Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2012

Iraq War in Anbar Province

Nominator(s): Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been working on this article on and off for the past 2.5 years. It has been Peer Reviewed, achieved GA Status, and just passed an A-Class Review. I pulled its previous previous FAC nomination over sourcing concerns, so that's probably where you should dig for issues. My ultimate goal is to have this ready for Main Page status for the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War next spring, so no rush. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Caption for first body map needs editing for grammar, as does the MRAP image

• Fixed? Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Map is fine; MRAP mine weight should be an adjective. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, should be good now. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods

• Fixed? (If not, please let me know which images you are referring to) Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• One of the files appears to be a redlink?

• Removed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Does Iraq allow freedom of panorama? If not, images that include buildings in Iraq should reflect that

• I'm not sure. Which images were you referring to? Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ramadi aerial, Guard_Tower_at_Abu_Ghraib_Prison.jpg, Fallujah_2004.JPG, possibly 2nd_Battalion_1st_Marines_Firefight_in_Fallujah_2004.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Does not, so I've removed all listed images. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:115th_Military_Police_Company_in_Fallujah.jpg should use Army tag rather than general Government one; same with File:115th_MP_Company_doing_a_vehicle_search_in_Fallujah.jpg

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:BrooklynBridgeFallujah.JPG: author and licensing info don't seem to correspond

• Removed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you using the Marine Corps tag for images where author is listed as "US Army"?

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• "not interfere in social issues": This quote appears twice.

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "allegedly crucified": This is not the kind of thing you want to allege without giving some explanation in the text of how believable it is, where the information comes from.

• It's legit, US military via an ACLU FOIA request, but the link has been pulled so I just removed the whole bit. Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. To be clear, I wasn't saying it wasn't legit. We've had some very tough judgment calls over the years with how much specific advice to put in WP:WTW, specifically the WP:ALLEGED section. There's not a lot there now; I'd prefer that we add something like: "If you're alleging wrongdoing, put something in the text that gives the readers a clue what kind of weight they should assign to the allegation, and the more heinous the allegation, the more in-text justification it needs. If the necessary justification feels like too much of a distraction from the main points of the narrative, consider removing the allegation just as a matter of promoting tight and focused writing, even when our WP:Biographies of living persons policy and other policies would allow it." - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Images all are PD-USGOV, mostly army or marines

• All insurgent media is fair-use, not PD. Every one I've added (File:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG, Americans Killed in Ramadi June 2004.jpg, CH-46E Helicopter Shot Down in Iraq, 2007.ogv) has been removed, so I don't know what to tell you on that. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• • PDFs--some have the |format=PDF parameter, some don't, Pls make them consistent.

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, nope on the PDFs, you missed three in the book section. The insurgent photos aren't there now so that's a non issue. Fix the PDFs and I'll support.PumpkinSky talk

I must be blind, but I can't see them. Which ones? Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support OK now. PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this during the Milhist A-class review. There have been a few changes since then. I have reviewed these changes and I am happy that the article meets the Featured Article criteria. I have the following minor observations:
  • whitespace/table of contents: you might consider reducing the whitespace between the lead and the body of the article by employing {{TOC limit}} which can be set at different levels depending upon your preference. This is not mandatory, though;
  • endashes: "At the end of the invasion, the pro-Saddam forces in Anbar–the Ba'ath Party, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service–remained intact". I think these endashes should be spaced or they should be unspaced emdashes (you seem to later use spaced endashes in the Withdrawal section, so it would probably be best to be consistent);
  • slight repetition: " Four Rangers were awarded the Silver Star for the action.[19][20] Four Rangers were killed when their checkpoint..." (both sentences start the same way. Can this be reworded slightly?)
    • Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "American media compared the attack on the mercenaries to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu..." Should this be "The American media compared the attack on the mercenaries to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu..."?
    • Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Human rights abuses section, this seems a little unclear: " During their yearlong stay in Hīt, they watched AQI fighters kidnap a man for talking back to them; they later dumped the man's body on his doorstep." (The second "they" is the issue. First you have used "they" to apply to the family, then you have used "they" to apply to the AQI);
    • Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • contractions: in a couple of places contractions are used in the prose. In the quotes they are fine, but I think where they are not in quotes, it is probably best to avoid them (for instance in the Insurgent abuses and Reactions sections). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • additional (sorry I missed this before): the duplicate link checker reports a number of examples of potential overlink. Some of them may be okay, but others should probably be delinked. Some examples include: Shia Islam, Haditha Dam, Coalition Provisional Authority, Euphrates, Donald Rumsfeld, James T. Conway, James Mattis, United States Central Command, John Abizaid, Vietnam War, 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines, Iraqi Interim Government, Rocket-propelled grenade, Navy Cross, Medal of Honor, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks: The spotcheck the first go-round turned up some problems. I've asked for a spotcheck at WT:MIL#FAC update. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: Within several months of the invasion the province had become a sanctuary for anti-occupation fighters.[13]
• Source: Server timeout
• Article: By October, insurgent attacks had dropped to almost zero.[299]
• Source: The Iraqis and Marines repulsed a 20-minute attack on the post in October but that's largely been it.
• Article: On 5 November, the 2nd Marine Regiment launched Operation Steel Curtain against the border town of Husaybah.[196]
• Source: The fighting opened a new phase in Operation Steel Curtain, an offensive that began Nov. 5 in the border town of Husaybah, about 200 miles west of Baghdad.
• Article: The Marines claimed that the houses had been "declared hostile" and that training dictated "that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot."[212]
• Source: "I fired because I had been told the house was hostile and I was following my training that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot," Mendoza told investigators.
• Article: In addition to the five Iraqi men killed by the sedan, nineteen other men, women, and children were killed by Wutterich's squad as they cleared the houses.[213]
• Source: In search of the bombers, Marines killed five young men yanked from a car near the explosion and then killed 19 family members in three nearby houses...Among the 19 killed in the houses were three women, seven children and a 76-year-old man confined to a wheelchair.
• Article: MEF then began a series of operations in July, under the aegis of Operation Sayeed; in addition to clearing AQI from the western Euphrates, Sayeed was also an attempt to set the conditions for the Anbaris to participate in the December constitutional referendum, as well as regain control of the Iraqi borders.[199]
• Source: In this interview, he discusses rebuilding the Iraqi security forces in al-Anbar Province and 11 named operationsconducted under the umbrella of Operation Sayeed. [ese operations were aimed at driving al-Qaeda from the western Euphrates River Valley, ensuring that people were allowed to vote in the October 2005 referendum elections, and restoring the control of the border to the Iraqi government...There were 11 named operations under the Sayeed umbrella.Those operations stretched from July of 2005 until just after the December ’05 elections.The purpose of those operations was to drive al-Qaeda from the western Euphrates River Valley and to eliminate that as a place where they could operate freely
• Article: Shortly before the Marine offensive began, Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars, said that "the Iraqi people view Fallujah as the symbol of their steadfastness, resistance and pride."[84]
• Source: The leader of Iraq's hard-line Sunni clergy, Sheik Harith Dhari, retorted that an attack would prompt a Sunni boycott of elections scheduled for January... "The Iraqi people view Fallouja as the symbol of their steadfastness, resistance and pride," Dhari said.

I can't see where it says that he was the chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars.

Otherwise, no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, so the last bit about Dhari is your only issue, or all the ones listed above? Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think I can speak for Graham and confirm, yes, just the last point is at issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry about my minimalism – just the last point needs to addressed please. Graham Colm (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• This bbc article has him as the leader of the association - if that helps...Fayedizard (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• You could add this as a source after "chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars" and perhaps change "chairman" to "leader". Graham Colm (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think we're still waiting on this last point to be actioned. Also it's generally preferred to have citation numbers in ascending order, i.e. 84 before 132. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Only if there's no reason to order them otherwise (major vs minor source, sources supporting different parts of a sentence, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure I follow on "supporting different parts" ... so, if the refs are [5][1], that might mean that 5 supports the first part of the sentence and 1 supports the second part? - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. (You could use a mid-sentence ref instead, but some prefer not to do that). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK, this last point has hopefully been addressed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - The one issue following the spotchecking still needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinging. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Should be fixed now. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - As was pointed out above by Rupert 20 days ago, there are numerous duplicated links. Most terms should only be linked once (excluding the Lead). Please check for these, they include: Shia, Haditha Dam, CPA, Euphrates, Donald Rumsfeld, General James T. Conway, Operation Vigilant Resolve, James Mattis, CENTCOM , John Abizaid, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines, Vietnam War, 2nd Battalion 4th Marines , Iraqi Interim Government, Muqtada al-Sadr, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, RPGs, Navy Cross, Medal of Honor, United States Naval Institute's, Proceedings, 1st Battalion 3rd Marines, 2nd Marine Regiment, Central Command , Rawah, cordon and search, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, 2nd Battalion 7th Marines , 3rd Battalion 1st Marines, Multi-National Force – Iraq, Multi-National Force – Iraq, sheikh, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Battalion 4th Marines, 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit , Karmah, Habbaniyah, Fasal al Gaood, Humvees, Secretary of Defense , Department of Defense, Al Asad Airbase, David Petraeus, Multi-National Force – Iraq, Sheikh Sattar, George W. Bush, Ayyub al-Masri , Rawa, Karbala Governorate, Multi-National Forces West, 1st Armored Division, Operation Steel Curtain, disproportionate use of firepower, Al Qaim, Thar Thar , Human Rights Watch, Kim Sun-il, Lake Tharthar, Ahmed Abu Risha, Haditha killings Graham Colm (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Done? Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I think. Only one left according to the tool "Lake Tharthar" and that is probably fine given that it is a piped link earlier. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Query that may have been addressed previously: in the info box, the list of "belligerents" shows a US flag, above the "Multinational Forces West". The list for "strength" shows not a US flag but the MNFW logo. Then under "casualties and losses" we have the US, Republic of Iraq and, for the first time, the United Kingdom. If the multinational forces west is truly multinational, why is it listed under the US flag; whatever the flag is, why is it not consistent between categories? The MNF appears a curious beast, so I can understand the confusion; I'm just not entirely happy with the current solution. Our WP article on the MNF-Iraq describes it as being led by "the United States of America and its allies". The WP article on MNF-West at one point refers to it as a US unit. I realise we can't sort all those issues out under the guise of this FAC, but it would be good if the infobox was somehow more consistent. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Long story short, in Anbar Province the "Multinational" consisted of a unit of Azerbaijanis who pulled security at Haditha Dam. Those three UK soldiers were part of a unit brought in during the Second Battle of Fallujah, officially to secure part of the highway outside the city, but in reality to prevent Britain from criticizing the operation. This was a one-time deal, and every search I've conducted has shown that the MNF in Anbar was overwhelmingly American. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- A few more style/formatting points:

• In the Film/Television ref subheader, "Television" shouldn't be capitalised.
• When using the cite video template, don't include the url parameter if you're linking the title.
• Also in cite video, I believe you use "Motion picture" as a type, not "Cinema". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done? Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, just tweaked the title. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Learie Constantine

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) and Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Learie Constantine was a Trinidadian cricketer, barrister, politician and a life-long opponent of racial discrimination. He began life as a cricketer, seeing the sport as a way of escaping his poor quality of life in Trinidad, where his colour meant he could not advance himself. He used his sporting career as a launching pad. He moved to England, becoming the highest paid sportsman in the country, and settled there. Following the war, he studied law, qualified as a barrister and moved back to Trinidad where he became a politician around the time of the island's independence. He spent his final years living back in England, where he remained very popular. Not your usual cricketer or sportsman, Constantine fitted more than most into his life. I've been working on this for a while, and it is currently a GA. Following the PR, Brianboulton kindly tidied my prose and removed much of the padding, and his help has been invaluable, as always. Although he is a co-nom, any errors are mine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good; only had time to read some of it but it read well (and interesting). Two things though; I don't feel "Also in 1950, he became involved ... Liberal parliamentary candidate." leaves the reader with a good idea of what happened and what the consequences where for Constantine. Also "five guineas (just over £5)": five guineas is of course £5 5s. The "just over" part, while correct, feels like we're giving a modern equivalent, but we aren't because the figure isn't adjusted for inflation or anything; it's a bit confusing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • On the first point, there was a little more previously, but I don't think that this incident has enough importance for Constantine to warrant giving too much detail beyond what is already here. And the part on Attlee and the Liberal candidate are really nothing more than a reflection on Constantine's disenchantment with the Labour government. If others think that this is too brief, I can add a little more. The second point is a little trickier as I really don't like using inflation figures as they cause no end of trouble! I think the simplest way may be to remove "just over £5" for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Alright, I'm reading through the article, about 3/5 of the way done now. It seems to be in great shape, even as someone with only a basic understanding of Cricket I've found it accessible. Definitely well written, a few small comments though, mostly comma-related:
• "He displayed little enthusiasm for learning and never reached a high academic standard,[11] but showed prowess at several sports, and was respected for his cricketing lineage." Do we need the second comma here?
• "His father prohibited him from playing competitive club cricket until 1920, for fear of premature exposure to top-class opposition while too young" I'm also not sure about the comma here.
• "Few black Trinidadians at this time became solicitors and he faced many social restrictions owing to his colour." I think there should be a comma after "solicitors", right?
• "C. L. R. James believed that Constantine batting reached its peak once" Should be "Constantine's batting" I believe.
• In the heading "Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–5" I think the MOS calls for "1934–35", not 100% sure though.
• "the England captain Douglas Jardine, who had implemented the Bodyline tactics in Australia" This may be an issue of US vs. UK English, but "the England captain" sounds odd to me, is this ok?
  • It sounds OK to me, but it may be cricket-speak, so I've re-worded it. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Although he produced better figures in subsequent seasons he considered his first season at Nelson the most enjoyable of his life" I'd suggest a comma after "seasons", also, is there a good way round the "seasons... season" here?
• "Constantine scored a century in 52 minutes against Tasmania, played five other innings over fifty, and took three five-wicket returns." Is the use of the serial comma intentional here? I also noticed it later "Nelson never finished lower than second, won the league competition seven times, and the knockout cup twice."
• "Consequently, he and his family enjoyed a good standard of living for the first time in their lives." Can we remove "in their lives" here?
  • I actually think it may be necessary to emphasise that it was not just for the first time in England/Nelson/elsewhere but was the first time they were in a good financial situation. However, it is mainly a style choice and I can remove it if it is a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I saw the date comma in a couple places: "In 1933, he took 96 wickets" & " In 1934, Neville Cardus described Constantine as a "genius"" I think that's usually avoided in British English.
• Ok, that's all for now, will try to post more later. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far. All comments addressed unless answered above. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fixes and explanations look good, I made a few minor tweaks. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Several sentences in the second paragraph of "Final years" start with "In [year]", might want to rephrase one or two.
  • Ouch! I think I got these. Any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "only one speech in his time in the Lords." Just checking, but is "in the Lords" a common phrase? (It sounds odd to me, but I presume it's a US vs UK thing). Mark Arsten (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's short-hand for "in the House of Lords", and is fairly common. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting, good to know. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • But, bearing in mind that "Lord's" is England's main cricket ground, I think there is a real possibility of confusion for the unaware reader. So I've tweaked it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "at Trinity College, Dublin in 1946" Should there be a comma after Dublin here?
  • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• One last US vs UK question: "He used his influence with the Ministry of Labour to pressurise companies who refused to employ West Indians" Is pressurise (vs pressure) correct here?
  • Yes; pressure would work as well, but I believe pressurise is more correct over here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Great work guys. As I said above, this is a very well written, accessible article. Sorry it took me so long to do the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, your comments are always extremely valuable. Thanks for the review and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Image check. All images appear to be appropriately licensed (mainly they are out-of-copyright images under Aust. Law), and have alt text. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thank you to Brianb for addressing my initial queries. I have two other quibbles about consistency of terms below, but nothing of consequence. I enjoyed reading this; to my shame I had never heard of Constantine (though my cricket afficianado brother-in-law has set me straight), and am the richer for having learned about him. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "toured England with the West Indies teams in their 1923 and 1928 tours of England." Clumsy wording with toured/tours and England twice in one phrase. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Constantine played cricket for Shannon Cricket Club, first in 1916 before his father ended his competitive cricket," the sentence seems clumsy, in part because of the use of "his" twice in one phrase (reads as though the father ended the son's career), but also seems to imply, without being clear, that the father played at Shannon. If so, be explicit; if not, then why run these two facts together (the club where he started play; the timing of father's career)? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Rephrased for clarity in both instances. Brianboulton (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• About half the time, there are references in text to C.L.R. James; about the other half it is just "James". Unless more than one james is referred to in the article, I would only use those initials in the first, wikilinked, instance and drop them thereafter. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the repeated James initials, except in the "Nelson" section where the name appears after a lengthy gap, and the prompt via the initials may be useful to readers. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can an editor take a careful look at the way in which the West Indies team name is expressed and punctuated. I was about to make some fixes, but have decided to leave it to the article's main editors. I am used to the team being referred to as "the West Indies" rather than "West Indies". In one section there is also this: "In West Indies second innings", and I wonder whether there should be a possessive apostrophe there (cf. "In Australia's second innings"). hamiltonstone (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think you are right, that "the West Indies" is formally preferable to just "West Indies", and have made the necessary adjustments to the text. I also adjusted the possessive apostrophe that you suggested. I am only the junior editor here, but thank you for your comments and support for which I am sure the main man will be duly grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• As Brian said, much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• All-rounder should be hyphenated in the infobox
• Ref 86 is pp.
• Ref 171's date is not stated. I'm guessing because the website has had a revamp since it was cited. Perhaps use the date in the article, like you did with Ref 108. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • First two done. The last one is a little strange; as you say, the date is not given in the article, but this page gives the date stated in the ref. I think it's better to keep it as it is, based on that, but I can change it if there is a big problem; however, I think you are suggesting that the date 1943 be used, as in the other ref, but this was certainly not the date the article was written. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Ref 171 uses 1943 as the date I think, but no need to change if you don't feel like doing so – it doesn't really affect my decision to support a generally enjoyable read. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I've read through Series against England and Australia, and will go further if time permits. Most of what I saw looked solid, as usual.

• A link to Nelson Cricket Club would be helpful for the lead.
• Early life: "he also wanted his son first to establish a professional career." Shouldn't "first" be moved to later in the sentence? It might fit best at the end.
• Cricket in Trinidad: "he returned to club in 1920." "the" might be helpful in this, after "to". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC
• Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–35: "was instrumental in turning English attitudes against Bodyline, an attitude Constantine considered hypocritical." Maybe it's just me, but I think having "attitudes" and "attitude" together like this makes the sentence awkward.
• No need to capitalize the second word of "In The West Indies' second innings...".
• Typo in "Most critics believed the West Indes underachieved in the Test series".
• Tour of England in 1939: Period needed after Wisden's Cricketers of the Year.
• Style and technique: "believed that Constantine's batting reached its peak...". Missing a word at the start.
• Constantine v Imperial London Hotels: This may be a stupid question, but is "manageress" a word? I haven't heard of such a word here in the U.S., though I have a feeling it may be a British English word for a female manager. We just call them managers here.
• Return to Trinidad: Hyphen shouldn't be in "newly-founded".
• Is a word missing at the end of "was party chairman and a member of its executive."?
• High Commissioner: "Howat observes that the evidence that he was a successful in the post...". "successful" → "success". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• All the above fixes made. I can assure you that in the UK "manageress" is an acceptable term for female managers, used particularly in relation to shops, hotels etc. Thanks for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Note: I think an edit conflict with conom may have affected some of my changes, but I'll let him have the final say. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• We seem to have clashed here! I think I got all of these, apart from manageress, as Brian says above, and I'm not too sure about the "newly-founded". I'll check with Brian on that one, but all others done. Thanks again. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Just a minor wonder, we say he was knighted but there is no mention of what rank he was in either the lede, infobox, or later section. This is a very interesting article. Congrats! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a short disquisition on British knighthoods, on the article's talkpage. Basically, the knighthood is the rank, and it is not usually necessary to go beyond saying that a person was knighted. Thank you for your comment and support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- minor point re. Sources, I'd have thought for consistency that the full title of Frith should be in title case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The title of the Frith book is presented in the Sources list as it is on the book itself. It is arguable whether the long subtitle should really be considered as part of the title, but I see no harm, and it does give a useful indication of what the book is about. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Granted, and I agree subtitles are often useful, I just happen to think title case for every title looks better -- however rechecking MOS I see that it's fairly open-ended, only requiring that one override the style of a title if it appears in all caps, rather than specifically requiring a change to title case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Source review Looks like all high-quality sources. Not being terribly acquainted with the subject matter, I did look closely at CricketArchive, especially since it would not load (perhaps it is down). However, I see it is relied on in YellowMonkey's lengthy set of articles. I will assume the problem loading to be a momentary glitch. No other concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Metropolitan Railway

Nominator(s): Edgepedia (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after listing as a Good Article, a Peer Review followed by an expansion after I bought a new source. I believe we now have an article that is comprehensive enough for featured article status. This is my first FAC, but I need to thank User:DavidCane for the expansion at the beginning of the article. Edgepedia (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment—the population figures (currently footnote 1) are ridiculously overprecise - the site from which you've taken them has an explanatory footnote explaining why the methodology is unavoidably flawed. ("Greater London" is based on boundaries drawn up in the 1960s, so the figures that site generates are based on the populations of those counties from which GL was carved, and rough estimates of how those populations were distributed across the post-1965 boundaries. "Between 1801 and 1851 the population of what is now Greater London roughly doubled from around 1 million to around 2 million" is about as accurate as you can realistically go. Bear in mind that even if you did have an accurate figure it would be virtually meaningless, since even today Greater London is an arbitrary boundary which includes towns and villages that would never consider themselves part of London, while excluding significant parts of the conurbation such as Cheshunt. – iridescent 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made an amendment along the lines you suggested. Edgepedia (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Images

• Captions ending with incomplete sentences should not end with full stops. Correct complete sentences have to. (MOS:Image)
• Generally the images look good and pretty informative, well picked.
• Some of the maps use rather weak color contrasts (especially the joint line with 5 different types of lines). Could the contrast and/or brightness be increased a bit (more like the Great Central Railway)? Or maybe i just need a new pair of glasses.
• Some of the images, especially some maps use rather vague "author" descriptions like "Wikimedia editors" or "see edit log". I am no image guru, but when the original author(s) is known, they should be specifically named in my opinion.
• A matter of taste and linking style, but important terms in captions could be linked aswell - optional. GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I will work through the images. Regarding the "author" field, I would upload an image and this would be edited by other people (I think all of the maps have been), but the author field would not be updated. However, I will update the documentation as I work through them. Edgepedia (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been through and changed the map line colours to contrasting ones; I've documented the author field on these drawings as well. Thanks for fixing the caption issue when I was being dense last night. I'm not see any additional linking I can do in the captions - I believe this could be overlinking? I know that items are linked in infoboxes and text, but not sure about captions and text. Edgepedia (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area, so i think, either way is ok. GermanJoe (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether explanatory notes are cited using footnotes or inline

You mean Ref 173 where I think I'm referring to a primary source. Or can you give an example?

• FN32: page(s)?

This is a folded map; there are no pages

• Don't italicize publishers

I'm now using consistantly

{{cite web|work = website

{{cite news|newspaper = newspaper

{{cite press release|publisher = publisher

(or did you mean a book?)

• "Vintage Carriages Trust" or "Vintage Carriage Trust"? Is this a publisher or a work? Be consistent in whether it's italicized or not

Vintage Carriages Trust, see above for use of cite templates

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher location for books

  Done.

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

  Done. Found one

• Publisher for Walford?

  Done. On-line publisher

• Further reading should be separate section not subsection.

I've removed it. The best book in my opinion is Jackson, unless you wish for more information on rolling stock, in which case one of the rolling stock books (eg Benest) will have more detail. However these are mentioned.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments I have to confess that I haven't read all of this very large article, but on the basis of reading about half of it, it looks pretty good. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• As a general comment, if this nomination is successful that article would become the largest FA in terms of prose size, and will be about 20KB larger than the next-biggest FA! I'm responsible for developing two out of the current top-15 largest FAs, so I can't really complain about this. I'm also a bit of a London Underground-nerd, so I don't mind he detail. However, comments from editors who aren't Underground nerds on the article's length would probably be very useful, and there may be a case to be made for splitting some of the more detailed content off into sub-articles.
  • Yes it's big, but I don't think it's as big as you say. The list above currently lists Michael Jackson as the 10th biggest article. The article size (from the edit history) is 225,474 bytes, this article (currently) is 118,195. I can't get Dr pda's script to work, but selecting the prose in the article, copying and pasting without format into a word processor gives a word count of 15,166 words, 94,651 characters for Micheal Jackson from the start to Discography; this article from the start to References and Notes gives 12,748 words, 78,256 characters. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK; using the 'page size' tool, this article weighs in at 70Kb of readable prose while the Michael Jackson article is 85Kb (and my whopper, Air raids on Japan, is larger still at 89kb). Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• The article's first sentence should cover the entire scope of the article and the first paragraph should summarize the entire content of the article - please see WP:MOSBEGIN. Given the length of the article, I'd suggest adding an entirely new introductory para.
  • ... working on this Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • New first para Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest fleshing the first para out a bit more so it's a summary of the entire article, but that does the job. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• The last sentence in the 'Establishment' section needs a reference
  • Just above Construction I'm seeing ...and construction could begin.^[17] Do you mean somewhere else? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The sentence which starts with "By 1850 there were seven railway termini located..." Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Now referenced. Edgepedia (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "A Bill was announced in November 1852,[9] and in January 1853 it held its first directors' meeting and appointed John Fowler as its engineer." - read literally, this means that the Bill held a directors meeting and appointed an engineer. 'Bill' doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • I've rephrased this, correcting the grammar. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• "After a successful lobbying operation, the company secured parliamentary approval under the name of the "North Metropolitan Railway" in the summer of 1853" - if a bill for the railway had been announced in January, why were they still seeking approval in the summer?
  • A bill is not approval; it is the application for approval. Once the bill has passed through both Houses and has received Royal Assent, it then becomes an Act of Parliament, and only at that point can the scheme be considered as approved. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I think that it's the 'was announced' bit which threw me. I'd suggest tweaking that wording as it's a bit unclear what this means. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "an Act" - also shouldn't be capitalised
  • Although bill shouldn't be capitalised, it's normal to capitalise Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • All now say 'bill' except when part of a name. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
      • If that's the convention in the UK, OK then. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "and fears that the tunnelling might accidentally break through into Hell" - surely WP:UNDUE either rules this loony viewpoint out, or means that the coverage should make it clear that it was considered nuts.
  • I've removed this. History is not kind to losers, I assume the quote is taken out of context. Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• What was a "traditionally excavated tunnel"?
  • Lost this and the "conventionally constructed" later. Jackson gives few details how they were dug. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• "It had stations at:" - there's no need for the stations to then be in dot points, and this isn't consistent with the rest of the article
  • done Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• The paragraph which begins with "The new tracks from King's Cross to Farringdon" is entirely unreferenced
  • Referenced Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• The last sentence in the 'Baker Street to Harrow' section needs a reference
  • I'm looking at and a school for 200 children.[98][note 24] Should I be looking somewhere else? Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Oops, I meant the last sentence of this section's first para (which begins with "There were intermediate stations at St John's Wood Road and Marlborough Road...") Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Now referenced. Edgepedia (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "A subsequent Court hearing " - no need to capitalise 'court'
  • court -> Court Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The use of steam underground led to smoke-filled stations and carriages that were unpopular with passengers" - this should probably be noted much earlier in the article
  • There is a whole chapter on this Jackson. Working on a very short summary Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it's wasn't an entire chapter, but hopefully made things clearer with this edit. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "However, the track through the tunnels from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained single track in each direction" - this reads slightly awkwardly
  • Changed to However, underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• What's a "press notice"?
  • Changed to press release. It is still used, but its not in my dictionary. Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• The article contains a bit of over-linking (for instance, City Widened Lines and World War I are linked several times)
  • Delinked these two and found some more. Is there a script to find them? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Not that I'm aware of, though my knowledge of automated tools is rather lacking. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Other important traffics" - 'traffics' is awkward. How about 'other important cargo' or similar?
  • Rephased sentence Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• More material on the Met's finances would be interesting; it seems amazing that this company was able to build a massive underground railway system across London (especially a pioneering system which involved lots of projects which didn't really work out), especially in the context of the relatively slow pace of the Underground system's expansion since World War II. If the data are available, a graph of the Met's financial performance over time would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There's more info in Jackson. I will add this last Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Expanded here Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nick-D. I believe I have attempted to admend the article or answered all your questions. Please let me know if I have misunderstood, something is not clear or you spot something else. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments have now been addressed; great work with this highly detailed article. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Editor Away Please note I will be away with no access to the internet from Saturday 11 August to Friday 17 August. Edgepedia (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking good. I will jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The following Monday, 3 July 1871, Mansion House opened and the District and began running its own trains - grammar...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• The corresponding sentence in District Railway is also under discussion, at Talk:District Railway/GA2. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the superfluous 'and' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I've also edited text near here following the discussion linked above. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Extension to a terminus at Aldgate exposed several hundred cartloads of bullock horns before the station opened on 18 November 1876, initially for a shuttle service to Bishopsgate before all Met and District trains worked through from 4 December - what, were they buried....or what?

The sentence in Jackson is A thick stratum of bullocks' horns was encountered at one point, 20ft below the surface, a ready sale being found for the several hundred cartloads removed. I'll rephrase the sentence. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentence has been rephrased . Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise looking fine from prose and comprehensiveness. a nice read Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877 and completed the Inner Circle in 1884, but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Just a trivial thing, but you might consider: "It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877, and completed the Inner Circle in 1884; but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside, where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Last comma you really need. I'd prefer "more than" to "over" in the second para.
• "the London area the Met"—Consider a comma.
• I've been won over to the serial comma by User:Noetica; but it is optional. Here, though: "Piccadilly and Jubilee lines and by Chiltern Railways", a comma after "lines" is required by logic. The serial comma would go after "Piccadilly" if you wanted to go that way consistently.
  • I've added three commas to the lead and agree that 'more than' is better than 'over' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks pretty well-written, but I've examined only the lead properly. I remember complaining about tiny text on the schematics, and the problem is still there. "1873, for example ... why can't the text be boosted by, say, 50%, and/or the image made 550px centred. "City Widened" is just too small overall. Tony (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have my default image size set to 300px; it looks like I've left the image sizes as the default thumb. I'll take a look at this. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Tony. I've been unable to locate your earlier comments but I believe a large part of the problem is the small default thumb size for images that was making the maps illegible so I've fixed these at 300px. I've enlarged the text on the 1873 map as suggested. It looks like I need to nudge a couple of labels and this should be done. (Done) Would be interested in your comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments; I've just returned and plan to have a response for you in the next couple of days. Edgepedia (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have responded to all comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Reviewers please note following a discussion at Talk:Metropolitan_Railway#Bullocks_horns_.2F_tower_of_london, the map at Completing the circle has changed slightly. Edgepedia (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comments from Johnbod Phew! Very thorough job. Comparing the sources to the bibliography/further reading in Wolmar's The Subterranean Railway the coverage seems pretty good, though stronger on the anoraks than the academics. Reads well. My only cavil is the absence of Metroland (novel) by Julian Barnes and then Metroland (1997 film) of it. The novel has evocative passages on the line that could be quoted to advantage - Betjeman too. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments Johnbod. I think I didn't include the book and film because Jackson (1986) didn't mention them and the articles on the book and film have no references. However, I now see the book won the Somerset Maugham Award in 1981. I will consider adding a sentence to the Legacy section in the next 24 hours. I see if I can find the book in the library when I visit later this week; the amazon pre-view has nothing about Metro-land we could use. Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? I'll check the library for a copy of the book later this week. Edgepedia (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Barnes's novel is set in the late 1960s, by which time the Metropolitan Railway hadn't existed for over 30 years. (The book is autobiographical, and Barnes was born 13 years after the MR was absorbed by London Transport.) It's no more appropriate in this article than a mention of Sex and the City on New Amsterdam. I'd strongly oppose any references to it; if it's included, than any other book set in Harrow, Pinner or Aylesbury that mentions the Tube has an equally legitimate reason to be included, and we're well on the way to a sprawling "in popular culture" section.

      There are issues with drawing too heavily on Betjeman. Metro-land is very much a tour-guide to the north-west London suburbs in the early 1970s with the railways as a unifying theme, rather than a documentary about railways; it doesn't discriminate between the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan Line (except regarding the Verney Junction and Brill branches, which closed post-nationalisation so can safely be assumed as referring to the MR rather than the ML), or between the competing railway networks that served the area. (Betjeman's most famous railway reference—the section from Middlesex that begins Gaily into Ruislip Gardens runs the red electric train—is actually about the Met's bitter competitor, UERL.) – iridescent 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

      • What's added is fine. I take your point about the dates etc, but a few lines on the afterlife of Metroland as a concept and reality is surely in scope? We have nothing like that down on the District Line sadly. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Any other opinion? Edgepedia (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Iridescent, I think what Johnbod is saying is that the concept of Metro-land lived on after the Metropolitan Railway had ceased to exist, and the meaning of the term may have changed. Julian Barnes' book and film has a sub-section in the Metro-land article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Only issue dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• I can't see a citation to the Stephen Halliday (2001) ref.
  • I've removed the book from the list. Edgepedia (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Edge, I think this is your first FAC? In that case we'll need a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, yes this is my first FAC. User:DavidCane (author of several FAs) expanded the first two or three sub-sections some time ago. If it's my work you wish to check please look at the article after the Paddington to the City, 1853–63 section. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the 11 refs to "Wolmar, 2004" & made a couple of changes as a result - . As our article notes: "Farringdon is a historic area of the City of London, represented today by the Wards of Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without. Farringdon is also used informally to refer to the area around Farringdon Station in the London Borough of Islington, some distance north of the historic locality" ie the Farringdon Road, where Wolmar locates the land, goes to not through Farringdon - or certainly did then. The other passage seems mainly concerned with undermining rather than vibration. At note 27 the Wolmar page cited does not give the total figure of £1.3M, but only mentions an extra £300,000. However the initial estimate of £1m - mentioned in the article earlier & cited to someone else - appears earlier in Wolmar. Some refs are combined with other works I don't have - eg Wolmar doesn't give the day (as opposed to the month) of the first VIP ride, but Jackson no doubt does. All ok I think. Myself I would have rolled some of these together and cited longer page ranges. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't have a copy of Wolmar to hand. I agree with the first change - xxx Road is the road to xxx. Jackson talks about the slums in the Fleet Valley and mentions everything except the £179,000 land purchase (although calling it favourable terms). However the date of the first VIP trip lead to some frantic page turning! Jackson and Simpson don't mention the date of the first VIP trip. I've therefore removed Simpson as a source on this line, together with the day of the trip. Sorry about that.

Johnbod, the idea of giving each sentence its own reference was to ensure things didn't get lost in copyedits and restructuring, which I think may have happened above. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The date of the VIP trip is given of page 13 of Day & Reed as 24 May 1862.--DavidCane (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we awaiting a response or action on this point? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

On whether the article says in May 1862 or on 24 May 1862 I'm neutral. On the question of a spotcheck for accuracy and paraphasing are you happy or are further checks needed? If access to sources is an issue I could email scans of a few pages of say Jackson tomorrow. (Jackson would be easier to scan than Horne as it's a hardback book.) Edgepedia (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - Are some of the book titles not complete? For example, "Steam to Silver: A History of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock" and "The Golden Years of the Metropolitan Railway and the Metro-land Dream". I noticed this when attempting additional spotchecks (which have not been possible using Google). Could the nominator fix this, and any others. Would the nominators be able to email me a scan of Jackson, Alan (1986). London's Metropolitan Railway, pp. 185–186, and Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history p. 44 to complete a few more checks? Graham Colm (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graham Colm, I've done research on the book titles. I've corrected some, however the ones you mention Steam to Silver has different titles on amazon.co.uk and goggle.com and Edwards and Pigram amazon.co.uk, google. I've used the titles on the spine; is there an official way of determining the title? Edgepedia (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

erm..not that I know of. I am happy that you have checked. I don't think this is a big deal. Graham Colm (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Strictly one should use what it says on the title page, but not using their capitalization if it's all bold, & often igoring long sub-titles, especially on old books. That & checking how big library catalogues handle it. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I have both the first edition of 1970 and the "fully revised edition" of 1983. Both merely show "Steam to Silver" on the spine, but both have a subtitle in smaller type on the front cover and the title page, and there are three versions of this:

• 1970 Front cover "An illustrated history of London Transport surface railway rolling stock"
• 1970 Title page "An illustrated history of London Transport railway surface rolling stock"
• 1983 Front cover and title page "A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock"

Personally I ignore spine titles, and if there is a discrepancy between front cover and title page (as with the 1970 edition here), I go with the title page. That yields either "Steam to Silver: An Illustrated History of London Transport Railway Surface Rolling Stock" or "Steam to Silver: A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock", depending upon edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

After checking the title pages of my editions of these two books I've updated the article to use the long form of the names. Edgepedia (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: However, the underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck.[157]
• Source: Selbie was proposing a new Metropolitan tube line to relieve the serious bottleneck caused by having only one track in each direction through the tunnel section between Baker Street and Fincheley Road, but this did not materialise in his lifetime...designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
• Article:..designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
• Source: A number of new stations were modernised, with partial or complete reconstruction of the buildings, and new stations were opened in the outer 'Metroland' area. The new structured were all designed by the Metropolitan's own architect, Charles W. Clark....
• Article: and on 5 January 1925 electric services reached Rickmansworth, allowing the locomotive change over point to be moved.[157]
• Source: A major improvement in this period was the extension of main line electrification north of Harrow to Rickmansworth on 5 January 1925.
• Article: The Hammersmith and City service stopped running to Richmond over the tracks of the L&SWR on 31 December 1906, although GWR steam motor cars ran from Ladbroke Grove to Richmond until 31 December 1910.[147]
• Source: The other service using the Hammersmith & City line...was withdrawn after traffic on 31 December 1906. In its place a GWR steam rail motor worked every half hour between Notting Hilll & Ladbrooke Grove..this too was withdrawn after close of traffic on 31 December 1910.

There are no issues. And my thanks to the nominator for their cooperation in sending me PDFs of the pages I requested for checking. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Image review All the images, most of which are PD UK (because of their age), have appropriate licences. Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tks Graham and Johnbod for spotchecks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Pavle Đurišić

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs)

We are nominating this for featured article because this article has successfully undergone GAN, MILHIST A-Class and a peer review in the last couple of months, and we believe it now meets the FA criteria. We are available to respond to and address all positive criticism and objections as required. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pavle_Durisic.jpg needs a non-Wikipedia source, and some evidence of copyright checking
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• File:Pavle_Đurišić_Iron_Cross.jpg needs a more specific source
  • Specified. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• File:Djurisic_Iron_Cross.jpg has a redlinked licensing tag
  • Removed redlink. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• File:Flag_of_the_Slovene_Home_Guard.svg: source? What's the copyright status of the emblem?
  • Here is the source for the Slovene Home Guard flag: . The Slovene Home Guard no longer exists, it dissappeared after the end of the war, I presume that as a dissolved organization with no apparent heirs that there is no copyright claims on it.--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• File:Chetniks_Flag.svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. I copied source info from .jpg file in Commons across to the vector version in Commons (Ministry of Education, Yugoslavia). Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

CommentSupport

• "Petar Radović, a judge and Chetnik of the Vuk detachment". There's something odd, and technical, about this phrase. Partly it is just a worldview issue - i have difficulty with someone being simultaneously a judge and a paramilitary soldier, without explanation. That aside, though, re "the Vuk detachment": when I clicked on Vuk I was assuming it was a place, but it turns out to be a person. Should it not be "Vuk's detachment"? And I have no idea what a "detachment" is.
• "joined the 55th class of a military academy". Unless there is some meaning to "the 55th class" that can be explained to a lay reader, i think this should just read "joined a military academy".
• Maybe nothing that went on in the Balkans made a lot of sense, but I was particularly confused by the claims that Durisic had killed "members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians" when he himself was supported by the Italians. Is there an explanation here?
• I am concerned about a possible POV issue here: "However, Đurišić was caught by Serbian quisling government authorities and handed over to the Germans". "Quisling" to me is a strongly derogatory term, and I am not clear why the government's title is nto used, or at least the slightly less loaded term "puppet government", per the lead. Even that term, though, makes me uncomfortable unless "puppet government" is the prevailing term in third party sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The Vuk edit is pretty new, I will tighten up the language.
  • I'll fix the 55th class thing, I agree.
  • You're right, nothing was (is) straightforward. The issue was not who supported them but their mutual enmity. I'll clarify.
  • The government was a puppet one, not sure how we can put that nicely, but essentially a collaborationist one. Puppet government is generally how it is described. The Government of National Salvation was what it was called. I'll address.

Thanks for your comments and interest. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • All done, let me know if you think any further tweaks are needed. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• excellent edits, thank you. Fascinating window into one of the many dark episodes of history around the second war. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments. Leaning towards supporting this one, as it's a great read and seems comprehensive and engaging. However, there are two minor quibbles: the article could do with a short description added to its persondata, just a brief sentence fragment or so; and there's one {{Clarify}} tag to be addressed which seems to have been added very recently, though it does seem like a sentence which might need another word or two as to reason, if one is known. Other than that I'd be happy to back this one. GRAPPLE X 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Cheers. Clarify tag addressed, please have a look and let me know what you think? I'll have to familiarise myself with the persondata doover. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  WP:PDT done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Suits me. Support. GRAPPLE X 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Lead: Đurišić was perhaps the finest Yugoslav Chetnik leader, and his fighting skills were respected by his allies and opponents alike. -- "finest" is a very subjective term, regardless of what the sources may indicate; this term should be replaced by something a little more quantifiable or the sentence recast as something like Đurišić was considered a highly skilful Chetnik leader, respected by his allies and opponents alike. Alternatively, if you wanted to quote the author's exact words, that might work.
• As I think it's first time to FAC for both nominators, a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing will be needed before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly first time FAC for me, not sure about PRODUCER. I have modified the wording re: 'finest' and added a further citation to the main body text regarding this observation of the man's capabilities. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian, can you confirm what the story is with url-linking in the References section per this discussion? Just want to make sure it is right. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: In early January 1943, the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims in the Bijelo Polje county in the Sandžak region of north-eastern Montenegro. On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia also supported by the Italians), and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children. Despite the fact that both Đurišić's Chetniks and the Muslim self-protection militia were supported by the Italians, these "cleansing actions" represented partial achievement by Đurišić of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to clear the Sandžak of Muslims.[31]
• Source: (from p. 259, p. 258 is not available) Although "cleansing actions" in Sandjak and southeastern Bosnia were represented by Chetnikc as countermeasures against Moslem aggressive activities, all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailovics directive of December 20, 1941 to Djurisic and Lasic about the cleansing of Sandjak of Moslem and of Bosnia of Molsem and croatian populations.

• Article. While Đurišić and the other Chetnik commanders in Montenegro nominally recognised Mihailović as their supreme commander, they rarely obeyed him.[20]
• Source: The Chetnik commanders barely accepted and rarely obeyed Mihailovic.

• Article: During their occupation of Kolašin in January and February 1942, the Partisans turned against all real and potential opponents, killing about 300 of the town's inhabitants, and throwing their mutilated bodies into a mass grave they called the "dog cemetery". Due to this and other examples of communist terror, the Montenegrin population turned against the Partisans. Subsequently, Đurišić recaptured Kolašin and held it as a Chetnik stronghold until May 1943.[18]
• Source: During their 47-day control of Kolasin in January-February 1942, the partisans killed some 300 of the town's inhabitants, throwing the mutilated bodies into mass graves which they called the "dogs' cemetery". The popular mood in Montenegro turned completely against them...Captain Djurisic's chetnicks then took back Kolasin, which would remain their stronghold until May 1943.
  • A little too close to the source.

• Article: At this time he established closer ties with Dimitrije Ljotić, whose Serbian Volunteer Corps provided him with weapons, food, typewriters, and other supplies. He also worked with Nedić, who promoted him to the rank of lieutenant colonel and appointed him assistant to the commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, Colonel Kosta Mušicki.[46]
• Source: After the capitulation of Italy in 1943, Durisic established closer ties with Dimitrije Ljotic, whose Serbian Corps provided weapons, food, typewriters and othe supplies. Nedic promoted Durisic to the rank of lietenant-colonel and appointed him assistant commander of the Serbiam Volunteer Corps..

• Article: Soon after, the German Special Envoy in Belgrade Hermann Neubacher, Milan Nedić, and the German Military Commander in south-east Europe General Hans Felber arranged for Đurišić to be released from prison.[45]
• Source: Neubacher also arranged, in autumn 1943, for the release from prison of of Chetnik commander Pavle Djurisic...

• Article: In November 1943, Đurišić returned to Montenegro where he received supplies including arms and ammunition from the Germans with which to fight the Partisans.[45]
• Source: Djurisic now received arms, ammunition, and other supplies from the Germans and returned to Montenegro in November 1943 to fight the Partisans.
  • It seems he did not get the arms and ammo in Montenegro.

• Article: On 11 October 1944 the German Plenipotentiary General in Montenegro, General-Major Wilhem Keiper, awarded Đurišić the Iron Cross (2nd Class) in the name of the Führer and the German High Command.[46]
• Source: Nedic promoted Durisic to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and appointed him assistant commander of the Serbiam Volunteer Corps, and, on October 11, 1944, Adolf Hilter awarded Durisic the Iron Cross.
  • There is no mention of Keiper in the source.

• Article: On 13 July 1944, Radio Belgrade praised Đurišić "for his services to the Axis cause".[51]
• Source: He was certainly warmly commended by Radio Belgrade for his services to the Axis cause (Broadcast of July 13th 1944.
  • There are some issues (in bold) that require attention. Graham Colm (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I've addressed these issues, except the reference to Keiper which draws on the entitlement document which is signed by Keiper. Should I create an inline citation to the document? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good idea. Graham Colm (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note, let me know if you think that covers it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fine. I can't read it of course, but it is not a major fact that is likely to be contested. Graham Colm (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Otto Graham

Nominator(s): Batard0 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Otto Graham was one of the most dominant American football players of his era (and arguably compares favorably to the leading quarterbacks of any era), and I'd like to see his article through to FA, if possible. I've brought it up to GA status, done a peer review and made some further improvements. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Batard0 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: At least two of the book sources are partially available online via Google Books (Piascik, Henkel) for checks.--Batard0 (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Use endashes in ranges, not hyphens
  • Changed to endashes where they were hyphens (about 5-10 instances).--Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• No citations to Pluto. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Removed from Bibliography.--Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment New York Times should be The New York Times Lemonade51 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed.--Batard0 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments leaning support: I know very little about football, but I managed to follow most of this article very clearly. The technical sections are excellent, and I think this gives a really clear overview of his career, how effective he was, and what made him a good player. The prose is very good. I've a few questions about things I didn't follow as a non-fan (most just need a link, I think), a few prose questions, and a few picky points which you can feel free to ignore. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Graham is remembered as one of the most dominant players of his era": By who? May be better as "Critics regard Graham as…"
  • Changed to "Graham is regarded by critics as"; I kept it in the passive voice to avoid confusion in the latter part of the sentence. If the subject isn't Graham, readers might think "having taken his team" refers to critics. Or am I being overly technical? I'd be happy to put it in the active voice if you think that works (probably preferable to avoid the passive, anyway).--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "the Browns posted a record of 114–20–4": Could this be linked for people like me who are never sure what this means?
  • I've spelled it out to say "114 wins, 20 losses and four ties". I then linked winning percentage to "win-loss record" in the following bit. Hope this works.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ditto "including a 9–3 mark".
  • Switched "mark" to "win-loss record" and linked it. "Mark" is a bit jargon-y, anyhow. I also linked "playoffs" in case people don't understand what that means.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "he still holds the NFL record for career average yards per pass attempt, with nine.": Again, some linking of "average yards per pass attempt"
  • Linked "pass attempt" to the appropriate section under "Forward pass". Also "yards gained" to "Yards from scrimmage".
• "signed "Automatic Otto" to play for the Browns": Not too sure about the use of a nickname in the lead like this.
  • Agreed - a bit awkward. Excised.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• His career is covered in 2 main sections, but they are rather long. Could they be split into subsections to make them less intimidating?
  • Yes. I put in two subsections under the "Professional career" heading and two under the "Coaching career" heading. Do these work?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "and went to Northwestern University on a basketball scholarship in 1940, when he was 19": 2 minor, picky points, but "attended" may be slightly more formal, and do we need both the year and his age? Surely one would suffice.
  • Substituted "attended" and removed his age.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "While football became Graham's primary sport, he also played baseball and continued on the basketball team.": "Although" may work better than "while" here.
  • Changed.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "He was a first-team All-American in basketball as a senior.": Sorry, lost me here.
  • I tried to make this clearer by saying "He was named by sportswriters as a first-team All-American in basketball as a senior." At the end of the season, various news outlets put together "teams" consisting of the players they judge the best in their sports at their positions. They typically come up with a first, second and third team. They're basically imaginary all-star teams that never play together in an all-star game. Is there a way to make this even clearer without getting too verbose? I linked it to "All-America", which goes into additional detail on the matter. But it would be better if readers didn't have to follow any links.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The link works; if you want to make it even clearer, maybe something like "included as a first-team All-American, a team selected by journalists comprising the best player in each position in basketball", although this is a bit wordy. The other option is to include the explanation as a note. I've no real preference either way and the link is fine if you are not happy with the wordiness.
      • I used this description in the text. I think it's probably better to put it within the text than as a footnote; I don't think it's too verbose.--Batard0 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• "when he ran back a Kansas State punt 94 yards for a touchdown and had two more scores in a 51–3 victory": Not too sure about this, either.
  • I tried to simplify this one by saying the following: "when he caught a Kansas State punt and returned it 94 yards for a touchdown. He ran for two more touchdowns in the 51–3 victory." I'm not sure if this is simple enough and I'd rather be able to cogently and concisely explain what's going on than rely too much on links. Maybe if you could say which parts are still confusing to the non-expert, I'll make more attempts to elucidate them. I'd really like this to be completely accessible to everybody.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This seems really good, and very accessible. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Graham threw for two touchdowns"… and while I think I get this, not sure that everyone would who was not a specialist.
  • I changed it to "Graham passed to his wide receivers for two touchdowns" in the hope that this might make it clearer. Do you think it would be useful to have a prefatory paragraph (inserted after the first paragraph of the "Early life and college career" section) that describes Graham's role on the team at Northwestern and goes into some of the football terminology? This may be useful because, first, the way people played football in the 1940s differs significantly from how it's played today. Graham, for example, played on offense and defense, and both passed and ran with the ball to try to score touchdowns. These days, a quarterback's role is strictly limited to passing. Second, having some kind of introductory paragraph may be useful for non-experts to get a feel for how the game is played and what the rules are. Then again, such a paragraph may interrupt the flow of the article a bit. I'll give it a try if you think it might be a good idea; we can always delete it if it turns out not to be.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'm fairly happy with the "accessibility" of this. I'm not a follower, but understand this all pretty well now. The paragraph on his role may be a good idea, though; certainly worth a try to see what happens. It won't affect my support either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried putting in a paragraph, but I had trouble making it flow with the rest of the text. It read like a digression, so I took it out. I'm beginning to think that a discussion of the evolution of the forward pass, etc., is probably best left to articles about the history of football...Graham was one of the game's first great passers, but none of the sources I have say he was a pioneer or that he changed the way the quarterback position was played, so it comes off as a bit off-topic. I'm going to leave it out for now, but of course am open to any suggestions on how to make this more contextually complete...--Batard0 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• "…in an upset of an Ohio State team coached by Paul Brown, handing Ohio State its only loss of the 1941 season". Repetition of Ohio State; maybe rephrase as "in a victory over Ohio State, coached by Paul Brown, the team's only loss of the 1941 season".
  • Changed. --Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "The Wildcats struggled in 1942, winning only one game as players joined the war effort.": May be better to slightly rephrase this to make it more explicit: "The Wildcats struggled in 1942 as their players joined the war effort, winning only one game." (If the source allows this rephrase)
  • Changed.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "The following year, Graham and many of his teammates moved to the Naval Air Station Glenview in Glenview, Illinois but continued to play for Northwestern along with enlistees from other schools": Not quite sure I'm following this. Why did they move to Glenview? Had they enlisted? Why were enlistees from other schools playing for Northwestern? Or does it mean that enlistees played for their own teams?
  • The sources say they brought a bunch of enlisted men to play for Northwestern, not their own teams. They enrolled at Northwestern. I consulted the sources again and attempted to clarify it as follows: "The following year, Graham and some of his teammates enlisted in the military but continued to play for Northwestern. Enlistees from other schools also enrolled at Northwestern, where the U.S. Navy had a training station." I changed "many" to "some" since the source says Northwestern lost 30 of its players to the war.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've come across the Big Ten Conference before, and I'm aware that it's linked but for the benefit of the reader and to prevent them having to follow a link, a sentence somewhere to explain what it means would be a big help.
  • No problem. I described it as "a division of major college teams from the Midwestern United States". Is that adequate?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "$96,821 in today's dollars": I think it would be better to give a year here.
  • I added the currentyear template for both dollar figures. I think that's what you're after.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "he was also "just one of the guys," tackle Mike McCormack later said. "He was not aloof, which you see a lot of times today."[25]": As the quote says "today", maybe give the year that he said it.
  • I added the year as 1999, when the book it comes from was published. I'm not entirely sure when he actually said it (it could have been from an earlier interview as the book was being compiled) but I think it's a fairly reasonable approximation and probably within the bounds of verifiability...if it appeared in print in 1999, probably fair to say he said it in 1999.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Brown remembered a Northwestern game against Ohio State in which he ran to his left and flung a pass all the way to his right for a touchdown.": Is this notable enough to warrant inclusion?
  • Removed. It supports the preceding quote, but I think it's redundant and not that notable.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Graham gained 45 yards rushing on a long drive": Not too sure what this means.
  • I change it to "gained 45 yards by running with the ball". Does this clarify it enough?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "With Graham behind center": Ditto.
  • Changed to "Graham at quarterback". "Behind center" is football jargon.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "second straight championship" and in next paragraph "third straight championship" A little more variety may be good.
  • Changed second instance to "third year in a row"--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Graham is regarded as one of the greatest winners of all time": By who?
  • Put in "by sportswriters", as this is supported by the three citations.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "When Graham retired from football, he said he was going to focus on managing…": Maybe "he planned to focus".
  • Changed.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "in the five figures": This is a quote, but just checking if it should be the five figures?
  • Nope, it's "in five figures". Good catch.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Any indication of why he was successful coaching the Coast Guards but not the Redskins? What went right/wrong?
  • I don't have a lot of sources for his later career...I've had to draw mainly from newspaper articles, unfortunately. There don't appear to be any books in existence that discuss these things, outside of an autobiography that's not reliable (and frankly, isn't very good). Nonetheless, I'm going to see if there are any news articles that discuss why he wasn't successful, and will update with whatever I can find.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I added a couple sentences about growing calls for his resignation following losing seasons in 1967 and 1968, with citations, of course. I'm trying to find some sources containing more detail about why he was unsuccessful other than just that he failed to win.--Batard0 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll leave this unstruck if you are still looking, but it's not a problem for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Graham won a battle with colon cancer in 1977": Won a battle is a little tabloid-y.
  • Agreed. Changed to "overcame".--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "At the funeral several days later, Graham's longtime friend George Steinbrenner fainted, leading to speculation that he was in ill health, but Steinbrenner lived another seven years.": Does this really warrant inclusion in Graham's article?
  • Not really. Probably should be in Steinbrenner's article, but not Graham's. Removed.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ref for coaching record?
  • Added sources for Coast Guard and Redskins.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the help with this. Any further assistance or suggestions for making it accessible for non-football people (or for making it better in general) would be very much appreciated.--Batard0 (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Happy to support now, all the changes look fantastic. I've left a couple of things unstruck for further clarification, but they do not affect my support. I'm particularly impressed by the determination to make this accessible to non-fans; I know myself how difficult this can be. A pleasure to read, comment on and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support with a minor comment. Is there any way to expand the "Later life and death" section? For example, what did he do from the time he retired in 1984 until his death in 2003? Anything on his personal life? We know he was married, but there is minimal information on his wife and family. Great article. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks - I will consult the sources and at minimum put in something more about his family, which is easy to do.--Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Added a bit about his family and also his activities after retirement. I found a news story saying he played golf a lot with Joe DiMaggio and retired to a house on a golf course in Florida.--Batard0 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Support with a couple of points. You may want to consider linking stipend for those who may be unfamiliar with the term. Additionally, is there anything else that can be said about his time at the Coast Guard Academy? Aside from their undefeated season in 1963, it seems a bit bare—I'm not overly concerned but curious. Otherwise, the article looks to be in excellent form. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks much - I added some information about his teams' performance at Coast Guard, plus detail about coaching offers he got during his time there. There isn't a ton of reporting on Coast Guard during that era, as far as I can tell, probably because it's a small school. I haven't been able to find good secondary book sources that discuss this period in his career. I hope this helps clarify things. I also linked stipend. Thanks for the suggestion.--Batard0 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Thought this was a fine article when reviewing for GA, so minor corrections were just needed. Nice job. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – In the four-plus years I've been reviewing at FAC, high-quality NFL-related bios have been few and far between. This is probably the best one I can remember seeing. There were a few prose issues and such that I noticed, but I made some copy-edits to fix them. Overall, this was a smooth read and well-deserving of a star, and I hope we see more of your work at FAC in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and appreciate the copyedits.--Batard0 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and FYI in case it's useful, here are links in Google Books to some of the book sources. Most are only previews, so you may not be able to pick up all the refs. I'm not sure how these things are usually done, but I'm happy to quote supporting passages where requested (I have physical copies):

• Piascik
• LaTourette
• Henkel

There are also some snippets from Cantor on Amazon's preview here: Amazon--Batard0 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Arcadia Publishing is a self-publishing company in which most people can contribute and write a book (providing they have the access to historical pictures and such) about their local history and I'm dubious about the reliability of many of their books. Sometimes Arcadia history books is written by noted historians and journalists and it's OK to use, but in many cases, their books are written by someone who is just interested on the subject as a hobby, sorta like this website. I don't think Arcadia has a editor to do an accurate fact check on the information written. I've seen several books riddled with the stupidest errors (like one book I stopped reading after the third page when it said Florida was first discovered by Juan Ponce de León in 1565, and I saw another one that said Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1942). Can you explain how LaTourette and Henkel are reliable sources/experts and not just regular people who got the idea to write a book about their favorite subjects. I can't find much information on either author so I can't tell. If not replace the sources if possible. Thanks Secret ^account 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Not a problem. I think I can easily get replacements for the Henkel references; LaTourette I may have to source to newspaper articles, etc., but I'll see what I can find. Didn't know Arcadia was so suspect...--Batard0 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've gone in there and added references anyplace where either LaTourette or Henkel were the only sources cited. LaTourette checked out well; out of 17 citations, only one raised suspicion when cross-checked with other sources: LaTourette said Graham returned a punt 94 yards for a touchdown in his first Wildcats game, while contemporary news reports say it was 90 yards. Frankly, the newspapers could be wrong here. I've seen many cases where the newspapers of this era have messed up statistics, even awarding touchdowns to the wrong player or not counting touchdowns at all. Nonetheless, I changed it to 90 yards, given that there are concerns about LaTourette's reliability. Since the refs pretty much check out, though, I left them in there alongside the new ones. Henkel's also check out; I left them in, but it's not strictly necessary because the information is duplicated in a lot of other places. Hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok Support Secret ^account 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: The AAFC's first season was not set to start until the fall of 1946, and Graham occupied the intervening months by joining the Rochester Royals of the National Basketball League (NBL), a forerunner of the National Basketball Association.
• Source: ...Graham...played basketball as well as football at Northwestern University, and he played for the 1945-1946 Rochester Royals, champions of the National Basketball League, one of the major league predecessors of the National Basketball Association. (pp. 19-20)
• Article: Graham was also drafted by the National Football League's Detroit Lions, but he did not sign a contract or play a game with the team as the war wore on.[24]
• Source: He was drafted by the Detroit Lions of the NFL, but he entered the service upon graduation before signing a contract or playing a pro game.
• Article: He never missed a game in his career.[24]
• Source: Graham never missed a game in his ten-year pro career. (p. 20)
• Article: The team went undefeated in 1963, earning the academy its first-ever post-season bowl appearance.[88]
• Source: (dated Nov 19, 1963) A pair of undefeated football teams-Western Kentucky and Coast Guard Academy-meet Dec. 28 in the Tangerine Bowl. Former professional football star Otto Graham is coach of the New London, Conn., team...It is the first ever post-season football competition in in Coast Guard history.
• Article: The college stars lost for the seventh time in a row that year, falling 24–3 to the Kansas City Chiefs.[99]
• Source: The college All-Stars admittedly played "a lousy game", but coach Otto Graham claimed the Kansas City Chiefs were in tip-top condition in the 24-3 rout.
  • No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Could someone please check the images' licensing? There are only two. Graham Colm (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I tried and failed :-) First image is OK, but someone with more experience in assessing the adequacy of non-free use rationales and licencing needs to look at the second one. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's as far as I got :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm happy to remove the other image if need be. I thought it had a fairly strong rationale given that it shows something that's hard to describe with just words in the body of the article: the appearance of the plastic facemask. But I defer to others' better judgment.--Batard0 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The rationale does seem a little weak compared to the one above it. This is the only obstacle to promotion, that I can see - it's your call. Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- removed as it's not absolutely critical.--Batard0 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rodrigues Solitaire

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have recently expanded it significantly to GA, and following comments from other editors it seems to be close to FA. I will of course implement any further changes suggested here as quickly as possible. I could imagine the extensive quoting might be brought up as a problem, but these are reproduced at length in every book and paper about the bird, so I find them appropriate to feature here, since they are also all in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Some formatting issues in captions - those that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, several use hyphens where they should use dashes

Should be fixed now.

• File:Leguat1891solitaire.jpg needs US PD tag

Done.

• File:LocationRodrigues.PNG: on what source(s) or map(s) was this based?

I don't know, I assume this map was used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-1985.png FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked carefully at the boundaries of the African countries on both maps and I think that "File:LocationRodrigues.PNG" is probably not derived from "File:BlankMap-World-1985.png". It might be one of the other maps in the Commons category "Category:Blank maps of the world for historical use". Snowman (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Pezophaps_solitaria.jpg needs US PD tag and date of death for creator

Done.

• File:Pezophaps_wing_bones.jpg needs US PD tag

Done.

• File:Pezophaps.jpg needs US PD tag and date of death for creator

Done.

• File:Pezophaps_sternum.jpg, File:Pezophaps_vertebrae_and_foot.jpg, File:Pezophaps_pelvis_and_gizzard_stone.jpg need US PD tag and date of death for creator

PD tag done, but I'm unable to find info about R. Mintern and G. H. Ford. It should be pretty safe to assume they died more than 70 years ago, having made the illustrations in 1869 and 1879. But in the worst case, they could be moved to the US Wiki.

Not sure what you mean by "US Wiki"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

English Wiki, which has US copyright. Images published anywhere in the world before 1923 can apparently be uploaded here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• File:Leguat1891frontispieceFr1708.jpg, File:Rodrigues.jpg, File:Pezophaps_stalagmite.jpg, File:Pezophaps.png, File:ExtinctDodoBird.jpeg need US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks, all should be done now, apart from the issues noted. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• SupportComments by Jim Interesting stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I made these edits, MoS fixes and some tweaking, please check

The only problem is the caption to the taxo box image, it seems to be creating confusion. Leguat observed the bird in the late 1690s, but his drawing is from 1708, so it was not drawn from life, but from memory. He was the only person who drew it who had seen it. So the take home point is "only known picture drawn by someone who saw it in life", not sure how to word it differently from the original caption, which was "The only known picture drawn by someone who saw the bird in life, François Leguat, 1708".

I've changed "picture drawn" to the more succinct "drawing", is this OK? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea!

• Genetically related to pigeons and doves—this phrasing suggests that it's related to, but isn't, a dove; clearly not what you intended.

I changed it to "genetically nested within" and "placement within the Columbidae", perhaps not the most elegant wording.

• What version of English are you using? Mostly BE (grey, paedomorphic) but also "colored"

British, I think "color" was added by someone during copy editing.

• by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his edition of Systema Naturae — please clarify, since he obviously wasn't the author of the book

He made additions to it, in the 13th edition (and onwards) he published. I'm not sure how that could be clarified, without going into unnecessary detail. Linnaeus' last contribution was in the 12th edition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it help to say "in the thirteenth edition" instead of "his edition"? The current wording could be taken to mean that he wrote it in the margin like Fermat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'll add it.

• measuring 90 cm in length and weighing up to 28 kg), whereas females were 70 cm and weighed 17 kg.—Imperial conversions for the poor old yanks please

Done.

• ca. 50 g—as above

Done.

• wrist-knobs (87–90)—the numbers are almost illegible in the image, can you either find another way to indicate the bones, or modify to show numbers in a larger font

I added "in the middle right".

• Book refs. Either give locations for all publishers or none

I'm adding locations.

Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm close to supporting, just wanted to see your views on the two further comments above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for the changes! FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! So what happens from here? Never done this before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support of DocTree. For full disclosure, I made a couple of minor edits to this article when I did a Good Article review of another article that was expanded and improved by nominator FunkMonk (Red Rail passed that review.).
  • Checked image ALTs. All images have appropriate ALT text (I added one for the range map).
  • Checked links to disambigulation pages. Made two minor edits to correct wikilinks to disambigulation pages.
  • Citation bot indicated no problems. Randomly checked sources available on-line. Some of the .pdf are large but definitely valuable. No problem found with factual information presented.

Wishing all involved the best, DocTree (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Literature review: I found number of sources using a JSTOR and Google Books Search that contain information that hasn't been discussed (or discussed only briefly) in the article:

• from Amadon, Dean (1951). "Inbreeding and disease?" "Evolution" 5 (4): 417 JSTOR 2405692. Amadon reviews Ottow's German-language paper (pub. 1950, trans title="Hereditary osteogenesis dysplastico-exostotica of the extinct flightless dove, Pezophaps solitaria, from Rodriguez"), which posits that samples of bone fractures represent a hereditary bone disease, rather than (or in addition to) the usual explanation of combat injuries.
• a more recent source could be used to cite the use of wrist knobs as weapons: "In this species large examples, presumable males, have a considerable enlargement of the distal end of the radius, especially at the base of the fused carpometacarpus. While apparently not sharp pointed, it may well have been horn covered and certainly could have increased the wing's effectiveness as a weapon." From Rand, A. L. (1954). "On the spurs on boards' wings". The Wilson Bulletin 66(2): 127–134 JSTOR 4158290
• to add some historical context, why not mention Robert W. Storer's theory that the Dodo and Solitaire "be placed in separate monotypic families, the Raphidae and the Pezophapidae, respectively" (from Storer, R. W. (1970). "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire" The Auk 87(2): 369–70 JSTOR 4083934)
• "The absence of mammalian herbivores on oceanic islands permitted … the solitaire … to attain a large size." (from McNab, B. K. (1999). "On the Comparative Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Total and Mass‐Specific Rates of Metabolism" Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(5): 642–644 JSTOR 316701; this conclusion is supported in Pereira et al. (2007) as well.
• Pereira et al. (2007) "Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences Support a Cretaceous Origin of Columbiformes and a Dispersal-Driven Radiation in the Paleogene" Systematic Biology 56(4): 565–72 JSTOR 20143072 have a chronogram depicting Columbiformes diversification that looks similar to Shapiro et al.'s (2002) cladogram, except that the places of Goura victoria and Didunculus strigirostris are swapped; the article also discusses date estimates for the Raphus and Pezophaps split
• Hutichinson has an article JSTOR 27826550 that discusses the legitimacy of Leguat's original description. Apparently, Leguat's work was criticized by later authorities, and that history should certainly be mentioned here.
• Storer (2005) JSTOR 4090609 suggests that the feather-covered risings over each side of the crop (found only in the female), covered glands (or gland precursors) that may have produced just enough crop milk to influence division of labor in parental feeding responsibilities

• How about these sources:

Author(s): Grihault, Alan

Source: Solitaire: the dodo of Rodrigues Island. Pages: 1–117 Published: 2007 ISBN 978-9990336306

Haven't heard about that book before, looks like a popular work, so perhaps not so in depth?

Title: On the "Solitaire " of the Island of Rodriguez.

Author(s): Mortensen, T.

Source: Ardea Leiden Volume: 22 Pages: pp. 21–29 Published: 1933

I've read that paper before, it doesn't seem to do much other than documenting the existence of a specific mounted skeleton, and disproving a claim that was never made (there's a reply in the end of the paper) "I am afraid Dr. Mortensen is fighting a ghost: I have never expressed any doubt concerning the existence of the Solitaire. My only point was to draw my readers' attention to the non-existence of Schlegel's Leguatia gigantea, a giant in which not even Dr. Mortensen appears to believe."

• "The Nicobar Pigeon is their closest living relative." genetically or geographically?

Done (genetically).

• generally, "which" is used after a comma (or other preceding punctuation); several occurrences in the article could be changed to "that"

Done.

• possibly useful links: territorial, morphologically, molecular data, basal, Mauritius, Réunion, Bartlett, sternum, breeding pair

Done.

• monogamous should be linked earlier

Done.

• "… led to the naming of a new species, Didus nazarenus" tell us it was named by Bartlett?

Done.

• "Their weight may have varied substantially due to fat cycles" I don't think "fat cycles" is a common-knowledge concept, so it might be best to explain this term in layman's words

Done.

• musket bullets aren't commonly used as a size comparison for bones these days; an actual measurement would be more useful

I'm unable to find actual measurements, the closest I could find is this statement by the Newtons: "In the largest (male ?) specimens its longest diameter is about half the length of the entire metacarpal, and its transverse breadth in any direction is not much less."

• who is Gennes?

Done, Gennes de la Chancelière, see page 273 here

• Ref nitpicks:

• Cheke & Hume 2004 needs to be formatted as a cite journal, with full title, journal name, volume, pages, etc.

Done.

• page #'s for Strickland 1848, Fuller 2002, Lydekker 1891, Hume & Walters 2012, Rothschild 1907, etc.

Done.

• journal article titles needs to be consistently title or sentence case, and with Latin binomials in italics (see refs #6, 9); book titles should be title case

Done.

• 199–199 is not a valid page range

Done, was bot-generated.

• was really only the first page of the 45 page review by Livezey (1993) used?

Thanks for those suggestions, my main problem is that I don't have journal access, most of what I've used have been books I own, free PDFs scavenged through Google, or papers I specifically asked for on the Wikipedia source request. I'll happily add all available info, but it'll take some time to get hold of those other papers. I'll adress your other points soon, but I have some answers to some of your questions. I used all of Livezy 1993 (half is about the Dodo, and much of it is long tables, which inflates page size), so I'm not sure what you mean. As for Leguat's account having been doubted, that is mentioned under the extinction section, you mean it could be expanded? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can send the JSTOR articles if you have email enabled. My comment about Livezey reflects the fact that only the first page is given in the citation, rather than the entire page range (some of the other sources only give the first page as well). Sasata (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, I've received emails through Wikipedia before, so it should work. I think the page number problem is because the citations are bot-generated, I'll take a look... FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the jstor citations you listed, as well as a summary of your descriptions of them, but I'll expand them once I obtain PDFs (if there is much more to add, of course). So the main problem now seems to be that I can't find any measurements of the wing-knob... FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I found "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire" through Google, so no need to send me that one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the PDFs, there wasn't much more to add from what I read, but I did flesh some sections out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, presuming my two minor comments below are addressed. Interesting article.

• In the taxonomy section, the binomial names are mostly not provided next to the common names (eg. Nicobar Pigeon). Then there are no common names next to binomials in the cladogram. As a result, it is hard for the reader to connect the text to the cladogram. Can this be improved? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I will put them into the cladogram next to the binomials, would that be sufficient?

Sure, that's fine with me, but maybe look at a couple of existing species FAs and see what they do - I'm not sure I've seen cladograms with common names, so the convention might be to use the Linnaean names in the text. Ucucha, casliber, sasata or others have experience and might comment <waves hopefully at passing editors> :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I based the mix of common and scientific names on the cladogram in pelican, which was recently featured (Casliber worked on it). FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Both sexes possessed a large callus-like knob of bone on their wrists at the base of the carpometacarpus, on its otherwise-small wings" - "their wrists", but "its..wings" - choose one or the other. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the mention of small wings, since their underdeveloped state is explained further down in the section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi FunkMonk, I think this is your first FAC? In that case, just like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, first one, so that's alright! FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: François Leguat was the first to refer to the bird as the "Solitaire" (referring to its solitary habits), but it has been suggested that he borrowed the name from a tract mentioning the Réunion Solitaire.[5]
• Source: In 1691 the French Huguenot refugee François Leguat and some companions attempted to settle on Rodrigues Island, 574 kilometres east of Mauritius, and stayed two years (Leguat,1707; North-Coombes, 1991). Leguat later wrote about a large fl ightless bird he had watched there, calling it a solitaire,
• Article: The Rodrigues Solitaire probably became extinct sometime between the 1730s and 1760s; the exact date is unknown. Its disappearance coincided with the tortoise trade between 1730 and 1750; traders burnt off vegetation, hunted Solitaires and imported cats and pigs (that preyed on eggs and chicks).[3]
• Source:Gennes's account of 1733 makes it clear that Solitaires were still then common..Silence than falls until 1755, when the elder Cossigny wote to Reaumer that; "For 18 months I have been trying without sucess to procure a Solitaire from Rodrigues Isalnd.. Cats had been imported to deal with the ever troublesome rats..
• Article: Comparison of mitochondrial cytochrome b and 12S rRNA sequences isolated from the femur of a Rodrigues Solitaire and the tarsal of a Dodo confirmed their close relationship, and their placement within the Columbidae.[2]
• Source: Despite the substantial morphological differences between the dodo, the solitaire, and other pigeons, the ML analysis shows them to be nested within the family Columbidae.
• Article: They have a small stump of a wing, which has a sort of bullet at its extremity, and serves as a defence.[21]
• Source: They have a small stump of a wing, which has a sort of bullet at its extremity, and serves as a defence.
• Article:A similar cladogram was published in 2007, differing in the inverted placement of Goura and Dicunculus, as well as the inclusion of the Pheasant Pigeon and the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon at the base of the clade.[14]
• Source:The extinct, flightless dodo and solitaires (Raphidae) were embedded within pigeons and doves (Columbidae) in clade C, and monophyly of the subfamily Columbinae was refuted because the remaining subfamilies were nested within it. Divergence times estimated using a Bayesian framework suggest that Columbiformes diverged from outgroups such as Apodiformes and Caprimulgiformes in the Cretaceous before the mass extinction that marks the end of this period.
• Article: The resulting clade consists of of generally ground-dwelling island endemics.[12]
• Source: Their analysis shows the dodo and the solitaire to be close relatives, with their nearest living relative the Nicobar pigeon Caloenas nicobarica from the Nicobar Islands and nearby south-east Asia.
• Article: Extinct (by 1778) (IUCN 3.1)[1]
• Source: Pezophaps solitaria (Rodrigues Solitaire) Status: Extinct ver 3.1Citation: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 19 August 2012. I can't find the date mentioned.

No issues, except the 1778 date of extinction. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

From http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106002443/0 "Justification: This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It was reported in 1761, but had become Extinct by 1778." FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a better link than the one in the article, I suggest you use it instead. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The name is supposed to link to that page, as in the Dodo article, but I'm unable to figure out why the name doesn't become a link in this article. Anyone know what's different between the citations? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally worked, now the name links to the right page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the identical text in Graham Colm's 4th article/source pair above is from a direct quote that's properly attributed. I checked .pdf sources that were available on-line back on 5 Aug. Found no problem with accuracy or close paraphrasing at that time. In my opinion, FunkMonk's presentation of conflicting source information, as in the taxonomy, is exemplary. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said that pair was an issue. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On a different note, would it be helpful to have a paragraph in the ecology section here about other extinct species this bird shared Rodrigues with, as in the Dodo article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material; see Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. The use of longish quotations is far too excessive in this article. Another reason not to use these old quotations is that they are written in an old form of English with old spellings, old capitalisation, and refers to old objects. How big is a "Musket Ball" and why is Musket Ball capitalised? Snowman (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of extinct birds, whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from such contemporary descriptions, I think it is quite different from say, an article about an extant bird, which can be observed today. I see no meaning in closely paraphrasing a text which is in the public domain anyway, and comprehension problems can be solved with square brackets. All secondary sources about these birds (technical as well as popular) likewise quote the old descriptions at length. Even the book Extinct Birds (Hume & Walters 2012), which has very short entries for each bird, quotes Tafforet at length in the Solitaire entry. See also the FA Mary Anning, which uses extensive quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki is an encyclopaedia, so I do not see the point of comparing it with a book. The quotes used on this page are too many and too long. The quotations here are longer than those used on the longer article on Mary Anning. The article about Philip Larkin is long with several short quotations. Quotations have been removed on the Brown Thrasher page and the Western Jackdaw pages. I think that it would be better if the quotations were paraphrased and changed to a more readable and a more concise form of English. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think those examples are comparable. Those are extant birds, so having quotes there does not really enhance the article, as they have been observed and described from life by thousands of scientists, and we therefore have infinite interchangeable sources to paraphrase essentially the same information from. Literature about extant birds rarely quotes descriptions (since they are readily available for original descriptions), but literature about extinct birds almost always quotes contemporary descriptions, if such exist. I think each of these quotes enhance this article, as they are the only contemporary descriptions of the bird in existence, each quote brings unique info about the bird to the table, and each is therefore "precious", so to speak. I know that argument is total pathos, but to ground myself a little, encyclopaedic texts can and do also contain long quotes, see for example this 1858 encyclopaedia entry about the Solitaire and other birds, which quotes Leguat in full (even though space is very limited): That should say something about the value of these quotes. Only Leguat's description was known at the time, by the way. Unlike such encyclopaedias, we have much more space to play with. See: Meta:Wiki is not paper FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I should note that there is of course a difference between an extinct bird which was never described from life by scientists, only laymen (such as the Red Rail, †1700), and more recently extinct birds (such as the Huia, †1907), which were extensively described by contemporary scientitsts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An example of an article which is problematical because it doesn't incorporate or discuss contemporary descriptions is Great Auk. Practically all that is known about that bird in life is from old descriptions by fishermen and other sailors, not from scientists. Therefore, much of the info presented as fact in the article is really just conjecture, paraphrasing is bound to include interpretation, in many cases suggesting dubious theories, and it is quite "dangerous" to mix the two, since it is misleading. I have mentioned some concerns here: That one "slipped through" the FAC process because yes, there are secondary sources that simply paraphrase the old descriptions, but other sources are more sceptical, which the article does not even try to convey. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your choices, and have been thinking about it myself. My picks would be the last quote in Behaviour and ecology, and the quote in Extinction, since they do not really tell much new about the bird, and are not as widely cited as the rest. The Cossigny quote doesn't even describe the bird either, so paraphrasing it does not contradict the arguments I presented above. I'm hesitant to remove the Leguat and Tafforet quotes though, which are the best known, first rediscovered, and most widely cited descriptions. They pretty much "defined" the bird for modern science. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The quotes I mentioned above have now been paraphrased. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOFULLTEXT says; "Longer texts are best summarised with the full text placed on Wikisource, or given as an external link." Snowman (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What is "dun colour"? I think that the readability of the quotes is complicated by the use a sort of English that is not used now. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Dun" is often used when describing horses, even in modern times (see dun gene). Nothing that square brackets can't fix. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In present-day language, I presume that "dun" is jargon that usually relates to horses, but this may not be how it was used more than a hundred years ago. People who read the article and the quotes are likely to be interested in ornithology and may not be knowledgeable on horses nor old versions of English language. You replied without actually including an explanation of what colour dun is and the "dun gene" article appears to say that the gene changes the expression of a number of different horse-colour genes, so I am no further in understanding what colour dun is. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some specialist historical knowledge on armaments may also be needed to undersand the size of a "musket bullet" (which appears in the main text) and also the size of a "musket ball" (which appears in one of the long quotes). Snowman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern dictionaries explain "dun" as greyish brown, yet modern sources about the bird seem to describe the "frontlet" as black rather than greyish brown (likely based on Tafforet's account rather than Leguat's, so who knows which was correct?). So as you say, meaning could had changed, and this ambiguity actually strengthens the argument for the inclusion of original text and wording, accompanied by modern interpretation, as explained above. In this way, we do not take either interpretation or original account at face value, and therefore do not present a specific POV. As for the musket bullet comparison, as stated earlier, I can't do much about that, the secondary sources available to me do not specify it further. But I'd be happy if it could be figured out, of course. Note that the bullet issue is separate from the quotation concern, since secondary sources use the comparison even when paraphrasing. Perhaps not even these authors know what is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the use of "dun" can be explained without using a long old quote. The OED might provide the old meaning of the word "dun". Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am not happy that a musket ball and a musket bullet, objects that are not commonly used now, are used to compare various dimensions. Obviously, this makes the article difficult to understand. Surly someone must know how big these objects are and their dimensions should be included in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• What is a frontlet? Snowman (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• According to word counting software, the article has 2743 words of free text and and additional 1390 words in long quotes. Hence, about a third of the text in the article (excluding image captions) are old quotes. Does anyone know of any other Wiki article that has a greater proportion of text in quotes? Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the musket bullet comparison either, but that is somewhat irrelevant, since it is widely repeated by secondary sources, if not all. Not much I can do about it, unless someone brings forth an overlooked source. Not one of the sources used in the current version mention a specific measurement for the knob. Even if we do find a military history source unrelated to the bird which states the measurements for say, an "average" musket bullet, adding such here would be synthesis of sources, and we don't even know what kind of musket ball Leguat was referring to (there were several types with different sizes). "Frontlet" means the forehead of an animal, here it is meant as the band near the beak. As for quotes in other articles, the problem is that we have no comparable featured articles about recently extinct animals whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from old observations by laymen. The closest is Great Auk, and I have already explained why it is highly problematical that its article lacks contemporary quotes. Furthermore, unlike the Solitaire, the Great Auk's soft tissue is completely known from scores of specimens, and it has an extremely close living relative, the Razorbill, which aids behavioural inference. The Huia and Thylacine became extinct so recently that they had already been described from life by hundreds of actual scientists, so they are hardly comparable (though both do contain quotes). FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The page about synthesis of sources is headed "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I think that the use of a musket bull and a musket bullet was intended to indicate dimensions, so if the article provides the sizes of these ballistics then the position that will arise will be what the original author intended and there would be no issues about advancing a new position. I think that omitting the size of a musket ball and a musket bullet makes the article difficult to read. I think that the article should include the sizes of these ancient ballistics and this would be useful to readers. Have you made any attempts to find out how big these ballistics are? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But as I pointed out already, there were many types of musket bullets, which varied considerably in size (see musket). How exactly are we going to determine what caliber Leguat referred to? It is simply impossible (unless we compare one to an actual Solitaire metacarpus, sad to say I've got neither in my possession). At the very best, we could mention what the size range was for such bullets, but that would be fairly useless. See for example these images, the range is immense: Picking one size would be blatant original research. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that attempts made by the authors of the quotations and sources to explain the dimensions are meaningless? I suggest from the way that musket ball and musket bullet are used in the quotations that there is a size or size range that most contemporary people will have recognised as being the standard size of a musket ball or bullet. Culinary and food items are also used to describe things; "the size of a plumb". Plumbs also vary in size; nevertheless, a certain size range is suggested. Please find out how big these ancient ballistics are to advance the discussion here and to make the article less of a riddle. On the other hand, if size comparisons included in the article are simply impossible to understand, then please remove them from the article. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Picking a size is simply original research, not allowed under any circumstances. A plum, just to use your example, hardly varies as much as the sample of musket bullets I showed. And even if we used plums as an example, how would you determine the size of the "average" plum? There are different types of plums, each with its own average size. Your intention is good, but I must object, we cannot be precise here, it would be too arbitrary. As for not including the comparison at all, that would go against every published source about the bird I know of. I must object to that as well. I would like to see further opinions on this. If we really wanted to further the discussion, perhaps we could see if there are measurements of the metacarpus itself, as the Newton brothers stated the knob was half the length of this bone (there are no scale bars in their figures). The power supplier to my PC was fried yesterday, unfortunately, so I cannot look through my sources until next week (I write this from a laptop). I did look before, but never found such a measurement. This paper contains some bone measurements, so may hold the key: FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the photographs of ballistic balls linked above do not prove anything. The musket balls shown in the photographs may not be a random selection and may include selected ballistics of a range of different sizes for illustrative purposes. It would be possible to select big plumbs, middle-size plumbs, and small plumbs and take a photograph of them and it would not clearly indicate what most people think of as an average sized plumb. Finding out more about the facts of ballistic sizes is likely to be useful to research the size of the birds dimensions. I expect that a range of sizes will be a likely outcome and this avoids selecting a particular size of musket ball or bullet. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's forget the plums and balls for a minute, it is futile. Only realistic chance of getting an exact, reliable measurement (without measuring the knob itself) is to find a measurement of the metacarpus, half of that will be our salvation, as I mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be possible to determine the size of a metacarpus (five bones in the hand). I presume that this means is the distance across the hand. I note that you have implied above that the size comparisons used in the article are simply impossible to understand, and if this is true I think that these riddles should be removed from the article. However, I think the ancient authors wrote intelligently and that a person knowledgeable on ancient ballistics would be able to understand what the size comparisons with ballistics are meant to imply and provide references. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I also stated, practically every single published text about this bird makes the musket ball comparison, even in paraphrasis. However, I am willing to remove it from the main text, as it is already in the Leguat quote, but I'd really have to hear some second opinions first. A single other reviewer has brought up the issue, but never demanded the comparison removed. I'm still sceptical that anyone would be able to decipher the calibre from such a vague statement, but let's see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been expression my opinions logically and making suggestions, but I have not made a demand for text to be removed. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing the sizes of musket balls and bullets, I guess that every text about this bird that makes a size comparison based on ancient ballistics is lost almost all modern readers. The size comparison puzzle may be found elsewhere, but I think that it would be preferable that the Wiki did not include this puzzle. I doubt if any volunteers will arrive here to provide ancient ballistic sizes, but some answers or pointers may be given on inquiring at relevant WikiProject talk pages. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This must be one of the longest and most technical discussions I've had on Wikipedia, but also quite enjoyable. I think I'll just remove the comparison from the main text, and leave it in the quote. I hope it will be a somewhat satisfactory compromise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "... about half the length of the metacarpal" refers to a bone in the birds wing and not the bones in the human hand. I note that reference to a musket bullet has been removed from the main text. Nevertheless, I think that compliance with WP:NOFULLTEXT has not been improved. I think that too much of the article is in quotes and that they are written in an old sort of English language that is difficult to read now. The quotes include old language such as "dun" and "frontlet", which I have enquired about above and awaiting elucidation. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The frontlet issue can be resolved, it can mean both forehead and a sort of headband, I actually think he meant the latter on second thoughts (it referred to the swan like stripe at the base of the upper bill). As for the gizzard quote, I think it is highly notable, as it is the only reason the stones found were even suspected to be gastroliths in the first place (when collected it was unknown what they were). This very passage itself has therefore been integral to our understanding of the bird and interpretation of its remains. As for metacarpal, in birds it is fused with the rest of the hand in the carpometacarpus. But the metacarpal itself can still be separately listed (as it was in the source). FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a list of meanings of frontlet in the OED. The one that I think is most likely is; "b. Ornithol. The margin of the head, behind the bill, of birds, generally clothed with rigid bristles" and the OED gives a quote of its use in 1874. One of the illustrations on the page would seem to confirm this. It can also mean the forehead of animals, a headband, and more. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1907 restoration seems to exaggerate this feature more than is implied by Leguagt's illustration and the descriptions. But perhaps it is supposed to be a male, as it does not show the breast like area. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - (disclosure as wikiproject birds member) - I like the quotes as they (a) break up the prose in a refreshing manner, and (b) give the reader the most direct insight into the observations without hypothesising by secondary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that page organisation could be better and more artistically laid out. There are blocks of text and images all over the place and odd-sized white space between these and text, at least on my screen. The Philip Larkin article is tidier has blocks of text one the left side and images on the right side of the page. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Apart from the wrist-knob he described, ...". Could this be clarified to say clearly if bones confirmed the description of the knob or not. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this in the source and I have rephrased the article, but it might need rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For clarity I have changed it to; "... had light-coloured elevations on the lower neck." Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• ", having light elevations on the lower neck". What is an "elevation" or "light elevation"? Snowman (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Many skeletal features of the Solitaire and Dodo that are unique among pigeons ...". I do not understand this, which seems to imply that it would have been obvious that the Dodo originated form a pigeon. In fact the origins of the Dodo was a mystery until DNA analysis. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Re File:Leguat1891solitaire.jpg. This is an illustration of a bird with a tree or cactus in the background. Does the artist mention this plant in his description of it? Is the fruit on the tree anything to do with the bird? Does the bird eat that fruit? Snowman (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• According to the A and E Newton paper there is a description of the microscopic anatomy of a wing knob by J Gedge. Would this be informative to help describe these unusual bone-knobs? Snowman (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article has; "Newton, A.; Newton, E. (1869). "On the Osteology of the Solitaire or Didine Bird of the Island of Rodriguez, Pezophaps solitaria (Gmel)". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 159: 327. doi:10.1098/rstl.1869.0011.". The journal has; "10.1098/rspl.1867.0091 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1867 vol. 16 428-433 ". Snowman (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been careful to avoid white space, and I have not seen any on either my large screen or this small laptop screen (what is your setting for text size?). As for image placement, animals and people should face the text, per image MOS, and that's what I have mainly followed. Alignment also varies to prevent clutter on one side. The quotes in the Larkin article are different, as they are poems, which stretch vertically instead of horizontally, due to the short verses. As for Dodo origins, it was widely accepted they were pigeons already in the 1850s, the DNA study only confirmed it. As for the fruit in the image, Leguat mentions it ate "dates", but that is all. And yes, that study you mention might be helpful, if it exists, and wasn't just a personal comment. The two Newton papers are an abstract and the article itself, but the abstract does contain slightly different info. An elevation is a point protruding higher than the surrounding area. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other reports of elevations on the lower neck? Could it be that the lighter colour there gave the impression of an elevation? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, nothing is known of this feature beyond Leguat's description and drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)

Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs), Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An episode of the hit primetime medical drama Grey's Anatomy, known for deviating from its usual themes. I am nominating it for featured article status because I created it, had it featured at DYK, listed as a GA, and approved for A-class. A lot of work has been put into this article to ensure it meets the criteria, including a peer review from TBrandley and a recent copyedit from Nikkimaria. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Ref. 14 is missing its publisher (Blogspot)
• Ref. 16 is missing its publisher (Logo)

TBrandley 01:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for the source review; I was concerned about who would have done it since Nikkimaria is a nominator :-) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think she most likely would of questioned Wetpaint, Zap2it, and TV Fanatic as sources. But, those have been explained before. TBrandley 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Those have been determined reliable. By the way; Nikkimaria is a girl :-) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Used to writing "he". :0 TBrandley 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Can't see anything to be fixed. Great work.
  • Thanks. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley 01:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

• Where is the episode's running time referenced?
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Any production codes; some are located at epguides, which was good for the FA, "Say Hello to My Little Friend"
  • The show stopped using production codes after the fifth season. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• "The episode was designed to revolve around Dempsey's character.". How is that?
  • It's explained in 'Production'; it was written with him as the main focus. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• ""Give Peace a Chance" opens with". Very repetitive. Please remove.
  • What is very repetitive? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• "as production designer". missing a "the" before "production"
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• According to Nowalk, → Nowalk opined
  • Not done; that is awkward because "opined" is synonymous with giving their opinion. It wasn't his opinion, it is fact; he wrote the episode. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That said, I see several instances of the curly being used in the quote feautead at the end of production. Examples are It’s, That’s, etc. Please change.
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• You mention reviews from critics, but, then, to find more, you have to look at the second paragraph. Merge "The episode received positive reviews among critics" to the second paragraph
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see looks of "X of X". Perhaps change it up. Example: Writing for X, X, X editor X, etc.
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• gave a positive review of the entry → gave the entry a positive review
  • The latter is not as concise as the former, so not done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good now. TBrandley 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting, but just to clarify, what were you saying was very repetitive? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

""Give Peace a Chance" opens with". We do know that it opens to them. Its the first sentence, just WP:COMMONSENSE. TBrandley 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It was chosen as a lead-in word, instead of just saying "Webber is implementing...". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. TBrandley 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments fro Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support - Fairly short, but solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• 'Support. With the issues being resolved, GPAC is now ready to be an FA. --Sofffie7 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "The initial airing was viewed by 13.74 million Americans" not definite. Hypothetically, an Australian, on holiday in Atlanta might have viewed the episode – does that make them American, or native to the country? Going by Triangle (The X-Files), best to use 'viewers'.
  • I changed it to 'people' because it sounded redundant to say "viewed by XX million viewers". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Is multihour hyphenated or not? I'm certain I've seen it presented singular (as a Countdown conundrum) and prefixes like mega, mini and multi very rarely need hyphens. Might just be hyphenated in American English so be sure to double check. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The spellcheck on my computer says it's hyphenated. In addition, a quick google search without hyphenation makes the word hyphenated. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• I would like to see a lead image. Is that possible?
  • That makes two of us. Look at all the episode screenshots here. Do you think any of them meet NFCC? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Out of all of them, I think this would be the best as it shows a lot of the cast which the article talks about. It also shows them in hospital clothing and would be necersary to illustrate exactly what they look like. The article, I feel, could do with some illustration. I have never seen the series and whilst reading it, I was trying to visualise what the characters might have looked like; this image (or one similar) would certainly of helped. I am no image guru so it will have to properly assessed as to the meeting of NFCC criteria, but I think you might have a strong enough case to include it or one like it. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think that meets NFCC. Usually, the only time it seems episodic images are allowed, is when they are critically commented on. I feel like this would be deleted. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Knowing that she will not be able to use the bathroom for the entire procedure, Lexie decides to wear a diaper into the operating room, which impresses Yang." Why would this impress her?
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Isaac asks Shepherd to attempt removing it." --- "Isaac asks Shepherd to operate on him"
  • I think that's a bit ambiguous, because he could be asking him to do any random surgery; he asks him to remove the tumor. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Its not that ambiguous when you consider we have mentioned he is suffering from a tumour. Also, "attempt removing" sounds wrong. "attempt to remove it" sounds better IMO -- Cassianto^Talk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to simply "Isaac asks Shepherd to remove it." TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• "...the episode was written by Peter Nowalk and directed by Wilson" -- I would use Wilson's full name here as its the first time she is mentioned.
  • Her name is linked and given in full in 'Plot'. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah OK, sorry I missed that. I think there needs to be some explaination that she was the director and the actress in the episode. As far as I can see there is no mention of this within the same sentence. Wilson is a very common surname and without the explanation early on that she did both, one would have to stop reading to go back to check it was the same person. I think with this explained, surname usage would be OK. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Jenny Barak edited the music..." Edited or composed? Or did she edit the already composed music. If so "edit" sounds strange.
  • She was credited as 'music editor'. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thats fine then. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Nowalk said the scenes were difficult to shoot, due to the technicality involved".
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• ""Give Peace a Chance" was originally broadcast on October 29, 2009 in the United States on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) channel"
  • I've never seen it written like that. For example, see "Say Hello to My Little Friend", a recently promoted FA. (I know it's NBC, but it's the same concept except for the first word.)
    • Also fine. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• We mention "I Saw What I Saw" by name the second time around when I think it should be the first. For example "The episode underperformed the previous installment in terms of viewership. It was viewed by a total of 13.74 million people, down 1.66 percent from the previous episode "I Saw What I Saw", which garnered 15.04 million viewers."
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll give it another read through once these have been addressed. Looking good though! -- Cassianto^Talk

Everything's done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per the resolved comments above. A nice little article :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Albertus Soegijapranata

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel its a thorough look of a fairly major Indonesian religious figure. It has gone through a GA review by Grapple X and a peer review by Mark Arsten. If passed, this will be our first FA on a National Hero of Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments for now This is very well written. I found a few glitches that need attention, but nothing worth arguing about:

• "...quoting the Finding in the Temple to show why he should not need his parents permission." - possessive needed.
  • Done.
• "He found himself intrigued by the Trinity, and asked several of the priests for clarification." - redundancy, how about was intrigued?
  • Done
• "Soegija, who found himself wanting to learn more." - same here.
  • Done
• This reads a little awkwardly, "Several other of Soegija's writings were published in St. Claverbond, Berichten uit Java." How about Several of Soegija's other writings?
  • Done.
• Please check for WP:ENGVAR consistency, I think I saw "counseled" somewhere.
  • Done.
• "On 30 May 1963 Soegijapranata left Indonesia for Europe to attended the election of Pope Paul VI." - I guess this is just a typo? Graham Colm (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Following a further two readings, I am satisfied that this contribution fulfils the FA criteria. I am impressed with quality of the prose, particularly with regards to style and flow. I found the coordinates a little strange, given this a biography and not a geography article, perhaps you could remind me why they are needed? Graham Colm (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Indicates the location of his grave (the functionality is built into the infobox). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wow; great work. TBrandley 02:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN34: should use dash not hyphen
• FN46: page formatting
• Check for minor glitches like doubled periods
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I got it all, thanks for looking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Was already happy with this one when I reviewed it for GA; the subsequent smoothing of minor wrinkles just seals it. GRAPPLE X 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking another look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: _{Supported below} I peer reviewed and copy edited this a month or so ago, so I don't have too much left to add.
• "Soegija was pressured from his Catholic classmates" Is it just me, or does this sound a bit awkward?
  • If I remember correctly, that was "under pressure" before. Changed.
• "he required permission from his parents first; although his parents refused, Soegija was nevertheless allowed to study" I'm being a bit picky here, but there's repetition of "parents... parents" here.
  • Agree with you. Done.
• In the first paragraph of "Path to priesthood" there's some repetition of novitiate, and some repetition of Xaverius in the third.
  • Removed one "novitiate", two "Xaverius"
• "In a letter dated 11 August 1923 he wrote that the Javanese were so far unable to discern between Catholics and Protestants, and that the best way to convert the Javanese was by deeds, not words." Probably not an issue, but is there a relation between the two halves of the sentence? If so, you should probably tie them together more clearly.
  • Not really, no. How's this.
    • Actually, I think the earlier version worked better, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Reverted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• "After his ordination, Soegija appended the word pranata, meaning "prayer" or "hope", as a suffix to his birth name, a common practice in Javanese culture after its bearer reached an important milestone." What was the common practice? Adding "pranata" to one's name? Or adding a name in general?
  • How's this?
• Try to double check that the refs are in ascending order, I fixed one out of order sequence.
• You might think about adding a pronunciation of his name, it looks like quite the tongue twister. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It would have to be IPA though. I'll get on that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Added, for what good it'll do the average reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph in the lead there are several sentences that begin "In [year] ..." Might want to try for some more variation.
  • How's this?
• "Concerned with civilian suffering, the vicar apostolic told the Allies that they must stop the battle, the Allies could not comply as they did not know the Japanese commander." I think this is a comma splice.
  • You're right.
• "installing Moch. Ikhsan as mayor" Presumably this isn't an error, I'm just curious what "Moch." stands for.
  • Presumably "Mochtar", but a ref would have to wait
• "In 1953 the Ministry for Religion decreed that no foreign missionaries would be allowed into the country, and a subsequent law prohibited those already in the country from teaching." Some repetition of "country" here.
  • Done.
• I made several copyedits, hopefully nothing offensive.
  • The only big issue I have is the removal of "by" from "by then under Dutch control". The Proclamation was made in Jakarta, so just "then" could be misread as implying that the Indonesian government had never had power over Jakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Soegijapranata promoted the state philosophy of Pancasila – literally the five tenets – through the organisation." I feel like this is a bit of a garden path. I'd suggest starting with "through the organisation".
  • Okay.
• "asked the vicar to join the National Council, a request that Soegijapranata refused; the vicar did," Some repetition of "the vicar" here.
  • Vicar --> he
• Also, you have a couple semi-colons pretty close to each other in the paragraph I took the above sentence from.
  • Trimmed.
• "The film ... sold over 100,000 tickets on its first day." Is that a lot for an Indonesian film?
  • In a word, yes. More lengthily: Surat Kecil Untuk Tuhan was the most viewed film of 2011 and was seen by only 700k people total. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Several non-fiction biographies of Soegija, by both Catholic and non-Catholic writers, were released during this time." When is "this time"? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to "concurrently" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Alright, I'm confident that this meets the FA criteria at this point. Seems well written and comprehensive, also very interesting and engaging. I did a quick search for sources during the PR and this seems to cover the available English reliable sources I turned up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Still places the prose could be improved, mostly owing to repetition -- these examples from the lead:
  • Soegija was born in Surakarta, Dutch East Indies, to a courtier and his wife. The Muslim family... -- If we're going to emphasise that he was born to a Muslim family, it might flow better to say "to a Muslim courtier and his wife. The family..."
    • Agree, done.
  • He began his two-year novitiate with the Society of Jesus in September 1920 in Grave, later finishing his juniorate there in 1923. -- 1923 is obviously after 1920, so do we need "later"?
    • Graham got that.
  • ...called for the central government to send someone to deal with the unrest in the city. However, unrest and food shortages continued... -- Not essential, but be nice to come up with an alternate word to the second "unrest".
    • Done.
  • He was elevated to archbishop on 3 January 1961, when Semarang was elevated to an ecclesiastical province. -- Could he be "promoted" or "raised" to archbishop, so we don't repeat "elevated"?
    • Done.
  • Bit of a howler here: Several biographies of him have been written about him"
    • Looks like Graham got that.
• Scanning towards the end I noticed Soegijapranata then went for treatment at Canisius Hospital in Nijmegen, where he underwent treatment from 29 June until 6 July; this treatment was unsuccessful. -- All those treatments and still unsuccessful? I'm sure we could easily reduce to two treatments, one if we're imaginative...
  • This was actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd review and copyedit the whole article myself except that, with Graham reviewing, we might have trouble closing the FAC -- but I think it needs another pair of eyes to check prose throughout.
  • Well...
• Lastly, we'll need an image check at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was considering posting at WT:FAC but wasn't sure if non-delegates are allowed to request an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but it's fine for non-delegates to post requests there (as you've found by being bold)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Image check -- Got on to this myself and am satisfied with licensing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the look!

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

Louis Riel (comics)

Nominator: CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, since building it up from a stub, it is now comprehensive, well-organized and fully referenced. The book which is its subject was a turning point for its author on personal, artistic and professional levels, and it was a surprise best-seller from a veteran underground cartoonist whom few would have expected would ever have broken out of the underground. It has just passed GA review. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Disclaimer: reviewed at PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Does the Biography Portal deal with biographies, or only biographical articles? I was surprised to see it here

Done---removed. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Riel/Macdonald caption is potentially confusing because "antagonist" has a different meaning in the literary context than in the "real world"

Done---changed to "adversaries". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Rielcomicstripcover.jpg: purpose of use could be a bit more expansive. Also, are you sure Brown retained copyright to the cover? It would be more usual for the publisher to assume copyright of works they publish.

Done---Drawn and Quarterly has a reputation for not retaining the rights of the artists it publishes (actually, this is standard practice in the alternative comics world, where creators' rights has long been a hot topic). The indicia on both the serial and the collected work confirm that the copyright is his. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Battle_of_Batoche_Print_by_Seargent_Grundy.jpg: was this subject to Crown Copyright? Also, do you have a catalogue or ID number for the archive, or a link?

Done---added link to where I originally found it, plus more catalogue information and more detail to the description. The Crown did not hold the copyright---it was published independently by John Wilson Bengough's Grip Printing & Publishing Co. in Toronto in 1885. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg: need more information. Is the photographer known? Was this subject to Crown Copyright? If so, when/where was first publication?

Done---the photographer was George Lancefield, and the photo is actually believed to be from ca. 1875. I've added more information, and I've put in a request to have the file renamed to reflect the correct date. Library and Archives Canada doesn't say if it was subject to Crown Copyright, only that the copyright is expired. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File was renamed and has been updated. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Missing citation information for Bell 2011

Done---caused by a messed-up parameter. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include retrieval dates

Done

Sorry, I don't see what this is referring to... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For example, compare the two Arnold 2003s - one includes an access date and one does not, even though these cite the same magazine. Essentially, access dates aren't required for newspapers/magazines/journals/books, but if you want to include them you can so long as you're consistent in what types of publications include them. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is fixed. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Baker: missing italicization

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Epp: formatting

Done

Could you check again? Is what I did what you meant? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It looks like there's something wrong with the title formatting? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Fixed. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wivel: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• It appears the "Eye Weekly" link has gone dead. maclean (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's frusatrating. It appears the Eye Weekly site now redirects to The Grid TO, and the Eye Weekly archives have gone down. Ther's no copy at the Wayback Machine, although Google still has a cached copy.

Is there some way to archive a Google cached page? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=" parameter of cite web might work for this but I an unsure how long the google cache will exist for. It is ok to remove the dead external link - they are not required. maclean (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

...the cached page has disappeared, just as I thought I should download a personal copy before it did. Too bad, it was a good article, and I used it as a ref in Chester Brown and Paying for It as well... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article at Talk:Louis Riel (comics)/GA1 under the GA criteria and again here under the FA criteria. It is well-written and well-researched and meets style guidelines required by the FA criteria. maclean (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: _{Supported below} Looks interesting, I'll give this a review. I made some copyediting changes, feel free to revert the stylistic changes if you don't like them. My experience with Canadian comics is limited to the first half of the Cerebus series, so I'll mainly be looking at prose/MOS issues.
• Check for consistency in the use of the serial comma.

Done, I think. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "a key work in serious graphic novels holding shelf space in mainstream bookstores" There's a fused participle here, I think. Also, this sentence reads a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it?

Is this better? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "and which he himself does not necessarily believe" Not a big deal, but this also seems a bit wordy.

I'll have to think about how to reword this. I don't want to remove it, though. The way Brown's notes undermine his story is one of the more interesting aspects of the book, and critics and reviewers have repeatedly noted it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's a one sentence paragraph in the Overview section, is there a good way to combine that with another?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Though Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, Brown speaks only English,[3] and only became interested in Riel's story in 1995, well into his adulthood." How do the two halves of this sentence (his language and when he became interested in Riel) relate?

How about: "Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, and where Riel is often considered a martyr. However, Brown (a monolingual English-speaker), was largely ignorant of Riel's story until he read a biography about the Métis leader in 1995." From the interview which is the source for this, Dave Sim (another monolingual English-speaker, from Ontario) assumed Brown's upbringing in Quebec would have meant that Brown would have been inundated with Riel's story while growing up, and that maybe that was the source of Brown's interest in the story. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Might want to paraphrase this quote: "his "antagonistic relationship with the Canadian government","

Really? I thought that quote was about the perfect way to phrase it. Is there some reason to reword it? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I guess you can leave it--seemed a bit odd to me for some reason, more of a suggestion I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check for consistency with dates after commas: "In 1995, Brown..." vs "In 1998 he turned his attention..."

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are a couple harv errors in the references (check 8 & 72).

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's a little repetition in the last section, "graphic novel ever" is repeated in a couple sentences and "especially in Canada" is repeated in the same sentence.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do you know which stream of Anarchism Brown was part of before his transition?

He was only an anarchist in a vague, "government is bad" sort of way, but "anarchist" is the way he consistently described himself in interviews. He never formally subscribed to any political ideology until he became a libertarian. He says himself he wasn't very politically aware before his libertarian rebirth. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looking good thus far, will post more comments later. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• I made some more copyedits, my apologies in advance if they introduce errors. Still looks pretty good.
• In the "Primary characters" section, I see you use " ; " in front of the names, I think " ''' " is better for screen readers or something.

Done. I looked at some literature FAs, and it looks like some of them put the characters in subsections, so I've gone and done that, too. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Probably want to double check compliance with WP:YEAR. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've looked it over a couple of times, and I'm not sure where I'm not complying... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "At the time, Brown was increasingly making use of notes and appendices in his work" At which time?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but is there a better way to say this than "capricious details", it seems a bit oddly worded to me.

Is it "capricious" that is the issue? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "comic book instalments" Should this be hyphenated?

My gut instincts say "no", but I can't say with total confidence. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Actually, I think "comic-book" is correct. Curly Turkey (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "though he is a print lover" should "print lover" by hyphenated?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2012, Louis Riel was one of two books that would the first Drawn and Quarterly would offer in e-book format" A bit jumbled here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Reworded. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "the free panel placements" Hyphen?

Done.

The panel placements are free—not about the placement of free panels. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reworded to "free placement of panels". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Tone and mood are set by the composition of the panels, as during Riel's trial when all tonal variation is dropped, and the white figures are placed against a heavy black background,[29] emphasizing the courtroom's claustrophobic atmosphere" Just a suggestion but I think you could remove "courtroom's" since the reader will infer that his trial took place in a courtroom.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "⟨chevron brackets⟩, and Cree language dialogue in ⟨⟨double-chevrons⟩⟩." I think just the link would do here.

I'm sure it would, but I think it gets the point across quickly and concisely, especially since a lot of people aren't familiar with the word "chevron" in this context. Is it intrusive or distracting? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The size and weight of the dialogue in the is varied according to speech patterns" a bit jumbled here.

Done. Weird, there was an extra space in the source for "seech balloons"... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "reminiscent of the late-19th century editorial cartoonists that would have been Riel's contemporaries." "Would have" or "were"?

Done. Reworded. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "and Larry Gonick's extremely cartoony Cartoon History of the Universe." Is there a good way around the "cartoony Cartoon" wording here?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "He drew each of the 1325[20] panels separately on watercolour paper" Who is "he" here?

Done. That would be Brown. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "It has perhaps sold more copies that any other graphic novel within Canada." Is there a way to be more definite here? Maybe attribute the estimate to someone?

Done. Actually I meant to change that, and forgot. Attributed to Jeet Heer. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Louis Riel brought Brown out of the fringes into the mainstream,[46] and also brought more serious attention to graphic novels." Is there a good way around the "brought... brought" repetition here? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look this over. If you have any more feedback or answers to my questions, though, I won't be able to respond quickly for the next month. I'll be travelling, and I'll have infrequent access to the internet. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Ok, I think this meets the FA criteria now, good work. Sorry for the slothful pace of the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I expect to support, but have a small batch of comments. I'm sorry to be so delayed and I'll hope to have the rest to you in a day or so.

Lede

• Do you need the comma in the first sentence?

Done. No, I don't think so. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would mention the date of the comics in the first paragraph if possible, and certainly before you speak of "its time".

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Similarly, the date of the Red River Rebellion might be helpful.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The appendix shone light " Rather awkward. I would suggest, possibly "provided information" or similar for "shone light"

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• ""He also noted where he incorporated a conspiracy theory not widely accepted by historians, and which he himself does not necessarily believe." This is an awkward sentence ("noted where") and the ending reads like a legal disclaimer. I think this can be better handled, perhaps by moving it up to the start of where you talk about his apparatus, and use it as a lead-in. "Brown included in the comic a conspiracy theory ..." leave out Brown's opinion.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would finish the lede that way, which is your last opportunity to sell the reader on the "first page" of the article (i.e., he's got to decide whether to scroll down or not. Do you expect Brown's change of view to be important to the reader? Will the reader consider Brown important enough to want to get the goods on how it was that happened?

Done. It was important in the sense that he would later run for federal politics as a Libertarian, and that his next book would be written from an explicitly Libertarian point of view, but I suppose it's not a good way to end the lead. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Overview

• If you are going to say how long the depiction of Riel's conflict with Canada is, we need the length of the the book to be close by.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• " (a monolingual English speaker[4]), " Perhaps "who speaks only English" with commas as needed, and without parentheses.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Brown enjoyed this type of writing " As he only has done it once, at this point, perhaps state that he enjoyed that project?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• You should probably explain what Underwater is as soon as you mention it. I'm getting somewhat of a feeling that this article assumes some knowledge of Brown and his works, and it assumes that he is prominent enough for us to take considerable interest in him. I don't know if he is or not, I know little about comics. Just saying that's what is coming across to me.

Done, I think. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• " reevaluating his diagnosis of mental illness" Whose diagnosis? And is it settled that Riel was mentally ill? The last I heard there was still some discussion about this.

Done. I've qualified the statement with "alleged". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• "While Brown's depiction of Riel" this paragraph, perhaps boiled down a bit (you don't need the introductory clause) possibly should be consigned to a footnote.

Done? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot

• Image caption: For those not minded to click on the image and given the tiny print in thumbnail, I would indicate where Manitoba is on the map with something like "lower centre" in parens.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify how the prisoners can be released from Fort Garry and subsequently pass Fort Garry.

Done. It was Schultz's men, not the prisoners, who subsequently passed Fort Garry. I've reworded for clarity. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thumbnail introductions along the lines of "English settler" would help with keeping track of the names.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• " One of the prisoners, Thomas Scott, relentlessly quarrels with the guards, showering them with racial epithets. Eventually, he is convicted of treason" The implication is that his badmouthing of his guards led to conviction for treason (it's the "Eventually,", really) possibly without legal proceedings, just because he ticked off his guards. Trial by fury? You need to make it clear that what happened to Scott was by Riel's provisional government.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the comic, does he return to Red River (you should probably say Manitoba, btw) to stand for Parliament? Or was it in his absence?

In the book, he runs and wins his seat while hiding out in Manitoba. He's depicted later in Ottawa, hesitant to actually sit, and then goes into hiding again. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Mackenzie becomes prime minister before 1874, no? Is it presented out of chronological order in the comic?

Done. "become" ==> "has become". The book is strictly in chronological order. Mackenzie's election is not shown, though, and he makes his (brief) appearance only after Riel's 1874 win. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not much of an exile if he was near Montreal in 1876.

He was supposed to be in exile, and was in the US until being transported secretly to Montreal. In the book, he was most recently in Washington DC before he is brought to Montreal. It is not stated how he was brought there, but he was brought there under an assumed name. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• " Batoche, Saskatchewan, in mid-1884." Saskatchewan? In 1884? Perhaps (now in Saskatchewan)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I imagine by his comment that the break was from the Catholic Church. Perhaps it would be wise to mention Riel's Catholic birth at some point earlier than this.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

End of part 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2:

• "every dog shall bark" You say he famously said this. At least according to Gwyn, his most recent biographer, there's doubt about whether he did. Can you phrase this in a way that doesn't say to the reader with definiteness that he did? Yes, I know it's the plot section but you are saying with definiteness that Macdonald said this.

Done. "famous" was entirely gratuitous, and I've removed it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• " the rebels receive a pardon," I would say "remaining rebels"

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Characters

• You should make it clearer that you are telling their real life stories here. With the faction of the previous section, the reader may be confused.

Done, I think. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that the killing of Scott is what made it politically impossible for Macdonald to pardon Riel, I would throw some mention of that into the bios.

I can't find a suitable reference in this context in the John A. Macdonald, Louis Riel or Thomas Scott articles. Could you recommend one? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• The drunkenness of Macdonald is certainly established historical fact, although I don't think there's any indication he had a drinking problem in 1885. He appears to have cleaned up his act (or his wife did) while he was in opposition.

In the book, Macdonald is depicted as coming up with the conspiracy to finish the CP railway by instigating the North-West Rebellion while in a drunken stupor alone in the Watts Hotel in November 1884. If there's a reference saying he'd given up drinking by that point, I'd be happy to include it, but I hardly think his depicted drunkenness would be more libellous than depicting him coming up with the conspiracy. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Appendix

• " Louis Riel, Brown was increasingly making use of notes and appendices in his work." Increasingly compared to what? It's not so much the notes, it's the "increasing ... use of ... appendices" which is giving me pause here.

Done. I think it's more clear now. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that you mentioned, in some detail, Mom, above, should some mention of From Hell be done up there as noting the genesis of Riel?

In the source, Brown mentions the influence in passing, but no details are given. I'm not given the impression that the influence was great. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• " he would not actually have been present." "He was not actually present"

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Publication history

• The sentence about the grant of $6000 seems out of place.

Really? He was given the grant halfway through the serialization. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I note the sentence on the footnotes in this section, and that it is the third time you have mentioned them in more than passing. Can some consolidation be done?
• "as the series progressed and the influence of Harold Gray became stronger" You've mentioned Gray before, though only in passing. I'm not able to see why a minimalist drawing style would lead to big hands. You may want to say that he altered his drawing style as the series progressed, and why, and say he adjusted them. I don't think "corrected" is the proper term.

A minimalist drawing style doesn't lead to big hands—Harold Gray's drawing style was noted for small heads and big hands. The paragraph doesn't mention minimalism.

Done. I've reworded "corrected" to "redrew many of". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• You should say who created Paying for It inline.

Done. Both books were by Brown. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Style

• "Composition takes place from panel to panel—scenes change anywhere on the page with little regard to page layout." Huh?

Maybe I'll have to work on this. Brown doesn't take the comnposition of the page into account when telling his story. In many comics, transitions happen between pages, but in Louis Riel, scenes can change anywhere on the page. This is because Brown draws each panel on separate sheets of paper, whereas traditionally one would draw the whole page on one sheet of paper. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Done? Maybe it's clearer now. Curly Turkey (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "in great contrast". Is the word "great" really needed?

Done. Removed. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• You should make clear, if true, that the dialogue is actually in English, he's just using the brackets to tell you that it's "really" in French.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• "He frequently cited Harold Gray " You've mentioned Gray twice before, but this seems to be the main explanation. I'm dubious that this is the best way to inform the reader about Gray's influence over Brown. You may want to have this explanation prior to the earlier two mentions of Gray.

Do you mean: move the "Style" section earlier in the article? Given that the influence is 99% in the drawing style, I don't think the explanation would be better in a different section. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the "Style" section forward, so I suppose this is done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Gray often used his strip as a public platform for politics, and Louis Riel was also very public and outward-looking, in great contrast to the inward-looking comics he had previously been known for—notably his autobiographical work. " This sentence takes on too much, and it is unclear what the attributes you mention mean. Divide and rephrase.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• "late-19th century" I would delete. The reader knows by now when Riel lived.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• "extremely cartoony style of Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe" Don't most cartoons have a cartoony style? Can this be better explained for the lay reader?

Done. "extremely cartoony" ==> "extremely exaggerated" CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Legacy. I think it is premature to speak of a ten year old book as having a legacy.

Could you suggest a better catch-all for the content of that section? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, while I understand Wehwalt's doubt, I thought it was probably the best word, on balance. "Critical reception" would not cover everything that the section addresses, and I'm not a fan of "Impact", which was the only other thought i had.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "despite Riel's own political conservatism" I'm not sure I would characterize Riel as a conservative.

Done. Reworded to shown it was Brown who considered him politically conservative. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can't anything more be said about the footnotes/appendix? Such things can be clever (say those of George Macdonald Fraser. You never really tell us anything about it except that it's long and that Brown details his political change.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. There's a three-paragraph section on the appendix, and it definitely talks about things other than Brown's politics (in fact, the "Appendix" section doesn't even talk about his politics—that's talked about elsewhere in the article). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment I find the opening sentence to be a little awkward and non-standard. Could it be recast along the lines of Watchmen?—indopug (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

One issue with that is that it was never conceived as a ten-issue series---it was conceived as a graphic novel. The fact that it was serialized was against Brown's intention, and it wasn't known at the beginning of publication how many issues it would be. Wording it the way it was in the Watchmen article would put undue weight on the serial, which was financially unsuccessful and not the way Brown conceived his book, whereas Watchmen was conceived as a 12-issue miniseries which later just happened to be collected in a book due to its success. If the opening sentence is awkward, I'd be happy to fix it in some other way. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it myself to my liking, but feel free to tweak/revert (specifically, the mention of it being a historical bio of Riel is moved to the second sentence). One more thing: a lot of words should be de-linked—rebel, martyr, index, prophet, insanity, visions—and this is just in the first part of Overview. Basically, common English words needn't be linked.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of issues:

1. "Graphic novel" is a term I've danced around. The term itself is a movig target---not only has its meaning changed rapidly over time, but it has widely different meanings for different people. Some avoid its use entirely; others use it as a synonym for comics; yet others insist it must mean "novelistic" comics (which, again, has different meanings for different people). Given that Louis Riel is a biography rather than a novel, I've avoided use of the term except where unavoidable (for example, all comics over the past decade have been classifed as "graphic novels" in bookstores and libraries, so in references to its sales classification I've referred to it as a "graphic novel"). "Comics" is neutral and factual.
2. I don't like the idea of referring to the serialization dates in the first sentence---it puts undue weight on it, when the serialization was something that Brown opposed, and was commercially unsuccessful. Unlike something like Watchmen, where each issue was a "chapter", in Louis Riel, Brown paid no heed to the serial nature of the book, cutting off issues in mid-scene once the required number of pages had been met. For the reader, I think it would be far more helpful to talk about what the book is about, before talking about incidentals like the serialization dates. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind de-emphasising the serialisation. However, keep in mind that, in a sense, "how the author intended his work to be" is not really the ultimate consideration for us. How history actually played out matters too. As for graphic novel, replace "comic book" in the lead sentence?—indopug (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"How history actually played out": in that case, the serial was a commercial flop, but the book was an unqualified critical and commercial success, breaking into mainstream bestseller lists. It is the form, whether hardcover, paperback or digital, that the vast majority of future readers will be exposed to. Reprinting of the serial, which Brown was opposed to, and which had less consistent artwork, is extremely unlikely.

"Comic book" is totally inappropriate, as it refers to the thin periodicals that North American comics stories (aside from comic strips) were most commonly printed in in the 20th century. In fact, that's what originally gave rise to the term "graphic novel"---just what do you call a book full of comics, when "comic book" already refers to the floppies? A "comic book book"? Unfortunately, things have come full circle (in a way) with many booksellers and librarians now referring to all comics as "graphic novels", including the floppies. Comics is frustrating to talk about in English when one is trying to be precise, and the situation doesn't seem like it will clear up in the near future. This is why I prefer "comics", as it doesn't seem to be such a moving target. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Is it proper to pluralize "comics" in the lead? "Louis Riel is a 2003 comic biography..." seems more proper to me.
  • In that vein, "In 1995, Brown published the anti-psychiatry comic essay..." in the background section would also be more proper.

1. Like "economics" and "politics", "comics" is singular when referring to the artform. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
2. "Comic" also has the meaning of "comedic". Neither the book nor the essay are comedic. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Would "The book explores the possibly schizophrenic aspect of Riel's personality..." sound better?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• "He became interested in Riel in 1995 after reading Maggie Siggins' 1994 biography Louis Riel: A Life of Revolution." - Redundant, as you already mentioned one paragraph above that he became interested after reading a biography.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• "and the Toronto Star placed it on its list of the ten best books of the century in 2009" - this misled me a little, as I first took it to mean over the last 100 years. That struck me as very odd. The source refers only to the decade ending 2009. I think that should be made a little clearer.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was looking at some of the references, and noticed in the Joan Marshall reference that she notes the speaking of Riel and others is "more educated and sophisticated" in French than English, part of which the dropped h's in English is meant to imply. I think that might be a useful addition to this article.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall though, I quite like the article. I can't see much wrong from my position, and I am unable to think of anything it may be missing. I also may have to check out this book, though I generally dislike graphic novels. It seems interesting! Resolute 02:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Supporting now, nice article! Resolute 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why is there a section called "Overview" that is actually half the article? And should "background" really be a subsection of an "overview"? Why are the plot and "primary characters" subsections of "overview"? And why is "Appendix" a subsection of overview?? The article structure seems wierd to me.

• I've fiddled with this myself to try and improve it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a bit more, so I guess this is Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm much happier with this structure. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...comics essay, "My Mom was a Schizophrenic"" - why comics plural?

Please see my response to Resolute above. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The overlinking is extraordinary. I've tackled some and will try and tackle some more.

I've never quite understood this. Many people (myself included) don't read articles (particularly long ones) in sequence. As long as the duplicated links are in different sections (and they are), why is this an issue? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK in the Manual of Style, it is about helping readers identify relevant information; but links also detract from readability, in that they attract the eye - so we only want them where necessary. Yes, if someone picks up the thread half way through, they may strike a word or name that they might want to know more about but, if they know they started half way through, they'll figure it might be elsewhere in the text. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I've left a couple, which I'm willing to defend if anyone cares enough to object. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• In "Appendix", we are told "In Louis Riel, the appendix totalled 23 pages, along with a bibliography and an index." Then in the very next section, "publication history", we are told "The comic book and the collection both came with copious amounts of footnotes (23 pages in the latter), and the collection came with a bibliography and an index." This seems repetition of some oddly obscure detail, yet slightly inconsistent in referring to the 23 pages as appendix in one, but footnotes in the other (or are they genuinely two different parts of the text, but both just happen to be 23 pages long?).

Done. The appendix is made up of footnotes. I've gone and reduced the amount of repetitious details. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Consistency query - a rebellion is called North-West Rebellion at one point, but 1885 Rebellion at another.

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overview refers to "end notes"; publication history refers to "footnotes". Are there really both kinds? Footnotes are at the bottom of a page; endnotes are at the end of the entire text. Which is it?

Done. That would be end notes. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My 'oppose' is based on the article structure - but if it can be explained and defended, and other editors have no problem with it, then fair enough; I also don't get how something got this far with the overlinking on steroids, but at least that can be easily fixed... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• On further thought: I think the minimalist solution is: get rid of the two paras directly under "Overview" - if you want to keep any of that text, it should be under the next heading "Background". Then delete the heading "overview" and promote "Background", "Plot", "primary characters" and "appendix" to top-level headings. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, now that structural issues in particular have been addressed, but with the caveat that I haven't looked at source issues and referencing. The changes weren't that major, but I think it has a much better 'feel' now, and it tells an intriguing story. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• "Don McLean and D. N. Sprague" - And they are? I'm hearing "American Pie", but I doubt that's the right person.

Done. McLean was a researcher from Saskatchewan, and Sprague was a historian. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The Louis Riel script came to over 200 pages." - Reads a little awkward. Why not "The script for Louis Riel came to over 200 pages."

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jasper the Bear - worth a red link?

Unlikely. Pretty much everything notable about Jasper is covered or coverable in the Simpkins article. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Les Éditions des Plaines" - Which is?

Done. A publisher. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks better, but now we have "publish" repeated twice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Le crépuscule des Bois-Brûlés ("The Twilight of the Métis")" Why do you have a translation for this and not the others?

Done. I thought the translation was in the source, but that doesn't appear to be true. I don't trust my own French to have done it...so where did it come from? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote: "Please" isn't really encyclopedic. Perhaps just "Other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba), but "the god that speaks" is the translation Riel's character gives in the story", or even "other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba)"

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the white figures are placed against a heavy black background," - In a literal or racial sense? If the former, this may need a bit of rephrasing.

I think this is only an issue when the line is taken out of context. At this point in the article, and in the "Style" section no less, it's hard for me to see this not being obvious. I also don't see any obvious fixes and aren't awkward. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "size 0" - Any good targets?

It would be nice if the Ink brush article weren't so horrible. Maybe someday I'll be able to motivate myself to work on it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• He also included a "Major-General Thomas Bland Strange" in an 1885 meeting at which he was not actually present. - Perhaps "He also included Major-General Thomas Bland Strange in an 1885 meeting at which the general was not present."

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• CAD $6000 or CAD 6000 ? Don't forget, D stands for $

In the article for Canadian dollar, I see a chart using "$CAD" and "$USD", as well as "US$". Does this require fixing? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I know that when I go to banks they just use CAD and USD. Perhaps the alternative, C$? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is a bit tricky - we should not be making up our own term, but using one that sources use. I think CAD (and no dollar sign) or CAN$ are options. CAD$ might be an option, despite the redundancy - i have seen it used occasionally. C$ seems less often used. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd stick with CAD myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a large swath of readers who wouldn't know immediately what "CAD" meant without a dollar sign somewhere. I'm Canadian, I live in Japan, and I don't think I would have recognized it until well into my twenties without a dollar sign. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• How's about $? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but it seemed like cheating... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think, Hamilton? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• making the book's success a surprise. - surprise to whom?

To Brown, his publisher, his fans, his critics, and the publishing industry, which rarely had seen comics in the bestseller lists before then, especially from underground cartoonists. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The comic book and the collection both came with an extensive appendix, and the collection came with a bibliography and an index. The end notes, bibliography, and index were tightly hand-lettered by Brown." - Perhaps with the previous information on the appendix?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (although his libertarian politics have led him to condemn the government for handing out grants) - Before or after the commma?

Done.

• "pan out" - Rather informal. Any other wordings?

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (he would later run for parliament as representative of the Libertarian Party of Canada, to the dismay of his friends) - Perhaps as a footnote?

No. Since Louis Riel, Brown's politics have become a central part of his public persona, and was front and centre in his next book. Researching Riel was the turning point for his politics, and he's talked about it multiple times. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the main text. You could consider reworking text to take it out of the parentheses. But i don't mind it as it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd agree to reworking it into the main text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article on Tom Bethell gives him as (an) author of The Noblest Truth. WorldCat agrees

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fix CN tags for direct quotes

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've given a copyedit, be sure to double check. Note that I changed rôle to role as the latter is more common (per MOS:COMMONALITY)

Disappointing, but whatever. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's it from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• The first sentence seems a bit long and convoluted, the second a little short and choppy. Suggest revamping as: Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comic-book form of Métis rebel leader Louis Riel. Created by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown, it deals with Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government. -- or something similar (note my suggestion also alters "comics form" to "comic-book form", which I think reads better). If you go with this phrasing, the next sentence would probably flow better as It begins shortly before the 1869 Red River Rebellion, and ends with Riel's 1885 hanging for high treason.

Done, except for the "comic book" bit. As I've explained above, the word "comic book" refers specifically to the thin, floppy periodicals in which multipage comics have traditionally appeared in North America. This is what gave rise to the use of "graphic novel" in the first place: just what do you call a book-length comic book? Further, British members of WikiProject Comics have pointed out that "comic book" is not a term normally used in Britain. If we are looking for commonalities, then, even "graphic novel" would be a better term (being in use in all English-speaking countries these days). That term's definition, however, is a moving target, and I'd avoid it except where it can't be avoided. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but "comics form" still sounds an odd construction to these ears, and I noted when I was composing the above post that you've said "Louis Riel was the first comic book..." towards the end of the lead... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The serialization (ten issues from 1999 to 2003) received a grant, making it the first comics periodical (in North America, known as a "comic book") to receive such a grant. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• As I think you haven't taken an article to FA before, Curly, I'd like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I haven't looked properly yet, but "in order to" in the lead should be just "to". Tony (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)�

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: Brown enjoyed this project and thought he would like to take on another project in which he could "cram a lot of research into a comic strip".[10]
• Source: This is on p. 164, not 165

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article: He also came across books by researcher Don McLean and historian Douglas N. Sprague that advanced the conspiracy theory that the 1885 North-West Rebellion was deliberately provoked by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald in order to gain support for the building of the transcontinental railway.
• Source: ..including the conspiracy theories advanced by D. N. Sprague and Don McLean. (According to these authors, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deliberately provoked the 1885 rebellion in order to garner support for the completion of a transcontinental railway.) I think the page range should be 165-166

Done. If you mean to include the full sentence, then that would be 164–165. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article: The book makes frequent deliberate use of silent panels, focused on imagery[10]
• Source: ...a minimalist approach that saw him "focus on imagery and ... try to have silent panels as much as possible."
• Article: as did his earlier experience researching and annotating his comics essay, "My Mom was a Schizophrenic".[10]
• Source: This is on either pp. 157, 164 and 204, not p. 165

Done. 164 is the only page that mentions the research aspect. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article: An army of 1,200 men arrives, ostensibly to keep the peace, but when it is learned they intend to lynch Riel, the rebels abandon Fort Garry. Riel flees to the U.S., and the anglophone population assumes governance.[23]
• Source: Louis Riel: the newly, ad hoc-elected eponymous popular leader sends his troops into the nearby-situated Fort Garry to secure the provisions and weapons stored there, before they fall into the hands of their pro-Canadian adversaries.

I can't fully verify this.

From the source, this is closer: These lead to the promise of extensive autonomy for the region, now called Manitoba by its government, as well as amnesty for those involved in the insurrection and the execution of Scott. Rather than honoring the deal, however, Canada sends its army to the area and crushes the opposition. This leads to the English-speaking part of the population taking over the region’s governance and Riel being forced to go into hiding. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 19:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But there is no mention of 1,200 men or the lynching (and please try to do something with your signature, which by occupying three lines on each occurrence , is cluttering the edit page). Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...okay, I've removed that. It's disappointing that I can't find a source that talks about the lynching. Taking that out removes context. Curly Turkey (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article: ..which were rendered running with their legs splayed, as an artist may have depicted them in the days before the influence of Eadweard Muybridge's photographs of bodies in motion.[23]
• Source: This is accentuated specifically by the use of the pre-photographic convention depicting horses running with their legs splayed – a non-naturalistic and now archaic, but nevertheless dynamic strategy fully in step with pictorial convention before Eadweard Muybridge’s late 1870s split-second sequential photographic depictions of horses and other bodies in motion.

• Article: Against his will, Riel's lawyer tries unsuccessfully to defend him on grounds of insanity.[23]
• Source: He is defended by a lawyer who – against Riel’s will – seeks acquittal on grounds of insanity, but ends up convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

• Article: The drawings were finished using both a thin ink brush (no larger than size 0) and dip pen with a Hunt 102 nib and black ink.[50]
• Source: For the Riel book, I drew on water-colour paper, using a thin brush (a zero or thinner), or a dip-pen with a Hunt 102 nib, and black ink. (A dip-pen is one that has no ink cartridge—you have to keep regularly dipping it in ink.) Those materials and tools might sound fancy, but all you really need is any kind of blank paper and a drawing tool of some sort.

No issues, except for those in bold text, which need clarification or correction. Graham Colm (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Sorry for coming back so late:

• Shouldn't there be a critical reception section quoting or summarising what major critics and publications had to say? Enough has been written about it's commercial successes, but you don't learn of its critical acclaim until Legacy.

• You said above that the author wasn't happy that it was serialised. I'm surprised this isn't in the article.

Done. I could have sworn it was. Now it is. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comics form by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown. It deals with the rebel Métis leader Louis Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government." - I think the opening should be changed to this because 1) the artwork's creator really should be in the first sentence and 2) you avoid the awkward "Louis Riel is a biography of Louis Riel" construction.

How about:

"Louis Riel is a historical biography in comics by Chester Brown." It is about Métis rebel leader Louis Riel and his antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government."

and (last paragraph)

"Originally serialized in ten instalments between 1999 and 2003, it was the first comic book to receive a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts."

Perfect. I wouldn't mind adding his reluctance to serialisation too.—indopug (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think a couple of key things in the body are missing from the lead. You mentioned above about not wanting to give undue importance to the the serialised publication, but it needs to have a cursory mention at least. Also, you could include a bit more about its critical acclaim.—indopug (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - One of the spotchecks still needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't forgotten that. I'm still trying to figure out how I screwed up and how to fix it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing note - This has been a candidate for a long time, and I think consensus to promote has been established. I am aware that one or of the reviewers' comments have not been fully addressed, but these can be ironed out post promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Osiris myth

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The best-known and most influential ancient Egyptian myth, demonstrating the Egyptian perspective on subjects ranging from lunar eclipses to sick children. And above all, death and rebirth. The article uses the best sources available to me (all professional Egyptologists) and has been tweaked in response to its peer review (here). A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Opening_of_the_Mouth_-_Tutankhamun_and_Aja.jpg needs US PD tag

  I'm not sure which of these tags is most appropriate to supplement the PD-Art tag that's already present. Does Template:PD-US-unpublished fit? A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  It doesn't currently have the PD-Art tag; you could add that, and use PD-old-100 instead of PD-old if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• File:Egypte_louvre_066.jpg needs to account for licensing of 3D work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  How, precisely? The sculpture is 2,800 years old and inherently public domain, and the photographer has licensed the photograph. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but just throw in a PD-old-100 for the sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Both done. Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I was quite impressed when I peer reviewed this article a couple of weeks back. However, although my review was acknowledged, there were no responses provided to individual points; it seems that some of my points have been acted on, others ignored. There may be justifiable reasons for not adopting my suggestions, but I would like to know what they are before I can consider supporting the article here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was uncommunicative; I didn't mean to be. I acted on each of your suggestions, taking all of the specific suggestions about wording and trying to clarify the points of confusion that you mentioned. I felt I'd addressed the issues, though I can see a couple of instances where one might think otherwise. For instance, when you asked for the provenance of "The Tale of Two Brothers", I added that it dates from the New Kingdom (I didn't think its original location was relevant here, and now that I look nobody seems to know, but I suppose I could say it's on a papyrus). You asked me to say what stelae are; I thought it would be a bit awkward to describe them specifically, considering that the point of the sentence is to mention a particular type of stela with a specific name, but I did link to stela and mention that they are "inscribed stone" objects. I have no intention of ignoring your input, and we can discuss whatever problems you feel the article still has, here or on the article talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning support: I've checked out my peer review comments. You appear to have dealt with my issues except for a couple of minor ones:-

• "Well-known" in the lead still has its unwanted hyphen

Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• My objection to "entertaining writings" is unaddressed. I think either of Johnbod's suggestions, below, are better than what I suggested, and think you should adopt one of these.

Otherwise I am happy to support, subject to sources and spotchecks clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Johnbod:
• "Episodes from the myth were also recorded in entertaining writings" - my italics. Find an idiomatic phrase: "comic texts", "texts in a lighter vein" etc.

I'm not sure what's the best option here. Because the rest of the paragraph describes the tone of the text, I think the first sentence should indicate the text's purpose—like a novel that people keep around the house, rather than a religious tome that's rarely read. I was going to change the sentence to "writings meant as entertainment" in response to the peer review, but apparently the edit didn't take. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Still not sorted Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to say whether "writings meant as entertainment" would suffice. Does it? A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's certainly better. I'm not sure the distinction between tone & purpose is all that significant, nor that we know enough about ancient Egyptian literature to be very confident about the purpose of stuff with no ritual use, especially when religion and humour appear to mix, which is a very tricky area. Do we know that such writings were really "like a novel that people keep around the house", I wonder? You don't really need to get into that here, & maybe should avoid doing so. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this article isn't the place for great detail about "Contendings", and there is some uncertainty about its exact significance. But, just to give you the background, it was a personal possession, belonging to a scribe who lived at Deir el-Medina. Maybe something like "tales that are more like folklore than ritual texts"? Baines supports that description for "Contendings" and the other stories ("Two Brothers", "Truth and Falsehood") that the sentence encompasses. A. Parrot (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, ok, ""writings meant as entertainment" though this is still rather cumbersome. "writings intended for entertainment" may be better. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is. Done. A. Parrot (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• "When searching for or mourning Osiris, the two goddesses are often likened to falcons or kites, possibly because the Egyptians associated these birds with mourning, or because of their connection with Horus, who often is represented as a falcon..." - Nothing to do with the characteristic flying motions of these birds, then? They are indeed searching, for prey. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have one source that suggests that connection (although, at least in the kites' case, they look for carrion, which is more relevant to Osiris' corpse). I've added the source and the statement. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what the main Egyptian species is - maybe the black kite but most of them go for anything the right size, live or dead. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Very nearly there - no other points. It is all rather confusing, but no doubt that reflects the reality. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to explain the conflicting versions as well as I could without leaving out important variations on the story. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaning Support: Read till Synopsis

• Add date for Old Kingdom

Done.

• "His queen is Isis, who, like ... Set, ..." We are not introduced to Set yet in the Synopsis. "like Set" seems awkward.

I changed "like" to "along with" and added that Set is Osiris' murderer.

• Sometimes "Contendings", sometimes "The Contendings of Horus and Set". Make it consistent.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the full title is awkward to say repeatedly. Currently the article says the full title on the first mention within a paragraph and "Contendings" on subsequent mentions. Maybe the full title should be limited to the first mention within each section? A. Parrot (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will suggest using the full title in "Sources" with something like (referred to as "Contendings" further), then only using "Contendings". In "Conflict of Horus and Set", the full title is used thrice then suddenly the short one.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Completed the read. Looks good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps there are no reliable sources for this, but I was once told that it is possible that Osiris, Set, and Horus were real figures, and the myth was based on real events. Could this be explored? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, "Origins" covers this POV that the deities were pre-historical Egyptian figures.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article mentions Kurt Sethe's old notion that Osiris (but not Set or Horus) was a historical ruler. His perspective is very outdated today, and I mentioned it only as an example of the kind of interpretation that early Egyptologists put on the story. Nor did people in ancient times, when the myth was a living tradition, generally claim that its characters were human. Although I don't think my sources say this explicitly, I get the strong impression that the Egyptians always thought the characters were gods and not humans. Some Greeks and Romans argued that mythical figures from many cultures were deified humans (see euhemerism). But Plutarch is the Greco-Roman voice that has most influenced perceptions of the Osiris myth since his time, and he explicitly rejected the euhemerist viewpoint. A. Parrot (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to see an indication that the Pyramid Texts were carved on the walls, I think that helps to put them in context. Why not include the image of the Pyramid Texts?..Modernist (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's an interesting long read - crazily contradictory - although that's the crux of the complexity and quality of your effort. I'm troubled by the Set - Seth? duality and the Re - Ra duality - you use Re-Horakhty and Ra - I think it should be one or the other and/or have an explanation for the duality...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've specified that the Pyramid Texts are on the walls. I could use an image of some Pyramid Texts, or of some portion of the Book of the Dead. But both of those just look like columns of hieroglyphs with nothing particularly interesting about them. (If there were a proper photo of a whole pyramid chamber on Commons, that might be different.) If you really want an image there, Pyramid text Teti.jpg is my preference.

The article text consistently uses Set and Ra, reflecting our article titles, except in the Sources section, in the quotation from Redford. Modifying quotations isn't good, except when there are brackets to indicate editorial insertions. I can change the quote like this: "…Seth [Set] as a strong-man buffoon of limited intelligence, Re-Horakhty [Ra] as a prejudiced, sulky judge…" A minor inconvenience is that this is the first appearance of Ra's name in the article and therefore should be linked, but I have to put nowiki tags around the outer brackets so they don't interfere with the link syntax. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support see below by the way...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the image that you found - it's helpful IMO to see what you refer to, and I agree with these changes - Re-Horakhty [Ra] and "…Seth [Set]...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the image and adjusted the quotation. A. Parrot (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support good work...Modernist (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- given the interval since the nominator's last FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources here before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think many Wikipedians have these sources on hand, but some of them should be checkable online. The UCLA Encyclopedia entry is linked in the Works cited section of the article, and in my (North American) region, I found Google Books previews for Hart 2005 , Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996 , te Velde 1967 , Griffiths 1980 , Assmann 2001 , and Lichtheim 2006a . All of them seem to match the pagination in my copies of these books. A. Parrot (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• tentative support Looking promising on prose and comprehensiveness -reading and copyediting as I go. No deal-breakers thus far but I do wonder whether the prose can be tightened a little....I'll jot queries below My concern isn't great enough, nor can I find any prominent enough examples to be actionable - interesting read: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Set sexually abuses Horus - maybe "...sexually assaults..."? is better...?

It might be. That wording was influenced by yet another version of the myth, in which the sex is sort of voluntary—Set wants Horus to sleep with him, Horus agrees if Set will give Horus some of his magical strength, Horus foils Set by catching the semen, and then the text breaks off. Should I include that version too, change the wording, or both or neither? A. Parrot (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I'd spell it out as the two words are rather clumsy in encapuslating the dual stories (one coercive, the other seductive) - I'd describe both versions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "coercive" version isn't so much a version. The wording in "Contendings" is so spare that there's no telling whether Horus is coerced or assaulted. I've explained the "seductive" version and avoided "assault" wording, though I think "violation" is justified—Griffiths refers to it that way and regards says the episode represents "ignominious treatment" . A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting conundrum - meh - not a dealbreaker as it is hard to see anything else that would be significantly better and is spelt out in following sentences....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

sportchecks unfortunately my library searches have been somewhat unproductive, and have only produced the Plutarch reference. I'll work though that anyway and see how we go.

• Citation 18 - supporting the text "About a century and a half later" is a couple of pages of dicussion on when Plutarch wrote his work, I personnally think it would be more accurate to say something like "towards the start of the second century", but I don't think it's really worth arguing over...

I changed it, but I also changed the preceding sentence on Diodorus, as I don't want to say "in such-and-such century" in three sentences in a row.

• Citation 21 - supported by page 51 - the reference can be narrowed a bit.

Page 51 supports the influence of Greek philosophies, but not really the other parts. I narrowed it to 51–52 and 98, which still covers everything.

• Citation 31 - to support the text "By the New Kingdom, a tradition had developed that Set had cut Osiris' body into pieces and scattered them across Egypt. Cult centers of Osiris all over the country claimed that the corpse, or particular pieces of it, were found near them." although the pages are about this part of the myth - I can't find mention of Set (and the mention of Typhon, is unrelated) - I suspect the first sentance needs it's own citation.

Fair point. I realized that the citation to Pinch, p. 79, can support both sentences with a slight adjustment. Unfortunately that text can't be spot-checked, but it does mean less citation clutter in the text.

• Citation 40 - source would support 'chest' rather than 'coffin' I think

Done.

• Citation 41 - fine
• Citation 42 - fine
• Citation 44 - fine
• Citation 110 - fine.

Fayedizard (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're up for yet more spotchecking, you can look at the Google Books links I provided above; I don't know whether the delegates will think it's sufficient to check eight citations out of 110. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Add'l spotchecks -- Fayedizard and my fellow delegate, Graham, have been doing such a sterling job of spotchecking FACs lately that it seems only fair to step in to do some myself here, one each from Hart 2005, Meeks & Favard-Meeks 1996, te Velde 1967, and Griffiths 1980:

• FN56 -- no issue.
• FN73 -- no issue.
• FN79 -- no issue.
• FN85 -- I would include p. 158 in the citation range, as it provides more context, but aside from that, no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I added that page to the range. A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rex Ryan

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after additional work over the span of a year, I feel it meets the criteria. I initially nominated the article at FAC in June 2011 however concerns over the amount of autobiography refs stonewalled further progress. After obtaining additional outside sources, promoting the article to GA status and soliciting the input of two editors familiar with the subject, I'm prepared to go ahead and move on to the next phase and earn Mr. Ryan a bronze star, although it may serve as little consolation for his lack of Super Bowl trophies. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This seems very well written and clearly explained. I'm not a football fan at all, but followed this without too many problems. I haven't looked at sourcing at all, but cannot see too many problems with the overuse of the autobiography which I see were a prior concern. Also, I cannot vouch for the comprehensiveness of this article as football remains a subject on which I am woefully ignorant! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "After growing up in Canada for the majority of his youth, Ryan returned to the United States as a teenager": Maybe "After spending the majority of his youth in Canada, Ryan returned to…"
• "Ryan spent the next twenty-two years": Should this be numerals?
• "serving as an assistant coach in various capacities on different teams": This is unclear: how can he be an assistant coach in different capacities? I'm assuming he was coaching in different areas, but this could be made clearer.
• "At the behest of Baltimore Ravens head coach Brian Billick, Ryan joined the team in 1999 and spent nine years in Baltimore.": Maybe "At the behest of their head coach Brian Billick, Ryan joined the Baltimore Ravens in 1999 and spent nine years there."
• "Players have expressed their interest in playing for Ryan because of his player-friendly attitude": Players … player. Not too sure how to get around this.
• "Ryan is also known for his highly esteemed defenses": I think it should be "highly-esteemed", but not sure this is a good phrase. Maybe something like "Ryan's teams are highly regarded [by critics? by commentators?] for their defensive capabilities…" And the following quote needs intext attribution.
• "Rex then moved with her to Toronto, Canada": Minor point, but was this only after she completed her doctorate?
• "he and his brother were frequently getting into trouble": How severe was this? In trouble with who?
• "The reasons behind this were two-fold": Perhaps this is an unnecessary flourish?
• "he was responsible for a multitude of jobs": Doesn't quite sound right. Maybe "had many [or a multitude if you prefer] jobs/responsibilities". And some examples may be nice.
• Can "winning record" be linked somehow for non-specialists? Similarly, I always like a link on records (e.g. the later 8-8 record) for those of us who can never remember what all the numbers mean.
• "When his father, Buddy, was hired…": Do we need his father's name again? And a repetition of Buddy in the same sentence. The next sentence also had two Buddies!
• "newly named": Should it be "newly-named"?
• "Ryan learned lessons on coaching talent and managing various personalities, which contributed to the defense's early success": This comes across as a little vague and woolly. Particularly as it comes from his autobiography. He "learned lessons"? What does this mean exactly?
• Sorry for non-specialist questions, but could "points" and "rushing yards" be linked?
• Again, pardon the ignorance, but "who retained Ryan as defensive coordinator and promoted him to assistant head coach": were these posts held at the same time?
• "Ryan's 9-year tenure": Should it be nine-year?
• "came to an end about an hour later": These seems unnecessarily informal.
• "began to carry out a platform he outlined for the franchise's future": How can you carry out a platform?
• "The basic idea was to get the players away from any distractions on or off the field": Again, unnecessarily informal. Why not "He planned to remove the players from distractions on and off the field".
• "An unapologetic Ryan continued to exude confidence in the team": Why would he need to apologise?
• "The Jets were one win short of tying the franchise record set by the 1998 team led by Bill Parcells": The record for what?
• "Holmes allegedly quitting on the team against Miami": More informality, and "allegedly" is never great. He either did or didn't, and who is alleging?
• I'm a little concerned with over-detailing in the Jets section. The rest of his career is fairly briefly outlined, but here we go into fairly minute detail like "the defense did not allow a touchdown" and "despite being overwhelmingly named the underdogs". There also seems to be a hint of sensationalist journalese creeping in with "stunned", "stray" and "humiliated". I think this section could stand a polish or two, but nothing major, and I appreciate that his most high-profile job needs more than his earlier ones.
• "Ryan is often willing to defer the coin toss to the opponent to open the game on defense and "set the tone," generate turnovers and "create plays" as a result of these turnovers.": I'm afraid this loses me.
• The coaching section reads a little too much like his personal manifesto, or defending him from critics. Rather than giving his views, some critical commentary would be better: what do critics say about his coaching or his team's play. What do analysts say about the team, and how effective his strategies are? I'm sure it exists somewhere. And do the fans like him? Does he her grief for being too defensive?
• Finally, the Personal life section is a little trivia heavy. Why does an encyclopaedia article need to mention his weight loss surgery, or a foot-fetish video? Doesn't really seem all that important. Nor am I convinced about the acting section, but the rest looks fine.

Sorry for quite a long list, but most are minor and feel free to argue any of them as some may be personal preference. I don't see any major issues, and look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Sarastro. I just wanted to mention a few things about the points you raised:

• • "The reasons behind this were two-fold": I'm open to suggestions in regards to how to change this, I can't seem to come up with anything that flows properly. I do feel the sentence needs some type of preface, whatever that may be.
  • I will address the point you raised about his job responsibilities. I'm currently away but I'll be returning home tomorrow so I'll take a look in the book and add those.
  • I believe I removed most if not all of the sensationalist phrases.
  • As with the job responsibilities, when I return home tomorrow, I will search for some commentary on his methods though it may be difficult. Typically teams in the NFL have their own identity and no one generally questions it unless everything falls apart but I'll give it a look.
  • In regards to the personal section, the foot fetish mention was in there because there were multiple IPs clamoring for it when the news originally emerged and I get the feeling there may be future instances where there is some bickering that it doesn't appear in the article. For now though, I have removed that entry. In regards to the weight loss, Giants2008 bought up a point before I came to FAC that it is somewhat important given his job is coaching athletes and his habits now are beginning to reflect his work. I'm impartial to the acting section so I can either remove it or leave it.

Thank you again for your review. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support: No problem on the two-fold thing if you want to keep it, and the changes look good. Also, no problem on weight loss, although I don't think it comes across that he was previously obese, and that this is a little hypocritical for a coach. I'll have another look when you have fixed up the last points you mentioned, but I'm leaning support now. I may wait for someone with more subject knowledge that me to take a look before switching to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple responsibilities mentioned in the book and I have also found some commentary regarding his coaching strategies on offense and defense. If further clarification is needed, let me know but I hope I have addressed the remainder of your concerns. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Happy to support now, everything looking good. A great piece of work, well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and support! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-checks – No close paraphrasing concerns, but I did see a few small verifiability issues in checks of seven references.

• Reference 2 is used eight times; I checked the second and fifth uses. The second verifies the quote in the lead. The fifth states that he was a lineman at Southwestern Oklahoma, but I didn't see where it said he was a defensive end. Of course, this is a long story and it's possible I wasn't looking in the right area.
• Ref 5 says Rex and Rob are fraternal twins. I'll assume ref 4, which is also here, covers the birth date and place.
• Ref 10 verifies the Hall of Fame statement. No problems here.
• Ref 23 doesn't state that Ryan was interviewed by the Ravens for the head coach position.
• Ref 31 verifies its sentence fully. No problems here.
• Ref 46 doesn't say that the Dolphins fans spat on Ryan at the MMA event.
• Ref 71 seems to verify what it is citing. I assume the book cite covers the quotes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments, Giants. I replaced Ref 2 (fifth use) with a new Ref, you're correct in your assumptions about Refs 4, 5 and 71. I added a new Ref along with Ref 46 and Ref 23 was fixed. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't strike what's up there so the spot-checks can stay visible to the directors, but my concerns are resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my comments last time, and it has improved since then. I did not see the autobiography concerns as seriously, but they've been cleaned up in any case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kindly appreciated. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm probably not the best judge of articles about football of any description, but I've been asked to comment so I'll concentrate on prose and general presentation:

• "Players have expressed their interest in playing for Ryan because of his player-friendly attitude" - can this be rephrased without the "players - playing - player" repetition?
• "Following the divorce, his mother..." → "Following the divorce, their mother..." (you haven't singularised the boys at this stage).
• "their brother Jim" - maybe mention this sibling at the start of the section? Was he older or younger?
• "too much to handle as a single mother..." → " too much to handle for a single mother..."
• "Rex followed his father to Illinois where the family settled in Prairie View" - who is included in "the family" here? Presumably not including the mother?
• "College" section: this doesn't seem an adequate title for this section.
• "Upon graduating from Southwestern, Ryan secured a job as a graduate assistant at Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Eastern Kentucky in 1987 with the help of his father." The phrases don't seem to be in the right order. I would suggest "Upon graduating from Southwestern in 1987, with the help of his father Ryan secured a job as a graduate assistant at Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Eastern Kentucky."
• Who are the Colonels, and who are the Cowboys? Don't assume that all your readers will be familiar with the nicknames for US football teams
• "The Bearcats" occurs twice in one sentence
• I used the winning record link, and got confused because the link article does not explain what a "winning record" is. Perhaps more wins than losses, but this is not obvious
• "New York Jets" section: more date information needed in the opening paragraph. When was the late season collapse? When was Ryan offered the coaching contract and when did he begin work? No specific date is given until the fifth paragraph which is confusing
• Per above, I'm not exactly sure what year we're in, but I think it's still 2008 or possibly 2009. Either being so, the first such-and-such since 2004 doesn't seem a particularly big deal; it's only four or five years ago.
• He "flashed an obscene gesture"; what does "flashed" mean in this context. In the UK, "flashing" means exposing your private parts; surely that's not what he did?
• "Writing on the ESPN bus..." Reads very peculiarly - did he scrawl it with a felt-tip or what? Maybe a little more detail.
• What in this context does "on the road" mean?
• "quitting on the team against Miami" reads like informal sports journalism. What does it mean, and how does it relate to Holmes being "benched" (presumably substituted?) in the fourth quarter?
• Sentence too long, convoluted: "After the Jets finished the season with a disappointing 8–8 record, Ryan admitted to having lost the pulse of the team and promised to no longer name captains, as Holmes, who was largely portrayed as the main source of discontent among multiple news outlets, was named one of six season-long captains." I lost the thread somewhere.
• "Coaching philosophy" section. I don't think that so much of this section (about 80%) should be in quotation form. The text should largely be your own, with appropriate use of paraphrase.
• "Ryan refuted this claim..." It's not really a "claim"; I would simply drop the word: "Ryan refuted this, stating..."
• "running the football" → "running the ball" perhaps? "Football" has previously been used to describe the whole sport.
• "and eventually reverted to their former run-oriented offense by the middle of the season" - the word "eventually" is redundant here.
• Don't start fresh paragraphs with pronouns ("His defensive strategy...")
• "Acting career": No hint of this before; how did it come about? Is it really a "career", or was this a once-off? Was it a real part or a cameo? Lots of questions.
• What does the term "Coaching tree" mean? Also, isn't it a waste of time to have a heading (Assistant coaches under Rex Ryan who have become NFL head coaches) with nil data?

These are mainly pretty minor points, and shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You'll find I took care of the phrasing issues per your suggestions and provided additional explanation regarding the winning record, the dates, and the ESPN tour bus. I tried to cut down the quotes in the Coaching philosophy so hopefully it flows better. I linked coaching tree and removed the Assistant coaches subheading per your suggestion. In regards to the acting career I'd be happy to remove it if the changes I made still do not warrant its inclusion. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Be sure to check scores such as 5–11 and 30–17 use the en dash, not hyphen
• Fix redlink in "on the Colts' home field to qualify for the Divisional Playoffs"
• Under Coaching tree, 1994–1995 should be 1994–95 per WP:YEAR Lemonade51 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. All scores have en dashes as far as I can tell. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support and Image Check. Images are ok. The two from flickr are commons-compatible. I have no issues with the writing. Refs are reliable and well-formatted. PumpkinSky talk 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• In the lead I noticed that New York Times was in standard font. Newspapers and journals, like book titles, should be in italics. Pls check for any similar instances in the article as well.
• The subsections under Personal Life are very small, just one short paragraph each. It might look better if you created a Health subsection that covered both the dyslexia and weight-loss surgery paras, and a Media (or similarly titled) subsection that covered both the book and the acting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the NYT mention and did not find any similar issues. I replaced the subsections and they do indeed look much better. Thank you for your comments. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

SMS König Albert

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another one of my WWI-era German battleships, this was the only ship to miss the Battle of Jutland, since she was in dockyard hands for routine maintenance. I wrote this article back in December 2010, it passed GA in January 2011, and a MILHIST ACR in March of this year (see here). I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the standards of FAC and exemplifies our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• "sister ship": Do we usually link that at first occurrence?
• "Princess Mathilde of Saxony christened the ship and her brother, the last king of Saxony, Friedrich August III.": She broke a bottle of champagne over his head?
• "disposed with the inefficient hexagonal turret arrangement": disposed of. Per for instance http://www.dailywritingtips.com/uses-of-dispose/, "disposed with" means "put into a settled state".
• "toward", "towards": consistency. AmEng has a slight preference for "-ward", BrEng for "-wards".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) Amazing progress over the last couple of years, Nate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dan, your edits look good. And yeah, you had to watch out for Princess Mathilde, sometimes she just got excited about breaking champagne bottles ;) Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Images are all correctly licensed (OK, so File:SMS_König_Albert.jpg gives two different reasons why the file is PD, but that doesn't matter. Both are correct.) Bit confused by "The shaded areas represent the portions of the ship protected by armor" because I can't see any obviously defined areas, shading goes from light to dark as far as I can see and I can't believe the armour was that patchy. Maybe it was, but could you give it another look? The caption doesn't actually say what we're looking at, which would be helpful at least. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a bad original scan (that I had copied from Google Books) - I'll try to clean it up this evening. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a slightly cleaned up version of the line drawing - see how it looks now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better in terms of shading. I think the caption needs to say something about what we're looking at – a plan of the class, or schematic, or whatever it's called. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had missed that part of your first comment. I've clarified the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, perfect. Happy to sign off this part of the review. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think the namesake is cited
  • Does it really need to be? The namesake died 8 years before the ship was launched, and his niece and nephew were involved in the launching ceremonies (which is to say, how likely is it that the ship was named after the Medieval King Alberts?)
    • Its a challengeble fact, so it should be cited; there's no exception for 'everyone knows that', sorry.
      • My initial reaction was that this isn't an interesting question, but now I think it is. Per WP:V, citations are for claims that are either being challenged or likely to be challenged (by somebody), with just a few specific exceptions and recommendations. Of course, stuff that isn't general knowledge is likely to be challenged by someone at some point; thus the sourcing requirements at FAC. But if you personally believe the information to be true, and you also believe that it's unlikely that any reader will challenge the assertion, then WP:V says it doesn't need a citation. What makes this interesting for me is: what if it isn't common knowledge, but after learning something in the article that is cited, it becomes completely obvious? Is that "likely to be challenged"? I don't know. (In this particular case, I'm pretty sure I agree with Parsec, but since he and I work together a lot, you probably shouldn't take my word for that.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• I was curious why the ranges and speeds are in nmi/knots converted to metric instead of km / kmh? Someone probably asked this before...
  • Do you mean why the primary units are nmi and knots? Or why the conversions also include Imperial measurements?
    • Why the primary units were nmi and knots, yes.
      • Doesn't it make sense to use nautical units of measurement as the primary units? To use land units would be like saying the governor in my Ford Ranger cuts the engine off at Mach .128 (98mph) . Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I thought nations that used the metric system usually used the metric system for nautical distances and speeds. Not a big deal - its all converted anyways and consistent with every other ship article.
• The generic north sea graphic isn't that useful - its probably better replaced by one of the graphics of the actions mentioned in this section.
  • Another editor asked for a map of the North Sea during the A-class review, and there aren't any really useful (or relevant) images in the other articles.
    • I'll ponder this for a bit. Kirk (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I guess a better map would be some kind of summary of the actions in the North Sea, which doesn't exist yet in wikipedia.
• The operation Albion introduction paragraph is probably longer than it needs to be; maybe use sentence 1,2, 5?
  • I cut it down a bit, see how it reads now.
• The other 'fate' sections have a 'click for a larger view' in the caption. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say I'm surprised you can't cite the namesake thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Namesakes are almost never discussed in any references - for example, the search battleship "konig albert" namesake turns up zero results. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have also noticed that namesakes are often not discussed in secondary source - I think in this case it might be because it was common knowledge and its not important to historians to add the detail for modern readers in modern sources. Leaving it in uncited is probably better than leaving it out since I would assume the average reader would be like me and read the lead and immediately wonder "Who is König Albert?" Kirk (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding the namesake search, I looked for 'named' and I found this book which explains the naming system . Also, interestingly the author says that SMS König is named after King William II of Württemberg not the German Emperor as King of Prussia as it says in the article (also uncited :). Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had found Rüger, but he doesn't make the connection explicit. I don't feel that the connection is likely to be challenged, however, and it should be fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, just because Rüger is implicit instead of explicit which southern german royal this ship was named after doesn't make it a bad source, and its more explicit about others, I would start using it. For the record, I'm challenging that fact; and you regulars know its WP:Likely I will challenge your uncited facts in the infobox in pretty much every ship review I stumble upon.

Support - I enjoy this series, and this article meets the FA criteria. As far as the name stuff goes, Parsecboy's initial explanation made sense to me, and I defer to Dank opinion. Kirk (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I always cite the namesake if I can find it.
• Link turret in the main body and infobox as well as all of the terms in the armor section of the infobox. Plus anti-aircraft gun, turbine, Schichau, boiler, shp in both places.
• I've deleted the unnecessary bolding in the infobox. Otherwise up to your normal standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Links added as suggested - as for the namesake, I haven't been able to find a citation for it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I think that the FA criteria are met here - great work. My only comment is to ask whether this was one of the ships whose crews mutinied at the end of the war; this should be clarified in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Nick - I've clarified what happened in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Re naming; this book gives an interesting data point. --John (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, John - if you look above, Grandiose and I already discussed that book. The problem is, Ruger doesn't explicitly connect the two, so it doesn't quite work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Bugger, sorry to have wasted your time. I should have read the whole conversation. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Not a problem at all - thanks again for looking :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

support on prose; query: did I miss it, or is "dreadnought" not linked? Also, is there a convention that. The differing measures of tonnage are not linked? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Say Hello to My Little Friend

Nominator(s): TBrandley 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I present "Say Hello to My Little Friend", an Awake episode. This episode is regarded by many as one of the best entries the series ever produced by critics. It is already at GA. I have added images to the article. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, and the page has sections for conception, themes, broadcast numbers, critical reception, and even pre-broadcast information :) As tagged in my previous FAC, reviews from the TV Fanatic website have had their notability questioned, but it was decided that it could be used. Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading through this article. Its appreciated. Feel free to be honest below. TBrandley 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Per WP:LEDE, this article should have a shorter lede. Also, I don't think its ready for sub-sections yet (none of those sub-sections look really developed to me) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done
    • Just noting that this same user has left more comments below. Cheers.
      • This user, Crisco, has now supported below after more additional comments. Yeah. :) TBrandley 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

• Link to the discussion about TV Fanatic you refer to in the nom statement, please?
  • It is here. Also, TV Fanatic operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is owned and operated by Mediavine Inc. (SheKnows Entertainment), a publishing company, while SheKnows Entertainment is a high-quality source itself, meaning TV Fanatic would also be. Based on its website, I'm pretty sure its okay to use as a high-quality source.
• FN4: NBC isn't a work
  • Done
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links.
  • Done

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry for the brief set but my time is quite limited. I gave it a quick read through and these issues were noted at first glance.

• "Later, Britten meets with Emma's father Joaquin (Carlos Lacamara) at a coffee shop about the new baby..." There sounds as if there is a word or two missing at the end. "Later, Britten meets with Emma's father Joaquin (Carlos Lacamara) at a coffee shop to discuss the new baby" maybe?
  • Done
• "The entry was directed by Laura Innes, who guest stars in the recurring role of Captain Tricia Harper on the series." On the series or in the the series.? I would suggest its "in" if your finishing with her starring role and "on" if you finish with her behind the scenes role.
  • Done
• "The episode featured a number of cultural references to various media." -Should "types of” be between "various media"?
  • Done
• "It was Killen's sixth writing credit and Chang's second writing credit for the series" - two "writing credits" sound repetitive. You could say "It was Killen's sixth writing credit and Chang's second for the series" or something similar.
  • Done

I think that's it for now but I will give it another read through later. An informative little article about a series I have never watched. As a result of this read through, I may go out and buy it now as it sounds quite good. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! I have fixed all of the issues. Sorry, but you cannot buy the series; it hasn't been released on DVD as of right now. If you'd like to watch, you can on Hulu.com Plus. I also appreciate your interests. TBrandley 05:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - all above points have been fixed and, IMO, is therefore worthy of featured article status. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

'Comments:

• ""Say Hello to My Little Friend" is the eleventh episode of the American television police procedural fantasy drama Awake" - Wow. That's a mouthfull, anyway of shortening?
  • Not done. There is no way of shortening.
• Im not sure the ratings and reception should be so far up in the Lead, normally at the bottom.
  • Not done. See Triangle (The X-Files), a new FA
• The Lead is to big for an article this size.
  • Not done. Its three paragraphs, see WP:LEDE
• Is the image needed? (Infobox)
  • Done. I have removed; see below.
• Havent checked through Plot, but merge last two paragraphs.
  • Done
• In Production subsections not needed, merge all.
  • Done
• After the image put (pictured).
  • Not done. That's the only person mentioned. I have been told to remove before, and believe it should stay as it is.
• The alt text needs changing, just put "Laura Innes" or "Photograph".
  • Not done. See WP:ALT
• The section for Cancellation isnt focussed on this episode, just a minor comment is needed.
  • Done

- Not a full check through, just major points. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have fixed most of the issues. Others are noted above. Thanks again! TBrandley 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. While there's a lot of good stuff going on with the article thus far, it's not yet at featured quality.
  • As a consequence of the reality switching, the plot section is a bit hard to follow. The lead contains important plot information that isn't contained or referenced in the synopsis--this is problematic in and of itself, but a lot more time should be spent putting in signposts so the readers know which reality is which during the summary.
    • Done. I have explained in the "Plot" section
  • There's a tendency in the production section to rely on pulled quotes, but just using them leads to not so much in the way of useful content. For instance, the article says this:

He and his writing team "played" with the hallucinations featured in the entry.[5] Along with "That's Not My Penguin", "Two Birds" and "Turtles All the Way Down", Killen claimed that the installment was something that he wanted to "pursue with the show going forward".

This really isn't clear. What does "played" mean? Did they change the plot structure, or directing style to highlight the hallucinations? What does it mean that he wanted to pursue this installment? The source provides this:

So to me episodes like the penguin episode ("That's Not My Penguin") and the episode where he hallucinated the character from the other world ("Say Hello To My Little Friend"), and even the last two episodes, those were closer to the model that we would have tried to pursue with the show going forward. [...]

The source makes it much clearer that only having one criminal case in an episode and focusing more on emotional moments and the characters was what he wanted to pursue in later episodes. You should only quote people when it makes things clearer, not more opaque.

Done; and removed for some of those.

• • Just citing the episode itself for the cultural references (" This installment contains footage from Cheaper by the Dozen, a 1950 film, which is a cultural reference.[3] Also, a line in the episode, was spoken by Tony Montana (Al Pacino) in the 1983 movie Scarface while shooting a M16.") feels like original research.
    • Done. I have removed it; there are no web references that could be found other than episode.
  • I don't think there's enough justification per WP:NFCC to include File:Awake S01E11.jpg--reviewers commented on the situation, but there's no detail in the frame that aids reader comprehension significantly.
    • Done. I have removed it; I just like the picture. Lol :)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Have fixed all of those. Thanks for your FA review. Hope you can support now, or more comments. Thanks again! TBrandley 20:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the article. Further comments:

• There seems to be a paucity of development/production information. When/where was it shot? Were there any special effects, and if so who did them, et al.
  • Update. I have found a ton of production information, and added it to the article. So, done. Hope its good!
• Did the episode show anywhere else in the world (UK markets, etc) or was its NBC premiere its only proper airing?
  • Done. It was actually already there, but to match with "Squeeze", I have moved it above. Also, it aired in Canada on Global, but there is no WP:RS for it. Anyway, thanks.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All concerns all now fixed! More "Production" has been properly added. TBrandley 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image review from TRLIJC19
  • File:Laura Innes 2010.jpg is properly licensed and sourced from commons, and the caption is appropriate.
    • Cool. :)
  • File:Jason Isaacs by Gage Skidmore.jpg has an appropriate license and source from Commons, but I think the layout and caption needs adjusting. Can you put the image on the left, because the other one is on the right. Also; in the caption: "They felt his performance deserved an Emmy Award." is repetitive of the previous line. Merge into one sentence: "Critics felt that Jason Isaacs' performance deserved an Emmy Award."
    • Done

• MOS review from TRLIJC19
  • Lead
    • Although the MOS specifies to use last name after first mention; this article is different because they are all "Britten". Therefore, all the referrals to Michael as Britten should be changed to Michael.
      • Done
  • Plot
    • The Britten issue is existent in this section too.
      • Done
  • Themes
    • Unlink The Little Guy; it's linked above.
      • Done
    • Britten issues is existent here too.
      • Done

If all the above issues are addressed, I'll be willing to support on MOS compliance, images, and sourcing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to do this review! I have addressed all of these issues, and hope that you can support now. :0 TBrandley 05:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support on all. on technical MOS compliance, citation layout, and images. MOS support does not mean I support on prose; I am supporting on the article's compliance with MOS (linking, quoting, word styling, etc.). TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support - Looks pretty solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• After the few of the above issues are solved, I'll support. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, all of his comments have been addressed, and moved to this talk page. So, I now hope you can support/oppose also. Ha. Thanks, TBrandley 02:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Nice work. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: It was Killen's sixth credit and Chang's second writing acknowledgment for the show.[3]
• Source: Reference 3 is not a source.
  • Done. I have replaced with episode guide from Radio Times
• Article: That scene was shot three or four times with a different performance by Isaacs each time; the actor did not know which take Innes would use.[4]
• Source: I can't see where this is mentioned
  • It says it in the sentence starting "I sat on the floor..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Article: "Say Hello to My Little Friend" continued and introduced key thematic elements to the series that were originally introduced in "The Little Guy". Key themes in this installment included when Michael was unable to see Rex and realized that Hawkins was trying to kill him in the car crash.[9]
• Source: Not that it was a huge revelation, mind you, since it was told to us back in "The Little Guy" that Carl had used a little guy as a driver when he tried to have Britten killed. I can't verify the second sentence.
  • "Hawkins being the one who ran Britten's family off the road.", just under the image, may be what you're looking for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Article:It was described as a "show about grief" when it first started airing and that the "cause of the car accident didn't really matter" at that time.[11]
• Source: When Awake started, it was a show about grief...The cause of the car accident didn’t really matter.
• Article: Isaacs found "Say Hello to My Little Friend" the "most difficult [episode] to shoot" as one of the character's realities was fabricated and had to disappear by the end.[4]
• Source: That whole episode was the most difficult to shoot for me, because one of the worlds had to disappear.
• Article: "Say Hello to My Little Friend" marked the first appearance of Hawkins, a detective who was described as a titular "little guy",[8]
• Source: When Alias alum Kevin Weisman makes his debut on NBC’s Awake this Thursday...My long-standing theory: Weisman’s character is “the little guy” mentioned by the hobo back in Episode 2
• Article: Despite the series' cancellation, NBC still decided to air the remaining two episodes in the show's original time slot.[2]
• Source: I can't see this information in the source
  • Last paragraph has everything but "in the show's original time slow". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was specifically searching for the information on the original time slot. Graham Colm (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. I have removed "in the show's original time slot", since, no source, for it. So, its done. TBrandley 15:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Article: The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 2.51 million viewers.[16]
• Source: NBC,Awake...2.510

There are some issues (in bold) requiring clarification or explanation. Graham Colm (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed all of your spot-checks concerns. Thanks for the spot-check! TBrandley 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Louie B. Nunn

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is presently a good article and has gone through a peer review, which identified no major issues. I believe it is a comprehensive look at one of only eight Republicans to be elected governor of Kentucky. Historian Thomas D. Clark opined that he was the strongest of the eight. Please note that the Sigmund Byrd work "The Louie Nunn Story" was very difficult to find on interlibrary loan. I don't have access to it at the moment, and if I get comments that require me to find it again, it will take at least a few days to respond to them appropriately. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Supported below I peer reviewed this a while back, and I think it is very close to FA. A few quibbles:
• I'd swap the order of the last two sentence of the first paragraph of "Early life".
  • No problem with that. Done. Maybe I'll get around to writing the article on Lee Nunn one day. Several people have told me he was quite the interesting character. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Is there any information on his activities between '63 and '67?
  • I didn't run across anything. I know his brother was kind of known as a back room dealer on campaigns and such. Perhaps Louie also adopted that strategy during this period. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• "his proudest accomplishment at governor." Do you mean "as governor"?
  • Quite so. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• "He continued backing Republican candidates, and backed Ronald Reagan's primary challenge" Might want to avoid the "backing... backed" here.
  • Yep. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• "against Democrat John Y. Brown, Jr..[36] " Doubled period here.
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• "In 2000, Nunn successfully defended actor Woody Harrelson, who came to Lee County, Kentucky, and planted hemp seeds in open defiance of Kentucky's law forbidding cultivation of hemp. " Was Harrelson arrested, or was this just defending him in comments to media? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, he was arrested. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)