Southumbrian for my usual interests. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of this (although honestly, some of it's pretty incidental details that may bog readers down a bit). As for Hugh's claim that Thurstan orginally was willing to consecrate William - I've checked Bartlett, HOllister and Green (her bio of Henry I) and none of them mention this particular curlicue on the whole Canterbury-York mess, so I think I'll leave that particular historian's debate to the Canterbury-York dispute article itself, where we can go into minute detail of why exactly Hugh might have said that and it might be a bit biased. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think such details are incidental. This is an FA candidate on what to most people is a fairly obscure topic. This stuff has to be right. While the sources being used are in general reliable sources, I'm not sure they are the most focused for every aspect of this article. Will you also be able to consult the Nicholl Thurstan book shortly, or is it totally unfindable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't turned up yet. Granted, I'm kinda swamped in real life so haven't looked. You know you're always welcome to add... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review Both images check out. Magic♪piano 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No problems that I can see here. Plus I learnt a new word: archbishopric, which I'm ashamed to say makes me laugh every time I say it. Tom (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (a minor thing):

• Were the party from Merton Priory sent to St Martin's monks or cannons?

Ucucha 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • ARGH! Canons, canons... (mutters) The habit of canons being from priories is ... annoying. Fixed. Also removed a duplication of that information later in the article.. (mutters). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Cannons—I must learn to read what I write before I save. He might have been more successful with cannons than he was with canons, though. Thanks for the fix. (I'll hold off supporting until Deacon's issues are dealt with.) Ucucha 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Capitol Loop

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article comes very close to meeting the criteria. This is an article about a highway that's not really a highway. It is really a collection of streets downtown Lansing, Michigan, US that masquerades as a highway because that's what its parents call it. The parents decide to conceive this controversial child in 1986, but didn't manage the feat until 1989. This child was caught in the middle of controversies at the beginning. The two parents wanted to give it reconstructive plastic surgery for its 15th birthday, but others disapproved. These others almost stopped the procedure dead in its tracks, but relented when the process was scaled back. Recently, this child seems to be a bit of a speed demon, with issues surrounding speeding tickets. Hopefully you'll enjoy the article as much as I have, and suggest or make any necessary minor improvements to polish the article off. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues arising Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead looks a little long, could a couple of sentences be cut out of it? Other than that, I would be willing to support this article. Dough4872 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text isn't compulsory anymore, but simply saying "looking east/west" "X building" isn't going to help a blind person who needs to have the actual literal colour, shape etc described to them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that alt text supposed to be kept brief without long descriptions, which are best left for the body of the article. The samples given at WP:ALT indicate that "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush" based on the purpose of the photo. Any suggestions are appreciated, but the old method of full descriptions of every element of an image aren't correct anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I stand corrected YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - looks fine. nothing stands out as improvable, maybe ther are tweaks here and there with the prose but no deal-breakers as such. beginning a look-over now. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

... has notated it.. - " has designated it" ? The former sounds unsual and I suspect you mean the latter (?)

Yes, but aren't the labels on a map "notations"? I've switch to "labeled" for now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

each three-lanes wide - the hyphen looks odd to me here. I'd leave it out...unless there is some roadmap convention I am missing.

I think that's an artifact from a previous copy-edit. Either way, the hyphen is gone. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Route description: "The two highway designations merge and run run concurrently...". See the problem? :-)
• Proposal and creation: "with the boundaries of Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets...". When I read this, it feels like there should be an "and" in the list of streets (after Allegan).
• Street name changes: Pretty sure reference 17 should be after the parentheses. The normal rule of thumb is to put cites after punctuation; the only time I know of when the opposite applies is with dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Replies:
    • Nice catch. Fixed.
    • "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street" so you think it should be "Ottawa, Allegan and Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street". That sounds like one too many ands to me. Any suggestions on how to recraft it? The only thing I can think of doing would be: "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan and Sycamore streets". How do I indicate the vacated status of Sycamore though? I got a suggestion from a friend on how to fix this.
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case, ref 17 is only for the inflation-adjusted number, while refs 16 and 18 are for the whole sentence, original dollar value and all.
  • Thanks for the comments! Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've place a notice to Giants2008 that I've replied to his comments two days ago. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • Most images check out; File:Michigan-Capitol-2005.jpg appears to be in good order, but could use an {{Information}} template.
  • File:Capitol Loop map.png is claimed PD, but the source of the underlying map is not given, and I doubt the editor drew it him/herself.

-- Magic♪piano 12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • All done, and actually using GIS data your average editor with those skills can draw maps himself. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It does need to be clear that that is what was done, as opposed to (for example) scanning or copying a base map from a copyrighted source. Magic♪piano 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Image issues addressed. Magic♪piano 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments

• • "The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has labeled it as Capitol Loop I-496 or CL I-496 on some maps, similar to that of an Interstate Highway business loop." - not quite getting the connection here.
  • The third paragraph of the lead seems a bit too detailed on first glance.
  • 2.3 - The city did not kill the project outright and risk losing the investment in the downtown infrastructure. - rephrase? The parallel structure here just seems a bit strange.
  • 2.4 - MDOT moved work on Allegan Street that was originally scheduled for 2005. - moved... ?
  • 2.5 - "What's happening is streets are artificially posted too low for the purpose of writing tickets," according to Jones. - bad sentence structure.

Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some copy edits have been made. Let me know if they address these comments. Imzadi 1979 → 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Sherlock Holmes Baffled

Nominator(s): Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Although it's only 30 seconds long, this short film is accidentally significant in that it is the first Sherlock Holmes film, and therefore the first detective film ever made. It was a "Do You Know?" entry in February 2010, and since then it has undergone a peer review and has passed as a Good Article. After making improvements both times (and probably covering all details that can realistically be included about a 30-second silent film), I respectfully submit it for review here. Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a little concerned about whether sources such as ref #1, ref #4, ref #6 are WP:RS good enough for WP:FAC. I have formatted some of the refrences, will carry on when you have finished edits. Also Imdb is not good except for credits. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think some of those date from when this article was in its infancy, and don't really reference anything that the book sources don't. I see what you mean about 1 and 4 as reliable sources. 1 should definitely go. In the context of the article 4 is only being used to back up my own summary of the "plot". Reference 6 is a strange one, as it appears to be a reprint of an article by John C. Tibbetts, who is quite a noteworthy academic, but exactly where the article is originally from I don't know. IMDb is only used to reference the length of film in feet, which I doubt would be listed anywhere else. Bob talk 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help with the reference templates. I have removed ref 1, ref 4 is only really being used to explain the "baffled" comment, and I have been unable to find where the Tibbetts one is originally from, so have moved that to the talk page. I have also added another book reference into the paragraph just before the IMDb film length. Bob talk 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There are some minor inconsistencies in the references: some have the first name before the surname, others have it behind it; some have a space after "p.", others don't. 18 and 19 look like they're using a different template than the rest. Ucucha 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will finish formatting consistently later today. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done , we need a page number for ref #6 Slide, Anthony (1998). The New Historical Dictionary of the American Film Industry. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810834262.

Thanks. Ucucha 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Most of the sourcing and referencing issues have been resolved, apart from the minor format inconsistencies. However, I would like some information on http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-early-cinema2.html. Do we know who the publisher of this site is? Otherwise, how can we judge whether it is reliable? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells has very kindly sorted the referencing, and also provided a more reliable replacement for that website, so hopefully this is looking much more consistent now. Bob talk 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the problematic web sources have now been replaced. Bob talk 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Cheaper and simpler than the Kinetoscope, the system—marketed by the American Mutoscope Company, quickly dominated the coin-in-the-slot "peep-show" business." This is confusing because of the mdash. Should there be another one after Company?

Reworded.

• "This film is no exception, being produced for viewing in this manner on 68 mm film" This seems redundant; you have just explained it, so there is no need to say that the film is "no exception".

Reworded.

• "The camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame as the film was exposed at 30 frames per second." Maybe its my ignorance, but what is the relevance of "the camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame". Does this mean it created a hole? Or went into a hole? I'm afraid it makes no sense to me!

It's noting that the camera itself made the little guiding holes along the side of the film frame, as opposed to it already being part of the film. As for relevance, it's just a point about the physical make-up of early camera apparatus.

I understand the relevance now; perhaps make this more explicit in the article as it does not fully explain it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned the lack of perforations in the film stock.

• "The identity of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded.[13]" Should that be identities?

Sorted.

• "According to Christopher Redmond's Sherlock Holmes Handbook, the film was shot on April 26, 1900.[14]" Is the Sherlock Holmes handbook so respected and reliable that this needs stating, when everything else says 1903? Where did the author get his information? Would it be better just to leave this out?

The film was almost certainly made in 1900, but only copyrighted in 1903, which is why there's several mentions of the two dates. Redmond's book is the only one that explicitly states a date of production, which is why it's noted in the article.

In that case, I think it should be more definite in the article. At the moment, it reads like one person says X but everyone else says Y. Is there any chance of briefly saying why it was probably made in 1900? And if it is so certain, I might be inclined to say "The film was almost certainly shot on April 26, 1900 but the film's title card..." or "The film was almost certainly shot in 1900..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source on there states April 1900 (and a May "release"), so there's no reason to doubt this date is wrong. The tone of doubt probably originated from when I started researching the article and had seen various dates given of 1900 and 1903. April is mentioned in two references, so should be good enough.

• "...a Sherlockian film historian..." Sherlockian sounds very clangy to me. Is it necessary to use this word rather than "Sherlock Holmes film historian" or "historian of Sherlock Holmes film"?

Sherlock Holmes fandom/scholarship has quite a lot of weird terms like this ("Baker Street Irregulars", Sherlockian, etc). It turns up in quite a few WP articles: . I've revised this per your suggestion, although the original term is probably more accurate.

• Rediscovery: I think it needs making a little more explicit that this is the form that the film was in when rediscovered. Also, I'm assuming from this section that it was never returned into film format and only survives on paper.

Clarified.

Is there a ref for its transference back to film? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do here - I have been unable to find anything explicitely referencing its transfer back into a watchable format, but given that it's even on YouTube, it's fair to assume that it has been transferred to a moving-picture format of some description at some point since. I've removed the "transfered back to film" mention, anyway.

I've just found a reference to a 16mm print of it held in the LoC collection and re-added that sentence. Bob talk 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• When did William Gillette portray Holmes on stage? Might be nice to add it here. Would it be widely known at the time? Also, "appearance and costume " may need expanding: why did Redmond think it was an imitation?

I suspect Michael Pointer is making a comment about the appearance being more akin to Gillette's stage look than the traditional Holmes illustrations. I've added a comment about Gillette's stage play being premiered in New York a few months before the film was made, which lends it some credence.

Is it not "debut" rather than "debute"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified.

• Was the existence of the film known at the time of its rediscovery? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was known of, but thought to be lost. Most early films were on volatile nitrate film, and quite a large percentage only survive on paper prints. Bob talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, was anything written about the film prior to 1968? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea! If there was, I very much doubt there was anything but a brief mention of the title, given that even the identities of the actors aren't known. The Michael Pointer article says "I can report", as if it's been discussed but only seen for the first time since it went out of circulation. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "Peep-show", "flip book" and "actualities": do these terms really need quotation marks?

Removed two. I've left the peep show one, as the term is commonly used to refer to Mutoscope film viewers (in Britain, they're sometimes called a "What the Butler Saw"). As "peep show" can also refer to other more, um, 'adult' entertainments, I thought it best to leave it.

• "The film's title card copyright date states 1903" Quite a lot going on here. Is there a less cumbersome way of putting it? Maybe "The copyright date on the film's title card is 1903" or "The copyright date given at the start of the film is 1903"? Not sure though.

Clarified this section. Now the date part has been rationalised, this has been more smoothly integrated.

• Do we know how many copies of the film there may have been, or how wide its distribution? If not, don't worry. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about this in any of the references. Given it was made 110 years ago, and by a company which ceased to exist in 1928, I doubt any record of this is easily obtainable/extant. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: The second paragraph seems a little short; could it be merged with the first?
• Action: The second paragraph doesn't really follow on from the first. Could it be integrated a bit more so that it doesn't just read like a stuck on quote?

The main reason in both these cases is that the plot of this film is so desperately short and insignificant -I suspect this reply has probably taken longer to write than the entire film! In the first paragraph, it was separate because the convention for films seems to be that the second paragraph be a short summary of the plot, but I've now converted it into two paragraphs now, anyway. In the second instance, the quote was really just a comment on how wafer-thin the action is in comparison to later sound detective films. I've now moved that to the analysis section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sherlock Holmes enters a drawing room to find it being burgled, but on confronting the villain is surprised when the latter disappears." Could be re-phrased. "...when the latter..." is a little clumsy. Would it be better in two sentences? Not sure.

I think "the latter" was added in response to an earlier suggestion to clarify who disappears. Any suggestions how to improve it grammatically would be appreciated.

You're asking the wrong person! :) Nothing springs to mind, and it's not too bad. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Analysis: Again, the paragraphs seem slightly disconnected. Could the first and second be merged as they both concern parodying Holmes. Maybe take out the names of the people you are quoting as it interrupts the flow. Also, the third paragraph could be brought in a bit more, for example linking the fact that it was Holmes in name only, or the parody aspect, to the idea that the main purpose of the film was to showcase trickery.
• "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary tales of Holmes" Is a bit of a mouthful. Is there a better way of saying that the film was nothing to do with the stories?
• "If anything..." seems unnecessary.

Have integrated/corrected all of these points, along with the quote about the plot from the "action" section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I can't see any outstanding issues, referencing is good, prose flows well, images are tagged public domain and captioned well, citations are consistent. An interesting article on an early film. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I really like this article; very interesting on a very obscure subject. No major problems. I made a minor copy edit to one part of the article; feel free to revert if it doesn't work for you. One more minor quibble:
  • "The film was assumed to be lost for many years..." How do we know it was assumed to be lost if we have nothing written about it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like your integration of the "baffled" bit. As for being lost, it is a bit of an assumption, but I guess it's implied by the Pointer article that it was at least assumed to be lost like most early films. It seems that it was only after WWII that there was any effort to search through paper prints held there. I've just written a short article about the second silent Holmes film Adventures of Sherlock Holmes; or, Held for Ransom. I was under the impression that film was lost as well, but it seems the Library of Congress also has some fragments of that in there, so I'll have to look into that - perhaps change it to "which survives in fragments".) Bob talk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• ISBN format: The manual for this (ISO 2108) can be found here among other places.

You appear to have sorted this out. The link you give of the format is a Chinese language document, so not particularly helpful. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• You should find out whether or not the 1905 Vitagraph film’s title contains a definite article. Looks like the Library of Congress lists it without.

I believe the LoC is the only holder of film fragments, have removed the definite article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the alt-text could use some attention:

  “A frame of the black and white film. Sherlock Holmes, on entering his parlour, taps an intruder collecting items in a sack on the shoulder. Holmes is wearing a dressing gown and smoking a cigar, the thief is dressed in black.”

  • This could be interpreted to mean the sack is being held on the shoulder of the intruder who is collecting items into it. There are a dozen sillier possibilities I’d care not to list.
  • Finally referring to “the thief” may lead confuse users—blind or image-disabled, remember—to assume there are three people in the photo.

Alt text is not an FA requirement any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

―cobaltcigs 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image/media review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Images:

• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.jpg file from Commons; Description: English: Still from the 1903 moving picture Sherlock Holmes Baffled. Y; Source: The film itself. - can this be more specific - was it downloaded from the web, if so where from? Uploader is User:Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre; License: public domain. I feel that the source could be attributed better. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have added likely source for original upload, although in both cases they probably originate as a YouTube screenshot.

• File:Mutoscope, 1899 (bis).jpg file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv - could not get this work, will try tomorrow from work with good connection. file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's weird, it works fine in Firefox but not IE8. Not sure why, presumably due to a codec/Java issue. Unfortunately, my understanding of ogg Theora videos is very limited - I was quite chuffed to even get it to work at all! Bob talk 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Worked fine on high speed University connection (firefox), but notm last night at home on domestic ASDL (firefox0. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no criterion three issues significant enough to prevent promotion. File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv technically does not have a sufficiently verifiable source ("US Library of Congress paper print archive" is so imprecise as to be meaningless. What is the identification number? The LoC website or a physical archive?) I have, however, added a source for pre-1.1.1923 publication/registration, so the license is supported, which is the aspect that most matters. Эlcobbola _talk 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• WP is not a dictionary. Why is "pistol" linked? Paper print? Detective film? (twice???) "Dressing gown"? "Perforated"? "New York City"? etc. Tony (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the noted instances of overlinking in the article. I have left "paper print", though, as I can't imagine early motion picture copyrighting methods are standard general knowledge. "Perforated" is linked because of the discussion above about film sprockets. Bob talk 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew what a “dressing gown” is because I used to read a lot but I doubt most readers will. Absent an explanatory link, I recommend using a more common term like “robe” or “house-coat” in its place (or in parentheses after the first instance). ―cobaltcigs 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a "dressing gown" in the books - there even seems to be a book about them! Bob talk 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That’s what I figured. Probably best to keep the link. ―cobaltcigs 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In England a house coat is what hose wives wear and a roble is what a member of the aristiocracy wera when inducted into the hosue of lords!. However, a dressing gown is a perfectly ordinary item of English clothing. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If I dare ask, what do the British call the garment which a boxer (not typically a house-wife or a member of parliament) wears before (sorry…) disrobing to his shorts at the start of a fight? ―cobaltcigs 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know actually, I can't say I'm an expert on boxing. Google seems to refer to "dressing gowns" and "robes". I must say neither sound particularly matcho. Perhaps nobody's dared point it out? Bob talk 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ignoring pictures and sources, I can't find any problems. Why does the movie take so long to load, or is it just me? Tom (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It does seem to get stuck on the buffering in Internet Explorer, doesn't it? (Does anyone know a more reliable method of converting mpeg to ogg video?) Luckily, the film's fairly widely available off wiki anyway - I really just added it at the suggestion of User:Nehrams2020. I've hopefully sorted the sourcing queries noted above since the above comments were made. Bob talk 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Ben Paschal

Nominator(s): Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully third time the charm for this article. I finally got the time to fix Giants2008 concerns as I had health problems near the end of the last FAC. Criticism is welcome. Thanks Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) -

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/paschbe01.shtml is dead. Ucucha 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 08:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Just one tiny nitpick. Since you have generally observed the "p." convention for page numbers, this should apply to refs 30 and 40 as well. Otherwise, all sources and refs OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed Secret ^account 00:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The name of the paper is TNYT not NYT. Also, is there something in the infobox that allows you to display the #games. That seems rather important YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed the first comment, I'm not sure about the second as I'm not an infobox person Secret ^account 02:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact it has been agreed that New York Times is acceptable; don't ask me where the thread is, it was a couple of months back. Sandy may know. Anyhow, I have been accepting this form in sources reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Hah, Sandy told me to TNYT it one an FAC in 2008, but it probably is acceptable as many books etc just cite NYT and SMH YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch63#The New York Times. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  The Bomb Strikes Again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• More comments
  • Is there some statistical database that shows how many games he played for the smaller teams, as this seems to be missing
  • Secondly is there some list of the games that Paschal played in and game-by-game stats, and the team's schedule, to see when he was playing and when he was dropped/injured. Because in parts the article says that he was dropped, close to being dropped or didn't play often, so I think it would be necessary to give some context, eg, he had ten games in a row where he didn't score anything, and was then dropped, etc. Because at the moment it mostly gives his averages and the odd notable performance, and says that he was not a regular player at times, so it doesn't map out his peaks and troughs throughout the season. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Object. It needs to explain the team selection better. At the moment it casually mentions here and there that he was not always a regular but it doesn't explain what was happening: if some other guy turned up and got better stats and forced him out, or if his productivity went down, or when these things happened. On second thoughts, Object. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It explains that there was three starting outfielders by the time Paschal was playing so it was hard for him to crack the lineup. Yes there is a game log of everything but going though every game in which he didn't do anything and writing it out from baseball-reference makes it original research. Secret ^account 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how stating a performance trend breaches OR, unless you make comments trying to link statistics to other factors. If you simply look and the logs and see that in one game X was playing and ten games later he was replaced by Y after not scoring anything, that is not OR, if you say it was because of this, and self-create attribution then it is a problem. But I can't see how one can talk about performance trends by just citing the season averages as it is completely unlikely that a person maintains the same level of performance all the time, especially when he is in and out of the team all the time, without even documenting when it was. Secondly it also doesn't even state how many games he played each season, declines in game time except for vague adjectives saying he doesn't play much. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll add some stats to the article on monday, right now i'm busy at work and don't have a computer Secret ^account 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some stats, I noticed that Bob Meusel missed the whole month of July 1926 with some kind of injury I presume, during which Paschal played every day during that month. The only source I have are game logs, I want to come up with more reliable sourcing. Maybe if I get access to the New York Times archives I would get better results. Why doesn't wikipedia pay for these archives. Secret ^account 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have a registration for this. When I asked at WT:MILHIST there was more than offer to download and email PDFs within a day YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Note I just got access to the NYT will expand signifancly Secret ^account 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the baseball Wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck object YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it some more, pinch hitter was linked, as one for most of his career of course he didn't play in every game. I still don't have access to The New York Times, even though I asked in the related wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Now I do but it didn't give me much but the information given was helpful now I need someone to copyedit it for me. Secret ^account 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment; no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Third time that I've reviewed this one.

• "Paschal is best known for hitting .360, standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games of the 1925 season with a stomach ailment." I'm not a big fan of the order here; in particular I'd like to see it made clear earlier that this was only in 1925. Perhaps something like "Paschal is best known for hitting .360 in the 1925 season while standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games with a stomach ailment." He didn't replace him for the whole season, so what I typed can be improved, but the order in that sentence is clearer in my view.
• Used your example Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Early career: Two consecutive sentences end with citations to reference 9. The first one doesn't seem all that necessary to me. All the information is covered by the following cite, and it's not overly controversial to the point where it would require its own reference.
  • Fixed Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yankees career: The 1926 contract has no modern-day equivalent dollar amount, but the 1927 contract does. It would be a nice little addition, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe Wizardman did the modern-day equivalent amount on that, as I have no idea how to do it. Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Decided to add the required template myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

**There's a jump from his release by the Indians to his time with Muskegon. Looks like he played with Hall of Famer Bill Terry in Dothan, which could be worth an addition.

• • "Paschal collected his only three hits, and lone runs batted in, of the year." I'd reword, noting that he had 3 RBI in that game.
  • "Paschal hit a home run in a 5–1 win against the defending World Series-champion Senators" Link the Washington Senators + add city name, since it's the first mention.
  • "Showing weakness against right-handed pitchers, the Yankees traded for veteran outfielder Bobby Veach." Swap the two pieces of the sentence around; as it is now it makes it sound like Paschal had the weakness rather than the whole team. If my first guess was right make it a bit clearer.
  • He had four solid years at St. Paul, yet only two are mentioned. the br link I give above has some stats if you want to beef that up a bit.
  • The publication names in the references should be linked on first mention; the Spartanburg paper is the only one getting that treatment right now.
  • Ref #28 (Red Sox Fan Tries to Spark His Team) has no page number; since it's LA Times I'm positive there is one.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll work with it tommorrow, right now i'm in a public library computer and can't really edit. Secret ^account 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed everything, expanded it some. Some of the newspapers didn't have an article so i left it without a link. With the LA Times I think they removed the article from google archives I can't find the page number for it, and I searched. I don't have a proquest account so I can't search its archives for the article. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think some of the prose could do with a little work. At the moment, the reader either needs a good working knowledge of baseball or a lot of time to follow links. If this is aimed at the general reader, I think it needs further explanations. For example:
    • "Paschal was purchased as an option to keep": Sounds like a baseball expression and I think I understand it, but in my opinion, more clarification would help the reader. Better now, but I copy-edited it a little to try and make it flow.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "He appeared in nine games, collecting one hit on August 16, which broke up a no-hitter by Bernie Boland with two outs in the ninth inning." Again, I can follow this, particularly by following the links, but it does not make easy reading to a non-baseballer. I see most of this has been taken out and replaced with something else. OK, but I think it would be good to include as it is obviously an indication of his ability. I just think it needs phrasing better and my knowledge of baseball is not enough for me to do it. Something like "He collected one hit on August 16, in a game where pitcher Bernie Boland allowed no other hits..." (I don't understand the significance of the two outs, so I can't do much with that. Was it good or bad?)
    • "In 1923 Paschal had a better season. In 141 games, Paschal got 200 hits, 22 triples and 26 home runs..." This is just a bald list of figures and I think just a little explanation would help.

At the very least, the word "got" is ugly. Achieved? Managed? To be nit-picky, what about some indication of where this placed him in comparison to others. Was 200 hits good? How good? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of the prose is a little choppy with some of the sentences a little abrupt.

tried switching first sentence and rejigging subsequent ones for flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Paschal was born in Enterprise, Alabama, and grew up as the son of farmers in nearby Sanford." "Grew up" seems redundant.
    • "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other circumstances..." What circumstances?
    • "He appeared in nine games for the Red Sox, batting .357 with five runs batted in (RBI).[7] In his first game with the Red Sox, Paschal had three hits against José Acosta of the Washington Senators. The Red Sox returned Paschal to Charlotte because he was still inexperienced as a fielder.[9] On August 20, 1921, Paschal suffered a broken leg while sliding, which sidelined him the rest of the season." To me, these are choppy, and would benefit from being linked together somehow as they don't flow at the moment.

When was this? The previous sentence says after the 1920 season, so was this in 1921? But the lead says he played for the Red Sox in 1920. It really should be clear here. Who was Acosta? I'm assuming it was a significant achievement by Paschal, or it wouldn't need including. I've tried to tidy up this a little and improve the flow, but not sure of all the info. Feel free to revert if I've changed any meanings. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • These are just a few examples and there are others within the article. I think a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help greatly. I am not suggesting giving all the rules of baseball in the article or writing for someone who doesn't know what baseball is, but I think a little more help would be beneficial. I know this is a problem I have in cricket articles. Also, I had a quick look at some baseball FAs such as Mariano Rivera, and these all seem to give more explanations and slightly expanded descriptions of statistics. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would do it later wait until monday I'm very busy right now Secret ^account 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Casliber fixed the prose for me I can't explain baseball terms very well without adding a few unnessarry sentences. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a partial copy edit of one section to show what I mean about improving the choppy prose and giving some explanations. I don't think the sentences are unneccesary. The article isn't too long and it would improve it for the reader. I still believe a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help. And the prose still needs work as I don't think it is currently FA standard. However, I don't think the article is a lost cause and just a little work would make a huge difference. Unfortunately I can't spare much more time on it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now as I think the prose still needs some work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Casliber did further copyediting of the article, check now Secret ^account 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are still outstanding points above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "who excelled at hitting for average and power, running, throwing and fielding": Two queries: what does it mean by hitting for power and average, and I think the sentence needs recasting as it reads like average, power, running, throwing and fielding are all types of hitting.
• The lead says that Ruth, Combs and Meusel kept him out of the side. The main article does not really say this. It says that Ruth replaced him after his big lay-off, but only mentions the other two when Paschal replaced them. Is there a way of showing in the main body that he would have played but these three were preferred when fit?
• Unless I've missed it (which is possible) there is nothing in the main text which refers to "considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees, and sportswriters wrote how he would have started for most other teams in the American League. He was one of the best pinch hitters in the game during the period, at a time when the term was still relatively new to baseball". --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed the first concern, but I don't know where to place the information on the other instances except for the lead, his pinch hitting is featured on the main article. Secret ^account 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it not go at the end of his career as a summary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I moved some of the information without ruining the lead. Secret ^account 22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Babe Ruth struck out twice and popped out": Not sure what this means.
• Final comment: I've done another copy-edit and I'm fairly happy now. Just the last few points to clear up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links: why are both baseball and outfielder adjacently linked, when baseball is prominently linked in the outfielder article? I'm not sure "outfield" needs to be linked as well, below. Won't the reader get access to that through the first link? There are high-value links that should not be diluted in this way. "Boston Red Sox" and NYY ... repeat links. Can you weed them out?
2. "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other unclear circumstances,"—was WWI an unclear circumstance?
3. Why was the bottom pic tiny? I've made it default size. Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• My source says World War I, so I fixed it though I can't explain why he didn't play the 1919 season, I know there was American forces still in France at that time so I'll let it slide. Removed repeated links. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments smoothing out prose as I go. Please revert if I goof and change the meaning accidentally. Queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Paschal did not play in the Yankees' 1927 World Series victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates. -why? fair enough, you can only add verified content.

Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several trade rumors for unclear reasons - why not just "Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several vague trade rumors"?

The end is abrupt - there is very little on his personal or post-playing life. Is there anything sourceable to add at all? If not then does any source mention him leading a quiet life or obscurity? If there is none then there is none I guess..I just think if there was anything else to add it'd make the article read a little better fair enough, you can only add verified content..Casliber (talk · contribs)

• I don't have any sources on his personal life I have to closely research the sporting news every article between 1915 and 1934 to find any extra sources and that would take months. Also I don't have a source on why he didn't play the 1927 World Series I'll presume it's because he was just a backup. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you would have extracted most or all of waht is extractable, just double checking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose – per YM. Nothing on his playing style. What weaknesses did he have? Who did he play well against? so on....Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • It explains his playing style well, he showed weakness against right handed pitchers and played well against left-handers, as he's a obsure baseball player I can't find much in sourcing. Secret ^account 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closer, I expanded the article another 2,000 KB so wait until I get a reply back from YellowMonkey and Aaronchick, both whose edit times aren't the same as mine, it's like 1 AM in Australia right now before closing. I also asked several people and the related wikiproject for a copyedit. Secret ^account 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, thankyou for your hard work in trying to find info, and I thank you for your pleasant note on my talkpage. Aaroncrick ^TALK 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Aaroncrick – Article looks good. Queries jotted down below.

• After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I..."—Previous sentence starts with after, so can you perhaps tweak?
• "He had a rare start on June 1 against the White Sox, scoring a run."—What does this mean? A rare start? Sorry I know nothing about baseball.
• "...in the seventh inning..."—Obviously not innings as with cricket?

Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• We worded the previous sentence linked starting lineup to start, that means he just didn't play at all that year other than pinch hitting apperances. And yea it's innings like in cricket. Thanks Secret ^account 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Raid at Cabanatuan

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After recently watching The Great Raid, I was really interested on learning more about the historical events the film is based on. I searched for book after book, and was fortunate to find plenty of detail to significantly expand this article. Covering the events of a prisoner rescue attempt, where over 500 people were freed from a POW camp (except for a guy left in the bathroom!), I think you will find the article to be an interesting read. With quality images provided by Jappalang, and extensive copyediting performed by Malleus Fatuorum and Ericleb01, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The ISBN for the King Rangers ref doesn't seem to be working. Is it this book from World Cat?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. I got the ISBN off of Google Books, and from the Book sources page, it only works on a few of the databases. I looked for other editions of the book as well as tried a few other ISBN numbers, but they also didn't work for the majority of the databases (including WorldCat). A Google Books and Amazon search also don't turn up anything. Does WorldCat provide ISBNs anywhere on their pages? If not, it would probably be beneficial to keep the current ISBN as it's accessible on Google News where the entire publication is available for full viewing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they will put the isbn in if they have it .. they also do OCLC numbers, which you can use to find the correct edition also. I'm not worried about it being unreliable, just it was a bit odd that the isbn was off for WorldCat. (I like WorldCat because it'll give me a idea of how many libraries have the work, generally the more that have it, the better the chances of the work being "mainstream" and not fringy) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat and Google Books are the most helpful when searching for new sources (although Amazon actually allows for purchasing when no local libraries have it). This is the first article I've worked on where the majority of cites are from books, so I'm sure it definitely makes for an easier lookover. Out of curiosity, how do you check the ISBNs for FACs? Is there a tool that assists or do you just manually enter each ISBN into WorldCat? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Randomly found myself here) He probably uses the WP:ISBN feature accessible through your in-article references. You can search the ISBN on any book provided that you have it written on a page (example: ISBN 1-4289-1576-1 displays ISBN 1-4289-1576-1). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that, I was just wondering if there was a tool that quickly checked all of them instead of her manually going through and clicking on each link (which may be repetitive with numerous book sources). That page is helpful for finding books in local libraries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Very interesting read! Look forward to supporting, here's a few comments/suggestions to think about: Sasata (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• 25 acres -> convert to metric

  Converted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "To supplement their diet, prisoners were able to smuggle food and supplies into the camp during Japanese-approved trips to Cabanatuan, usually in their underwear." They made these trips in their underwear?

  I think some may have with the heat, but I reworded it to be a little clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The agreed on plan figured the attack would commence" awkward construction

  Tried rewording, let me know if it still doesn't flow well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• my knowledge of military weaponry is limited… how about a link to carbine? Probably bazooka as well (I see it's linked in a later section)

  Added a few links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• the article says the scouting teams left Guimba at 19:00 hours, but does not explain where Guimba is. A paragraph later, "… a radio set was based outside of Guimba." what is meant by "radio set"? would "established" be a better word choice than "based"?

  Added wikilink and reworded radio set to be clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• link reconnaissance

  Linked first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any chance of having a map that would show the locations of these names (Platero, Cabu River, Guimba, Pampanga River, etc.)? Ok I see the route map in the "Trek to American lines" section. Maybe this should be placed in the Strategy section, where several of these place names are first mentioned?

  I think it's current placement is helpful for detailing the return trip, which is also mentioned in the related section. Also, listing it at the top would kind of 'spoil' the story (assuming a reader skipped over the lead). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Mucci had already given Nellist's January 29 afternoon report and forwarded it to Capt. Prince, whom he entrusted to determine how to get the Rangers in and out of the compound quickly" I think that one's supposed to be a "who"

  I must have been sick the day they covered this grammar lesson in school, so I'll trust you on that one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the raid would be accomplished in thirty minutes or less." thirty -> 30

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• peso should link to Philippine peso

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• depending on the width of my browser, the right side of the text in the "Outcome and historical significance" section pushed up very close to the left edge of the "Prisoners rescued" table; is there a way to fix that by including an invisible margin or something around the table?

It does that to mine as well, and although I tried several parameter changes, I didn't see a difference. Looking over Help:Table, I see the same spacing issue, so I don't know if there is a way to correct it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Some of the Rangers and Scouts went on bond drive tours around the United States" link to war bond?

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...what patrols can accomplish" ellipses should be spaced, says MOS

  MOS seems to prefer the opposite, asking for nonspaced. Spaced is not recommended if I'm reading it correctly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't express myself properly... I meant ellipses should have a spaces on either side of them. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Fixed spacing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• link Presidential Unit Citation

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Henry mucci.jpg - Where does the source indicate US Army authorship? "National Archives Photo" does not mean the photo is public domain. Indeed, per the Archives, "not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain". Who is the author?

    It's hard to see, but in the bottom left of the image is a symbol for the Signal Corps, a unit of the U.S. Army which would qualify the image as public domain. It was definitely a good idea to whoever decided to have the unit go along with the group. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Robert Prince.jpg - Same as above.

    The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit, same as the one above (this one just doesn't have the symbol included). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Where can that authorship information be located? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The image is available at the National Archives and the only people with cameras that were present during the raid were the 832nd Signal Service (all of the soldiers would have been forbidden from carrying other items besides the required weapons, food, etc. to prevent making noise or slowing them down during the long trek). However, since I don't have a direct link to the image from the National Archives I can't provide that detail. For now, I have replaced it with a smaller image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Northrop P-61.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.

    Source added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The source doesn't attribute an author. Where can we verify this is a federal work? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Couldn't find anything so I just switched it out for another image that was available from the U.S. Air Force. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:AlamoScoutsRaidCabanatuanFeb1945.jpg - Why isn't the author (W. E. Nellist) credited? Where does the source indicate W. E. Nellist was a federal employ conducting official duties (i.e. that this is a federal work)? Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Nellist is one of the Scouts in the image, so he's not the author. The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit. The website the source is linked to probably contacted Nellist for use of the image, since he likely had many pictures from the actual event (probably the reason why they credited him). I saw similar occurrences of other soldiers providing photos for newspaper articles and books. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Apologies if I misread the caption. Where can we verify attribution to "832nd Signal Service photographers"? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    If you view this page, a very similar image (picture asgh_048) is available (with some of the same people and same background) which was taken by the 832nd. I'm assuming they had a few more people join this picture. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'll strike the oppose once the new video issues are addressed, but I won't consider this fully resolved and will leave it as a comment for others to contemplate. It's not the same photo, so it could have a different author or other "purpose" (PD-Gov applies to authors performing official duties; just because one is deployed in the armed forces and in possession of a camera does not mean all images taken therewith are not eligible for copyright protection). It's further an issue of verifiability over truth. No federal authorship is attributed at the source, so the federal authorship license is not supported. Again, I'll leave it to others to decide whether they care. Perhaps just use the asgh_048 photo? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The attached military photographers were included with the rescue mission for the sole purpose of documenting it (probably for troop morale-boosting videos afterwards). Since there were orders for them to take the pictures/video, that would classify as official duties rendering them invalid for copyright use. There was a Life magazine photographer that took some pictures, but that was not until the POWs were returned to Guimba (none of those images are used in the article since they are tagged as non-commercial, but they're linked to in the external links). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv and File:PrisonersReturnRaidCabanatuanJan311945.ogv both need sources; "Signal Corps archive footage" is a description. Where did these files come from? Where can one verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The videos were pulled from a documentary found in a YouTube video which I have now linked to (I figured we didn't encourage the use of linking to YouTube, so that's why I had just listed archive footage). Additional footage can be seen at this YouTube video, but since it was included in the film The Great Raid with added text and aesthetic pauses, I wasn't sure if that would be considered a derivative work. Would the addition to the video pages of a citation saying that the attached four Signal Corps photographers were there to document the rescue attempt be sufficient with authorship issues? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose stricken, as source links resolve the issue (yes, it would be helpful to add the photographer documentation comment). Other reviewers can judge whether they care about the lack of explicit authorship attribution, a technicality. Эlcobbola _talk 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have also added several videos in addition to the replacement images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I think you mean illuminate rather than patrol in this sentence: The Rangers were unaware that the Japanese did not have any searchlights that could be used to patrol the perimeter

  I guess guard dogs would be for patrolling. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• What size was the 832nd Signal Service? Company, platoon, what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  Several sources say battalion, I have added the detail. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Support - just a few things, and then I'll support this. I looked this article up after I watched the movie a couple years ago, and the article has come a long way since then.

• Under "Strategy"
  • "The POWs were increasingly becoming more wary of the Japanese guards," - increasingly is redundant there.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Under "Prisoner rescue"
  • "Some of the POWs weighed so little due to illness and malnourishment that some Rangers carried two men on their backs." - any way to get rid of two "some"s in the same sentence?

    Reworded to remove the redundancy. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that all times in the article are local - is that mentioned somewhere, or is it assumed? Canada Hky (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Nice catch, labeled the first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but a few niggles:

1. Why link both the general "Philippines" and "Cabanutuan City" next to each other? The latter contains a very prominent link to the former. MOSLINK says to be specific. (Same for the NE and Ph in the infobox: readers need one link, the most specific.) WP is not a dictionary, so why link "guerrillas" and "muzzle"? Links should not be a substitute for spelling out an initialism, such as "POW camp"; why not spell it out first time, without the link—it's hardly obscure, and the target article isn't focused on the specifics of the Japanese POW camp.

   I removed the links for Philippines as well as the links in the infobox. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have the benefit of being an encyclopedia and I considered that readers may not necessarily know that much about the two terms, and preferred to error on the side of having the link present. Since guerrillas are significantly referred to in this article, it would be best for readers to have background on strategies of the type of warfare if necessary. For the POW, I did spell it out for the first occurrence in the lead as well as in the article, but I have now removed the wikilinks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "Pillbox" is piped from "bunker": again, readers shouldn't have to hit the link to find out what this deceptive link means ... "pillboxes (bunkers)", possibly without the link (I haven't checked the target for specificity).

   Reworded to "pillbox bunkers" to keep the designation as well as better inform the readers with the link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. MoS says en dashes as interrupters should be spaced; or to use an unspaced em dash.

   I think at one point I had all emdashes, but they were probably moved around during the copyedits. I believe I have fixed all occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Layout of the camp: unfortunately garish in colour, but nothing in it is intelligible at that size, including the key. If it's important enough to include, why not a bit bigger? Is the Fisher pic of sufficeint res to enlarge a bit? Same for the Black Widow?

   I modified the image sizes (however, I'm editing from a different computer than when I was working on the article so it looks the same to me), but feel free to increase the size as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "assorted terrain"? no ... assorted cookies. And are rivers terrain?

   Nice catch. I was so happy to get a video for the article, I just through the caption together. I've reworded a bit, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

6. I haven't looked at the vid guidelines, but surely we'd like to know the duration in the caption ... Tony (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Looking over WP:VIDEO (which currently isn't a guideline), there are no details about how captions should be organized (and the example they provide does not list the duration). Readers are able to see the duration on the video's page or if they initiate the video. If we're ever going to see a significant rise in video use on Wikipedia, we definitely need to get the WP:VIDEO page better organized and have more detailed guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to addressing these tomorrow when I have Internet access (kind of hard to edit using the iPhone). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Lt. Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar etc. - should be "At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar", you've already mentioned Nellist's rank.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The American soldiers also paid 5 pesos to each of the carabao cart drivers who had helped to evacuate the POWs - it would be helpful if we knew what this was worth in today's dollars.

  I'm trying to find an inflation calculator for the currency, but haven't found anything yet. I'll keep looking. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• $1 ($9.04 in current U.S. dollars), $1.50 per day (a combined total of $22.59 in current U.S. dollars). - simpler wording is "$1 ($9.04 today)" etc., which is just as clear.

  Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• An estimated 530 to a high of 1,000 Japanese soldiers were killed during the assault. - this is awkward. I would write something like "Estimates of the Japanese soldiers killed during the assault ranged from 530 to 1,000".

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both Cpt. Fisher and Cpl. Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery. - could be "Both Fisher and Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery.", we've already mentioned their ranks.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In an effort to quell the increase in American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcasted to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc. - this is awkward. Better wording might be In an effort to counter the improved American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcast to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc."

  Sounds better, reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• and the American public, for the raid had touched an emotional chord - I think "and the American public, as the raid had touched an emotional chord" would be better.

  Nice catch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• General Douglas MacArthur spoke about his reaction to the raid - you can probably just use "MacArthur" here, without a link. He's already been introduced and linked earlier in the article.

  Must have happened with the shuffling of information during copyedits. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although Lt. Col. Mucci was nominated for the Medal of Honor, he and Capt. Prince both received etc. - "Although Mucci" and "he and Prince" should be fine here, we've mentioned them and their ranks before.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• All other American officers and selected enlisted received Silver Stars. - how were the enlisted who were to received Silver Stars selected - i.e., was there some general theme? If each one received it for a different reason, though, it would be too much detail to mention.

  The sources do not specify they just list the award. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lts. William Nellist and Thomas Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations - again, we already know their names and ranks, should be "Nellist and Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations". Also, it would be interesting to know why they received the Citations, if there is some general theme.

  Again, no extra details provided that I could see. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Land was donated in the late 1990s by the Filipinos to create a memorial. - what does "by the Filipinos" mean? By the government? By a specific group?

  Government, reworded to specify. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, please look for other duplicated ranks, first names, etc. I've made a few minor copyedits as well. Overall, an interesting, well-written, FA-quality article. I think these issues can be cleared up fairly quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good job catching the page numbers in the templates, I always forget about that. I went through and removed the majority of the other duplicate ranks/names. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  And quick work on the copyediting, I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support All appears in order for FA-class. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Millennium Park

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two more promotions by September 1 to retain its featured status. Although time seems to be against us, I hope for this not to be demoted for too long if we can not beat the clock with this and one more promotion. FAC2 was a recent quickfail due to image issues which have been resolved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Renomination approved with image clearance from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Are all those external links really necessary? I already removed one that was used as a reference. Ucucha 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Chicagoist on the photography "ban" goes nowhere for me, but seems to refer to the kind of info that belongs in the article, cited, and not as an external link-- please review external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that link is dead; I'm sorry for not catching it. Ucucha 09:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Link fixed. —Jeremy (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks but that raises another question: FAs are expected to be comprehensive, and ELs should only include content that can't be included in the article for some reason (see WP:EL); why is there no mention of the content in that EL in the actual article, using it as a source instead of an EL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I can not see that webpage on my browser, but the article has an entire paragraph on the photography ban issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I thought about that when fixing the link. The paragraph in the article really makes the link redundant. Although the paragraph focuses on Cloud Gate, which I think a little misleading firstly because all the artworks in the park are subject to the same copyright restrictions, and secondly because the city was actually requiring permits for photography anywhere in the park—Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recurring issues

Samples only, thorough review for similar needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• MOS issues: there are Wikipedia:ACCESS#Section structure errors throughout, and there is WP:OVERLINKing-- these are repeat items in your noms, TTT, and should be addressed prior to nomination. I've left sample edits; work to do still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Still not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the WP:ACCESS issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINKing also continues, and has been a recurring issue in all of TTT noms; at some point, TonyTheTiger, I am expecting you to begin to take responsibility-- as an experienced FA nominator-- for your noms instead of waiting for other reviewers to clean up recurring issues, which creates an unnecessary burden on FAC reviewers and leads to lengthy nominations. At a minimum, Tony1 has mentioned overlinking in most of his reviews of your nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I removed quite a bit of overlinking, (we edit-conflicted, but I integrated your changes). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose issues, sample:
  • In addition to formal critical review, the park is admired as an example of successful urban planning by other mayors such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who wishes San Francisco could do the same thing.^[1][2] Even the Mayor of Shanghai has enjoyed himself at the park.^[3]
• Isn't the "In addition to formal critical review" clause redundant? Other mayors is plural, Gavin Newsom is singular, and why is the link to SF mayor helpful to this article (overlinking)-- that is explained in his article. "Even" is POV, and since the source is a subscription only link, please provide a quote of the text justifying the statement that he "enjoyed" himself and its relevance to the article. I only checked this last section, these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My subscription seems to have expired or something. I have attempted to tweak the other issues, but I think linking a term like SF mayor is fairly standard when the topic is what other civic leaders think about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree-- that link adds nothing to this article, when you've already linked the actual mayor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing, sample only:
  • The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of many cities.^[4]
    • The source says "While nothing that ambitious is planned here...". What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• But the source merely says that nothing that ambitious is planned for Charlotte-- the source does not support the statement. Please review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked to say "The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary." This seems to me to follow from the quote I gave above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're still using plural, while giving the example of one city only-- are there others? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Does Shangai count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rephrasing: considering some of the issues above, I'd like to see the exact quote backing this statement:
  • The Financial Times describes the park as an extraordinary 21st century park resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city.^[5]
    • The FT online archive is only accessible for 5 years. I can not produce the quote anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are relying on subscription only or online sources that expire, you should be keeping hard copies of those sources so you can backup article content. At any time, other editors can request a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• The content looks like it wants to be a direct quote, but isn't; how was it paraphrased to avoid plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this further on the FT quote request above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look to be a direct quote. Relevant sections of the FT article look to be:
    • "His work is just one piece in an extraordinary public park that is set to create new iconic images of the city."
    • "In the previously moribund 25-acre site, Chicago has unleashed artistic liberation. In a city known for its historic skyscrapers with their clean, angular lines, the park offers chaotic curves. In a city known for its green parks, this is a space defined by its objects, not the turf beneath them. The result - a genuinely 21st-century interactive park - could trigger a new way of thinking about public outdoor spaces"
    • "This eclectic mix was driven by the ad-hoc accretion of new projects, led by financial donors. Indeed, this is a uniquely Chicagoan park, the result of a close collaboration between money and power."

—Jeremy (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that some of these sample issues have been cleaned up, I am expecting a closer review of the article and its sourcing for similar-- these were samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref. 10 is missing an accessdate and ref. 233 is missing publisher information. Placement of "subscription required" information is inconsistent (refs. 53, 78). Ucucha 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All three issues fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spending time evaluating this article. I will spend time with it this afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ruhrfisch

I have told TonyTheTiger I will copyedit this article. I have been a co-nom on FACs for several of the features in the park, but have not made any major contributions to this article directly (besides the image map). I had two questions on the article, one for Tony and one for the image experts.

The question for Tony is: why is there a separate section on the 2009 Pavilion projects? These were a temporary exhibition in Chase Promenade in the park for several summer months, and no longer are present there (something the article does not make clear). Since there have been several other such exhibits in the promenade and park that do not have their own sections, why does this get its own section? Would it make more sense to have a section on special exhibitions or art in the park? I also note that the {{Millennium Park}} template does not include the pavilions with the other permanent features. The template also mentions the Grant Park Music Festival, which has a much longer history, but is only mentioned in three sentences. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.

This is the main article of a WP:FT. It should summarize all the articles in the topic. The WP:FT guys have insisted that the Pavilion projects be included in the topic (over my initial objection in 2009 and renewed objection in 2010). As such it is summarized here on equal footing with all other articles within the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle the GPMF. I could expand it here if you feel that is appropriate. In truth I am not sure what the protocol is for a main article of an FT. I do think it be definition should summarize the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think part of my problem is that it treats the Pavilions like permanent features (when they are not) and does not treat them and the festival the same. What if there were an "Art and music" section that talked about the Pavilions and the music festival (perhaps as subsections of two paragraphs each) and then had a paragraph on other exhibits and concerts / events in the park? Perhaps it could even be called "Use" or "Usage" and also include the current popular culture paragraph (movies and tv shows use the park for filming scenes). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Are you interested in making such a change. Your editorial assistance is, as always, quite welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to copyedit this, starting with the sections relating to articles I have already been a co-nom or done a copyedit on. I will be glad to try this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce efforts so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

YOu are welcome - got another section edited tonight, will hopefully get much more done tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) I moved the Pavilion projects subsection and the Popular culture section to a new Use section, after budget. I also added the lead of the Grant Park Music Festival article there as a subsection. Does this look OK (still needs to be copyedited and more refs for the GPMF section)? I am done with copyedits on the 13 Features subsections, but not anything else yet. I was thinking of adding the architects to the Exelon Pavilions and moving most of the sentence on the GPMF from the Pritzker Pavilion section to the GPMF section too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• It looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The question for an image reviewer is: would File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg be OK for use in this article? I assume so, as it was used on the Main Page when the Cloud Gate article was TFA. If not that, I assume File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or perhaps this image of the sculptor File:Kapoor cropped.jpg would work? More to come, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg is copyright free, since it's only a tiny part of the whole structure, and is cute and I like it. File:Cloud gate construction.jpg is ugly and probably not something you want to show, ok for Cloud Gate, but not anywhere else imho. File:Kapoor cropped.jpg I think is only tangentially related, and shouldn't be used either. — raekyT 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg seems to be a good suggestion. I will add it and await feedback, but like you said, since it was on the main page for WP:TFA it is probably acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Struck that as it was OK on the Main Page and Raeky says it is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New questions for Tony

• In Background the sentence Some sources say that the park was the outgrowth of the exuberance of private sponsors, and others say that Mayor Daley used his power to garner corporate supporters.[27] has one source (although multiple sources are implied) and that does not really say what the sentence says. Can you please provide more / better sources for this sentence? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that I had thought I had seen a source that I would again come across when I added the exuberance part. Although I thought I would remember where I had seen it, I had probably paraphrased something that from memory that won't really be able to find. I have removed this from the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I tweaked it to Mayor Daley's influence was key in getting corporate and individual sponsors to pay for much of the park. which seems to me to be more waht Time was saying (and avoids "some sources" being attributed to a single ref. Feel free to disagree / tweak. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I do not get this sentence referring to Millennium Park: One of the larger public parks in metropolitan Chicago, it is a showcase for postmodern architecture. Since MP is less than a tenth of the total area of Grant Park, and Chicago has several very large parks and the suburbs do too, how can it be considered "one of the larger parks in metro Chicago"?
  • I think that it is an artifact of the article prior to proper sourcing. Rm it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• It might just be that it is late, but I do not see the permeable area claim in the ref Of its 24.5 acres (99,000 m2) of land, Millennium Park contains 12.04 acres (48,700 m2) of permeable area. What exactly is meant by permeable area? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't have an RS for that and it is also an artifact that I tracked down to this edit by a WP:SPA. I am not sure of its veracity. We might want to strike it unless we can source it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have removed it for now - I assume the gardens and great lawn are meant (concrete is impermeable to rain, dirt covered with plants is permeable). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to add a Comments column to the Budget table? My thought was that opening dates etc. could be added to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess an opening date column would be O.K., but some have completion dates and opening dates and others only have one, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, six of the items in the budget column are not separate features but infrastructure and endowment). Others like the Exelon Pavilions opened on two different dates as they were completed, or Cloud Gate opened with the park, then was finished later. I think it is OK to leave it off - the dates for the individula features are in their sections. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. so how is the ce progressing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I have copyedited it through Budget and am working on Use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am done with GPMF in Use. I want to add a brief introduction to the Use section (two or three sentences). Tony, do you know of any attendance figures for the park? The article has the opening attendance and the comparison to Navy Pier. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I have continued to look for new numbers. You would think they would put out a press release, but I don't see anything at http://www.millenniumpark.org/newsandmedia/ . I have found sales brochures and I see this, which may be an RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I was bold and moved Lurie Garden up to fourth in the features as it is described as one of four major features in the lead and Features section intro. Tweaked the image layout after that too. On to Budget for copyedits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with copyedits to the Use section - I added two images there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with the copyedit. Here are my final points - I am very close to supporting, but have a few issues left. I see I have now made 56 edits to the article. If other reviewers feel this makes me too much of a contributor, I will recuse myself (but feel it is essntially ready for FA now).
  • I would remove the Looptopia material from Use restrictions (I already hid in a comment for now) as I could not find a RS for it. If you can find a RS, perhaps add it back in, but it seems pretty trivial (basically the park is always closed at night, even for an all night part in the Loop). Sentences were The obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew.
    • Looptopia was an artifact of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also not sure about including the park's hours and dog policy, but that is your call.
    • From my experience, this is an unusual dog policy for a park, making it notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK< I had not thought of it that way. I am fine with leaving it in, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Would the Recognition section be better as "Reception and recognition"?
    • Good idea. I have made the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I also hid this sentence in Recognition: The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary. - the ref is basically small town folk go to Chicago and admire its half-billion dollar park, but know they can't do that back home. I do not think the original ref is that notable (how many places can afford such a park, but wish they had one like it) and the sentence does not really reflect the ref well.
    • That is fine. Someone else above had a problem with the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, I am not sure I would include the fact that the mayors of Shanghai and SF like the park and/or wish they had one too. Your call.
    • In terms of critical review, they are probably more important than journalists because civic leaders actually make civic amenities happen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I am fine with that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some images and was very tempted to add the panorama of Jay Pritzker Pavilion at the end here, as it is in that article. What do you think Tony?
    • I like the images that you have added and generally favor more images than most. I would be fine with the extra image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I added it just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Finally, I agree with Sandy on most of the External links being superfluous. I would keep the official map and brochure, the city of Chicago MP site, and the news story archives. The "Virtual tour of Millennium Park" is neat, but really slow to load. If Forgotten Chicago has cool stuff, add it as a ref - you go to the page and there is nothing obvious on MP, and no search function to look for it that I could see. Same with the other material - convert it to a ref or get rid of it. The Awards link should definitely be used as a ref - I would do it, but I am burnt out on MP right now.
    • I just cut out a few.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I converted the awards EL into a ref and added two sentences on the material in it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have one more little thing to add that I forgot. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors. I hope I have improved the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 11 August

2010 (UTC) OK, I am all done with the copyedit and everything and all of the issues I raised here have been addressed. I have changed to support above. I really need to see this park in person ;-) Thanks Tony for all of your work on these articles, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, in the first paragraph it says: "Completed in 2004, it covers…", then in the next paragraph we have "Construction began in October 1998 and was completed in July 2004" and "…was opened in a ceremony on July 16, 2004" —does the fact that the park opened in 2004 need to be mentioned three times in the lead? The third paragraph tells us that the proposed budget was $150 million, but he final cost was $475 million, then in the next paragraph (and only one sentence away) it tells us that the cost approximately three times as much as was initially budgeted —I don't think that this information needs repeated. I also think that the sentence on features have changing names is such a minor detail that it doesn't need mentioned in the lead.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would have no objection to the changes you suggest. Do you want to take a stab at them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I had a go. I wasn't sure what to do with the last sentence: "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley at first placed much of the blame for the delay and cost overrun on Frank Gehry, who designed several parts of the park". This sentence, to me at least, implies that the next sentence is going to say that the Mayor changed his mind or that Gehry was in some way vindicated. But there is no next sentence. I also can't find this discussed anywhere else in the article; so perhaps we can just delete this sentence. —Jeremy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I moved that sentence to a more appropriate location in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. If I have to explain myself again i believe that the article meet FA requirements because it is well sourced, gives a perfectly balanced account of the park, addressing the components of the park in turn. I have helped improve previous articles related to Millenium Park at the FAC stage and have offered constructive criticism where it is needed to ensure that the article is the best possible but I certainly do not post "support" unless I really mean it. I find Sandy Georgia's comments on my talk page accusing me of supporting this article as I have commented on Tony's previous FAC's out of order. At the end of the day it is Sandy and co who decides whether to promote an article or not, so I'm wasting my time here anyway. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I found this an overall great article, but there were a couple of issues.
  • The park curfew (the park is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily)[215] and obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew. - this is a sloppy paragraph.
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, you have a couple of two sentence paragraphs. It may not be in the rules anywhere, but I prefer a paragraph to be at least three sentences long.
    • I got these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This article takes a while for my computer to load. Could you cut some info from the featues section, which already have spin off articles, out of the main one?

That's all for now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Note: The article is 122 kB, but only 44 kB of that is readable prose. There are a lot of refs, which helps make it so big. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • After my copyedit it is 46 kB of readable prose Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also note that this is the main article of a WP:FT. We have to adequately summarize the topic. The article is well within all WP:MOS WP:SIZE requirements. as noted by Ruhrfisch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Leaning toward oppose: Sorry, but I can already see several problems in the lead: (No longer leaning toward oppose, but not actively supporting just yet.)

• We don't need to specify the county in the first sentence. People are far, far more familiar with the city of Chicago than with its county. Even Illinois is arguably expendable.
  • Rmed county.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The second sentence is awkwardly structured (that...that), and could probably be split into two smaller sentences. There's a lot of information packed inside it.
  • Split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• As of 2007, Millennium Park trailed only Navy Pier as a Chicago tourist attraction. Surely there's more up-to-date info?
  • I have tried to find something more up to date unsuccessfully as each element of this topic has gone through FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find anything. Just out of curiosity, how do they determine attendance figures for Millennium Park, anyway? Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In a case like this, it might be safer to say something vague, like "Millennium Park is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Chicago." Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not so sure I understand the logic of going from a slightly dated statement of fact to WP:WEASEL words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:WEASEL doesn't apply. It's still a statement of fact, just less specific. You'd need a more recent ref, but it should be trivially easy to find something useful. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Anyway, this might possibly be helpful for determining 2010 rankings, though I can't immediately access it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I was under the impression that you knew of a way to eventually get access to this. It likely has our info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm sure Harold Washington has the article. But I haven't had a chance to go down there, and I probably won't for a few days. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, I did manage to go today. According to the article, Millennium Park was second in 2009, with an estimated attendance of 4 million. (Navy Pier was first, with an estimated attendance of 8,050,000.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• ...and Millennium Park, which has become the world's largest rooftop garden What makes it a rooftop garden? I don't even see this explained in the body.
  • Doesn't this sentence cover it: "Millennium Park is considered one of the largest green roofs in the world, having been constructed on top of a railroad yard and large parking garages."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. I was searching for "rooftop". I'm not really sure that's worth mentioning in the lead, though, since it's only technically a rooftop garden, according to one organization. It's enough to simply mention that the park has won awards for green design. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think I could find more mentions as a greenroof or rooftop garden, if that is your point. These terms are common references about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If the fact is to remain in the lead, I think it should be moved to a different part of the paragraph. It seems uncomfortably shoehorned into the current sentence, and there's no logical reason for it to be there. It might also be worthwhile to briefly explain why it is a green roof, because that description will be counterintuitive to people who look at the pictures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I've reworded it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The park's design and construction won awards ranging from accessibility to green design. "Accessibility" and "green design" aren't awards. You win awards for those things.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried to reword it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The completed park has received near univeral praise from critics. This assumes that you've read every published review that has ever existed. Could you reword this? Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Near universal --> consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's much of a difference. I'd prefer "praise from many critics". Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note that I've only commented on the lead. I don't really want this to turn into a peer review. My general impression is that the article could still use some work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I stated on your talk page, I would imagine they might let this one run another 10-14 days, if we are making progress. I am sure I have mentioned WP:CHIFTD to you before. We are about to lose our projects only FT. We need to get some more FAs to save it. Please comment here now if you have time. Please note that Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has tried to do a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone else had recently copyedited the lead, so I did not tweak it nearly as much as the rest of the article. The "near universal praise" was mine though, sorry. In the course of the copyedit, we looked for attendance figures, which turned out to be pretty difficult to find. The few places that did list them gave no indication of how they were measured. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look at at least a few sections of the body sometime this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments (I'm still reading through the article, so I'm not done yet.)

• A showcase for postmodern architecture, it also features the McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance, Wrigley Square, McDonald's Cycle Center, Exelon Pavilions, AT&T Plaza, Boeing Galleries, Chase Promenade, and Nichols Bridgeway. This reads strangely to me. Shouldn't there be some the's in front of some of those list items?
  • I believe it is more wikified without a series of preceding articles. I have removed the one from in front of McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink instead of adding one in front of the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see what wikification has to do with anything. Elsewhere in the body, you do refer to some of these places as "The Harris Theater", "The Exelon Pavilions", etc. It just seems odd to me to see some of these place names without articles. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. added to all.
        • Whatever you do, you should be consistent throughout the article. Does Millennium Park itself use articles when referring to these locations? Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • sort of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Clicking around their site, it seems that they use the before all of them except Cloud Gate and Wrigley Square. (Which makes sense.) You should just follow their lead. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I have tried to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Performers ranging from mainstream rock bands to classical musicians and opera singers have appeared at the pavilion,[52] which hosts physical fitness activities such as yoga. There's no logical connection between the two halves of this sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. You're setting up a false distinction: rock bands and opera singers are also "cultural offerings". Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • How is activities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what you had before. I think you need to restructure a few sentences, rather than try to apply a quick fix. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I tried to fix things by removing "a broad spectrum of activities, including" Zagalejo^^^ 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Cloud Gate section gets somewhat repetitive in places. I think you can drop "Cloud Gate is wildly popular" from the second paragraph, since you talk about its popularity in the next paragraph. Also, you use the phrase "highly polished" twice within a few sentences.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Its use of water is unique among Chicago's many fountains, in that it promotes physical interaction between the public and the water. This is a pretty bold claim. What about the water playgrounds in many neighborhood parks? Can't some of those features be considered fountains? (You know, the things kids like to run through.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What was your source in the first place? I see you tweaked the wording, but even that doesn't seem to be supported by any sources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed the uniqueness point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink is a multipurpose venue located along the western edge of Millennium Park in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. It's not actually in the district, is it? I'm sure it's too new to be a contributing property.
  • AKAIK, it is geographically in the district, but I am sure it is not a contributing property.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Does the district even cover both sides of Michigan Avenue? The profile here emphasizes the "streetwall". Zagalejo^^^ 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am having javascript problems today. I can not view that page. However, I am under the impression that the Art Institute of Chicago is in the district.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have tweaked the wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• From June 21 to September 15, 2002, the plaza served as an open-air exhibition space and hosted the inaugural exhibit in Millennium Park. Might as well mention what the exhibit was.
  • Added name and explanation of who it was by, I am not sure if you need the explanation of who the artist was in this article. Let me know if I should take it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The pedestrian bridge is the first bridge Gehry designed to be built, and was named for British Petroleum, which donated $5 million to the construction of the park. I'm pretty sure that, by the time the bridge opened, the company was legally just called BP.
  • The company changed its name in 2001, but might have donated the money before changing its name. I changed the article text however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• As a general point, are you trying to use serial commas? The article is inconsistent.
  • I am not really cognizant of what I do in this regard when writing and am willing to go either way if it is an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it matters either way, as long as you're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• It is the first new performing arts venue built in the city's theater district or downtown since 1929. I remember challenging this at the theater talk page, but never got a response.
  • Is Gallery 37 a structure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There is a Gallery 37 building on Randolph. Part of the building is a small theater called the Storefront Theater. Now that I think about it, however, there's another, more important venue that predates the Harris Theater: the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. (Yes, Navy Pier has been around a while, but the theater facility was constructed in the 1990s.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Chicago Shakespeare Theater is north of the Chicago River. I don't think it is part of the Theatre District, although it is close by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, when was Gallery 37 constructed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Navy Pier isn't considered downtown? Anyway, the Storefront Theater at Gallery 37 opened in 2000. Search for "Anchor theater to open in April" in the Sun-Times database. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Rmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Harris Theater has hosted notable national and international performers, such as the New York City Ballet's first visit to Chicago in over 25 years (in 2006). This sentence needs to be restructured. A visit is not a performer.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Now it's a bit wordy. Just write a new sentence from the ground up. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what is wrong with the sentence and thus am not sure how to fix it. Either give me more of an explanation or give a suggested wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I made some tweaks myself. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wrigley Square is a public square located in the northwest corner of Millennium Park near the intersection East Randolph Street and North Michigan, in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. Similar to my comment above. Isn't it too new to be considered part of the district
  • The district is defined geographically as Michigan Avenue between Randolph Street and approximately Roosevelt Road.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But is every structure along that route considered part of the district? Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't actually know the precise details of the Chicago Landmark geography designations, but for a National Register of Historic Places district an area is defined and contributing properties therein are specified. Non-contributing properties exist within the defined areas however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond Chicago have described the Cycle Center as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking. This just comes across as boosteristic. It would be better to actually quote the sources.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Something I've been wondering about for a while, but never asked: should it be "Pavilion projects", or "Pavilion Projects"? The article is titled "Pavilion projects", but its first sentence capitalizes the second P.
  • Fixed there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that correct? That looks somewhat awkward (especially when italicized). Did anyone actually call them "the Pavilion projects"? It seems that most sources called them the Burnham Pavilions. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have added the alternate title to the article. I am not averse to a page move, but keep in mind that this is part of a WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • What does being a FT have to do with a page move? Anyway, why exactly did you choose to name the article "Pavilion projects" in the first place? Where did you get that from? Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • IIRC, I did not create the page and it was thus named by someone else. I think a lot of people have looked critically at the page since it was added as a supplemental nom to the Millennium Park FT and no one really mentioned moving it. However, if you think it should be move that is fine. They don't really have a name in the sense of a name for a show or for works of art, AFIAK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • • Ah, you're correct, someone else started the page. (And that person has only made one edit this entire year.) I think the article should be moved to Burnham Pavilions, unless you know of any sources that refer to them as "Pavilion projects". That said, that article's title really has little bearing on the main Millennium Park article, so I'll just strike that comment. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not everything in the "Use restrictions" section pertains to use restrictions (eg, the surveillance cameras).
  • Most use restrictions are restrictions on the public by the authorities. The cameras are a restriction on the authorities by the public.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh, that's a cop-out. (No pun intended.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you want the section retitled or the content moved. If moved, where do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't think of a title that would tie everything together, so maybe you should create a new subsection. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am not so keen on the one paragraph subsection but I have moved the content out and created a separate subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, did the city ever install the "less-intrusive" cameras, or did they drop the idea altogether?
  • I have no knowledge of replacement cameras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Financial Times describes Millennium Park as an extraordinary 21st century park, resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city. It's been established above that this is not copied word-for-word from the source, but it is still very close. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's generally true, but reviews are the sorts of things that should be quoted. (Especially when you're barely paraphrasing the source to begin with.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This is not one quote. It is three secondary source quotes properly synthesized for use in this tertiary source. If it were a single quote what you are suggesting might be more feasible. Look at the three distinct quotes above that Jeremy submitted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • All you really have to do is take individual phrases from the sources, and put those phrases in quotes. You can omit unneeded words with ellipses. It can be done; just be creative. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I would not know how to use the ellipses because I do not know what order the above quotes are in at the source. I don't know if Jeremy listed them sequentially, randomly or in order of importance above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I tried to fix it myself. I quoted one whole phrase from the article, and trimmed some of what you had before (which was nonessential, IMO). Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I added another part of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
                • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• while Time refers to it as an artful arrangement resulting from a creative ensemble. This is also very close to the source. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • See above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Looking at this again, I don't think the text in question adds much to the article anyway. I'd just drop it. Time is already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • With your impetus, I attempted to add what I thought was relevant for the reader to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• In 2006, Timothy J. Gilfoyle's Millennium Park: Creating a Chicago Landmark was an editor's choice of the New York Times Book Review,[259] and the San Francisco Chronicle. I think this is beyond the scope of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zag, where does this nom stand with you now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Um, neutral, I suppose. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting without reading through the article at least a few more times. (I've only actually read the whole thing once.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it the serial commas? I really don't look forward to doing that, if that is what it is going to take. Otherwise, would you mind taking another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The serial commas aren't a major issue, although it would be nice if that was straightened out. Whatever. I'll just support. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - strong summary article overall, but many minor issues:

• In the lead: "The completed park has received praise many critics." From many critics?
  • I fixed this one. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support All issues resolved now. Well done. * ... the Chicago Tribune dubbed Gehry "the hottest architect in the universe" cite the quote?

• • There is a citation at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to cite directly after the quotation, yes?

Not sure, but I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* ...Pritzker enticed Gehry in head-on confrontations. Enticed and confrontations don't quite match. Face-to-face discussions?

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The choice of Gehry was a key component in having modern themes in the park." This is not clear. The choice of Gehry led to more modern themes in the park?

• • Added some context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The park was officially announced in March, 1998" The park did not exist. Do you mean the project was announced?

• • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "...its broad variety of amenities placed it under the jurisdiction of the city's Public Buildings Commission." Why? What to the amenities have to do with it?

• • Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* The "centerpiece" of Millennium Park is the Jay Pritzker Pavilion... Why quote centerpiece? It is a common usage.

• • undone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress." What is a headdress? What is signature Gehry about it?

• • Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better. But still: what's a headdress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now linked as a bit of a misnomer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The pavilion and Millennium Park have received recognition by critics, particularly for their accessibility..." There are all kinds of recognition, good and bad. Don't you mean it has been especially recognized for its accessibility?

• • I am not exactly sure I understand your point, but I have tweaked the wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that "received recognition" does not say anything. I think it's better now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It was named after Ann Lurie." Who is Anne Lurie?

• • Is philanthropist Ann Lurie better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A little. But what does she have to do with this park and why did they name something after her? Did she donate lots of money? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Amount added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The rink is operated by the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs rather than the Chicago Park District." Why? Why is this important?

• • I don't know why but it is relevant as stated in the rest of the sentence "which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)\

It just seems like kind of bureaucratic trivia as it stands. I mean, does it really matter?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is quite relevant in the article about the rink. I could take it out here, but am not sure that I should. Will do so upon your request or you may just yank it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The bridge's design enables it to bear a heavy load." What about it? Why is it important?

• • Explained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Highway standards doesn't really explain it, though. Why on earth would a pedestrian bridge be built to highway standards? And what would that actually entail? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not an engineer and don't understand why the fact that it is built to highway standards does not explain why it can bear heavy loads. What exactly are you questioning and why do you want more detail in an overview article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the point is worth making, isn't it worth explaining? If there is something important about the load bearing design, what is it? If not, why mention it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I made it relevant now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture." Cite the quote.

• • The citation is at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See above. Don't you have to cite the quote directly? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected as above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses." You mean Energy star rated?

• • I do not really understand this lingo, but have tried to tweak it. Feel free to make changes or respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It also serves as a venue for event planning on a rental basis." This does not make sense. You mean people rent it for private events?

• • Tweaked. Hope you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* There is a lot of overlinking: loading dock, work of art, bean, mercury, themes, slope, sheet metal, flower boxes, pedestal, Metra (multiple times), pedestrian bridge (more than once), hill, lots, photographer, grant. There are others.

• • Personally, I think most of these help the reader, but I have made the following change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope most English speakers know what a loading dock, theme, sheet metal, flower box, and pedestal (among others) are. Why link them?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Many of the captions are sparse and uninformative. Some have periods when they should not.

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. The captions are still not very compelling. For example: "Crown Fountain attracts youthful attendees" does not add much and is not really supported by the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any others that you have concerns with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wrigley square serves as a place of relaxation." "Boeing Galleries serve and an open-air gallery." Surely there is something more interesting to say about these interesting places? Also, as mentioned before, many of the captions that are not sentences have terminal periods when they should not. I deleted a couple. The rest should also be fixed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tired to make the captions more interesting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Why is Zagats survey redlinked in the references? Zagat survey exists.

• • Zagats-->Zagat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* Is it really necessary to list four or five citations for the same claim throughout? I realize this is a matter of taste, but it is very distracting in an FA.

• • I see four places with more than three citations and they are all related to critical reception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But still. Why do you need all of that? Isn't there one really good reference that makes the point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of these items of critical reception is to show that they are the consensus of beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule of course, so I'll strike the quibble. I just wonder, for example, if the fact that Cloud Gate is popular is really so controversial that the consensus of opinion would ever be in doubt.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll support when the overlinking is fixed: why is "Illinois" linked just after "Chicago". Who wants to go to the article on the state when reading about a park in this well-known city? Why is "cost overrun" linked? Is this an obscure term? Why is "pedestrian bridge" linked? "Flower boxes"? "Sound system"? "Headdress"? ("Headgear, headwear or headdress is the name given to any element of clothing which is worn on one's head." ... Is that article remotely useful to the readers?). "Naming right"? "Christmas caroling"? "granite"? "reflecting pool"? Themes? Dualism? "Universal design" is unclear, and the readers shouldn't have to hit a link to find out the definition of a term. "Perennials", "bulbs"? WP is not a dictionary. Needs to be fixed throughout.
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Acres should not be converted to metres squared. Otherwise, why not feet squared first? Either ha or km².
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
3. "The area had previously been occupied by"—"was previously occupied by".
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4. MoS breach in "March, 1998" (no comma).
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
5. "Chief executive officer (CEO)"—small c. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Per TonyTheTiger's request, I removed all instances of voerlinking that were specifically mentioned here. I also removed the links to the features in captions and duplicate links to periodical like the Tribune, Sun-Times, Time, Financial Times, and USA Today in the refs. diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work all round. Any chance of starting a stub on "Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs" to avoid the prominent red link? Tony (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how that go linked. We can't have articles for every department in every mayor's office. I just delinked it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth Comments. I had not read this article before today. It's quite an impressive piece of work, and I'm leaning toward support. I made a fair number of proofing changes as I went, but I still have a short list of quibbles.

Grant Park Music Festival

"The festival began when the music shell was located in its original location and moved when it was relocated." - This is ambiguous because it might mean that the shell was moved. It's also redundant, since we already know when and where the festival began and when and where it moved. I think you could delete the sentence to solve the problem.

removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"and it has consistently enjoyed the efforts of many of the world's leading classical musicians" - Since the festival can't "enjoy", maybe "and many of the world's leading classical musicians have performed there"?

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 Burnham Pavilions

"They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan, and were meant to symbolize the city's continued pursuit of the plan's architectural vision with contemporary architecture and planning." - To avoid repeating "plan" three times in this sentence, could the last part of the sentence simply be deleted? Suggestion: "They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan."

I cut out the last five words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Height restrictions

"The height of the Crown Fountain, which is also exempted as a work of art, has been described as stemming from a "pissing contest" with other park feature artists." - If the joke is intentional, OK, but if "fountain" and "pissing" have been juxtaposed accidentally, maybe another word or phrase would be better. Or you could just delete the sentence if it adds nothing important.

Pissing contest is an American English idiom and a quote from the source as depicted by the quotation marks. Wiktionary sort of describes the idiomatic use, but not exactly. I don't understand what correction is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I leave this one for you to decide. I know what a pissing contest is and that the original meaning refers to a contest to see who can literally piss furthest. The writer you quote was probably making a joke about the similarity between a piss fountain and a water fountain, but I can't be sure because I don't have the source document. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that some readers will think "piss fountain" when they read the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Use restrictions

"As a sponsor, Toyota's name was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage." - Since the name wasn't the sponsor, could this be recast? Suggestion: "The name of Toyota, one of the sponsors, was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage."

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Financial issues

The caption, "A corporate underwriter's stone marker (SBC Plaza is now AT&T Plaza)" is a bit mysterious. What does SBC stand for, and what is its relationship to AT&T?

I have linked the appropriate terms.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Citations 195, 196, 197, 198, and 201 have non-conforming date formatting.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The link checker spots three new dead urls in the citations.

Swapped in archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Three images in the article displace subheads or edit buttons on my computer screen. The Millennium Monument image does not fit inside the Wrigley Square subsection. The Boeing Galleries image displaces the Chase Promenade subhead. The Chase Promenade image does not fit inside the Chase Promenade subsection. The images could be shrunk or removed or moved to a new location within the article. I understand the desire to illustrate everything and to put the illustrations next to the texts they relate to, but a cluttered layout is off-putting. You might be able to stack three images in the Budget section or combine short subsections to make larger subsections with room for illustrations.

It is pretty difficult to optimize appearance for all screen resolutions. I am pretty satisfied having the images adjacent to the text with mild issues it causes. This is an acceptable tradeoff, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Might be a special case. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Switching to support. An impressive article, as I said above. I enjoyed reading it, and I would like to visit the park. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The Boys from Baghdad High

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

After working on this for a couple of years, I think it's finally ready. The Boys from Baghdad High is a British-Iraqi documentary television film, depicting four boys in their final year of an Iraqi high school. The boys were given video cameras and were told to record their lives over the course of a year. When I originally watched the film I found it to be extremely powerful and eye-opening. I hope I've done the subject justice. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment No dabs or dead externals, and dates are Day Month Year throughout after a small edit—good. Looks well organized from a glance. --an odd name 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, dates and language should all be British English, although it's possible a couple of Americanised spellings may have slipped in by accident. If anyone spots any, just let me know. The longer I'm here, the harder it is for me to continue writing the British way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: not yet rechecked. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the article hasn't changed and Ucucha confirmed below that all the ELs still work. That isn't to say you shouldn't recheck (I don't want anyone to say later that it wasn't) but that there shouldn't be a rush if you have other things to do first. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Now rechecked, all OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—still no dab links or dead external links. If the above timestamps look confusing: the nomination was reopened after a few weeks, and the nominator re-signed his statement. Ucucha 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I probably should have said something about that. Thank you for rechecking the ELs and DABs :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—a very nicely done article, and an interesting read. There are a few issues with the article, which I have listed below, but I am very happy to support this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure that you use a single tense throughout the synopsis section. For example: "In discussing the state of Iraq, Hyder's mother stated that many people were hopeful about the arrival of American forces, and that it is wrong to blame America for all of the problems in Iraq when the bloodshed has yet to stop as the Sunni continues to kill Shiite, and vice versa. As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends meet." and "Anmar passes the retakes and hopes to study English literature in college ... Mohammed failed four subjects and must repeat his senior year to graduate." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Before working on the film, O'Mahoney had been a United Nations peacekeeper in Bosnia and an attorney in the Netherlands, and had worked on the documentary How to Plan a Revolution." Since the documentary does not have an article, perhaps provide a brief summary of the film, or replace the "the" with another word, since it seems to imply that the reader should automatically know about the documentary. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them. This is why they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." This sounds like one point in two sentences. Consider changing it to "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them, and so they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Footage that was nearly edited out included the scene where Anwar had to siphon petrol out of the family car for the house's generator". Consider changing "the scene" to "a scene", since many readers will not have seen the film. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I carried out the suggestions you had. Thank you for supporting! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm making copy-edits as I go, here are things I encounter:

• In the lead: "The documentary also received the Radio Times Readers Award, and nominations from Amnesty International." Nominations for what?

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "Ali Shadman, a Kurd, gives a report one night of neighborhood news, but finds there is nothing to speak of by explosions, violence, and death." "by" doesn't sound right.

• Not sure here. I'll look back through the page history and try to figure out what it originally said. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Still not resolved, but I trust you can take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Ali wonders why he has to do the task over studying" Not sure what you mean by "over studying". Does it mean he prioritizes fixing the generator when he should be studying?

• done, changed to "Ali wonders why he should prioritise it over studying" although I think the spelling might be messed up. Is it still ize in British English? Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• I think -ise is correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• "As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends" Any elaboration on the loss of income (lost job, savings dried up, etc.)?

• I'll have to rewatch it, but from memory I think it's from someone (Dad?) losing their job. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Yup, it was. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They chose Tariq bin Ziad High School for Boys to source the students from." This sentence is not particularly well-written. "to source the students from"???

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In your sources, did you find out why the four boys dropped out?

• No, no reason was ever given. Matthewedwards :  Chat