Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011

James B. McCreary

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This article just passed an A-class review from WP:MILHIST. Even though the bulk of the article is about McCreary's political career, I think the folks at WP:MILHIST have given the whole thing a good once-over and that it is now ready for promotion to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The nominator links the A-class review above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Well, I screwed that up royally, huh? I know my alphabet; I promise! Fixed now.
• ref 34 and similar: why "in" here?
  • There are two works in the Bibliography by the same author. I used that notation to distinguish between them.
    • Yes, but why not use comma instead of "in" given that the Bibliography entry doesn't use "In"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't know there was a guideline on this. I've used it without issue in other FAs. If it needs to be changed, though, I can change it.
• University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
  • Technically, I think the "The" is part of the name. Fixed.
• Burckel 1978 and McCreary 1935: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the issue is here.
    • Dash in range shouldn't be spaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. I love me some dashes. Fixed.

Thanks for the review. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Review The only issue I found was that the image description page for File:JudgeJMHarlan.jpg is lacking authorship information and needs a bit of cleanup. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose A reasonable amount of time has passed and the concern from the image review was not addressed. Once that's handled this oppose can be struck. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this note and was off-wiki most of the long weekend. I didn't upload this image, but since it's part of the Brady-Handy Collection, I assume the author must have been Mathew Brady or Levin Corbin Handy. If that's insufficient, I have uploaded some other images of Harlan to Commons myself and could speak more authoritatively to their origins. One of them could be switched out for this one. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck. In all honesty, I thought that people would be watching their FACs all the time, as most concerns raised at this page get handled within hours. Getting nothing but static was surprising. It didn't occour to me that you might be gone. I'm sorry for that. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. With an eight-month-old at home, sometimes I'm "gone" even when I'm not gone! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, it'll all get better... in seventeen and a half years or so. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I'm surprised that this has been lacking in reviews, so I took a look over it. Here's what I found:

• It's not really clear when he joins the confederate army. The article jumps from him passing the bar to the regiment being built in 1862. There may not be much on his joining other than the fact that he did, but if there is anything on a why/when it would be a nice addition.
  • I think some of the ambiguity came from an edit made as a result of the peer review. I've tried to clean that up now.
• There's a few single-digit numbers out there (6 percent, 8 percent) that can be written out per mosnum.
  • I think I got them all. I'm inclined to leave "2 percent" just before the "Construction of the new governor's mansion" section because of it's proximity to "8,718 votes", which clearly has to be expressed in numerals.

Those were the only couple things I noticed; upon them being fixed I would be happy to support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are other issues or if I missed anything. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I have no further issues with the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Nineteenth century Kentucky is very much out of my comfort zone, but this is second from bottom and we seem to be lacking in reviewers, so I'll give it a once over. Actually, I enjoyed reading it more than I thought I would. It's very well written and strikes a good balance between comprehensiveness and over-detail. I do have a few comments, which I've posted below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• MOS:BIO suggests that nationality is what should be mentioned at the very beginning (it doesn't say anything pro or con about sub-national entities like US States). I would suggest adding "was an American lawyer and politician..." and possibly mentioning Kentucky a little later in the first paragraph if it's relevant to his notability.
• Do we really need to state that Kentucky is a US state and, if so, do we need to link to the article on the states?
  • To both points ... sorry I'm not following, what are you saying is wrong with the first sentence? "James Bennett McCreary (July 8, 1838 – October 8, 1918) was a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Kentucky." - Dank (push to talk)
    • Well, why not just say "...from Kentucky". Most people know that Kentucky is a US state, and the few of my compatriots who think it's part of the Empire have the link to Kentucky. And if we are going to say that it's a US sate, do we really need to link to the article U.S. state? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
      • We could reword so that it's a little tighter, something like "He was a US lawyer and politician, the first governor of Kentucky." That at least implies Kentucky is a state, and as you say, they could follow the link. I disagree that we can assume the reader is familiar with Kentucky, because I've seen estimates of a billion people who speak or read English worldwide. When I was in Austria a while back, just about nobody I asked was familiar with North Carolina. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I've adopted this "was a ___ from the U.S. state of Kentucky" first sentence for most of the politician articles that I've worked on after getting several comments that not all English speakers will know that Kentucky is a U.S. state. It seems to have flown well in other GAC and FAC nominations. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
          • It seems a little unnecessary to me, since the article is about McCreary, not Kentucky. Those who don't know that Kentucky is a US state (and are interested) can click the link to Kentucky. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• both houses is certainly overlinking. If it was an article specifically pertaining to the US Congress, you could get away with it, but linking to the generic article, especially when the very next link is to United States Congress, is unnecessary and doesn't add any encyclopaedic value.
  • Overlinking is a problem for me. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Is it unusual for Kentucky Governors to serve two non-consecutive terms?
  • Only four men have done it: McCreary, Isaac Shelby, John L. Helm, and A. B. "Happy" Chandler. However, from 1799 until 1992, the governor was forbidden by the state constitution from succeeding himself in office, so serving two non-consecutive terms was the only way to serve two terms at all for most of the office's history. James Garrard served two consecutive terms prior to the constitutional prohibition. Paul E. Patton served two consecutive terms after the prohibition was abolished. J. C. W. Beckham ascended to the governorship after the assassination of William Goebel and was then re-elected; his eligibilty was challenged in court, but the court upheld it. As you can see, serving two terms as Kentucky governor is a rare thing period. :) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Is graduating law school (as opposed to graduating from law school) American English, or does it sound as odd there as it does to a Brit?
  • It's not wrong over here but I prefer "from". - Dank (push to talk)
    • As this also came up in the A-class review, I've added "from". Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ditto was twice chosen Speaker of the House.
  • Stet. - Dank (push to talk)
• Is 11th Kentucky Cavalry likely to turn blue? This article spent a month prominently advertised within MilHist, so I'm surprised, if it's notable, that nobody there (where you're most likely to find interest in a military subject) took the initiative to create an article.
  • At one time, Spacini was creating articles for all of the Kentucky Confederate infantry units, but I don't know if he was planning to do the cavalry as well. I suspect somebody somewhere might create it, but I do politics, not military history, most of the time. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• A snippet in the lead about how he moved from law to politics might help to make the sentence a little less abrupt—it currently sounds like being elected was a natural progression from his legal practice.
  • I didn't really find much on that, but I've reworded the sentence to make it seem less like one is connected to the other. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps split the third paragraph of the lead? either into a fourth, or by making the second a little longer, but it seems quite big (and is longer than the first two put together)
  • I've done some re-arranging of paragraphs; see what you think.
• Is Bennett his mother's maiden name? It's common practice (though I don't know if it's codified anywhere) to indicate this with "née".
  • Nay. Most Americans don't know the word (sadly, but we play the hand we're dealt). - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm one of the Americans who does know the word, but the parentheses notation is most common in the sources I've consulted on this and several other articles. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Did he pay for his commission? I know this was common in British and European armed forces of the day, I don't know about the other side of the Atlantic.
  • Again, military history isn't my gig, but I'm pretty sure that was not and is not common practice in the U.S. military. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• How did Breckinridge come to know him?
  • The sources don't give an exact connection, but both men were Kentucky politicians, although Breckinridge was seventeen years older. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Did he do anything notable as a lawyer? He can;t have been bad at it, given that he kept returning to it every time politics didn't work out...
  • Well, law was his profession and what he was trained for, so I don't think it was that surprising that he would return to it between tenures in office. I didn't find anything notable about his legal career. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• and his well-established political machine doesn't strike me a particularly neutral. I'd remove the phrase altogether personally, I don't think it adds much.
  • It is pretty well-established the Beckham was a political boss who controlled a political machine. This is the term that even modern sources use. I'm inclined to leave it in some form because the lack of support from Beckham's political machine explains how a sitting two-time governor could do so poorly in a Senate primary later in the article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• One last question: did he ever consider running for president? It is, after all, the ultimate elected position in the US, and if he considered it, or had a reason for not considering it, that would make an interesting addition tot he article.
  • I can't find anything that says either way. His Confederate service, which was ironically a boon to most candidates for office in Kentucky, probably would have hurt him in a run for president, but that's speculation on my part. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there are one or two of my edits (indicated in the edit summaries) that you may want to double-check (I'm a Brit, so I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of American English). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Great copyediting and comments, thanks. ACDixon, I hope I'm not intruding, I thought offering a few replies might be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I'm always glad for the help, especially with a little one at home now. I'm not on-wiki nearly as much as I used to be. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are further issues. It may be Monday before I'm back on-wiki, as I'm expecting a busy weekend. Your patience will be appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not a fan of the "from the U.S. state of Kentucky", but it's hardly enough to withhold support from an excellent article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. All comments but a minor point addressed; seems to meet the criteria. Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:

• "He was the first governor to reside in the state's second (and current) governor's mansion and is the only governor to inhabit both the old and new mansions." This seems rather trivial to me, and the second fact is almost implied by the first; do you really need it in the lead?
  • It's a rather interesting factoid, but maybe too prominent in the lead. I've moved it down a bit. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Opinions differ, I guess; I'd consider it trivial. Why not put this with the sentence about his being part of the committee to design the new mansion? Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraphing of the lead is a little odd; perhaps you should split the very long third paragraph.
  • I've adjusted the paragraphing; see what you think. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of "Early life" has a lot of short, choppy sentences, some of which may be better off merged.
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• "During his tenure, McCreary represented Kentucky's agricultural interests, introducing a bill to create the United States Department of Agriculture."—was this bill successful?
  • Apparently, this one wasn't, but one based on it was. Added.

Some of my comments are minor and may reflect my personal preferences rather than real problems with the article; feel free to disregard them. Ucucha 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've addressed these comments as best I can. See my note to HJ Mitchell above; I may be off-wiki all weekend, but I'll try to respond to any further comments on Monday at the latest. Thanks for your review. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Kennet and Avon Canal

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Kennet and Avon Canal is a historic British industrial waterway, which fell into disuse and has now been restored. The article covers not just the history and engineering but also social and environmental factors. It is nearly 5 years since it was last nominated at FAC. I has been a good article for years and has recently been improved by several editors (notably Bob1960evens) with a recent peer review by Brianboulton and EdJogg along with a copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum. If there are any outstanding issues identified I will attempt to address them in a timely manner.— Rod ^talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the Avon flows through the artificial New Cut, reducing currents and silting in the harbour and preventing flooding." - source?
  • Ref added.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• "When canal boats were still pulled by horses, the boatmen had to haul boats through the tunnel by hand, pulling on chains that ran along the inside walls." - source?
  • Ref added.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Hadfield or Hadfields? David and Charles or David & Charles? Check for consistency
  • I've changed Hadfields to Hadfield & David and Charles to David & Charles (as that's what it says on the books). Hope I've got them all.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Why not include both authors for Halse?
  • Done— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Location for Haslam?
  • Added— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Are all locations listed in the UK?
  • Yes & I've added these in.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Done— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Combine identical refs - ex 15 and 16
  • Done— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• What is SSSI?
  • SSSI= Site of Special Scientific Interest (as written in full in first sentence of ecology) I can put in full in all SSSI citation sheets if required?— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Is this site authored by staff of the museum?
  • Yes see .— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Compare formatting of refs 43 and 44
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 102: publisher?
  • Added— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Is this page entirely copied from the listed source, or does it only derive the numerical list from there?
  • I'm sorry I don't understand that question.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The page says "These seven wonders of the waterways are as listed by Robert Aickman" - I wondered whether Aickman is the source of all the material on that page (including the description of each "wonder"), or whether he only listed the wonders (ie. 1. Devizes Locks, 2. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct...) and the descriptions were created by Jim Shead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know. I will ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways in case anyone has access to the original book and can answer the question.— Rod ^talk 13:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've replaced "floating down the river" as a source with Allsop's book.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bath to Devizes section

• I have noted a number of queries on the article talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Issues (hopefully) responded to on the talk page.— Rod ^talk 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

spotchecks on sources, paraphrasing, verifiability

1. ref #1 length verified
2. ref #3 dangers of sea voyages and construction of mills verified
3. ref #4 first cargo verified
4. ref #6 caen hill locks, final task verified
5. ref #14 pillboxes and their survival; defence line verified
6. ref #16 restoration start, odonata verified
7. ref #20 "the canal was reopened from the thames to hungerford wharf in july 1974", lottery funding verified
8. ref #21 repuddling, polythene lining and concrete cradle verified
9. ref #26 lottery funding verified
10. ref #28 - no mention of prince charles or 2003
11. ref #29 - just a front page of a web site, no specific support for the statement
12. ref #30 bradford lock wharves and dundas aqueduct statements verified
13. ref #32 bath limestone verified
14. ref #33 cruiseway information verified
15. ref #34, 35, 36, 37, 38 cumulatively confirm the information but the calculation may be wp:syn
16. ref #39 coal mine closure verfified
17. ref #40 tidal status verified
18. ref #41 bath aspargus status verified
19. ref #42 geology verified
20. ref #43 water mills and lock destruction verified
21. ref #44 glaciation history explanation verified
22. ref #45 dutch island verified
23. ref #46 does not support the statement: "bath bottom lock marks the divergence of the river avon and the canal, 766 yards (700 m) south of pulteney bridge."
24. ref #47 support pumping station, but not the detail
25. ref #48 does not support the detail, just the existence of the lock
26. ref #49 statement verified
27. ref #50 location supported by os ref
28. ref #51 location supported by os ref
29. ref #52 location supported by os ref
30. ref #53, 54 location supported by os ref
31. ref #56 listed status and history verified
32. ref #57-62 listed status verified
33. ref #63 species verified
34. ref #66 tree species verified
35. ref #67 naming verified
36. ref #70 information verified
37. ref #71 tithe barn verified
38. ref #72 information verified
39. ref #73 aqueduct collapse verified
40. ref #74 wilts & berks verified
41. ref #75 lock details verified
42. ref #76 information verified, should robert aickman be credited in the cite
43. ref #77 information verified
44. ref #78 information verified
45. ref #81 race history verified
46. ref #82 information verified
47. ref #84 information verified
48. ref #85 information verified, but exact copy of text - use as a quote " to serve Honey Street wharf in Alton parish, which refused to have drinking houses."
49. ref #86 information verified
50. ref #87 information verified
51. ref #91 information verified
52. ref #92, 93 information verified
53. ref #94 information verified
54. ref #95 information verified
55. ref #97 information verified
56. ref #98 information verified
57. ref #99 information verified, should state msword format
58. ref #100 information verified
59. ref #101 page 133 refers to dorset and purbeck, i think the page ref is wrong
60. ref #102 information verified
61. ref #103 information verified
62. ref #104 information verified
63. ref #105 information verified
64. ref #106 nothing about a wooden bridge here
65. ref #107 but this does have the wooden bridge
66. ref #110 information verified
67. ref #111 information verified
68. ref #112 information verified
69. ref #113 information verified
70. ref #114 information verified
71. ref #115 information verified
72. ref #116 information verified
73. ref #117 site has changed, dead link
74. ref #118 information verified
75. ref #119 information verified
76. ref #120 information verified
77. ref #123 "led to reading's importance as a river port in the middle ages." is a direct quote and should be rendered as such
78. ref #124 information verified
79. ref #125 information verified
80. ref #126 information verified
81. ref #127 information verified
82. ref #128 information verified
83. ref #129 information verified
84. ref #130-134 information verified
85. ref #136 information verified
86. ref #137 information verified
87. ref #139 information verified
88. ref #141 information verified
89. ref #142 information verified

A few points above, a number of references are duplicated and could be combined, but I have not done so in order to keep the current numbering. The prose is good. I can support if these few points are addressed. I have only been able to check Allsopp and Nicholson of the off-line references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all this checking.

• Refs 28 & 29 - I've added another ref for Prince Charles visit & removed the one which just pointed to a front page
• Ref 46 I've taken out the detail (766 yards (700 m)) which was not supported by the reference
• Refs 47 & 48 I've reused an existing ref (Allsop p21) which does support the claim re the pump
• Ref 76 I've added a quote to the reference saying based on Aikman's book
• Ref 99 format=word added
• Ref 101 the page number is correct, but it is the last item in the table on that page & goes over to p134 so I've added that in.
• Refs 106 & 107 I have reworded the sentence about the wooden bridge so the reference supports the statement
• Ref 117 I have removed the claim re the purchase price which was in the deadlink - the rest of the sentence is supported by Ref 118 (now 117)
• Ref 123 (now 122) I have reworded this to overcome the copyvio of a whole (long) sentence.

I've looked for duplicates but the ones I can see are for different page nos etc. If there are others let me know & I will combine them.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, just ref 85, now ref 84. My mistake about the duplicates, I can't see any now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added speech marks for the text about Honey Street - can reword if required.— Rod ^talk 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

All appear to be licensed and captioned correctly. File:Devizeslockspreresotoration.jpg is of rather poor resolution and I wonder if it is really necessary? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the only image we have (with appropriate license etc) which shows the state of dereliction and indicates the restoration effort needed. The poor quality probably relates to camera technology in the 1970s and/or scanning from a film based system. I am not aware of any suitable alternatives.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to sharpen this image up a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, my concerns have been addressed, I believe that the article meets the criteria, so am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment, with regretComment: I peer-reviewed the early parts of this article, and some of my concerns were addressed then, but frankly, the prose and punctuation are not yet up to FA standard. Here are a few points I have picked up on my most recent reading, to the midpoint of the Restoration section. Note also that I have carried out numerous copyedits on my way through:-

• Be consistent as between "Kennet navigation" and "Kennet Navigation". The latter seems the more correct

• Done.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overdetailing italicised (by me): "The purchase from Frederick Page cost £100,000, of which £70,000 was paid in cash with the balance paid back over a period of time. Information not really relevant to this article. Maybe check for other instances in the article of unnecessary detail.

• This additional detail was added in response to a comment at a previous stage of review, although it could be removed.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...annual revenue of around £45,000 a year." Last two words redundant.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The information about WW2 "pillboxes"; where were they built in relation to the canal?

• More info added.— Rod ^talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• It would be useful to know who formed the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Likewise, you refer to the "newly-formed" British Waterways; who formed it, and what were its responsibilities?

• Info added on both.— Rod ^talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overcomplicated and confusing sentence: "Other work included a new bridge at Bridge Street in Reading to overcome a long standing obstruction caused by strengthening girders added to the underside of the bridge which had reduced the navigable headroom from 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) to 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m)".

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The concept of the canal's "summit" needs to be explained at first mention.

• Linked to Route summit and "at the highest point of the canal" added.— Rod ^talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another messy sentence: "In 1988 the restoration of Woolhampton Lock was completed however it could not be used by boats as, on one side, Frounds Bridge could not be opened and on the other the restoration of Midgham Lock had not been finished, although these were completed the following year."

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A glance through the later parts of the article indicates similar problems with prose and punctuation. However, I believe that these are readily resolvable within the constraints of this FAC, if someone is prepared to give the article a full copyedit. When this has been done I will be more than willing to reconsider my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments (and the copy editing you have done). I will attempt to add and remove detail as you suggest in your comments and I have asked for help with copy editing.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I note that Malleus is on the copyediting case, which bodes well. Perhaps you or he would ping me when the job is done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: You have attended to my initial concerns, and the copyediting has improved the prose, so I have struck my original oppose. I don't have time to complete a full review, but could you comment on one or two points?

• "The River Avon was navigable from Bristol to Bath during the early years of the 13th century, until the construction of mills on the river forced its closure." Why would the construction of mills cause the closure of the river's navigation?

• Clew doesn't give more info, just that it was restricted by the construction of mills, however this says that weirs were constructed across the river (presumably to hold back a head of water to provide power for the mills) which would have meant that craft could not pass them.— Rod ^talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I found it quite hard to relate the text in the "route" sections to the charts alongside. Take the first one: Bristol to Bath. There is no mention in the chart of the "Floating Harbour"; in the text there is no mention of "Cumberland Basin" which seems to be a major feature. From the chart the river appears to have two channels, which is not explained in the text. I think it important that there is clear consistency between what's in the text and what's in the charts.

• Bristol Harbour (which is also known as the Floating Harbour & which the Cumberland Basin is a part of) is not considered by any of the sources to be part of the K&A. It was built separately and served a different purpose. A little text was included for completeness with a link for those who need more information (however this was removed by this edit) following previous review discussions on the talk page (around 2nd July). The "2nd channel" is the New Cut (Bristol) constructed to carry the river water (and tidal flows) away from the harbour. This was added to the route diagram for exactly the consistency you are asking for and, if it is not included in the text could be removed from the diagram. I can add the relevant text (or a revised version) back into the article if needed?— Rod ^talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have drastically pruned the routemap to address these concerns. The routemap now refers to the Floating Harbour directly, and ignores the other detail, which is distracting in this article. The large size of the icon used for 'docks' over-emphasised the Cumberland Basin. I touched on this when we attempted the previous edit, but I don't think we carried any suggestions through. I think the text and the map are now more in sync -- does this address the concerns adequately? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The level of detail in the "route" sections is impressive, but possibly more suited to a guidebook than a summary encyclopedia article? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are there specifics which you feel should be removed?— Rod ^talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is a wish to provide a commentary for the routemaps. This formed the bulk of the article before this year's push towards GA/FA was started and other information provided. Finding the right level of detail is tricky -- we don't mention every lock for example -- but we do in some places, and the Bristol/Bath end is covered much more completely. The text has tended to be tailored to match the length of the accompanying map (to avoid whitespace on a standard 1280x1024 monitor). -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: I appreciate that efforts have been made to meet my concerns, and I have no qualms now about supporting the article's promotion. A very sound piece of work on which much effort has been expended. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2)

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The first season article has already passed as an FA, and this article on the second season follows very much the same form. I believe it is comprehensive, well-written and meets the FA standards. It is already a good article, is the anchor article of a good topic, and has undergone a peer review, the recommendations from which have been implemented into the article. I am ready and eager to respond to any comments here at the FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment about references In anticipation of this question, I wanted to point out that the Star-Ledger off-line sources do not have page numbers. This is because I got those sources off of the Newsbank database and the pages were not included with them. I've tried Googling and searching Lexis Nexis to find those page numbers, but have had no luck. Also, most of these sources were off-line, but I have searched for online links and added the URLs wherever possible, so the ones that have links now are the only ones that I've found. If any reviewer wants to take a look at any particular off-line source, let me know and I can copy-and-paste the content into an e-mail and send it to you. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should use endashes
  • I think I've got them all now, but if I missed any please let me know. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 50: page?
  • I just went back into Lexis Nexis and found that this one, too, did not have a page number listed (same as the Star-Ledger sources). It's frustrating, but I'm not sure we can do anything about it. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• References to audio/video sources should have times when sourcing quotes or specific claims (ex. ref 52). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Added times for both the "Anatomy of a Homicide" reference you refer to, as well as a Tom Fontana audio commentary ref (#51). — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support--Opark 77 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well written, comprehensive, extensively referenced appears to meet all FA criteria.--Opark 77 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support by Ruhrfisch - I was involved in a pretty detailed peer review of this article and find that it now meets the FA criteria. Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - don't really have much to say other than it's a well written and comprehensive article and seems to comfortably meet all of the FA criteria. Coolug (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for a spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No concerns based on my spot-check, and no cause for concern otherwise. Juliancolton (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Valston Hancock

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This nom follows on naturally from the recently successful John McCauley FAC, i.e. similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. McCauley and Scherger have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the other two, starting with Hancock, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 2: cited in References under Commonwealth of Australia
• FN 44: check italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Done -- tks as ever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "extended for an additional twelve months beyond its original three years": Hard call for me here because it doesn't sound wrong to my ear, but logically, with three words giving the same sense (extended, additional, original), it ought to be possible to delete something ... how about "an additional"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You're quite right, "additional" is not needed in there.
  • Re. Though fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games", the contrast I was implying with "though" reflected the way it was presented in the source, no doubt because the more raucous mess activities generally involve(d) a lot of drinking and could become quite, well, messy -- so I'd rather keep it there unless you can suggest another way to put it (preferably without using "however", which is a bit common, or "nevertheless", which is in the source)... ;-) Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Review - Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tks for that, Sven. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per my review for A-class. The only thing I would say is that you really should find a better place for File:Hancock1930s.jpg. Granted, I have quite a small screen, but it seems to squeeze the text between the image and the infobox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments after reading through the article a few times. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Language is a bit stilted at times. I know "the award was promulgated" is technically correct, but when you see other instances of formal language, such as "none eventuated" and "His name is borne by", it starts to add up. The writing level could be dropped a few notches to improve readability.
  • I'll have another read through and see about taking the odd thing down a notch or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• This sentence in the lead feels too long and the 'however' feels misplaced: "His administrative training at Duntroon saw him primarily occupy staff posts, however, including Deputy Director of Operations and Intelligence at RAAF Headquarters from 1931 to 1935, and Director of Works and Buildings from 1937 to 1939." - I would just drop 'however'.
  • The "however" was there because although trained as a pilot he occupied mostly desk jobs from an early point in his RAAF career, but I don't mind losing it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It does feel slightly redundant. As you are talking about 'administrative training', you would expect that to lead to desk roles, wouldn't you? Maybe you mean "Due to his administrative training ... he primarily occupied staff posts"? But maybe your sources aren't that explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• When 'Aitape–Wewak campaign' is mentioned in the lead, not many will know where that is, so maybe throw in a "Pacific Theatre" or "New Guinea" in there somewhere?
  • Should be able to do something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• The mention of 'RAF Malaya' in the lead threw me a bit, as it switches from RAAF to RAF with no explanation. I know there is little room in the lead to do this, but it be made clearer why this would happen? Maybe borrow the 'Commonwealth air forces' wording from the main body of the article?
  • Ditto prev. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• In the text of the lead (i.e. not the postnomials bit, but later in the lead) You mention his KBE, but not his CB. Is there a reason one honour is mentioned and not the other?
  • Heh, no reason I guess... ;-) It'll mean spliting the list beginning with DCAS and ending with AOC OPCOM but I can probably get the CB in somehow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• There is nothing about his mother and father in the early life section. Was he an only child? I presume this is covered in his autobiography, which you have in the 'Further Reading' section. It's not essential, but if someone got hold of a copy of that book and added further details, would you object, or do you think this is unnecessary detail?
  • I tend to leave the autobiographies to further reading when a) the seems sufficient info on the subject from other sources and b) the autobiography is cited by those sources, which means we get some benefit from it but it's filtered through the eyes of a professional historian. Both those are true in this case (Alan Stephens employs Challenge a fair bit) so I didn't think it was worth breaking consistency with my usual approach for say the name of his parents -- that said, I'd be more than happy to check on that in his Who's Who entry if you'd like to see that in particular. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Different historians take different approaches. A military historian will naturally focus on the military elements. A personal biographer (or someone writing an autobiography) will include the personal aspects. I've never managed to work out whether Wikipedia is consistent or not with this, whether Wikipedia should try and follow the approach taken by the major and most reliable sources, or pack as much variety in as possible, drawing on a multitude of source types, and try and strike the right balance. A good guiding principle would be whether the family members get mentioned later in other sources. The cousin did. Presumably the other family members didn't get mentioned as much or at all. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1937 he was posted to Britain to attend the RAF Staff College, Andover" - is it possible to briefly mention here what the relationship was at the time between the RAAF and the RAF? And between Australia and the UK? And how this changed over the years? Not everyone reading this article will be aware of these matters. The bit about attending the Imperial Defence College in 1949 and the Australian Joint Services Staff ties into this as well.
  • I generally try to 'contextualise' things anyway so happy to see if I can add something short, sweet and cited along those lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• "surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head" - you pipe the link to Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome behind the words 'military aerodrome', which strikes me as a bit of an easter egg. It would be better to pipe to whatever the name was at the time, and to delink Evans Head (as there is no need to link to that, as people can get to that article from the more specific one on the aerodrome).
  • I get you, what about just piping the whole of "military aerodrome at Evans Head" to Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that would work. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Pedantic point - 'World War II' is only mentioned in the section header, not in the text of the section. Ideally, you would make clear in the text of the section that World War II has broken out, rather than rely on readers deducing it from the section header.
  • Can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Should the OBE and CBE be mentioned in the lead or infobox, or does the KBE supersede them? (Well, I know it supercedes them, but should they be mentioned?)
  • General rule is only the highest award of a particular order is mentioned in the infobox. No rule against mentioning them at the appropriate spot in the lead, just thought it was a bit excessive (though I agree that CB, as a whole 'nother order, should be in the lead)
• "Fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games"." This bit is good, but it comes a bit late in the article. Would be nice to have it earlier. Is there a reason it is where it is?
  • While I don't doubt these were general characteristics, Stephens specifically mentions them when discussing his Malayan service. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Was the KBE due to being appointed CAS? The timing seems to imply this, but is a reason given anywhere for his KBE (the article is silent on this)?
  • The gong pretty well went with the job in those days, but no-one specifically mentions it re. Hancock so I didn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• "The following month he urged pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth in retaliation against incursions into West Malaysia but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." - is a comma needed after 'Malaysia'? Maybe bracket the commas after 'bases' and 'Malaysia'? It is a long sentence and does seem to need a few more commas.
  • Just as a thought, how does this look? "The following month he urged using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth to make pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases, in retaliation for incursions into West Malaysia, but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." I could split into two sentences but probably would need a "however" in the there somewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Eventually worked out what 'north Western Australia' refers to, but it is an awkward construction. Can you not say 'the northern part of Western Australia' to avoid people stumbling and thinking you mean north-western Australia?
  • Heh, I thought what I said was the same as "the northern part of Western Australia" but don't mind changing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than those points, looks to be a well-written article. One question on one of the sources:

• You cite "Dennis et al, Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, p. 254" 15 times. Is this a single-page biography of Hancock in that publication? The way you've cited it doesn't make this clear. I presume that 'Oxford Companion to Australian Military History' does have sub-headers or chapters or alphabetical entries. Could you make clearer what exactly you are referencing here?
  • It's a specific entry titled Hancock, Air Marshal Sir Valston Eldridge -- would you like that mentioned in the reference, treated like a chapter title? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it should be mentioned, yes. Most citation styles and templates accommodate that sort of thing, or they should. And it is the title of the work you are citing, just as you would cite a paper title when published within a journal. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Looked over the other sources as well, and couldn't see any problems with the citation styles or layout. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review, Carcharoth! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've only responded to the points above I thought needed responses. I certainly don't see anything to oppose over. I'll check back (hopefully before the end of the weekend) and see if anything comes up in a second read-through, but it all looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'm a bit pressed for time for a few more days so I may not get to altering much till mid-next week -- we'll see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, having started on 2 weeks' leave and finally taught our new modem who's boss, I'm now back on the air and can start looking at these over the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

At this stage I believe I've addressed in one form or another all but points 1 and 7, which will take some more time, so the article should remain stable for a bit if you want to check the updates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All looks good. Am happy to support, and will indicate that above at the start of my comments. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many tks, actually I ended up having a go at 1 and 7 as well but must've forgotten to hit the save button when mentioning it here -- you gathered they were addressed anyway so no harm done... ;-) Cheers, Ian

• Suppport Great work as normal Ian. I do have two minor comments though:
  • "Hancock was responsible for surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head, near the Queensland and New South Wales border" - was this while he was the head of the Directorate of Works and Buildings (during which time I imagine that he oversaw the development of many new airfields by the men under this command) or a separate post?
    • Reworded a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "In March 1957, Hancock was one of three candidates, along with Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters, touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. " - there's a bit too much going on in this sentence, and it might be best to split it (eg, to something like "In March 1957, Hancock was one of the candidates touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. The other two officers considered for this post were Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters." Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Tks mate, will try to get to those over the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Spot checked a few online sources. The article accurately reflects the sources and I didn't find copying or close paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to do that, much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Joppenbergh Mountain

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

After several months of locating sources, I feel this article is now comprehensive enough to be a FA. This often-misspelled mountain was blasted apart in the 19th century, skied on in the 20th, and could very well become public property in the 21st. Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 16: is this a typo?
• Are page numbers or weblinks available for print newspaper articles?
• Ref 6: retrieval date?
• I seem to recall discussing this with you before, but remind me: why do some newspaper refs include publishers and others not?
• Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Genero title should use endash, not hyphen
• Don't use UCH as both author and publisher
• Genero appears to be self-published - could you provide a brief description of his background and qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 16 was a typo, fixed.
• There were some page numbers listed for the NYT refs, but half of them appeared to be server errors so I thought it best not to include them.
• I was actually working from a hard copy, the online version is behind a paywall.
• There were two New Paltz newspapers with the same name, so I started adding publishers where I could find them. Most of the print articles I read were clippings in the Rosendale Library's archive, and did not include page numbers.
• The Genero ref was being given a double period due to the citation template, fixed.
• I changed to an en dash in the Genero and Ulster County Historians refs.
• The UCH book and all references to it say the UCH were both the author and publisher.
• The Genero book is featured in this 2005 newsletter from the Century House Historical Society in Rosendale, and it's also on the New Paltz-based Huguenot Historical Society site. I can't find much on Genero himself, but if the local historical societies find no faults with the book (and since it doesn't make any controversial claims), I feel it's reliable here. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, it is uncontroversial, so I guess that's fine. Sourcing looks better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments RedWolf (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• No reference is given for the coordinates in the infobox (there is a coordinates_ref parameter for this).
• No prominence is given. This might help to sway the argument for/against it being called a mountain. Given it's meager elevation, I might be inclined to call it a hill.
• A USGS GNIS search does not find anything for either "Joppenbergh Mountain" or "Joppenbergh". Perhaps USGS does not consider it a topographical feature deserving of mountain status? Or is there any other known official name?

• I have a waymarking source with coordinates, but those are really for the sign at the base of the mountain. I could probably reference the topo map, but it doesn't explicitly identify Joppenbergh.
• I haven't been able to find a ref for Joppenbergh's prominence, just that it's 495 feet (151 m) tall.
• All the sources I've found refer to it as a mountain. If there was a USGS, or any other geologic source that said something along the lines of Joppenbergh being technically a hill, I'd definitely include the misnomer in the Name section. I was hoping that with the whole OSI purchase going on, there would be more information available on Joppenbergh's geology and topography.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not having this feature named on a topo map definitely makes it more of a challenge. The coordinates are usually given for the summit and not for the base. I guess one could take a GPS reading themselves although this is not something that is normally done. As for the name, how does one go from Jacob Rutsen to Joppenbergh? I don't quite follow the transformation. RedWolf (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it's a Dutch transliteration, and I'm going to try and get to the Rosendale Library today to review one of the references that may say exactly that. It's been a few months since I've been there, so maybe the librarians have turned up something new (or rather, very old). --Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the ref on microfiche at the New Paltz Library, and while it contained a great deal of information on Jacob Rutsen, it didn't mention Joppenbergh beyond the fact that it was named after him. However, I found this stereoscope on Commons that may be of Joppenbergh, because it's grouped with several Rosendale-area photos. The name probably started with "Job" as a shorthand of Jacob (hence the old reference to a Jobsenbright) and the Dutch word for mountain, "berg". --Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – From the Name section: "Joppenburgh is named after Colonel Jacob Rutsen. Rutsen...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to another. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed, I tweaked the wording slightly. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Came back to check this and saw "Rutsen" and "Rusten" here. One of them obviously needs fixing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - Found this article while working on my own nomination and saw that it needed comments, so here's my review.
• There was a large cave-in on December 19, 1899, that destroyed mining equipment and collapsed shafts within Joppenbergh. - This sentence kind of just appears out of the blue, and it makes for an abrupt change of gears. Also, what caused the cave-in?

• Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• outside, eating. - Does that comma need to be there? It seems a little heavy, but then it doesn't sound right without it either.

• Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Linking is good in the lead, but I don't think you need to link parking lot.

• Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think you need to go through the whole article and look for excess usage of commas. Here, for example: and the son of a Dutch immigrant, from Albany

• I believe the commas that exist in the article are needed to prevent confusion. In this instance, "the son of a Dutch immigrant from Albany" might make people think that his father was a Dutch immigrant who also lived in Albany. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• When did mining stop? What happened between 1899 and 1930?

• None of the sources I could find said exactly when mining stopped on the mountain, however, during my research for Rosendale Village, New York, I found that only one cement plant operated in the town between 1920 and 1971, when it closed. The problem is that there isn't a very good record from this period. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• between the spring and autumn - why "the spring" but just "autumn"?

• Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Rosendale Township Association, founded in 1934 to encourage tourism in the town,[22] "decided to fill the remaining months by promoting winter sports". - I don't think the quote adds anything... I would suggest just paraphrasing into something less forced.

• Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• wore a helmet and performed in the summer tournament. - is there anything special about his wearing of a helmet?

• Removed, I thought it was important because they mentioned it explicitly, but now that I think about it, everyone who skies probably uses a helmet. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I love the detailed narration of the skiing events, but Parking was provided for 500 cars. seems a little trivial to me...

• Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• "wooden tower slide" - I don't really know what this is, and again, the quote seems a little out of place.

• I used a direct quote because it also didn't really mean anything to me, but it's probably a ramp. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• "many jumpers [to enter] military service" - again; very little paraphrasing would eliminate the need for quotation marks.

• Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Periodic rockfalls continue to happen on the mountain. - This is kind of basic wording; something a little more engaging would be good.

• Embellished. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Any reason why Cellular One didn't build the tower?

• Added. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I like the article, but I do think it needs a little work. I think the use of quotes is a little excessive for only a few-words-long phrases in the middle of sentences. It makes for choppy reading IMO. Also, I would avoid footnotes in the middle of sentences, since they make me feel like I need to mentally pause when I'm reading just the same as a period. Content-wise, I think you might go into a little too much detail on certain things, but I wouldn't worry about it since overall the detail provides a very in-depth and interesting narration. I'm wondering why there isn't more info on the geography of the mountain, like what range it's part of, what formed it, some more dimensions, and a brief description of its layout (maybe flora/fauna would be a little silly for such a localized mountain, but I would still ask if there is any info on animals or plants that especially like this hill. Nice work! Juliancolton (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some places where the refs break up the sentences slightly, but many of the references are used multiple times, making it pretty hard to group them. And if I put them all at the end of sentences, it wouldn't be clear which parts of the sentence were sourced to which ref. The main problem with describing Joppenbergh's ecology and geology is that it simply hasn't been studied. My refs for the age of its rock are talking about the rock of the town, not Joppenbergh specifically, and the only reason its height is known is because Gilchrist read a USGS map of the town and identified the mountain in her work. The USGS itself doesn't seem to have any info on it. The only sourced info I have on fauna are the JMC's lawyer saying something about rattlesnakes, but it's not clear from that if the snakes live on the mountain or just next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - alright, I think you've addressed all of my concerns at this point. Happy to support a very nice article on a local landmark(?). Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Comments. The article looks in good shape to me; I've made a couple of minor copyedits -- please revert if I messed up anything. I have some minor points below:

• I see above that you have no sources to explain how Jacob's name became "Joppenbergh". Since the difference is surprising to the reader (it took me aback) how about adding a parenthetical "(despite the apparent difference in the form of the name)" or something along those lines?
  • I'm not sure how to add something like that without it being original research. None of the sources explained the etymological evolution of "Joppenbergh"; it's mainly been just a retelling of this blurb, which is CC-licensed and can be added to the article if need be. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    If you want to leave it as is, that's OK, but I don't think you would need additional sources -- you would just be confirming to the reader that this is the case. It would function like a "[sic]" in a quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, and also caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle. The costly cave-in destroyed mining shafts and caused between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Starting the second sentence with "costly cave-in" doesn't really add anything since you give the exact damage figure. How about combining both sentences and shortening as follows: "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle, and destroyed mining shafts, causing between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Though in fact you might not even need "destroyed mining shafts" since that's already been mentioned.
  • Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Much improved. I agree with Ceranthor below that it would be helpful to say if this in 1899 or 2011 dollars: presumably the former, in which case a conversion to present day value would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Warren Sammons is first mentioned as owner in the 1930s; prior to that time is it known who owned it?
  • The cement companies that operated on the mountain are mentioned, but I haven't seen any records of private ownership. A lot of the old village records were lost during some pretty severe floods in the 1950s. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Regardless of whether or not the town decides to accept the deal, the OSI will purchase Joppenbergh": perhaps better as "the OSI intends to purchase" since we are talking about intentions rather than predictions.
  • Done, I thought it looked off. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Why is the Shawangunk Ridge linked in the see also section? It doesn't seem like something a reader would particularly want to follow up on after reading about Joppenbergh, unless Joppenbergh is part of that ridge in which case the link should be in the article.
  • I have no data to indicate that Joppenbergh is part of the Shawangunk Ridge, but I included it because it passes through Rosendale and I figured that someone reading about a mountain in Rosendale might want to read about another mountain in Rosendale. I have no opinion on the removal of this item. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    OK -- I won't strike it in case another reviewer has an opinion, but that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• How about giving the date (1704) of the deed referring to the mountain as "Jobsenbright"?
  • I think giving "early 18th century" is better here, because the Name section should have a sense of approximation, in contrast to the History section, where I tried to be as specific as possible in terms of dates and details. If there were multiple deeds from this time period, it would warrant a subsection in History, but as it stands, the fact that the deed was created in 1704 doesn't seem to be as relevant as the general time period. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Maybe it's my OCD but I hate to have data that I don't put in the article. I see your point though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I spotchecked a few sources, and have a couple of concerns:
  • The 7 March 1938 tournament was still in the future at the time the source was published; it does give that date but given that at least one tournament was cancelled I don't think you can assume that this occurred.
    • Fixed, Good catch, I believe one of the other sources said that a March tournament occurred, but the wording is much more accurate now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

      If you find that other source, it would be better to be definite, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • This source does not appear to support the statement it is cited for, and in any case just appears to be a letter in the paper -- it could be used to cite that certain opinions were expressed, but not much more than that.
    • The source does say that "...the municipal parking and Willow Kiln Park... is a lease", so I don't believe I've misrepresented it. The point about it being a personal letter is valid, though, so I'm going to replace it with this, which mentions "the parking lot and the pocket lot of the park". This ref also mentions the defunct cement kilns of the park, would that all be acceptable, given that there are photos of this area? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

      Yes, it does say that; sorry, didn't mean to imply you were mis-using the source deliberately. Yes, the proposed replacement seems fine. As for the cement kilns, I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you planning to add the Shawangunk Journal cite as another reference, for a different sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've switched to support above; the remaining points are minor, except the pending removal of the letter used as a source. An interesting and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck as the source is now removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - Ultimately a well-written article that seems plenty comprehensive. My only niggles are the usage of dolostone -- not sure if you are aware, but the term itself is sort of iffy -- and this bit from the mining section: "The total cost of the damage was estimated to be between $20,000 and $25,000.[16]". Is that current value, or historical value? If it's the former, an estimate of current amounts could be useful for comprehension. ceranthor 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I will address these issues tonight; at the moment, I'm in Rosendale, taking some photos and looking through old newspaper articles at the Rosendale Library to make sure I haven't missed anything. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've now addressed the remaining points you and Mike Christie raised. I didn't add a conversion to modern currency because there have been past discussions at FAC about the validity of the inflationary value of capital goods. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that's totally understandable, as it was just a suggestion after all. ceranthor 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Everything checks out. I would like to mention that the picture of the parking lot really dosen't do anything for me, though. It's just a parking lot. I'd personally drop it, but it's your choice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)

Nominator(s): ★ Auree _talk 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nicole was a short-lived and asymmetric, yet devastating storm that killed thirteen and caused extensive damage in Jamaica. I've been working on the article for a while now, and I believe it has greatly improved since its creation, both qua structure/prose and information. It has also received a peer review prior to this nomination, and any additional comments are greatly appreciated. ★ Auree _talk 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Newspapers should be italicized
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
• Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
• FN 22: Chipley Paper is work, not author
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers, and if you do how this is notated
• Be consistent in whether newswire services like Reuters or Associated Press are listed as authors or publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all these issues. Not entirely sure about the fifth point, but I think it's alright like this. Thanks for the source review! ★ Auree _talk 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Review - Yeah, it all checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ★ Auree _talk 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - a few cosmetic things I noticed right off the bat.
• The first ref should have first names in the author info, since the rest seem to have them.

Good point. Added first names. ★ Auree _talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:TS Nicole over Cuba - water vapor 2010-09-29 1415z.png – I'd like a source in the file description for the coords of the COC.

I'll add a source to this soon. ★ Auree _talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Visually, I think you should try to stagger the position of the images... currently, there's a wall of graphics adjoining a wall of text.

All right, though I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be. How does it look now? ★ Auree _talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through the article soon and review it from a more in-depth point of view. Juliancolton (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overall a well-written article but it would be best if you checked around for some more recent info. There is information that was added into the TCR not mentioned in the article, namely the 37.42 inches of rain recorded in Belleisle, Jamaica. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the rainfall total. I'll check around for more recent info as well. ★ Auree _talk 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Seems to present the subject matter as well as can be expected. A few quibbles:

Lede

• "the final of a record" I would say "the last".

Fixed.

Met. history

• "focus for scattered thunderstorm activity—or convection". If you are saying that convection is an alternative term for what is before the dash, then I would suggest using parentheses instead.

Tried something a bit different. This looks better as well

• "amidst" Given that this is US speech patterns, I guess, judging by the dates being month first, wouldn't "amid" be better? I'm not certain on this one.

Good point.

• "Over the subsequent day" I'm unsure if you are referring to the 27th or 28th. It isn't helped that not much further down you say "the same day". Make the timeline clearer, please.

I added a date with its formation.

• "Despite the asymmetry," I'm not sure about your use of the word "despite"; after all, symmetry mediates neither for or against the attainment of tropical storm status, this one is simply atypical.

The asymmetry is explained in the preceding sentence, namely the disassociation of the convection and the storm center. This could often inhibit tropical development, that's why I mentioned it.

Preparations

• " to remain closed the next morning" I would say "the next day" to eliminate questions about whether they reopened later in the day.

Done.

Impact

• "Widespread flooding" I would strike the word widespread. The previous sentence establishes that fact adequately.

Alright.

• " from seven different parishes." I would say in, not from.

Yeah, I agree.

• "were performed ". Suggest "had been performed".

Fixed.

• "rendered beyond repair" Strike "rendered".

Fixed.

• "Associated monetary losses" Strike "Associated"

Fixed.

• "hospitalizing four locals in the process" Strike "in the process" and I would call them residents. Can't we just say they were injured? "Hospitalized", I wonder about that term.

Hospitalized is a legit term (the source also states it explicitly). Besides, just saying they were injured could also mean they sustained minor bruises and cuts, which is not something you get hospitalized for. I tweaked the rest, though.

• "extensive damage to several roads, making them impassable to traffic" Aren't you saying virtually the same thing twice?

Yeah, in a sense. Fixed.

• "Despite initial threats " You are stuffing too much into this sentence; please split it.

Bah, bloated sentence. Split.

• " flood waters reached about 1 ft (0.3 m) in one local residence." Is what happened to one house really significant or representative?

Changed it to "significant flooding was only reported to one local residence" to indicate there was limited damage.

• " carried forth " Unless this is a customary term in storm talk, I'd strike the word "forth". Forgive me if it is my ignorance.

No, you're right; that wording was awkward overall.

• " heavy rainfall of locally up to 8 inches " Surely there is a more pleasing way to phrase this?

Is this better?

• "due to the effects of severe flooding." Shorten to "due to flooding' as no one dies from mild flooding.

Haha, very true.

• " these areas." What areas? I hope it is not southern New England, because I am having difficulty squaring "devastation" and $10,000.

Added the area mentioned in the source.

• "as well as fuel". Does the $50K pay for the fuel, or is that extra? The article is not clear.

Is this any better?

Aftermath

• " in order to engage in the planting operation" Shorten considerably. And what kind of plants were they planting? As this is Jamaica, I'm not sure if I ought to ask.

Shortened and clarified.

• "life supplies" It's not clear what these are.

The source doesn't clarify, though I think it's fairly clear nonetheless.

• "voluntarily raised" strike voluntarily.

Done.

• "local farm chickens" It strikes me that "local" and "farm" are unneeded here.

Struck local, kept farm as just chickens is a bit vague. ★ Auree _talk 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's about it. The prose seems a bit heavy, but it could be a relatively dull subject matter. I'll give it another read when these are done, please drop me a line on my talk page. Look for unnecessarily wordy constructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comments. Hopefully the issues have been addressed satisfactorily. ★ Auree _talk 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All that looks good. The prose seems stiff to me but that could be the subject matter. Allow me a bit of time to compare with FA weather articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support the prose seems stiff but it is not dissimilar from that in other weather articles and I'm impressed by something Ling Nut said at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review and the support ★ Auree _talk 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, a full article review...

• its remnants contributed to a large coastal storm for the East Coast of the United States. - "for" seems like an odd connecting word.
  • I agree. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• remnant monsoonal moisture from Tropical Storm Matthew - I don't think "monsoonal" is accurate here if the moisture was really derived from post-TS Matthew.
  • Fixed. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• thunderstorm activity, otherwise known as convection. - "convection" and "thunderstorms" aren't really interchangeable, even though we usually present them as such. I would change "otherwise known as" to "a product of". I'm also not sure if you have to link thunderstorm, but that's your decision.
  • I just changed it to convection to avoid further confusion.★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Over the subsequent day - I'm the first one to make use of big words, but I think "next" would suffice.
  • I think that's up to personal preference, and I prefer subsequent in this context. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• regional surface pressures began to drop as sustained winds increased to near tropical storm-force. - TS force winds developed along the trough? Or had a closed low formed by this point? This sentence seems to be a bit out of context.
  • The source does mention a low, so I changed that. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• You link Atmospheric circulation, which covers large-scale (global) circulation features, to refer to a low-level LP center. Is there a more applicable link to use?
  • Removed link. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• officials braced for more rain. - Was there previous rain?
  • Fixed. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• As Nicole unexpectedly diverged from its projected path, the warnings and watch were discontinued the next day - two things. First, I don't remember seeing anything like that in the MH, so I'm left confused as to when/where the storm diverged from its forecast track. Also, "as" at the beginning of the sentence could have two meanings ("because", "or "while"), and I'd like to see that clarified.
  • Thanks for noticing this, because it did not make any sense. Nowhere does it mentioned an unexpected diversion, so I changed this ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• another inhabitant was caught in flood waters - did he/she die?
  • Unspecified in recent sources. Latest sources mention them as missing. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• 'J$20 billion (US$235.4 million) worth of damage - this seems like really forced wording). Why not just "J$20 billion in damage"?
  • Righto. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• with moderate showers,[43] with localized maximum
  • Tweaked. ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth review! ★ Auree _talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice, everything looks good with those points. I do, however, have a few more concerns that I had overlooked before. In this paragraph:

Multiple schools in New Hanover and Pender County opted to remain closed the next day due to heightened storm conditions associated with the successive weather system.[25] At the threat of prolonged rainfall, authorities in Kent County, Maryland, issued a flood watch from September 30 to October 1. Also in the area, both a temporary coastal flood advisory and wind advisory were declared on September 30, according to the National Weather Service.

–there are several things I find a bit weird. First, "heightened storm conditions" seems like unusual wording, unless the city perpetually experiences storm conditions and Nicole enhanced them. Also, I'm not sure what "successive weather system" means. That said, authorities don't issue flood watches (well, maybe they do, but then they wouldn't be notable enough to document in the article); instead, the local NWS office does. "Temporary" is weird in the next sentence, since I don't know of any severe weather alert that's permanent. Juliancolton (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked all of it a bit. Hopefully it looks better now ★ Auree _talk 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have one main comment. How come the storm's structure was so asymmetric? You say how diffluence provided focus for the convection, but that's it on the why. Could you elaborate on that in the article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Elaborated. ★ Auree _talk 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks for addressing that. Here are some more comments before I support (which I am close to doing).
  • In the lede, you say how the rain fell over the western Caribbean, and then you say that epic damage happened on Jamaica. I think it wouldn't hurt to say that the 28ish inches of rainfall occurred in Jamaica in the lede, since that's an impressive total.
  • "with another 54 reported to be destroyed" - the "reported to be" is unnecessary. Watch out for redundancies in your writing.
  • "Albeit upgraded to tropical storm status, the broad system retained an area of relatively weak winds around its core" - you've said that a few times. Try finding a better lead off for the 3rd paragraph.
  • "At the threat of thundershowers" - weird wording
  • Could you give an example of a "shattered" rainfall record?
  • I like the vivid descriptions of the deaths. Nice!

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressed all of those, except for the "Albeit upgraded [...]" one. There just isn't much else to say about Nicole, so I don't know what to do about it. Plus, I mentioned it to indicate that it was still an ambiguous system, even after being upgraded. ★ Auree _talk 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment, mostly points about the lede and meteorological history section being too technical:

  • Tropical Storm Nicole was a short-lived and asymmetric tropical cyclone that caused copious damage in Jamaica during the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season — "copious" sounds rather weird here. I suggest "extensive" or another synonym.
    • Tweaked, even though since it's just a synonym it wasn't really necessary. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • as well as the last of a record eight tropical storms in September 2010.[1] — this makes it sound like all the storms in September were tropical storms, which is not correct.
    • How about "a record eight storms to attain tropical storm status"? ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It maintained an unusual structure as it tracked northeastward, with a poorly defined circulation and little convection near the center. — too technical; see WP:WPTC/J for some auxiliary links that might be useful.
    • Tweaked a bit for less technicalities in the lede.
  • Due to the asymmetric structure of Nicole, the strongest thundershowers were well-removed from its center, — should well-removed be hyphenated?
    • I believe so. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Heavy precipitation of up to 37.42 inches (940 mm) and consequent floodwaters affected a total of 474 houses and destroyed 54 others. — by having "a total", you indicate that all the houses that were completely destroyed are included in that total, but then when you add "54 others" it seems that this is not the case. Please reword this so it's not so contradictory.
    • Fixed. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere, the storm produced minor flooding in Havana, Cuba, — is "Cuba" necessary? Havana is a rather large and well-known city, and this is like saying that Moscow is in Russia.
    • Good point. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Over the subsequent day, regional surface pressures began to drop as sustained winds increased to near tropical storm-force.[5] — hyphenation again, but more importantly, you probably want to indicate that the sustained winds around the low pressure area began to increase, as non-expert readers could be confused by being introduced to TS winds all of a sudden.
    • Clarified. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • However, post-analytic estimates indicate the system had reached tropical storm status three hours earlier. — post-analytic? Why can't you say "estimates made after the hurricane season"? And this sentence also doesn't indicate why this is important: Nicole was a tropical storm 27 hours before it was originally thought to have reached that intensity.
    • It's essential data, albeit an addition. I tweaked it a bit though. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In Saint Andrew Parish, a house succumbed to the effects of the storm next to a street gutter; — what is this even trying to say?
    • That a house succumbed to the effects of the storm next to a street gutter? ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Was the storm located right next to the street gutter? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Monetary losses totaled J$274.3 million (US$3.2 million), of which an estimated J$75.6 million (US$890,000) was required to replace destroyed units.[29] — units = housing units?
    • Yeah, clarified. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Some buildings lost their roofs when a waterspout hit Westmoreland Parish's capital of Savanna-la-Mar during the passage of the storm, — link waterspout
    • Done. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The extratropical remnants of Nicole retained extreme precipitation volumes, — extremely technical; what's wrong with saying that they retained plenty of moisture?
    • Alright, tweaked. ★ Auree _talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've addressed all these issues now. Thanks for the review, Tito! ★ Auree _talk 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. Switched to support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support in light of my issues being satisfactorily addressed; nice work! Juliancolton (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Canoe River train crash

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. For some reason, even though there were articles about lesser Canadian rail disasters, there was none on this one, which not only gained intense publicity at the time, but six and a half years later, helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada. It's been through a GA and a very detailed PR. The fourth in my series on postwar Canadian politics.Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Oh...Wehwalt!" Just kidding. I went over it pretty hard at Peer Review and copyediting, so know it well. I am positive on the article. Interesting incident that will play well for the Wikians and general public that likes reading about train wrecks and also has a good higher level political tie-in Major outstanding concern I have is the Rescue section still needs better logical organization. (Chronology of events is not clear, we discuss weather in two separate paras, lack of supplies mentioned at beginning makes less sense than down where we talk about the doctor's work, etc.) There were a few other changes I recced that you did not agree with, which is fine. Article needs a decisive captain. You've won me over on the politician prominence at the end. At least the troops get a nice final touch in the lead, and then in aftermath we've got them at first para prominence instead of second (and I guess the chronologicy sort of works if we think of the Korean War deaths as the start of that para). TCO (reviews needed) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How does it look now to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. TCO (reviews needed) 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that answer! Thank you for the most thorough peer review and copyedit, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure. You contribute a huge amount to Wiki.TCO (reviews needed) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how locations are notated for newspapers that don't include them in the title, and what information is included (for example, Windsor vs Windson (Ont.))
• 2nd Regiment or Second Regiment?
• Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done. I tried to make a judgment about which cities are big enough that people will have heard of them, but obviously was inconsistent in one case!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Media: I'm having a tough time with File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg. Could this please be explained? If it's not suitable for Commons... Was File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg under Crown Copyright? Is it definitely PD in the US? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know on the .svg. I will ask. I've swapped the other image for one of Dief in 1940 that is unquestionably PD. Since Dief was in opposition, pre-1957 shots of him that are Crown copyright are unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(discussion re: File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg has moved to the talk page)

I gather the discussion re the .svg has concluded satisfactorily. J Milburn, can you give images your blessing, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Images check out, as per discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to every one for taking the time to get it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Straightforward account, tightly written, with just a handful of issues:

• You say in the nom statement that the disaster "helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada", but this line isn't really illustrated in the article. I would expect to see a sentence or two in the Aftermath section, emphasising the publicity surrounding the case and the boost to Dief's career resulting from his victory.
• The map: the railway lines as depicted don't suggest a direct east-west configuration, and I'm a bit uncertain about the directions the two trains were travelling in. Is it possible to add information to the map - some arrows would be helpful? I'm also a bit concerned that the source information in the file description begins: "Based on description in Canoe River train crash and..."

She is probably referring to [File:Canoe River railway map.png this image], which TCO took out, but which shows the various sidings and stations pretty clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Based on description in Canoe River train crash..." refers to how I placed the location of the crash itself, which is described in the article. File:Canoe River railway map.png and maps made available by the Canadian government were used to locate political borders, railroads, cities, etc. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rescue section: prose in the first paragraph is somewhat repetitive, with "troop cars ... troop cars" in close proximity, then "troop train ... troop train". Some rephrasing advised.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, they were going more or less north and south, the tracks in this region follow the rivers except where they blast through the mountains. I will ask MissMJ and see if she can add one of those little compass indicators.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

done Added an arrow per map conventions to show that up is, indeed, North. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left my image query unstruck, awaiting the outcome of the greater debate, above. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support from Dana Boomer - Just a few minor comments, which don't change my support:

• In the lead you say the trains were westbound and eastbound, but from the lead map it looks like they were travelling north and south. I see you've discussed this a bit above, but I'm still not clear. Could you explain further?
• Prosecution, the story about Diefenbaker's bar exam is quite interesting. Do we know the reason behind this obvious reduction in testing? Was it even legal?

Otherwise, looks good! Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - Checked several of the references and found no indication of close paraphrasing or copyvios; all references backed up what they were supposed to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I say "westbound" and "eastbound" so I don't have to confuse the issue by noting that at that particular point, it was actually north and south. Train tracks in the Rockies follow river valleys, and at this point, they run north south quite a bit. That is why I use the terms "eastbound" and "westbound". The interested reader can see that from the maps in the infobox. Regarding the bar exam, again it is speculation on my part, but I did find an article reaming the bar association for charging Dief so much money so he could take a case in which he was known not to be charging a fee. I think they were giving in with good grace. That way they got Dief's money, had little risk of embarrassment (Dief was a very competent lawyer and KC), and did not start a precedent of letting people in the bar for free if they had a good enough reason. Win-win. If it wasn't legal, it was never challenged, as Dief took another BC case just before he became Opposition Leader, which did not go as well for him and which he did not write about in his memoirs (basically, in this murder case, which he lost, he demonstrated his theory of how the murder took place and wound up addressing the court from under the defence table. The judge, who wrote about it in his memoirs, stated, "Mr. Diefenbaker, if you come out from under there, I shall be able to hear you much better.") Thanks for the support and the checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome story! On the westbound/eastbound - I guess my confusion is that it looks like the entire route (between Valemount and Blue River) runs approximately north/south. So that makes me wonder why east/westbound even enters the picture. If the train was headed from Jasper to Red Pass, I could see using these directions, even if the trains were temporarily facing north/south, but when the primary route runs north/south... It's also quite possible that I'm just missing something completely obvious... :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the trains weren't stopping in the mountains, they were following the transcontinental routing, From their point of origin (Shilo, Manitoba for the troop train, Vancouver for the passenger train) to their intended destinations (Fort Lewis, on Puget Sound for the trooper, Montreal for the passenger train), they were, for the most part, traveling east-west, so it makes more sense to say "eastbound" and "westbound" even though for that forty miles or so, it was mostly north-south. I am open to other ways of doing things.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! I was thinking of it only in terms of that section (I think because that's what's shown on the map), instead of the entire route. Makes more sense now. Dana boomer (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - I noticed this while working on my own FAC. Personally, I think it's a very engaging article, though I have a few minor remarks:

• "Twenty-one people were killed: 17 Canadian soldiers being deployed in the Korean War and the two-man locomotive crew of each train." – In my opinion, "being" is redundant in this sentence, as deployed on its own conveys the same meaning just as well. Overall, I think the prose in this sentence is a bit odd and terse.
• "(Cedarside and Gosnell were sidings where trains could wait to allow opposing traffic to clear)." – The period needs to be added into the parenthesis as they contain a complete sentence, rather than a mere fragment.
• "The leading cars of each train were derailed. Those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash." – Nothing wrong here, though "The leading cars of each train were derailed, while those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash" might be preferable qua flow.
• "A 17th soldier died on December 9, bringing the death toll to 21." – How did he pass away all of a sudden? Is there any information on the extent of the injuries he suffered or the cause of death? Maybe you can find out if he was hospitalized prior to his death. Any elaboration would help clarify, really.
• "He also testified to a brief gap in communications several days previously," – Previously? As in, prior to the accident or...?
• "$127,000,000" → $127 million reads better. And I assume this is in 1950 USD; this inclusion would be nice.

As no special discussion of the figure occurs in the source, I took it to read Canadian dollars. As this is an article about an event in Canada, the use of Canadian dollars requires no special notation, surely?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most people just assume currency depending on where they are. A Canadian reader will most surely see it as Canadian dollars, but as a reader on the U.S., when I see $, I just assume USD, even though I know the article is about Canada. Someone from Australia would probably see it as Australian dollars. It'd just be a small clarification to add which currency it is. -MissMJ (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the Inquiry section, there are three consecutive sentences starting with "It". I think this could be switched up a bit.
• "Instead she wired him asking him to meet her in Vancouver." → "Instead she wired him, requesting that he meet her in Vancouver" for less repetitiveness.
• I'm unfamiliar with the expression "pass the hat". Could it be reworded to exclude possible confusion? ★ Auree _talk 22:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the comments. Those issues have been addressed, except for the one commented just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. An interesting article, and it looks like it's just waiting for its star, but I do have a few small suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• You might consider re-wording Twenty-one people were killed to "The collision killed 21 people" or similar to avoid starting a sentence with a number and to avoid having "Twenty-one" and "17" in close succession.
• Edmonton is mentioned several times but not linked in the body
• The Crown might be worth a link for those unfamiliar with the Commonwealth legal system

Those things are done. Thanks for coming aboard!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. There was very little to criticise, but I'm glad my suggestions were useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose based on the comments below. While doing this review, I read the article several times and some of its sources, plus the Good Article (GA) review and the peer review (PR). Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Striking oppose, as concerns addressed, will need to read through entire article again later today before deciding whether to support or not, but that shouldn't hold up this nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page history. Technical point first: the page history is borked. The earliest version of this page appears to be a draft for a different article. Presumably something went wrong when transferring from a userspace sandbox? The revisions that relate to other content appear to be from the first version on 1 December 2010 to the version on 6 June 2011. The article started to be written on 10 June 2011, as can be seen from this diff and was moved later the same day. While only a technicality, the article history really needs to be cleaner than this for featured articles, for a variety of reasons, one being that the page history is currently misleading as to when the article was started. One of the reasons problems haven't been ironed out is because it has only been around for just over a month and not enough people outside of the review process have seen it.

  Can I use devrel to hide the things or is there some other process you would recommend?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  I would ask at WP:HISTMERGE, as those that hang out there will know how to do demerging or history splitting. If those old revisions are just notes you don't mind losing, revdel might be OK. If you want that history back in your userspace, it can probably be moved there. Somehow. I think. Actually, the process outlined at WP:HISTMERGE#History splitting sounds ideal. But I've never done that myself. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I've sorted this (it's fairly simple: delete, partial undelete, move, undelete the rest) and moved the old revisions elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Undue weight. The major concern I have with the article is what I see as undue weight on the Diefenbaker part of the story (mentioned 3 times in the lead and around 30 times in the article). This appears to be because the article was started as "series on postwar Canadian politics" to quote the nominator at the start of this FAC review, rather than started as an article on a train crash, or an article on Canadian military history. The parts of the article on Diefenbaker are (unsurprisingly) excellent, but what was really needed here was reviews from those more attuned to other aspects, to help get the balance right.

The subsequent editing has subtly shifted the balance and addressed most of my concern here, so striking this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing information. Outside of the Diefenbaker aspects of the article, there are several key points missing, which reinforces my impression that this article has been written as an offshoot of the main Diefenbaker article (presumably to include material for which there wasn't room in the main article), and currently lacks the research that should have been done to ensure the non-Diefenbaker parts of the article were comprehensive. Examples of missing information are below.

  Well, actually, you are mistaken. I wrote this out of annoyance that there was no article on this. My work on the main Diefenbaker article concluded I think in March 2010, though I did some work on it in September.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Please do not take what I say in a nom statement too seriously. It's designed to attract clicks and reviewers, and to give the signpost something to write about if it is promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll try and remember that in future. I've now struck what I said above, as the missing information was added or addressed, and I think the article has refocused somewhat. I accept that you didn't write it as an offshoot of the Diefenbaker article, but I do think that the differences in the sources used (newspaper reports versus book sources) may have contributed to you writing more on the trial section that might have been the case if it had been written as a crash/military article first and then had the trial bit added later. Sometimes the starting point can influence the endpoint, if that makes sense. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a third memorial that is not mentioned, in Brookside Cemetery in Winnipeg. See here. This is different from the memorial cenotaph at CFB Shilo and the one near the accident site, both of which are pictured here. You also fail to mention when the Camp Shilo monument was erected. The whole memorial business seems rather confused. I would be wary of saying that there is a definitive number, but it would be good to know which memorials these 17 are named on and which they are not named on. Are they on the Korean War Memorial Wall (Canada), for example (it would be worth mentioning if they are not)? Are they on the online Virtual Memorial site that Canadian authorities maintain? This article could be as much about the memorial aspect as about the trial and political aspects, but currently the article lacks the material on the memorials, even though the sources are out there.
  • Deadlock in Korea: Canadians at war, 1950-1953 - this source is in the article, but you fail to use the other mentions from that source, such as the mention on page 302 about the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal (that it was not issued to the 17 that died in the train crash).
  • Korea volunteer: an oral history from those who were there also has extra material. In particular, it quotes from the book RCHA - Right of the Line (the regimental history, by a Major G. D. Mitchell), and appears to give a different perspective to the one currently in the article (which is based mainly on contemporary news reports). It is easy to find online excerpts, such as here, that give the dedication and unveiling date of the Camp Shilo memorial as 21 November 1952. It is stuff like this that is missing from the article. There are also hints of confusion over memorials and dates, with 1987 mentioned in some places, and 1998 in other places. It all needs sorting out and more careful examination.

    That sounds interesting. I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    I think the 1998 roadside marker is something else, it is not the same as the 1987 cairn. I've given up on numbering the memorials, but will add what I can from them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The Canadian nurse, Volume 48 (1952) - an interesting fragment here, though unfortunately all that can be seen from the Google search page is "The behavior of the Jasper nurses at the Canoe River train wreck..." Might not be that relevant, but could be. There are other scattered fragments, and official government debates and accident commission reports coming up as well.

    You surprise me. I did look on google books fairly thoroughly looking for accident commission reports. Can you supply a link? I also checked the Vancouver Bar Association website for their law library.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is a mention in Canadian railway and transport cases, Volume 67, but whether that is a preliminary note or the full case, I can't tell. The trick seems to be to search using the term "accident" or "collision" rather than "wreck" (or omit that search term altogether), and use dates to focus on the relevant "canoe river" material. Brief mention in 1952 from Journals of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Volume 94 (page 174). I also found a more recent mention from 2002 in this journal if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Ah yes, I did see that, and I did the same trick you did. I could not obtain a copy of the railway decision/inquiry report/whatever it is. Railway law is not big these days. The thing is, these are primary sources, not without value no doubt, but primary sources. I did include a secondary source which mentioned what the inquiry report said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Sure. The report must still exist somewhere! Hopefully the non-primary source (from 2002) will be of use. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    It isn't. If you search for "on a hillside", you can see the start of the Canoe River discussion and if you search for "worst ever", you can see the end of it. I plan on adding something on the medals matter; I've ordered the Barris book. Anyhow, I've made a start on the section you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Pity about the 2002 mention. Glad the nursing one was useful and that you have obtained a copy of the Barris book. I do have a few more suggestions, but will put those on the article talk page. Please don't worry too much about the crash report - that was only an offhand comment I made when I saw references to it in my various searches. Your report of the conclusions in the newspaper report are enough for me, though I'm sure the report itself (well, the conclusions) would be worth a look. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • At the peer review, this newspaper article (from 2010) was pointed out, but the information was never added to the article.

    I did read it at the time of the peer review, it was not just ignored, and I just read it again. It's interesting, but the fact that the guy hopes to have the dead honoured by the Korean government isn't presently too helpful. And nothing in that article about the history is terribly novel. There is, by the way, a subsequent article, they got back some letters of thanks from Korea. I did not think it worth the mentioning. It's all very slapdash and unofficial.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for responding on this point. You've convinced me that it is not official enough to mention. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The medal issue is also mentioned here (this source is in the article, but the medal issue is not mentioned in the article): "Five of their next-of-kin are being presented with the Memorial Cross. The remaining next-of-kin will receive the Memorial Cross at a later date." This should be mentioned in the article.

    Noting that this was added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Poor ending. The current ending of the article is not good, again because of the undue emphasis on Diefenbaker. This should be an article about the train crash and those who died in it, but the article ends by telling the reader when Diefenbaker became Prime Minister of Canada. It feels like the whole article was leading up to that point, and feels dismissive of the real human tragedy that took place here. The article should end with details of the memorials and commemorations. That would shift the closing focus from being on Diefenbaker to being on those who died in the crash.

  Actually, I am aware of many of these, such as the Senate commemoration. A long list of commemorations strikes me as texually difficult, but I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  The new section has shifted the focus, which allays my main concern. Thanks. Comments on the new section, I'll place on the article talk page (there are a few more dates that could be added, and more context added, as you do in the Diefenbaker sections, to make more of a narrative and less of a piecemeal listing). Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Minor points. Set of minor points also noted in this review.
  • The Royal Canadian Horse Artillery are not special forces, but someone has linked to that term. Looking at the sources, I think you meant to refer to the 'Korea Special Force' being assembled by Canada at the time. The formal name for this was the Canadian Army Special Force (CASF). See here for details. This is a basic error in military terminology that should have been picked up earlier, and probably would have been if you had submitted this for review at something like the Military History WikiProject. There may be more errors like this elsewhere in the article.

    Possibly, I'll ask a military project reviewer to have a look.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I see the editor you asked has looked. Thanks for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Your first source (Chase, Sean. "Gunners of 2RCHA suffered a tragic day at Canoe River" The Daily Observer) lacks a publication date. I can see the website doesn't provide one, but something is needed.

    Can you suggest a good way of getting something in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    Based on 'Posted 1 year ago', I would put the publication year as "2010" and leave it at that. It just needs to be clear whether it is a 1950s news report, or a more recent one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Read it. It's modern.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I had read it. And it was a more readable account of the accident than the one currently in the Wikipedia article. Admittedly, that author was writing for a newspaper audience, not aiming for an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, so that will account for most of the difference, but (from memory) that account mentions the eye-witnesses who saw the accident, and one of them attempting to warn the trains that they were about to collide. I realise you can't include everything mentioned in the news reports, from there are some omissions which seem odd. Did you only mention stuff that was in more than one source, or something like that (which would help explain omissions)? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I tried to steer a middle course so as to avoid dubious claims. The oil fire was one concern, I was convinced by a 1950 source over an offhand, more modern source that it happened after the soldiers were gone. If there was an oil fire, I decided, there would have been some way of staying warm. The 1950 reference was specific enough to convince me. I will be honest, Carcharoth. I believe legend, both from Diefenbaker and the regiment, displaced some of the truth on this incident. I think you felt I was rather slapdash in putting this article together. Not in the least. I had to make value judgments about specific claims and I hope I got them right. There are definite errors in the Chase article, to my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I noticed some of the contradictions and possible errors as well, both in the 1950s newspaper articles and in more modern sources (as far as staying warm goes, the nursing journal article says something about that). This is the reason I haven't supported yet, and is why I said below that I would need to read through the article and its sources again. Making value judgments like this when writing part of an article based mostly on newspaper reports is not easy, and I would normally have expected some discussion on this matter (e.g. on the talk page), but as this article is mostly a single-author work, that discussion doesn't seem to have happened. I would then look for evidence that other reviewers have picked up on this and asked about it, but I'm not seeing that either. Which is why I've been laying out my concerns here (slowly, because I was having trouble pinpointing what was troubling me). Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid point. I think few sources were utterly excluded for that reason, but you have to sift and judge on points such as the oil fire. In that case, the fact that the nurses don't mention it is pretty strong evidence, since they mention heating. I do not think these are exceptional things; they are routine when article writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is going to be an expectation that where people are choosing among sources which are not entirely consistent, that they document that somewhere, that is something that perhaps should be discussed at WT:FAC to ensure it gets the full discussion it deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• continuing after unindentation
  • Block signal link needs re-anchoring or the destination anchor reconfigured/extended to make it work again.

    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirects such as 'Canoe River accident' are needed (this is a term used by some of the sources).

    Done. I did "disaster" too, and I already had done "train wreck".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictures exist online of the wreck scene and of the memorials, and these can be legitimately linked to in the external links (i.e. you wouldn't be linking to copyvios). Such linking should be done, as the current pictures do nothing but flag up to the reader that the obvious pictures that you would expect to see are not present (and you can't expect readers to rummage around in the sources to find pictures - it is a courtesy to point the readers to where pictures exist).

    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks. I may tweak the one to the online museum exhibit, as that is good enough (and has several pictures) that it is worth pointing to the start of that and annotating the external link to say that the exhibit includes pictures of the crash. Also, before I forget, there is an actual picture of the Continental locomotive online, you could see where that came from and try and obtain it under a suitable license. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I found a ref that says that the only photos from the scene were taken by a specific soldier. Even if it's PD-Canada because of Crown Copyright expired, by January 1, 2001 when Crown copyright ran out, Canada had entered the Berne Convention, which means it is not PD in the United States. That is if he took it as part of his official duties "Glugtatch! You're good with a camera, go take pictures of the wreck, the railway officials will want to see them." If he took it on his own volition, then it is a more difficult question as to judge. Glugtach may own the copyright, which I believe would be subject to a life plus 70 rule, which of course would not have expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant a picture of one of the actual locomotives, but taken a few years before the crash. This would seem preferable to the generic picture you currently have. I've given details on the article talk page (along with a few other notes). It is probably not possible to obtain that picture under a free license, but I thought it worth pointing it out, as it is not possible to know what others have seen and silently rejected in the source of their own searches. Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    Even if there are photos of the specific locomotives, I'm somewhat dubious that it would pass NFCC against an actual image of an identical loco, but with a different number. Do you remember which ref it was in? Or was it elsewhere?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The link to the Henderson source is not the best, better would be this link (or a link to the page from where the quote is taken. It would also be best to add the chapter title and pages: 'We Never Broke A Window', pp. 15-23.

I've yet to read all the sources used, but may have more to say after reading through them. Overall, I'm opposing based on the above concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See preliminary comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

I am very hesitant to add chapter and chapter pages, because if I do that, I'll have to do it for every other book. Why do you feel it would be helpful? I do not mind investing work but I fear it would be work that would give the reader no advantage.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is more the link that concerns me. You should either link to the Google Books page for the book, or to the start of the chapter in question. Currently you dump the reader on page 23, which presumably is where you were when you copied the link from your browser window. The thing about chapters is more a desire for precision on my part. I think chapter titles help when the rest of the book is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and you are really only using that chapter as a source, but maybe that is just me. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied to a few. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash. I'll check back tomorrow or when you get the chance to look at more of this. I do think you should try and get some military history people to have a look, and there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster Management that might rustle up people who have worked on train disaster accidents before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did find a full text of the nurses, and it does look very helpful, yes, please stop back and reassess in a day or two. I will probably not get the Barris book until Friday. I've done much of the work, as indicated. I will do more tomorrow, and then complete when I get the book on Friday. I will poke around further for that report, but I feel comfortable that the secondary source discussing its release should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I got the Barris book and added stuff from it. Look, there are many anecdotes of heroism and tragedy in the section on the rescue efforts, I could add more, but I think the reader is clued in on the terrible situation it was. I have addressed the remainder of Carcharoth's comments. I have looked at all the sources, except the one in the law books, it will most likely have to wait until the next time I am in Canada and have time to visit a law library. I'm going to call the one in Vancouver and see if I can get them to copy it for me, but I am dubious that they will be willing to copy 80 pages from a book in copyright (although the report itself would be out of copyright, at least in Canada. I think I've addressed most of what was wanted, and will drop a line on Carcharoth's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Barris book arrived within 7 hours? That's impressive. In fact, I see it arrived around two hours (, ) after you said above that it would arrive on Friday. I need access to a service as fast as that! Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I found it at the library ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I find this to be an excellent article. I have no major problems with the page. Interchangable (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Theobald of Bec

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum; Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's time for a much less obscure (although still obscure) personage here. Theobald is quite well known in historian circles, as he was an important figure in his time period, known for his patronage, his activities, and his own personal qualities. Most folks won't have heard of him, but they will have heard of one of his proteges - Thomas Becket, who was a member of Theobald's staff and was Theobald's successor at Canterbury. The article's had two peer reviews, and has been extensively copyedited by Malleus, who shares the nom with me (even though I know he's going to whine about it.) I promise the next nomination will be more "bad boy" than Theobald, who even when he was being bad (like when he disobeyed the king) was still doing it for a "good" reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nitpicking, but be consistent in how you shorten titles for citations - for example, compare FNs 19 and 40, or 9 and 42
• Why not include both editors for Hollister?
• Page(s) for Hayward? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • ACK! I even pinged you ahead of time, hoping to manage to avoid Nikkimaria nitpicks on my FAC (I DREAM of getting the refs right on just ONE FAC..) but no... you managed to find errors! Woe is me! (Did the act work??? I'll get right on these...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, refs fixed to standardized names, pages in the Hayward full citation, but .. both editors for Hollister? My copy only has one editor. I don't list frost up in the shortened refs, because she didn't do the research on the book, she merely edited after Hollister died unexpectedly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, so Hollister's the author and Frost just the editor? If so, is there some way to make this clearer in the bibliographic entry? Right now it looks (to me, at least) as if both were editors. (Sorry about missing these things on the ping!) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added "(author)" after Hollister's name. Or, alternatively, I could just eliminate Frost, if you don't like my solution. (I'm going to start working on the "ref-queen-of-nitpickers" award for you soon...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There are issues with the lead prose (I've not gone through the rest yet):-

• "He was a Norman, but his exact birth date is unknown." Conjunction inappropriate, as the two facts are unrelated.
• "somewhat turbulent" is a bit redolent of an editorial judgement. I'd drop the "somewhat"
• "On one occasion Stephen forbade him to attend a papal council, but Theobald defied the king and sneaked away to the council on board a fishing boat, which resulted in the confiscation of his property and temporary exile." This level of detail shouldn't be in the lead (the story is repeated almost verbatim in the text), and "sneaked away" is hardly neutral, encyclopedic language.
• "...to have him canonised as a saint" - tautology. surely? What else can you be canonised as?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I got most of those... except the last one. I see that as more an explanation of what the linked term means, than a tautology. Not everyone is going to realize what canonization is. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well written, but a few quick thoughts:

• primacy is a dablink
• "As archbishop his behaviour was moderate in comparison to that of his main rival, Henry of Blois." I don't really understand what this means
• "on a Vita, or Life of the 12th-century mystic Christina of Markyate" Again, sorry, I don't follow
• "Theobald had sworn fealty to Stephen, but does not appear to have been an active partisan of Stephen's, nor to have felt that his fealty to Stephen required him to recognise any claims of Stephen's heirs to the throne." Ref?
• "Theobald was the only non-French bishop present" He was born in France?
• "The only English bishop specifically named was Henry of Blois" When I first read this, I got the impression it was "Henry, and maybe a couple of others" but the next line implies there were many.
• You mention Theobald consecrating Foliot twice
• "his body was found to be uncorrupted" What does this mean?

Looking very good, and it's an important, interesting and encyclopedic topic to boot. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replies

• Theobald was indeed born in Normandy, but he was an English bishop, i.e., bishop of an English diocese. I admit though that one tripped me up too on first reading. I think we can maybe re-word that to avoid the "Huh?" effect. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Works for me, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the first mention of Foliot's consecration, as I think the second covers everything that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Uncorrupted" means undecayed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• In that case, I think a great big "reportedly" may be useful. I'm no expert on decomposition, but that's not common, right? J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say impossible, but heh, he was (almost) a saint! I'll leave that one for Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm at an art festival for the weekend, so it'll be Monday morning (my time) before I can get to these... sorry for the delay! I'm utterly bushed, but it was a day of good sales of our photographic prints so it's a good bushed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the dab. Changed the "moderate" to "less political". Removed the sentence missing a ref .. still not sure where that crept in unreffed. He was the only bishop from a non-French diocese - I cannot find this in the text now, presumably Malleus fixed it? Suspension of Henry of Blois - clarified this a bit, let me know if this is clearer to you. (it's a bit complicated, unfortunately, and hard to convey). Malleus got the Foliot bit, and the last... uncorrupted means not-decayed. Doesn't mean embalmed, but kinda mummified. And it's not as unusual as you might think - and none of my sources use "reportedly" ... the modern historians accept that the body was uncorrupted so I don't feel comfortable adding a "reportedly" here. Barlow in the ODNB says "Although a little shrunken, the archbishop's body was intact and rigid, so that some people hailed him as a saint." Saltman says ".. Theobald's body was found uncorrupted ...". Let me know if I need to clarify further. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable answers, and it's now much clearer. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. An excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - compiled a list of prose points on talk page (to avoid spamming the main FAC page for delegates). If needed the points can be moved here, but the list is a bit long. Most points are not critical, but recheck the article for overly "colorful", confusing or vague phrases (especially when looking at the article from a layman's perspective). GermanJoe (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested prose improvements and clarifications per talk Done. GermanJoe (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, or anything, but does that mean you support or is there something missing you'd like to see done before you'd be willing to support the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do final check as soon as i got a bit time, looking good. GermanJoe (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See final summary below, to keep discussion in chronological order. GermanJoe (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but it looks very good so far. I've completed to the end of the Civil War section and a few nit-picks so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was resolved during Theobald's term of office when Pope Eugene III decided in 1148 in Canterbury's favour.": From the reading in the lead, this seems almost an aside and not directly connected with Theobald.
• "… a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks including Roger de Pont L'Evêque, John Belmeis, John de Pageham, Bartholomew Iscanus, William de Vere, and William of Northall.": Is this level of detail necessary in the lead, or could it be cut to "a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks".
• "Theobald died in 1161 after a long illness, following which unsuccessful efforts were made to have him canonised as a saint.": This reads as if the canonisation attempt came after his illness rather than death; could this be swapped around?
• "and helped secure an orderly succession to the monarchy." To me, this is covered by the death of Eustace in the previous paragraph. Adding this as well suggests that Theobald was involved in a further innovation to the "rules" of succession.
• "The modern historian Frank Barlow speculates" Is "modern" necessary? I think the later use of "contemporary" covers any medieval historians/chroniclers, and there is a possible ambiguity with a person who studies modern history in the current phrasing.
• "The historian Avrom Saltman suggests that, if admissions were spaced regularly throughout William's abbacy, Theobald would have become a monk in about 1117, but qualifies his estimate with the statement that 1117 "seems to be rather late"." Is there any reason to suppose that the admissions would be spaced regularly? And is Saltman not undermining himself here? (I realise this is not your idea, but it seems a little odd!)
• "over his own brother Henry, the Bishop of Winchester": Not clear on first reading if this is Stephen's brother or Theobald's brother.
• "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control the king." Odd phrasing as Stephen was the king and this makes it sound as if the king was someone else.
• "had himself crowned": Creates a mental image of Stephen sitting placing the crown on his own head! Could this be re-phrased, for example "arranged to be crowned by X before either Theobald II…" --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• First one - it was not something that Theobald pursued with great enthusiasm, but it is a vital event in Canterbury's history, so it's well worth a note in the lead. Second - cut the names. Third - done. Fourth - last bits of lead now read: "During his time as archbishop Theobald augmented the rights of his see, or bishopric. Historians of his time and later were divided on his character and he is often overlooked in the historical record, mainly because of the fame of his successor." Fifth - I really do prefer "modern" historian here ... Sixth - Saltman's doing the usual historian cover-your-ass thing here, and he devotes a good bit of space to the concept, so I do need to mention it, unfortunately. Seventh - changed to "over Stephen's own brother" Eighth - I'm afraid if I go "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control Stephen." that we're getting too many Stephen's in there... there are already a lot in this paragraph. I can't really say "control royal government" as there is only a very skeletal "governmental" system in place, and royal government WAS the king, basically. Ninth - Stephen DID have himself crowned .. he didn't do the actual coronation, but he was the force behind getting the quickie coronation done - so while I'm open to suggestions on better wording, we need to retain the sense that Stephen was pushing the event forward and that it happened fast ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More comments, inclined to support:

• "Before his death, Celestine forbade Theobald "to allow any change to be made in the position of the English crown, since the transfer of it had been justly denounced, and the matter was still under dispute".[28] This became the papal policy, and was a significant change from the recognition of Stephen as king by Pope Innocent II.[29] It essentially forbade Theobald to crown any successor to Stephen, especially while Stephen was still alive.": I slightly lose it here. Did the papacy support Matilda? Celestine did not like Stephen and so the papal position switched from Innocent's support of Stephen. But then Celestine would not allow the transfer of the crown nor the appointment of a successor to Stephen, who he did not want to be king? It's very possible I'm missing something obvious.
• "when Eugene summoned the English bishops to the Council of Rheims in April 1148, the king forbade them to attend. Instead, the king appointed three bishops...to attend" Could this be tweaked as it sounds a little odd: it says the king would not let the bishops attend, but then lists the ones he allowed to attend.
• "but also to keep the papacy from favouring Henry Murdac..." Favouring how? Was this about the Canterbury-York primacy, or simply favouring him in the dispute over the election?
• In the section on his first exile, it may be useful to add some dates. Presumably the pair were reconciled before the second exile as the king attended the council, but the article does not say so.
• Very minor, minor point: Ref 33 is to English Church while all other ones are English Church 1066-1154.
• Sourcing and coverage is excellent and spot checks of Knowles' Monsatic Order and Barlow's English Church revealed no problems. (Not that I had any doubts, I was just really happy to have one of the print sources for once!)
• Overall, this is an excellent piece of work and I will be happy to support once these minor points are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RL is biting my butt, it'll be tomorrow before I get to these, but none of them look that difficult to deal with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

First one - I've attempted to clarify by pointing out when Innocent recognized Stephen (it was back in 1136ish) so hopefully this is clearer? Celestine never officially supported Matilda, but he basically quit supporting Stephen. (Probably so that when Stephen died the papacy could play "kingmaker" and extort concessions... but that's just my opinion). Second - changed to "...in April 1148, the king forbade the attendance of all of them." Third - clarified this a bit... let me know if this works a bit better? Fourth - added the one date I'm sure of .. the exact date of reconciliation with the king isn't in any sources I consulted. (I suspect that they kinda settled and didn't make a big deal about it.) Fifth - fixed. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article; my queries have been cleared up or explained. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Nice work and thanks for addressing all concerns quickly and constructive. A few minor point and suggestions for tweaks, not withholding support:

• link "Alberic of Ostia"? in text and infobox
• Life at Bec: "No documents survive from Theobald's tenure as abbot" ==> past tense?
• Civil War: "But Matilda was less sanguine, and secured the support of the Scottish king, ..." ==> i am not sure, "sanguine" is the right term here - why would she be hopeful or optimistic at all? (she just got robbed ...). Maybe "But Mathilda strived for her claim, and secured ..."?
• Disputes with Stephen: "The king and archbishop reached a truce in August." ==> "The king and [the] archbishop ...", two persons with two distinct titles.
• Patronage and household: worth linking "Bologna" to "University of Bologna" and Oxford to "University of Oxford"? The paragraph is about teaching and schools after all.
• Death and legacy: "In terms of his legacy, Theobald perhaps suffered because he was overshadowed by his successor, Becket." ==> trim "Perhaps Theobald's legacy suffered because he was ...".
• Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries; the historian Frank Barlow says of Theobald that he was " ==> trim "Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries, Frank Barlow notes that Theobald was "..."." GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed all of the above but the documents one - I think in this case, present is correct as we are discussing current time frame. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll leave the additional University links up to your judgement - they contain a little bit of background info, but are probably not essential. GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support with further nitpicks (you can't escape!). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "as Becket's family also came from the same part of Normandy" - also+same seems a bit redundant
• Confused: why does the fact that he was considered "old" at his death give a birth date of 1090? Would he not be old if born in 1085 or 1095?
• "because Waleran of Meulan was lay patron of Bec, and was attempting..." -> "because Waleran of Meulan, the lay patron of Bec, was attempting"?
• "the Empress could not be crowned because she did not hold London or Winchester" - confused again. Aren't they at Winchester at this point, and isn't she supported by the Bishop of Winchester?
• "during the years between 1142 and 1148" -> "between 1142 and 1148"?
• "But in September 1143, Henry's legatine powers lapsed when Pope Innocent II, who had made the legatine appointment, died. No new pope was elected until Celestine II on 26 September 1143" - if the old pope died and the pope was elected in the same month, that doesn't seem to warrant "no new pope was elected until"
• "Theobald's presence in the country posed a threat to Stephen's authority, and Stephen quickly settled" - what does settled mean in this context?
• What is a "primate" as regards this article?
• "later he taught briefly at Oxford, in the 1140s" -> "in the 1140s he taught briefly at Oxford"?
• Why is he categorized as both Anglo-Norman and Norman? The former is a subcat of the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed the "also" from the Becket/Theo family bit. I have no idea, I'm just reporting what the source states ... I've reworded the second part to "...suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian." (I hate it when my sources are not clear about WHY they make some jump in logic...). With Waleran, took your suggested wording. Oops, not sure how that Winchester snuck in there... it's really London that quashed Matilda's attempt at being crowned ... they basically hated her and she never had a hold on the city. Removed the Winchester here (the situation is slightly more complicated than this little section makes it out, but the broad outline is correct... no one needs to know HERE all about the endless debates about why Matilda did some of the stupid things she did...) Removed the "during the years". I've reworded the Celestine bit (who knows what my brain was thinking... ). Now reads "and Stephen quickly settled the differences between the two." instead of just "settled". I thought about using "Stephen quickly capitulated." which is basically what he did (Stephen was very good at talking brave and then crumpling.. if he'd faced a man or a woman not quite so handicapped as Matilda, he'd never have lasted...). I've linked to Primate (bishop) which basically sorta explains it. Took your suggestion on Vacarius. I have no idea on the cats, I removed the Anglo-Norman one... I generally ignore cats - people come in they add them, they leave, and I often can't figure out why they are switching them around... He wasn't really Anglo-Norman, his ancestry was pretty much all Norman. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good so far. Educate me on this: "The exact date of Theobald's birth is unknown; the only clue to his age is that when he died in 1161 contemporaries considered him to be an old man,[3] suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian." I generally ask writers to put the source that backs up an opinion immediately after the opinion, so I don't have to go poking through nearby cites to figure out who said what. Do you tackle this issue in a different way? Should I know to look at the previous cite or the next cite to find out who the "modern historian" is? - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know how long copy editors can keep up being fussy about the them/their distinction in "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without them having consulted with the Archbishop of Rouen ...", but one thing that seems to quiet everyone down is rewording when possible. It seems to me that it's hard to misinterpret "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen ..." (who else would have been consulting him?), and if you agree, then that would be my advice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• "whereby" (not one of my favorite words) usually means "by which". Is that what it means in this sentence? "Theobald resisted for 14 months before a compromise was reached through the intercession of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, whereby Theobald gave a verbal profession to Hugh." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Most historians consider that Stephen arranged the election's timing to ensure Henry's absence.": I've seen this meaning of "consider"; I'm not a fan, and neither is cambridge.org, but if there's a dictionary you like that supports it, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

#1. - the immediately following cite (to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article is the applicable one here. #2. The monks could have also consulted with the king/duke and/or any lay patron of the monastery - and usually did. #3. Changed to "the results of which were that". #4. I think that wording was a Malleus copyedit, but I wouldn't swear to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On #2, I'm not asking who else they would have consulted, I'm asking who else other than the monks could be meant by "without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen" ... if there's no other logical candidate, then most copy editors favor my workaround here. On #3 ... let me see if I can do that with fewer words. On #4 ... if Malleus likes it, that's fine, I'll make a mental note. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't swear to it that it was my doing, but it may well have been. If memory serves I think I changed it from Ealdgyth's "Most historians feel ...". My dictionary gives "To judge, deem, or have as an opinion" as one of the meanings of "consider". Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On #2, given that they could have consulted with others, I'm kinda of the opinion it needs to stay this way, unless Malleus disagrees. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I just hate "without consultation with". Let me look at that sentence again. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "The monks of Bec unanimously elected him to be their new abbot without first consulting the Archbishop of Rouen, Hugh de Boves, who consequently threatened to void the election." Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "which narrates the events and gives a more central role to Theobald, instead Henry of Blois": Is that missing an "of"? - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, which I've put in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Theobald_of_Bec#Disputes with Stephen. (I know my standard disclaimer says I don't support or oppose BritEng, but I make the occasional exception for the really good stuff.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Voalavo

Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a small group of Malagasy rodents, discovered only in 1998. Unfortunately, the most recently discovered genera of Malagasy rodents—this one and Monticolomys—are also among the less interesting ones, since unlike all the others they lack any conspicuous specializations, but this remains an intriguing example of unique and long-unrecognized Malagasy diversity. The articles on the two species are featured and good, respectively, and this article is also a GA thanks to a review by Rcej. Thanks for your reviews, Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The only issue is whether it would be more consistent to use "et al." for the three-name string. Otherwise all looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. As for the et al., that is what the template I am using produces, and there is no actual inconsistency, since all works with more than three authors do use et al., and all those with less don't. There are, in fact, scientific journals using this same convention. Ucucha 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Image - File:Madagascar_rivers.svg (one of the source files) cites as a source a multi-page PDF that needs page number(s) added. Also, is "records" the correct word in the caption? I would use "Recorded sightings" or something of that nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the page number for the multi-page PDF. If you want the description cleaned up further, just ask. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nikkimaria, "records" is a standard term in this context. It's actually places where they have been trapped; I doubt anyone has seen a Voalavo in the wild otherwise than in a trap. Ucucha 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could find an image of the little critters? That would certainly be nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to help Ucucha with this, but I struck out with Carleton and now I'm hoping that he will put me in touch with Goodman. Apparently Goodman is the only person who would have pictures of these species. Let's keep our fingers crossed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments [from Visionholder]: As always, the article looks very good. Here are a few thing:

• "In the skull, the facial skeleton is long and the braincase is smooth." To me "In the skull" sounds weird... maybe "With the skull"?
  • I like "in the skull" better here, but would be fine with either. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not a big deal. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• If you want, I can try writing to Carleton and inquire about photos for both of the two species. Do you have a recent email address for him? Granted, if I succeed, we'll have to wait on the OTRS process, but I may be able to enlist a volunteer to expedite the process.
  • His e-mail address is listed at . Thanks for the offer. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I've written to him and he didn't have any. I've asked him to put me in touch to Goodman, but we'll see if I ever hear anything back. It was worth a shot. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• As for Nikkimaria's comment above, maybe say "Known localities" rather than "Known records"? Just another option...
  • Changed. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Voalavo is a small rodent resembling a mouse and with gray fur." – Can we drop the "and"?
  • Yes, done. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is Monticolomys koopmani not linked for a reason? Also, the sentence it's in is a teaser—it doesn't say how exactly it compares in size. Can (or should) that be fixed?
  • It's linked up in "Taxonomy". I've changed "comparable" to "close". Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• "However, all species of Eliurus have a pronounced tuft of elongated hairs at the tip of the tail, a structure that..." – Is that a "structure" or a "feature" or "characteristic"? Just sounds like an odd word choice.
  • Used "feature" instead. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Chapter titles in the references: capitalized or not?
  • They shouldn't be capitalized, and I don't see any that are. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I must be blind... sorry about that. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Otherwise, the article looks really good. I'm eager to add my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support FAC criteria are met. Sasata (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments — Looks very good, only minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• suggest linking musk, taxonomy, morphology
  • Did the first two; morphology is linked in the "Taxonomy" section.
• "These genera are more distantly related to the other nesomyine genera and then to the other subfamilies of the family Nesomyidae, which occur in mainland Africa." the "and then" part is confusing me, should this be "than"?
  • No; I've clarified this poor wording by substituting "even more distantly" for "then". Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• gloss/link laminae
  • Glossed. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• the article mentions that subfossil remains have been found, any more information about that?
  • No, unfortunately. I guess they are still working on them. There are also allegedly multiple new species of Eliurus in that collection; we'll have to wait and see. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't remember if we've talked about this before, but isn't it odd that the IUCN citations are the only ones that don't have the publication year in parentheses?
  • Yes, I need to fix the template. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Now done. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could mention that the ISBN numbers are not consistently hyphenated. But I won't.
  • But I'll fix it anyway. Thanks for the comments and for the fixes to the article. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments [from Dana boomer] - Looking very good, but a few comments/questions:

• Description, "among other characters. In other characters," First of all, redundant. Second, this is the first time I've seen "characters" used in this way. Is this a common biological usage? IMO, "characteristics" might fit better here.
• Description, "In other characters, Voalavo shows one of several states seen among Eliurus species." Not sure what this is trying to say. What is "states" referring to in this context?
  • I've rewritten both of those sentences. "Characters" is a term I often see in the literature, but there are alternatives. I think technically a "character" such as length of the incisive foramen can have several "states" (i.e., short, long, intermediate). For some characters, different species of Eliurus show various traits, and Voalavo has one of several traits. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Distribution, "have been found in Mahajanga Province". As provinces were abolished in 2009, perhaps this might be better written as "...found in what was previously Mahajanga Province" or something similar. Or find out which of the regions (Betsiboka, Boeny, Melaky or Sofia) the fossils were found in and make it more specific.
  • It's probably in Boeny, Sofia, or both, but the source is not specific. I've put in "former" and hope the future publication of this stuff will be more specific. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Distribution - Is there any more information that could be given in this section? Predators? Where does it live (burrows, grass nests, hollow logs)?
  • None is known as far as I am aware. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• When I click on the link for "Musser, G.G.; Carleton, M.D. (2005). "Superfamily Muroidea"" in the Literature cited section it takes me to the main MSW homepage. Any way this can be made more specific?
  • It could, but I don't think it's desirable. I could link it to the page on Muroidea, but the references in this article are not to the piece about Muroidea per se, but about other taxa, and linking to this particular page is not very helpful. Because the references in the article are to various accounts in Muroidea, there is no specific page that is appropriate to link to. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused then. When I click on the link, it takes me to the home page. Then, as a reader, how am I supposed to know what to do next to see the page that verifies what's in the article? At this point, the link is completely useless to the reader, as they don't know what they are supposed to be doing after they end up at the home page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • What would the alternative be? If I link to some subpage, the reader will still be confused about how to verify a statement that is somewhere else. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
        • How many different pages are we talking about? Perhaps a note of the sort "information can be found on website by searching for x and y"? Or perhaps piping the link through the title instead of the chapter (section?), so that it's more obvious to readers that the link is taking you to the entire book/database, instead of the page on Muroidea. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Neither of these seems feasible to me; I've just removed the link as it is not helpful for verifying the references as used in this article. Ucucha 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
            • That works too. Everything looks good, and obviously I've already changed to a support above. Thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Once these are dealt with, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck - Checked several references and found no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. I try to always be on my guard against close paraphrasing, but it's good to have some independent confirmation that I'm doing well in that regard. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Over There (Fringe)

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, simply put, I feel it is now ready. This is the article's second FAC; its first candidacy ended without any opposes, but one editor did make the suggestion it receive another copy edit. With this suggestion now completed, I am confident the article is up to snuff. It has already received a GA review, peer review, and two copy edits by experienced editors. Much thanks to all for your comments. Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review I did a little bit of work on File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png, but the source section needs to include not only the direct link (already there), but also a link to the blog itself, since I couldn't backtrace from one to the other. The "Purpose of use" section could also use another line or two; people get antsy when that's not really good. The other images are fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I tracked down the actual article of the screenshot, and also added to the purpose rationale. Hope it looks good. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like you got it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is simply incorrect. Please stop wasting time. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Use endashes for ranges

One of the copyeditors changed the dashes, so I could just undo this edit. I'll wait to hear back before I do that though. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like User:Gyrobo converted the dashes to something else. Let me know if they look alright. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 23: why the doubled publisher?

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how newspaper publishers are formatted

Do mean which template is used (news versus web cite), i.e. the work/publisher parameters? I strove to place both where possible, but had to change some of the automatic formatting (i.e. italics in the work parameter for the Digital Spy refs). Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 88: location shouldn't be italicized

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Compare formatting on refs 100 and 101

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your concern about io9 as a RS, I would cite this discussion. The site is controlled by its own editorial staff (Charlie Anders etc), and has been frequently been used as reliable sources for other FAs (such as Blade Runner and Batman). I'll address your other concerns when I get a chance. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Like io9, AOL's TV Squad contains its own editorial staff, including syndicated columnist Jane Boursaw and TV critic Maureen Ryan (who used to write for the Chicago Tribune). Ruby2010 comment! 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support—It looks good to me. I reviewed the article during the previous FAC and it still appears to be in fine condition. I found no other concerns beyond the one addressed below. Good work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment—The first paragraph of "Part two" seems a little disjointed; it jumps back and forth between the different characters then leaves some unanswered questions. For example, it says:

Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, but Bell and Olivia rescue him. ... "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) are unable to capture Walter.

Well yes, the second follows from the first. Why not something like:

When Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, he dispatches "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) to bring in Walter. Before they arrive, Bell and Olivia liberate Walter and escape the scene.
It then says:

Fauxlivia sees a surveillance shot of Olivia and Walter and goes to confront Walternate. Peter meets Fauxlivia, who drives him to his new apartment.

Wait, wasn't Fauxlivia on the way to meet Walternate? Did this happen? Also, why is she going to confront Walternate?—RJH (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be cleared up now. Let me know if anything else is confusing. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read over the article again and still feel satisfied it meets the criteria, and the prose is still clear. Although it would help if the infobox image caption can tell who Olivia is and who Fauxlivia is. -- Matthew RD 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Added (left/right) and that she is a FBI agent. Thanks for the support, Ruby2010 comment! 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I know you say this has been copyedited since its last appearance, but it still needs a bit of work I think. A few examples:

• "They are the 22nd and 23rd episodes of the season, and the 42nd and 43rd episodes of the series overall. Both episodes were written by ...". That's at least one too many episodes.

• episodes -> parts Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• ... each of which is in possession of various historical idiosyncrasies." How can a universe be in possession of anything?

• In possession of -> contain Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The finale's narrative follows what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is brought back to the Other Side by his real father". Should be "taken back", unless you're writing this from the Other Side.

• Done Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "While Walter's team journeys to meet with William Bell (Leonard Nimoy) at Central Park, while Peter reunites with his real mother, Elizabeth (Orla Brady)."

• Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Walter's team splits up when Bell does not arrive and the alternate Fringe Division attacks them." That's inherently slightly ambiguous. Did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and the attack, or did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and were then attacked?

• Clarified Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him—which counts for something—Peter forgives him." It's not all clear whose opinion the parenthetical "which counts for something" is expressing. Yours?

• Just rewatched the scene in question. The "gotta count for something" line is a direct quote, so I added quotation marks Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Olivia is revealed to actually be Fauxlivia, infiltrating our side". It seems strange to consider the name of one universe a proper noun but not the other.

• Fixed 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Walternate visits her, cruelly stares at her without speaking ...". How can you stare "cruelly". In whose opinion was the stare cruel?

• Well, it was a cruel stare (i.e. not exactly benevolent!) But I removed it anyway 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "They were originally going to have Olivia sacrifice herself to allow Peter and Walter's return to the prime universe ...". Which is the prime universe? Is that its name in the series?

• Yes I believe that's what the series calls it. The prime universe = Our Side. The meaning was established in the lead but a Copy Editor changed it. For clarity's sake, I removed all references to a prime universe and simply changed it to "Our Side". Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article isn't consistent in whether or not it's using logical punctuation. Consider the difference between "He 'graciously agreed'." and "We were ecstatic when we figured [the cliffhanger] out." Or "... he felt that he looked 'like such a doofus holding a gun,' but changed his mind when he saw the finished production." and "The actor, the producers, and some fans have called the new character 'Scarlie', in reference to a scar on his cheek ...". (Check out where the commas are after the embedded quotes).

• K, I'll look them over Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I've gone through the production's accessible sources and verified where quotations fall in relation to the original text. There are some that were taken from the audio commentary. In that case, should I leave the punctuation where it is? I'm not entirely clear on where commas, periods etc fall in those situations. Also, I have yet to go though the reception section; I'll work through it in a bit. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The parallel universe has a number of famous comic book issues from DC Comics, similar to the prime universe, but with notable differences." We've already been told this in the Writing and filming section.

• Yes, but this section details exactly what some of those differences are (and thus qualify under cultural refs, at least in my opinion). Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• But there's no need to tell us again that DC Comics produced some covers, we already know that. You could, for instance, say something like "The covers produced for the series by DC comics of some of their famous issues showed notable differences from the originals." Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• It seems strange to me that about half of the Awards and nominations section is about submissions that didn't lead to nominations, much less awards.

• Because we're talking about the Emmys (the biggest awards night for television), I felt submissions would be good additions for this section. Would you suggest I rename it? Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a suggestion, it just seems strange to me. But if that's normal for this kind of article then fine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for very much for looking the article over! I hope I have made all your changes or responded back satisfactorily. Thanks again, Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article has now received two copy edits, so I'm not sure what another one would do for its significant improvement. Thanks :) Ruby2010 comment! 00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you ask for it to be copyedited again (my opinion of the general standard of GOCE copyedits is unprintable anyway), just that you look closely through it again for the kinds of things I've pointed out, in particular the consistent logical punctuation. I know I'm being tough, but FAs are supposed to be our best work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I know FA is a tough playground. :) Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Having now gone through the reception section, I believe I have now addressed your concerns with the punctuation. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We're getting there, but I'm still not entirely happy about the prose. For instance, in the Part one section it says "They form a plan that uses Olivia's universe-hopping ability, and amplify it with the help of three other Cortexiphan test subjects". How do you amplify a plan? And plans don't really "use" anything, why not "a plan that exploits ..." instead? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that particular sentence. I also made a few other c/e fixes in the plot section. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind I've never seen this series, and am never likely to, but I don't understand this from the Part two section: "Fauxlivia arrives and meets Peter, who drives him to his new apartment." Up to that point I'd thought that Fauxlivia was a girl, so I can't make head nor tail of the "who drives him to his new apartment" bit. Also, "After a fight, Olivia knocks Fauxlivia unconscious". After the fight, not during the fight? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Both plot issues now clarified. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like to be able to support this article, but I still can't: "Nick is shot and Sally stays with him, producing a suicidal fireball that burns both them and the Fringe Division's principal investigator". So her staying with him produced a fireball? In general part two of the plot section has an uncomfortable staccato feel. I still think it's close, but no cigar as yet. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure, is it just that section (the plot) that is preventing your support? I tried to clean it up a bit. Part of the problem may be that two copy editors have gone through it and tweaked a few things, which while helping with flow might have made it slightly more confusing for some. Hope it looks better now. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's not that I find the plot section confusing, rather that it's a series of "he did this", "she did that", "he then did something else". Copyeditors aren't always your best friends if they don't allow your voice to shine through. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the "staccato" style writing was meant to keep the section under the minimum basic plot length for a two hour episode (as with most TV episodes/films, plots can easily go over the word limit). After the recent tweaks, how does it look now? Ruby2010 comment! 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your changes look great, and really added some much needed flow. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes makes all the difference. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Seems like a very strange series. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated for your great suggestions and support Ruby2010 comment! 22:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Eloise

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the more significant cyclones I've written about on WP, and it's been a work-in-progress for a couple years now. I've recently added some final touches from a few journals and newspaper articles I hadn't yet looked at, and I think this piece covers all aspects of this important hurricane well. Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Source reviews - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• No citations to Schwartz 2007
• Ref 3: page?
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Done" for the first two, I'll get on the last two issues sometime soon. Thanks for the review, as always. Juliancolton (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments *"However, the storm made landfall on Hispaniola, causing it to weaken into a tropical storm." – Maybe you could say something like "causing it to weaken back to tropical storm status" instead, since you already once mentioned how it intensified "into a tropical storm".

• "Eloise, a weak and disorganized cyclone, emerged into open waters of the northern Caribbean Sea" – Though it is technically correct, it's sort of an awkward mid-sentence interruption. What's wrong with "A weak and disorganized cyclone, Eloise emerged..."?
• "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave which emerged" → "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave that emerged"
• "Satellite imagery indicated that the system was initially "unimpressive" – I don't understand. How was it unimpressive; on what grounds did the imagery indicate this? Please clarify if possible, or change to something like "The system initially exhibited a disorganized structure on satellite imagery."
• "On September 16, the storm attained tropical storm status and was designated Eloise" – Maybe you can use "the system attained" instead for less repetitiveness.
• "While the anticyclone over Eloise became better organized" – In its current state, the sentence implies that the anticyclone was previously mentioned in the article, which isn't the case. It should read something as "With an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..." or "While in the vicinity of an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..."
• "However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development." – Maybe add "subsequently" or "went on to make landfall" in there to make it flow better?
• "Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm" – Repetitive
• "However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development. Early on September 17, Eloise weakened into a tropical storm. Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm moved across northern Hispaniola and then tracked across southeastern Cuba. The mountainous terrain caused Eloise to deteriorate into a minimal tropical storm, as much of its circulation was over land for about 36 hours." – This entire part confuses me. It mentions weakening twice, and the sequence is all jumbled up. You mention it makes landfall and weakens; then you mention initial predictions of a track north of land; and then you again mention it interacting with land to weaken, while you already did so. I really think you could be more concise and fit this in 2, at the most 3 sentences.

That's all for now.★ Auree _talk 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tried to take care of all of this. Good points, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. This still needs revising though: "Eloise became better organized, the storm rapidly intensified and reached Category 1 hurricane status 18 hours after being named." ★ Auree _talk 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops... Juliancolton (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

*"Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized. The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana." – Pretty sure you could fit this into one sentence.

• "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf" – Pass... passage. Tweak for less repetitiveness?
• "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf. The hurricane also moved over two experimental buoys which recorded data on the storm, aiding meteorologists in their forecasts." – Actually, you could probably just merge this into one sentence as well.
• "Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated. Just six hours later, it had weakened into a tropical storm, while situated over eastern Alabama." → Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated; it weakened into a tropical storm just six hours later, while situation over eastern Alabama.
• "It further weakened into a tropical depression at 0000 UTC on September 24. The depression transitioned into an extratropical storm over Virginia, and became indistinguishable by later that same day." – Again, this could be one sentence...

Overall, I think the prose is a bit stubby, with many short and repetitive fragments throughout the article. I think you should look it through extensively once more. It's a nice article, though. ★ Auree _talk 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with all of your recommendations in your first bout of comments, but I'm not so sure we're on the same page at this point. I think for most of the cases you suggested merging sentences, the only way to condense them would be to force the use of semicolons, else I'm left with a bunch of run-ons. I'm already splicing around 10 sentences using semicolons. For the first sentences you highlighted, merging would result in Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized, and the trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana. Quite clunky, and I believe using varied sentence length is a good way to keep the writing from becoming monotonous on the researcher. Again, I really appreciate the look-through, I'd just like to discuss this a bit more. Juliancolton (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the first sentence, I'd suggest something like this "Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, enhanced wind divergence aloft allowed for further organization, and the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana," or even "Tracking over the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of enhanced divergence aloft, the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans." These are just two of many examples of how concisely this could be said instead. You can even mention the trough in there, though personally I don't think it's necessary. ★ Auree _talk 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support now. There are no major issues left in the article, and I feel its overall quality does meet FA standards. ★ Auree _talk 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It says packing winds of. I think I know what that means but it's a bit obscure to me. Can it be written more plainly?

Units check

It says 1.5 million pounds of shrimp and 801,000 cubic yards of sand. These need conversions

Lightmouse (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How's that? Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. We don't link common units but I've fixed that. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review - Source link for File:Hurricane_Eloise.jpg appears to be broken, as does the link for File:Hurricane_Eloise_beach_house2_damage.jpg. Images and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Found updated URLs for these. Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Meteorological history: "The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center, allowing for the storm to strengthen...". Prose redundancy here with the two "the storm"s.
• Preparations: There's an excess word in "warnings for heavy for rainfall" in the beginning of the section.
• Impact: Puerto Rico was just linked in the last section; another one isn't needed here. There's also a repeat Cuba link here.
• Reference 20 should be moved outside the parentheses.
• "inundating the city of Frederick and compromised the city's supply of fresh drinking water." If this structure is to be used, doesn't "compromised" need to be "compromising"?
• "an additional 4 in of rain in central Maryland triggered severe flash flooding." Feels like something is missing after the state...
• The Hurricane Agnes link should be moved up a paragraph to be where it's first mentioned.
• "and in the words of Schwartz (2007)". First, the writer's first name could be given here; I don't think it was mentioned before. Second, is it normal to mention the year like in a citation?
• Aftermath: What state was Ruben Askew governor of? Florida?
• "In at least one instance, the hurricane and its associated storm surge had a lasting effect on local geographical". Something feels off toward the end. Either a word is missing, or "geographical" should be something else, like maybe "geography".
• "The corresponding name that was used in 1981 in replace of Eloise was Emily." "replace" → "place"?
• Here's a link for reference 3 (the one missing a page number). Hope this helps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and help in finding that link. I believe I've addressed nearly everything, directly or indirectly. Thanks again for the review, it's much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I had forgotten this was up on FAC. I checked through the article, and I'm confident it uses a great variety of sources. The writing is great all around. One thing that stands out is that the lede is only two paragraphs, despite it being a rather significant hurricane and the article being fairly lengthy. Also, the first lede paragraph says it dissipated by September 25, but the Infobox says 24th, so you might wanna change that. Otherwise, it's a great article for a notable hurricane. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the date issue, and I'll look into expanding the lead. Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I had one issue to the author which I told him off-wiki. He addressed that, and as such I support. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Comment The article looks solid, but the images in the Florida impact section are too close to each other and produce a very narrow column of text at the start of the section. I would recommend moving the images around to remove that problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Much better, thanks. Also, is there a reason in particular why all the images are different sizes? In particular, the HPC rainfall image seems to be rather massive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I like to make graphics bigger than the visuals, since you can tell that the house is a house, for example, at an extremely small thumbnail, but the rainfall map has information that is harder to see at small sizes. Juliancolton (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Still, there is no reason why it couldn't be the same size as the Puerto Rico HPC image. In either case it's a minor detail that shouldn't hold back the promotion of the article, so I'm supporting. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Malagasy cuisine

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The cuisine of Madagascar is distinctive and diverse, and reflects the island's unique history as a crossroads of the Indian ocean. This is the second FAC run for this article, which if promoted would become the first Featured Article on a cultural/historical topic related to Madagascar. This is a very underrepresented area on Wikipedia. All the changes proposed during the first FAC run have been made and I believe the article is ready to be promoted. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Bradt 2010

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is Nativel's co-author Faranirina Rajaonah or Rajaonah Faranirina? Check for consistency.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you notate author/editor of larger works (ie. "In...")

• I can't seem to make the Martin ref match the others (using "In...") because the volume doesn't have an editor name provided. The only way to do this would be to create a manual reference. Is that how you'd like me to handle it, or do you know another way? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the Martin ref is fine as-is (except for the malformatted page range). What I was looking at was the author/editor name format on refs that already use "In..." - for example, "In Ade Ajayi" vs "In Reade, Julian". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have fixed the page range issue for Martin. The editor name format is in fact consistent - the full name of the editor in question is Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi, so it is in fact showing his last name, (comma) first name. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all foreign-language sources (like FN 52) are notated as such.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support (GermanJoe) - no dabs, no broken links. Interesting, comprehensive article with solid prose and referencing. One small question though:

• Lead states "Throughout almost the entire island, the contemporary cuisine of Madagascar consists of a base of rice" and "In parts of the arid south, pastoral families may replace rice with maize, cassava and curds made from fermented zebu milk.". However section 'contemporary cuisine' states "Throughout the country, rice is considered the preeminent food and constitutes the main staple of the diet in all but the most arid regions of the south and west." (emphasis mine) ==> One of the statements seems inaccurate, what's the situation in the west for the lead? GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good catch - the region in question is broadly the southwestern region, but because these are pastoral people they migrate in both directions (south and west). Now both points in the article read "south and west". Lemurbaby (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Updated Vote, after another read-through. Good work with the article. 2 small niggles not affecting vote:
• 1650-1800 "The prickly pear cactus (raketa), also known in southern Madagascar as sakafon-drano ("water food"), was brought from the New World ..." ==> "the New World" could mean a whole continent or more and is kind of vague here (and the similarly vague linked article doesn't help). Do your sources name the area of origin more specifically?

• Unfortunately not, probably because it was brought over during that period of the trans-Atlantic slave trade when ships might stop at numerous ports in the Americas collecting produce etc before returning to Africa. It seems the circumstances of the introduction of this particular plant to Madagascar are unknown. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• laoka "...; other variations on the achard are found throughout Southeast Asia where they are known by variant names such as acar or achar." ==> the whole phrase is slightly off-focus and could be removed completely without loosing content for Madagasy cuisine itself. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for the support vote! Lemurbaby (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't there anything more recent than 1935 for the history section? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Everything more recent is discussed in the Contemporary section. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oops! :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Support: I provided a thorough review during the first FAC nomination of this article. All of my concerns were addressed then, and I see nothing that would cause me to change my support this time around. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment The lead must not contain any references, as it only summarizes the information given below. TGilmour (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that comment regarding the reference on the photo caption in the lead? I didn't see any refs in the actual text part of the lead but perhaps my eye is missing it. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• TGilmour, that information is incorrect; please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned... will this be promoted with only two supporting votes and no opposing votes? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  You're looking for 3 or more supports, but the reviewers also need to indicate that they've given the article a thorough review. Any opposes would have to find important flaws in the article, and you would have to fail to address them. As long as you address all concerns, here and/or in the article, you should be fine. Unfortunately, getting reviews is tough for everyone. And being new to the FAC process makes it harder because you probably feel uncomfortable doing your own reviews. At this point, I'd say that it's best to jump on in, carefully read the FAC criteria, and start doing some reviews to the best of your ability. If you're lucky, this and your future FACs may receive more traffic as a result. At least that's the theory. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments Close to support, and it's good to have a food and drink article, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Names of countries, including Madagascar, should not be linked

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overlinking. Are readers really going to need a link to onion, tomato etc. I've removed a few, but there plenty more unnecessary links including repeats of some I delinked

• Fixed. As regards ingredients, I only retained links to those that might not be immediately known by an Anglophone 5th-grader. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in giving local names for non-native ingredients. Why rice, beef and prickly pear, but not tomato and ginger? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I'd suggest sticking to Madagascan names only for endemic ingredients and dishes

• Fixed, I think. After a read-through, I've kept the local names for dishes and for ingredients that are somewhat less common in the grocery stores of Anglophone countries. Note that oftentimes the name of a dish is simply the name of the primary ingredient, which is why I provide the local names for things like fish, beef, eel etc. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overuse of italics. I would suggest that biryani, croissant etc are Anglicised enough not to need italics. It's also inconsistent — why are samosa and vinaigrette spared?

• Fixed. I switched to using italics on the first use of foreign non-Anglicised words only. I have to remark, however, that it makes for a somewhat humorous effect when it comes to the word mofo (even if the word in Malagasy is pronounced "moof"). Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question for the reviewers: I'm noticing the need for greater consistency in providing the pronunciation of Malagasy-language terms. After comparison with other GA food and drink articles, I'm seeing the pronunciation is not provided throughout the article. However, these examples are all Romance language-based (i.e. French cuisine, Italian cuisine, even Mayan cuisine uses Spanish for the most part), where most Anglophone readers will know basically how the words should sound. This isn't the case with Malagasy words where the pronunciation is not self-evident (i.e. "o" is pronounced "oo"). Part of me feels it's important for people to know how to say these words correctly, but that means adding in even more descriptive pronunciation in places where it's currently been omitted. Please advise. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  I am fine with adding more pronounciation, but agree it is only really needed for the non-European / Malagasy names. Could these be added as notes perhaps? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  I added the rest of the pronunciation. I could do them as notes but would like a second opinion on that before going forward with the change. Is this how pronunciation issues have been handled in other articles? If there is a precedent I wouldn't hesitate. I guess that's what it comes down to - I feel like we're setting a precedent here so we need to figure out how it should be done (unless someone is aware of how a similar situation was dealt with before). Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I did a copyedit on this article a while back and it has improved since then. Comprehensive and well structured with more than adequate referencing. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I did a peer review on this some time ago and on re-reading it just now I find it is even better now, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. My only quibble is that the addition of pronunciation is not done consistently - sometimes the IPA are in square brackets and parentheses like "rum (toaka gasy [ˌtokə̥ ˈɡasʲ])", while others are only in square brackets like "rum, called betsabetsa [ˌbetsəˈbetsə̥],". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Image review I reviewed all of the images in the article and they are all freely licensed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review (cont'd):

• Have spotchecks been done? Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  I tried to do this myself, and got stalled on this source. Perhaps I'm using the search function wrong, but I couldn't find any of the words in the text cited in the source (canoe, outrigger, etc), and I get the impression the paper is about a hypothesis, but we see statements of fact in the text. Can someone clarify, and point out the exact sentences from the source used to support the text cited?

• In their outrigger canoes they carried food staples from home including rice, plantains, taro, and water yam.[4] Sugarcane, ginger, sweet potatoes, pigs and chickens were also probably brought to Madagascar by these first settlers, along with coconut and banana.[4]

• Next I tried to check pages 107 to 111 here, but they aren't in the preview, so I'm afraid I made no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  I tried searching the first source Sandy mentioned and it is not searchable at all (even words like Ocean and the author's last name came up as not found). I read 9 of the first 23 pages and it discusses plantains, taro, water yam and and Autronesians carrying them with them in their boats. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• PS, I see a mixture of spaced endashes and unspaced emdashes in the article text-- pls be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed use of n- and m-dashes in line with MoS guidance. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead comments:

• "Malagasy cuisine encompasses the many diverse culinary traditions of the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar, each reflecting various degrees of influence from the Southeast Asian, African, Indian, Chinese and European migrants that have settled on the island since it was first populated by seafarers from Borneo between 100 CE and 500 CE." This is a massive sentence. I am of the opinion that there are far too many ideas being crammed into one sentence, which is particularly problematic since this is the illustrious opening sentence. Considering that the lead is meant to give a broad overview of the subject, is it necessary to mention when the island was first populated? I think not.

  It's a long sentence but not a run-on. I personally like it as a lead, but maybe others would like to propose something else? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding the population date, it does seem important as well since Madagascar was the last major landmass to be populated by people, and quite recently too, which has had an impact on how long the cuisine has had to develop. How would you like to see this handled? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "which contributed to the extinction of the island's megafauna." Is this relevant to a cuisine article? Perhaps, but not so important that it should be mentioned in an already massive lead.

  One of the distinguishing features of Madagascar is its unique ecological diversity and endemism. In fact, I would suspect most people looking for information about Madagascar are looking to learn about the animals, not the people (there are many FA-grade articles on Malagasy animals, for example, but this will be the first related to culture). I think this is a point of interest for readers and a good hook to keep them reading as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• From my experience, it is not common practice to include the pronunciation of foreign words with the exception of the title of the article. I particularly disagree with the inclusion of vary; if this were a particular variety of rice, its inclusion would be logical, but as far as I can tell, vary is simply the Malagasy word for rice.

  There is no way to overstate how important rice is in the local diet. It really IS the meal, every meal, every day, and as such merits translation - laoka is just a bonus. Additionally, I explain the translation of "to eat" as "to eat rice", and translating vary allows the reader to potentially draw the connection with the translation of the verb (in theory) - mihinam-BARY - particularly if they click through to the article on Malagasy language and see that V becomes B in some contexts.

  As far as pronunciation, it's true that no other FA-grade cuisine article has pronunciation throughout like this. At the same time, the others are written using languages more English-speaking readers are likely to be familiar with (i.e. Romance languages) so pronunciation is less likely to matter. Spoken Malagasy is often so far from how it's written that readers are going to read it through and hear the incorrect pronunciation in their minds. I guess the question is, what's worse, unusual inclusion of translation or incomplete learning by way of wrong mental pronunciation? I could go either way but I think it's a point worth discussing all together. As I mention above we are possibly setting a precedent here by including the pronunciation throughout so we need to discuss collectively whether and how it should be done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In parts of the arid south and west, pastoral families may replace rice with maize," This reads like a suggestion for the reader rather than a summary of what actually happens. I suggest replacing "may" with "often", "sometimes", or some other frequency word.

  It may not be advisable to use a frequency word because I have no source for how frequently it happens. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have a question that does not appear to be answered in the lead (nor, as far as I can tell, in the body of the article): To what extent has Malagasy cuisine influenced other chefs/cuisines? With Madagascar having served as a trading port for so much of its history, surely its culinary traditions must have seeped out into neighboring areas at some point. On a similar note, are there any foods or drinks (perhaps the spiced rums) that are made primarily on Madagascar that are then exported to other countries?

  Thank you for raising this point. The cuisine hasn't traveled far in terms of influence (although the expat community has set up their restaurants here and there overseas), but it has been important in Reunion, Mauritius and to a lesser extent Comoros and Seychelles where Malagasy were taken as slaves in the 18th-19th centuries. I'll put together a few sentences on this over the weekend. Thank you for your review and comments, Cryptic.Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Harold Pinter

Nominator(s): Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after much work this meets the FAC criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) It has been suggested that I add a little more to the nomination: Pinter was acclaimed as one of the most influential English language playwrights of the post-WWII era and the award in 2005 of a Nobel Prize confirmed his status as a giant of literature. His work inspired debate and critical commentary world-wide and his influence on modern theatre was marked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The article has multiple errors of fact and format, which Jezhotwells and its "peer reviewers" have not corrected. The current version of this article does not meet criteria for featured article designation. Please see both the current talk page and its archived talk pages as well as the 2007 "good article" review leading to its "good article" designation, and also see more recent "peer review" archives. The article is still subject to unresolved disputes, including incorrect use of quotation marks, insufficient use of quotation marks, misquotation, and erroneous attribution of quotations (wrong sources listed). Jezhotwells and an administrator or administrators enlisted by him have banned users who have tried to correct the problems in this article and then semi-protected the article "indefinitely", preventing the correction of these errors, which were introduced mainly by Jezhotwells and others participating in the most recent "peer review"; they have made no attempt to correct their own errors after some of these errors have been itemized as examples on the current talk page. This article does not currently "meet" the most basic Wikipedia editing criteria, such as factual accuracy and accuracy of source citations. Thus, it does not meet "the FAC criteria" in this version. The current version of this article also contains misinformation about a living person, Henry Woolf, Harold Pinter's friend of over 60 years [who is a living person], and thus it violates WP:BLP [see {{Template:Blpo}} on the current talk page]. Such errors are supposed to be corrected "on sight"; yet the error remains, despite its being pointed out in the current talk page. Multiple problems pointed out in the current and archived talk pages and "peer review" archives still need to be corrected and resolved before this article should be submitted as a FAC. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (updated) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not sufficient for you to say that the article contains factual errors, without your saying what they are. So let us have some specific examples, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As already indicated, some of these specific examples are already itemized on the current talk page. It is not necessary to list them again. That is why the current talk page is linked in the listing. People can refer to it directly; the most recently composed section w/ specific examples is: Talk:Harold Pinter#Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"; previous sections detail other problems, some of which were archived by a bot. Given Jezhotwells' and others' unwillingness to examine their errors, it is a waste of time to list them here again. Please consult the talk page and its archives. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [added section link for your convenience]. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have studied the comments made by this IP on the article talk page and addressed the specific instances. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This update occurred over a month after the errors and format problems were pointed out to Jezhotwells. He ignored the comments when they were originally made and made no attempt to make the corrections that he made only after I made this comment here after he submitted the article as a FAC. There are still errors that need correction. Please see the current talk page about this matter. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had checked out my talk page, you would have seen that I was on vacation. Is this comment really necessary? --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The use of non-free content is extremely excessive at this time. In an article like this, one non-free picture of the subject will sometimes be required (preferably, of course, none) but rarely more than that.

• File:HaroldPinter.jpg should be deleted ASAP. As an image from a commercial file imagebank, it is eligible for speedy deletion and our use here clearly fails NFCC#2. Yes, it's widely used, but that's probably because the other sources have paid for it.

Thanks for finding the replacement image. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg I get the point that his appearance was different, but is the difference in appearance really that significant?

Good point, but I think it is illustrative of his appearance as a rep actor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the image is extremely helpful in illustrating the part of the article about Pinter as a young actor. His appearance is so strikingly different from the other images of him as an older man that this is needed for comprehension of his career. An actor's appearance is important in understanding the kinds of roles that they would be considered for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but the mere fact that he was an actor does not mean that multiple images of him at different stages of his life are justified. If there was sourced discussion about how his appearance affected his early career (say, if he was something of a sex symbol...) this argument may hold some water. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the same objections to this image were made by "NYScholar" and they led to the banning of that user by Jezhotwells et al. Please consult the block history. A note in the section about Pinter's acting career already links to the photo ("The Acting Career of Harold Pinter," compiled by Batty). It was never necessary to have the photo in the article, since any reader would see it when clicking on the linked source, which features it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very disappointed by the removal of this image. As NYScholar points out, this image survived a previous discussion about it, and there is plenty of discussion in the article about Pinter's acting career that this image aptly illustrates. Jezhotwells, I encourage you to find that old discussion and reinstate this image. As the other fair use images have been removed, the NFCC criteria now permit the use of this image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no system of "one in, one out". As many or as few non-free images as are required should be used. I'm just questioning how required this one is; right now, it's a long way from clear. As I said, an image like this may, hypothetically, be usable, but it's a matter of demonstrating that it is the case. If his early career was based on his appearance or some such, this image may be justifiable, but the mere fact that he looked different does not automatically justify its use. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:Harold Pinter.JPG Has this been published? Is the author notable? Or is this just a sketch from some guy on the internet that may or may not be based on a copyrighted image?

I have asked the question at Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He's a recognized artist, Reginald Gray (artist). The Harold Pinter article says the image was published in the New Statesman on 12 January 2008, but that information should be added to the image page itself, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

SSilvers has sourced this - Reginald Gray who uploaded it to Commons himself and it was used in the obit 12 January 2009.

Then I most certainly support its use there. As mentioned, it's worth mentioning the artist and the use in the article, as it gives the picture some legitimacy beyond "a sketch on the internet". J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:HaroldPinterKrappsLastTape.jpg Ok, the role was important, but do we need to see a picture? Was his appearance in role something of great importance, or is it an issue best discussed in the article on the show?

It was his last stage performance. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As a reader of the article, I found it very interesting to see how Pinter appeared in the role, having battled cancer and other physical challenges for several years. His intense expression in the photo helps to explain why he must have been such an effective actor, even under such circumstances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Our own emotional responses to the image/our own interest in it are all well and good, and so is the significance of the role, but that does not mean that it meets NFCC#8. Basically, the use of the image has to add significantly to reader understanding of the article. His role in the stage show is discussed comparatively briefly; in fact, his performance/role is only mentioned, while the show is discussed briefly. While the details Ssilvers outlines may well be important, they are more suited to the article on the show, in which the image is more legitimately used. We should aim to minimise the use of non-free content, and this seems to be a clear case where the image is not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:Pinterdvd.jpg doesn't even have a rationale. It's very rare that DVD covers (or album covers, book covers, etc) are going to be needed. What's so significant about this cover that reader understanding is significantly diminished if they cannot see it?

It does have a rationale, and it does illustrate the fact that this was a video Nobel lecture, in itself a notable event. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had added the additional separate rationale after seeing J Milburn's objection; please see the editing history for the jpg file. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As that section of the article mentions Pinter was unable to attend the Nobel prize ceremony on medical grounds, so he made the video himself. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pinter had not "made the video himself" at all; it was made by a commercial company named Illuminations; please consult the image history and follow the links for the source. Please do not make false claims about the video. The video was arranged to be made by Channel Four and broadcast on Channel Four in the UK after it was shown in Stockholm; please consult the sources. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't suddenly mean that the cover is so significant that a reader cannot fully understand the article without seeing it. Of the three questionable images remaining in the article, this is the one that clearly does not belong. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The images have been discussed in earlier now-archived talk pages; they have been the subject of disputes. As the image is linked via the Wikipedia internal link to the DVD, it is not that significant if it is not in the article too; however, there is a clear-cut rationale for the DVD jpg, since it is the subject of the section of the article that it illustrated before Milburn's (recurrent?) objection and Jezhotwells' more recent removal of the jpg. Again, one can consult the DVD article directly if needed. It's really no skin off anyone's teeth, so to speak, whether it is in this section of the article or only in the DVD article. I happen to think it is within its fair-use rationale in the article, and I know from past communications with Illuminations that Illuminations has had no objection to its being included in this Wikipedia article section of Harold Pinter; but I am not able to share with Wikipedia my email with Illuminations about this matter, so it may have to remain out. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether the copyright holders have any objection to the use here is not of great significance- instead, we must turn to the non-free content criteria. If, on the other hand, the copyright holders are willing to release the image under a free license, we can use the image near enough however we like while sticking within Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is an issue that some do not really care about, but it is one that, like any other, really needs to be dealt with before an article can be considered ready for FA status. A single identifying image of the subject may be necessary, but that's only when you're certain that free content does not exist (and preferably, at this level, once you've made a significant effort to locate some). J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the lead image, and replaced it with a free one. It's not great- you may prefer to use the full image, or attempt a crop. Alternatively, you could put a bit of effort in to get a stronger image released. However, better that than a non-free image, and certainly better that than a non-free image from a source like that. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have actually asked over thirty rights holders for permissions over the last three years or so, but so far without success - I guess too many people think they can make money form the images. If others agree with your points I will remove these images. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have now addressed your points by removing the non-free images. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current format for the photo is not really effective; it needs a bit more cropping and enlargement perhaps, or a better version. It's really hard to make out any details in the photograph. This photograph has been accessible for quite some time. It never seemed entirely appropriate for an infobox photograph. It's not a question of money; it's a question of the reliability and dependability of other internet users: people with their own personal photographs of Harold Pinter may not be willing to have them posted and re-posted all over the internet. To have that happen may be offensive to Pinter's living relatives and friends. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The image has been freely released, and so should be used in favour of a non-free image. If you feel that it is not the best picture (and I agree) then the best course of action is to attempt to get a better one released under a free license. I'm afraid I don't really understand the second part of your post. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support – Declaration of interest: I peer reviewed this article, and earlier contributed a little to the nominator's Herculean attempts to knock the article into shape following crippling WP:OWN problems with a now-banned editor NYScholar (whom, from the tone and content of her/his comments, I take to be the anonymous 66.66.27.196 above; those comments are, in my view, of no merit.) I offer no opinion on the images, as I am inexpert on the intricacies of the WP rules about fair use etc. Otherwise, in my judgment, having taken part in reviews of very many FA nominations (and having taken a few of my own contributions to FA) I believe the content of the article clearly meets all the FA criteria. I send sincere applause to Jezhotwells for a wonderful job. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above user needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies regarding other users, especially those who are clearly living persons: WP:NPA and WP:Harass. Some of his earlier comments need to be stricken from Wikipedia history. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose while the issues I raised above remain. Why the nominator has not replied here, I am not sure. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have responded. I have been rather busy in real life. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, but I cannot support as I am yet to give the article a proper look through. Thanks for taking the image issues seriously. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks foe your comments and for pointing out where the images failed to meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. I proofread and copy edited this article before it was promoted to GA. Since then, the nominator has continued to improve the article. The nominator has responded to extensive peer review comments and also to the comments of 66.66.27.196, to the extent that specific comments were raised. I believe that the article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and meets the other FA criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Until all of the errors of fact and format are corrected. The "peer reviewers" seem unable to perceive their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

.196 is banned User:NYScholar. Moondyne (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please specify here the remaining issues which you feel do not meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Moondyne's addition above is most helpful; would it be possible and proper for an admin to strike through all the long and disruptive interpolations by NYScholar/66.66.27.196 to enable bona fide reviewers to find relevant material more easily herein? Tim riley (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just skimmed through the Sport and friendship section, and the following caught my eye: "a lifetime support[er] of Yorkshire Cricket Club". Assuming this isn't from a quote, there's no need at all for the brackets. Just saying "lifetime supporter" is perfectly fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tweaked that sentence a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments.

1. Lead could be made more engaging. Don't give us 8 (I counted) different roles that the fellow had in the first sentence. Later in the first paragraph, it is also a bit too listy (be selective). Second paragraph feels too pompous academic art critic-y. Try to boil it down a little more (lead should be engaging). Third and fourth paras seem better. Advise having some lead-master like Wehwalt or Tony give it a little help to pep it up. Make it shine!

2. Also, please don't take this as a snipe, or off topic, but in the FAC listing if you can tell us what the subject is and why we should care, it will help people decide if they want to click through to look at it...or to review. Obviously you had some "love" for the topic to do all that work on it to make an FA, so communicate a little feeling for it!  :)

TCO (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points which I shall attempt to address by Saturday. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked the "listy" sentences. I think the second paragraph is a fair summary of the critical commentary on Pinter, which is probably far more extensive than that for any other contemporary playwright. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The number of citations in the lead is a bit excessive - per WP:LEAD, most of this material, except for quotes, should be cited in the body, not the lead

Fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do "Hobson's prophetic words" appear in FN 108?

No, removed POV phrase. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• The correct name of NYT is The New York Times ("The" is part of the title)
• Don't repeat full bibliographic details in Notes for works that appear in Works cited
• FN 8: are you citing two different articles here? If so, are we missing a URL? If not, formatting seems off
• FN 16: why "guardian.co.uk" but "Independent"? Be consistent in whether you use website or newspaper titles. Also, why does FN 44 include both?
• Be consistent in how cf entries are formatted (capitalized or not)
• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
• FN 69: access date?
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as it results in inconsistent formatting
• FN 93: check formatting, make sure it's consistent
• FN 98: access date? There are a few other weblinks also missing access dates
• Print sources without weblinks need page numbers (ex. FN 106)
• Be consistent from which angle you notate reprints - ie. rpt in or rpt from
• FN 151: is this meant to start with a hyphen?
• FN 204: formatting

I am working through all of the cites and reformatting as neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is "Faber" and "Faber and Faber" the same thing?
• Be consistent in what is italicized - for example, "BBC News" sometimes italicized and sometimes not
• Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized
• Don't include "Eng." in UK locations

In general sources appear reliable but formatting needs some editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think all of these points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but there are still some formatting inconsistencies. For example, compare refs 33 and 36, you're spelling out NYTC in ref 58 not 21, compare refs 56 and 57 (and need endash in page range for ref 56), missing accessdate for ref 88...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about missing those but the points immediately above have now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment TCO is too kind, I do not think I write ledes particularly well, but the articles get promoted so I must be doing something not too wrong. Anyhoo, I rewrote the first paragraph. If you find it an improvement, I will work on the rest. TCO is correct, the lede is really too advanced, which sometimes happens. Use the second paragraph to tell about a good part of Pinter's biography, the man is being lost behind his works. Keep the whole lede to no more than four paragraphs, though. Once you've done that, ping me again on my talk and I'll come look at it. Also, there is no need to have citations in the lede, unless there is something not mentioned in the body which is in the lede.

Of course, if you are appalled by my machete work on those stone tablets, I will not be offended if you choose to look elsewhere for editing help. Either way is fine. I should also add I don't intend to either support or oppose, because I don't have time to review the article in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, I have incorporated your comments and wonder what you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is much better. I made some minor changes. Just looking across at the prizes in the infobox, perhaps you are overly dependent on chronological order? I would put his major prizes first. And I'd rank the CH above the Nobel, as there are fewer CH than there are Nobel Prize winners at any one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, awards re-ordered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead reads like a lead now. Kudos, both ov ya! Don't plan to review or work with the article, but wish "Harold" the best.TCO (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: While I wish this article well, I'm concerned that it is now headed by an "under construction" banner. This, as the banner explains, indicates that the article is "in the middle of an expansion or major reconstruction". Such heavyweight work is incompatible with the FAC page, which is about review not rebuilding. Perhaps the work taking place is largely supperficial, in which case the banner is inappropriate and should be removed. However, if major changes are under way with the prose and structure, the article needs to be withdrawn from FAC until these operations are complete. At a glance, it looks to me more like the former than the latter, and that it is the banner that should go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was reformatting citations, now that that is nearly completed, I have removed the banner. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine now. For future reference, the "underconstruction" banner should be used only when an article is being substantially rebuilt. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck sources for close paraphrasing, accurate representation of sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you point out specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. A spotcheck for compliance with WP:V and close paraphrasing is needed for all nominators-- have you had one on another nomination? If so, please link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand - well will someone undertake a spot check please? Presumably i can't do it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had one previous momination, please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963/archive1. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If, having peer reviewed and commented extensively, I am eligible, I shall be happy to undertake a spot check. The sources are extensive but I have access to the British Library, and so can check the refs in this article against all published sources. (Grateful for a quick reply on this, as I may need to order some Pinter-related books from the BL's stores, which can take a few days for the more recherché stuff stored offsite.) Tim riley (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, thank you, Tim riley-- peer reviewing doesn't confer a COI wrt spot checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good! I'll attend to this tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have spot-checked for accuracy and compliance with WP:V and Wikipedia:Sources#Copyright_and_plagiarism, against references 2, 6, 7, 8, 19, 30, 40, 50, 60 (both) and 70 from printed books cited; and against online references 21 (eight citations) and 33 (five citations on different pages with the same url). That is slightly more than a 5% sample. Is that sufficient? All examples listed accurately represent their source material and are duly rewritten where necessary (e.g. when the original is not reproduced in quotation marks or a quote is not plainly indicated). On this 5% sample, the spot-check is wholly satisfactory, though n.b. that I cannot verify accuracy and proper paraphrase for ref 189 because I cannot get the Pinter sub-page to open. (As a passing comment, I wonder if ref 124 is lacking "Pinter" as its first word?) Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Yes, Pinter was missing from ref 124, but is now added. Ref 184 although the internal page link to "Harold Pinter" does not work, the obituary is there further down the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment. I just glanced at this, I haven't done a proper review (I might if I get time). I fixed an MoS issue, but I noticed a few issues with teh very first sentence in the body:

Pinter was born on 10 October 1930, in Hackney, east London, to Jewish, lower middle class, native English parents of Eastern European ancestry: his father, Jack Pinter (1902–1997) was a ladies' tailor; his mother, Frances (née Moskowitz; 1904–1992), a homemaker who was described by Pinter as a "wonderful cook".

First of all, that's an incredibly long sentence, and not easy to read (try reading it out loud). Second, is his mother's culinary ability really relevant? And finally, even before the colon, we have five commas in one sentence! It could do with breaking up a bit. I haven't read the rest of the article, but would suggest reading it aloud. Oh, and is the "biography" header absolutely necessary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Overfamiliarity on my part, I think. I have stripped this down and simplified. Some one else split the sentence. I'm a little bit puzzled by the comment about the Biography header. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Life? I have seen Biography used ferquently in FAs - overcourse, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if it was my article, I'd remove the "biography" and "career" headings, and have the heading under them as level 2s rather than subheader of biography and career. But I guess it's personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost support.

But I can't support a nom that has a sentence in it that I can't understand: "In 1964, four years after the success of The Caretaker, through its long run at the Duchess Theatre, which garnered an Evening Standard Award, The Birthday Party was revived both on television (with Pinter himself in the role of Goldberg) and on stage (directed by Pinter at the Aldwych Theatre) and was well-received." Please split this in two and make clear which play had the long run at the Duchess and which play got the Evening Stndard Award: in each case was it The Caretaker or The Birthday Party?? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorted out - I hope to your satisfaction - once again my overfamiliarity with the artcile cause me to miss that. thanks for pointing it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments. Sorry to be late to the party, but I think there's a little bit more polishing required; a few parts seem rather leaden. Some examples:

• The award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Pinter and his sharp political statements have elicited strong criticism and even, at times, provoked ridicule and personal attacks. The lack of a comma after "Pinter" makes it at first sight appear that Pinter shared the Nobel Prize with his sharp political statements.

• Mountain Language (1988) concerned the Turkish suppression of the Kurdish language." Use of the past tense makes it appear that it no longer does, which can't be true. It also makes it appear that the play was in some way worried about Mountain Language.

• In the first paragraph of the Marriages and family life, the last sentence repeats what we were told in the fourth sentence, that Betrayal was inspired by Pinter's relationship with Bakewell.

• "Pinter also adapted many screenplays from other writers' novels". Surely you don't adapt a screenplay from a novel, you adapt a novel to a screenplay?

• "His commissioned screenplay adaptations from others' works for the films ...". Shouldn't that be "of" rather that "from"?

• "On 16 June 2009, Antonia Fraser officially opened the Harold Pinter Room & Studio at the Hackney Empire, renaming the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite." Not sure what that means. Was it previously called the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite?

• "In solidarity with the Belarus Free Theatre, which was invited to bring Being Harold Pinter to Chicago for the month of February 2011, collaborations of actors and theatre companies joined in offering additional benefit readings of Being Harold Pinter across the United States." Awkward repetition.

• "In November, however, discovering an infection that would nearly kill him, his doctor hospitalised him and barred such travel". That's a strange sentence, made stranger by the use of "would nearly kill him". The doctor didn't "discover" an infection as Pasteur discovered a rabies vaccine, rather he diagnosed Pinter as having an infection.

Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, I will look at these tomorrow. Thanks for your copy-editing, Malleus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to these points in order:

• 1. That is why the third person plural "have" is used, but I see the chance of confusion. I have reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 2. changed tense and verb Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 3. OK, removed final sentence Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 and 5. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 6. reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 7. removed repetition Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 8. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all of those points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you have, so I've now supported. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Gumbo

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to commit myself to editing again in a big way. :) One day last year I was hungry and chose to rework the article on the particular food I was craving. Gumbo is more than just something to fill your belly. In my family, there were few major events, holidays, illnesses or family gatherings that did not include this dish. There are millions of varieties of gumbo - I can often identify the occasion simply by seeing which particular ingredients my grandmother threw in the pot that day (shrimp and crab on Christmas Eve, crawfish and oysters on Memorial Day, chicken - no sausage - on my birthday, etc). Two Cajun cooks can argue for hours (or days) on the best way to make gumbo. The only thing they'll agree on is that it must be served on top of rice and you must also provide potato salad and beer. Lots of beer.

I've deliberately chosen not to consult popular cookbooks but to stay with more scholarly sources. User:Jappalang provided very useful feedback at the peer review in September.

Bon appetit, cher. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why not include both editors for Davidson refs?
• No bibliographic info for Theriot 2009
• ref 12: should include page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki, obviously it's been too long since I did one of those checks. I've fixed those three issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Support consider everything stricken below; I've just reread the article and I think it meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Sasata

• lead: link Choctaw
• "vegetables are cooked down" what does this mean? The liquid is reduced?
• "The dish boils for a minimum of three hours" Would "simmers" be more accurate?
• I don't think rice is a high-value link for the lead; "greens" would probably be less familiar to the average reader.
• link etymology
• "…filé, or ground sassafras…" does this refer to sassafras root or leaves or …?
• Can we have a citation for the first quote?
• why is the okra picture so small?
• second link to sassafras not required; cayenne pepper, callaloo, and thyme should be linked earlier
• translate potage aux herbes
• link metaphor; Louisiana is linked too many times
• "18th century Cajun practice" needs hyphen
• link grits
• "The use of corn and filé powder, may imply that the dish was derived from native cuisine." lose comma
• Dr. John Sibley -> I believe the MoS says not to use Dr.
• "when Chef Paul Prudhomme's popularity" should chef be capitalized?
• link tureen; "… although in wealthier or fancier homes the dish might be transferred to a tureen on the table." I doubt tureens are the exclusive domain of the rich or fancy; I have one, and consider myself neither!
• 3 feet (0.91 m) deep; 2 feet (0.61 m) -> one too many sigfigs in the metric conversion

Sasata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Sasata, but thank you so much for your comments. I've fixed everything but the following:

• "cooked down" - this means the veggies essentially turn to mush. I'm not sure a better way to word this - most cookbooks use this phrase and it's really common on Google.
• By the first quote, do you mean the quotebox? The book and the page number are listed there.
• My family has tureens too, and we serve soups in them, but never gumbo. Gotta be high in the instep to eat your gumbo that way ;)
• I think the translation of potage is "potage". I didn't think it was necessary to say potage aux herbes (pottage with herbs), but I can.

Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Media: One problem- File:Zherbes.jpg is available in a larger format on Flickr as all rights reserved. Judging from the usernames, it's probably the same person, so nothing sinister going on, but we're gonna need an OTRS ticket, I reckon. I've fired off an email to the Flickr user just double checking. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Got a reply- forwarded the email to OTRS. Everything checks out. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, J Milburn! That was really helpful and above and beyond the call of reviewer duty. :) Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Before I begin, allow me a moment to offer a huge bucket of win to Karanacs for working on this article. Wikipedia desperately needs more Food and Drink FAs, and I can't imagine how hard it was to put in the time for this while also juggling the duties of FAC delegation. Good shit. Anywho, let's see what I kind of trouble I can rustle up: I've moved the bulk of my review to the talk page to avoid clutter.

• For some reason, Social aspects seems like an odd section title to me. How about Culture or In culture instead?

"Culture" always seemed to me to indicate that we'd be talking about other aspects, like literature or media references/influences. I am not that fond of "Social aspects" either, but the theme of the section is that gumbo is a dish for social gatherings. I'll think about it overnight and see if I can come up with something better. Karanacs (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stay tuned, there's more to come I like bagels! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptic, and my apologies for the delay in responding. I fixed the first two wording issues.

Taking a read through.

• The "main ingredients" list seems to use unwarranted capitals and bold text
• Sassafras would be worth linking to somewhere
• Overuse is as bad as underuse, bear the comments about italicising non-English words. Your call.
• "ham or crabmeat are occasionally" "is", I think. If it was "and", it would be "are".
• "fostered an environment where cultures" in which?
• "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." What does this mean?
• I agree with Sasata about providing a translation of "potage aux herbes". "Pottage" is not the most familiar term anyway- a link wouldn't hurt.

Very interesting and readable. I think you made a good choice avoiding cookbooks and sticking to more scholarly sources, though I must say the dish itself doesn't sound all that pleasant. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it sounds fantastic, and potage is the French word for soup, a perfectly familiar term to us Europeans. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review J Milburn (and thank you for the ce efforts, Malleus). I fixed all the issues you listed (and translated potage to soup). I went through and think I've now only italicized foreign words used as words (like kombo) and not foreign dishes. Gumbo has a very strong flavor and tends to be very spicy - a lot of my Yankee and European friends don't like it (although one of my Swedish friends can eat more than I can). Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I've just given the article another quick look-through, and I'm happy that it now meets the featured article criteria. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support with comments Nice article, just a couple of things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I linked Bell pepper since it's not called that this side of the pond. I wondered whether to link hog, since that's unusual now in the UK, but it's obvious enough
• The dish is the official cuisine of the state of Louisiana — Can a single dish be a cuisine?
• rice seed — reads oddly, it's what we normally call "rice"

• Thanks for the review, Jim. I've fixed "rice seed" - my brain must have been asleep. What do you call "bell pepper"? I didn't know it had another name. I agree with you about a dish not being a cuisine, but apparently the state legislators didn't know that . Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Usually "Sweet pepper" as opposed to chilli [sic] pepper. It's like coriander/cilantro or courgette/zucchini; same thing, different name. I say tomato... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll read over and copyedit as I go - comments and queries below. Revert if I guff the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It consists primarily of a strong stock,... - you mean strongly-flavoured?

In the Etymology section, are there any analogs or very similar recipies in other cultures with different names? Might be worth a line or two here.

Gumbo cooks for a minimum of three hours and is often simmered all day -? I'd reverse the active/passive to "Gumbo is cooked for a minimum of three hours and often simmers all day" (or "often let simmer all day")

Otherwise looking very appetising...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas, for the review. I've made the 2 cosmetic changes you mentioned - thank you. There are a few other dishes that are slightly similar; these are mentioned in the origin section. I don't have any sources that specifically compare and contrast them, so I could say "Gumbo bears similarities to the Caribbean dish callaloo and French bouillabaisse", but that's as far as I can go. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments. I've never had gumbo, but that bowl of shrimp gumbo in the lead has my mouth watering. A few comments:

• The lead says that there are "several" different varieties of gumbo, yet lists only two. And later in Cajun vs Creole section it says that there are commonly considered to be only two varieties. As a matter of interest, is there any reason why beef and pork are rarely used?

• The Background section says that "Colonization of the French colony Louisiana began in 1718". Obviously there's at least one word too many there. What about something like "The French colonization of Louisiana began in 1718"?

• "Traditionally, okra and filé powder are not used at the same time". I guess you mean that they're not used in the same dish, as opposed to added simultaneously during cooking?

• "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." Not sure what that means. Forty square miles of New Orleans?

• "The new laborers introduced new foods, including the African vegetable okra, and hot pepper plants, which were traced to Haiti." What does "traced to Haiti" mean? Sourced from Haiti? Brought from Haiti? Later researchers discovered that's where they'd come from?

• "Louisiana became a United States state in 1812." That "States state" is rather awkward.

• "Bienville's housekeeper, Madame Langlois, taught the women how to improve the basic gumbo, using okra, which they had learned from their slaves." Who is the "they" being referred to here? The subject seems to be Mme Langlois.

Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus, and thanks for the copyedit. I've fixed the wording issues. I have no idea why beef and pork aren't used - none of the sources addressed that, and it was just one of those facts of life when I was a kid. I suspect that beef and pork were more easily dried and preserved and gumbo instead used meat that would spoil more quickly, but nothing solid I can use in the article.

I'm unsure how to handle the "varieties" issue. Some people say the varieties are Cajun, Creole, and gumbo z'herbes. Some say it's seafood vs chicken. Others say it's okra vs file vs roux. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) PS If you ever make it to Texas I'll make chicken Cajun gumbo with roux for you - it's the only kind I eat. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Indian Camp

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Indian Camp" is the first short story Ernest Hemingway had published. Some critics consider it his most important, while others consider it to show the genesis of many of his themes in subsequent stories and novels. This, happily, is shorter, than my last nomination here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is nice to see Hemingway's another work for FAC (with The Sun Also Rises being the first).

"Indian Camp" is a short story written by Ernest Hemingway". Maybe indicate that Hemingway is an American Nobel prize-winning author like in SAR? TGilmour (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've thought about this and decided I'd prefer not to. I didn't mind that you added it to SAR, which will be on the main page, and is an important book, but this is a small short story, in the back water of Hemingway's work. For the same reasons that we don't put birthdate and deathdate in each page, I don't think it's necessary to add Nobel Prize winning for every Hemingway article. I'd prefer to link into the main Hemingway biography where it's mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use 1964 or 1973 for Young refs
  • Fixed by Truthkeeper. TGilmour (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Check formatting on ref 15
  • Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• ref 17: dash in page range
  • Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Where is Durham? Cranbury?
  • Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strychaz or Strychacz?
  • Strychacz. Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Check alphabetization of source list. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Everything's okay. TGilmour (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you Nikkimaria. Although TGilmour fixed ref #15 I intend to switch that out with a hardcopy edition. I've misplaced the book, but will pick one up at the library tomorrow, and reformat then. I'll post here at that time. The rest have been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ref 15 has been fixed and made consistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch I am leaning towards support, but have some concerns that I would like to see addressed first.

1. I assume both books were published in Paris - if so, this sentence should probably say so. During their absence from Paris, Hemingway's first book, Three Stories and Ten Poems was published; months later a second volume, in our time (without capitals), was published. Also could the sentence avoid using "was published" twice? Perhaps the last phrase could be something like "followed months later by a second volume, in our time (without capitals)."?
2. Missing word? The small volume included six vignettes and a dozen short stories [by?] Hemingway.[1]
   • "By Hemingway". Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Since he has already had two books with stories in them published, this sentence makes no sense to me It was Hemingway's first piece of fiction to be published and the first for which he was paid—less than $10, but he was thrilled to see his work in print.[7] Also is the month of publication known (and if so, can it be included here)?
4. I would also specify that the book In Our Time was published in New York City (not Paris) in 1925
5. Us seems somewhat unencylcopedic in In "Indian Camp", Hemingway shows us the events that shape the Adams persona. Perhaps shows the reader would be better?
   • Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Can this be related to the chronology of events in the story as published? Is young Nick left alone in the woods before or after helping with the C-section? In the cut section, later published as "Three Shots", Nick is left alone in the forest, terrified of dying.
7. Unclear to me - I know that both Hemingway and his father committed suicide (and suspect his father was dead before this story was ever written). I have not read all of the Nick Adams stories - does Nick kill himself too? Does the character of Nick's father? Young thinks it unavoidable to focus on the fact that the principal characters in the story—the father, based on Clarence Hemingway, and the boy, based on Hemingway himself—end up committing suicide; and Kenneth Lynn writes that the irony to modern readers is that both characters in "that boat on the lake would one day do away with themselves".[24][25] I think a sentence before this that explains who kills themselves - ie just the real Hemingways, or them and the characters of Nick and his father - would help. Perhaps it could be a note, but I think a sentence would be clearer.
8. My understanding is the original in our time collection (no caps) did not include this story. Starting the Reception and legacy section with When in our time (without capitals) was published in Paris in 1924—in a small-print run from Ezra Pound's modernist series through Three Mountains Press—the writing style attracted attention. thus is a bit confusing (at least to me). Perhaps if something were added to "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. that would help? So something like: When it was published the next year, "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. Not great, but you get the idea.
9. Not really actionable, but what happened to the uncle - how is he not in the boat the next morning? How does he get "home"?Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dear TGilmour, please do NOT convert my numbered list to a bullet point list (I have changed it back). I did this because of Sandy Georgia's request here. I will not move your comments, but the idea is that you are not supposed to break up my points, but instead respond to them by number below (i.e. Number 2 is fixed). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Ruhrfisch for the comments. I believe I've covered / fixed everything. I've removed the bit about "Indian Camp" being the first piece he sold, which doesn't make sense in light of the other books being published earlier, but will research that a bit more and clarify it when I have answers. I've added to the plot section that uncle doesn't return. We don't know what happens to him, so not much I can do there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have switched to support - nicely done. I still do not know where the fragment that became "Three Shots" came in relation to the final story - was Nick left alone in the woods before the C-section or after? Apologies if I missed it, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• He was left in the woods the night before they went to the Indian camp, which I added. I'll see if I can tweak it a bit more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks - I have struck all my quibbles above. Thanks again for an interesting article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good review and the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Does NARA use ID or archive numbers to facilitate locating materials? If so, it would be helpful to include this image's number
• File:ErnestHemingwayHadley1922.jpg: if the photographer is unknown, the "life of the author plus 70 years" tag would not be correct - it's quite possible for a photographer in 1922 to have lived until 1941 or later. The image is likely PD, but not based on this rationale. The PD-US tag may be correct, but you would need to provide information on the image's first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image review. I've added the NARA archive ID to the passport photo. I've fixed the license for the second photo and added that all these Hemingway photos from JFK library were gifted to the public and entered into the public domain. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note - I contacted the JFK Library to check on the copyright status of all their public domain Hemingway photos. Basically Mary Hemingway donated the licenses and photos she and Ernest owned the copyrights to and the US Governemnt (JFK Library is a branch of the US NAtional Archves) has made them PD. I have been in contact with J Milburn and am going to make a Commons license for all the PD Hemingway images from thel ibrary with an OTRS tag for the email. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - A well-written and seemingly comprehensive article. ceranthor 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• My only niggle is the "qtd." I don't know if that's just your personal style, but I'd rather quoted was just spelled out. Otherwise, it's a wonderful article. ceranthor 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I follow MLA style, which is typical for subjects in the humanities. Their style manual isn't available on-line, but this link shows in the "Indirect sources" section that "qtd." is correct. I've always done it that way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO support. Very important writer and then an important piece for him. In addition to its famousness, it is intrinsically interesting because of the harsh surgery that a boy watches. This will be a highly clicked-through Front Page article, with its juxtaposition of sex, violence, and children. You present it very readably also. I had never read the story, but feel educated, now. Nailing exactly what we should be doing as an encyclopedia.

My vote is based on hours of reading for content and prose. Will send separately a longish list of very minor suggestions, that do not change my support. Major suggestion would be to try to get "guttier" in the writing within the Writing Style section. (Keep all the litrary concepts and terms, but eschew "the fact that". Don't say "events of his life", say "his life". That sort of thing. Given the topic is already a little academically remote, even more reason to aim for clean prose.) I did not check image rights, endnote formatting, or source materials (for content or copyvio), but have no impressions there would be any problems. I'm not a literature scholar, but the reference list sorta passed my Bayesian sniff test for being sound. Kudos and thank you.TCO (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for spending the time reading and for the support. I'm pleased with your reaction - it's a small article about a small story, but seemed to me important to do it right. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone done any spotchecks? Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've only used one oneline source - the rest are books and journals. Obviously I can't do it myself (though I did doublecheck the online source and it was fine) so would appreciate if one of the other reviewers could have a look. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have access to The New York Times and checked both articles from it used as references here. The sentences in the article referenced to them accurately reflect what is in the newspaper pieces, and I did not find and copying or too close paraphrasing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: On my display the layout of the images results in a considerable amount of whitespace in the article body. Perhaps the images could be re-arranged to eliminate this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the comment. I don't see it on my display but will try to get to a different monitor later in the day. It's a small page with only three images - I've tweaked a bit, but can you tell me where you see the whitespace? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have TOC turned off, so the space that it would use at the top isn't there. As a result, the 2nd image, the couple, pushes the H1 below it down about 3 inches. I'm wondering if the first image is useful in context? Perhaps the 2nd would be a better lead? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to email you an image? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's odd - I"ve turned off the toc and it's still formatting okay for me. Maybe we can see what others have to say, or what they see. As for images, we're using the ones from JFK library that have links - so go ahead an add the link to the article talk-page. A lot have already been uploaded. I'd prefer not to use the one with Hadley in the lead - Hemingway was the author, so it makes sense to have him at the top, in my view. 13:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

White-bellied Sea Eagle

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, this was a Wikiproject Birds collaboration for April 2011, which I have carried on with till here. It got an exhausive GA review by J Milburn, and I feel it is within striking distance of FA status and believe I can deal with any queries promptly. It is a wikicup nomination. Have at it, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Media is unproblematic, though a link to the base image of File:Haliaeetus leucogaster distr.png, if there is one, would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. As well as dealing with the many niggles I raised in the GAC, Cas has managed to expand the article so that it does not feel so Australia-centric. I have nothing further to add. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw my support for now, as Sasata raises a very valid point about the possibility of including a number of other sources. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gone through all extra sources apart one about a record of it eating a prickly toadfish which I can't get fulltext of. Given its consumption of a wide variety of prey, I don't think it is essential but would be nice to add if I can get. But you might want to delay revising your support until I deal with more bits and pieces below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. The article's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Grewal citation should be standardised for multiple authors

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• No citations to del Hoyo et al

gah! you're right! that book was added before I began buffing the article, and the only inline ref was lacking a page number, and I didn't use it anyway, so (belatedly) removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps indicate that 1980 is not the original publication date for Liddell & Scott

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Correct format of citation 6 (Schreiber & Weitzel)

took me a while to figure that one...done now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Consistency required Retrieved v. retrieved

appears (frustratingly) to be a template problem - not sure what's going on there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Consistency of publisher location required (Kennedy v. Liddell & Scott)

added Oxford Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources & citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional source comments after edit conflict

• FN 8: can omit university name from the italicized portion

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Debus entry should include page numbers

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dove or Dove Publications? EMU or Emu? Check for consistency

conformed.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how volumes are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Two more source comments

• I noticed that several multi-paged journal articles only give the first page #
• How about changing the subheading "Cited texts" to the more accurate "Cited literature"? Sasata (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

sounds good. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Literature review by Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I found several recent articles (post-2002) from a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in this article. Will post these to the article talk page so as not to take up too much room here. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

all processed/checked apart from one I can't get. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been dealt with, and I think the article complies with the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

• "It is opportunistic, and also consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." Why "also"? Doesn't the first part of the sentence imply the second?

yep. reworded to "Opportunistic, it consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." - wasn't too keen on the "and" actually Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• why link India and Australia, but not Tasmania? (lead)

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• link indigenous to Indigenous Australians?

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• lead seems a touch thin for the length of the article

agree - just added a note on immature plumage but hard to figure out the next-most important fact to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• two "first described" in the first two sentences of Taxonomy

trimmed and join so sequence is clear Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• link Java, Captain Cook, specific name, genetic divergence, mitochondrial (DNA), New Guinea, molecular, allozyme, plumage

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "dark-head" no hyphen required

oops. removed Casliber (talk · contribs)

• "This species pair has at every age at least some" seems a bit awkward to express it like this

reworded to "Both these species have at least some dark colouration in their tails" - age bit is redundant on second reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "They are relatively abundant in Hong Kong, where the population increased from 39 to 57 birds between 2002 and 2009." I don't understand how about 50 birds can be considered relatively abundant compared to a global population of 10-100 thousand?

HK is really tiny (~1000 sq. km), the range of this critter is huge - Australian and southern Asian coastline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "A review of average egg-shell thickness between 1947 and 1993 to evaluate the impact of the pesticide DDT on egg breakage found that the shells of White-bellied Sea Eagle eggs had thinned by 6%, which was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." Too much info stuffed in here awkwardly.

It's easy to forget that many people aren't familiar with DDT - I added an intro sentence, and split a long sentence. Do you think that helps enough or shall I revisit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I tweaked the wording a bit, please check. Still having trouble with this sentence:" "This was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." ... needs something, I don't know what Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I reworded it to, "This average level of thinning was not thought likely to result in significantly more breakage overall, however individual clutches that had been even thinner might have broken. ". The idea is that statistically 6% won't result in more breakage, but that the 6% is an average, hence some might have thinned more (and broken). Tricky point to get across... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• link habitat destruction, Murray River, Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Darwin (Northern Territory)

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "… is listed as vulnerable" elsewhere this is capitalized

oops. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The community held localities around Booderee National Park to be connected with it." I cannot parse this sentence easily… "held" is synonymous here with "considered", correct?

yes

• I changed to "considered", revert if you disagree. Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

works fine for me Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• there are five instances of "known as" in two paragraphs of "Cultural significance", perhaps reword a couple

reworded 3 Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• why is "Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk" capitalized but not "nairanaa"? Sasata (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

capped second one Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: The cite doi template has been recording page ranges from start page, fixed them now. Some articles are only single page short notes though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

General comments by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Partial support (of the cultural aspects section), following the changes discussed below. Will leave others to review the rest of the article, which looks fine to me in terms of copyediting and readability, but is getting closer scrutiny from others as regards the content (and has been looked at by WikiProject Birds editors in any case). Apologies for not having time to review the whole article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I then started to read the 'Cultural significance' section more closely, and that struck me as a bit of a scattered collection of facts with no unifying narrative and an undue emphasis on Australia (possibly due to existing bias in the available sources - I noted this before I realised above that some attempts had been made to address this after the GA nomination, so possibly more still is needed here to avoid undue focus on Australia). Hopefully there is something on the aspects of sea-eagles in general, even if not this one, in the mythologies other than those in Australia (I've looked, but it seems a keyword to differentiate between sea eagles in the mythologies of the subcontinent and sea eagles in the mythologies of North American Indians is needed).

One (specific) comment: the sentence on the Malay magnate seems to have been placed where it is to go with the other "nest" sentence, but the general structure of the section appear to be geographical, so it might make more sense grouped with the other "Malay" sentences. Failing that, some date context is needed, as it is not immediately obvious that you are going from a nest observed in Australia in 2010 and 2011 to an observation tower built much earlier (presumably) as the magnate in question died in 1964 - the obvious question that the article leaves unanswered is when this tower was built.

In general, some of the stuff mentioned in the 'Cultural significance' section also comes across as trivial and/or WP:RECENTISM (the bit about the EagleCam attracting 'statewide attention' in particular seems aimed at Australian readers), but would be a logical endpoint for the article if the Malay magnate sentence were given a year and moved to the third paragraph of this section (the one including the Malaysia material). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with alot of this - one of the frustrating things about cultural material is the piecemeal nature of the information available. Regarding the tower in Malaysia, I couldn't find a building date from that source, but will have a look to see if I can find that elsewhere. Regarding the notability of the EagleCam, the park it is in is one of Sydney's biggest and most notable parks, and one has to also remember that very few ornithological items ever make the news, they are generally deemed not notable enough. This one did, and this camera has been a fixture there for over three years now, so I figured that was pretty significant for a bird-related story. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn - no dates on google anywhere - I moved it so all Malay material together. I'll see what else I can find and recalibrate lead as summary of salient points of section with appropriate weighting. Give me a bit of time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the Sanger (1995) reference while looking as well. A similar story is related in one of those Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society articles. This obituary might also help (it also mentions the story). It is also mentioned here. There are also some hits on Google Books (see here). The Illustrated London News report (see here and search for 'Loke') gives a year of 1949 for the observations made from that tower. I also looked at some of the other cultural stuff, and it might seem less piecemeal and more encyclopedic if you give more of the history. For example, when was the 10,000 Singapore dollar banknote issued? From Singapore Bird Series currency notes (see link at bottom), it was 1 February 1980 (you probably also want to add a link from this bird article to that article). Similarly, when did this bird become the emblem of the Malaysian state of Selangor? When did this bird become the emblem of the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles rugby league team? Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha. thanks for that. Will get to it. Got most, but yet to realign lead and body of text. See answer below to Ucucha. Tolkien never described Gwaihir as white did he...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Ucucha 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:

• Nissan Island is in Papua New Guinea, not in the country of the Solomon Islands. It's arguably in the Solomon Islands (archipelago), but saying that this species is mentioned in folk tales in "the Solomon Islands", as the current lead does, is confusing at best.

agree - just removed any locality from lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The map shows this species occurring in the Solomon Islands (the country), where the article says Sanford's Sea Eagle occurs.

Aaah, that's why there is that paler blue circle - adjusted map caption accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sanford's and White-bellied are called a superspecies in the lead and a species pair in the "Taxonomy" section. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms, but it's better to be consistent, and "species pair" redirects to cryptic species, which I don't think is appropriate.

superspecies done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The talons, bill, and eyes are dark as in all Gondwanan sea eagles"—I couldn't find this in the cited reference (Wink et al., 1996). I'm not sure the word "Gondwanan" is a good choice here, since those eagles probably evolved long after the breakup of Gondwana; why not use "Southern Hemisphere" or so?

Ok, latter is plainer English too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, is the reference correct? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

duh! I shoulda realised - dark yellow..fixed now. nuts to my speed-reading...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why are the Wedge-tailed Eagle and Grey-headed Fish Eagle not linked?

cos I hate them sloppiness, fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The White-bellied Sea Eagle is generally sedentary and territorial, although it may travel long distances. They have been reported travelling upriver to hunt for flying foxes (Pteropus)"—is this really accurately cited to Tarr (1962)?

Damn, something's gone awry there and a reference has dropped out. I'll update once found. Found it and added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "(including one record of seizing the last species when unsuccessful in obtaining its prey)"—sounds awkward; probably better put it in a separate sentence

duly split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unclear now whether the prey was the eagle's or the gannet's. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "A study of the species in Jervis Bay showed increases in the numbers of immature and subadult birds in autumn, although it was unclear whether these were locally-fledged or (as was considered more likely) an influx of young birds born and raised elsewhere in Australia"—why is this not under "Breeding", together with the information about the breeding season?

I was intending on some notes on territoriality and seasonal movements in the beginning bit because it is focussing on outside breeding season more than the breeding season itself....it leaves a very small behaviour section if I move it out Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The White-bellied Sea Eagle is listed as marine and migratory"—what is the relevance of the "marine and migratory" part?

I have reworded it a little - it is the marine and migratory categories under those tow pages which make it a protected species nationally in Oz. Is a rewording sufficient (as both categories are linked on the national page), or do you think I should also link both original rulings on the wikipedia page? Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Like Carcharoth, I think the "Cultural significance" section is rather piecemeal. Do we need all those names, for example? It obviously has names in the area where it occurs (the interwikis will give you a few more), but we don't normally list those except when they are otherwise relevant. The Aboriginal tribe that uses the same name for itself and for the eagle is quite interesting, for example.

@Ucucha and Carcharoth - I have reworked into three paras (1) australian indigenous beliefs (2) those beliefs elsewhere (3) more modern material. There is a nice covering phrase in the thesis for Australian beliefs, but none for elsewhere. I mean, it would be great if someone had pointed out its loud call had been written about in several folk tales (the Malay, Indian and Nissan stories), but none exists so I can't do the OR and tie it together. Have also tried looking for more extra-Australian material but without much success... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Still, do we need all those names? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the ones which were just isolated "the name of the bird is X" ones - I left the gulbi one as it is in Colebee as well, ditto Mak Mak. Listing Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk helps show the Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park (which is not far from where the Mak Mak are) is from a distinct source/story/people etc. The other four help flesh out the people/locales talking about the Sea Eagle and are good for flow. If I removed all them it'd sound more listy again. Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Some refs need to be formatted: for example, current ref. 9 (to Baldwin 2010) should probably use {{cite thesis}}, refs. 26 and 33 repeat the name of the department (and are otherwise inconsistent), ref. 68 shouldn't have "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" italicized, etcetera.

done first, one of the repeated ones is actually how they ask to be referenced on the bottom of the department web page, tweaked the other department one (note that state and federal gov'ts are different entities), the "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" is the work= parameter of the cite web template, reduced it to "Official Site". Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to fill in both |publisher= and |work=, and I think the latter is rarely needed in cite web. There are a few more like this; the ref to Birds Australia apparently has |publisher=Birds Australia|work=Birds Australia website; that's not helping anyone. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, work parameters removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/birds/Haliaeetus_leucogaster.htm a high-quality reliable source?

I left it in as I couldn't find the information elsewhere....and upon thinking about it there may be a good reason why it isn't elsewhere (i.e. not quite accurate), and then I realised much of it is in next sentence, so deleted it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 03:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, COI, comments I'm a member of the Bird Project, and I've made a number of minor edits to this article. Unsurprisingly, I can't find much wrong with it, so just two comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Description" veers from singular in para 1 to plural in para 2

duly singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Should "coot" be bolded since it refers to a single species?

yup. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead comments: I believe the lead is sufficiently well-written, and it appears to contain material from each of the major sections (a refreshing change of pace indeed!). However, there are a few questions that I think should be answered in the lead:

• Are there any critters that prey upon this critter?

aaargh - even though it is blindingly obvious that it is an apex predator, finding a source which say just that is elusive :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aargh indeed -- I know the frustration. If you happen to stumble upon a source for this fact, it would be a great addition, but we obviously can't invent facts, so don't fret over it too much. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• How big is this critter?

added stats of larger size. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• How long have people known about this critter?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, thanks for the good work thus far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Anfield

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is close to featured standard. The article has received a copyedit from the GOCE and has had a peer review which proved very productive. I now believe the article is in very good condition and ready to be considered for featured status. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 49: why no date?
• Why italicize CNN and not BBC Sport?
• FN 40: check publisher punctuation
• Location for Kelly?
• Are all of the publisher locations in References in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the first four issues and yes all of the publisher locations are in the UK. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review
  • I don't like the situation with File:View of inside Anfield Stadium from Anfield Road Stand.jpg (it was uploaded by the photographer in low res under a free license, but links to a flickr page with a high res version under a CC BY-NC-SA-2.0 license, which isn't free). Don't know what can be done about it. It's strictly legal but in very poor form.

I think File:The view from the Kop.jpg might be able to replace it, the quality is better and there is no issue over the license. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It works, but if you do that, you should pull File:The Kop, Anfield.jpg from the bottom of the article, as the two are almost identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

done, added one which highlights what the caption is stating. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The quality on File:FlagpoleGreatEasternLFC.jpg is just awful. If someone near the stadium could snap a replacement picture, that'd be nice.

Ye its not the best, can't find a replacement on flickr either, unfortunately I don't live near the stadium so can't get a replacement picture hopefully someone will be kind enough to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll poke around on the IRC, I know a couple of people there live in England, but I don't know where specifically. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The quality on File:Paisley Gateway, Anfield - geograph.org.uk - 81527.jpg is okay, but could be much better. Not really urgent.

Found a better one which is now in the article NapHit (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Works. The angle isn't the best but no image is perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • A couple images could use having their date fields filled. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

added the dates to the images that didn't have any. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Support (through gritted Evertonian teeth). A few very minor points on prose:

• Lead
  • As Shankly was the manager before Paisley perhaps mention the former's gates first.
• History
  • Image caption: "The This is Anfield sign…" gives the false impression at first glance of being a typo: perhaps inverted commas or possibly italics?
  • "The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield" – singular or plural? Consistency needed.
  • "They won 7–1" – clearer to the casual reader if you wrote "Liverpool won 7–1"
  • "Liverpool's first Lancashire League match at Anfield was played on 9 September 1893, against Lincoln City" – to the uninformed reader (e.g. me) it is not clear what Lincoln City would be doing playing in the Lancashire League. Could we have a footnote?

You were right to query this, it was in fact Liverpool's first game in the Football League. Footnote follows in the next sentence with the score of the match. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • "was hauled up the Everton Valley" – I wasn't brung up to say "the Everton Valley" – is the definite article needed?
  • "It still stands there today" – does the "today" add anything here?
• Structures and facilities
  • "with space for one personal assistant" – one per visually impaired patron or one for all of them?
  • "The Paisley Gateway is a tribute of Bob Paisley" – "to" rather than "of"? Ditto for Shankly, later in the same para.
• Future
  • "the Kop is unrivaled" – this is not what the quoted source says.

It does, the quote is at the start of the fourth paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, you know; look again: it says "unrivalled" (English spelling, not American). My earlier comment was too cryptic, I admit. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, corrected it NapHit (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Records
  • Somewhat one-sided. Perhaps a mention of the longest losing streak etc to balance the laudatory statistics already presented?

This is a fine article, and remarkably fairly balanced. Well done, blast it! Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

All my minor points above now addressed, and duly struck through. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, especially seeing as your a blue :p I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. This looks like a nice piece of work (also said through gritted teeth, as I'm from Manchester). There are a couple of things I didn't follow though:

• The Structures and facilities section says that there are 59 spaces available in the stadium for wheelchair users, 33 of which are available for general sale, 8 allocated to away supporters, and 2 reserved for emergencies. But that only makes 43, not 59.

Resolved this, I mis-read the source the 59 space is for season tickets holders, not a total as it suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The History section starts off by telling us that Orrell was the original owner of the stadium, who sold it to Houlding in 1885. But a few sentences later we're told that "A dispute emerged between Houlding and the Everton F.C. committee [when?] that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell." I don't understand that at all. And why did Orrell build the stadium in 1884? What was it used for before Everton moved in? The text says that Orrell let the land to Everton not the stadium ... in short, when was the stadium built, by whom, and why?

It is a confusing episode, firstly Houlding let the land of Orrell who still owned. I don't think Orrell built the stadium from my books say he simply let the land to Everton who built the stands themselves, as to what was there before the stadium I think it was simply a field that Orrell owned, I hope I've cleared that up. Not really sure how I can make that clearer in the prose.

• One last thing, the Other uses section is really choppily written and looks like it was at one time a list that's been converted rather unskillfully into prose. It really needs to flow a little better than it does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a go at improving this, I think its in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. All my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment -

• The caption for the first image (going down the article from the top) should not have the T in "the" capitalised, if the F in "from" is not, I do not think.
• In the intro, is "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, greatly reduced capacity." correct? Would it rather be "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, include greatly reduced capacity." or something to that effect?
• Is the first comma in "Fenway Sports Group's acquisition of Liverpool in 2010, has made the construction of a new stadium doubtful..." (from the intro) necessary?
• In the History section, it is stated that "Everton quickly improved as a team, and became Anfield's first league champions...". This was slightly confusing to me as no games other than their win of 5-0 were mentioned. I was under the impression that it already was a good team.

Their first match won't have been in the football league, it will have been in a league below that so that highlights the improvement. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The most recent change to Anfield came in 1998 when the new two-tier Anfield Road end was opened." is stated in the History section. You may want to reword this ("The most recent structural change"?), as introducing a new style of turnstile might be considered to be a more recent change to Anfield. So might adding support poles and stanchions.
• The Structures and Facilities section refers to the "THIS IS ANFIELD" sign's text as all capital. However, the image caption higher up does not. You might consider changing this for consistency's sake.
• Just to confirm, in Structures and Facilities, are there 19 spaces for the visually impaired (38 total to include the personal assistants), or 38 spaces for the visually impaired (76 total to include the personal assistants)? It is a tad ambiguous but not necessarily warranting change.

38 for visually impaired with space for one personal assistant so it probably is 76 total, but as the source doesn't say 76 I'm reluctant to put that in the article. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, are the headsets to provide full commentary just a luxury in case the visually impaired are also impaired in hearing? Is there a location for those with hearing impairments and/or would they be allowed to use the spots allocated to those who are visually impaired?

What is says in the article is what the source says, so unfortunately I can't elaborate any further NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the second image from the bottom's caption, is the text grammatically correct as a sentence?

No it wasn't you're right it sounded like the owner was going to construct the stadium himself! changed it NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*"On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to build a new stadium 300 yards (270 m) away from Anfield at Stanley Park.[31]" -- Is Liverpool referring to the team, and would the plural verb be appropriate here? The same question about the plural verb applies to, under Other Uses, "England have played Wales at the stadium on three occasions..." and other times it recurs several more times throughout the section. Further information: A ctrl+F search showed that the instances of the word "have" in the article are just after the pronoun "they", "users", "England", and "Wales". Ctrl+F also revealed that the only two instances of "____ were" in which the subject is not immediately apparent to me as being plural were "Everton, who previously played at Priory Road, were in need..." (under History) and "On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to..." (under Future). I had not realised that this had already been addressed with "'The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield' – singular or plural? Consistency needed."

The references and footnotes are okay from what I can tell and sorry for the long post. Micromann (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - All typographical and grammatical issues I noticed through 2 readings were corrected. There are no actionable objections which have not been resolved, and there appears to be a good balance between length and detail in this article. Micromann (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support by Comments from Jappalang

History

• "Everton's landlord changed when Houlding purchased the land from Orrell in 1885, charging direct rent."

  Pardon my density, but this is a bit confusing to me. Initially Houlding rented from Orrell, then he bought the land and charged himself direct rent?

  Ye there was a mistake, according to my books Houlding never bought the ground outright from Orrel before Liverpool F.C. came into existence so I've removed the sentence as its false. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  Removing this sentence, however, eliminates the context for "that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell into a disagreement", and if Houlding never bought the ground, how did this came about? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  Houlding bought the ground after Everton left. Everton wanted to buy the ground before they left, but Houlding owned land adjacent to Anfield and wanted the club to buy that as well as Anfield, so they decided to move elsewhere. I'm not sure how the removal of that sentence removes the context, as it still says that Everton rented the ground off Orrell which provides the context for wanting to buy the ground. I can add the bit at the start of my reply if you want I think that will clear up the issue a bit. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  I see, it was the phrasing of the later sentence that catches me a bit off guard; I made some changes to clarify things (in my opinion), please check them over. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Houlding was left with an empty stadium, and decided to form a new club to occupy it."

  Does this mean Houlding's presidency of Everton F.C. was deposed?

  Again, I'm not sure Houlding was ever President of Everton F.C., there is no mention of him being President in my books so I've changed it to member (albeit an influential one) which the books say he was NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• "... former manager Bill Shankly; Shankly's widow Nessie ..."

  I think it could be changed to "his widow" to cut a bit of repetition.

• "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans died, ..."

  Would it be better to state instead "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where overcrowding led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, ..." to give the following clause some context on the change to all-seaters?

• "... depicts Shankly wearing a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."

  "... depicts Shankly with a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."

Structures and facilities

• "... to bring those who touch it good luck."

  Including the opposition (heh)?

Other uses

• "England has played Wales at the stadium on three occasions, in 1905, 1922 and 1931; England won all three matches."

  This sentence seems rather disconnected from the previous (first international game was England–Ireland) and trivial in overall context (why is it important to mention England played Wales three times here and list all years).

  England normally play the majority of their home matches at Wembley, with other grounds in the country rarely seeing the national team play at their ground, so in that regard its important. Perhaps listing all the years is a bit much, but I feel its important, as it shows when England were playing in different grounds. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  It might be of significance but not in such detail; one might summarise it as "Anfield was also the home venue for several of England's international football matches in the early 1900s and for the Welsh team in the later part of that century." Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  added this sentence now and removed the superfluous detail. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Wales have staged three matches at Anfield—against Scotland in 1977, Italy in 1998, and Denmark in 1999."

  Same issue as above—why is Wales especially mentioned (is there some sort of Welsh connection behind the club's history)?

  Per the first point, national teams in Britain at least normally play at a fixed venue, so the fact that they are playing elsewhere and outside their country as well, does have some significance. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  See above.

Records

• "Liverpool did not lose a home league match at Anfield during the ..."; "Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield from ..."

  This seems repetitive; suggestion for the second sentence: "Liverpool's longest winning streak at home extended from ...", which would match well with the subsequent sentence about losing streak.

• "This occurred three times in the 1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons."

  This seems to suggest to me that the 3-game losing streak occured three times in each of those seasons. Is that the case or would "This occurred three times in the club's history to date (1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons)." be a better sentence?

Images

• File:Anfield attendance from 1946 to 2007.png: Per WP:V, the image page should list its sources for the attendance figures.

  http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm was given as the source; what makes this website a reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  I've found which is a reliable site and if you click on the appropriate season link and choose the statistics tab then the average attendance for that season can be seen. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  This site's "About" does describe a certain pedigree and faithfulness in their research (poring through documented materials). It looks fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:Anfield outline.svg: Also in line with WP:V and WP:IUP, the source of data for the layout should be given.

I am keen to support this article once the more critical issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've addressed all your comments, thank you for the review. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (not an opposable action): is it really possible for players to "reach up and place one or both hands on" File:This is Anfield.jpg? It seems they would have to jump (on the stairs), which would make it a wee bit of a dangerous stunt to pull... Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it is sure I was able to do it when I went on the stadium tour recently, so I'm sure the players can manage. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my concerns have been resolved and I believe this brief but comprehensive and nicely written article about a stadium (whose club I do not support—I support a certain Red but not this Reds) qualifies for Featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Hope none of these are redundant to anything in Jappalang's review...

• History: "Orrell let the pitch to the club...". Here, "let" should be "lent".
• Don't need to link Shankly twice in this section. Also don't think the one in the next section is necessary.
• Structures and facilities: "The Kop is the most-renowned stand at Anfield amongst home and away supporters". "amongst" → "among"?
• Comma would be useful in "Originally a single-tier stand a further revamp", after "stand".
• Photo caption: "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand, has led owner John W. Henry to reconsider the construction of a new stadium." Something feels wrong with "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand." Maybe "The Kop; the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand has led...". That just tweaks the punctuation, but should be enough to fix it adequately.
• Other uses: NRL should be spelled out.
• Records: More overlinking for the 1893–94 season. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Looks to be in good shape, and passes the Inglis test. Just a couple of queries:
  • Using your sources can you confirm whether either of the developments from the early 1900s was designed by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch, as some fansites imply? If so, he ought to be mentioned by name.
  • If there's a suitable source for it, it'd be worth mentioning that Liverpool always play towards the Kop in the second half if they win the toss.
  • Might be difficult to achieve while maintaining a neutral tone, but the bit about the Kop could be tweaked to stress the reputation it had as one of the most fearsome terraces to play in front of. Didn't Shankly once say something about the Kop "sucking the ball into the net", or is that apocryphal? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Oldelpaso, I've added info about Leitch and the Kop sucking the ball into the goal, but I couldn't add anything about Liverpool playing towards the Kop in the second half, as I couldn't find a reliable source. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this and have reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Cirrus cloud

Nominator(s): Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that cirrus cloud meets the FA criteria. It is an important topic, and appears to be read every so often in schools (judging by the number of times I have to rollback the article). I've gotten this article from a little, tolerably-sourced start to DYK and then to GA. I would now like to get it all the way to FA status, and I have had a peer review to help it along. Thanks for everybody's help along the way, and I guess it is now my time for my baptism by fire. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• McGraw-Hill Editorial Team or Staff?
  • Staff. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Many of your footnote-to-bibliography links appear to be broken
  • I don't know how to get them to work. Could somebody please point me to an example of them working? Reaper Eternal (talk)
    • Californium is the next article on the FAC list to use them, and they work there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, fixed. (I was missing the |ref=xxx parameters.)
• FN 15: why not include the other authors here? Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Added "et al". Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Date for Hamilton?
  • As this actually is an eBook, it doesn't appear to have a date of publication. I check Google books and the publisher's website, and neither gives a date of publication. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Be consistent in whether you include a comma before "et al." or not
  • Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Missing bibliographic info for Ahrens 2007
  • Sorry, typo (meant Ahrens 2006). Reaper Eternal (talk)
• FN 4: spell out or link NOAA
  • Spelled out and linked. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • I think these are all fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• FN 14: should include information on original source
  • Oops, this was an old link to the McGraw-Hill book. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
  • All (2) removed, as it is unimportant Reaper Eternal (talk)
• FN 27: why the difference in date format here?
  • Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• FN 49: check formatting on page range
  • Hyphen changed to en-dash, abgbreviation fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Added. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• FN 53: should include the name of the interviewee
  • I added the interviewer's name, but the interviewee's name is not given. Removed because this broke the {{cite interview}} template by not having interviewee's name. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• No need to include page numbers for books in Bibliography, since page numbers are in footnotes
  • Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Retrieval dates aren't needed for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
  • Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Some of the sources marked as eBooks in fact appear to be normal books.
  • Sorry, I thought that the "eBook" was referring to the fact that the link was to Google Books. EDIT: One actually is an eBook, however. Reaper Eternal (talk)

In general sources appear reliable, but formatting needs to be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I try to only cite reliable sources to prevent errors from creeping in. However, my formatting is not very good :P ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get around to looking at this. This edit serves only as a reminder to myself to do so. Carry on. :) -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments.

• Please do not let Atmoz disturb you. He is a global warming skeptic. Try to keep to mainstream science and don't let this McIntyre-lover upset you.
  • I'm a global warming skeptic myself, so he won't bother me. :) I just try not to let my POV show in the articles I write, but just state what the sources say without asserting global warming's existence or nonexistence. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Break the lead into paragraphs (not arbitrarily, but with structure).
  • Fixed while resolving another issue. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Mention the altitude in lead.
  • Done. Added to the short, choppy sentence on color, which now reads nicer too. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Consider dropping the ubiquitous Infobox. Not helpful for this kind of article. Keep the pictures...scrumptious.
  • Dropped. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Add some pics in "Description".
  • Added a couple in various locations. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Further down, there are a bunch of pics at 150 (way too small). Think about ways to present these better (perhaps centering).
  • I increased the size to 250px. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Try to make the article have a little more "putting things into a larger context" or structure. I just felt like I was not getting a good sense of where this cloud fits into the family of clouds in general.
  • I added a description in the lead of the various cloud forms and how they compare to the cirrus clouds. Incidentally, this also fixed the issue with the lead being one paragraph. I cannot split it any more without just breaking it at some random location. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Also, clarify a little more if some of the aspects listed are peculiar to this kind of cloud (like the "glory" or hurricane association) or happend with all clouds.
  • Most of the optical phenomena are peculiar to ice-crystal clouds (various cirriform clouds. It appears that only cirrus clouds are associated with hurricanes, or at least no source that I could find describes any other. The problem with this is I am essentially trying to prove a negative, and all sources I can find state the positive. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• (NEW)Try to do some illustration of a concept, that is a non-photograph of a cloud. Is there some analytical diagram, chart, map, comparison, or the like, that would help educate us? Maybe some Excel analysis shown in a chart (reffed properly of course), or a table or something? A measurement instrument? An effect? Predecessors and successors (arranged in a "this leads to this" set of images)? I really don't know what...just pushing you to think about it and see what you can come up with.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For instance, a quick google found this image () which kinda answers my "where does it fit in the family question. Here is a google search on cirrus+cloud+chart (): scanning down, I see a few diagrams and charts.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I found a diagram and added it next to the description in the lead. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Other than that, looked pretty polished, although I skimmed, no parsed. Just work a little more on context and structure, so my mind does not wander. TCO (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, and I think I have fixed all of your issues. Does the chart showing cloud height and the paragraph describing the relationships added to the lead help? will be back later to work on the rest! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 15:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. That lede image is massive. Please shrink it, as it looks rather bad in small-resolution screens. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Shrunk. My screen resolution for my home PC is 1920x1080, so I hadn't really noticed it being very big. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Better. Also, the link to Graeme et al (1990) is dead. I recommend linking to the J. Atmos. Sci page directly at . (It shouldn't be behind a paywall, given that it was published in 1990.) Also consider adding Bibcodes to the references, such as . Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Link fixed (thanks for the new, better link), and bibcodes added to all but Miyazaki et al's and Parungo's papers, which don't appear to be in that database. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • And it's "Relevance," not "Relevence," by the way... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Spelling corrected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Units check

It says 200 mb and has other instances intended to mean millibar. The symbol for millibar is 'mbar'.

• Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)

It says .001 millimeters to .1 millimeters. Decimals should have a leading zero.

• I think I fixed all these now.... Reaper Eternal (talk)

It has inconsistent 'er' and 're' spelling. Make it consistent with the article's spelling status of US or nonUS spelling.

• All changed to "er". Reaper Eternal (talk)

Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I got all these issues. Anything else need fixing? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the unit edits. It looks good from the units point of view now. Lightmouse (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The lead must not contain references, as it only summarizes the article (per WP:MOS). TGilmour (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• TGilmour, that information is incorrect-- please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'll work on getting the number of citations in the lead down to a better number, but a couple, like the ones sourcing the name, cannot be removed easily. Also, the lead can contain citations for material likely to be challenged, such as claims about "tuft of hair" and "Latin for curl". (See WP:LEADCITE.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment (GermanJoe) Oppose for now, though the article will certainly be FA with a bit of changes. It has comprehensive information, good prose and structure in most parts. There are 1-2 very basic problems with lead (see WP:LEAD) and images and a few minor things:

• Lead - "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and [possibly] Neptune". ==> Main text doesn't state Neptune as a matter of fact, just as a possible occurence. Both statements need to be consistent.
  • Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Lead - "They range in color from white to a faint gray, and form at altitudes of 6,100 m (20,000 ft) and above." ==> Those facts aren't in main text (neither the color nor the altitude value) and seem to contradict several other altitude information in text: Lead last paragraph states, that high-etage clouds (all types?) can occur as low as 3,000 m above sea level. "Description" in main text states "The cloud's height above sea level can be anywhere from 4 km ...". If those differing values are due to different background information or measurements, this should be clarified. If not, the values should be made consistent.
  • Made consistent by offering explaining that they form at different altitudes at different latitudes. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Lead - Last two paragraphs of lead do not follow WP:LEAD guidelines, lead should be a summary introduction and all facts from lead should be present (with more detail) in main text. If this information is needed, it should be trimmed in lead and the main part moved somewhere to main text, maybe together with the diagram, which is a bit distracting in the lead.
  • Moved to its own section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Lead - The systematic listing of all cloud forms also strays away from article focus, are all those details really needed to understand cirrus clouds? A lot of this information may be better put into an article about clouds in general.
  • I added this because TCO wanted information about cirrus clouds as related to other clouds. It has been moved to its own section under the lead, but I am thinking it maybe should be moved to between the cirrocumulus section and the "ex-earth cirrus" section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Lead - Generally all lead statements need to be checked: Are they summary style? Is lead information present and consistent in the main text?
  • I've rewritten the lead to have better flow, have more consistency, and be a better summary of the body. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Values - article switches between 4 km and 4,000 m several times. One consistent method should be used (no idea, if MOS recommends one of them).
  • Changed all to meters. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Images - Probably not always possible, but placement of images should be improved, avoid sandwiching of text between 2 images (in sections "Optical phenomena" and "formation in cyclones", see WP:MOSIMAGES).
  • I'll do my best, but there are always going to be issues depending on what size screen is used. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Images - are 2 halo images needed? Moon halos aren't mentioned in text. Consider removing moon halo image.
  • Removed that image and moved the solar halo image into its place. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Formation in cyclones - "the top reaches reaches the tropopause" ==> second "reaches"?
  • Oops. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
• Description - the structure of first paragraph is a bit confusing. The article states all averages for certain cloud features in one list and then goes on to list the ranges of the same features again in a separate list. A structure combining average with range variations for each single feature would probably be easier to follow. GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I rewrote this paragraph to keep the ranges with their corresponding averages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)