Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2010

Thomas Baker (aviator)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. Article on an Australian soldier, aviator and flying ace of the First World War whose distinguished career was ended with his death in 1918 at age 21, just one week before the war ended. Has been passed as a Good article and A-Class by WikiProject: Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Dabs, external links and alt text all look good.
• My only question is about his enlistment. Do you know when he enlisted in the CMF? The AIF didn't care what you'd already been trained for so you could change from one specialty to another?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. The sources are not specific on his enlistment in the CMF, just that it was sometime during 1914. The AIF was raised exclusively for operational purposes in the war and you could basically get shoved anywhere. I think to some degree they took previous experence into consideration, but it was predominantly baised on locality and the units that were being raised for the state one enlisted in. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Everything seems fine to me. Just one small query. The Early life section doesn't mention any brothers or sisters. Was he an only child? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Baker's entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography states he was the "eldest son of Richmond Baker", but the details of his sibling(s) are not specified in any source. Added in the aforementioned snippet, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support do we know if Baker went to St Peter's all the way from Reception (it's R-12) and if he stayed all the way to pass yr 12? From the fact that he worked as a bank teller, perhaps not. Also do we know if he a boarding student? From Smithfield to St Peters is about 30km one-way and Main North Road was a bumpy dirt track in those days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, YellowMonkey. :) According to his ADB entry, he began at the Collegiate School of St Peter, Adelaide, in 1911 and finished in 1914, so he was at the school for most of his high school studies. As aforementiond he left in 1914, so would have been in either YR 11 or 12. Not too sure about the last bit, though, as the sources are a little limited in this area. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support I made a few really minor fixes (tricky typos like ensuring for ensuing, bought for brought). Great work! Maralia (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Maralia. I'm terrible for typos and spelling errors, though I'm not sure how I did the latter example ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Great job. Two small things:

• "Airborne over Pont-du-Hem, the trio released their bombs over German billets in the area, before spotting two Albatros D.Vs. The three Australians closed in on the two aircraft. Baker engaged an Albatros, his fire severing the left wing of the aircraft, effectively destroying the machine." It is not clear to me if the Albatros were airborne. If they were, than it would hardly seem necessary to add "effectively destroying the machine" after "severing the left wing of the aircraft". --JN466 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• There are too many occurrences of "as" in this passage: "A formation of Sopwith Snipes from No. 4 Squadron had been utilised as an escort as the initial raid was carried out, and then to protect the bombers as they returned to the Allied lines. However, as the Australians had executed the latter duty, they were tailed by a patrol of twelve Fokkers." I found the overall effect somewhat confusing and was unsure whether the last "as" meant "when" or "because". Perhaps: "A formation of Sopwith Snipes from No. 4 Squadron escorted the bombers during the initial raid, and then was to protect them on their return flight to Allied lines. However, a patrol of twelve Fokkers tailed the Australians on their return journey." --JN466 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my note here; not your problem, just making you aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

SECR K and SR K1 classes

Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just gone through peer review, and all issues have been addressed. The article is on course for FA, and any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. This is also a particularly important class of locomotive for Britain's railways as a whole, as it was the first of its type specifically built to haul passenger trains. Its involvement in the Sevenoaks disaster and subsequent rebuilding also makes it prominent amongst the locomotives of the Southern Railway.Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I very much like this article and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I do just have a few small things I think ought to be addressed though (inevitably).

• "... No. 31806 and is currently under overhaul". Can we say when "currently" is, as it will surely age, and I've got no easy way of knowing when that was written. As of 2010?

• "It was capable of high speeds on express passenger duties, although success was limited by the lower storage capacity of tank locomotives". The word "success" bothers me here. Success at what? Achieving high speeds? Something else?

• "This group had modified suspension on the bogie and leading axle, in an attempt to address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class". This doesn't quite work for me; as written it suggests that it was the complaints that experienced rough riding. Could the word "complaints" simply be dropped, as in "attempt to address the rough riding experienced ..."? Or "complaints from the crews of rough riding experienced ..."?

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - as requested I have read the article and find it to be another fine addition to the series on British locomotives. I agree with the suggestions above and have a few suggestions / quibbles of my own, which do not detract from my support:

• I know 2-6-4 is linked in the lead, but I think it would help to add a descriptive sentence at the start of the Design section to explain the ntation / design better for those less familiar with it. Perhaps something like "In the Whyte notation for the classification of steam locomotives, a 2-6-4 locomotive has two leading wheels, six coupled driving wheels and four trailing wheels." from the 2-6-4 article would work.
  • Would something like this modification of the current first sentence in the section work? The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement[, with two leading wheels, six coupled driving wheels and four trailing wheels,] was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, as many railway companies operated routes that required locomotives with greater fuel capacity, or short branch lines that necessitated smaller locomotives." I always think it useful to provide context to the reader and to the uninitiated Whyte notation is mysterious stuff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Need references for the following:
  • Construction of these locomotives had not begun by the time the SECR had been merged with other railways in southern England under the Railways Act 1921 to form the Southern Railway on 1 January 1923.
  • These were allocated the numbers A610–A629, and work had begun on building the frames and cylinders when the order was cancelled following an accident at Sevenoaks in 1927 involving locomotive No. 800.
  • When rebuilt into the U and U1 classes, the locomotives were repainted in the olive green livery with "Southern" added to the tender tank. This was carried into the Second World War when labour shortages meant that many U class locomotives were painted in plain black, with the result that by 1945 all the class were running in black. The livery was reverted to olive green, after the war, when overhauls were due.
• I would make it clearer that only K1 was built (the use of K1 class made me think there must have been more than one). One place this could be added is in the table "K and K1 class construction history", add a column on class. I would also mention it explicitly in a few places, so "The [sole] K1 class locomotive No. A890 was named River Frome.[24]" or perhaps "Numbers were changed to the British Railways standard numbering system: the series 31790–31809 was allocated to the K class rebuilds, and 31890 to the [one locomotive of the] K1 class.[40]"
  • I have reread the article - I think it would still help to add in the section on the K1 class that the prototype was the only one ever built. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How's this? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall this is quite well done, thanks for an interesting read. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a column on class to the abovementioned table.

It was not unusual in the UK to have a locomotive "class" which contained just one member; the most common reason was a prototype which was not multiplied for whatever reason. The Southern Railway only had one 2-6-4T with three cylinders and 6-foot driving wheels - it was K1 class, in order to distinguish it from other 2-6-4T/6-foot (K class, 2-cylinder), other 3-cyl/6-foot (U1 class, 2-6-0) or other 2-6-4T/3-cyl (W class, 5'6" wheel).

The problem with mentioning K1 class in the British Railways renumbering paragraph is that long before these locomotives became BR property, every single one had been rebuilt to the U or U1 classes, so to mention K/K1 in the context of BR numbers would be misleading. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit. The more I think about it, I would add that there were 20 K class and one K1 class in the lead. As for the rebuilt sentence, I was merely quoting what was already in the article "Numbers were changed to the British Railways standard numbering system: the series 31790–31809 was allocated to the K class rebuilds, and 31890 to the K1 class.[40]" with my suggested possible addition in [square brackets]. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede amended --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I want to explicitly say that I looked at the three images. All are clearly sourced, and the licenses seem OK to me (though I am not an expert on British copyright law for the first two images). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments; Support per discussion. 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) bordering on support, pending reply from the nominator. Full disclosure: I was asked here by the nom after reviewing his previous nomination. The main issue that time around was the prose; this article seems to have come to FAC from a much better starting point. Depending on who turns up to review this, you might get some comments over technical descriptions that might only be understood fully by the layperson's clicking through to other articles. But I think you've more or less hit the right balance; each train article can't contain a history of locomotive design, after all. For the delegate (to know what kind of review this was): I've reviewed the article fully against WP:WIAFA while reading it three times; once this morning, once this afternoon, and again just now. The images seem to check out and the sources pass muster as reliable for their use. I couldn't check the content of the major sources, as they're almost all offline and unavailable to me without a lot of hassle, but I trust the nominator. I've got a couple of nitpicks, mainly relating to the prose, but they're so minor I'm not even going to bother listing them here. I'll either fix them myself tomorrow or dump them on the article's take page; frankly, if this article were to be passed in its current state it wouldn't be an issue for me. Oh, and I haven't checked for MOS-compliance yet, but I'll do that tomorrow too. For the nominator, a question: the inclusion of a "further reading" section sometimes indicates that not all resources have been tapped, in which case the article may not satisfy 1b. Have you access to these, and is it likely that the books listed will contain major details relevant to the article? If not, what's their relevance to the article? Otherwise, nice work. The subject isn't one that particularly interests me, but it was a pleasure to read something for once that was so well prepared. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The "further reading" section was my suggestion. It's mentioned at MOS:APPENDIX as the fourth of five standard appendices. Later at WP:FURTHERREADING it's given a fuller definition - the operative phrase here is "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by these writers. IMHO, anything explicitly permitted by MOS cannot be criteria for denial of FA/GA classification. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'm not saying that "Further reading" sections are unsuitable in featured articles, or that I'm going to oppose because of it. It's just that in my experience their presence is sometimes, by no means always, an indication that major sources have been ignored. I just wanted to make sure that—rather than merely giving fine detail outside the scope of this article—the publications didn't recount major events that we ignored. Steve ^T • C 11:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been previously suggested, the 'Further reading' section has been added to provide a starting point for in-depth research into the nuances and minutiae of the class. As a core of several monographs have been used, they are bound to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. A lot of the material in this article could be double-referenced from the sources consulted, but as this would be 'overkill', some of these references are best left for a 'Further reading' section. A general synopsis of what's available can be perused in this website, and whilst not necessarily exhaustive, it gives a rounded overview of a lot of relevant material. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; colour me satisfied. Steve ^T • C 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Have referenced Ruhrfisch's suggestions. As for the first comment, it is possibly beyond the scope of this article to describe the wheel arrangement, which is why they have been Wikilinked. The problem with describing technical details is that they can affect the flow of the article. Therefore, its best to treat '2-6-4' as a technical term, and deserving of a link to a relevant article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Second response to suggestion: I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on this one. As several editors have pointed out, the context can be easily be found by clicking on the 2-6-4 Wikilink, which is a neat and tidy way of reducing the clutter in technical articles. As we have seen, an article about a particular class of steam locomotive is not the place to discuss the wheel arrangements involved, for this information compromises focus. This is therefore the reason why the creation of new pages should be encouraged to flesh-out specific terminology. To take a case in point imagine if, in the interests of 'providing context to the reader' by displaying the names of locomotives of a particular class, we had to copy and paste the entire table featured within List of West Country and Battle of Britain class locomotives onto the actual article. It would create a rather unsightly mess, drain computer resources in downloading the article, and would probably lose it the Featured Article status it currently holds. To achieve the current state of affairs, there were serious difficulties encountered in creating these 'appendix' articles to supplement the main articles, and no doubt pages about specific Whyte wheel arrangements were met with equal antipathy in the beginning. As such, by providing just the Wikilink in our articles, we are justifying the existence of these pages, which are important in keeping other articles tidy, and reducing the need to keep repeating the same information in every article about a 2-6-4, 4-6-0, 4-6-2 locomotive. I'm sorry if this has sounded blunt, but it needed saying. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have already supported, so it was just an idea / suggestion. I would argue that the average reader inherently understands what a list of items entails, even without clicking on it. Furthermore, within this article, there is a brief explanation of the source of the names for the locomotives (rivers in the region served) in no less than three places (lead, infobox, and the "Naming the locomotives" section), as well as the wikilink to the complete list of names. As to the 2-6-4 arrangement, I doubt the average reader knows locomotives are classified by the number and type of wheels (or axles) they have. I fully agree that there should be a page on each of the different wheel arrangements and agree that the whole page should not be copied here (nor was I suggesting that). I just think that explaining briefly what 2-6-4 means (adding a total of 12 words to the article) might help reader understanding in addition to the wikilink. Be that as it may, thanks for the detailed reply, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "support for everyone!" -- I understand where Ruhrfisch is coming from with this one, and I would agree that there is a need to explain terminology and that the suggested replacement is short and clear. But I must side with Bulleid Pacific -- adding the extra text would degrade the flow of the prose. I would also make the point that someone interested enough to read this article would probably either already know about the concept/meaning of wheel arrangement notation and/or the basic terminology surrounding railways and steam locomotives, or feel the need/have the desire to look it up and understand it, fairly quickly. Having just looked at the article, prior to the location Ruhrfisch suggested for the addition, the reader will have encountered 2-6-4 as the very first link in the article, and subsequently 2-6-0, 4-4-0, and 0-6-0 as well. For any article the editors need to decide on a level of 'technical' understanding on the part of the reader (supplemented by the excellent wikilinking facility) below which the decomposition of terms starts to obscure the story being told. I would suggest that we are bouncing around that boundary with this one.
    • EdJogg (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I already struck my suggestion above, was just trying to explain why I though a dozen extra words might help. I am fine with it either way. I am not a train person and although I have read most of the FAs on British locomotives (and this) multiple times in either PR or FAC or both, I still have to click the link to remind myself exactly what the three sets of numbers mean. All done, I promise ;0) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note, see my edit summaries, a bit more WP:NBSP attention needed, and citations don't list correct article titles, pls check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a GA review and I believe it has a strong prospect of meeting the FA criteria. Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support.Comments.

1. Can you explain what S fluid is? There is an explanation for PD-fluids, but not for S-fluids.

   Done: S fluids is no longer abbreviated - "sterile fluids" all the way through. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I think 'Legislation' subsection should be before 'The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission'.

   Agree and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Prior to Baxter, the leading case on derivative governmental immunity in Australia was Bradken Consolidated Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd. Please, specify the year when this case was decided.

   Done. Now "the 1979 High Court judgment in Bradken". --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

4. The Federal Court of Australia (Allsop J presiding) found in Baxter's favour at first instance. Please, specify the date.

   Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Allsop J's judgment was upheld unanimously on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court. How many judges are in the full bench? From the next section is follows that only three. Is the federal court so small? As I understand at the first instance the case was decided by a single judge?

   Done, I think. I've specified and wikilinked the three presiding judges. The Federal Court has dozens of judges, but its "full bench" for each case is just any three of its judges who didn't hear the case at first instance. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) Please, specify the date when this case was decided. In addition can you briefly characterize this case?

   Done, I hope. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

7. or to prevent a divesting or proprietary, contractual or other legal rights and interests Should not it be "of" here? (instead of "or")

   Done - my typo not the judges'. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

8. not merely commercial or policy in nature I suggest "not merely commercial or political in nature".

   Done, kind of, by saying "policy interests or rights". The phrase used by the source is "the protected rights or interests must be legal in nature, and not merely commercial or policy interests or rights". I've rephrased a little to make the representation of the source more accurate without too closely adopting its words. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

9. whether derivative governmental immunity will extend to private sector providers carry out governmental functions Should not it be "carrying out" here?

Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much for all the points. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Much neglected area: support.

• "Monopoly" and probably "statute" seem common enough not to link. WP is not a dictionary.
  • Done. Delinked. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• "state and territory governments"—isn't this a generic usage, irrespective of the capitalitis all over legal texts? See MoS on caps."Australian Government Solicitor", but "senior counsel" and "section 2B" (the last of which has always irritated me—WP doesn't care what bizarre local customs are perpetrated).
  • Decapitalised states and territories; capitalised Senior Counsel and legislative Section refs (definitely contrary to Australian local legal custom, but you're quite right, I hadn't even considered that it might not be accepted MOS standard.) --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Queensland"—is a reader going to consult the whole article on that state? Either don't link (assuming the reader knows something about Australian jurisdictions) or link to a more specific target—a section or a daughter article.
  • De-linked Queensland but kept the linkings of other states where the article definitely refers to the state or its government rather than an institution of it (eg in naming the States that were joined to the case). Actually I've delinked all the states, the links probably distract from more valuable links that are nearby (eg links to the law firms and barristers who appeared in the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Some choppy paragraphing; e.g., Federal Court litigation. Probably one para better here.
  • Have combined a few paras here and there to reduce the choppiness. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• "state governments"—suddenly territories are not included.
  • have included territories where talking about derivative immunity generally, but not when talking about the facts of the case specifically (as neiher territory was a party to the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• More comfortable (and grammatically logical) to link "Justice Kirby" rather than just the second word?
  • Done, and to Callinan as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Seddon also criticised the outcome of the case itself"—is "also" helping?
  • Fixed. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• "governmental immunity"—erky! immunity of governments?
  • I've tossed and turned on this one a number of times, whether to go with "Crown immunity" or "governmental immunity". I decided to go with the latter as (1) the Robertson Wright source uses that term and makes a compelling argument (referring to case law on the point) why it is more accurate (see footnote 1) and (2) it will make more sense to international readers. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks good. Tony (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks heaps for the comments. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said/done in response. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do hope you'll be putting your talents to producing and improving more Austr. legal articles. Tony (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support well written YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Aaroncrick (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
    • Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I realize you're using a template for the cite case bit, but it's not exactly reader friendly in telling folks what this arcane link IS. Would it be possible to add something like Australian Court Records/etc after the link?
    • I've manually changed all of the case law footnotes to not use the template (I didn't like the template much anyway). Each footnote now refers to the name of the case, the court, the year, the number of the report, and links to the judgment itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • One dealink shown in the tools. this one
    • Fixed. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In some countries, the term "sovereign immunity", "qualified immunity" or "limited immunity" is used. Not applicable here?

• I've not seen any of those three terms used in contemporary Australian law. The literature and case law seems to split between "Crown immunity" and "governmental immunity". But it is largely the same thing as sovereign immunity. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In some articles, there has been heated discussion about a criticism section. Is inclusion of a criticism sub-section automatic disqualification from being an FA or is it permitted? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think having a criticism section on a court ruling makes more sense than it would in many other cases, since it's a specific decision; I can't see where the information would as helpfully go otherwise. Rebecca (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Top article. Rebecca (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: WP:NBSP attention needed throughout (Section and No. should be joined by a non-breaking space to avoid line wrap). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on the other great man of Russian classical music, after Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was a tremendous influence on his peers and followers. I am nominating this for featured article because, after careful research, much writing and an exhaustive peer review (and, in the last of which, thanks especially to Awadewit for her extensive commentary, which was extremely helpful), I believe it does justice to its subject and represents Wikipedia at its best in terms of bredth, scope and overall quality. Special thanks also to Ruhrfisch for his supplying the lead image, for his help in researching the other images, and for his commentary in the peer review. Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

• In refs but not notes: Figes, Volkov; Brown, "Wandering";
• In notes but not refs: Griffiths; Abraham "Slavonic";
• There are two "taruskin" sources, but three notes only refer to "taruskin" and a page no.
• • Ling.Nut 08:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing these out. They have been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for alerting me to these links. Jonyungk (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch - I was involved in the very extensive peer review and all of my (and the others') concerns raised there have been addressed. I also cropped the lead image from the larger portrait. I found a typo and corrected it just now. I think this meets all the criteria for a FA and is extremely well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed a few repeat links (The Five, etc), and chain links "Beethoven's" (9th symphony), where Beethoven will be linked at the top of the more specific 9th symphony article.
• Some of the images were unnecessarily small. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a ref for the second footnote (the one about Rubinstein)? The Ministry (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• A ref has been provided. Jonyungk (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This article has only improved since I last read it at peer review. Any issues I had regarding the sources and the images were resolved at the peer review. And might I say how interesting and brilliantly written this article is? I get engrossed each time I read it. Thanks so much, Jonyungk! Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image review completed at peer review and verified again at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support: I have some relatively minor (mainly prose) issues from my reading of the first few sections. I haven't read the rest yet, but it's obviously a deeply-researched and comprehensive composer biog. I am doing some routine copyedits and link-fixing as I go through.

• Lead: Shouldn't the cited material be in the main body of the article, and cited there?
  • It is cited there. I have removed citations from the lead section. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Early life:
  • Name repetition - nerdish, I know, but I counted seven mentions of the name "Rimsky-Korsakov" in the first paragraph of this section, ten in the second paragraph and seven more in the third. Some of the repetitions are very close, e.g. "Rimsky-Korsakov later recalled (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)". The constant use of this already awkward name has an adverse effect on the prose; some imaginative rephrasing and judicious use of pronouns would make the section read much better.
    • I have cut down use of the name and increased use of pronouns. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ship image: there are two ships - which is Rimsky's?
    • I clicked on the image and looked at it enlarged. There appears to be only one ship in the foreground of the photo, with a small boat alongside it. That ship is the Almaz. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, you are right! The small boat creates an illusion of two ships (to my bleary eye at least) Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Mentored by Balakirev etc: In a quote we have "improvositations". No such word in English, should it be "improvisations"? The quote is a translation; if the source actually says "improvositations", then a {sic} should be added.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected the word. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Professorship etc
  • R-K become professor while still serving in the navy. It would be better to mention this at the start of this section, or readers will wonder what became of his naval career.
    • I have shifted copy to make this correction. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "...plus he served as Professor of Music Theory..." - inelegant. "and was serving as" would be much better.
    • What about "and served as"? I was told in FAC, regarding another article, that "ing" constructions should be avoided. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Fine now Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You say: "the navy created the post of Inspector of Naval Bands," but you need to add that R-K was appointed to it.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The post came with a promotion..." Is this the band inspector post?
    • Yes. This disctinction has been made in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "plus orchestrated original works and a number of works by other composers" - that inelegant "plus" again. This one can be replaced with a simple "and". There is another, later in the text, that also needs fixing.
    • This "plus" has been eliminatewd. I will keep an eye out for the other one as I go through the rest of the article. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the later sections will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More

• Backlash section
  • Why was Rubinstein's faint praise thought "worse" than the outright condemnation of the nationalists?
    • Because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to The Five's music and philosophy; he was considered by R-K to be one of the heads, oif not the head, of the enemy camp when it came to Russian music. This is still lumpy, but I've rewritten the passage to read, "Worse still to Rimsky-Korsakov was the faint praise given by Anton Rubinstein because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to the nationalists' music and philosophy." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "he became intermittently paralyzed creatively..." This does not read well (verb sandwiched by adverbs). Suggested rephrase: "from time to time he suffered from creative paralysis."
    • Great suggestion. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Belyayev circle
  • Is the description of Belyayev as a "capitalist" relevant?
    • Yes, not just because of his financial means but also because he and other capitalists who supported the arts in Russia tended to support the nationalist rather then more cosmopolitan artists, who were supported by the nobility. I have fleshed this out to explain but don't want to overdetail. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Clearer now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence: "The Russian Symphony Concerts were just one of several avenues through which Belyayev worked to aid Russian composers, and for which Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance." There is disjunction between the two clauses (or I am reading it wrongly). Can you clarify?
    • How about this: "Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance not just on the Russian Symphony Concerts, but on several other projects through which Belyayev aided Russian composers." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, but do we need to say "wrote that he"? Why not just: "R-K was asked for advice etc"?
        • I can live with "R-K was asked for advice etc." Thought I was told in peer review it needed to be attributed, but if you don't think it needs so, that's fine with me. Jonyungk (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I think, since Rimsky is the subject of the article, you needn't make the direct attribution. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Glinka was somewhat casually brought into the last section, without fanfare. Now he is Mihail Glinka, linked and with dates. Perhaps this formal introduction should be in the earlier section?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Saint Petersburg" - previously we had "St. Petersburg"
    • I already caught the "St. Petersburg" and changed it. The term should now read "Saint Petersburg" throughout the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Increased contact with Tchaikowsky: Does Modest's simile really describe what you term "friction"
  • I'm open to using another word. How would you describe it? Detente, perhaps? Jonyungk (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "detente" means the relaxing of tension, the opposite of what Modest wished to convey. Howvever, "tension" would fit very nicely. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • "Tension" it is. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Later years
  • "Another death, ironically,..." Whose opinion is "ironically"? If from the source, needs to be clarified to avoid POV feel.
    • Meant that it was ironic that a death caused a creative renewal. The word "ironically" has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "300 additional students" - I don't think "additional" is necessary here.
    • Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What is a "kichkist"?
    • A typo—it now reads "kuchkist" and is explained as "(after kuchka, the shortened Russian term for The Five)". Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Will try and wrap up tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Concluding comments

• Opera: The first sentence, cited to Abraham, needs to be attributed in the text.
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Orchestral works
  • The words "in other words" are unnecessary as an intro to what follows
    • Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "these three compositions" - the preceding text has been so complex that I had lost sight of which three compositions. Could we be reminded?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise (next paragraph) "in this category " - needs clarifying as to which category
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Smaller-scaled works: Being really nit-picky, the word "latter" only applies to the second of two. In this case the wording should be "last-named".
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Editing the works of the five: Attribution problems in the second paragraph. Declarative statements such as "While Rimsky-Korsakov's efforts in this regard are laudable, they are also at times controversial" need to be specifically attributed in the text. Same applies to "Still more debatable..." at the start of he third paragraph.
  • These statements are now attributed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Folklore and pantheism: Perhaps the link for pantheism could be moved up and piped to pantheistic.
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Publications: "They provide remarkable insights into his life and work." Source? POV?
  • Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. I look forward to fully supporting when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: All concerns adequately addressed. An impressive, well-prepared and well-written piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. I just don't understand the point of (emphsasis Rimsky-Korsakov). Could you please explain that to me? The article meets all the criteria and shows the incredible amount of hours spent on it: they were really worth! OboeCrack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov) means that Rimsky-Korsakov was the one who placed part of a quote in italics, thus emphasizing it. Thanks for your support. Jonyungk (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment is "coupterpoint" correct? It looks like "counterpoint", but I didn't change it 'cause it's within quotation marks... and would it be OK if we changed all instances of "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" to "[emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov's]"? In particular, I think the use of square brackets is generally preferred over parentheses in this case. The possessive is less important. • Ling.Nut 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for catching this. It should actually be "counterpoint"—unfortunately, my fingers don't cooperate as well in the spelling department than they used to. As to square brackets, the rule usually is to use them within a quote and to use parentheses outside thw quote. I have no problem with using square brackets but that also means a couple of quote marks will have to be moved. Jonyungk (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have moved "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" inside the quotes and changed the parentheses to square brackets. Jonyungk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Rambles in Germany and Italy

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a riveting (really!) political travel narrative by Mary Shelley. As usual, I look forward to the polish that the FA process will apply to it. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - I peer reviewed this in late 2009 and thought it very ready for FAC then. All of my comments there have been addressed, and I am glad to see the map has been considerably upgraded too. My only quibble is in the alt text Left-looking half-length painted portrait of a slightly pregnant woman in a white dress - I am not sure a woman can be "slightly pregnant" - perhaps "in the early stages of pregnancy" would work better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your helpful peer review and your support now. Isn't EyeSerene's map wonderful? I thought it worth waiting for that. My cartographical skills are not what they could be. Changed alt text as suggested. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I wanted to say that I have looked at all the images and they all have free licenses and are clearly sourced. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Shelley rambles map.svg does not convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map; please see WP:ALT#Maps. I suggest something that says the 1840 trip went from Hastings to Paris, then a great loop east to Coblenz and Frankfurt, south to Milan, west to Lyons, and then back home through Paris, and that the 1842–1843 trip went from Southampton east to Berlin, then south through Prague, Venice, and Rome to Naples. Also, there are several phrases to avoid such as "color photograph of" (particularly the phrase "black-and-white" that's describing an oil painting in colors!), but that's far less important. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Considering the route is described in some detail in the article (see the "Travelling and writing" section), I left that out of the alt text per the instructions at WP:ALT, but I will add it in later today since you think it will help. I tend to write alt text for the sight-impaired and for those viewing Wikipedia without images (such as those reading the articles on a mobile phone in the developing world), so I don't think that indicating colors and media are as irrelevant as others do. Also, I tend to think it is important to indicate the variety of media in the article, but this is simply a difference of opinion. (I'm not sure why you are opposed to the black-and-white description - the image we have is not in color, even if the original was.) Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Map has new alt text. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, that looks good, and resolves the major issue. (We'll just have to agree to disagree about the words to avoid.) Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Several opportunities for named refs here. Since I can't imagine you overlooking them, are you against them? • Ling.Nut 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am, actually. I find that combined references easily break during the editing process and it is yet another hurdle that new users have to overcome that doesn't really add anything to the article, so I tend to leave them out. If someone wants to add them, I won't revert, but I tend not to add them myself. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support, beautifully written and detailed. I can scarcely find any fault with it. I did not find any problems with the images that Eubulides missed; concur that the alt text for the map should concisely describe the routes depicted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support - I will work on the alt text for the map later today. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Map has new alt text. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComment: Almost worth supporting just for the wonderful map - congratulations for that. I am reading through, and have a few prose niggles from the lead: Minor issues follow, all now resolved or in progress. Excellent article.

• "In order to assist him financially,..." First two words unnecessary.
• "by intervention" jars slighly; "through the", or "with the", perhaps?
• The sentence "In so doing, she challenges the early nineteenth-century convention that it was improper for women to write about politics, following in the tradition of Lady Morgan and Mary Wollstonecraft, her mother." To remove the slight ambiguity which suggests that Mary Wollstonecroft might be Lady Morgan's mother I suggest you amend to "her mother, Mary Wollstonecroft, and Lady Morgan".

One other thing: the whole Risorgimento section is covered with citation [3], which turns out to be a triple citation to two authors and three books. Why not subdivide, so that it is apparent which parts of the section are attributable to which sources?

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is the perfect example of a combined ref - this is background information and the bulk of the summary comes from one source. A couple of details come from other others, but to make that totally clear would take about 10 more notes, which would seriously decrease readability for no real gain, since this paragraph is simply context for the topic of the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Please feel free to simply change sentences like the ones you listed above. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll just wait until you list them all and do them all together, if that's ok. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Later): I'm not completely convinced by your defence of the citing for the Risorgimento section. It seems that the convenience of the reader is being somewhat overlooked for appearance's sake. But I won't press the point. While reading through I have done as you suggest and made several minor copyedits. I also have a few questions/comments:-

• No information is given on the mode of travel for the first journey. For the second journey there is eventually a mention of "railway, carriage and boat", but it's way down the article. Could this information be given earlier?
• 1842-44 section: Who was Robert Leslie Ellis? Also, the fourth paragraph of this section is not really within the topic of this article, Shelley's book, and could be substantially shortened.
• Description of text, Part II: why is the long quote formatted differently from the blockquote format used earlier and later?
• History of the travel narrative: I can't work out what the second part of this sentence means: "All aristocratic gentlemen took similar trips and visited similar sites, often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad."
• Italian politics: "They connected nationalism to their enemy—Napoleonic France." Perhaps, since we're in the 1840s, this should read "historic" enemy. Likewise I found, later in the paragraph, the phrase "supporting Napoleon" a bit anachronistic.
• Memory and healing: Could a date be added for History of a Six Weeks' Tour?

These are in general very minor matters and I hope to be supporting soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits - they are much appreciated.

Do you think the information about mode of travel should go in the "Traveling and writing" section or the "Description of text" section?

Personally, I'd put it in as early as possible. As I tried to visualise the Shelley party on their travels I kept thinking: did they walk (as "rambles" implies)? Did they, like the Mozarts, go by horse and carriage? Were the trains running? - etc. It came as a relief when I saw "railway, carriage and boat", and could have done with this knowledge sooner.

Added. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an entry for "Robert Leslie Ellis" in the DNB, but I don't for sure is this is the same person. His bio doesn't say anything about going to Europe at this time and the Shelley materials don't say anything about him.

If you're not sure that the DNB man is your man, you could do an Ealdgyth and say "who was possibly...[whatever the DNB says}". Or you could just add "whose identity is unknown" or similar. Leaving it as it is makes it seem as if we should know who he was.

I'm just not sure this is the best route - the Shelley sources aren't uncertain in this manner. I'm wondering if they assume we will think it is the famous Ellis. I just don't want to insert an uncertainty (e.g. "unknown identity") where there isn't one. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Gatteschi material is within the scope of the article, as she wrote the book to help him and the subsequent disaster was partially a result of writing the book. For Shelley, this book was largely about her political views on Italy, of which this incident was a key part. I generally don't like to divorce the book from the history of its composition and publication. However, I am, of course, open to suggestions to shorten it while still retaining the general gist of the paragraph. What would you suggest cutting exactly?

I do understand Gatteschi's relevance, it's just that I found the level of detail in this paragraph distracting. I will give thought to how it might be reduced.

The blockquote in Part II is next to an image - without that formatting, the quote would be flush against the image and not indented.

Ah, these technical niceties!

"often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad". Men who took the Grand Tour were supposed to appreciate Britain from a different perspective than those living in Britain - they were supposed to look at it from a more cosmopolitan perspective - does that make sense?

If you replaced "often devoted to" with "with the intention of", and said "as seen from abroad", the meaning would be clear.

Done. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tried to fix anachronism.

Fine now.

Added date the first time the text is mentioned.

Fine now

Thanks for you careful attention! Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm switching to support, since the outstanding issues are easily fixable, when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support - see the above fixes. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Would you object to me adding an infobox? The Ministry (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would. Infoboxes on book articles tend to repeat information found in the lead, making them redundant. Also, they add a lot of extra code at the top of the article, which discourages new users from editing. I hope you don't mind that I've restored the photograph to the lead image. Since it is in color, it is much more eye-catching than the title page. Readers will be more attracted to colorful page (sad, but true). If the title page were more exciting, I would fully endorse putting it at the top of the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way on the Infobox thing.. but for The Illusional Ministry, here's a rule to live by through thick and thin: Arts and Lit people Hate Infoboxes.. There you go. For free, even. :-) • Ling.Nut 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't hate infoboxes per se. I think they are really useful in articles about planets and chemical elements, for example, but books just can't be easily and usefully categorized the same way. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging us off-topic.• Ling.Nut 02:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Support

• I read this article in one of its incarnations last summer, relating to my work on German unification. I thought then it was a fantastic article, and would have supported it at the time. Now, it is even better: fantastic map, lovely, lyrical prose with a wonderful cadence. No distractions (i.e. info boxes ;) )and all around it is a fantastic article. Awedewit dealt then with my quibbles about the article, and since then she has made it even better. Not passing this would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind comments and support! Awadewit (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - I wish we had more literature articles of this standard. The Ministry (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and the compliment! Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support for 1a.

• Overlinking: I've cleansed it. Catholic was linked countless times; so was "Italy", etc., and pilgrimmage. These are dictionary words, and in most cases have more specific links in the text, anyway. "Italian language" is piped with "Tuscan Italian"—so Tuscan Italian became the modern Italian language, I guess. "Sublime" pipes "Sublime (philosophy)". Is her use of "sublime" in this sense? I wonder whether the word should be in quotes (if it's hers). It was linked three times, as though to hammer home a point.

• I've restored some the links you removed. For example, picturesque, sentimentality, and Sublime (philosophy), are all links to literary terms that had a specific meaning during the 18th and 19th centuries that readers will probably not be familiar with. I see, for example, that you were unsure of her use of "sublime" - that is precisely why it was linked. Shelley is using sublime in the philosophical sense - she is following in the Burkean tradition (see his A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful). Many writers during the 18th century and early 19th century use this word, so it is not necessary to quote it, in my opinion, as it is not extra special to Shelley. The reason I linked it so many times is because it has such a specific meaning, however I have just linked it once now. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the spacing of the ellipsis points.

• Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I guess the large white space beneath the Corregio is unavoidable. Tony (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• The other option is to have the quote flush against the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support - any time to read dissertation chapters? ;) Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note I will be in the hospital for the next three days. I am unsure if I will have internet access. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm back from the hospital. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note to delegates: The outstanding points per my review, above, are not in my view substantial enough to delay the article's promotion, if a consensus exists. They can easily be settled afterwards. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this in December November and said, "This beautifully written article was a great pleasure to read and will sail through FAC, I am certain." I haven't changed my mind. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and kind words, my friendly comb! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and found it to be impressive. Now, with a full reading, I see a well developed and nicely written piece about an often overlooked author. Happy to support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthkeeper! It's wonderful how much attention this article is getting! Imagine what will happen when I finally get around to writing up Frankenstein! Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Awadewit, why do you dislike named refs? They would really shorten the notes (pls check my punc addition in the infobox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see response above. I don't think short notes are better than easier to edit notes. I've removed the period you added to the caption - there is no period in the original. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks ... I saw one really messy quote in there (punctuation), but it was an exact quote, so don't see how to demessify it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Jack the Ripper

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The editors of the page have already taken the article through peer review and good article nomination and seek further guidance on areas for improvement.

The literature on the Ripper is vast. In the interests of focus and length, the details of the victims, murders, clues, and fiction can be found in daughter articles, and are only presented here in outline. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments A very worthy article on a difficult subject. I have the following comments about the text, which is very well written generally.

Murders

• The canonical/non canonical distinction is puzzling to me. I would imagine that the canonical murders were marked by many of the characteristics listed (removal of internal organs, etc.) but this is not entirely clear, nor is the reason why the first two are considered non-canonical.

Canonical five

• "Stride and Eddowes were killed on Sunday 30 September 1888" It is mentioned that their bodies were found between 1 and 2 a.m. I imagine this was the early morning hours of the 30th? Or 1st October?
• "shortly after 10:45 a.m." Odd reading. Why not just say "soon before 11 a.m." or words to that effect?
• Watch your non breaking spaces, as in "5 victims".

I disagree. If the numeral "5" falls at the end of the line, the reader will not become disoriented when their eyes zip back over to the next line to see "victims". The case of "5 victims" is not specified at Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Later Whitechapel murders:

• "that the murder was committed elsewhere and that parts of the dismembered body were dumped at the crime scene." Do the words "crime scene" refer to the railway arch? I would simply say so, since both the place where the victim was killed (if she was) and where she was dumped could be considered crime scenes.

Other alleged victims

• Fairy Fay. I find the whole sequence here a bit confusion. If this was a later invention, it might be best to start something like "Beginning in 1950, newspapers printed accounts of another supposed Ripper victim, who was allegedly killed yada yada. However, there is no contemporary account of such a killing, and no record of any murders ..." You get the idea.
• "She was later postulated as the Ripper's first victim," Perhaps "Some theories suggest that she was the Ripper's first victim, but he cannot be definitely linked to her"."
• "river Thames" Wouldn't you normally capitalize this?
• "he was not connected to the crimes" Ambiguity. If you mean that the police were unable to procure evidence of guilt, might want to say so. It sounds like you are clearing him of being the Ripper, and I'm not sure if it is you saying that or the police.
• Carrie Brown. The police must have ruled out Ripper involvement quite some time after the fact. Certainly not while Thomas Byrnes was still inspector!

Investigation

"Police work today follows the same pattern" Detaining 80 people?

• "The committee was led by George Lusk in 1888." That sounds appropos of nothing, I'm afraid. Perhaps merge it into another sentence a bit more artfully. Unless this committe went on for some time, I'd omit the date, too.

Criminal profiling

• "Robert Anderson". I would delink and omit the description of his job. He was just mentioned.
• "Queen Victoria" Quite a "commentator"!! Perhaps make it "Some of those who followed the case at the time, including Queen Victoia, suggested ..."

Letters

• "Some sources list another letter, dated 17 September 1888, as the first to use the name of Jack the Ripper, but most experts believe this was a modern fake inserted into police records in the 20th century, long after the killings took place." I would put this as a footnote.

Legacy

• As a suggestion, you might want to lead off with what is now the second paragraph. That the Ripper had such a positive legacy might be worth displaying to the reader right up front.

That is all I have. I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've made an edit that addresses many of these points either by removal or rephrasing. Points not addressed are:

First victim: I'd rather not say "some theories" as this makes it sound like a widespread view held by many.

river Thames: I prefer lower case, but am not bothered if it is capitalised.

Carrie Brown: I have said "eventually" but I think it was ruled out very quickly by the London police at least.

Fake letter: I did put this in a footnote, but another editor felt that it ought to be placed in the text, so I put it back per . DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support My concerns having been substantively addressed, I feel this is an excellent summary of an topic about which an immense amount has been written.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This subject has always interested me, beginning with being terrfied by him when I was a kid and teased about it by my father. Meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.ada-wilson.html
    • http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html
    • http://www.rippernotes.com/ripperology-ripperphile.html
    • http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/
    • http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/periodicals/

I listed the various bits separately, so in case they are by noted specialists in the field, we can discuss each one based on the author not just the website.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• To take each page in turn:
  • Christopher Scott is the author of Will the Real Mary Kelly...?.
  • Christopher-Michael DiGrazia provides sources, has published in Ripperologist magazine, and is the co-author of The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in the "Daily Telegraph". If required, this reference could be replaced by one from an academic peer-reviewed journal, but a subscription is necessary to access it: Wolf, Gunter (2008). "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888". Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation vol. 23 pp. 3343–3349.
  • Stewart P. Evans is the author/co-author of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, amongst others.
  • The casebook website is operated by Stephen P. Ryder, who is the author of Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper and co-author of Ripper Notes: Jack the Slasher, and Thomas Schachner, who is the co-author of Jack the Ripper: Anatomie einer Legende [in German].
  • As above. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken out five anyway . DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There are in the article instances of both spaced en dashes (in image text and book title) and em dashes (in quoted bits.) My reading of WP:DASH makes me conclude that one of the two dash styles should be changed to the other for consistency.
  • Why are there so many hidden comments? A handful of Rumbelow cites have been hidden near the list of similarly-named murders, a mention of Robert Napper, the victim Mary Kelly as related to tourism, a Begg cite and a Woods cite—all hidden. Could the Rumbelow cites be shown? Could Napper be introduced? Mary Kelly explicitly listed? The See also area typically does not need any referencing.
  • There is no need for a full-stop at the end of sentence fragments in image blurbs.

• WP:DASH use to say use mdashes sparingly, so an ndash is used in the image caption. The other instances reflect the original sources: an mdash is used in the original quote and an ndash is used in the original chapter title.
• The hidden comments are references for those murders being named after the Ripper. I prefer to hide them than pepper the sentence with footnotes, which looks untidy and reduces "readability". The references in the See also section are for sources which link those events to the Ripper, but again they look silly if revealed. Napper removed. Mary Kelly is known to have drank at the Ten Bells, the others are postulated to have done so. I think listing her specifically is cumbersome, but the name is hidden there to remind me which one of them was known to drink there. DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Punctuation in quotes can be changed without comment to fit overall article style; it is done all the time in the publishing world. The suggestion to use em dashes sparingly applies just as firmly to their cousins the spaced en dash, as the two have the same usage in sentence interruption. However, your usage of spaced en dashes does not constitute sentence interruption, since one is a chapter title and one is the beginning of image text which isn't even a full sentence. I withdraw any objection to your use of dashes. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, just wanted to pick your brain on the issue of hidden comments, to judge purposefulness or forgetfulness. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've taken out the stops on the image blurbs. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, very well done and a significant move forward in the article content and quality. Personally, I'd like to see an additional para in 'background'. An excellent source is Bill Fishman's East End 1888 - which includes a chapter on the Ripper, but predominantly deals with the social melting pot. The principle Irish immigration to the area was associated with the weaving trade - which was in serious decline towards the later half of the century. A lot of the overcrowding was due to the development of the docks and railways - which displaced many poorer people into the area. So, I'm not really sure of the relevance of the 'Bloody Sunday' demo specifically to the East End - you can probably supply a justification for that. Of more relevance is probably anti-immigration agitation that lead to the formation of the British Brothers League in 1902. I'd also look to including a Booth poverty map of the district (see one here - but it obviously needs a free source). Anyway, the question always arises as to when we stop; and that's a function of your excellent editing! As it stands, I have no hesitation in expressing my support that this now represents the 'best of wikipedia'. I will declare an interest that in the past I have had my mitts in this article; but not for some time. Kbthompson (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Saw this article when it was nominated for GA and it has improved since then. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Query, can the text squeeze between images in the "Letters" section be solved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Bodiam Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle is one of the most picturesque castles in England, and one of the most popular. Built in the late 14th century, it's not certain that there was every any military action at Bodiam, so the history section is mostly about ownership and what the owners did with the castle. It's not a long article, but in light of what some might think is a quiet history, it's comprehensive. The main source for the article is the National Trust guidebook which cover the main points in the castle's history, and padded out by references from other books. I have searched the indexes of the journal Medieval Archaeology, but they had nothing to add beyond what is already in the article. Hopefully, others will agree that the prose is up to the mark. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is a detailed, informative article that describes not only the castle (with outstanding photography) but also its construction, military role, and iconic status in bygone days. I don't feel well-qualified to spot technical flaws in this article, but beyond doubt it deserves to become a FA. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The castle is so photogenic I think it must be impossible to take a bad photo of it. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support assuming the issues I can see are fixed. I am far from able to find all textual errors but there are some problems I have found on reading through. References look good - .... all happy now - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Situated in a moat and an artificial watery landscape, display and defence were was an important aspects of the castle as well as defence - gets rid of the "as well as"
    • The original phrasing was deliberate. It is a popular mindset that castles were military buildings first and foremost, however within castle studies there is great debate about their purpose. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. The thrust appears to agree with the following text - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • and is today open to the public - not sure what "today" adds here as it is implicit in the sentence.
    • Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Dalygrigge did would not have had long to spend in the completed castle - 3 years is either short or not.
    • Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Link to disambiguation page Estate needs a specific target like Estate (law)
    • Someone added a host of useless links to the article which are now gone. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Notes 1-4. Is there a source for the currency conversion used ? I assume that reference 18 has been used, in which case it should be noted.
    • It shuld now be clearer. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Today, the castle is open to the public - would be much better as something like from <date> the castle has been open to the public
    • Easier said than done. The problem is what constitutes "open to the public"; as mentioned earlier in the article, people were visiting the site as early as the 18th century, but it's probably only under the National Trust that it became official. The current phrasing is intentionally ambiguous, but I do not believe it hinders the reader's understand. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Understood - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The area surrounding Bodiam Castle was landscaped at the same time as when the castle was built - seems to say the same thing in far less words
    • Agreed and changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • but only the moat survives today - the striken word does not seem to add anything of significance
    • Agreed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • the interior is ruinous - shouldn't this be ruined rather than ruinous ?
    • The two are synonymous and it's more elegant than "in ruins" or "ruined". Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Elegance in writing is far from my forte - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Images and alt text look good but File:Plan of Bodiam Castle.jpg is missing a licence. Should consider whether there is sufficient PD information to create a free replacement
    • The article now uses this redrawn image which has been relicensed. Thanks to Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs) for fixing this one, it was beyond my skills. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • • Much better - do you want the old Jpg deleted now ? All the changes look good.- Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I've copied the relevant information to the new file so the old jpeg is ready to be deleted if you'd do the honours. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think all those text changes really do that much to improve the article. I might say "display as much as defense" but the original wording expresses the presumably surprising idea that a medieval castle would be built for show. Saying when the castle was opened to the public would be nice, but given the uncertainty of some of the history it could be a very hard thing to track down (when was the cottage built?). "Ruinous" is a synonym of ruined in Webster though not (ahem) Wiktionary . Your proofreading is useful, but I think it shows that the text is in pretty good shape. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dab links sorted. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • The Saul reference is a journal article, title of the article should be in quotes, just like the taylor ref. (Normally I'd just have fixed, but I don't do citation, I do cite, so I have no clue how to fix it)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I'd used |publisher= instead of |journal= so the article title wasn't quite right. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Article reads well throughout, appears well-sourced (to be fair, I am not well-versed in the topic), and the photos are stunning. I made a couple of picky punctuation changes that weren't worth posting here, and the rest is in fine shape. This would be a more-than-worthy FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Beautifully written and well sources. Clear explanation of the history of the castle, its construction, ruin, and preservation. Context was nicely established, and not over done. Wonderful illustrations which particularly enhance the idea that the castle was created not only for protection but for effect, and possibly more the latter than the former. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment picture used in infobox is pending VP promotion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image review by Dr pda. Per a request on WT:FAC I have reviewed the images in the article to check for copyright/licensing issues. I don't have time at the moment to fully review the article.
  • File:Bodiam-castle-10My8-1197.jpg - OK (professional looking, author given as professional photographer, uploaded by user with same username as photographer, cc-by-sa-3.0 licence)
  • File:East Sussex outline map with UK.png - QUESTION: doesn't give source for base map (user-created map, PD-licensed, inset map is probably File:Uk_outline_map.png. User:Jza84 is still active, could contact to find out )
  • File:Death of Wat Tyler Froissart.jpg - OK (reproduction of image from 15th century manuscript, out of copyright, original source identified, online source identified, link dead, version in internet archive confirms information, added this link to image description page, correctly tagged with {{pd-art}})
  • File:Aerial photo of Bodiam Castle.jpg - OK (professional aerial photo, link to photographer's website, where image is released under cc-by-sa-2.0)
  • File:Castle Bodiam1 cz.jpg - QUESTION: date 12/12/12 (user-created photo, metadata consistent with this, uploader name consistent with name in metadata, released under cc-by-sa-3.0, resolution of image half the max resolution of the camera)
  • File:Bodiam-Castle.jpg - OK (1906 painting, checked artist date of death, 1917 so out of copyright, added this to image description page, digital image source missing, found same resolution image online, added to image description page, changed tag from pd-old to pd-art, since uploader presumably didn't create image)
  • File:Bodiam Castle fromthe north.jpg - OK (user-created image, image quality consistent with this eg highlights, metadata show digital image produced by a film scanner in a photo lab, username or author and original uploader the same, licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0)
  • File:File-Bodiam Castle gatehouse.jpg - OK (retouched photo released under cc-by-sa-3.0, original photo identified, professional quality, by professional photographer, username and name in metadata consistent, released under cc-by-sa-3.0 so derivative works allowed)
  • File:Bodiam murder holes.jpg - OK (user-created photo, image quality and metadata consistent with this, username of uploader and author match, released under cc-by-3.0)
  • File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg - QUESTION: does tracing a diagram violate copyright? (source of information given, svg version based on jpg version since deleted, don't know what licensing that had, but both based on map in book, image is traced image-corrected, and recaptioned by uploader, licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL)

• Sadly, a copy (or tracing) of a copyrighted image falls under the same license as the original. Credit to the creator/uploader for their honesty, but this is not his to license. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, give me a day to sort this out. I'll scour the local libraries to see if I can find an old plan that's free use. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the PD version I could find was not suitable for the article so I've added a fair use rationale to the plan. Is this ok? Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Bodiam Castle 05.jpg - OK (user-created content, from flickr, still there, still licensed under cc-by-2.0)
  • File:Bodiam interior.jpg - OK (user-created photo, quality of original image consistent, username of uploader "s to the h" consistent with author Sean Hamerton, released as PD, no image metadata)

The images are thus mostly OK. For the East Sussex outline map, I would suggest you contact the creator, User:Jza84, and ask what the source of the base map was (eg did he draw it himself from mapping data, or was it from a PD source, or from a copyrighted source etc). For the image with the strange date, everything else looks OK, I'm not sure why that date was given. For the plan of the castle, you'll need to get the opinion of someone more experienced in copyright issues than me. (A map published in a book would presumably be copyrighted, tracing and modifying would then seem to be a derivative work, unless there are some other principles involved, e.g. the layout of the building is a fact, which is not copyrightable) Dr pda (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Jza84 to ask about the map. The image with the funny date had the meta data with when it was generated, so I've changed it to that. As for the plan, I am not sure. The original image was used with a fair use rationale; who would you recommend consulting for more information? The layout of the walls are factual, however the labelling is at times speculative. Nev1 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest checking with people like User:Jappalang, User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit for the plan. Also, I've seen Jza84's reply on his talk page; if you or he add to the East Sussex map something like what he did for the Manchester map, that would satisfy me. I'm also fine with changing that funny date to the one in the image metadata. Dr pda (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just expanded the description of the map and will now go and ask someone about the plan. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I couldn't get passed the first paragraph regarding criterion 1a.

• The grid reference belongs in the infobox, or anywhere other than the first sentence.
• What is a "watery landscape"? A landscape containing water features? A bog? Klunky and vague.
• "...display was an important aspect of the castle as well as defence." Perhaps you meant "...display was as important an aspect of the castle as defence." Or perhaps the entire could be rephrased to scan better.
• Replace "home" with "residence".

I don't intend to block with an oppose since I am not on often enough, but with four complaints in the first paragraph of the most important part of the article, I believe this deserves a thorough copyedit. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Addressing your points in order:

1. The grid reference hardly breaks the flow because it is at the end of a sentence, but I have moved it to the infobox.
2. I'm not seeing the problem to be honest; if a landscape is watery, there's lots of water. "Watery landscape" is a phrase used in studies of the castle, so to suggest that it does not fit in with criterion 1a (good prose) is surprising.
3. As explained earlier in this FAC, the phrasing is deliberated. There is a popular image in the public eye that castles were exclusively military institutions, and it is often a surprise to learn that they were social symbols. We cannot know if Bodiam was meant for display as much as defence because we cannot read minds (Johnson spends quite a long time talking about this in his book Behind the Castle Gate.
4. Why?

I encourage you to read the rest of the article; any valid points will be addressed. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I massaged the prose a bit and feel it flows well now. Marvellous read. Comments beginning a readthrough. I'll jot some notes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By 1378, Edward Dalyngrigge owned the manor of Bodiam by virtue of marrying into a land-owning family - this section just sorta jumps into it. The first sentence should have a word or two explaining who Dalyngrigge was -a local nobleman/nouveau riche?

I've added a sentence] on who Dalyngrigge was. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

... many castles were slighted.. "slighted"? Interesting use of the verb.....?

Slighting is a technoical term which means to render a fortification undefendable. It's explained in the previous sentece (sort of) and there's a wikilink: "...when Bodiam Castle was dismantled (slighted)..." I know nothing of the origin of the word, but suspect it may be linked with the meaning to insult or be insulted, but that's another article... Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my note here; not your problem, just making you aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Carucage

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after a very thorough copyedit by Malleus AND Parrot of Doom (I'm moving up in the world, two copyeditors!), plus a peer review and a GAN, I feel this is as ready as it gets. Instead of a bishop OR a horse OR a nobleman, you get a ... medieval tax. It was an experiment that didn't work out, only collected six times, but still an interesting little tidbit on the way to more "modern" systems of taxation. It wouldn't work any more, as we don't usually have the ox-teams this tax was based on! No, I don't know how it was pronounced, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems very short, 9736 B or 1658 words readable prose size. Does this really cover the key sources? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was only collected six times. Google Scholar search for carucage+history+taxation, which includes quite a number of brief mentions. Before the Royal Historical Society shut down their free bibliographical database, I also consulted it for any sources I might be missing. The important sources are the Barrett articles, Harriss' work on finance, the Mitchell Taxation work, and Warren and Richardson/Sayres works on Government. I didn't consult Norgate's 1888 work on the tax, as it's quite frankly out of date. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if it could be fleshed out some more, perhaps with a little background explanation of some of the terms and the context, because it's quite difficult to understand if you're not already familiar with the period. For example, "The last carucage was imposed in 1224, after which revenue was collected by levying taxes on moveable property instead of land." It's not clear what that means. And "Despite its intermittent use ... the main source of royal income during those years remained scutage, feudal dues, and royal rights such as justice." What are "royal rights such as justice"? It would be helpful if terms that people can't be expected to know could be expanded just a little as you tell the story. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can work on that in a little bit, but there is a limit to how much can be explained without getting into wild tangents. That's how this article started, I needed to explain 'carucage' for Hubert Walter, and it just kept... growing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Are there any other spots that you did not understand or felt needed explaining? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to point to any other specific instances, because it's a feeling throughout that you're assuming a lot of background knowledge, or assuming that your reader will constantly have to click off the page. Second sentence, for example, "It was a replacement for the danegeld, last imposed in 1162, which had become difficult to collect." Why had it become difficult to collect? And last sentence of the first para introduces the idea of "moveable property," without saying what it means. Second para of lead—most tax came from royal and feudal rights, again without saying what those terms mean. Last sentence of lead: it was used in part to pay King Richard's ransom: what's that? And so on throughout the article. The narrative needs to be a story that the average intelligent reader can grasp without having to click off the page too often.

  If it's too awkward to expand on a term in the sentence it's first used, you could include a link to lower sections that expand the key terms, or the key parts of the context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments have been moved to the talk page. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'd like to second the above remarks that there's not enough of the big picture here. In particular, the last paragraph of Legacy is mostly a paragraph about the background: some of it should be moved to Background and greatly expanded (in particular please expand "the main source of royal income during those years remained scutage, feudal dues such as feudal reliefs or feudal aids, and royal rights such as the profits from the justice system"), so that the reader knows how carucage fits into the bigger picture of medieval taxation. I don't know anything about medieval taxation, so I picked a source about carucage at random, read a tiny bit of it, and came up with the following questions that aren't clearly addressed by the article:

• Was carucage intended as general revenue, or was it raised for specific projects? If so, what were the projects, exactly?
• Was carucage imposed as part of a consensual process between monarch and subjects, or was it arbitrarily imposed by the monarch without any formal or informal say by the subjects?
• Approximately what percentage of the royal revenue during the period came from carucage, as opposed to other sources of revenue? Even if we don't know exact figures, order of magnitude would be quite helpful. Was it 50% 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
• Was carucage considered a state tax, or a personal tax for the king's benefit only, or both?
• How was carucage related to tallage, or to the military service that scutage was supposed to be a substitute for?
• Were serfs subjects to carucage directly, or were they subject only indirectly via their lords? Did the lords pass on the carucage to their serfs?

The source I used to come up with these questions (and which answers some of them) is: Yoram Barzel; Edgar Kiser (2002). "Taxation and voting rights in medieval England and France". Rationality Soc. 14 (4): 473–507. doi:10.1177/1043463102014004003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there is no real division between revenue at the time. As explained, each carucage was usually raised for a specific purpose, but didn't go into a separate fund or anything. (And it's mentioned what project/task/etc. each individual carucage was raised for in the article) As it explains in the Under Henry III section, one time out of six, the consent of the council was gained for the collection, otherwise it was just imposed. We don't really know, as we don't have a total figure for all royal revenue, we have guesses, but not all royal income went into our records, so most historians don't speculate. We just don't know. Tallage as it's named was not really collected in England, but it's a tax on movable goods. Otherwise, how do you mean "related to scutage" ... they were two different types of revenue. Serfs by definition did not own land, so no, they were not subject to the tax. Quite likely they ended up paying, but we don't know whether that happened or not. I do not have access to that article (its not yet in the university i use's sub package) so if you could send a copy my way, that would be helpful. But some of this is somewhat anachronistic, there isn't a division between state/personal taxes at this time, quite honestly. Or at least most historians I've read don't consider it so. (Maybe this author is, but...I've never heard of either of these two authors, so I'd want to know more about the article before committing myself.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"there is no real division between revenue at the time" Yes, and this info should be in the article, since this context is not obvious to the non-expert. Similarly for several of the other points you make: they're good points, and should be in the article. Anyway, again, I'm no expert, but Barzel & Kizer 2002 (which unfortunately I lack the rights to pass along a copy of) does talk about tallage (and, for what it's worth, Tallage says that tallage was collected in England) so it appears that tallage should be looked into. Barzel & Kizer agrees that there aren't reliable figures, but says (p. 481) "In the 12th and early 13th centuries, revenues from crown lands and customary feudal prerogratives accounted for roughly 75–80% of rulers' expenses in both England and France (Mann 1986 [ISBN 052131349X]: 418; Baldwin 1986 [ISBN 0520073916]: 156). The other 20–25% came from various other forms of taxation, some semi-customary and some consensual (discussed below). The revenues served both the ruler's private expenditures and those of the state; the latter at the ruler's discretion." Not being an expert I'm not sure what I mean by scutage, other than from what I can tell it was a substitute for armed service, and the idea that taxes were essentially a way to finance wars (one way or another) is a point that needs to be made more clearly, if I'm understanding the situation correctly. It is surely obvious to an expert that serfs didn't pay carucage, but it wasn't obvious to this non-expert; I think it'd help to state in the article who paid it, and who didn't, as long as there are reliable sources to back this up of course. A typical reader who views this article will have the modern view of taxation (including national, regional, and local taxes), and I expect that such a reader will misunderstand many of the terms in this article by interpreting them in the modern way. Matters aren't helped when the lead says that carcucage was a "land tax" but the body says "collection of the carucage was actually a feudal aid, rather than a tax". In short, more context is needed for the non-expert, and an introductory section summarizing medieval taxation and how carcucage fits into it would be great help. Eubulides (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can do the intro to taxation (ideally there would be a Taxation in medieval England article.. .note the redlink) It'll be probably tomorrow, I just had a rather... LARGE project dumped on my lap at one of my side-jobs. The problem of course, is that when that redlink becomes blue, the intro in this article will be redundant. (Hell, it might make THAT article... gees...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But but but... the article has ALT text! Aren't you going to notice that??? (smiles at Eubulides) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't notice my recent ALT text either. I think it was the first time I did it without whining, and my reward was ... silence. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Silence is golden. And I liked what you wrote below, about "I am the king, and I get my income from feudal rights, the judicial courts, profits from other royal courts, the royal forests, and the Jews": that's good muscular prose and we should see more like that in Wikipedia. The new intro in Background is much better; thanks. (Can you work "I am the king" into that? ...) Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent again) Okay, I've thrown together Taxation in medieval England, which is more indepth than the additonal paragraph I've thrown into Carucage. Mainly, this covers the fact that there is no strict separation between royal and governmental income, relative percentages for revenues in 1130 and 1194. As far as Tallage is concerned, it's not a term much used by my sources... I'll note that our Tallage article has no inline citations, and appears to derive mainly from the 1911 EB, a 1895 article, and the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1905. Any mentions of Tallage in England should probably go in the new article anyway. I've added a line to explicitly state that serfs weren't subject to carucage, and a line on the Templars being bankers (which, took forever to source, since it's "common knowledge" in the field... ) I think this should address most of the concerns? (I cannot believe I wrote ANOTHER article on taxation... blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Image review: single image, File:Medievalplowingwoodcut.jpg, is verifiably in the public domain. I am curious though; how was it identified as "redrawn from the Luttrell Psalter, an illuminated manuscript of c. 1330" (article caption) when the source Mediaeval and Modern History only identified it as coming from a "14th century manuscript"? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod added the bit about the Luttrell psalter, you'll have to ask him. If he can't source it, I can remove it, obviously, but I assumed he had a source...Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the sort of image art historians are given to describing rather optimistically as "famous" (sigh); the whole page is on the Luttrell Psalter Commons page, or the BL website. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jappalong, will sourcing the fact to the original image from the Psalter work? or do I need to remove the Psalter bit? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put the bit about the Lutrell Psalter into a hidden comment, pending resolution of this matter for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth, above you were wondering about the Templars - they were known for their financial skills, and I think it was pretty usual for them to be involved in tax-collecting (they collected the Saladin tithe in 1188 for the Third Crusade, at least, and I think they were involved in collecting the 1183 tax in Jerusalem, etc). They had become somewhat of an international banking house, because there were no other truly international institutions like them at the time (discounting "the church" in general). I don't know as much as I'd like about the Templars in England, but there are plenty of books about them, if you want to find out more. Adam Bishop (talk)

Thanks, Adam. It would be interesting to add a sentence about that, or maybe link to an article that explains it if we have one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed have an article that explains it.. Knights Templar which is linked in the article from Templar Order. Our templar article is actually pretty good, and has a pretty decent paragraph in it about their financial empire. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add something to the article about it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I will shortly. Just got Taxation in medieval England non-redlinked, which should help. Have to bathe the dog, be back at work shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What you added here is very good. I have the same suggestion again, though, about the writing. You write as though your reader already understands the vocabulary. For example, two of the main sources of income were from feudal rights and from the judicial courts. Very few people will understand what that means. I realize you're linking where appropriate, but I think the aim is to keep people on the page as far as possible. It's not that you need to explain endlessly, just that you need to slightly shift the audience you're addressing (in my opinion, which you're free to ignore, of course). :) There's was a famous newspaper editor (so famous that I can't rememer his name), but I think he was the editor of the Washington Post, who had a sign up in the editorial dept for the writers, which said something like, "Remember, they're only 10!" His point was that the best person to write for, and this applies to a great many levels of writing, is a very intelligent 10-year-old, someone who will immediately grasp what you say, but you do need to offer at least a minimal explanation, while avoiding going off on long tangents. That would be the position I'd adopt for this article: addressing a very clever reader who has never heard of most of the expressions you're using, and who doesn't want to have to read a lot of other articles in order to understand this one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Included in that is this: "The main sources of royal income were: (1) income from the royal estates, (2) income from feudal rights, such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord, (3) taxation, and (4) the fees and other profits from the royal courts, which were paid to the king." I can't GET much simpler for feudal rights than "which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord", without going into a mini-essay and off topic. I've added "the judical courts" in #4, which hopefully will make clear what judicial courts means. Some of this is NOT simple subjects. The whole topic of feudal rights isn't going to be easily broken down into a short phrase explanation, sometimes links will just have to do. I do not want to oversimplify and become inaccurate either. Part of the problem is that the whole concept of feudalism is undergoing a historiographical revolution right now, our old understanding of the system is undergoing a rather large controversy, and it's just not possible to go into that much detail. Frankly, since the subject of this article is a tax that isn't connected with feudal rights, I think we've covered it in enough detail and linked to further discussions, so that trying to explain MORE in this article (especially now that I've written a whole article on the overview subject) would be getting off track and subject. I realize you're fascinated, but some things just aren't germaine to the topic, and an extended discussion of the whole topic of feudal rights and the income the English kings derived from them, isn't really needed here. To some degree I understand you want to understand the background, but puffing up this article with long discussion of incomes not even derived from taxation is probably not something that needs to be done. I've bent over backwards here, written another whole article on taxation to give background, and unless you can point me to something about the actual subject of the article that's unclear (and not the related topic of royal revenues) I'm not inclined to continue adding information not related to the topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I think a good comparision here would be to some of the more specialized mathematics articles, where we aren't expected to write to a 10-year-old, but someone who has encountered the term in more specialized literature and is looking for a more indepth explanation. See Group (mathematics) or Problem of Apollonius, which is about the level of interest for this topic, quite honestly. You're not going to run into a mention of carucage in the newspaper, you're more likely to see it in an undergrad textbook or the like. Perhaps in one of the better written romance novels, and someone might come here looking for more information. Just because this is a history article doesn't mean it has to be totally dumbed down, we can have highly specialized articles on history subjects just like we do in math or science. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say about maths article is true. But I think the point is this: I'm British, I've studied British history, I've been to university, and I've edited some WP articles that touch on the points in your article, but if I were forced at gunpoint to explain precisely what is meant by, "I am the king, and I get my income from feudal rights, the judicial courts, profits from other royal courts, the royal forests, and the Jews," without looking it up, I'd be in trouble. I could give the broadest of brushstrokes, but no more, and I think that applies to almost all of your readership, including the undergraduates who might come here from a textbook. So it depends how many of your readers you want to carry with you. I think that, given that you yourself have a really good grasp of the subject, you'll be surprised at how much you can clarify without dumbing down or becoming too tangential. But again, I want to stress that these are just suggestions. I know it's frustrating, so do feel free to ignore. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. Minor stuff:

• How about some punctuation in references (i.e. commas separating author, title, and page no.)?
  • There is no need for them (grins). As long as it's consistent, this system has worked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Do the book titles really need to be repeated every time for a cite, especially when there is a sources section?
  • Yes, because I prefer it that way. For different works by the same author, I find it much easier to see the shortened title than a meaningless year. Easier to keep separate. This is a style used by historians, and again, as long as its consistent, it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair dos. At least it's not a pony bishop article. ;) RB88 (T) 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. How about using some images from the kings, or anyone else mentioned in the article? There's a nice one here of John, for example. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That one of John can't be used, as there is no source of the image given. And, honestly, what would a medieval illustration add? I'd rather add a coin image, honestly, it would give the feel better. But, quite honestly, I avoid putting images in at FAC because jumping through the sourcing/templating/alt text hoops is a pain and I try to keep it to images that are close to contemporary and relavent. There is a nice File:Richard I pictavinus 722697.jpg shot of a Poitivean coin of Richard I, but since this is an English tax, it's not very relevant. File:Penny-of-henry-III.jpg is a possibility, it's a drawing of a coin, but it's undated, so it's not clear if the coin was contemporary with the tax. When I was doing the taxation article, I hunted for a good Exchequer table manuscript illustration that had enough source information to survive at FAC, but could not find one. In the end, it comes down to .. if I'm going to bother to jump through all the hoops for an image at FAC, it's going to have to add a lot to the article, not just decorate to have a picture or three. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think images help the reader to navigate through the text. They break it up into units, and they'd give the reader a better idea of what we're talking about in terms of the period. The John image is cut from this one, by the way. I take your point about the hoops. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an increasing trend for reviewers to assess articles against their own personal preferences rather than against the FA criteria. Which part of FA criterion 3 is this article in breach of? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the FA criteria boil down to preference, Malleus—what one reviewer might think is well-written, for example, another might think isn't. I think the criteria use to say something about "appropriately illustrated," but I may be misremembering, and anyway, you're right, they don't say anything about that now. Bear in mind that the above was just a comment, not an oppose. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of reviewers interpret them as personal preference, true, but that's not quite the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note The FAC page is backlogged and slow to load; if any of the above is fully resolved, can it be moved to talk, leaving a link here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Deacon's comments: Support. Good work. I think this article would have been better organised thematically rather than chronologically. It would be more work, but the educated general reader would benefit more if there were sections on purposes/origin, collection, conflict and revenue (with tables), and so on. The way it is currently written makes it harder to follow (and I'd bet if it were done that way, you'd have had more feedback by now too!). The chronological structure is also completely pointless as it stands, because there is no development narrative making use of it. But I know it is too late to reorganize, so I will overlook this. :) I'll support then,. Some points however:

Given any choice, I always approach things chronologically. This makes biographies easy for me to write, but other subjects... (My thesis advisor always teased me about this... said I was "old-fashioned") Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The clergy and ecclesiastics resisted Richard's attempt to collect the 1198 carucage from their estates. In response, Richard withdrew the clergy's right to use the royal courts, forcing them to buy the right to do so back for a sum greater than the carucage that had been levied

Would like to read more about that, if your sources have it. Seems like it's worth more than one sentence anyway.

I can't find anything in Gillingham's Richard I about it, and I'm still awaiting delivery of Turner's Richard. The source that I drew the information from, doesn't elaborate any further. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage,<!--plural?--><!-- The source says carucagii, I double checked. Eald --> in official records.<ref name=Tax14/>

receptores carucagii means "receivers of the carucage": I've fixed it to make sense. This part is still a bit choppy though. You'll need to introduce William or something ... just looks like two random sentences put together atm.

Working on phrasing of this... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

the King capitulated and recognised the Cistercian immunity from taxation'

Would prefer some kind of rephrasing that doesn't imply that we think such an immunity already existed. Perhaps "agreed to Cistercian immunity"?

Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The last carucage was imposed in 1224,[19] after which revenue was collected by levying taxes on moveable, or personal property, instead of land

I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "after 1224 there was never any other tax based on land"? Seems unlikely phrased as broadly as that. And it goes on to say Taxes on moveable property were first assessed in 1207, which seemingly contradicts the above sentence, as the latter could imply that such tax wasn't levied until after 1224.

Reworded, see if it works better now? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And

medieval chronicler

You might as well say just chronicle if you are gonna say this. 1) "Medieval" covers more than a millennium of history, 2) what English chronicler isn't medieval? 3) specifying the century or decade or something is actually useful. I made relevant alterations for the article, but I thought I'd make a point of it since some of your other FACs have done this too. :)

Good work again! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SV, Eubulides, is there anything else that needs to be done to garner ya'lls support? Or are you two only planning on making comments? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just sat down to read it again, and tried to tweak the lead a little, but I'm confused about some of the vocabulary. Lead says, "Carucage was introduced by King Richard I in 1194, and was sporadically assessed during the following two reigns. It was collected for the last time in 1224, and was replaced by taxes on income and personal property. The tax was levied only six times between 1194 and 1224, and never raised as much as other taxes."

Assessed, collected, and levied -- are they being used to mean the same thing here? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find I'm having to click off the page a lot to understand the article. I know some clicking is always going to be necessary, but there's a lot of it in this article, so that reading it is hard work.

• For example, what does this mean? "The carucage was raised in order to pay John's feudal relief—payment due on inheriting lands—for his 1199 inheritance of lands in France.[20] The relief had been set by King Philip II of France at 20,000 marks." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've amended to "feudal relief - payment to a feudal overlord on inheriting lands - for his 1199 inheritance of lands in France. The relief had been set by King Philip II of France, John's overlord, at 20,000 marks.". I had to guess at what you didn't understand though, because you didn't tell me what parts of those two sentences were confusing. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence, "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and the governmental structure grew out of the royal household." This makes it sound as though there was a central government, just not an independent one. I think you need to flesh out slightly what you mean by "government" here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've expanded that to "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and while the central governmental organs grew out of the royal household, it wasn't until late in the medieval period that government could be said to be mostly separate from the royal household. During the late 12th and early 13th century, taxes could be paid either to the government or the royal household, and all types of taxes and other royal income could be used for either governmental expenses or the personal expenses of the king." which if you think needs copyediting let me know. The point is that money paid to the government or the king was fungiable, and could be used for any purpose, governmental or personal. (Later in medieval England the theory grew up that the kings would support themselves out of the income from royal estates and that taxation wouldn't be necessary except in extraordinary circumstances, which led to Parliament getting the power of the purse... but that's AFTER the time covered by this tax ... thankfully. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• To what extent was there any central government, apart from the royal household, at that time? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

• If you mean any government that didn't shade into the royal household? Not much. The exchequer is no longer wandering around with the king, but it's still directly responsible to the king and all the appointees are controlled by the king pretty much. Same for the Chancery. There is no real Wardrobe yet. The great seal is the king's seal. It's only when you get to the point where the Privy seal and Wardrobe start to detatch from the Chancery (which held the Great Seal) and the Exchequer under Edward I that you can start speaking of a "separate" government and even then... Parliament is somewhat separate by the later part of Henry III's reign (Simon de Montfort) but... not in this time frame. in this time, there is no "central government" as we would think of it, although we're no longer in the period of the early medieval period where there is nothing but the royal household either. Some historians think that the time of separation was earlier, some think it was later, but the important point here is that money might go to the exchequer or the royal household interchangably, and that money, once in the either place might either pay for what we'd call "governmental expenses" such as wars, or might pay for personal expenses, such as royal upkeep or gifts to the king's friends. The main thrust of this paragraph is to show that the governmental situation isn't like modern times or even late medieval times (such as the 15th century during the Wars of the Roses). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would it make more sense, in that case, to say there was no real separation between the king's household and the exchequer, rather than the govt? When I first read that sentence, it jumped out that there wasn't really a government in any sense we would recognize, so it seemed misleading. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That would work, but would you want some of the additions I've added cut then? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I feel it's quite unclear: "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and while the central governmental organs grew out of the royal household, it wasn't until late in the medieval period that government could be said to be mostly separate from the royal household. During the late 12th and early 13th century, taxes could be paid either to the government or the royal household, and all types of taxes and other royal income could be used for either governmental expenses or the personal expenses of the king. What does the source say? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is about four pages of discussion on the development of the government from 1066 to 1485, so it'd take a bit to show you. The book is basically an encyclopedia of topics connected with medieval england, discussing them for an high undergrad level student, basically. Saul's an expert on later medieval England, so the articles are overviews, but for this information, it's perfect, because it's summarizing what is generally agreed upon. How about we do this in the article "In medieval England in the 12th and 13th century there was no clear separation between the king's household and the treasury.(ref to saul) The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates..." since I introduced the rest of it under what I thought you were confused about, but apparantly i was wrong. Does that make it clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. The ref is Saul p. 115. What does he say on that page that's relevant to this? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "In the Midle Ages the king was the personification of government, and the branches of his household were the first government ministries. This was why medieval government retained a domestic and informal quality right down to the 16th century." is on p. 115, but since we're discussing the treasury also, I've extended the ref to cover the financial arrangements, which he discusses on p. 116 and 117. Since the whole section only goes one more page, I've just cited it to the entire entry on "government" which covers pages 115 to 118. I've gone ahead and made the change in the article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So what he's saying is that the king's household was the government. Does he use the same language about the treasury? If yes, we shouldn't say "no clear separation," if in fact the treasury was the king's treasury de jure and de facto. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By this time, there exists the Exchequer which is "parked" at Westminster and handles the audits of most of the revenue. The king also has a household treasury, but the Exchequer no longer travels with the king, so it's ... sorta ... separate. How the Exchequer was "parked" by this time is what Saul discusses on pages 116 and 117. Using the terms "de jure" and "de facto" is a dichotomy that is much more modern than this time frame though. "No clear separation" means that there is the start of separation at this period in time, but it's not total yet. Saul just spends almost a page discussing it in detail, which would be fine in the Exchequer article but.. not here. (It's two pages becaue it spreads across the pages, half on each page, about.). Trust me, if I'd oversimplified or got something wrong, Deacon would have hauled me up short, he's not shy about that at all. (Just look at the trials of the damned he's put me through with Urse d'Abetot or Hemming's Cartulary, but it's always worthwhile.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• John land inheritance reference: 1200 in lead, 1199 in the text. Which thing happened in which year? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• He assessed the tax in 1200, he inherited in 1199 (when Richard died). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• And why was it his inheritance relief if he was the one having to pay it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's just the terminology. it's his "relief" payment to his overlord in order to inherit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from being gone through once more, and expanding sentences or passages that are unclear, sourcing it all clearly, and sticking closely to the sources and what they say. Just to give one example: "Under Henry's son, King Richard I, the geld was replaced by the carucage, and was established by Hubert Walter, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar of England." What does it mean for it to be "established" by Herbert Walter? There are lots of sentences like this. I think there needs to be a general fleshing out of these tight sentences, perhaps with a history student in mind as your reader, but someone who's never studied this period. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply to this in the morning because quite honestly, my initial reaction is to withdraw the nomination if you want me to explain what the word "established" means, because I find that to be a very weird concern. What ELSE does established mean but that he initiated the carucage? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean for the Archbishop to initiate it or establish it? What does an Archbishop do when he establishes a tax, and why would he do it? Why was he representing the king? It needs to be expressed in a way that makes it meaningful.

I had stopped commenting here a few days ago, because it was obvious that you didn't agree with my input, which is fair enough. But then you asked me to comment again, so I read it again today, wanting to support, but found I couldn't. The reason I want to support is that it's a nice, succinct article, and I learned something from it, and that's refreshing compared to the hulks that are often submitted at FAC (mine included). The reason I feel I can't support is that it's too succinct, to the point of sometimes appearing not quite right. It needs to come alive a bit more, so that people not already familiar with it can understand it. It also needs to stick closely to the sources, because (apart from the accuracy issue) that will help it to come alive. It needs to be written to minimize the number of times an intelligent reader who knows nothing about this will have to click off the page to another article in order to understand it. I'm sorry if that makes you want to withdraw, and I very much hope you don't, but it's my honest opinion, intended to be constructive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See, that bit about the archbishop makes it clear WHAT part of the sentence you found unclear. Before, you didn't explain that it was the archbishop reference that confused you, just saying "What does it mean for it to be "established" by Herbert Walter?" since you emphasized "established" i assumed that was the difficulty. HW was both Justiciar AND Archbishop of Canterbury. It wasn't his office as ABC that led to him establishing the carucage, it was the Justiciar bit. I've cut the ABC refernce (which I type on autopilot, quite honestly, since I end up typing it so much.. "Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury" is just something I type a LOT, so I always include the ABC part.) Hopefully, minus that, it's clearer now. To be fair, you were being a bit TOO succinct yourself. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the stuff below before the above, but got an edit conflict with you when I tried to save, so I'll just post what I'd written already, but won't continue unless you say you'd like to hear more.

I've gone through again, and added and subtracted bits, hoping to avoid confusions where information was given that wasn't needed (I've cut the bit about scutage, since it was only one of the revenues that the carucage was supposed to supplement and put in place a more general (and hopefully less confusing) "Carucage was an attempt to secure new sources of revenue to supplement existing sources of income." which is accurate without introducing a minor bit that's of interest to historians but only serves to confuse the general reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some other unclear sentences:

• "The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates, income from feudal rights—such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs, which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord, taxation, and the judicial courts—which included the fees and other profits from the royal courts that were paid to the king." I think you need to explain feudal aids and reliefs—as it stands, unclear terms are explained with reference to other unclear terms. Also, the sentence structure isn't clear e.g. "the king's position as a feudal overlord, taxation and the jud. courts". Also, how are you distinguishing in this sentence between the judicial courts and the royal courts?

• This one, was introduced today during a copyedit by someone else, I thought I got all the things that got scrambled, but apparantly not. It's now back to what it should be "The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates, income from feudal rights (such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs, which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord), income from taxation, and income from the judicial courts (which included the fees and other profits from the royal courts that were paid to the king)." which hopefully is a bit clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• You mention exemptions to the danegeld in the lead and text, but what the exemptions were or why they existed aren't explained, or the difficulties there were in collecting it. A few words of explanation would help. And why was the carucage easier to collect, or regarded as easier?

• The exemptions just piled up, so a new tax without all the old exemptions would have been easier to collect. And people being gullible, they might pay a new tax that is seen as more fairly assessed easier. But the sources don't say exactly what the difficulties were. Huscroft says "The tax was also difficult to collect and unpopular, and there are signs that it was producing ever smaller yields." And the king could grant exemptions to favoured folks, pretty much. We're a bit in the dark during Henry I's reign, as we only have one Pipe Roll and no other financial records to speak of. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• "In response, Richard withdrew the clergy's right to use the royal courts, forcing them to buy the right back for a sum greater than the carucage that had been levied." What did that right consist of?

• The right to use the royal courts. This wasn't something that was an inalienable right at the time, the Angevin kings were despots in a way that the later Tudor's only dreamed of. This is before Magna Carta, so if the king said "no you can't get justice from my courts" ... well, you were out of luck. I've added "forcing them to buy that judicial right back" in. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think that perhaps too heavy a burden has been placed on this article to explain the medieval English social, legal, and taxation systems, which are not well dealt with in the articles that, in a perfect world, would be supporting this one. Carucage is an article about one tax, collected only six times in the 30 years between 1194 and 1224. I doubt if a more informative and better researched account could be found online anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this article since it was nominated. I am familiar with the topic of medieval England (though not to this extent) and don't find the article difficult to read. It's a comprehensive explanation of a single tax that replaced a different tax (danegeld) and within the scope of the topic, treated and developed well. I have one single suggestion: I'd remove the "only" from the first para in the Henry III section. His father collected once, his uncle twice, so in fact Henry III collected the most. This is the type of article I'd want to find somewhere; preferably on Wikipedia! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good point, removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand SlimVirgin's questions; I'm a grad student in medieval history and I find English administration extremely complex and confusing. There are rows and rows of shelves in the library dedicated to it, so it's not easy to summarize it in an article like this. I think it has been summarized well, but perhaps only for a person who already has some background in the subject; I don't think that is a problem though, because is a random person ever going to want to randomly know about the carucage? Probably not. Having said that, there is one bit that could be clarified - why did the Cistercians claim to be exempt from taxation? I suppose they recognized no authority but the Pope or at least the head of their own order, but I wasn't sure. Also, maybe this is a bit off-topic, but did England's technical status as a papal fief in the early thirteenth century have any effect on the carucage? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have run across absolutely nothing that mentions anything aobut the papal fief status impacting on the carucage. I'll dig a bit into the Cistercian bit, but I'm not sure it's easily answerable. Digging now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon digging a bit more, it seems (and I stress seems here) that they claimed it under the 1179 Church council that forbade secular taxation of the clergy. Note that no source says why they claimed a exemption in the case of THIS tax or what the exemption entailed, just that they claimed it, but had no luck. I found nothing in Knowles' Monastic Order in England, but I do not have his three volume history of monasticism so I don't have total access to the nitty-gritty details. Madden "Business Monks" Catholic Historical Review (1963) just says that the Cisterican's claimed an exemption from taxation, and implies it was from the 1179 canons. I don't feel safe enough to make the leap, since Madden doesn't explicily say so, just... implies it for other taxation, not this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well that's all that jumped out at me, so I support. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I made some trivial edits. This was partly to improve the last sentence of the lead, but I also hyphenated ploughteam, which I'm happy for you to revert. (incidentally, I bet Americans love the highly logical BE spelling of "plough" {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Second Test, 1948 Ashes series

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another of the 1948 Ashes Tests, this one was held at Lord's and set a new record for a Test match attendance in England. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support- Generally excellent and certainly comprehensive. Very readable and engaging. One or two points which could be clarified.
  • Is there any mileage in the background in commenting on England's change of strategy for this Test? They adopted a very negative defensive strategy for the first Test but went more for attack in this Test. Bill Bowes, a journalist by then, wrote about this at length in his autobiography and blamed (for he opposed it) the strategy on Walter Robins, the chairman of selectors. E.g. selection of Coxon and Wright, dropping of Young, more attacking play. However, not sure if anyone but Bowes says this.

Added this myself and a few more bits from Bowes.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Bradman received a loud reception from the crowd" Presumably a positive reception?

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The century "erased a poor run of form". Not too sure about the word "erased" rather than "ended".

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Miller did offering a shot" Should this say "did not offer a shot"?

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Edrich "playing across the line": does this need explaining for the non-cricketer?

Done and added dicdef in List of cricket terms YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Although Yardley was very much a part time bowler, he had a faintly unbelievable run of success in this series and the last one. Is this worth a mention?

I did find it unusual because when I saw that he was England's second leading wicket-taker for the series and had the second lowest average of all players, I checked his profile and saw that he averaged about 0.6 of a wicket per game. I can add the raw data, and you have the pundit's comment, I hope, as the Australian's didn't bother to note it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The only comment I could find related to the 46-47 series. I think the stats cover it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In this Test, Coxon and Compton came to blows in the dressing room, although details are scarce. I know of at least one book which mentions some details. Could this be added?

Added this myself.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Any reaction to the match from the press, e.g. critical of England?--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Put in Wisden's comment on result and Bowes verdict. Added it at the end, not sure if it works there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Are attendance figures available for each day? Any explanation for the record attendance?

I couldn't find any daily figures, but nothing specific for the reason, except the general popularitry. added YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I would say that the article is well written and comprehensive. It is well researched; would it benefit from at least mentioning Wisden's viewpoint? I notice Wisden is not referenced and would be one of the major sources. Sorry, my mistake! Lots of Wisden there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Another great article in this series; I've pretty much come to expect high quality in these articles by now. Prose and sourcing both seem up to scratch. (Note that I made a few cleanup edits recently) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent account of the Test. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Should average be linked for the non cricket followers? - as many may not know that if you get a not out it doesn't get counted as an out in your average - or is that overkill?
• What's the point of leaving images in the article if they aren't to be displayed because of copyright reasons? Seems silly to me - no big deal though.
• Overlinking: On a quick glance I see that bouncer is linked twice and is also linked for short ball. There may be others, if so swipe 'em.

Removed double link. I used rpt links for synonyms, as the outsider wouldn't know this, and could get confused, and using the same word over and over wouldnt be good prose. Average linked, an oversight YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Images only one, and it is also in Third Test, 1948 Ashes series, which passed FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1 with an image review a few weeks ago YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "all rounder" be hyphenated? You've done so in other articles. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

YM, the numbers running together here look very messy in the TOC-- it took me a while to realize there were day/dates there, not part of the TOC:

• 3 24 June: Day One
• 4 25 June: Day Two
• 5 26 June: Day Three
• 6 28 June: Day Four
• 7 29 June: Day Five

What if you switched them to this?

• 3 Day one: 24 June
• 4 Day two: 25 June:
• 5 Day three: 26 June
• 6 Day four: 28 June
• 7 Day five: 29 June

Also, I think there's too much uppercase on the Days, per WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can change this on the whole series YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

James Whiteside McCay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An article on an Australian politician and general of the Great war. If you ever wondered if there were any politicians present at Gallipoli, here is one. However his career as a general was marred by disasters, giving his biography a tragic tone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Current ref 58 (Honours...) lacks a publisher
    • Done.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - “Ester, who could speak seven languages, was also known as a brilliant mind.” Either remove this sentence, or clarify in which context The Argus calls her “a brilliant mind.” This sounds like the typical phrase a thirties newspaper would tuck in to a obituary.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you sure? I can't see any change. The Ministry (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Done again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it known why he destroyed his papers, and why he wanted a non-military funeral?

• No, it is not known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What about adding a “Legacy” section to the end of the article?

• Sure. What should it say? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See, for example Samuel Adams. Obviously it won't be as long, but something along the same lines. The Ministry (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ministry (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Supported this well-written/cited/structured article in MilHist ACR and pretty well ready to support here as well, but first:

• He also served on a panel that deliberated on the future structure of the Army, was chairman of the Fair Profits Commission, the War Service Homes Scheme of the Repatriation Commission, and of its Disposals Board. This is a bit of a mouthful, and I'm not even sure I know exactly what it's saying, so before suggesting any rewording can I confirm it means that as well as chairman of the Fair Profits Commission he was:
  • Chairman of the Fair Profits Commission,
  • Chairman of the War Service Homes Scheme that was part of the Repatriation Commission, and
  • Chairman of the Disposals Board that was part of the Repatriation Commission?
    • Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, reworded to something that's a little longer but I think makes it clearer (might still be improved). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the References section, Charles Bean, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, Canberra, and Australian War Memorial don't need to be linked more than once. Also don't think they need retrieval dates like web pages, as they're simply online copies of published books. Also also, do we need McKay the author linked and hence bolded?
  • The point is that the references can then be lifted and re-used in other articles. If we prune the links, they cannot, and would need to be marked up again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I get that and often copy/paste these things myself but not too hard to then give it the once-over and tweak things. I'm not a MOS fanatic so no opposing on those grounds but if others complain, remember you heard it here first... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Just a nice-to-have, not a necessity, but any choice quote(boxes) or vaguely related images that can be inserted to break up the grey stuff from Western Front onwards?
  • I'll have a look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Those help, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. (Pending support)

call me old fashioned, but I always thought The Reverend should be capitalized (it's a title).

• Not the "the" unless it is the first word in a sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

His predecessor, Senator Anderson Dawson, had chaired a committee that had produced a detailed report that recommended the abolition of the post of General Officer Commanding Australian Military Forces and the creation of a Council of Defence, a Naval Board and a Military Board. Could you rewrite this so there are fewer thats? (perhaps none). His predecessor, x, had chaired a commitee producing a report recommending the abolition... The whole paragraph is chock full of "thats"

• Removed a few "thats". Hawkeye7 (talk)

(comment) his military career ran concurrently with his legal and political career?

• Yes, that's correct. The three are separated somewhat in the article for clarity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But the guy he replaced as Lt. colonel was sacked because he supported McCay!! That's taking the apolitical military to a new level!

• The guy was also a schoolteacher, so he had to front the Minister for Education... McCay again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

when you mention someone like Charles Bean, you might qualify him, saying, The Australian Journalist, Charles Bean, but not wikilinking Australian and Journalist.

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, very nice, though. I'd have liked a bit longer of the legacy section, but if the debate is just heating up, perhaps there isn't much on it yet.

• More like the coals being raked over. We need a military historian to look at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But nice nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

• Just nit-picking about "Allegiance" in the infobox. It's kind of unencyclopedic to ascribe his inner thoughts, attitudes to a flagicon, isn't it? I think you can't go beyond his citizenship and employment in the military.
  • It's the standard box. I presume it was debated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've removed a few chain links (the reader will click on "Ballynure" if anything at all, certainly not County Antrim or Ireland. The Ballynure article provides links to both of those more general articles anyway. "Dux" is a common term that English speakers are meant to know. WP isn't a dictionary. Can you do a thorough audit of the links to focus readers on the many valuable ones?
  • No, "dux" is a cultural reference. They don't have them in the US. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree because in the US, the term "valedictorian" is the norm YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• "barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria"—isn't this a very technical way of saying he was a barrister and solicitor? Some readers may think he actually worked for the Supreme Court. We don't need to introduce those hair-splittings here, do we?
  • They don't have them in the US either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• PLEASE don't link "Roman Catholic". How many billion humans are Catholic? It does not warrant a link. It's just not useful to the topic.

Tony (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think the article is comprehensive and well-written, else Tony would have opposed the prose I guess. Do you know what his major in his BA was? It said his MA was maths, was his BA about maths? As a MA is relatively high level, do we know what maths he did his project/focus on? Statistics? Applied maths? Hydrodynamic modelling? Pure maths? Number theory? There are some dash glitches that I'll just do myself for you YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wray recounts what he studied in first and second year of his BA but not the final year. It only states "Mathematics" for his MA. The biographer used McCay's academic transcript from the University of Melbourne. I could try contacting him. (The University charges thirty bucks.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as above - the prose is crisp and clear (very military, what ho!) and nice to read. Comprehensive and covers controversy in a neutral and balanced manner. Any idea which type of cancer he succumbed to? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wray says "a cancer of the chest affecting the heart". To me, that means metastatic lung cancer. Official cause of death was renal failure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, be nice to assume but better to err on the side of safety I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support I fixed a typo and a few punctuation errors; one tiny fix still needed: is it Esther or Ester? Altogether this is in very good shape—a nice read, well sourced, and no style problems I can see. Maralia (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Esther. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

John Diefenbaker

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria, after the peer review. This is an article about a man who became Prime Minister of Canada after losing five elections in a row, and who, after finally being elected to Parliament, repeatedly lost leadership races. Even when he got the leadership, no one expected him to actually lead his party to victory. When he did, in 1957, it was an upset so huge that magazines printed that his opponents had won (Canada's "Dewey Beats Truman" moment). Then he led the Tories on an election campaign a year later that resembled something between a crusade and a revival meeting, and won the largest majority in terms of percentage of seats ever. Unhappily, he couldn't live up to it, but still led a band of true believers into his 80s, making life miserable for both major parties. I'd like to thank Bzuk and Connormah for their help getting this one ready. I think Dief the Chief is well ready to enter the canon of FA article subjects.Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was recently at GAN, why didn't you let it become a Good article first? warrior4321 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted it to get a review, either GA or PR, when it was reviewed at PR, I found that sufficient. Brianboulton is not only an excellent writer, he is a fine reviewer. And GA is backed up for over a month on the political articles ...--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, GA is not a necessary step prior to FAC (and not always a necessary step for experienced FA writers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Sandy. I merely wanted some feedback, and with PR and GA both a bit backed up, was hedging my bets as to which would get me there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is good (thanks), except for two things. First, a visually impaired reader will be left clueless as to what Diefenbaker looked like, despite the presence of a dozen images of Diefenbaker. Please describe his visual appearance in the alt text for the first image File:Diefmontreal.jpg: the square face, strong jaw, firm lips with frown line, short dark-and-grey hair cut short on sides but short-medium and wavy on top, etc. Keep the "penetrating stare": that's a good detail; also mention he's in suit and tie and holds a paper at waist-level. Second, for later portraits, you can assume the reader knows what Diefenbaker looks like and can simply say "Diefenbaker" without re-describing him (or using generic terms like "subject of the portrait"; just say "Diefenbaker"), except please briefly describe the differences in appearance (and in particular that hair in File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, wow!). For more advice and examples, please see WP:ALT#Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

is this a change for the alt text rules? I thought we weren't supposed to name people.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That part of the alt text guideline has been there for six months or so. Generally speaking alt text shouldn't contain proper names, yes. But if an alt text entry describes (say) Greta Garbo's appearance in some detail, and the image's caption says that it's Garbo, then later images can just say "Garbo" (assuming the appearance is similar); this mimicks the experience of sighted readers who may not know what Garbo looked like until after they've seen the first image, and who afterwards can be expected to recognize her in later pictures. There's an example of this in WP:ALT #Proper names (look for "Garbo") and it's also briefly discussed under WP:ALT#Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then. Dief seemed to look more or less the same except for his (I agree, unusual) appearance in law school and the final photos post-PMShip where he has visibly aged. I'll play with it. Let me know if there's a problem, either here or better yet on my talk or the article talk page. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the alt text reads very well now. I made one little tweak to remove the proper name from the first image. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In notes but not refs: Diefenbaker 1976; English 1993; Smith 1953; Peden 1978. • Ling.Nut 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All were the result of typos, and have been corrected now. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three. I've made corrections to most of the images (be careful of malformed templates, e.g. and ), but have not resolved the following:
  • File:John Diefenbaker Signature.svg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (i.e. from what source was it digitalized?)
  • File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, File:Dief1939.jpg, File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg and File:Diefcommons.jpg - All need licenses and/or information indicating copyright status in the US. {{PD-Canada-photo}} addresses only status in Canada; images must be shown to be PD in the US as well. File:Dief1939.jpg, for example, would be expected to be PD as a foreign work published between 1923 and 1977 without compliance with US formalities and is in the public domain in its source country as of 1.1.1996.
  • File:Diefportrait.jpg - This photo appears to be a derivative work of the portrait, which seems too prominent to be considered de minimis. Presumably the portrait was "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department"; if this is indeed the case, it should just have a supplementary crown copyright license. Эlcobbola _talk 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sliced File:Diefportrait.jpg, since the painting is less than 50 years old, presumably even Crown Copyright would be a problem. File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, File:Dief1939.jpg I've added additional information to show that they were public domain in Canada in 1996. Unhappily, I don't believe the remaining two were in the public domain on 1.1.1996 because they were then subject to the fifty year rule and so I've commented them out. I am not an expert on image copyright and if you see a way of salvaging these, please let me know. The image of Diefenbaker pointing is iconic and he used it on the front cover of the first volume of his memoirs, but with so many photos of Dief out there, I really can't justify it as fair use. As for the signature, I've asked User:Connormah, who uploaded it, to put in his source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be a long shot, but perhaps contacting the LAC would yield information to support PD status in the US? I'll look to see whether I can find anything for those images. Эlcobbola _talk 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the House of Commons regarding the painting. It was government commissioned, and copyright resides in the House of Commons. That means it will not be PD even in Canada until 2019. Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Added a new signature with a source image for the tracing. Connormah (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Another top-quality political biog from the Wehwalt stable. A surprisingly interesting and involving story about a man not so much forgotten in the UK as hardly heard of (I initially thought he was a German footballer). I said my piece at some length at the peer review, and most of my suggestions were acted on. With the source issues evidently settled, the article ticks all the FA boxes for me. Could be TFA on Canada Day (1 July I think). Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I had heard the name and knew he was the sole PC island in a sea of Liberal PMs, but I didn't know much about him until I saw an exhibit on him at Regina airport. Turns out to be quite a character. Yes, I am hopeful that on 1 July, as the song goes, "Dief Will Be the Chief Again", if only for 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant "image" issues in the above comment; no questions about the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've been reviewing the article at its talk page, and have received feedback on all my suggestions there. The article is comprehensive and well-written. There are numerous references (although the article relies significantly on the Smith ref, I don't think it does so overwhelmingly). I'd like to see a few more images, but unfortunately the time frame seems to be in a copyright black hole– too old to have any recent CC- or GFDL-licenced images, too young to have public domain images. (Surely the various Canadian archives have images that can be used as fair dealing.) I have no complaints about the stylistic aspects of the article. The only featured article criterion I would quibble about is length - it weighs in at just under 100kB, but I don't think it's excessive given the topic. Please note that I don't currently have access to the cited references, so I could not verify the claims made using the refs; I assumed they check out, based on the earlier peer review and comments here and on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and for looking at it for 2 hours (!) for inconsistencies. I rely heavily on Smith because it is the only bio of Dief to be published since his death (excepting one Young Adult bio which I have but refuse to use for obvious reasons). I can get a couple more images from Library and Archives Canada, there is one of Dief, Pearson, and CCF leader Hazen Argue taken in 1959 taken by Duncan Cameron, whose photos are free use if you acknowledge the source. I also have one of the Diefenbaker School in Toronto, which is where his father taught the kids who famously became Conservative MPs (they have rebuilt the building since). I think I will probably wait until after the FAC closes to make any decisions, since we have a completed image check and there have been some delays in getting one, don't want to go back to the foot of the queue. With free use images available, I can't justify fair use ones, and unhappily had to delete the well-known one of Dief in the Commons, pointing dramatically (it is PD in Canada but not in the US, see the discussion above). I agree, the article is an appropriate length, this guy was politically active for 60 years and led his country for 6. Thanks again for the large amount of feedback, like a lot of people who write, I tend to get a bit blinded by my own writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So to summarize current status, with the weekend coming up, two supports plus the nominator (one who reviewed it at PR, one who is new to the game), image check done, technical check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support All comments addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Prose: It's a bit wordy in places. For the first sentence, why not the punchier: "John George Diefenbaker, (September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963. "led" is repeated 5 times in the lead; and "appointed" twice: Why not "Diefenbaker appointed the first woman Cabinet minister and the first aboriginal member of the Senate." Why not: "Diefenbaker stood for re-election as party leader at the last moment, but only attracted minimal support and withdrew."
  • "he was given charge of political patronage there, and was created a King's Counsel." Are these two events supposed to be connected? I would assume that appointment as KC was independent of politics.
  • I'd move the link to World War II further up, maybe where it says "role in the war effort"
  • I don't see a link to Canadian federal election, 1957 in the prose. One might be useful.
  • I misread "Cabinet approved measures that summer ranging from increased price supports for butter and turkeys to pay increases for federal employees" as meaning that the increased pay supports were to pay for federal employees! I recommend "increased price supports...increased pay".
  • "US$.925" looks odd to me; what was the rate before? Can we use "less than a US dollar" or "92.5 US cents" or "US$0.925"?
  • "seeking out other projects at this time": "at this time" can be dropped.
  • "that the Brian Mulroney government had Canada join the organization" may be easier as "that Canada joined under the Brian Mulroney government".
• Verifiability: I assume the quote "the only way to stop...arbitrary power" is from Bliss?
  • Presumably, "Dressed in a suit and tie, he is clearly aging with pouchy cheeks and hair combed from the middle to the sides." should be placed in alt text rather than the caption?
• Images: Licenses are all fine. I think you should sneak File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg and File:Diefcommons.jpg back into the article after the FAC has closed and Elcobbola's back is turned!
  • For the alt text on the 1977 image: "[his hairs] stick out straight from his head. His eyes are still penetrating..." makes him sound like an aggressive punk. I recommend losing the mohican: e.g. "Now in his 80s, his cheeks are pouchy and his hair combed to the sides. His back is straight and his eyes are still penetrating." If you want to keep it a similar length, maybe mention it's a three-piece navy-blue pinstripe.
  • I'm not keen on the statue alt text: I think it's an overcoat and suit rather than a robe and taken more from the side than below. I'd drop the maybe it's a book maybe it's a brief, I find it more confusing than helpful. The image looks fine on the left looking inwards to me.

On the plus side, the article flows well, and held my interest. I'm satisfied it meets all the other criteria. These are essentially minor quibbles. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be on this later in the day. One thing, the appointment as King's Counsel was, according to the source, political spoils, as it mentions another Conservative activist who got the silks. God knows Dief deserved them, he is by all accounts one of the most effective barristers in the first half century of Saskatchewan, I have a book, "Diefenbaker for the Defence". He was a great lawyer. Things were not as sedate in 1920's Saskatchewan as in London ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done all those things now, with minor changes to the wording. Regarding the Diefenbaker statue, I've moved it to the left (he was to the left of his party, anyway). A little research and I find that he is carrying the Bill of Rights under his arm; I've included that in the alt text. Thanks for your feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, DrKiernan. Well, three supports (the peer reviewer and two others), image check done, and rechecked by DrKiernan, technical check done, alt text in order. It's been a long FAC, but it has improved the article in my view. I'm not aware of anything further that needs to be done, if anyone else is, please feel free to comment. I've gotten very fond of this article, even while working fitfully on my next project, Antonin Scalia.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, it would be good to separate these notes out of References and into a Note section:

• ^ Note: Kim Campbell also became a PC Prime Minister, but she never won an election to gain that role.
• ^ Note: The exact phrasing of what Diefenbaker said to Laurier varies from source to source.

If you don't know how to do that, my TSP can probably help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Steve Dodd

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article as part of my interest in developing and promoting content relating to Indigenous arts in Australia. Dodd was a pioneer - an outback Arrente man whose acting career spans seven decades, and is not done yet. His story is extraordinary—stockman, war veteran and performer—yet, because he almost never performed in more than very minor film roles, he is almost unknown. I wrote this article to try and bring out what little is known about this interesting figure in Australia's cultural history. Thanks to User:Jezhotwells for the GA review, User:Jonyungk for the peer review comments, and to User:Ealdgyth for flagging some possible issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Alt text looks good.
• No dabs, and external links work. Actually, ref 7 and the Dodd portrait's source appear to time out as I type; the portrait source worked for me at first and then stopped working.
• Speaking of the portrait, it looks disturbingly blocky compared to its source. Did you notice, and if so, did you intentionally use high compression? I copied the photo from cas.awm.gov.au just before it started timing out, so I can crop and upload a nicer version later if you wish.

--an odd name 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, OddName. Some of the more technical stuff, such as image format, is not my strong suit. I didn't intentionally do anything - i temporarily saved the file to my hard drive, cropped it in MS Photo Editor to the format you see, saved again and uploaded. If you can produce a better result, please go ahead, i would be very grateful. The link issue appears to be a problem, hopefully temporary, at the Australian War Memorial end - i'm having problems with their search engine which was working fine this morning. Should resolve itself over the next day i expect. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! I also archived ref 7 and its image, just in case. --an odd name 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: I read this ariticle in peer review and have followed its progress closely since that time. Hamiltonstone has done an excellent job of putting together a compelling article that also helps fill an important need. The article was already a fine one at peer review, and hamiltonstone has only improved it. In its overall quality as well as its illumination of the situation in Australia for Indiginous artists, I believe the article meets the criteria for FA status. Well done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can the notes be rearranged so that the oft-cited book isn't listed in full all the time? some thing like Jones, Bob, Article X, in James, p. 2. or what not YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, done and it was much less work than i thought it would be. Any other thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But why are some of them in John Smith and others in Jones, Robert format? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All the ones that are articles in Murray are done as "John Smith, 'chapter name', in..." All others are done as "Smith, John etc". The styles are consistently applied in this way (i had to fix one that wasn't quite right). The reason was just that i thought "Smith, John, 'chapter', in..." looked odd with all the commas. If you and others don't like it, i can change them around. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're odd, I see quite a few books that do the same. It looks fine otherwise I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I reordered them all. One reference still appears with first name first - that is because it uses the editor, not the author name field and WP automatically generates this name order. So it looks slightly odd but is actually consistent with the style guide. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good to see the 26-article hook as welll for Australia Day. They'll be all here as well soon too I hope? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Image review

Sandy posted on the FAC talk page that this needed an image review. Only two images:

1. File:Steve Dodd Korea portrait.jpg. We need a publication date for this, according to the tag on the image page, though the PD tag refers to when the image was taken or published, so we only need to show one or the other. Also, is there more information about where it was obtained?

   Sorry, my mistake. There's a link to the source at the bottom of the page, which I missed because of the template. I've moved it higher. Date made March 1953, so that should be fine—the tag says images in Australia, where the creator is unknown, are PD if taken or published before January 1, 1955. Here the donor's name is available, but not the creator's. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2. File:Chips Rafferty.jpg. The link showing the source for this one seems not to be working.

   I fixed the link to the source, which is here. In this case, the name of the photographer is known. I'm confused about the tag, which seems to contradict itself. It says "A. Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown [are PD if] taken or published prior to 1 January 1955. But then it says "B. Photographs (except A): taken prior to 1 January 1955." I can't work out what that means. Does knowing the name of the photographer make a difference or not?

   Okay, I checked the PD page, and it makes no mention of the photographer's name, but says, "Any photographs created before January 1, 1955 are thus in the public domain in Australia." So that's fine as far as Australia goes, for both images. It's not clear that these images would be PD in the U.S., but I don't know whether that matters at FAC. I've asked at WT:FAC, and will report back. Sorry that I don't know the answer. I'm a newbie image reviewer. :)

Hamiltonstone, this is a useful Signpost article about what's required of free images at FAC, in case it's helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, I chose this page to review because it didn't have a lot of images. Serves me right for being lazy. :) The situation is quite complicated. Regarding what is PD in the U.S., according to WP:PD:

• "If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
• "Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication ..."

So the question is whether this was copyrighted in the U.S. in 1996. WP:PD says, "In Australia, the copyright on published photographs taken before May 1, 1969 expired 50 years after the creation ... new legislation became effective on January 1, 2005, extending the copyright term ... but explicitly ruling out a revival of copyright on works whose copyright had already expired. Any photographs created before January 1, 1955 are thus in the public domain in Australia." I believe this means that the photographs are regarded as copyrighted in the U.S., because they were copyrighted in their country of origin in 1996, and were published between 1923 and 1995. The U.S. copyright appears to be 95 years from the original date of publication.

The question for this FAC, then, is whether images have to be PD in the U.S. as well as the country of origin. If yes, I don't think these can be used. But because this is a complex question, I'll make sure someone checks this who is knowledgable about images. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been told here that images have to be PD in the U.S. before we can claim PD for them at all. I believe these images fail because they were regarded as copyrighted in the U.S. as of 1996, and are therefore copyrighted for 95 years from the date of first publication; see Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules. But I have asked that this be checked. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct in the whole URAA issue (foreign images not in their country's public domain by on 1 Jan 1996 have their US copyrights restored, note the two copyrights). However, a recent movement on Commons advocates to tag such images (that have already been uploaded to Commons) with commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA (along with the copyright status in their source country) and leave them on Commons, deleting them (or the template) when a concensus has been reached, rather than deleting them outright. See these discussions for the various threads. Personally, I think this makes the images unstable (liable for deletion at any moment) but this is my personal view. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jappalang, that's very helpful. Is there a rule that explicitly says images on Wikipedia (not on the Commons, but just on Wikipedia) have to be in the public domain in the U.S., rather than only in their country of origin? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang answered on my talk page. The answer is that images used on WP must be PD in the U.S., regardless of whether they're also PD elsewhere, and it seems that these aren't PD in the U.S.. The discussion about images of the kind you've used in this article can be found here. The bottom line is that some people think they're acceptable and some not, which means they're safe for now as far as the Commons goes, but they could be deleted at any time. This is the wording of the tag Jappalang mentioned above:

This work is not in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in the U.S. was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases). It is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year it was initially published (or until at least 2047, if it was first published between 1978 and 2002, inclusive).

This is not a valid license on Commons; a valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted. Even when this tag is accompanied by a valid license template, we are currently trying to figure out what to do with files like this one. If you are the copyright holder of this image, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent or nominate the image for deletion, explaining the situation.

Are there any other images of these people that you could use? The other option is to claim fair use for the purposes of this FA. I can't see that there would be a problem with claiming fair use for the image of Steve Dodd. I don't think you could claim it for Chips Rafferty in this article. In the longer term, you could try to obtain a free licence. It may be possible to do that for the one with a named photographer. Even for the other one, it could be that the donor was also the photographer. Perhaps you can track them down through the museum. I'm not suggesting you do that for this FAC though. :)

I think that's my image review completed. In summary, these images appear not to have a free licence as far as the United States is concerned, which is needed for them to be used as free images on Wikipedia, and therefore fair use would have to be claimed. This could be done for the image of the subject, File:Steve Dodd Korea portrait.jpg, but not for the second image, File:Chips Rafferty.jpg, in my view.SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

<shakes head> My sympathy to you SV for having opened up that can of worms. No wonder people have begun challenging the URAA in the courts - what a loopy bit of law. If ever there was a case for WP to have servers hosting images in source countries, there it is. I would suggest that the chance of securing copyright release on these images is zero, particularly since Australian authorities such as the AWM will probably be greatly surprised to learn that copyright exists somewhere even though not here. As you note, in one case it is not even known who took the photograph. And the chance of locating either a photographer or their estate on an image taken over half a century ago, and either gifted to the War Memorial or taken by a government official in the first place, is likely to be low, putting it mildly. I've been unable to locate any alternative image of Rafferty at Commons. Given he died nearly forty years ago, again i would rate the chance at close to nil. (No one is likely to be loading their holiday snaps of Uncle Chips on Flickr). <sigh> Chips' image is gone. I've left the Dodd image. If i can work out the best way to approach that using your guidance above, i will. But I would say there is no question of it being legitimate fair use at the very least. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hamiltonstone, you're right that this is nonsensical. I don't think we'd even need servers in different countries. We just need as a community to decide not to have such strict images policies. I feel bad enforcing them, because I often disagree with them, but I want other people to do image reviews for my FACs, so I feel I need to offer some in return. That means I can't ignore the rules, but I do feel like a poacher turned gamekeeper.

Regarding the Steve Dodd image, in your shoes, I'd download it to Wikipedia and claim fair use, tagging it {{non-free use in|Steve Dodd}}. The rationale should say it's an image of historical importance, it's an image of the subject of the article who is deceased, the article would be much poorer without it, it has no monetary value that would be affected by our use of it, it has been previously published, there are no equivalent images that are regarded as in the public domain in the U.S., and it is in the public domain in its country of origin. There are some rationales here you could use.

Alternatively, another reviewer might disagree with me, and say you can go ahead and claim it as PD, given the disagreement on the Commons. However, FAC reviews generally don't follow the rules on the Commons, but the rules on Wikipedia, which differ sometimes, so I believe other reviewers would probably also say you can't claim these as PD for the purposes of this article. I'm sorry it's all so confusing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To other reviewers / delegates. I will get to the image fix in next 48hrs. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a first step, I have added the commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA tag at Commons, in addition to the Australian tag (which says the image is out of copyright in Australia). Personally, I am happy to leave it at this for two reasons: first, given the already chequered case law history of the URAA, it is yet to be determined whether the law will stand and second, in the case of this particular image, the Australian War Memorial does not appear able to identify an original copyright holder. I will try and speak to someone at the Memorial about whether they believe that they themselves own the copyright (in the event that any copyright exists). A note to the delegates when they come to consider closing this: if my approach to this image is the sole stumbling block to promoting this article, let me know before you close it, and I will try an alternative (even if that means deleting the image entirely). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuff it, I decided to go the non-free use rationale route, even thought i think it is ridiculous, in order to hopefully put this beyond doubt. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can't actually use fair use images for living persons (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches#Article-specific criteria). My sympathies for the mess you've found yourself in regarding images. Ucucha 11:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ucucha, i found that Signpost article useful. I read it, and it does not appear that the fact that the subject is living is an inherent issue. It "generally precludes" their use, but the explanations of why this is the case indicate that the matter should be approached by applying criteria for why the use is desirable, rather than a blanket rule about whether the subject is alive. I have beefed up the non-free use rationale as a result of reading the article, though. Finally, i realised there is a different way in which the image's inclusion can be defended: Australia has freedom of panorama in its copyright law, and the image in question is on permanent public display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. So, whichever way one approaches this issue: as a sceptic about the URAA's validity; through non-free use; or through freedom of panorama, I think the image is acceptable. I think I'm done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also in foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which speaks about "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" being excluded from fair use. I think the claim under either freedom of panorama or URAA being bad may be stronger than the one for fair use, as in theory we could get another image of him, but my knowledge of the issues is very small. I agree with SV that this is a place where our image policies are more restrictive than they should be. This FAC gets broad support, and for good reason; it's a pity this stuff is causing trouble. Ucucha 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton, have you tried contacting Dodd's agent? He might have an image of himself in uniform, if that's what you particularly wanted, or some other so we'd avoid this issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just remove the picture, as they aren't needed, and the fair use claim doesn't work, as it's just being used as a decoration rather than linking in with the text much, and it doesn't show anything hard to understand in words, just a dark-skinned person wearing an army uniform. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think fair use can be claimed here if Hamilstone particularly wants to show an image of Dodd in uniform from that period, adding in the cutline that it's from the Australian museum website. The policy says under unacceptable use (my bold), "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." If Hamilton's encyclopedic purpose is to show this person from that period, it can be used, though it could be argued it would have to go in the appropriate section, not in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also spoken to the subject's agent. No decision yet on whether a contemporary image will be made available on terms consistent with WP free content. If it is, you'll see it appear in due course. I am very grateful for everyone's input on the images. Once again, a note to the closing delegate: if you are not happy with the image situation as it currently stands, please advise before archiving. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments (Ucucha)

The article reads good in general, but I'm a bit concerned about broadness and the sources used. Many pertinent facts about Dodd are evidently not recorded in reliable sources, even his age. You have solved that by using quite a few references to primary sources, which may or may not be considered acceptable. I am not sure there is any issue here that warrants not promoting the article. You've probably had to do more work on finding all the bits and pieces here than you would have had if there were some nice monographs on the subject, and it looks like you've done as good a job as you could considering the paucity of sources on the subject.

I did not check whether all refs can be considered reliable sources. A few specific comments:

Lead

• "films spanning seven decades" - at least to me, this sounds like individual films going on for seven decades. Perhaps "over seven decades" instead?

• tried another approach. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Acting career

• "Web site Milesago suggests Dodd may have been the actor in Woobinda (rather than Bindi Williams), but Dodd's age would rule him out." (in ref) - Could you please cite this? Otherwise, it is original research.

• spelled it out and let the reader draw their own conclusion. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

References nitpicking

• ref. 9 needs a page number, and needs to be in the same format as ref. 14

• I no longer have this book. I can probably get the missing details early next wk. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Found a copy. Actually there was a mistake in the refs, as well as missing info. Now corrected. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• ref. 13: shouldn't JASAL be expanded to the full name?

• Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ucucha, can you spell out any concerns about breadth of coverage? You are right - an extraordinary amount of detective-work has been involved in locating these sources. It is one of the issues in Australia with systemi bias against Indigenous recognition. It isn't so much of an issue now, but for early figures in Indigenous arts, such as Dodd, it is quite a challenge. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It has very little about his personal life, in a few places you have contradictory sources on whether he was in some movies, and little about critical comments on him. The material that is there is often supported by only a few sources, which also contradict each other a few times. But you can't do anything about that, and after thinking a little more about it, I am now supporting its promotion (trusting you'll sort out the little issue with refs 9 and 14). Ucucha 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ref issue sorted. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

• What's the point of having a blockquote for a one line sentence? As far as I know, blockquote's are only usually used for three of four sentence quotes. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good question. Ditched the blockquote, and simplified the lead-in sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Support — Excellent. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Superbly researched, can't find anything to nitpick. Rebecca (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. well done. crisp clear prose and comprehensive etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oh my what a lovely article. Nicely done. Very informative, nice use of quotes. Good sources. A single Question? Is batchelor Aussie for bachelor, as in unmarried man?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed that and then changed it back upon discovering wikt:bachelor. It is apparently a legitimate spelling variant. Ucucha 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Well done. I made a few edits to fix exceedingly minor ref formatting and punctuation issues. It's odd to see the film names in plaintext in the Filmography; would be best to italicize those. Kudos on an interesting article, and thank you for the attention to dashes, ref formatting and logical quotation! Maralia (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've switched the film titles in the table to italics as suggested. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written, and I enjoyed reading it. I would have liked to know more about his personal life, but I'm assuming nothing more is known, or reliably sourced. I wonder whether it would be worth giving an estimate of his age. This source gives a range of 72-82. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, and thanks for your assistance here. Dodd appears to have been a very private man, and you are correct, the sources say no more than i have included. From conversation with someone who knows him i know his current age, but there are no reliable sources publishing it. That webpage is undated, so I would prefer not to quote it on his age. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Henry Edwards (entomologist)

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed its GA review and no major issues were revealed that could inhibit Featured Article status. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• technical stuff no dabs, no deadlinks, decent alt text present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've made these edits, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I slightly tweaked one unresponsive google books URL to make it land on one of the two useful pages, unfortunately the second page of 141–142. For some reason, when the URL ended with page 141, the resulting page view was of the frontispiece, not the internal article target. Weird! Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns Image review:

• File:Henry Edwards engraving with sig.jpg: the source states "printed in 1880s" but the date states "before 1891". That it was published (as a souvenir card) is not in dispute; a crucial question to verify the copyright status of this card remains unanswered: where was this item first published? (removed)
• File:Syngrapha celsa.jpg: the license is incorrect; the Canadian site never granted "free use" of the photo for following the conditions stated. They plainly forbid commercial usage, thereby disqualifying it from storage on Commons. (Image removed) Jappalang (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• (Added) File:Catocala ophelia2.JPG: this should be moved to Wikipedia until the death of the true author is resolved (see commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Category:Catalogue Of The Noctuidae In The Collection Of The British Museum). Basically although Hampson wrote the book, he did not draw the illustrations; Horace Knight drew them, West and Newman coloured them. Thus, the British copyright last for 70 years after the death of Knight, West, and Newman (all of them). The image is sound when stored on Wikipedia (since the project's hosting scope is limited to US copyright laws), because of its publishing before 1923. Its copyright in its country of origin, however, is unknown for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (moved)

• I have taken your advice to heart, but in carrying out the process I noticed that there was a discrepancy: I was mistaken in thinking that the image on the Catocala desdemona page showed that particular moth. It doesn't. It shows the Catocala delilah; a different moth. Instead, I have transferred an image of the Catocala ophelia moth to Wikipedia in alignment with your concerns regarding the wait for 70 years after the deaths of Hampson, Knight, West and Newman. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The image issues should be easily resolved; the oppose stands until then. The other two images (photo and sketch) of Edwards are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I dumped the green caterpillar image—I am not married to it and I certainly didn't realize its illegitimate beginnings. I may try to replace it with another Edwards-identified critter photo in the public domain but if so I will be more careful. The engraving with signature I feel is more central to the article. I will try harder to identify its provenance. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• After quite a lot of fruitless searching to find the publishing date of the challenged infobox image, I removed it, moving another up into its place. At the same time, I added an image of Catocala ophelia down near the bottom of the article, as an example of his preference for Shakespearean characters. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Images are verifiably in the public domain and stored on appropriate servers. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hbabs2.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The SF Genealogy site question is really two questions: Who are the people at SF Genealogy (can they be trusted) and where did they get this bit from? The people are the "TAG group" composed of Sharon Yost, Rich Wharff, Betty Vickroy, Kathy Styles, Margie Newton, Carol Jackson, Cathy Gowdy, Ron Filion, Aviva Ernst, Jill Crowhurst-Chesnik, and Marie Clayton. These are dedicated amateur historians and genealogists, donating their time to transcribe and categorize historic texts to be placed online. Ron Filion is also one of the two SF Genealogy administrators. Filion and Pamela Storm state the website's purpose here. The book from which the facts were taken is one published in 1897 by Oscar Tully Shuck entitled Historical Abstract of San Francisco, unfortunately unavailable for browsing online. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• First, if you're actually using a transcribed book, you need to cite the footnote like it was a book, not a website. The information you're citing wasn't published by the SF people but by the original publisher. Second, how do we know they accurately transcribed this? I won't say it's unreliable, but it would be better to check the original book just in case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cut out the middleman and gone straight to the source, which I had mistakenly assumed was unavailable because Google books did not have it. It is, in fact, available for online reading at www.archive.org. Interestingly, the SF Genealogy people had the cite exactly right. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

* Yeah, normally they do, but... better to go with one of the bigger names (like archive.org, google, or project gutenburg). When it's a scan, less chances of transcription errors. (I write on medieval subjects, I know ALL about transcription errors!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. Hey, interesting! I enjoyed the read. However, I don't think the prose is up to par at the moment. You probably should have spent a bit of time between GA and FAC getting this ready... you brought it to FAC the day it was promoted to GA? One of our good friends at Peer Review likely would have identified some of the issues. I listed some specific examples below, but overall the problem is sometimes-jarring, repetitive prose. Many sentences begin with "Edwards <verb>" or "<prepositional phrase>, Edwards <verb>" which is monotonous and difficult to read smoothly. Recommend a thorough copyedit by someone new and/or withdrawing for a Peer Review.
  • "A gathering in Edwards' honor was the spark which began the traditional summer encampment of the Bohemian Grove." I have to say this sent me spinning off into a variety of articles for a few minutes to understand the context. Not a good thing for the first paragraph. I think it's the past tense that threw me. I had to look up Bohemian Grove, then discover the significance, then try (unsuccessfully) to understand why it "was" the spark. It appears that the gatherings are still hosted... do they no longer honor Edwards?
  • "Edwards' wide-ranging studies and observations of insects allowed him to name his discoveries" How so? Just because he discovered them first, or was there some kind of authority vested in Edwards? The body text doesn't clarify, it only states that he named several species.
  • "Early Career" begins with "Edwards was", "Edwards collected", and "Edwards' father ... Edwards took" and so on. We need to introduce some variety into the text. This problem is endemic throughout the article.
  • "Edwards went up in a hot air balloon, and befriended William Sharp Macleay" He befriended him in the hot air balloon? How are these related?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • I see your concerns and I will be dedicating some red pencil time to smooth out the clunky prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have been attacking the wooden prose and I believe I am making headway. Next up: the lede. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I have worked on the indicated problems, and the article is once again ready for review. Thanks for everybody's patience! Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Withdrawing my opposition—significant progress has been made. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've just been through it again and nothing jumps out at me. An enjoyable and interesting read for sure. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPRT
• few more toothpicks in your prose...

1. He collected butterflies as a hobby, and studied these insects under the tutelage of''
   1. Good one! Done.
2. The part of Petruchio, the male lead in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, was ably filled by Edwards at the Princess's Theatre in Sydney in 1859...Edwards ably filled the part of Petruchio, the male lead in... at the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859....
   1. I was asked earlier to change a bunch of wooden prose that involved a lot of sentences beginning with "Edwards did such and such..." Thus, when I discovered the Petruchio cite, I tamped Edwards down into the middle of the sentence. I can easily change this to fit your suggestion, but will I lose earlier reviewers in doing so?
      1. At the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859, Edwards ably filled ??? I don't agree that starting a sentence with the subject's name is wooden. It's using the same verbs and sentence structure that makes it wooden. But I'll not fall on the sword over this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. and Brookes...etc. Make a new sentence? This one is long and I was gasping for breath by the end.
   1. Agreed. Done.
4. As a twist to perk public interest,.... As a twist to tweak...?
   1. I selected pique. I think you will like it!
5. ...the first Australian mounting of that work ..... production of that work?
   1. I like mounting for its classic theatrical usage. See Cymbeline, Afore Night Come, Alice in Wonderland and I Am My Own Wife, or perhaps Stephen MacDonald or Beit Zvi, or the scads of online theatre reviews that use variations of the phrase "mount the play".
6. Edwards sought out renowned expert... make your subject the subject when possible'
   1. See "wooden prose" above. Easy to change, but should I?
      1. see my response above. It's not a deal breaker for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
7. founding member of the theater company of the California Theatre...founding member of the California Theatre company?
   1. I changed it to "founding member of the acting company of the California Theatre" because I wanted to retain the notion that the company of actors was associated with one building, not the state of California.
8. studying butterflies under Hans with Hans.... or something. Under the direction of....
   1. I don't understand the concern. People study under other people, with the word "under" clearly meaning that the first one is the pupil, and the second one the teacher.
      1. Under someone implies a more formal organizational structure. But again, not a deal breaker. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Baja California needs a comma. Baja, California. At least it does in the United States.... Leeds, England? or Leeds England?
   1. I believe Baja California stands without a comma.
10. He befriended John Muir who sent him specimens from the Sierras. John Muir, who ? Commas before which and who usually.
    1. Good catch. Done!
11. Edwards presented a series of papers to the Academy entitled Pacific Coast Lepidoptera,[8] and classified two species as new to science, naming one Gyros muiri for Muir. Edwards presented a series of papers entitled Pacific Coast Peidoptera to the Academy and classified two species as new to science. He named one Gyros muiri, for Muir. The academy is not named Pacific Coast Pe...the papers are. The sentence is already long.
    1. Yes, you're right. Done.
12. In 1873, Edwards was made curator of...too passive. Edwards became....
    1. Done!
13. Combine Boston and New York? Only 1 idea in Boston. really shouldn't be on its own.
    1. Right! I put all of that under the heading "Boston to New York", deleting "Boston" and "New York" as headings.
14. performing on stage and taking part in insect studies. performing on stage and participating in insect studies...
    1. Yes. Done!
15. framed to support destitute actors or their widows.... formed? actually you don't need anything there just to support destitute actors or their widows...
    1. I like your shortest suggestion. Done.
16. the book was favorably reviewed in the New York Tribune, and the review reprinted in the Literary News: "Mr. Edwards—remarkable for attainments in science no less than .... this should be a new sentence.
    1. Split into two sentences. Done!
17. current value... 2010 value.
    1. The inflation template does this job for us—we do not have to perform manual updates.
       1. good to know! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• perhaps some pictures of the butterflies?
  • I have searched for exactly that, but too many images are not public domain. The insects Edwards discovered are not the usual easy-to-find sort—people who manage to take pictures of them are protective of the results.

Lovely article, nicely done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If this one makes FA, it will be my first WP:Four Award candidate. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, terrific, I hope it makes it. I don't see why it shouldn't. Full support. All issues resolved and struck. The ones that aren't struck are explained and not deal breakers for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary Support from Auntieruth55 and AndyWalsh. Jappalang did an image review and it sounds like "he" says it's okay. Ealdgyth checked the links. Someone else whose name I cannot read checked the other technicals (dabs, etc). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Leaning support but a few niggles before I feel comfortable doing so.

• "The life of the theater called to Edwards early in his career...." slightly unencylopedic there.. Perhaps "Edwards joined the theater early in his life, appearing in ..."

• I opted for "Edwards was drawn to the theater early in life..." Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• If he was English, shouldn't the dates be in the English format?

• Ouch! I think of him as American, no less than millions of other Americans born elsewhere who came and stayed. His major works were in America, especially his bug publications and his play Elaine. Because of this, I wish to keep mdy date format, and US engvar. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• A bit of peacockery is evident "...was ably filled..."

• Deleted "ably", though I'm sure a review I read caused me to put that in. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Need a cite for the opinion bit in the last phrase of the first paragraph of Early career.

• Copied named ref from earlier in the sentence to that spot at the end. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• You should quickly explain what Lepidoptera is besides just linking it.

• Done. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Need a cite for "After a successful six-week New York run, Palmer took Elaine on the road." as the "successful" bit is opinion (barely so, but best to cover your bases here)

• Okay, I found a bit of extra detail along with the cites for "six weeks" and for "successful". Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When these are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support I made some simple copyediting tweaks, nearly all related to minor punctuation issues. This is nicely written and well-sourced. Theater and bugs—what a combination! Maralia (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another RAAF character known not only for his exploits in the air—which were considerable—but also for his post-military career and for never being afraid to speak his mind, comparable perhaps to fellow Group Captain John Lerew. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well structured and well written. Would be nice to create an article for the red-linked No. 72 Wing RAAF before becoming FA, and remember that punctuation marks go inside quotation marks. —Eustress ^talk 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Eustress. No. 72 Wing RAAF is certainly on my list (and No. 79 Wing RAAF). I was under the impression that only complete sentences required the punctuation within the quotes, but if I've not followed that rule I'm happy to alter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • After further review regarding quotation punctuation, I learned that Wikipedia uses logical quotation, so the article is probably just fine (see WP:LQ). —Eustress ^talk 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I supported this article during its A-Class review and was impressed with its high standard and quality then. Since that time, the article has been improved even further and I have no reservations in endorsing the article's elevation to Featured status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article which easily meets the FA criteria. The excellent choice of photos is worthy of particular praise. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Nick, and I appreciate the notice of the images, particularly as one is from me 'ole Dad's collection when he was one of those first five Wirraway pilots into Darwin, fortunately of course not the one that crashed (somewhere I have a letter to Mum where he talks about the "awful luck" of inexperienced young aircrew flying brand new and unfamiliar aircraft across the length of Australia and coming to grief at the very last moment, and noting "you didn't hear about it in the newspapers")...
  • At the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth though, can you just check the query on the article talk page to do with the alterations to the Southern Command passage? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support A very nice article on a very interesting man. I do have two small points however 1) Image caption "Wing Commander Eaton (left) during coal strike in Darwin, 1940" - should that be "the coal strike" 2) Do we know any more about his first world war service with the London Regiment - when did he go to France and what engagements did he participate in? Do we know which battalion he served with? Otherwise excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Jacky: 1) I avoided the definite article because I'm not sure there wasn't more than one coal strike in Darwin around that time...! 2) Added a bit more along the lines you suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Amazing Grace

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I assert it's Awadewit's fault that she was making me read about hymns and then all the sudden, in 24 hours, I had gotten all inspired to write this article. That would, however, neglect the fact that I really do think something about this song has a universal transformative power and that many versions I have heard, Judy Collins' among them, have been some of the most moving pieces of music I have ever known. Strangely enough, if you place a few versions back to back, it's very much like listening to different songs in each one. At any rate, let me know what I can do to improve it. Thanks. Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ADD I hate to be a mooch (really), but there are no good mp3 to ogg converters for Mac laptops. There is a shape note version of this song that I can justify with a fair use rationale (but is probably in PD), hosted here: Might anyone be able to convert a 30-second sample of this to ogg to place in the article? Preferably getting the beginning, fa-so-la intro before the words. Thank you in advance. --Moni3 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I use for Ogg files on OS X. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of indicating just how hopelessly technologically stupid I am, any ideas on how to grab the mp3 format from that link so I can attempt a conversion using the program you just linked to? --Moni3 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Click the link for the MP3 in Safari (linked below). Go to Window:Activity, find the page you opened, and then Option-Click the file. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/ihas/service/amazinggrace/200049059/0001.mp3]) That will begin the download (you can use that trick for everything from page elements to Youtube videos.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll give that a try. I work usually in Firefox on the Mac. Never done what you just outlined, so it's good to know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If something was supposed to happen, it didn't. Everything seemed to follow except for the err, download part. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, wait. I think I got it. (Just how much do I sound like someone's grandmother trying to set the VCR??) --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: In refs but not notes: Martin and Spurrell (eds.)(1962); Newton (1811). The former might explain why the Martin notes include the year of publication [Martin (1950)], while others do not. • Ling.Nut 07:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that thing...I think...Let me know if what I fixed is not what you are telling me to fix. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links—good.
• Alt text looks good. I take issue with only one word: "Original". Is it obvious to non-experts that File:New Britain Southern Harmony Amazing Grace.jpg shows the original long hymnal?
• Dates appear to be Month Day, Year in refs. May want to use that style if there are dates in the text too (couldn't find any). Keep them consistent.
• Personally, I prefer nested references for notes. They are harder to type and maintain, though, so no biggie.

These days, I hear it most often in commercials. They don't do it justice; at a glance, this article does. --an odd name 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • What makes http://www.hymnary.org/about a reliable source? I lean reliable, but need a bit more to push me over.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

According to their site (which I'm sure you checked), Hymnary.org is a project of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, both located at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI

Hymnary.org is being used to cite that "Amazing Grace" is Newton's spiritual autobiography. Other sources have said this as well, and in fact, people like Arlo Guthrie and Joan Baez have said that their interest in the song is because of Newton's life.

Hymnary.org is also being used to cite that "Amazing Grace" appears in over 1,000 hymnals, which I do not doubt, and its purpose in religious services. At least for this last point, I think it is wholly appropriate to state what the purpose of the hymn is, its role during a service and what message should accompany it (rather, if the song is an appropriate accompaniment for a particular sermon) according to an ecclesiastical organization, particularly in the section that discusses the multiple uses it has taken on in the last 40 years. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that works for leaving it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, I'd support it. Candyo32 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Candyo32, do you have any thoughts on the article, its sources, etc.? Featuring an article takes consensus, not simple votes—if Raul654 or someone else decided they should review or un-feature this article and wonder why you supported it, what would you tell them? (I bolded your support to make it easier to see, by the way.) --an odd name 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments. This is really good! I'll have to attend my Living Without Commas support group tonight, but I recognize it's an editorial preference so I won't complain. Nice work Moni!
  • I don't have a problem with Hymnary.org for what it's supporting.
  • I did not see any problems with the PD images.
  • "'Amazing Grace' is one of the most recognized songs" Dunno, but "recognized" struck my editing Spidey-sense. It seems to connote "recognize with awards" and such; do you mean "recognizable"?
  • "until he quit going to sea altogether and began to study theology" Suggest "began studying" for parallel goodness.
  • "His disobedience caused him to be press-ganged into the Royal Navy" Why say "press-ganged" here when you said "pressed" in the lead? The reader will double-take to find out of they mean different things.
  • "In An Annotated Anthology of Hymns, Newton's use of an expletive at the beginning of his verse is called 'crude but effective'" I didn't understand this passage. What expletive? Do you mean in the sense of meaningless filler, or an actual profanity? In either case, it's not made clear what the expletive is supposed to be.
  • "it has been used for a variety of secular purposes and marketing campaigns, placing it in danger of becoming a cliché." Is that attributed to Turner?
  • Favorite line of the article: "The pipe president of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards was summoned to Edinburgh Castle and chastised for demeaning the bagpipes."

--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes to the lead per your suggestion, and changed press-ganged to pressed.

The expletive in this sense is that the first line is "Amazing grace!" meant to be said or sung with some force. Not the same way...well, maybe the same tone...as one might say "shit!" But clearly not for the same purpose. I peeked at a thesaurus for "expletive" and one of the synonyms listed was "bark"... That just made me laugh. Do you suggest something else? Ejaculation? *cough* Shriek? Vociferation? Thesauruses are fun. Thanks for your review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by suggestion: Exclamation? Not sure if that's any better, but it was my first thought. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I used "exclamation" in the preceding sentence. Word diversity and all. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Battle of the Nile

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An article on what some consider the highest point of Horatio Nelson's illustrious career: a British fleet, 2,000 miles from the nearest reinforcements, entered an uncharted harbour at night and almost completely destroyed a stronger French fleet anchored in an ostensibly strong defensive formation. In one stroke Nelson changed the direction of the war and achieved one of the most complete victories in naval history. The article has been dramatically expanded and improved since September and although it is long, I'm really not sure where else to cut given that two sub-articles have already been spun off the main body of text. It has over 200 citations and I feel that it now comprehensively covers this highly important battle and the events surrounding it. It has had a Military history peer review and is now ready for your comments. Many thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest using {{harvnb}} for the references so that they can be linked to the bibliography section, so the user doesn't have to scroll down to look it up. Recently featured articles like Dick Turpin, which have long list of bibliographic references use it for easier reference checking.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I can do this, but it will take a while to get through them all. Any other comments?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FAs need only have a consistent referencing style (which this article does), not a specific style. If Diaa would like a different style, s/he is of course welcome to invest all of time it takes to recode the article. It is not inconsiderable. Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I am reluctant to make such time-consuming changes for what seems to be so little gain, particularly in the light of this diff, which only seems to add to the load. Can anyone explain to me what the purpose of including the date is if there are no seperate references by the same author? Diaa, are you going to make these changes or should I revert to before I started experimenting?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be better if the references have links that go directly to the bibliographical reference, I don't care much about the style. Revert your changes I will take care of the referencing when I have some time with search and replace.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is also worth pointing out that the more code-heavy articles are, the more intimidating they are for new users. Having a referencing system that is complex deters new users from contributing and adding new references. That is one reason I tend to use the simplest referencing system I can find. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have revert back to the original. Thank you both for your input, and I have to agree with Awadewit on this one, although I have no prejudice against Diaa making these changes at a later date if they see fit to. regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I would suggest copy/pasting the output of the current templates onto a text file, repasteing them back onto the page to get rid of the templates, restoring wikilinks italics etc., then use {{wikicite}} for the internal links. Or whatever.• Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Refs all formatted A-OK. • Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I changed the refs to make them linked. The Mostert book appears to have a 13-digit ISBN; the 10-digit would be more consistent. Other errors? I hope not. • Ling.Nut 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 13 digit is the only ISBN I could find on my rather battered copy of his book - this should be enough I think. If there are errors then please point them out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. • Ling.Nut 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • ISBN returns an error for the Adkins ref, please double check.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is done now. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support

My coverage of the article to date is insufficient for a vote, I will revisit.

Criterion 1a

• With reference to: "In spite of the overwhelming British victory in the climactic battle, the campaign has sometimes been considered a strategic success for France. Historian Edward Ingram has noted that if Nelson had successfully intercepted Bonaparte at sea as ordered, the ensuing battle could have annihilated both the French fleet and the transports. As it was, Bonaparte was free to continue the war in the Middle East and later to return to Europe personally unscathed.[189] The potential of a successful engagement at sea to change the course of history is emphasised by the list of French army officers carried aboard the convoy who later formed the core of the generals and marshals under Emperor Napoleon. In addition to Bonaparte himself, Louis Alexandre Berthier, Auguste de Marmont, Jean Lannes, Joachim Murat, Louis Desaix, Jean Reynier, Antoine-François Andréossy, Jean-Andoche Junot, Louis-Nicolas Davout and Dumas, as well as Kléber and Caffarelli who were to die in Egypt, were all passengers on the cramped Mediterranean crossing."
• Avoid weasel word 'sometimes'

I don't think its weaselly in this context: It is a fact that this point has been raised, and I cite a historian who has done so. Can you suggest an alternative?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Knee-jerk reaction to someanything :)
• Perhaps "Historian Edward Ingram has noted that... and the transports. This would imply that in spite of the overwhelming..."
• Alternatively, "Edward Ingram contends that the campaign can be considered a strategic success for France in that..."

I'm not totally convinced by either of these options, I'll think about it a bit more and get back to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather too easy to read the full list of officers as having died in Egypt, leading to a logical contradiction

I have eliminated the officers killed in Egypt as neither is very important and it was potentially confusing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'emphasised' to 'underscored'?

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the crossing?

Yes, Mediterranean campaign of 1798. It is a {{details}} link in the first section of the article - shall I link it again here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the MoS requirement to avoid double-linking can be taken too far in situations where there is ambiguity. I couldn't find it in the lead either, notably missing in " ...the climax of a naval campaign that had ranged across the Mediterranean..."

Now linked in both additional places.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fantastic lead, however it overlooks the aforementioned stategic failure - I'm not sure if the failure is sufficiently notable for the lead.

Its not, it is a minority historical opinion worth mentioning in the article itself but not within the already overcrowded lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, language is technically brilliant, but sometimes falls on the side of excessively obtuse and/or convoluted: more appropriate for a scholarly work than an encyclopedia article.

I can see your point, but can you be more specific - this is quite a complex subject and I did my best to simplify it where I could.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 4

I'll start by saying that I am hopeless with technical image issues and will need you to be much more specific with your comments below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant source material, please search for higher resolution versions, as with "Nelson at the Battle of the Nile.jpg". I'm aware that these are not normally available, but would be wonderful.
• Gamma correction may lead to significant improvements, especially with the above image.

• Sadly, the jpg artifacts in this image renders it unsalvagable. Perhaps one day WikiMedia will be able to invest in prints.

• Please check all artworks for appropriate templates, for example "Aboukir.jpg" requires work.

• Note that "Battle of the Nile, Whitcombe.jpg" has a correct image template, while numerous others are described in plaintext, often incompletely, as with "Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg". Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I still do not understand any of what you are asking me. Is there a link you can provide explaining the problem more clearly?
• "Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg" and "Battle of Aboukir Bay.png" still require correct templates. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant map, svg is preferred if available.

• Template still lacking. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, not sure what you are referring to, can you clarify or simplify some more?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, FA quality images.

Thankyou for your interest and comments, they are much appreciated. If you have any further issues (and more detail regarding the image problems) I would be happy to make further improvements. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to Criterion 1a

• "The battle has remained prominent in popular consciousness" should, I believe, be "the popular consciousness" although I would prefer something more punchy for the last sentence like "The Battle of the Nile has been immortalised in numerous works..." or "The legend of the Battle of the Nile perseveres..." or similar. A little dramatic, but such a good lead needs to end strongly.

Had a go, how does that look?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent, perhaps take a look at the repeated "legendary", "legend" in the last two sentences. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The French Directory developed various schemes to counter British opposition,..." could be phrased as "...investigated a number of strategic options to counter British opposition,..."

Good suggestion, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "...developed a powerful fleet at Toulon..." to "...assembled a powerful fleet at Toulon..."

That repeats assembled too soon. I'm open to changing this, but it will have to be a different word.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Check punctuation in "...and, in exchange for substantial financial compensation, handed..."

Punctuation added.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Check tenses / rephrase "While Bonaparte was sailing to Malta, the Royal Navy had re-entered the Mediterranean for the first time in over a year."

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Marching along the coast, the French army stormed Alexandria and captured the city,[33] Bonaparte then leading the main force of his army inland.[34]" could be rephrased "and Bonaparte led..." to read more easily.

Rephrased--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "larger ships of the French fleet" could be "French ships of the line"?

That's not quite right - the smaller ships of the line could have entered the port, but the larger ones (80 guns and bigger) could not. I'll leave it as it is for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "As a result, an alternative anchorage at Aboukir Bay was selected..." Check comma. Also, the lead alludes to the (perceived) strength of Aboukir Bay as a defensive position. It would be nice if this tied in.

I looked at punctutation and made a change, but I'm reluctant to discuss the merits of Aboukir Bay here when there is a whole section devoted to it immediately below as I'll only be repeating myself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "...information was finally obtained..." scans poorly, similarly the remainder of "...with his scouts..."

Both rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "...Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys D'Aigalliers, believed to be a formidable defensive position." in the lead appears to contradict "...anchor in Aboukir Bay, a shallow and exposed anchorage..." and "...Brueys refused, in the belief that his squadron could provide essential support to the French army on shore."

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. The bay was a weak position, but Brueys decided to stay there to support the troops on shore and arranged his ships into what he believed was a strong formation. I'm not sure which part of this is unclear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps due to experience with land warfare, I associated a "strong defensive position" with geographic advantages, hence the apparent contradiction. Perhaps clarify in the body that Brueys believed that the nature and disposition of the ships constituted a formidable defense without geographic advantages. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rephrased--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I cannot make head or tail of "It is possible that Bonaparte envisaged the anchorage as a temporary base: on 27 July he expressed the expectation that Brueys had transferred to Alexandria and three days later issued orders for the fleet to make for Corfu in preparation for naval operations against the Ottoman territories in the Balkans,[44] although the courier was intercepted and killed by Bedouin partisans.[45]"

What part is confusing you?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• A land base for the army or a naval base? How does that connect with the expectation of Brueys having transferred to Alexandria (with or without the ships?) and how does this connect with the preparations for operations against the Ottomans? I feel like a lot of context is required to understand this sentence. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Changed it to anchorage insead of base - does that help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, I can't see a comparison of the number of guns in each vessel / fleet. Since weight of cannon was such a key determinant of the outcome of an engagement (as with Bellerophon vs L'Orient), this is a significant problem in reading the flow of the battle. Anyone not aware ot the significance of weight of fire in naval combat in this period could benefit from a brief introduction. Perhaps there is a link to this concept?

There is a whole paragraph on this in the reaction section. I left it for there because it is a matter of historiological debate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's all for now. A brilliant piece of work. Dhatfield (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, much appreciated. Can you comment further above regarding images?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about giving you a hard time, but excellent deserves to be perfect. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• I have entered a supporting vote for promotion to Featured - this is most certainly some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much, much appreciated. I have tried to deal with the outstanding issues in your review, but I'm afraid that I am still completely at sea regarding the image problems you have raised.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This is a brilliant article, and a delight to read. I've used this campaign and battle as examples of intelligence gathering in university classes, and I have yet to read such a masterful description, explanation and summary of interpretations of the battle. This said, I have a couple of minor comments that I hope will enhance the article.

• when you mention Nelson, first section, and his injuries at St. Vincent, that sentence is confusing (and long). It might be nudged Nelson was a highly successful officer who had been blinded in one eye during fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish ships of the line at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797 but then lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.[17]

The highly successful Nelson had been blinded in one eye during the fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish Ships of the line at the night Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797, and lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.

I wasn't totally happy with your suggested version, and I experimented a bit, eventually breaking it into two sentences and adding a little bit of detail.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

we need an explanation of the illuminated white ensign--to the average reader, it won't be clear that ships were often damaged with friendly fire because they were confused with the enemy.

Clarified I think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Before this time tomorrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Needs an explanation, I think. In the typically oblique style of 18th century bragging, it's fairly obscure.

I have explained it, although I don't have a source that picks it apart like that, so i hope my interpretation is acceptable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after the French order to set sails was abandoned, the British fleet began rapidly approaching once more and Brueys, now certain that an attack was coming that night,.. now certain that an attack was coming that night... now expecting a night attack...

Changed (with a slight adjustment).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ship's boats, the brig Mutine and the 50-gun sounds like the ship's boats are the brig and ...

I've tried to clarify this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

brief explanation of why the 10 year old son of Casabianca was there.

I don't actually have a source explaining why he was there, although it was not unusual for boys of his age to accompany their fathers aboard warships at that time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but we still need an explanation. You could find a source, perhaps. Somewhere in one of your books there must be a statement about why a young boys was on a ship. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Adkins, refers to children on shipboard, pp. 32 at Nile specifically (but focuses on women) and 200 and 371 (Warship Defence). See also Roy Adkins, Nelson's Trafalgar, pp 77-79. Or you could also explain the age of midshipmen...Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

re fire on the Orient, I added the word "conversely"

Thankyou--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, TERRIFIC article. Wholehearted support from Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, your comments and support were much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

w/ the one exception, all my quibbles have been fixed. None of them stood in the way of support for this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

one more thing: you might add the first two lines of the poem, The boy stood on the burning deck/Whence all but he had fled... after you mention it. Many people would have heard those lines, but not connect the poem to the event. Just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on an Image review:

• File:Seeschlacht bei Abukir.jpg: What is the title of this painting? Who painted it? When was it created and published? The source given points to Luny's Battle of Cape St Vincent, which is a different painting, and does not name this uploaded painting as The Battle of the Nile or attributes this image to Luny. In fact, it seems only the Wikiprojects have attributed this painting to Luny (was the German Wikipedia, where the image came from, the first to attribute it to him?). The data and license stated are not verified; for all we know it could be a modernist's hand at trying old painting techniques.

All other images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, somehow missed that. I have replaced it was another image that I have uploaded that definately is Thomas Luny on the battle of the Nile. Since I am fairly hopeless when it comes to images, can you provide assistance with Dhatfield's image queries above that I am struggling to understand? Also, some recent edits to the article removed the image sizes which I had set quite large on the request of an author at peer review. There seems to be some confusion on this issue - is it acceptable to set image sizes or not? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems with the image descriptions now. Dhatfield (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Jappalang has done a lot of work on the images (for which I am very grateful) and I think this has probably taken care of it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have recently added another image that I think excellently illustrates French dispositions before the battle. It is out of copyright, has alt text and should conform with all other guidelines. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Weak support:

• Why the french were sure of an imminent Irish uprising?

• This is a slightly tricky question. There is a source referenced in the article that cites the Irish Rebellion as a factor in this campaign in the manner described. It is true that the French and the Irish Rebels had been planning the rebellion since 1794, and twice before French troops had been defeated en route to landings in Ireland, so an uprising there was on the cards at some stage. However, when the actual rebellion broke out in 1798 (precipitated by the arrest of several senior rebels by the British) it took the French by surprise and their reaction was totally inadequate, ending in disaster for both them and the Irish. This is all synthesis on my part, and has not (as far as I am aware) been connected to the campaign other than as already described in the article. I'm reluctant to add any more without reference to new sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, if the source hints at it but fails to elaborate, we can do not much about it. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• How do springs (coil springs?) on anchor cables help to turn anchored ships?

• Coiling an anchor cable makes it taught (known as "putting springs on a cable"). If done at the bow and stern, the effect is to hold a ship rigid and in position (particularly if, like the British, you were unable to furl your sails in the midst of battle). By releasing these springs, a ship is able to rapidly and effectively turn to meet new dangers or targets without going through the time-consuming process of hauling in the anchor. I'm not sure whether I can properly source this explanation, and in any case I think it is a bit long to go in the article at this point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• It might be a confusing point. All this time, I was having images of coiled springs and going "that should not be how it was done". I read your explanation above that the "spring" is the tension of the anchor cables instead of any mechanical device. Perhaps a slight explanation is in order, else others might think of metallic springs "poing-ing" off the ropes and hull. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've made an error in my reply above - I mentioned this to a friend who knows a lot more about sailing than I do and he attempted to explain it to me. The effect I described above is similar in that the "spring" is formed by the anchor cable itself, not an external device, but one of its great advantages is that you only use one anchor not two. A quick Google search confirmed his explanation (confusing though it is). I will try to briefly clarify this in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• (add-on) "... in reference to the rewards of victory or the traditional burial place of British military heroes.": this clause seems to require a source. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have one - Nelson, who was a notorious show-off, famously quoted before the battle that by tomorrow he would have a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Most sources repeat this but I haven't yet seen one explaining it, probably on the assumption that a reader of British naval history would always know what it meant. On Wikipedia this cannot be taken for granted and a reviewer asked me to expand a bit. I have no problem removing it, but it does rather bring your point into conflict with his.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the prose a bit (which seems pretty good in the first place). Content-wise, the article is very comprehensive on the battle. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prose edits (although I had to tweak one or two that strayed slightly from the meaning of the sources) and all the image work (you might be interested to have a look at the work in progress at User:Jackyd101/Images of the Battle of the Nile too - not sure what I'll do with it at the moment though). I've done my best to answer your queries above. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, my work load has increased greatly recently (I cannot devote further time here for the moment)... I am putting in a weak support first; if my above issues have been clarified (judged either by the delegate or a concensus by other editors) then consider this a full support. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jacky, your excellent pictures could be better seen if they were slightly larger. I see from above that at some point the picture sizes were changed, but these are such magnificent pictures that add to the quality of the article, so I think you should add the upright=1.? something parameter in the picture code. 1.4-1.75 somewhere in there. That makes it still proportionate, as I understand these things (which I don't understand well, but...). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that, but it made them MASSIVE, so I've taken it down to 1.1. I don't really understand what I did, but it seems to have improved the situation somewhat.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: there are problems with punctuation in the image captions, pls review per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Banksia cuneata

Nominator(s): Casliber, Hesperian

This article had a good workout at its Good Article Nomination and I feel it is of quality equivalent to the other seven Banksia featured articles. For a rare and endangered plant, it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be (I think Hesperian and I have seen everything published as such on the plant to date) and has some nice images taken by an editor who made the trek out to where it grows (thanks Gnangarra!)... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to register my '''Support''' here? I fully endorse Cas's assertion that this is as comprehensive as it can possibly be. There are some unpublished conservation reports that we haven't been able to get hold of, but in terms of published material I think we've got the lot. As for "quality equivalent to the other seven", I actually think they are getting better as we go along. Hesperian 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is okay as long as it is clear (which it is) that you're conominating and hence nonimpartial (mwahahahaha) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is very nice (thanks), except it's missing for the infobox image File:B cuneata gnangarra 20.JPG; please use the |image_alt= parameter of {{taxobox}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

... and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In measurements, if you spell out the number, you need to spell out the unit of measure (doesn't mean the converse is true). Any of these changes would work in my opinion:
  • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "one to four centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
  • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
  • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 cm (0.4–1.6 in)".

as well as variants such as "to" in the converted range rather than a dash.

A side issue. Personally, I don't like to see a mixture of centimetres and millimetres, but that's only a mild suggestion. But then I think the world would be a much better place if the CGPM had consigned "centi-" and all the other prefixes which are not powers of 1000 to the same fate as the "myria-", now obsolete because it wasn't one of the prefixes adopted in the International System of Units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, but cm are so...convenient. Anyway, changed as suggested. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Current ref 1 (Dept of the Enviroment..) needs a last accessdate
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references (or give fuller information). I noted CALMNnews... but there may be others.
  • Current refs 23 and 24 ... please add "Australian Goverment" to make them match the formatt of the other governmental agencies.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

done the first and 23/24, but not sure about the abbreviation when it is part of a larger name - it is called CALMnews..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the article covers the topic well and all facts are referenced, consistant with previous featured Banksia articles. noting small bias Gnangarra 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on image concern:

• File:Banksia cuneata map.png: The base map (boundaries) seems to be traced from IBRA 6.1 (or 5.1) maps. Per commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps & satellite imagery, tracings or re-drawings of copyrighted maps are not allowed. IBRA's authors, the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, said their maps are copyrighted. Likewise, Western Australian Herbarium says its version is used under permission (fair use).

The other images (photos contributed by User:Gnangarra) are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They aren't traced. I downloaded the spatial data and rendered the map in a GIS. Data isn't copyrightable, no matter what the DEWHA have to say about their "maps". What is copyrightable is the design decisions taken in rendering the data into a map: i.e. the map projection, the background colour, line colour and thickness, the colour used to indicate distribution, etc. I made my own design decisions, so I own copyright in these maps. Any resemblance to the WAH images are merely that: resemblance. I don't know if the projection differs—I used geodetic; I don't know what WAH used—I used unbroken black lines throughout, whereas WAH use grey lines for non-provincial boundaries; I use a white background throughout, whereas WAH use light brown for land; we both used a bright red to indicate distribution, but this is utterly obvious, and I've used a smoother distribution boundary; I've cropped the western boundary much tighter than they have. The similarities you see are due not to the map design, which is copyrightable, but rather to the underlying spatial data, which is not copyrightable, and even that is a different version (IBRA 6.1 v IBRA 5.1) Hesperian 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Data might be non-copyrightable in the United States, but Australia has copyrights for databases. Substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database constitutues a copyviolation. IBRA's databases are segmentised, so it seems that this map is not using an insignificant portion of its data. Since this could be one of those grey or complex areas of law, I have asked for advice at commons:Commons talk:Image casebook#Re: Maps. Jappalang (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Databases, not data. Australian law essentially recognises that database design is a creative act. I have not made "substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database." A shapefile is not a database; it is nothing like a database. What I have used here is data. A database may be copyrighted, but the data contained therein remains uncopyrightable. The distinction is fundamental. If you write a biography, you have copyright over your text, but not over the sequence of life events you are chronicling. In the same way, you can copyright the way in which you organise data in a database, but the data itself is not copyrightable. Hesperian 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From The Australian Copyright council on databasessee PDF for Compliations Copyright does not protect facts or information.... You do not need permission to reproduce particular facts from a compilation (such as a name, address and telephone number from a telephone directory). However, you may need permission to reproduce all or a “substantial part” of a compilation. the map is based less than a third of the overall data from IBRA on the provinces and is then combined with only about 1/130,000 of the data in FloraBase. I dont see any copyright violation in realation to this map. Gnangarra 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

... and even if it covered the entire country, there is no way a 699×936 pixel raster image could be construed as a substantial part of a high resolution vector data set. Hesperian 13:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, the criteria is "quality, not quantity" of data used; the detailed geographical lines tend to indicate high fidelity reconstruction. Regardless, Kaldari's arguments (at Commons) seem persuasive. I would like to know how you downloaded the data though. I was unable to locate it at http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp (their download interface). Could you give a rough working of how to obtain the data on the image's page (Source)? Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think a 699×936 raster image can be used to reconstruct a high-resolution vector image without massive degradation of quality, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

I had no trouble finding it; just type "IBRA" into the "Search Title:" field and hit the search button. Hesperian 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A very thorough treatment of the subject, well supported by photographs. Melburnian (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks; fixed. Hesperian 04:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support A nice article, I made these edits, please check for collateral damage. Also, I'd raise the last two subheading to full headings and dump "Uses". That heading is pointless since "Cultivation" says it's useless, and the cultural bit isn't a use in any normal sense of the word Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help. Hmm, that "Uses" section was my bad, only added recently, because the info on its use as logo and emblem were jammed into the "Discovery and naming" section, where they definitely didn't belong. Can anyone suggest a better home for that bit? Hesperian 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• lead is thin, surely a couple of sentences could be used from the well-developed lifestyle and ecology section?
• something funky is going on with the taxobox formatting
• some image caption start with caps, some don't
• units are given in full (metres, millimetres) and and abbreviated (cm)
• I'm seeing some other minor defects like missing caps and misplaced punctuation... to save us both the hassle I'll just do a copyedit later today and report back here if anything is amiss.

Good point on lead. Have added a bit. thanks for the tidying. Murphy's Law has come into play with RL issues for me over past few days :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok I did a copyedit, please check. In general, I think it looks pretty good, but have the following suggestions: Sasata (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit looks good - only point is if a caption is a clause and not a phrase (i.e. lacks a verb) then it need not have an initial capital or period (which is why I was trying to make them into sentences for conformity) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Someone likes semicolons. I like them too, but I found their usage here bordering on excessive. In many cases they are being used to link sentences together that I though would do well individually.

My bad - remove at leisure - I am a semicolon addict :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• the first paragraph of "Life cycle and ecology" doesn't read like "professional prose" to me.

Yeah, it is a bit choppy. I tweaked it a little but there isn't much there to tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• metres is still being spelled out while cm and km are not

(got 'em all now I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• the whitespace in "Cultural references" really sticks out, but I'm afraid I don't really have a suggestion how to fix it other than fill it up with more info :)
• the term "genetic structure" came up in the GA review. I see it's now redlinked, but that doesn't help me to understand the concept any better.
• do the fungi of Westea or Banksiamyces like to grow on the plant?

Not as far as I know - I think they've been recovered from only a handful of species. Will look into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• caption "The 'matchstick' appearance in late bud gives rise to the common name." maybe "gives rise to" -> "suggestive of"

Well, it was/is causative, which "suggestive of" lacks in meaning -I agree it is unusual and will muse on an alternative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York)

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article now that it has gone through both a GAN and a peer review after that. The GAN was very thorough (at least compared to my others), and to be safe, I just went through a PR that found some other small issues that have now been fixed. This would be a boon to WP:NRHP and WP:NYCD if elevated to FA. upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is good, except that the maps' alt text needs some work. The alt text for the infobox map should say where Oakwood Cemetary is, in the context of the map; use the |map_alt= parameter of {{Infobox nrhp}}. The alt text for File:Oakwood_Map.svg should not bother to describe the colors used by the map (that is not what the map is for), but should instead convey the map's useful information, namely, the general layout of the cemetery and the location of the chapel, crematorium, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've updated the map alt text. Hopefully that's better. upstateNYer 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the alt text for File:Oakwood Map.svg looks very good. However, the infobox map File:New York Locator Map with US.PNG still needs alt text as described above. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, missed that. Fixed now. upstateNYer 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "labels and notes—referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as "cliff notes"—about the history of objects shown in the photograph."
• Needs clarification—I cannot figure it out, so it's not likely to make any sense at all to anybody outside the United States. I can't figure out if it is intended as a pun or some other wordplay, an analogy, or what—must be some reason for the quotation marks. There's even a fair chance that whatever it is has gone right over the heads of the contributors to the article. My guess it that there's a real good chance that the word choice by the association has something to do with CliffsNotes (study guides primarily available in the United States), but that's as far as I get. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That's precisely the meaning; it's just a play on words. Then again, if you're an outsider that doesn't know what CliffsNotes are, you can just see it as a reference to the name they give the blurbs on the image (i.e. it's a quotation from their webpage). It works either way, whether your 'get it' or not. upstateNYer 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What's precisely the meaning? I still don't get it. Is there a "cliff" in the photograph, so that gets involved in the pun in some way? With the lowercase "cliff", that's certainly a possibility. That's one reason it doesn't work either way—if you don't get it, that's an unexplained terminology that's totally baffling, because there is no mention of any cliffs in the area. Or what is the intended subject of these CliffsNotes-like notes--maybe that would help. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • See the word bluff, used explicitly in that section, as well as escarpment in the Geography section. upstateNYer 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • So, connect the dots;
          1. show that those words have something to do with these "cliff notes" (quotation marks in article).
          2. Escarpment isn't proximate enough in the article for a connection to be made, even if you think most readers will know what it means. Make it clearer, if "cliff" has something to do with those bluffs.
          3. And connect the dots to "complete overview of American history", if there are any dots to be connected—
          4. if there is also a connection to CliffsNotes. That will, of course, entail making some connection, at the very least, between lowercase "cliff" and uppercase "Cliff". I really don't know what the word-play is supposed to involve, even now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I took the liberty of numbering your issues so I don't miss any. I have also added a more explicit reference. Responses:
            1. There's a reference to the site that specifically uses the term "cliff notes". That is the connection.
            2. Escarpment may not be near the discussion, but the word bluff occurs one sentence before the mention of the phrase; that is more than close enough.
            3. Once again, the connection is a reference. They claim that the view (right or wrong, but cited as such nonetheless, hence "The Troy Cemetery Association claims") offers the most concentrated view of American history.
            4. There is no official connection to CliffsNotes, which makes the capital vs. lowercase C discussion moot. The reference is meant to be a pun, however, should one not understand the pun (and by not understand, I of course mean not recognize), one still has the ability to understand that these notes are on a panoramaic photo overlooking the plain below a cliff, and that they exist on the edge of a cliff (bluff, escarpment, it doesn't matter), hence "cliff notes". Why the quotes? Because it's a phrase they used, therefore I'm quoting it (not withstanding the fact that they also used the quotes). They didn't use capitals, therefore I'm not using capitals. upstateNYer 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
            • • • It's not moot by any stretch of the imagination. The potential to confuse readers exists there on several levels. Clear writing dictates that that confusion be removed. The simplest way is probably just to remove all mention of "cliff notes", since you don't seem willing to even take a stab at any tweaking of the wording which might make this clearer. Just because one of your sources uses that term doesn't mean that we need to do so; it certainly doesn't add enough to the article to make up for the confusion it creates. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • By all means, do make it clear why you think the c should be capitalized, because (and you can see my reasons under #4) there is no valid reason because there is no actual connection to CliffsNotes. Explaining outright that there is a very minor pun to the book series would take unnecessary attention from the meat of the article. This is a minute part of the article and is intended as a passing remark, as it is. Explaining it would be like explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it. Thankfully, we have the fallback that it has a regular and applicable meaning in the text. After going through GAN, PR, and having a number of other editors read through this article, not one has ever made a peep about any issue relating to this sentence. Before anything changes, I'd very much prefer a second opinion. Even the clearest of clear writing will confuse someone; this section is pretty clear if you ask me. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • I don't think the "c" should be capitalized, especially if you make the connection to bluffs clearer. It takes separate wording to make the "C" connection, the other half of the wordplay. Remember, you clearly said above that the wordplay exists. If the connections aren't made, it is a problem. If you cannot think of some uncumbersome way to do that, you should just throw it out as an unnecessary complication. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
                      • But how can the connection to bluffs be any clearer? The word is literally a sentence away from the phrase. And yes, the wordplay is there, but I've made it clear that it is not essential to understand the wordplay because it has a regular underlying meaning that any person can understand; if this were a wordplay only - with no other possible meaning - that would be different. However in this case, the wordplay is supplementary to the actual meaning. That is, if one doesn't get the wordplay, they are not at a loss for understanding the original meaning of the phrase (notes about a view from a cliff/bluff/escarpment). upstateNYer 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia always has to have a lot of experts on the legal issues; maybe somebody can find one of them to comment on whether or not this exposes Wikipedia to trademark-infringement claims. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • Now you're just fishing. This term was used in only one document, ever, with no notable claims toward ownership other than the implied copyright. It's not a trademark and it was never intended to be. You use the term CliffsNotes above, on a page in the free encyclopedia that is licensed CC-BY-SA, and that name is trademarked. Why do you have such an issue with a piece of minutia, but can't see that you've done much worse above? I'm liking these things together because they're both ridiculous, not because I think you should go through and delete all the references to CliffsNotes in this discussion. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. On January 5, I reviewed this article and posted my comments on the article's talk page I thought the article was close to FA, and it has since become better. It's professionally written and beautifully illustrated, and it's a fine addition to the encyclopedia. One quibble: I prefer static captions to the dynamic ones with sliders but would not withhold my support on that account. As for the "cliff notes" issue raised by User:Gene Nygaard above, the article accurately quotes and cites the source in the phrase "referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as 'cliff notes' ". My dictionary defines "bluff" as "a high steep bank" or "cliff". I see no problem here on a literal level. As for the pun, since the source does not acknowledge or explain the pun, Wikipedia is not at liberty to explain it either, since that would involve original research. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're referring to the captions in the gallery of the Mausolea section, which I just realized this morning had scroll bars when I never meant for that to be. I fixed it this morning and they should be correct now. If they aren't, or I'm completely misinterpreting your reference to "dynamic captions", let me know. upstateNYer 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, finetooth, if you cannot explain it without original research, then it seems logical that we cannot use it. The wordplay exists--as the nominator has acknowledged--whether acknowledged or not in the sources used. It can only cause confusion if it is not explained. If it cannot be explained, it cannot be used and still "exemplif[y] our very best work"; there is no rule that we need to use something in our articles just because one of our sources used it. Note also that just as "bluffs" is only one sentence away, so too is "most concentrated and complete overview of American history" only two sentences away in the very same paragraph. A reader is as likely to make the connection to one as to the other, or to both. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have no proof that it exists. Like I said, the phrase is used once in a newsletter from the cemetery. My acknowledgment of it above is simply my interpretation. I could very well be wrong, but the connection seems way too obvious for there not to be a pun involved (otherwise, why even name these things?). The phrase is backed up by a reference and the pun is not. Therefore you should be judging it based on its literal use, not on any other that may or may not have been intended. upstateNYer 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, that newsletter doesn't explicitly say it is connected with bluffs, either, does it? As a matter of fact, the most apparent connection in that picture caption is to "huge amount of American history", and not to "bluffs". Yet you have not only included that one-time, offhand, unexplained remark in a newsletter in your text here, but you have juxtaposed it to an unclear extent with not only "bluffs" but also with "concentrated and complete overview" statement. You have made enough of a connection to imply that both wordplays exist, but you haven't done so clearly enough to avoid confusion. If it were the terminology posted on a metal plaque at the site, that would probably be a different story. What you have now simply doesn't belong here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Reponses:
            • Newsletter and "bluff": the newsletter need not explicitly use the word "bluff". I only used it so that the term "cliff" was not overused. It's strictly aesthetic. That said, bluff means cliff. Need a source? See Webster's or Oxford, but that's not going in the article.
            • The "most concentrated and complete overview" comment is from a completely separate reference.
            • What do you mean by "both" wordplays? There is clearly only one, it's not referenced, and it's something that a native speaker of English and person familiar with CliffNotes will most likely catch. However, the main intention is the literal meaning, which is clearly sourced.
            • You have two qualified and experienced reviewers here concurring that this is in fact not confusing, and that is after reading the article multiple times each. The main intention is there, clear as day, and the pun is an added bonus.
            • upstateNYer 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Neither wordplay is a literal one. There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history. Both wordplays come from the newsletter—and neither is explicitly identified as such there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Incorrect, they are notes about a view from a cliff, i.e. "cliff notes". You don't have the view without the cliff and you don't have the notes without the view. Therefore, no cliff, no notes, no cliff notes. But that doesn't seem to matter, because you know precisely what they are: "There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history." Interestingly, not once in this conversation did anyone explicitly define the literal meaning of the statement until you did in your last post. Clearly you understand it. Also, you have made absolutely no mention of a "double wordplay" until your second to last post, which makes me think you're fishing again. This is not word play and it is clear enough for the general reader, as is proven by the GA and PR reviewers. upstateNYer 05:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the phrase. "Scroll bars" is what I meant. When I checked just now, the "Major General Thomas" image in the Landmarks section still had a scroll bar, and three of the five images in the Mausolea section had scroll bars. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Must have to do with how wide you view your browser. I just added two more lines to each set, so it shouldn't be an issue now. upstateNYer 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That fixed the problem. Looks fine now on my screen. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Though for "contained roughly 60,000 graves and continues to grow" I'm not convinced that two tenses work well here ? I've read through this a few times since by GA review last year and I find this as a very well-written (and illustrated) and well-referenced article that covers everything I deem of significance for the subject. As for the "cliff notes" commentary. I found this completely understandable (at least as far as is needed to understand the subject matter) when I last reviewed the article and am not of a different opinion today. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Pretty good. Here's my concerns:

1. Too many images. There's having too few images and a good amount. This makes way too many.
   • I very much disagree with this. The galleries are meant to give necessary architectural examples of mausolea and monuments. I don't think it detracts from or degrades the article; in fact, I think it makes it that much more appealing to the reader.

   There's way too many. The galleries should be removed at the least. They make too much of a mess.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, below you asked me for another image, which I added; it would be the first I'd remove if I had to remove any. I still think this article is not informative enough without the galleries. What specifically about the image usage bothers you (and not just "there's too many"). Galleries are perfectly acceptable in articles, otherwise the <gallery> tag wouldn't exist.

2. After Citation 52 - split the paragraph in notable internments.
   • Done.
3. Citations 39 - 51 need delinking after Citation 32 has the wikilinks everywhere, its an eyesore.
   • Done.
4. References should probably be revamp for cleanliness.
   • Be more specific?
5. "Funk & Wagnells company" - Capitals
   • Done.
6. "^ "Parks & Recreation: Uncle Sam Bikeway". Government of Troy, New York. http://www.troyny.gov/recreation/unclesambikeway.html. Retrieved 2009-10-07. " - Put Parks & Recreation in Publisher
   • Actually Parks & Recreation isn't a department, so they aren't the publisher. Just removed that part.
7. Vanderheyden Bell could use some more expansion.
   • There's nothing to expand upon. I've maxed out the content in the source (which is the only source).

   Look for more. News exists for a reason.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sources at that level of specificity do not exist, as far as I'm aware. I wouldn't even expect it in the local paper, but I'm not paying a subscription fee to read old newspaper articles that may or may not have the information on something that's already covered. We're lucky it was even mentioned in the NRHP nom.

8. The history section could use more images.
   • Added old image of Crematorium, but not sure if it fits well; otherwise, maxed out.
9. "As of 2009, the cemetery contained roughly 60,000 graves[14] and continues to grow.[2] The Association expects to be able to accept interments until at least the early 23rd century.[2]" - probably should either expand or merge with another paragraph - looks weird.
   • Done. Forgot to do that previously.
10. There is little description of the man-made lakes here. Details would be helpful.
    • No detail to go off of; also not really important in my opinion. They're man-made using small mountain streams, which is more detail than I think is even warranted, but I included it anyway. What else is worth knowing about a couple ponds?

    Names for one, size, etc.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    They don't have names and sizes can be gaged from the map that's provided, though considering their sizes change substantially based on the season, a number is generally meaningless (this I know from personal experience, so it's OR and doesn't' belong in the article). What would constitute "etc." in this case?

Pretty good, needs work though.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses: upstateNYer 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending Support.

Prose. Nicely written. A few minor quibbles.

please spell crematorium correctly (caption of 1901 creamtorium--presumably it's not a creamery)

It may make cream as its side job. :) upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

oh yuck. Remind me not to eat ice cream on my next visit to Troy. Auntieruth55 (talk)

The Association is made up of volunteer lot owners, elected by fellow lot owners. Huh? this could be clarified a little bit, perhaps just reworded.

Tried to be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With these reinterments, the graves within Oakwood span the entire the history of Troy. "spanned". tense. reinternments. (spelling)

Um, stet. "Inter" (essentially in terra) rather than "intern", methinks. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth is correct. upstateNYer 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually. Yes.  :)

The main goal of these deals was to increase the Association's operating income. Awkward. To increase its operating income, the Association sold....

Changed it another way. Should be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

and continues to grow, the number continues to grow. Not the cemetery acreage, which apparently continues to shrink.

Fixed. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of converting "a" to "the" in the second paragraph under geography.

Gracias. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The deceased Earl was an early promoter .... the son who died, or the father who died later? Clarify pls.

Changed "Earl" to "son". Clearer now? upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Pending these tweaks, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Very well written and an interesting read. Answers all the questions I might have about a cemetery. Sources look good and inline citing is done well. I don't think the the "cliff notes" spat above is an issue at all ; it simply is a pun that is sourced and attributed. No issue here, please move on. As for galleries, I have a general dislike for them in articles b/c it is hard to do them well. This article, however, does do them well by not only mentioning the image's subject, but describing some details. Having images to back up the mentions and descriptions is totally appropriate. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Done this. All images are correctly licenced and attributed. Checked through alt text - one missing now added and a grammer mistake corrected. Looks good - Peripitus (Talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Woops, forgot to add the alt text when Mitch asked for another photo in the history section. Good catch. upstateNYer 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Halley's Comet

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) User:Kheider, User:Saros136, User:Masursky, User:Ruslik0

I am nominating this for featured article because it has completed peer review, and is I think ready for consideration. Serendi^podous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Ref number 1 is borked somehow... also 81
• Please spell out abbreviations in the refs. I noted ESO and OAA but there may be others.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://cometography.com/pcomets/001p.html
  • http://www.josephus.org/starOfBethlehem.htm (lacks a publisher also)
  • http://www.astronautix.com/craft/columbia.htm
  • http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/0001P/index.html (lacks a publisher also)
• Current ref 42 (TN Woods..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 65 (Ian Ridpath..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 82 ... "S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky,(1958), Physical Characteristics of Comets" is this a book? journal article? Needs more bibliographical information to satisfy WP:V

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary W. Kronk is a science writer whose work has been favorably reviewed in science journals. I think he can be considered a reliable source. Other issues solved. Serendi^podous 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what did you replace the non-Kronk refs with? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In order: , , , (3 for 1) and (the source the source used). I removed Vsekhsvyatsky. Serendi^podous 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "in the realm of 300–400 K (27–127 °C)."
  • That conversion result has far too much precision for an "in the realm of" number; even 30 to 130 °C would overstate it, but that's probably as good as we can reasonably expect
  • Don't use hyphens to indicate a range when some of the numbers might be negative. It is far too confusing. Use "to" when you have things like degrees Celsius.
• add spaces between numbers and unit symbols. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

done I think. Serendi^podous 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support and a few comments:
  • official designation by whom? IAU?
  • I would prefer having "Apparitions" right after the computation section since both of them refer to the comet's historic observations.
  • try to find a better name than "Designation" (it should probably be pluralized anyways); also, did you consider merging that table into the previous section? Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As to your last point, it was originally merged together, but the result was tagged in peer review for being too listy. Serendi^podous 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll make straightforward copyedits (please revert if I change the meaning accidentally), and place queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comet Halley - hmm, I've never heard it called thus...?

most famous - sounds like a film star.. "best-known"?

The above points are minor quibbles. I made some minor tweaks but am happy with how it stands. Some paragraphs are a little small but hard to combine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, "Comet Halley" is actually the name astronomers prefer. Modern astronomical parlance places the name second, as in Comet Hyakutake or Comet Hale-Bopp. But Halley's Comet was named before the practice became standard. Serendi^podous 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support—It looks to be FA worthy.

Comment—Looks good so far, but I think it still needs a little work:

• The lead doesn't seem to summarize parts of the article, particularly the structure and composition section.
• The first paragraph of the "Computation of orbit" section consists of one short and one very long sentence. That makes it a little awkward to read aloud, for example. Please consider splitting into 2–3 palatable sentences.
• What does '28.6' mean for an apparent magnitude? It seems phenomenally low. Is that the current value? As of what date?
• The article contains "Halley-type comets" and "Halley type comets". Please be consistent.
• "Changes in the flow of the solar wind can cause disconnection events; or the tail completely breaking off from the nucleus." The 'or' here is ambiguous, since it makes the sentence seem like it may be discussing two different phenomenon. Is that intended? Perhaps "..., where the tail..."?
• "...the vast size..." is vague. Please give some sample values.
• The citations need work:
  • There are inconsistent author naming schemes. For example, "G. Cevolani, G. Bortolotti and A. Hajduk", "RZ Sagdeev; PE Elyasberg; VI Moroz", "S. J. Peale; Jack J. Lissauer", and "Gladman, B.; Kavelaars, J.; Petit, J.-M.; Ashby, M. L. N.; Parker, J.; Coffey, J.; Jones, R. L.; Rousselot, P." Please pick one scheme and stick with it.
    • Still inconsistent.—RJH(talk)
  • Is there a URL for "In Situ Observations of Cometary Nuclei"?
  • Are there ISBNs for "A Jewish Understanding of the World", "Cometography" and "Records of Halley's Comet on Babylonian tablets"? If not, perhaps add some additional publication info.
    • The format of the book citations is inconsistent. Compare, for example, Halley & His Comet to the Cometography citations. Does one use the citation template and the other not? Any cite with an ISBN should look pretty similar. Also the Comet Lore ref. lacks location information.—RJH (talk)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I think. Serendi^podous 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Is that what you wanted? Serendi^podous 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the remainder. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments—I have a minor "thing" for outer space—thanks partly to book clubs and shoot 'em ups—so I looked a bit more closely at the prose, minus most of "Structure and composition" and "Apparitions".

• No dab links or dead external links—very nice.
• Alt text looks ok, since Halley is described in the text, but mixes "Comet Halley" and "Halley's Comet" (which'll it be!?). The "orbits of three periodic comets" image should get larger text—its thumbnail does not show the labels well.
• Dates appear to be Month Day, Year in text andISO style in refs. I see a few Month Day, Year ref dates that should be changed for consistency. Update, 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC): There's a mix of "Day Month Year" without comma, "Month Day, Year", and now "Day Month, Year" with comma—again, use one for prose and one (same or different) for refs.

OK. Is that it? Serendi^podous 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Both prose and ref dates are consistent now, and anyone who doesn't like "Day Month, Year" with the comma can easily replace it with the no-comma style. Good job. --an odd name 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• When did Halley's Comet get that name, anyway? Can you verify this part from the Edmond Halley article? (common knowledge?)

  "In 1705, applying historical astronomy methods, he published Synopsis Astronomia Cometicae, which stated his belief that the comet sightings of 1456, 1531, 1607, and 1682 related to the same comet, which he predicted would return in 1758. Halley did not live to witness the comet's return, but when it did, the comet became generally known as Halley's Comet."

• Why "rhyming with valley" twice in "Pronunciation"? (Are you concerned that the IPA text won't show up?)
• "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet; a descriptor for comets with orbits lasting 200 years or less."—maybe "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet, one with an orbit lasting 200 years or less."
• "Its closest distance to the Sun called perihelion"—I didn't know distances had cellphones! Maybe "Its closest distance to the Sun (perihelion) "? (There are already a lot of commas and parens in the sentence—should it be split? I'd like a third opinion.)
• "that has its inner edge of 20,000–50,000 AU."—change "its" to "an"?
• "Because its orbit comes close to Earth's in two places ..."—try expanding this sentence so that it doesn't look like a widow. If you can cleanly combine it with a prior paragraph, that'll work as well.
• The "peanut" part should clarify that it's an unshelled nut, not the peanut shell.
• "Two Space Shuttle missions—the ill-fated STS-51-L (the Challenger disaster)"—perhaps "... (ended by the Challenger disaster)"?
• (added on 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) "The media, despite the pleas of astronomers, wove sensational tales of mass cyanide poisoning engulfing the planet."—is this really neutral? The NYT article that gave Camille Flammarion's opinion says "Most astronomers do not agree with Flammarion" wrt whether the tail would even hit Earth, let alone that the cyanogen would reach people unchanged. The first two paragraphs and title are more concerning, but the tail was (or is) poisonous to some degree (until hitting the atmo). I'm not convinced this was media sensationalism (given just refs 65 and 66) so much as reader overreaction. Anyone else have thoughts?

Neutralised a bit. Serendi^podous 13:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A very famous comet that needs a great article. At a glance, it doesn't look bad. --an odd name 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when Halley's Comet became Halley's Comet. I could try to look it up, but I'm not sure I'd find anything. I'm not sure what you mean by "should get larger text". I wasn't concerned that IPA wouldn't show up, but that people's eyes would glaze over the IPA. Serendi^podous 11:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'should get larger text'."—The text in the image itself (File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg) should be enlarged so that it shows up as more than just fuzzy lines in the 300px thumbnail. You can also make the thumbnail 400px, but it still won't be readable, and anything bigger would probably be too wide unless you use a panorama or such. (I'm not talking about making its alt or caption text bigger; those look ok.) --an odd name 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know you asked the uploader about File:Halleys comet.jpg being an own work or not, but he has not responded (and I do not think he will). This image needs to be removed from the article until a response is given or a replacement is found. The rest of the images look fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The guy updated the same day an image from the British Museum. It might be that he took both of them at the same time? Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, this would be an explicit assertion of authorship. Source for the orbital information should also be provided.

    Contacted the author Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I referenced JPL's orbital simulation... -- Kheider (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I subbed another image. Does it meet the criteria or not? Serendi^podous 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Halley Giotto.jpg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. "To illustrate the nucleus of Halley's Comet, an important aspect of the article's subject" is not a rationale, but a function. What significant contribution to the reader's understanding is the image intended to make?

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg - The Tapestry of Bayeux is not a publication (the photo thereof is a derivative). The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration, not publication.

    I don't know what this means. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I also do not agree. The photo is a faithfuls reproduction of a 2D art work and lacks any originality itself, therefore no copyright subsists in this photo. The only copyright that has ever existed is the copyright of the original work, which, however, expired long ago. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Don't agree with what? Nowhere have I said there is a copyright in the photo or the tapestry. Please read critically; this is an issue regarding the choice of license template. Unpublished works (the tapestry) have terms based on life of the author (p.m.a.), not publication. It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license. Эlcobbola _talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Can you please direct me to the proper template, so that I can upload it? Serendi^podous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    As I've said, "The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration" and "It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license". It already has a correct license; the issue is that it has a second, inappropriate license. Just remove the publication-based license. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    You said "derivative (work)", which means that you assumed that the image has some originality. Since there is no originality, it is not a derivative work—it is just a slavish copy. In addition, a reproduction of the tapestry was published in 1856, therefore both templates are applicable. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    A derivative work is a defined term and has nothing to do with originality. I mentioned it because I assumed whoever applied the bonus publication license may have meant that license to apply to the photo. Publication would have to have occurred with consent of the copyright holder to be genuine; the creator of the tapestry did not publish it in 1856. This is not difficult. Эlcobbola _talk 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -18- - Adoration of the Magi.jpg - Needs a verifable source.

    Well, the guy who uploaded it hasn't edited since 2007, so if you feel that bad about it, delete it. Serendi^podous 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Remedies are to remove the image from the article or locate a source. Эlcobbola _talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    There's no way to locate the source, because the guy who uploaded it doesn't edit anymore. My point is that it's not just in this article, so if you want me to delete it from this one it should be deleted from all of them. Serendi^podous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Other articles are not at FAC. This article needs to satisfy WP:WIAFA and WP:IUP. It currently does not. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    It is not very difficult to find actually (or this). Ruslik_Zero 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Halley's Comet, 1910.JPG - Source indicates date of creation only. When was it published? How can the pre-1.1.1923 publication license be substantiated?

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Comet Halley.jpg - Does not seem to attribute the correct author (Kuiper Airborne Observatory, C141 aircraft April 8/9, 1986, New Zealand Expedition, per the description and source). Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Serendi^podous 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:AnimatedOrbitOf1PHalley.gif should have a source for the orbital information. Эlcobbola _talk 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. I actually do not know whether I can support or not, because I contributed some material to the article and copy-edited it, but the text looks good now. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: please review for WP:OVERLINKing, and there are several instances of telling the reader to "see above" or "see below". This should be avoided if possible (indicates problems in organiational structure of article), but if it must be done, at least say "where". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed one, as it wasn't necessary. I added an internal link to the other, but I don't think I can combine it. Serendi^podous 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinks removed. Serendi^podous 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This FAC is an attempt to qualify Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park for a promotion from WP:GT to WP:FT on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. It has resulted from a collaborative effort between me and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), who has been quite involved in this template article after volunteering to create a great map for the articles. I had done a lot of research on this article and needed his copyediting expertise. I also hoped to get him involved in the article that could potentially bring success to WP:CHIFTD. The article has also benefited from copyediting by Michael Devore and image assistance by Torsodog. Torsodog was also helpful in the longest-running WP:PR that I have ever been involved in (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1), which started in September and closed in December and which was followed by Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2. I think the article is now of sufficient quality to be a WP:FA and am nominating it for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to thank Brianboulton and Doncram for their helpful suggestions in the second peer review and Eubulides for looking at the alt text, as well as those Tony thanked above (and Tony for including me in the nomination). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not directly relevant to this FAC, but note that starting this September, a topic will need to have at least 50% of their articles featured to be considered "featured". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50%!!! I was expecting it to go to 40%. The pressure will be on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Is there any grace period for FTs to reach a new threshold?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I see it is 6 months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.citymayors.com/
    • It is a professional think tank.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • this makes it reliable on architectural matters? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ealdgyth. The citymayors website is used as a ref for the location of Millennium Park and a very brief history of the site before development. The first chapter of Gilfoyle's book is also used as a ref here, so if need be the citymayors.com ref could be dropped, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, then. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks, I removed it just now - not sure what is holding up this FAC, but this was about the only unresolved thing I could find. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Delacoma ref needs a publisher
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I carried out a detailed peer review last month, since when various adjustments have been made to the article. Among material added is this sentence: "docents are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended." "Docent" is by no means an everyday word, and I think its use here unjustified, particularly as the link (which 95% of your readers will need to use) is spectacurlarly useless for your purposes, dealing with a different kind of docent. I strongly advise changing the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the intended meaning is Museum docent. I have swapped out docent for the better link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot the American English / British English confusion over wikt:docent. I changed the lead to read ...trained guides are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended. and then in the body of the article left Tony's link to museum docent but tweaked the wording: The festival is represented by a staff of trained guides, called docents, that field questions and provide educational talks during the rehearsals.[89] Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments, hoping to support: I gave this a fairly extensive review at its most recent PR and hope to be supporting soon. However, I have a few issues which are just a bit more than quibbles, some which are carried over from my review.

(later:) I am satisfied with the responses to my points, detailed below, and have moved to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Design and development section: Some information needs to be reordered. We should know about the Pritzker family's decision to fund the project, and who Jay Pritzker was, before being told that his widow was unimpressed with the original design. I know some of this is covered in the first para of the lead, but the lead should be regarded as a separate entity from the body of the text.
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have rewritten the section some to introduce the Prizkers, their prize and Gehry first, then discuss the pavilion design. It is not 100% clear to me when the Pritzker family / Cindy Pritzker decided to fund the pavilion. My understanding is that the city made a very preliminary design first, and then shopped it around to potential donors. This is what Cindy was unimpressed with. She was interested in the pavilion idea, but wanted to have a Gehry-designed bandshell. Tony, is this correct? If so, I will try to make this clearer in the article too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You have it cited clearly to a statement with this sentiment. We can only summarize the secondary sources as you have. You seem to have the idea although you may have the wording a bit close to the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I have rewritten the statement to avoid any appearance of plagiarism, and just used the direct quotation about CIndy Pritzker mandating Frank Gehry's redesign. As a note to reviewers, I do not have access to the printed sources that Tony used. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • As an experiment, I have combined the second and third paragraphs, as I think this better integrates the introductory info on Pritzer with the main theme of the section. By all means revert this if you think it doesn't work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I think that it does read better this way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Note: After a further reading of the Design and development section I was still unsatisfied with it, so I have done further copyedits and text rearrangement. In particular I have moved what I think is the main declarative sentence for the section to the beginning, and made a few adjustments later on to protect the chronology and maintain the narrative flow. Personally I am happy with the section now, but please say if I have inadvertently created problems. Or tweak as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
              • It seems fine to me - thanks very much for your edits, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Acoustics section: tiny point - remove redundant "also" from final line of second para. Overall, some of the language in this section is a little too close to being promotional. We have two "innovatives" and one "unique features". This language needs to be toned down.
  • Thanks, I rewrote parts of this to try and remove the promotional language. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Controversies:
  • What was the outcome of the Petrillo suit?
    • As far as I know, no suit was actually filed (they just threatened to sue according the article cited). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Previously when a new perforance venue was added to grant park the Petrillo name was transferred to it. In this case the old structure was kept so there was not much to argue about, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Tony - do you have reference(s) for this? It is not in the Petrillo Music Shell article that I could see, but if there is a ref, we could add a sentence saying this to this article to make the reasoning of the Petrillo family clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Parts of this are cited in the Petrillo Music Shell article. The last mention of the grenddaughter in the local press was this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I added that the Petrillo name was retained when the bandshell was replaced in 1978, and that the Petrillo shell still stands and is used as of 2009. I also removed the word controversy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
              • That was good. I tweaked that a bit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Amos, a classically trained musician who chose only piano and organ accompaniment on her concert, earned positive reviews as the inaugural rock and roll performer in a venue that regularly hosts classical music." Where is the "contoversy" in that statement?
    • Something got lost in the editing. I'll expand upon the controversy to clarify it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I am unconvinced that the disputes surrounding bottles and beverages amount to a "controversy", or indeed are significant enough to warrant mention, at least in this level of detail.
    • This is a secondary part of a larger controversy. See line above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Events: Shouldn't Obama be recognised as the surrent US president? Otherwise the section could perhaps lose 100 or so words of froth (e.g "on Saturday mornings in the summer, the Great Lawn under the trellis hosts workouts such as yoga and pilates", "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months", the seating kerfuffle at the Decembrists' concert).
  • Added (who was later elected United States President), which is probably better than saying current President because that will become dated at some point. Not sure how that relates to froth. The yoga and pilates is a big deal. We should probably have a picture of that. Would something like this benefit the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That particular picture does not do a lot for me - it is hard to tell what the people are doing. I will take a look at the other items. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I have removed the "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months" sentence and the one about multimedia in Nove 2007 (as it was mentioned again later in the article). I trimmed the yoga and pilates sentence, but kept it as it is not something you'd expect at a bandshell. At the Decembrists paragraph, I combined three sentences on attendance into one, removed anopther sentence, and trimmed what was left. I kept the rest because it mentions a few things not found elsewhere in the article: season ticket holders for the seating section and barriers between the seats and Great Lawn. Here is a diff. Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Reception: "the supporting backside along Randolph Street". Users of AmEng may be unaware that in BritEng "backside" is a euphemism for what Americans call "ass", so you can see how this sentence reads oddly to us Brits (especially the bit about it being "not pleasing to the eye." Any chance of a reword?
  • Whoops! It can have the same meaning in AmEng, but that did not occur to me before - thanks. Changed to the supporting north side of the structure along Randolph Street - is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the peer review and your comments here - will work on the points you've raised next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help at PR and now and for the support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Comments copied from my user page) Hi. Good to see this at FAC. Can I recommend you add File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg as the main image in the infobox instead as the main image should be an overivew of the whole complex rather than a restricted view in a concert.... I haven't switched images myself as I know you are often very strict with image layout in the article. If possible I'd recommend somebody creates a montage which could combine the two images or even one or two others in the main image, but I think File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg would be far better as the main than the one at present and immediately gices an understanding of the site... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current main image was chosen at a recent PR to show the audience and the trellis system simultaneously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the lead image shows the view of the pavilion most concertgoers see. While I like the view from the the skyscraper (and note that it is already used as the second photo in the article), it is a poor view of the iconic stainless steel proscenium, so I prefer the current lead photo. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried making the requested double image and adding it to the article's infobox. Also moved the map right and down a bit to avoid the longer infobox (may be better on the left). What does everyone think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As poor quality as the original main image was, the sky view is terrible quality and pales in comparison to the other one. I will tolerate the double image if there is a strong preference, but that image is not so great. It has the proper perspective, but I fear people may look at that image and question the article's FA-worthiness. The image belongs in the article, but I prefer File:View of the Chicago skyline from 340 on the Park.jpg as a view from afar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can make a composite with the current top image and the side view you like better (probably crop the bottom and left side of that a bit), but I want to make sure that it is OK with Dr. Blofeld before putting the work into it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the side view might replace the current overhead, which could be moved to the first image position in the text. Maybe a composite would be O.K., but you are still working with a low quality image for the overhead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. You could try it, see what it looks like. Yes the quality is not as good on the overhead. But when I said about making a montage I was thinking of more like four images arranged two by two and the scaled down. I would not object to such an arrangement or to see a side view of the pavilion... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to swap in the higher quality side view. I can not stand to see such a low quality image as a main image on an FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. It looks like Ruhrfisch used some sort of two image montage. I will wait for him to make the switch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I am not 100% sure what you mean here - sounds like you want to add another image to the article. I would like to hear from Dr. Blofeld, who requested the composite originally. I do not think there is room in the article for an additional image, but perhaps the current side view (from WIllis Tower) could be removed? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a montage like File:CityChicagoMontage.jpg but with say, four images??. You could include this image... A good stage image etc... Plenty of choice from flickr and the commons to compose a high quality montage... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like the former, but the latter is a great shot of the much talked about rehearsal from the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I will try to make a two by two montage with the current lead image (crowd at Beethoven's Ninth), the rehearsal image from Dr. Blofeld, the aerial side view Tony likes, and one other. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Then, I would move the overhead view of the park to be left aligned by the second paragraph of the main text, which is a less high profile position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • How about File:JayPritzkerPavillionSP.JPG as the fourth image in the montage? Or is there something people want specifically to be shown? Let's wait and see how the article layout looks with the montage then put the aerial back in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually you could lay the montage out like the main Chicago image and have three along the top and then use the long flickr image along the bottom that Tony likes. Basically like the Chicago one but without three images underneath so there are four images three and then one. A trial error really, see what looks best.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not like that one. However, if we are going for a montage, we should try to get consent for the Yoga image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I will make a two by two montage as originally suggested by Dr. Blofeld above. Tony, for now I will make it with the similar free image I suggested as the fourth image above, and if you want to ask for permission on the yoga image I can add that later in its place (if they release it). Dr. Blofeld, the Chicago composite is displayed only 315 pixels wide. The three images side by side are all vertical format, so having them each only about 100 px wide is OK. My fear is that three horizontal images side by side would look too small. I can try to add the panorama to the bottom of the two by two montage I make. My thought it that we already have a stunning panorama at the bottom of the article and I like that, not having a tiny panorama at the bottom of the lead image montage. Let's see how it looks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made a composite of four images and added it to the article. I am not good at writing alt text quickly so left that undone for now - if people like it, I can add it. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The image looks great. I still hope to get an image of the Yoga in the article. Next summer I or Torsodog will have to get one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Big improvement, thanks for doing that. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added alt text for the composite. I restored the caption and alt text for the aerial view, so that was (I believe) checked in the image review. I will ask ZScout to review the new composite (all four images in it are on Commons too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is (unnecessary) repetition within close proximity when you say the Pritzkers donated $15 million twice. I think you only need to mention this once, at least not so close to each other. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"In the end, budget limitations and architectural aspirations caused compromises that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete". A little awkward "caused compromises", in their most straightforward form" , I'm also not sure what you mean exactly by "architectural aspirations" etc, lack of architectural ideas or what? Surely bare casing is unlikely to be a case of lacking ideas? Please clarify this, maybe something like "In the end, a tight budget forced the developers to leave parts of the structure uncased, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete." or something like that.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I read aspirations as plans (do not have the print source) and changed it to In the end, budget limitations led to compromises with the original architectural plan that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete. Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Pritzker Pavilion is the first permanent outdoor installation of the LARES system in the United States. ". Citation needed to support such a strong claim. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I added a ref - it was already used for at the end of following sentence, but this way it is clearer which ref is used. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Could use this source to comment that some people criticised the obstruction from the "ugly concrete", (near the bottom of Tribune article). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, it is very specific criticism of the placement of the sound console But the biggest design miscalculation was Gehry's locating the computerized sound console at the center of the seating area. This ugly concrete structure obstructs views and must move. I will add a mention of it to the article (also talks about the sound not being balanced well on opening day concert). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added von Rhein's critical review of both the opening night sound quality and the ugly sound console to the article (two places). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. Might just want to check to see if there are any other criticisms so balance it out a bit but seems OK.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the terms "ugly concrete structure" and "computerized sound console" are conflated in the Tribune article. The reviewer presents them as one and the same thing. Actually, the ugly concrete structure is a wall surrounding a platform topped by a clumsy, boxy wood and canvas, gray-painted rain and sun cover which moves forward or back in a track to enable the sound operator to see what is on the LCD displays of the "computerized sound console" and to protect it from rain. The mixing console is atop the concrete platform and under the boxy covering. Without the horrible-looking boxy cover, the sound crew would not be able to see to operate the Digico D5 console in the daytime because of glare. If they had selected an old-school analog mixing console, there would not be this problem. Operations in twilight and darker are okay for the crew. Those times would only need the cover for rain. It's hideous, and blocks views, as is clearly seen here, here and here in these photos and here in this seating layout. By the way, the Pavilion calls this structure the "sound booth" which is where you would go to get assisted listening devices. In the article, you could write that, if he could, Gehry would "scrap the big box of a sound booth that sprang up like a weed in the center of the pavilion's seating," that is, if you think this source is reliable enough. That section of the construction is Beeby's design, not Gehry's, but the clumsy sound booth awning may be an ad hoc design by the sound contractor. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed the sentence to A review in the Chicago Tribune criticized the "ugly concrete structure" surrounding the mixing console in the midst of the fixed seats as the pavilion's "biggest design miscalculation", and called for it be moved. I think the Reader is a reliable source and will add the Gehry statement next. I also found two books on positioning the mixing console here and here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks again, I added a sentence saying Although modern practice is to locate the sound console in with the audience,[107][108] Gehry said at a symposium after the park's opening that he wanted "to scrap the big box of a sound booth that sprang up like a weed in the center of the pavilion's seating".[109] Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Awesome wording! I would recommend you tailor your Google Books URLs a bit, to get to the right page at the very least. One of them could be this URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=6KTPirqYw5wC&pg=PA16&dq=operating+position+auditorium#v=onepage&q=operating%20position%20auditorium&f=false and the other could be this: http://books.google.com/books?id=UkFh8t5SsNQC&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=&f=false. A veteran editor once told me that Google Books URLs are stable enough that the accessdate parameter need not be filled in, but I will not insist you remove them for this FAC. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your kind words and helpful shortened links, I have made the change. WP:CITE strongly recommends providing access dates in some way, so I prefer to leave them in for the books too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Now that my concerns have been addressed I think this is featured quality. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the sound console and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I leaned in and performed some fixes per guideline at WP:DASH. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support images look good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking the images and for your support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I asked Zscout370 to check the new lead composite image, which s/he graciously did and approved here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)