Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2009

John the bookmaker controversy

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is about one of the most famous matchfixing/bribery related scandals in cricket, involving Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, who had dealing with bookmakers. Article has been copyedited by Mattisse and myself. The article is very accessible to the layperson as it does not require knowledge of the laws of cricket etc :) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – the opening sentence doesn't meet WP:BOLDTITLE. I don't like that policy, and I think the lead is fine as-is, but I'm just pointing that out. —Noisalt (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would unbold the entire first sentence per WP:BOLDITIS and this line from WP:BOLDTITLE: "However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." A review to follow later. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article switches from "1994–1995" to "1994–95", and the final blockquote has a stray comma ("Rob Regan, [1][11]"). That's all that jumps out at me. I know nothing of cricket so I can't say much else. But this article is refreshingly straightforward (no ugly templates or colorful crap) and charmingly written ("unwary cricketers"), so I hope it passes. —Noisalt (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Switched these YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – That right-facing image shouldn't be facing out of the page. Rotational (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now replaced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite what Rotational said, there's no requirement for images to face the text. Photographs shouldn't be flipped, see MOS:IMAGES. —Noisalt (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No I wll just shift it to the left for the original YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice choice of topic. I'd suggest two things: one is that the "two players" needs to be clarified in the Lead (first use of the term comes after mention of three cricketers). The other is that the Lead is too short. Easy to expand using some of the content from the "Later inquiries" section, that's currently missing. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Doing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A nicely written, straightforward article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: Only image in the article is in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Pretty sound article, very informative on the subject. Shame we have no images of "John" as the article does look a little bare. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well he's an unknown underworld figure and nobody knows what he looks like YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - As GA reviewer of this article, where YellowMonkey was thoroughly receptive and fixed all issues, I agree with the evaluation ofMalleus Fatuorum. The article has been improved since. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments – Agree with Dweller that this is an excellent topic to work on. I found a few things to work on before I support, but I am planning on doing so in the near-future.
• Involvement with bookmaker: "The next day he invited Warne to his hotel room and, describing himself as big fan". Missing "a" toward the end of this part.
• Move reference 8 after parentheses.
• In the Simpson photo caption, either remove the comma or add "who" after it.
• Secretly punished: Don't need another Salim Malik link.
• Aftermath: "In December 1998, before to the Third Test between Australia and England at the Adelaide Oval". Remove "to". Also, why is there a generic year in sports link here?
• "At the time, Conn was unaware that of Warne's involvement." Drop "that".
• "pledged his organisation's support for the players as, whom he described as 'outstanding servants of Australian cricket'. Remove first "as"?
• Remove second The Age link. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all of these. How careless YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Chelsea Bridge

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bare-knuckle boxing... A city dependent on a network of hollow elm trunks to carry its water supply... Biker gangs fighting to the death with spiked flails and sawn-off shotguns... A river filled with animal carcasses... Iron Age Celtic warriors... A gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea... The birth of football as a spectator sport... What else could it be but another visit to the world of 19th-century civil engineering?

This should be the last of these for a while; this is the last of the interlinked articles of this segment of the Thames Bridges series, with the common theme of 19th-century attempts to use emerging transport technologies to engineer new development in the open lands to the south and west of the original London and Westminster while simultaneously making a profit (Wandsworth, Battersea, Albert, Chelsea and Vauxhall bridges), and I think the best of them. It's also provided my favourite strange-but-true DYK (Did You Know... that Chelsea Bridge was little used at night when it first opened, because of its owners' policy of only turning the lighting on if Queen Victoria was spending the night in London?). Hopefully you won't find anything too wrong with it. As usual, credit due to Malleus for excellent work in cleaning up some of the original sticky globs of prose.

(Two minor points; I know that the two quote boxes one above the other make the article appear slightly lopsided – and probably violate some arcane part of the MOS – but I think it's important for them to follow each other like this, to show just how thoroughly "received wisdom" on the merits of the bridge shifted. And the list of redlinks in the list of biker gangs involved in the 1970 fight looks odd; it's done this way because Hells Angels obviously needs to be a bluelink and Road Rats is undoubtedly a valid redlink in that we ought to have an article on them, and linking some of the gangs but not others looked odd. I've no strong opinions if anyone makes a good case for changing it.) – iridescent 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical review

• One dablink to Spoil
• External links all work
• Refcheck comes up problem free.

Just a thought - should Battersea Fields be a redirect to Battersea Park? Bencherlite^Talk 22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoil is an intentional dablink (read the Spoil page and you'll see; none of the suggested options actually covers the concept, but the dab page itself actually does). I don't think Battersea Fields should redirect to Battersea Park; although the latter was built (partly) on the site of the former, one was a large swamp used for growing asparagus and lavender and for general drunken debauchery, and the other was (and is) a High Victorian formal pleasure garden. On a smaller scale, it's equivalent to redirecting Eboracum→York, Tenochtitlan→Mexico City or Middlesex→London. (Or indeed, Chelsea, London→Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.) I can certainly knock off a stub on the fields if there's a problem with the redlink. – iridescent 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For instructions on intentional links to dab pages see WP:INTDABLINK. William Avery (talk)

In this case I disagree. Firstly, there's no Spoil (disambiguation) page, so WP:INTDABLINK doesn't apply; secondly, although Spoil is tagged as a dab page, in my opinion it's tagged in error (it's short, but the one line of text actually does explain what spoil is). – iridescent 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Interjecting here, could we use wikitionary? I.e. wikt:spoil (piping it of course). Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it's really necessary to send people off-wiki; the definition at Wiktionary ("Material (such as rock or earth) removed in the course of an excavation, or in mining or dredging") is virtually the same as that currently at Spoil. An odd one; I do think it needs to be linked to something, as it's a term people won't necessary be familiar with and not obvious-from-context if you don't already know what it means. The sensible thing IMO would be to expand Spoil so it's more than a dicdef. Or, what would people think about removing the link and adding a definition in a footnote? – iridescent 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it (wiktionary linking) is allowed and encouraged per Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. Editors, however, have differing opinions (Sandy, for one, dislikes them—see the talk page there). Jappalang (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep :) Wiki sister pages are not reliable sources, and should be treated as any other non-reliable source IMO ... we don't allow non-RS in FAs, not sure why we make an exception for some sister projects. But I digress ... that's just my opinion :) I do think a cited, referenced footnote is a good solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordian knot solution. – iridescent 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support & Comments from DavidCane (talk)

• With an introduction like that, I swear I heard the tones of Don LaFontaine doing a voice over.
• Lead
  • Slight ambiguity in "...development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames, to provide convenient access to the newly created Battersea Park." On first reading it seemed to be suggesting that the bridge was built to provide access from the marshlands being developed on the south side of the river to Battersea Park (which is, of course, on the south side).
• Background
  • Whilst I'm aware of the Wellington/Winchilsea duel, there isn't a citation given for it.
  • Might be useful to state either how far up river Teddington or Seething Wells is.
• Victoria Bridge - Design and Construction
  • An English translation of "Gloria Deo in Excelsis", might be helpful, i.e. "Glory to God in the highest"
• Chelsea Bridge - Design and Construction
  • Technically, it's actual the LCC's coat of arms rather than a crest as it doesn't have a helm above it. The blue and white lines are actually barry wavy and they represent the Thames rather than the sea. Might add a link to Coat of arms of London County Council.
• Notes
  • Note 2: "the river is very low at this point". shouldn't that be "shallow" rather than "low".

--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded to "as part of a major development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames into the new Battersea Park, to provide convenient access from the densely populated north bank to the new park."
• Cited the duel – that lost its citation somewhere in the being shunted around.
• The trouble with giving a distance to Seething Wells is that there are so many ways to measure it – the river is very twisty in this stretch, so "distance upstream" would be almost twice the distance as the crow flies. It's such a minor point I didn't think it warrants mentioning.
• Added a translation; one of those phrases that I hear so often, I forget that other people won't know it.
• I think I've fixed the crest/coat of arms thing; what I know about heraldry could fit on a postage stamp. If you wouldn't mind double-checking (and fixing any more mistakes) I'd be most grateful. (The source for this – Matthews – says "crest", but I'm perfectly willing to believe he's wrong on this.)
• Yes, of course it should be "shallow" (doh!).

Hope that's everything. I know that "crests" section is a bit odd, but I think it needs to be explained just why these enormous gaudy things are sitting at the ends of an otherwise starkly utilitarian bit of 30s design. – iridescent 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, Any chance of an article on that duel, even just something of a stub? Seems like a pretty whacky thing to mention in passing yet we have no article on it (at least linked). Some other small, fixable comments:

• Are those rival motorcycle gangs notable enough that it's worth leaving red links on the chance they get articles made about them?
• The "Present Day" section seems quite short in comparison to the others. Maybe it's a stretch, but has it made any famous appearances in film? Any famous races cross it?

If anything though those are really just questions, not particularly pressing issues. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The duel is already covered in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and George Finch-Hatton, 10th Earl of Winchilsea, already linked in the article. As it's probably the only event for which Winchilsea's remembered today, it seems to me to be unnecessary content-forking to also have a separate article on the duel, although one could be created from the material in the two biographies if warranted.

As per my comments at the top, I've added redlinks for all the biker gangs because Hells Angels and Road Rats both need to be linked, and the row of redlinks looked less jarring than linking some but not others. I've no strong opinion on it.

The "Present day" section is short because it's a necessary section, but there's not a great deal to go there; the land at the northern end is mostly occupied by the Royal Hospital Chelsea and at the southern end by Battersea Power Station and Battersea Park, none of which have changed significantly in the last few decades, and the only alterations to the bridge itself have been the repainting, the addition of the LED lighting, and the footbridge underneath. Chelsea Bridge doesn't tend to feature much in films – the next one upriver, Albert Bridge, is more distinctive and causes less disruption when closed for filming, so tends to be the generic "West London bridge" used in films (as covered in that article). The only film I can think of to feature Chelsea Bridge with any prominence is Up the Junction, where the bridge serves as a symbolic dividing line between rich and poor, but I don't think that warrants mentioning. (It's over 40 years old, and would need a long sidetrack into 1960s social changes in the areas on both sides of the river to make sense.) The only other obvious "in popular culture", Chelsea Bridge (song), is actually about Battersea Bridge. – iridescent 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• That last bit is worth mentioning, I think. At least a single sentence like "So-and-so produced the song Chelsea Bridge in year whatever, though its subject was actually the Battersea Bridge." Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• It would get a bit complicated; the song was written in 1941 (only four years after this bridge opened) so doesn't really belong in a "present day" section; it would also need a very confusing explanation. ("The song Chelsea Bridge is not about Chelsea Bridge. Although written in 1941, it is actually about an earlier bridge, demolished in 1885, on the site of the current Battersea Bridge. While visiting London, Billy Strayhorn had seen James Abbott McNeill Whistler's Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge and The Falling Rocket on display and the song was written about the paintings; because Whistler's paintings intentionally distorted and obscured the structure of the bridge in a deliberate attempt to emulate Hokusai's painting style, it was impossible to tell which bridge was being depicted in the paintings without prior knowledge of their history, especially given that both Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge had by 1941 been demolished and replaced.") I can try to put something in if you really think it's necessary, but I was hoping that the dablink at the top of this article would avoid the need to do so.

Image concern as follows:

• File:London Chelsea br N.jpg: not sure what is going on here, but Azh7 names this upload as "Anton A. Zharov"'s work. Not three days later, he uploaded other works under the name of "Anton Obolensky". Uploader stopped his short contributions to Commons in February 2007.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced it with File:Chelsea Bridge traffic.jpg which is definitely free-use and illustrates the same point (the relative width of the roadway). – iridescent 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. Jappalang (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "Once such meeting in 1970 erupted into violence". Is "Once" supposed to be "One"?
• Some slight text sandwiching in Design and construction.
• Opening: Why is "en route" in italics? Is there a reason it's being given emphasis?
• Another ton link is really not needed here. There's already one both in the lead and the first section of the body.
• Abolition of tolls: "Architectural opinion had turned heavily against Victorian styles and Chelsea bridge was now deeply unpopular with architects". Capitalize "bridge".
• New Chelsea Bridge: More sandwiching here.
• "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". This is one of those awkward noun plus -ing sentence structures. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - don't know where that "once" crept in.
• I don't know what the MOS says about the use of loan-words and phrases and to be honest if it doesn't support italicising them I think it's the MOS that needs changing. This is an article on a British subject in British English, and common practice in British English is to italicise schadenfreude, inter alia, en route and so on. – iridescent 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rule is whether or not a dictionary italicises the word or phrase. All the examples you give (en route, schadenfreude, and inter alia) are italicised in my edition of the concise OED. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Completely disagree about long ton. On the two occasions where it's used (neither in the lead, incidentally), it's necessary to use the link to confirm which meaning of "ton" – which has multiple meanings – is being used.
• Capitalised.
• I'm not seeing any problematic sandwiching. WP:MOSIMAGE is not Holy Writ, and any sandwiching is only occurring between small parts of narrow images, and only at very wide window widths where there's no problem with it creating an unreadably narrow column of text squeezed between large images (which is what that "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" is supposed to address).
• Can't see the problem with "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". The power station was newly built. It was then dominating most views of the area. – iridescent 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The noun 'ing thing is easily fixed in this case, whether you agree it needs fixing or not, so I've been bold and rewritten that sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• The first paragraph of the lead is supposed to define the scope of the article and seems to define the bridge only as the modern bridge that superceded the old one. Quite a lot of the rest of the lead talks about a prior bridge. IMO you need to redefine the scope of the article in the first paragraph (for example by defining the bridge in terms of its location) or delete most of the information about the prior bridge from the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. The lead paragraph ("Chelsea Bridge is a Grade II listed self-anchored suspension bridge over the River Thames in West London, connecting Chelsea on the north bank to Battersea on the south bank. It opened in 1937 and replaced an earlier suspension bridge of 1857, originally known as Victoria Bridge but renamed Chelsea Bridge, built on the site of an ancient ford.", at the time of writing) makes it clear that this is about a 1937 structure replacing an 1857 structure which in turn replaced a ford. I can't see the issue here. – iridescent 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence was not a WP:GOODDEF it's important that articles start with one in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've rewritten the lead somewhat, and changed my vote accordingly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

John Wark

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk)

It started with a promise – a dedicated Norwich City fan, Dweller, said that if I returned safe and sound from my five months of round-the-world travel, he'd work with me to get this Ipswich Town living legend to FAC. Well here it is. A major overhaul over two months with around 400 edits has taken the article from a POV-dispute to, well, this. As always, your humble nominators will toil night and day to address concerns brought up here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Will check back later when I have more time, but one thing jumps out - "Wark has married twice—first to Toula, on 1 July 1981, soon after the 1978 FA Cup triumph". Three years is hardly "soon after" - are there some words missing..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, good spot. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Wark showed his worth as a goalscoring midfielder when he finished the following season as the club's top goalscorer, ahead of Ian Rush" "Wark showed his worth as a goalscoring midfielder" seems unnecessary, especially when you state that he was the top scorer immediately afterward.
  • The point we're trying to get across is that he was a goalscoring midfielder, not a striker. Rush was up front for Liverpool and Wark outscored him from midfield. This may be difficult to understand for non-soccer aficionados - perhaps we can find a compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand, not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• "He featured regularly and helped the team to seventh place" I don't quite understand what it means to be featured, especially as a defender.
• "in which Ipswich "recorded fewer victories and suffered more defeats than in any campagin in the club's history"." Is the typo intentional?
• " and a testimonial against Arsenal at Portman Road" What does "testimonial" mean here?

More later. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully addressed these comments, bar the goal scoring one... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• It was reported that he made "a small fortune by flogging" Might as well state who reported this, hm? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • He said it himself - updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few (minor) comments:

1. "During Wark's time with The Drum" reads a bit oddly; I had to go back and re-read the paragraph above before I realised it referred to Drumchapel. I appreciate you're trying to avoid repetition, but "The Drum" isn't an nickname like "Man U" that you can assume will be recognised.

   Confusion, hopefully, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

2. "But according to Wark, never touching the ball" is a bit vague. I've no doubt he said it, but was it actually true? We must have someone with a film of the 1987 League Cup Final (or a Rothmans) who can verify whether it was actually the case.

   Well, it is "according to Wark" - I haven't got access to the footage I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Nitpick alert! "Ipswich had been relegated 18 months before Wark's return to the club, meaning that they were playing in the second tier of English football" isn't true; Ipswich had failed to be promoted after being relegated. How about ""Ipswich had been relegated 18 months before Wark's return to the club, and were playing in the second tier of English football"?

   Correctly nit-picked. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Any way to avoid the awkward double quotation marks at the end of the "Autobiography" section?

   Fixed I think. There were some odd double spaces and wierd quote marks going on there as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Finally, the suck-eggs one: are there any free use photos of him actually playing floating around?

   I've tried. I've even emailed Mr Wark himself. So far, nada. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All minor things, and as it stands it meets my personal criterion of "says everything that ought to be said and there's no obvious way to say it better". –  iridescent  21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• Quick question: Why wasn't he in the squad for the 1984 European Cup Final and why isn't his appearance in the 1985 European Cup Final mentioned? --Jameboy (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll revisit the autobiography to see what I can do. Thanks for your comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Heysel stadium now covered. Haven't managed to find out a reason for him not being in the 84 European Cup Final. Unfortunately it's trying to prove a negative, which is always challenging. He may have been injured (no sources for this), he may have been out of favour (no sources for this), just no reliable evidence to support any assertions. Would you know of any? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from the Life outside football section.
• Wark has married twice—first to Toula, on 1 July 1981,[76] with whom he has a son, Andrew, born in June 1983. - No need for "born" IMO.
  • Then I guess it would need to say "....with whom he had a son, Andrew, in June 1983."? Always get a bit twitchy as that could be construed as him no longer having the son... do you see what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Could the In popular culture section be renamed to something that doesn't remind me of The Simpsons or video games? :)
  • Renamed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Despite his retirement from the professional ranks, Wark continued playing football as an amateur, including signing for Woodbridge Town in 1999 alongside former Ipswich team-mate Paul Mason. - To me, "amateur" means "beginning", and Wark is obviously not a beginner. Is there a better word for this?
  • In this context amateur means not professional, i.e. the literal sense of amateur being he played for enjoyment, not payment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• The book contained material which gained media interest. - A few more details would be great, if possible.
  • Well, there are two examples (him "flogging" his cup final tickets to a tout and him stating the current set of players wouldn't cut the mustard) - we felt any more would be a little over the top as it's just one aspect of the entire article.

I haven't read the rest of the article in-depth yet, but it looks great at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Julian, as ever thanks. Any further comments and helpful suggestions would be great. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, my only concerns have been addressed, and the rest of the article looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.tmwmtt.com/sql/seasons.phtml?text=1974-75
    • Replaced (despite it being the absolute de facto standard for comprehensive ITFC history) -> the less reliable but more generally accepted Soccerbase is used instead. As a matter of interest, one of the BBC sources uses Pride of Anglia itself... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2008/02/19/itfc_1978_in_video_feature.shtml). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm always open to being shown it's reliable ...
  • http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/features/23319-forgotten-number-seven-paul-walsh-interview.html
    • Replaced with Sydney Morning Herald. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.lockdales.com/Howtosell.htm
    • Removed altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have concerns over the large amounts of the article sourced to Wark's autobiography.
  • Me too but when you are dealing with a relatively minor footballer there are scant detailed resources on his earlier days. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Please spell out lesser-known abbreviations in the footnotes (I noted UEFA and FIFA but there may be others. BBC doesn't need spelling out, it's too well known.)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 96 (David Bolchover..) is a book, so should be formatted as such, not like a website.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decide whether you want the references with author's last names first or first names first and standardize them. Right now they are mixed.
  • Done - generally I'll blame Dweller for these.... ;-). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Cool! Can I blame Dweller for my next mistakes too? --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we can all blame Dweller for the time being as he doesn't edit at weekends! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I blame Dweller, too. Sorry, what are we talking about? --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Wark's time at Liverpool is perhaps underplayed. The lead describes it as a "short period", but he was there four years, which included a European Cup final, two league titles and a league cup final. The Liverpool section in the body could possibly be a little longer. While the anecdote about the medical is interesting and adds colour, he did plenty of note at Liverpool which is not included and might be considered a higher priority. Looking it up, he scored three hat-tricks, for instance.
    • Sure thing, I was mildly aware of that - being an ITFC fan, obviously my detailed interest and resources lay elsewhere... I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Added some further detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To a football fan, the significance of transferring to Liverpool in the 1980s is obvious. For those who aren't so familiar with English football, it'd be worth pointing out that Liverpool were the pre-eminent team of the period.
    • I will come up with something non-OR and NPOV which should explain the significance of signing for LFC in the 80s. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Tried to show the significance relating to the success of LFC over the prior few seasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Was inability to regain his place in the Liverpool team largely due to one man (Molby? McMahon?)
    • Will check. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • He came back replaced McMahon so I've added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Honours - we don't generally use the transient sponsored titles.
    • Removed where required I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ipswich did win a European trophy, the club's first" - mildly implies that there were others.
    • Replaced first with only (sadly..) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Wark was outraged and Middlesbrough lost the second leg 1–0." I'd suggest putting this as a separate sentence, with a semicolon instead of and.
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oldelpaso (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll see what LFC resources I can lay may hands on. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – The Dean Hayes book listed in the general references is not cited anywhere. Was it an original source that was taken out later? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's right. All the info from there has been superceded by various, more specific sources. It's still a good read though, so I've moved it to a Further reading subsection. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed. Support. Hope the rest is better than the lead!

• Opening sentence: "John Wark (born 4 August 1957) is a Scottish former footballer who spent most of his playing time with Ipswich Town, for whom he won a record four Player of the Year awards before becoming one of the four inaugural members of the club's Hall of Fame." It's longish and would probably be a better read if split: "John Wark (born 4 August 1957) is a Scottish former footballer who spent most of his playing time with Ipswich Town. He won a record four Player of the Year awards for the club before becoming one of the four inaugural members of its Hall of Fame." Gets rid of the "whom" for the club (which we realise is not a town after thinking about it).
• Second sentence: "Wark had long spells at the club, which bookended his career, and a third, briefer interlude dividing his short periods at Liverpool and Middlesbrough." OK, the two bookends were "long", and the third period was "briefER"—"brief" then "briefer" would go better than long then briefer. Perhaps "interlude" sufficiently implies that it was briefer; if "briefer" is removed, it won't get a chance to jostle with "short", too. "and an interlude during which he played alernately at L and M"? (I'm unsure of the facts.) Also, there weren't three interludes, were there?
• "This included selection for Scotland in the 1982 FIFA World Cup: he made three appearances and scored twice."—I'm in ignorance, but could it be "This included selection for Scotland in the 1982 FIFA World Cup, in which he made three appearances and scored twice."? Would flow better.
• "During his playing career, Wark appeared in the film Escape to Victory. Since retiring as a player, Wark has continued to work for Ipswich Town. He has written an autobiography, published in 2009. As of April 2009, he works in the corporate hospitality department at Ipswich Town." --> "During his playing career, Wark appeared in the film Escape to Victory. Since retiring as a player [in ?], he has continued to work for Ipswich Town – since April 2009 in the corporate hospitality department. He published his autobiography in 2009." Tony (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, thank goodness you're here. I know, as in every nomination, you'll be asked "be specific, can you tell us more things to fix" - I'm loathe to do that but your professional eye is like no other around here, so we (Dweller and I) will do our best to fix this up. We would really, really, really, really appreciate further comment (assuming we can fix your initial problems in a timely manner!) in order to produce nothing but the best - after all, this is FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's only the lead but I think I've dealt with those immediate concerns. I think I have...... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed you're disappointed! I'm busy copyediting Luton Town F.C. (and taking too long over it, dammit) and my time's quite stretched, and getting worse, and to-boot, I'm probably too close to this, but I'll take another look Tony and see if there are other monstrosities I can see. --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A "Derby moment"—love it. I see one caption has a spaced en dash, but unspaced em dashes were elsewhere (and I added on or two to the main text). Can you check this is what you favour? Expunged a few of the "with + noun + -ing"s (Chicago MOS now says it's "clumsy", or some such ... bless their hearts). Tony (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I had introduced one or both of those spaced en dashes while copy-editing, so I've changed them to em dashes to be consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support – This is downgraded from a normal support because of the extensive use of his autobiography. I understand that sources from his time are more difficult to come by, but the book is citing many facts beyond background details and his own opinions (the usually accepted uses of autobiographies). The remaining aspects of the article all seem to meet FA standards, so I won't oppose over it. Nice to see good work done on a player from an earlier era. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just saw that there's a disambiguation link for christening. Might as well make note of it while I'm here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Disambiguated. Thanks, and as for your weak support, completely understand, thanks again. I'll do my best to make sure we use other RS where possible for "facts" rather than "opinion". All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Per flag on my userspace, I'm not sure how much I'll be around to look over the copy again. Hope I'm not letting anyone down. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment well you keep me in touch D, as much as you can! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support

• Looks about ready in terms of content, but the prose is a bit disjointed – I'll give you some examples from a quick skim-through:
  • The section about his childhood doesn't read too well: "Wark was born on 4 August 1957, in Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital to parents Alex and Helen." – Surely this should be "at Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital"? And the use of "parents" here seems a bit superfluous to me, I'd be a bit worried if he was born to people who weren't his parents.
    • This may be ENGVAR, but I'd never say someone was born "at" XXXX hospital. I think the inclusion of "parents" is because the names have become so dislocated from the associated verb, "born". I suppose we could move the parent names earlier in the sentence and drop the "parents". TRM what do you think? --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Probably ENGVAR, because I would never say "in" XXX hospital. Re: parents, OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The third of four children, he has an older sister Wilma, older brother Alex and younger brother Andrew." This confusion in cases is a little jarring to me, and I don't really see why the names of his siblings are relevant. I'd link Alex Wark further down when he's mentioned in a relevant context.
    • Well, Alex is notable, so worth mentioning and it'd be odd to mention one. I think we need to link the first instance per MOS. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The family was impoverished: Wark's parents could not afford a cot and as a small child, he slept in a drawer from a sideboard." The phrasing makes it sound like the two weren't related.
    • The use of a colon connects the two halves of a sentence. A semi-colon would otherwise have been used. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps these could be rephrased thus: "Wark was born on 4 August 1957, at Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital. He was the third of four children born to Alex and Helen Wark, an impoverished couple living in a four-storey tenement block in Partick. Wark's parents could not afford a cot: as a result, the young Wark slept in a sideboard drawer.
    • So, think is now covered by Dweller's comments and Cliftonian's agreements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The family moved to another tenement block, this time in Scotstoun" When?
    • Early 60s. Said so now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Wark says "[f]ootball seemed to occupy 99 per cent of my time as a youngster"[5] and he tried to emulate his brother Alex, who had become a professional at St. Mirren." says? Hm. I'd try something like "During this time, Wark attempted to emulate his brother Alex, who had become a professional with St. Mirren – he would later claim that "[f]ootball seemed to occupy 99 per cent of my time as a youngster".
    • Slight rewording (since others have already supported it, wholesale changes shouldn't be necessary), so hopefully it's a fair compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He trained with the club at their Parkhead ground, before receiving an invitation to sign schoolboy forms for the club."
  • "was presented with the club's Young Player of the Year award, despite just four appearances for the senior team." -> "despite only appearing for the senior team four times."
    • Again, a compromise has been sought, rather than a significant reword. Hope it'll do. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good content-wise. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All my comments are now resolved. I've upgraded my support accordingly. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: photos are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Oklahoma City bombing

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach GA in 2007. One of my long-term goals here is to get this article up to featured status (I even brought it up at my RfA!). I have pursued hundreds of sources to expand and reference the article's content, even purchasing books to learn more about the topic. After improving the article by going through a peer review and having several people copyedit it, I believe the article meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (I noted FEMA, PBS, GAO, CIO, but there may be others)

  I believe I corrected all occurrences (except for CNN, don't believe that needs to be changed). For CIO, it's the name of the magazine, so I added "magazine" after it. Let me know if I should provide a direct link to their webpage since we don't currently have an article on the magazine. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable?
  • http://www.trutv.com

  The details of the story were sourced from these sources found in the author's bibliography. The Crime Library articles are "... a collection of more than 1000 nonfiction feature stories and photo galleries relating to crimes, criminals, trials, forensics and criminal profiling by prominent writers." In addition, the website states in their "About" page: "Many Crime Library stories are based on third party sources: books, magazine and newspaper articles and interviews." Let me know if this needs further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. In this case, we would want to see the actual sources for the page, not just a generic "We used a lot of books, really, we did!" type notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Could you clarify on what you mean by actual sources? I figure the bibliography for the author's article (shown in the first link) indicates the sources he used for his article. As a side note, Crime Library (which the sourced article is part of) was purchased by Court TV (now named Tru TV) in 2000. The Crime Library is used as a source in a 2004 article by the Charlotte Sun-Herald, a 2003 article by the Rocky Mountain Collegian, a 2005 article by the Lancaster New Era, and a 2004 article by Sacramento Observer, among others. Concerning the Tru TV itself, it is referred to in numerous articles as a TV network, as well as when Court TV was renamed. Let me know if this isn't sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

those work. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.archidose.org/writings/insurrection.html

  I removed this source as another one already provided enough details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_Rep._fuels_Oklahoma_City_bombing_1228.html

  I removed this source as several others were already provided enough details. I had initially thought it was part of CNN. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 75 (Irving, Clive) needs page numbers. (It's 176 pages, need to narrow it down a bit)

  I had gone to the library several months ago to correct the details of book and forgot to do it when I was looking at all of the others (I knew I forgot something). I'll try to visit one of the local libraries early this week to add the page numbers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Went to the library this afternoon and found the page numbers. I corrected the citations and added further details on some other information I found. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was glad I didn't have too many issues with the sources, and I'll get to adding those book pages. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support As i said prior to this nomination at PR i believe this is a brilliant article and fulfills the FA criteria. Well done. 02blythed (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The Arrests section could use an explanation of what originally put Nichols on investigators' radar. As I recall it was an address McVeigh had provided. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  I mentioned the fake address McVeigh gave when he was initially arrested as well as the FBI pursuing both James and Terry Nichols as a result. Hopefully the link is now clearer. Let me know if you think it needs further expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Everything for which McVeigh himself is the source should if possible be qualified as only being his statement. How do we know that he told the real story? I would say the same for the Fortiers since there have always been questions about their credibility. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Each statement is sourced to the book which readers can see. Other sources are used to provide details about the planning. His story was supported by other witnesses at his and Nichols trials. It's possible that some details were fabricated or not mentioned, and that is/can be discussed on the conspiracy theories page. I can add additional sources from the trials detailing some witness/investigations knowledge of the events if necessary. As for the Fortiers, I haven't personally seen (or remember) any credibility claims against their testimonies, but if you know of something, I'd be happy to include it to ensure a fair representation of the information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  I would say that any source which uncritically accepts as factual McVeigh's overall version of events (specifically that he delivered the bomb alone and that it was just him and Nichols involved in the plot) should be used as little as possible in this article, and qualified where it is. As for the Fortiers, weren't they drug addicts? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  The majority of the sources available point to the official account of the bombing, and as a result they will list McVeigh and Nichols as the main conspirators. Since no other large amount of evidence was found implicating other conspirators (such as John Doe #2), that's why the article does not state that he drove the truck with someone else. There is discussion throughout the article if other conspirators had been involved, and the conspiracy theories section does delve into the possiblity of other conspirators. Looking at several sources I see that the Fortiers say they used drugs, but didn't see the label "addict" except by Stephen Jones, McVeigh's defense lawyer. Does the drug use need to be mentioned in the article? Or can that be mentioned in their article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  I was just posting this, but got edit-conflicted. Here's an example: The Target selection section seems to be based almost entirely on what McVeigh and to some extent Fortier have claimed. Imo, their word is not nearly enough to treat these details as factual. Details which only make sense if you believe that McVeigh really was calling the shots. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Apologies for the ec. I see what you are saying about the sourcing, and regardless of anyone's interpretation of the events, since nobody else was present at these events that could provide a first-hand account, no other sources are available. If there was considerable evidence showing additional conspirators, I'd see no issues in adjusting the article accordingly. Is it possible that McVeigh fabricated (or withheld) all of the details of his planning? Sure, anything is possible for an event like this, but unless there are sources that reliably refute this accepted chronology of events, I don't see why it should be changed. I invite others to comment on this issue for the best approach to citing these details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments for now, mainly regarding the prose. This is a well structured article, comprehensive, and a compelling read. A lot of hard work has gone into this and it shows. I have a few nit-picks:
• I'm not sure what an "American militia movement sympathizer" is.

  I added a wikilink for militia movement, hopefully that clarifies. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Should "in a radius" be "within a radius"? I'm not sure.

  I don't see anywhere online that clarifies (I see both ways being used), but I changed it to "within". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think "the pair" sounds a little POV, how about "they"?

  I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here "the largest criminal investigation case in the nation's history" the use of "nations" gives me the impression that the targeted readers are US citizens, how about "American history"?

  I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• This phrase "an accomplice to the bombing" doesn't sound idiomatic to me.

  Sorry, could you clarify? Should it be reworded to something else? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  How about "McVeigh's accomplice"? Graham Colm ^Talk

  Gotcha. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• In this part, "The bombing was planned over several years; as early as August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun dealer Roger E. Moore, igniting the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas." I think "and ignited" would be better than the participle.

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of "a large number of" how about a simple "many"?

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are still some facts that require a citation. Here for example, "He regarded the presence of additional law-enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service or the U.S. Marshals Service, to be a bonus." But there are others too.

  That paragraph came from American Terrorist, I need to go to the library and get an exact page number. I'll try to go over the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • [Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, would help, we don't want to encourage the conspiracy theorists. Graham Colm ^Talk

  Went to the library today and added a citation to the statement. I also sourced another statement and clarified a few others. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here, "dissipate some of the concussion from the blast", isn't concussion an injury to the head?

  Yes, but it is can also be used to describe the impact of an explosion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  "impact" might be better.Graham Colm ^Talk

  Reworded the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here "Doubts have been raised about the pair's involvement in the robbery though, because despite McVeigh having visited Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks, making a positive identification impossible." The "though" spoils the quality of the prose—"however" would be better—and their is a fused participle I think in "McVeigh having" (McVeigh's having).

  I reworded the sentence, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "anhydrous hydrazine", I think the "anhydrous" is superfluous.

  Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Bike racer" - bicycle or motorcycle?

  Nice catch. I changed the first occurrence, do you think it is necessary to change the second occurrence in the same sentence as well since motorcycle has been established? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  No need.Graham Colm ^Talk

• Here "He declined to take any of the 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of ANFO" - he was stealing, he was not offered it presumably. How about "he decided not to steal"?

  Interesting thought. Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• What are "prills"?

  I thought this was common knowledge. Just kidding, I had no idea either. Added a wikilink. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• This lacks logical flow, "A piece of Tovex sausage and a blasting cap were used to detonate it out in the desert, to avoid detection." The Tovex and blasting cap presumably had nothing to do with avoiding detection.

  I merged the details with the prior sentence and mentioned the detonation in a new sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sounds odd to me "registered a motel room" - is it a US idiom?

  Reworded to "paid for". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are problems with the linking. There is a little over-linking such as axel and some terms are linked after there first use. This should be checked throughout the article.

  I removed the axle occurrence. The overlinking could be attributed to the likelihood that readers may visit only the bombing or trial sections (for example) when first viewing the article, and some of these links may be viewed only once. Also due to the length of the article, readers may not want to scroll all the way to the last occurrence to click on the link. I believe that I have ensured that only a few of the double wikilinks occur. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  OK, I'm happy with this, but others may not be. Graham Colm ^Talk

• "This is very weird "in a backwards j;". How about "in the shape of a backwards J"?

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Finally with regard to the "stuffed animals" are we describing cuddly toys or the work of taxidermists?

  This has got to be the funniest suggestion I've seen in all of my GA/FA reviews, thanks for that! Instead of adding a wikilink, I added "plush" prior to stuffed animals. Let me know if that is sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, "plush" does not help me at all, were they dead animals or toys? Graham Colm ^Talk

  It's referring to the toy stuffed animals. I figure plush would help to clarify. Do you think it should be changed? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  How about a simple "toy animals"? Graham Colm ^Talk

  I changed it to "plush toys" in the off chance that some of the donated items were not animals. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a very engaging contribution. I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. A lot of these were very helpful, and definitely helped to improve the prose for clarifying some details. I appreciate you taking the time to look the article over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Graham Colm ^Talk 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comment Nice article, but one concern. 60 domestic terrorism plots have been foiled is stated as a fact in the lead, but the newspaper reference is a quote from Potok, who could hardly be described as an unbiased source. Could this be changed to something like it has been claimed that 60 domestic terrorism plots have been foiled. ? jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your support, I appreciate it. I found another source (also from the Southern Poverty Law Center) which lists each of the incidents. The report was also mentioned in other sources including U.S. News & World Report. With the list provided, should the source be added without rewording? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that's OK, and addresses my concern about verifiability jimfbleak (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, I added the source and slightly reworded the statement to clarify for readers. Thanks for pointing that out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I just remembered that explosives were eventually found underneath Nichols' former residence in Kansas. That should probably be mentioned here, and definitely in the Terry Nichols article. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  I thought I had already added this, but I must have not saved or accidentally removed it. Anyway, I added a sentence on the incident at Nichols' section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an amazing article. I don't see a single fact without reference, and everything is very well written. It's nicely illustrated and has clear sections. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to look over the article and for the copyedits you made earlier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was FA worthy then, but the new images and other changes since have only improved what was already a very good article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  I appreciated the feedback during the peer review, a lot of errors were caught there. Thanks for looking again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Suggestion only - would it make sense to add Bath School disaster as a See also? It is another lone wolf bombing by a US citizen (of a school). It took me a while to recall the name. I seem to recall it was the worst bombing on US soil in terms of deaths (45) before this one. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

    It looks relevant, so I added the link. I don't recall ever hearing about this event before, and it looks quite shocking, especially for taking place in 1927. Thanks for the notice. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

    This was removed per the discussion below. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Massive citation work and plentiful images. Great structure, as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for fair use image concerns as follow:

• File:OkcW.jpg: not too sure what seeing a faintly visible Ryder truck in the background would serve any significance (not likely people are remembering images from this security video). It might perhaps qualify to illustrate a lack of security, awareness, or vigilance (people nonchalantly strolling about, paying no attention to the truck) but there is no commentary on this.

  I have added details about the security camera recording the truck driving by (as well as it recording Nichols' pickup truck a few days before when the getaway car was dropped off). Along with this commentary in the text, the image serves as the only released image of the truck in the city, and at that, also just five minutes before the bombing. It was at this minute when the first fuse was lit to detonate the bomb. The image also illustrates the size of the truck used, how the driver can not be identified due to the quality of the image, as well as how nearby pedestrians were oblivious as to what was in the truck. I'm not sure what you mean "not likely people are remembering images from this security video". The article is used to educate people who may know little to nothing on the bombing and the image provides the details explained above and in the FUR. With the new commentary in the article, does the FUR need to be expanded further? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  To clarify, what I meant is that the screen capture shows no security measures in place and an unawareness or pre-caution (no one taking notice of the truck). I note that the "Building security and construction" had mentioned about tightening security. Was there any reported criticisms about lax security or "taken for granted" attitude towards security? Those could add the significance of the image. Statements of the truck pulling up next to the building can be readily envisaged. Lax security could be illustrated as residents of some countries could find it hard to believe no one in the federal building did not bother with the probable threat. As a non-US resident, reports of the bombing come in the form of the building and aftermath (hence the Pulitzer winning photo). I think none of us over here would associate a security video sceenshot with the event (if the video had been extensively broadcasted throughout US during the coverage of the investigations and trial, I apologize). Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you're saying. The image of the truck does not show it parked in front of the Murray building. The apartment building is a few blocks from the Murray building, and as a result the building itself (plus any security/lack of security) can't be seen. If there was an image of the truck parked in front of the federal building, I would have definitely used that instead. The reason that people in the image don't seem to take notice of the vehicle is that it just appears to be a moving truck driving through the city. There was no exterior signs of what was included inside the interior. The image, as I recall, was used in newscasts (or at least documentaries afterwards) and was one of 22 images (I think that's the right number) used from the security camera for the trial. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining and clearing things up. I apologise for my misconceptions but have to still disagree with the rationale presented. As the image is to depict the passing of a vehicle on the road, it seems to be of no significance (normal passing vehicle on the street, and the truck is nothing special—a similar Ryder truck is shown in File:MurrahBuildingDemolitionMay1995.jpg). In my view, the only pertinence is the timestamp. I think the sequence of events, which the picture is supposed to help clarify, would be better represented with a self-constructed map, detailing the movements of the vehicle in question. Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, the image is not that special, and the truck looks like an ordinary moving truck. Except in this case, it is the only documented image of the truck used in the bombing. Like I said before, I would prefer to have an image of the truck in front of the building or a higher quality image. Unfortunately none are available, and this is the only image to illustrate to readers that a truck was used (again illustrating the size of the vehicle) and the short amount of time that was needed to detonate the bomb. I would say that is the equivalent of File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg used in the September 11 attacks article. Now, obviously it doesn't have the actual recorded explosion like this image, but shows it shortly before the explosion. Looking over the sources, the image (or one of the others) from the security camera shows the truck parked across the street. McVeigh had pulled over to the side of the road to light the first fuse, which was in front of this building. I would like to have a well-drawn out map to better convey the information, and if one is added down the line, this image could possibly be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  How about File:Timothy McVeigh's movements during Oklahoma City bombing.svg? Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well where has this been this entire time, this looks great! I replaced the non-free image with this one. Thank you for taking the time to create it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mcveighmugshot.jpg: McVeigh is already identified in File:TimothyMcVeighPerryOKApr2195.jpg. Anything else described in this image can be done so clearly with words.

  I removed the image from the article. I was very fortunate to get permission from a Flickr user for the other image, and I probably should have removed this one earlier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed, or qualifies for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the images (as well as prior to FAC), and I'm glad that the majority of the images are free. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I feel the "See also" section is indiscriminate in its links. What similar circumstances or causes did Bath School disaster and 1993 Bishopsgate bombing have with the Oklahoma City bombing? What has structural failure and collapse (List of structural failures and collapses) got to do with the bombed building (which did not collapse)? Generally, if those links in "See also" are of value to the subject, then they could be placed in relevant sections with {{See also}} or {{Further}} (WP:HATNOTE), or worked as links into the article itself. If they are to be retained, at least give a brief explanation of relevance per WP:SEEALSO. Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the majority of the links only leaving List of terrorist incidents and Lone wolf (terrorism). The other single events are likely covered in these links (and other links in the article) if the readers want to pursue further information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• "He declined to steal any of the 40,000 pounds of ANFO he found at the scene," does not sound right... "decline" by definition is "politely refuse". Suggest changing the sentence to "He ignored the 40,000 pounds of ANFO at the scene,".

  This was already changed from a suggestion above. I somehow forgot to change it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the next sub-section, however, we find that McVeigh and gang loaded "seventeen bags of ANFO". I thought he did not steal ANFO (or thought it was weak)? Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  He could have figured the pre-assembled ANFO at the quarry was too weak and that's why he made his own out of the ammonium nitrate and fuel that he collected. The fact that it is only 17 bags appears to be that it was already stolen before the robbery, or was picked up afterwards to make up for some missing ingredients. That's several options (but also my guess), and since I don't want to risk OR, that shouldn't be added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps a statement or footnote to denote the change of plans? Basically, "However, McVeigh later used ANFO from another source to construct his bomb." or something like that after the first mention. It is a bit jarring to read the events as is: the first mention of ANFO is that he chose not to steal it, then the next mention is that he used ANFO in the bomb. A sort of disclaimer to disassociate the 17 bags with the 40,000 tons would help to avoid confusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  I saw the potential confusion, but didn't want to use OR in attempting to explain it. Your suggestion works well in conveying the ANFO's use. I added a sentence after the first occurrence, let me know if it should be reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I did some copyediting and peer review before the article was nominated, and satisfied with the copyedits and changes by others since my review. I don't have any more suggestions to improve the article. --Aude (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose Some of your links are showing up as dead, check here. If you have a second, please review my FAC at Hawaii hotspot which has not had any comments for four days. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  I fixed all of the dead links except for one. I hid the link until I can use the Internet Archive to resurrect the link. In addition if you re-check the links again, the article "The British Waco survivors" still is labeled as a dead link, but if you click it, it works fine. For some reason, The Times articles always come up as dead links even when they work fine. I find it strange that all of these links went dead just two days ago when they are all fine before. Let me know if you spot anything else. As for your FAC, I'm not at the FAC reviewer level to oppose/support yet (I'm still at GAN level!) but I may leave some comments later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - all of those links have stopped working since Ealdgyth checked the refs and links above on June 12. All but one stopped working only two days ago which hardly seems ground for an oppose. Furthermore, the implied quid pro quo (Oppose, please review my FAC, and what then???) seems to me to at least give the impression of impropriety. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to help out, what harm is there in fixing them? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the problem links out. I am going to assume good faith on the request for comments on the other FAC, which is what I found objectionable, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who last checked the links or when, how am I supposed to check the sources when the links are not working? I would be remiss if I didn't check whether the facts are supported by the sources. As far as requesting comments, I'd like to think that most of us here are impartial enough to evaluate an article based on the facts, not based whether or not someone is our friend, or whether they supported our FAC... that may make me naive but it is common practice for editors to request comments from interested parties, at least I'm being transparent about it. Moving on...

• Images I like the use of descriptive captions, but the first photo in the body needs a different one, it doesn't really describe what we are seeing and I mistakenly assumed it was another photo of the Murrah building.

  I added a note pointing out that the image is of the Waco Siege. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Images Is the lead photo the best photo we have of the bombed-out building? If it wasn't so blurry, I'd say it was Featured Picture quality. Of course this whole point of mine is ironic considering " McVeigh believed that the open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities".

  I believe it's the best free image that we have on the bombing. It shows the destruction of the building as well as to the surrounding area. There are other images that show the entire building, but I figure the overhead view image in the body of the text would cover that. A lot of the free images came from federal agencies/rescue workers, who are probably not professional photographers. I'm sure that some news agencies have better quality images, but this is currently the best we have of available free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Arrests This section is missing a little detail. Perhaps some dates of these events would help, as it is not really clear that it was only two days later when McVeigh was about to be released when police realized who he was. It also does not mention if the business card that was found with the words "TNT" on it was instrumental in the investigation, or if it was initially ignored.

  I added a few dates as well as mentioned that the card was used as evidence in the trial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but these are the issues I have so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Arrests - "James was also arrested, but he was released after 32 days for lack of evidence. McVeigh's sister Jennifer was accused of illegally mailing bullets to McVeigh, but she was granted immunity in exchange for testifying against him."

  Added sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Children terrorized - "On the Saturday after the bombing, April 22, the Clintons gathered children of employees of federal agencies that had offices in the Murrah Building, and in a live nationwide television and radio broadcast, addressed their concerns."

  Added sources and reworded sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These two statements are the ends of paragraphs lacking a citation. There were others, but they were ok, IMO, as one was basically a recap of the sections below it, and another was geographic claim which could be verified by looking at a non-specialized map. But citing the latter wouldn't hurt. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• St Joseph's Church The statement "one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city" is not supported by the reference provided. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Added source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, can i get a direct quote? I can't seem to find it in the source provided. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  The source states that it is one of the first churches in the city's history: "Also in 1889 Catholics built St. Joseph's Cathedral (NR 78002253) at the southwest corner of Northwest Fourth Street and Harvey Avenue." (it can be seen about halfway down the article). I reworded the name of the church to avoid any confusion. Does that clarify? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I guess you had to really read the whole thing. I didn't realize OKC was founded in 1889, so I get it now. Otherwise, everything else looks ok to me. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Wrestlinglover

Arrests

• • "The first was that it was international terrorism, possibly by the same group who had carried out the World Trade Center bombing two years earlier. The FBI also thought that a drug cartel may have been acting out of vengeance against DEA agents, as the building held a DEA office." refs for both please.

    The citation at the end of the paragraph covers all of the theories. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The last theory about the Christian fascists, which I didn't even knew exist though I'm a part of the Christian faith, I believe should be explained a bit more. What possible theory would have motivated this is what I'm asking to be included if that is possible or a link to an article about it.

    The source doesn't go into too much detail. I provided a link for Christian fascists, although that article would benefit with expansion. If this had been the actual cause of the bombing, then indeed there would have been more details on it. It's likely that the FBI gathered everybody, said make a list of possible suspects, and this was one of the suggestions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Perry in Noble County." → "Perry in Noble County, Oklahoma." Noble county could be in any state and I don't even know where I-35 is.

    I had figured that the Oklahoma State Trooper mention in the next sentence would indicate this, but it's better to clarify in the prior sentence. Added OK after the county. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    It does, but better to be safe.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at James Nichols' (the brother of Terry Nichols) house in Michigan." → "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at Terry Nichols' brother James' house in Michigan." An idea.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "began their search for the Nichols brothers, Terry and James." typo; began should be begin.--WillC 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Fixed. Must have written that incorrectly when I expanded that a week ago. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

• • "Those killed included 163 who were in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, one person in the Athenian Building, one woman in a parking lot across the street, a man and woman in the Oklahoma Water Resources building, and a rescue worker struck on the head by debris. The victims ranged in age from three months to seventy-three, not including the fetuses of three pregnant women." For a section called "Casualties", a ref is really needed for all claims. So please place a ref for these.

    Citations added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Glass causing injuries was mentioned before in the article, but in this section it states "Over 680 people were injured; the majority of the injuries were caused by abrasions, severe burns, and bone fractures." I'm guessing the abrasions were caused by the glass. That should be mentioned.--WillC 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    I don't want to risk OR with that. Abrasions could have also been caused by falling debris, sharp objects, or other causes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Response and relief

• Rescue efforts
• Humanitarian aid
• Federal and state government aid
• International reaction
• Children terrorized
• Media coverage

Trials and sentencing of the conspirators

• Timothy McVeigh
• Terry Nichols
• Michael Fortier
• Others

Legacy

• Legislation
• Building security and construction
• Discussion of the nature of dissent

Memorial observances

• Oklahoma City National Memorial
• St. Joseph's Old Cathedral
• Remembrance observance

Conspiracy theories

See also

References

Further reading

External links

Support You can literally see that years of work and gradual improvement has gone into this article and evidence of wide reading on the topic which all featured article should have. This is a very informative and detailed article which covers all the aspects of the event. Nice work! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Kiko (1989)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I've used all available sources from my research of the storm, both online and off. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (sorry I missed this first run through, not sure how I did so...heh.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sorry to see that your nom has not garnered many comments. I found this article listed on FAC urgents, please feel free to review another article from the list as there are others in your same situation. I made a number of minor edits, mostly concerning wikilinking. Otherwise, looks good. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written, comprehensive, appropriately illustrated, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support A great article that meets all criteria, very nice article, and deserves to be a Featured Article. Another great piece of writing Cyclonebiskit. Darren23 (Contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. This feels fairly rough and slammed together based on my reading of the lead. It doesn't appear to have gotten any significant attention from anyone other than the primary author. Significant revision needed before the prose will meet a professional standard. A independent copyeditor is needed to remedy problems such as these, just from the lead:
  • Nebulous statements. The very first sentence: "one of the strongest ... to make landfall" Ever? That year? There is a vast difference between, say, one of the 5 strongest or one of the 100 strongest. But, we're left to guess.
  • "Slowly tracking towards the northwest" How is this different from "Slowly tracking northwest"?
  • "A turn towards the west also occurred at this time" Clumsy... "a turn occurred"? Why not just "The storm turned westward at this time"? If you turned right on Main Street you wouldn't say "A turn towards Main Street occurred".
  • "The hurricane rapidly weakened to a tropical storm later that day and further to a tropical depression" Certainly, weakened into, and further into?
  • "while tracking towards the south" Again, why not "tracking southward"? Are the conventions for this type of language in the WikiProject?
  • "the impacts from it" Much less laborious: "its impacts"

--Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited the entire article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: {{Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes}} is causing a band of ugly whitespace just after the first paragraph in Meteorological history. The text is also ending up too close to the table. For aesthetics (and to prevent distractions), can a gap be padded around the table and the "clear" function removed? Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tentative support. It is looking much better after Juliancolton's edits, and I've gone through and done some cleanup. I think the redlinks need to be audited for likelihood of ever becoming articles. Some of them are redirect candidates, perhaps. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have not read the whole article, but I noticed one thing. In the first paragraph under section "Preparations and Impact" you transcribed the entire list. Is that necessary? For a FA, the prose must be engaging and that certainly is not. Potapych (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

H.M.S. Pinafore

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria. After GA review, the article has benefitted from extensive peer review comments. Two other Gilbert and Sullivan operas are FA articles: Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm one of the peer reviewers, who dabbles in the G&S articles now and then, though I'm not a member of the wikiproject. The article is engaging, well researched, comprehensive and well illustrated. It is a good resource either for the casual reader or for the person knowledgeable about the opera. It's well deserving of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This seems a good well-written and comprehensive article, covering virtually every possible angle of its subject. I only have two little niggles with phrasing:

In the Lead this phrase seems poorly structured: "..although her father intends her to marry the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Joseph Porter, the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

It might be better as: "..although her father intends her to marry Sir Joseph Porter, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

The following sentence in the Background section seems over-long and confusing: "Because Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support, instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor as was usual in Victorian theatres, they were able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre."

This might be better as two sentences, eg: "Instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor, as was usual in Victorian theatres, Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support. They were therefore able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre." Xandar 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas. I made the second change exactly as you suggested. In the first case, I simplified the sentence, since the link already tells us that the position of First Lord is a cabinet post. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to seeing this article on the front page. Xandar 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support From the POV of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I found this well-written article to be very informative. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't have any word-count tools, but the article is 115KB, which might be a little too long. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not counting references, the word count is 11,297. Is there a limit to length? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I don't know the basis of the above wordcount. According to the "Page size" tool the current count is 9,931, which is long but not super-long. I would be against the article expanding any further (it was 7,629 words when I finished my peer review on 25 April), but I can live with it as it is. My peer review comments were extensive and have been acted on. My only remaining quibble is that non-breaking spaces have not been implemented, for 571 performances (twice), 178 performances, 10,000 copies, 91 performnces, and possibly other cases too. I suggest these are fixed. Otherwise hunky-dory. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. - I caught a couple more numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The article is comprehensive and informative. Slfarrell (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. (To declare an interest, I am a member of the wikiproject but have had minimal input to this particular article.) Readable, informative, no superfluous information, well-balanced, excellently referenced. I agree with Wehwalt's comments, above. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm very impressed with the care and detail the editors have taken in preparing this article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. They are to be commended for producing such a wonderful article on such an important work and we should applaud the excellent article they have produced. All of my questions and suggestions were addressed at the peer review. All I can still suggest is to replace the Prestige source with another one, since conference collections are not the best sources and the FA criteria asks us to rely on "high-quality" sources. As Brianboulton pointed out in the peer review, there are other sources with the same information. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already given. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, Marc Shepherd was a contributor to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful note, Ss! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted GASBAG, but there may be others.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html?http&&&www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-longr.html

Don Gillan is the author of the book Of Boars and Bantams, A Pictorial History of Bradford City AFC. His non-profit, educational website provides extensive information about Victorian and Edwardian era theatre. It includes numerous biographies and picture galleries of actresses of the era, reprints of Victorian news items about the theatre, extensive postcard histories, and articles about historical subject of the era. This part of the website is a unique compilation of information that he has gleaned from The Theatre magazine and presented in a convenient table format available nowhere else. The website is praised here and linked to here and here, among other places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This was so good a rebuttal that you now have your first G&S entry in my FAC cheatsheet, here! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.culturevulture.net/Opera/HMSPinafore.htm

Culture Vulture is an arts review website established in 1998. Its publisher and editor is Michael Wade Simpson, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Southern California. He is a published author and was a teaching fellow at Smith College, where he received his MFA in choreography. While living in the Bay Area for 15 years, he wrote about dance for the San Francisco Chronicle and other periodicals. In 2005, he was a NEA Fellow at the Dance Critics Institute, American Dance Festival. For culturevulture.net, he reviews dance, theatre and film. The website also publishes the reviews of critics, writers and academics listed here. The article cited is a 2005 review of a performance by NYGASP at Wolf Trap.

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://cnb-host4.clickandbuild.com/cnb/shop/musicalcollectablesltd?listPos=6&op=catalogue-products&prodCategoryID=43 -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This cite is the exclusive dealer for recordings of the The Gilbert and Sullivan Opera Company and is cited merely for the proposition that this recording exists and is available here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was for the listing of the fact the recording was available, a red flag was why this wasn't from a more mainstream source. Now I know! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.thejudyroom.com/discography/soundtracks/icgos.html

This extensive Judy Garland website and discography is edited by Scott Brogan and Eric Hemphill. See this about Brogan, mentioning Hemphill. Brogan is a member of the research committee for the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and also a designer of the official Liza Minelli website. He has published essays on the silent films of Douglas Fairbanks, Lillian Gish, Marion Davies, and William Haines. This website is extensively cited on the internet, and a google search reveals over 5,000 links. Among other accolades, the site has received the Gold Site Award from starpages.net. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I"ll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm utterly on the fence about it.

This is the fact cited to it: "Judy Garland sings "I Am the Monarch of the Sea" in the 1963 film, I Could Go On Singing.". Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This book makes the same point and would likely be considered a better source, I think.--Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The link doesn't work. What does it say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny; works great for me. Try this one . It sources the sentence perfectly.--Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just change the ref myself; since I can verify it without problem.--Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the second one works OK. Please do go ahead. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

May i just point out how excellent the presentation of these rebuttals was! Concise, gave me all the information I needed and very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I aim to please! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I am less concerned with all the technical details than I am with the content of the article, which I think is well-written and answers any questions I may have had about this particular G&S piece. Congratulations to all the editors who helped bring it to its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- a well-referenced and thorough article. I have a couple suggestions.

In the fifth sentence of Act One of the Synopsis, it's a little unclear who Dick is: "His fellow sailors (excepting Dick) offer their sympathies, but they can give Ralph little hope that his love will ever be returned." The character list above the synopsis clarifies that he is indeed a character, but shouldn't there be a few adjectives or something describing his personality and hinting at his future contributions to the story? There's a description of him later in the act; could it be moved up, or do we really not know much about his character until that point?

Super idea. I have moved the description up as you suggest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Josephine enters and reveals to her father that she loves a humble sailor in his crew, but she is a dutiful daughter." The second half of this sentence needs some clarification. When I read, "but she is a dutiful daughter," I want it to continue, "so she..." or "and will..." or something like that. How will being a dutiful daughter affect her actions? Maybe "she assures him that she is a dutiful daughter" would be better too.

Quite right! I have adopted your suggestion! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's minor stuff, though. It's a great article. MarianKroy (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources questions need to be resolved (did reviewers who supported before Ealdgyth's reviews check the sources?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - I checked every single one at the peer review. Unless there are new sources, my only issues with the sources are reflected in my above statement. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well-written article, with good organization bringing together a significant amount of references. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(I was given a notice about this FAC at my talk page, but have not been involved with it.) Cirt (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - One of Wikipedia's best. Impressive organization given the extensive sources. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I am very familiar with the opera and its history, but my only dealings with the article have been a few comments and suggestions. There is a massive amount of information here that I was unaware of, and it all makes for a very good read. I've looked through it again and have a few niggles:
• 2nd para of the lead: a) why not "a lower-class sailor, Ralph Rackstraw"? b) next sentence: Ralph is encouraged to declare his love, not to elope (which he couldn't do by himself, anyway). The decision to elope is made by both parties after Ralph threatens to kill himself.

Good comments! Done. -- User:Ssilvers

• Background section, end of 2nd para: what exactly is signified by "[T]hey"? Should the square brackets be round the whole word, or, if not, what is the unquoted word that ends "...hey"?

Fixed, thanks. -- User:Ssilvers

• First Lord of the Admiralty: Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty says that the position of First Lord had been held by a politician since 1806, so Sir Joseph isn't exactly a unique case. It might be worth noting this in a footnote somewhere (I suspect that Gilbert was well aware of this fact!).

Thanks. Gilbert had been satirising the idea at least since The Happy Land, as noted in the footnotes. He obviously thought the idea of a civilian first lord was absurd. I don't think the fact that Smith wasn't the first one is relevant, only that Smith had no relevant experience whatsoever, as already stated. In any case, we link to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty article already, so I don't think a footnote will add anything new. -- User:Ssilvers

• Roles section: "Bill Bobstay, Boatswain's Mate (first mate)": Boatswain is a very confusing article which goes on about second and third mates but not first mates. I'd have thought that First Mate is a fairly grand position and Boatswain's Mate is a rather minor one, but I could be wrong.

Oops! Quite right. Fixed. -- User:Ssilvers

• Songs and musical analysis section, 2nd para: "The best-known songs from the opera include "I'm called Little Buttercup", a waltz tune introducing that Sullivan repeats in the entr'acte and in the Act II finale to imprint the melody on the mind of the audience..." Introducing what - the character?

Yes, thanks! Fixed. -- User:Ssilvers 20:15, 26 June 2009 [having trouble logging in]

• --GuillaumeTell 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a few of the images needed to be relocated per WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. Please review the ellipses: they should be unspaced per WP:MOS#Ellipses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed spacing of all ellipses. Thanks for fixing the image placement. -- User:Ssilvers 23:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk), María (habla conmigo)

A collaborative effort for the past few months, recognizing Dr. Holmes's upcoming bicentennial in August. We'd love to hear what people think. Co-nominated by: María (habla conmigo) and Midnightdreary (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I commented on this article at the peer review, and since then it has been further improved. It is throughly researched and well organized, giving an excellent encyclopedic treatment of its subject. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest making the citation style consistent? Most are in the form "Small, 49–50" or "Weinstein, 29", but others are "Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Autocrat at the Breakfast-Table. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1916: 7". I would support with that minor change. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Typically, I only grant short form to sources which are used multiple times. Sources which are cited only once don't seem to need the same treatment because, ultimately, they take up more space rather than less. Any other thoughts on this? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Just what I was going to say; sources that are only used once, such as Autocrat, are listed in full in the "Notes" so as to not overwhelm the "References" section with less-used works. This is common practice, and I believe it's in keeping with the MOS. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  If that's the normal standard, then I have no objections and unconditionally support. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-May, and I thought it excellent. The article has been improved since then, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm happy to support this fine addition to the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please doublecheck spacing on ellipses per WP:MOS#Ellipses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Symphonic poems (Liszt)

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after peer review and many helpful suggestions in improving this article I believe it is of sufficient quality to be considered for featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Questionable neutrality (1d) to me; sentences like the following need to be either cited or removed.
  • "Particularly striking in these works is Liszt's approach to musical form."
  • "The seeming veracity of this claim"
  • "Liszt's symphonic poems became highly controversial."
  • "Such was the roar of the controversy over these works"

Done. All these have been either cited or changed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The lead and list of works lack citations (2c)

I'd been told in the past that the lead did not have to be cited unless a direct quote was used, as it was expected that the material summarized in the lead would be proved and cited in the article itself. Could you please clarify this? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an FAC regular (yet), so I'm not honestly sure. Perhaps someone else can jump in? Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does not have to be cited. Browsing around, I found Heian Palace or Superb Fairy-wren. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• A little low on images (3), although relevant and acceptable images might be hard to find for this.

• FYI, the number of images an article has is not a factor in what makes an FA. In fact, they're not even required for GAs. What matters is that the (however many) images are all correctly tagged and verifiable, which seems to be the case here. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a solid good article, but I think it has a bit more to go before FA status. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you suggest removing the article from consideration at this time? This is not a knee-jerk reaction to your comments but a realization that there may be a grain of truth in them. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet; other users (especially FAC regulars) may have some valuable comments that would save you the trouble next time. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support: Heavy copy-editing is needed throughout, I'm afraid. Some examples from the lead:

• The first 12 were composed in the decade 1848–58...: "composed between"?
• They helped establish...: "they" is ambiguous here since the prior sentence was only about one of the works. Be specific.
• establish the genre of orchestral programme music—music written to illustrate an extra-musical plan derived from a play, poem, painting or work of nature—and they inspired the symphonic poems of Bedrich Smetana, Richard Strauss and others. I would suggest breaking this sentence into two, so that the inspiration for Strauss, etc., would have more effect. The repetition of music, despite being separated by an em dash, is also unfortunate.
• Their composition...: again ambiguous; the prior sentences were about Liszt.
• with a continual process of creative experimentation that included many stages of composition, rehearsal and revision to reach a version where different parts of the musical form seemed balanced. I suggest making this clearer: "the poems underwent a continual process... and revision". I'm also not sure that the latter part of the sentence is necessary; perhaps just add on "in order to reach balance of musical form"?
• Liszt also provided written prefaces for nine of his symphonic poems. Remove "also".
• ...He was aware that the public often liked to attach "stories" to instrumental music, and decided to provide his own context before others invented something else. Redundant and perhaps TMI for the lead. How about combining the first two sentences of this paragraph into something more concise, like: "Aware that the public appreciated instrumental music with context, Liszt provided written prefaces..." etc.

And more. I can't comment as to the subject matter coverage, but these examples from the lead alone show that the article needs work before it can be promoted. I suggest finding a thorough copy-editor; you may also want to read Tony's excellent guide about satisfying criterion 1a of the FA requirements. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which have been taken to heart. All your suggestions for the lead section have been acted upon. Jonyungk (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I did some minor copy-editing throughout for punctuation, typos, and basic sentence structure, so please make sure I did not misconstrue anything. I think the article has already greatly improved, although more tweaking wouldn't not hurt, as Brian notes below. Some of the quotes may need to be revisited to make sure they follow logical quotation rules ("symphonic poems", not "symphonic poems," if the punctuation is not part of the quote). That's as picky as picky gets for me, however. For now I'm happy to offer my support -- very interesting article, I enjoyed reading it! María (habla conmigo) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was not able to give this proper attention at peer review, though I made a few comments. My general opinion, after a more careful reading, is that the article is substantially OK, but still needs quite a bit of polishing and tweaking. Here are some comments, mainly on the first substantive section but with a couple of additional points:

• Article title: Why is the capitalisation in "Poems" justified?

  To me it really isn't—it was already this way when I started working on the article several months ago. Would moving it to "Symphonic poems (Liszt)" mess up any of the archived or linked pages such as this one, or could I make this move with no problems? Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Page moved to Symphonic poems (Liszt) Jonyungk (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: Dvorak should be linked, though actually I find the name repetition (Strauss and Smetana) from the first paragraph slightly jars. Would the lead suffer if the final sentence ended at "writing symphonic poems"? I don't much like "such as" clauses if they are avoidable.

  Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Inventing the symphonic poem
  • First sentence could be better expressed. "Were" should be "are"; in addition I would suggest: "The direct ancestors for Liszt's symphonic poems are Beethoven's dramatic overtures for stage productions of Egmont and Coriolanus, and his third Leonore overture, intended for his opera Fidelio."

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • (Afterthought) By "the third Leonore overture", do you mean Leonore No. 3, which was actually, I believe, the second Leonore overture written? (There should be a reliable source for this, somewhere).

    Yes, I mean Leonote No. 3. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Need to clarify "Their" in "Their success..." But, why did the success of this type of composition cause them to be designated as overtures? I imagine it was more the proliferation of this type of composition that led to the need for a generic name.

    Yes, you're right—it was the proliferation of this type of work into the concert hall. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Other, more dramatic..." The "more" sounds like a judgement and should be omitted. The second other can also go. Thus: "Other dramatic works by early- to mid-19th century composers followed..."

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the list of examples is too numerous – the point could be made with half this number. And "such as..." again; I probably use it myself, but not twice in two lines. A colon after "followed" would do just as well.

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Who is Hugh Macdonald? And – I dunno – "points out" lacks a bit of authority, perhaps? If Macdonald is a recognised authority, then "According to..." is OK. I also think the phrase "albeit in one movement" is awkwardly placed. Why not simplify: "...shows his desire for the single-movement form to expand from...."?

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "itself" redundant?

    Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "...a type of variation form in which one theme is transformed not into a related or subsidiary theme to the main one but into new, separate and independent themes." Quite hard to follow, and rather too much repetition. Best I can offer: "a type of variation in which one theme is transformed, not into a related or subsidiary theme but into something new, separate and independent."

    Done, but open to further suggestions on this point. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Penultimate paragraph: again, tendency to over-exemplify; five examples when three at most will do to secure the point.

    Cut the list down to three. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As suggested by other reviewers, the article probably needs some copyediting throughout. The prose isn't bad, but needs finishing and polishing. I will try and come back with some more suggestions, although I will be away from Wikipedia for much of the next week. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do, and thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments - leaning Support Overall, this is a well-written and comprehensive article that has improved much since I last looked at it during a peer review. All paragraphs in the body (with the exception of the lead and one paragraph I'll get to in a moment) contain multiple references, and the use of images is good. I believe the article meets most of the FA criteria; I am leaning towards a support vote, but I do have a few comments first. In general, the article is well-written; I think that where it suffers is a tendency to be too academic at times for a general reader. * However, Liszt's view of the symphonic poem tended to be evocative rather than purely pictorial As this statement is in the lead, it should be easy for any reader to understand, but those without a musical background would, I think, be hard pressed to explain the difference between "evocative" and "pictorial" music.

• I have rephrased this sentence to explain better to non-musical readers what is meant here. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Along with creating the symphonic poem itself, Liszt added two compositional practices to its inner workings. "adding" implies that the symphonic poem had existed without these features, but it sounds like they're all part of a package deal. Could you say something like: "Two technical features of the symphonic poem are..."

• I did not use this wording but changed the sentence accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* The last paragraph in the "Inventing..." section is only two sentences long; can you either expand it or tack it on to the previous para.?

• Done. Tacked it onto the previous paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* You mention Walker a number of times, and though I've read this article several times now, I'm sorry to say that at a few points I found myself wondering, "Walker? Who's Walker?" - A few reminders ("Critic Walker", "music historian Walker", or something) would be nice.

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Wagner was more receptive; he grasped the idea of the unity of the arts that Liszt espoused - "grasped" sounds POV. Would it be accurate to say something like "agreed with", thus giving W's opinion without evaluating it?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* The "Historical importance" section is a little block-y - chunks of quotation. Can that be broken up a little bit so that it doesn't read as "He said ... then he said ... then he said..."?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nice job! It reads so much better now, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Jonyungk (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Can you add a source to the beginning of the "List of works" section? Or a general footnote - "Information taken from So-and-so's blah blah blah"?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of criticisms, but I think they are fixable within a relatively short period of time, and they don't detract from the fact that this is a very well done and interesting article. Ricardiana (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Query Why is Grove listed under MacDonald or Walker in the notes but under Sadie in the bibliography? TwilligToves (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sadie is the editor of both editions of the New Grove; MacDonald and Walker are writers of individual entries in the New Grove. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you put those entries in Chicago or a similar format to make that clearer? Ricardiana (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Support. Great work, though I have a few requests;

• Liszt held an idealized view of the symphonic poem as evocative rather than representational, and generally focused more on expressing poetic ideas rather than pictorial realism and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Can you break this up. I got confused when I got to and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Is this included as "generally focused more on" or "rather than". Apologies if I'm slow here.

Done. This section is hopefully easier to follow now. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see (S.95–107) cited.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Liszt would then correct and make changes - whats the difference between 'correct' and 'make changes'? I'd reword as 'revise'.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats it. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks, and I'm supporting now, having enjoyed reading this over the last few days. More bits and pieces:

• Can you flesh out Joachim Raff's image caption.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again with the caption for Die Hunnenschlacht, can you establish a connection between the painting and the Liszt's piece within the caption.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd cut down on direct quotes unless you are reporting an openion. Eg: the presence in the Weimar orchestra of individual virtuosi—the trombonist Moritz Nabich, the harpist Jeanne Pohl, and the violinists [Joseph] Joachim and Edmund Singer.... [Liszt] mixed daily with these musicians, and their discussions must have been filled with 'shop talk'. All until "must have been filled" is just matter of fact, easily transformed into prose.

I'll keep that in mind, though I didn't want to risk the possibility of a copyvio by sticking too closely to Walker's text without the safety net of quote marks. I've rewritten the passage accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got brave and rewrote all the long quotes in that section into the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk, do you have any audio samples you could add? I have a few mp3, but I'm not sure of which recording they came from so they would likely not pass FU. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the Commons to see whether there is anything there, but since I'm still in the stone age of CDs and don't use mp3s, I don't have anything offhand. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

perhalps if I uploaded a file or two, you might recognise the source? I think extracts would add greatly to the page. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed but don't know how to upload or make available here. Jonyungk (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I know what you're saying. Unfortunately, I don't have speakers on my computer, so I wouldn't be able to hear the extracts to identify the source. Sorry. :-( Jonyungk (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for checking things out. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image comments:
  • File:Jjraffportrait.jpg without the author, can't use the given licensing tag.

All other images should meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thannks for pointing this out. I've asked Jappalang to check this out. If he can't track anything down, I'll remove the image. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advise removing it from this article. David is correct that the PD-Old license requires the likely fact of the author's passing beyond 70 years (the identity of the etcher and to a lesser degree, the year of creation, helps to determine this). Without such information, PD-Old fails verification.

I recommend replacing it with the photo this etching was based on. They are all available at http://www.raff.org/resource/gallery/01.htm. The photo in question would be raff_11a.jpg In fact, the photos are of the same series, taken by Mondel & Jacob of Germany. raff_14.jpg is an etching of a photo in the series, which appears on p. 496 of Famous composers and their works (1891) This shows that the photo was taken in 1878. As Mondel & Jacob flourished from the mid-19th century (1840s to 1860s), they are likely to have died more than 70 years. The photo is also available at Library of Congress (Popartmachine has a direct link to LoC's tiff here).

raff_1.jpg appears as one of the frontispieces of Dr. Hoch's Conservatorium zu Frankfurt am Main (1903). raff_2.jpg appears on p. 136 of The Great in Music (1900). raff_12.jpg appears between pp. 354–355 of The Standard Concert Guide (1912). Thus, there are 4 photos, public domain in US and source of origin, to choose from. Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all this. I will replace the photo with one of the four you have identified. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

←Are the images in a more or less stable state so I can re-review them? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jonyungk (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The images as of 27 June should all meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I like the Classics, but I am not a music buff, and hence plead a near ignorance of the terms used in the studies of music. I had prepared a commentary based on the 01:31, 17 June 2009 version, but was kept getting held up by other things... (sorry). Much copyediting had been done since and many issues I had picked had been resolved, but I think there are some jargon that are still over the head for one as ignorant as me in musicology: "logic of symphonic thought in breadth and scope, if not in actual mechanics", "combine the elements of overture and symphony with descriptive elements to produce single-movement works that approach symphonic first movements in form and scale yet did not strictly obey Classical forms", are examples of what my head cannot seem to comprehend. I had to reach for the dictionary to understand "movements" as "a principal self-contained section of a large-scale work, such as a symphony".

I agree. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting of the sections mentioned above so that they (hopefully) make more semse to non-musicians. I'm open to further suggestios along these lines. Jonyungk (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the jargon, I think I was thrown into the article without a context of the significance of Liszt's symphonic poems. Straight off, we are introduced to its creation. I think a brief exposition on the music scene before the first symphonic poem's creation would help. What music was predominant, what were the established conventions, which composers and critics were respected, and who was Liszt? I think that could establish at the start why the symphonic poems produced controversies in the circle (as well as giving the reader a bit of background). Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have identified the two principal flaws of this article, and for this I thank you. To my mind, they both need to be addressed to make the difference between this article being GA and FA. I am working on a solution to your second point in my sandbox but do not know whether this will be done before the current round of FAC discussions stops. But I think you're very right in that these points need to be addressed for this article to be passed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a rough version of the type of introduction I think you mean and would appreciate input. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lean to support (see last remaining queries)Support

• The nominator had previously asked me to take a look at this article, and I am only just getting to it now. I am doing some copyediting. I am making some other comments here, but if Jonyungk doesn't get to addressing them, I may have a go myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• the phrase "amending sonata form with compositional devices such as cyclic form, motifs and thematic transformation" is too technical, particularly in a lead.

I've changed the latter part of the sentence to read "... he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." Should this be simplified further or the entire sentence perhaps be removed altogether? Jonyungk (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is better, and my view is that it should not be removed altogether.

• In the Background section there appears to be a grammatical error in the Bonds quote ""Even symphonies by well-known composers of the early 19th century as..." Should this not read ""Even symphonies by SUCH well-known composers of the early 19th century as..."?

I can insert it in brackets—not a problem. Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• What is a Kapellmeister?

Basically a combination of music director and composer in residence. Should this be changed to "music director" or simply linked? Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think change to music director and wikilink the words "music director" to the WP article "Kapellmeister".hamiltonstone ([[User

talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 09:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• First para under "Composition process": My feeling is that there is a change in tense part way through, from (for example) "the symphonic poems do not follow a strict presentation", to (for example) "Recapitulations, where themes would normally be restated after development, were foreshortened". If I am missing an underlying principle behind the tense shift, then leave it be, but my intuitive reaction was that there should be a single tense used throughout.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have changed the paragraph so one tense is used throughout. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• because "development" has common generic meanings in everyday use, I am not sure that it is wise to use the phrase "assume developmental proportions". First, if one applies everyday meanings of hte word development, the phrase actually makes no sense and second, the average reader would not know what the word means in a musical context.

Again, thanks. I have reworded both this sentence and the one preceding it so that it spells things out more clearly, but another set of eyes checking it probably would not hurt. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Under "Raff's role", the phrase "his role in Weimar" is used at one point. I assume this means the role he played when Liszt was setttled at the place called Weimar (as mentioned in a previous section), but for some reason this expression confused me as a reader. I was thinking something like 'huh? The Weimar republic? Isn't it too early for that?' Yes, call me a fool, but perhaps just "his role" or, better I think, would be "the nature of their collaboration".

Done. Changed to "the nature of their collaboration." Jonyungk (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I appreciate it may be what a source has said, I found the implied put-down of Raff in the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role" to be bordering on POV. It has already been accepted that Raff was a gifted composer and had greater understanding of orchestration than Liszt. The issue is canvassed more fully in the next para and, the scholarship of Raabe notwithstanding, I have to say that my feeling was that it was Liszt who showed a lack of respect, rather than Raff showing "more than a little pride" in telling someone the orchestration was by him: it sounds like it was by him. Is there another way of putting this? Or perhaps omit the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role".

Done. The sentence is omitted. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "questioned the authenticity of Liszt's orchestral music". I think this is overstating it, but I concede it is typical of western artists, their critics and biographers to be obsessed with authorship in this way. It questions the authorship of the music, not its authenticity - however I may be in a minority view on this.

Done. Changed to "authorship." Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• On the same point: this section concludes that the sources say "regardless of the position with first drafts, or of how much assistance he may have received from Raff or Conradi at that point, every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself and represent his own intentions". This does not make sense. If Raff had any role at all, then it is simply not possible to say "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself". I would suggest that either "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself", and Raff's role was marginal (almost certainly not true) or "every note of the final versions represents Liszt's intentions" (more likely). I'm afraid my reaction to this passage was to question Raabe's impartiality.

Done. Went with the latter to be on the safe side.

• I would like other editors' views (and a response from Jonyungk) on the omission of Raabe as a source for this article.

Raabe's work and findings are mentioned by Searle and Walker, both of whom are cited. I'm not against citing Raabe as a source—my only question is citing his book as a source when it was not used directly. Other views? Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, but my point was slightly different. The FAC criteria include that the article "is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". My concern is whether a thorough article on Liszt's symphonic poems would require Wikipedia editor(s) to have consulted Raabe, if he is a major scholar on these works. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Since Raabe's findings have been reported by Walker and Searle, including in the New Grove by both men, the general gist is readily available in English. Whether Raabe's work has been translated fromm German to English so as to examine it in detail is another matter—I honestly don't know if Raabe has been translated. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The concluding sections are beautifully crafted.

Thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I look forward to resolving the above points and being able to support promotion of this article to FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor Jonyungk, you don't have to do everything I suggest if you don't agree - particularly as you have access to the sources and I do not. :-) And here's a last point to which my comment may apply. I just noticed the caption to the image of Raff: it is described as "Joachim Raff, who made exaggerated claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process". If the reliable sources are confident that those claims are exaggerated, and no reliable source disagrees, then that is acceptable. If any source disagrees, or if the sources do not actually use such strong language, then I would soften the tone of the caption. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I may seem a little too willing to make changes, but the points you bring up are good ones and I have an overriding wish to make this as user-friendly an article as possible, despite all the jargon that has cropped up in it.

As for the caption, both Walker and Searle state that Raff's role was exaggerated, but Walker especially can be biased, despite his excellent research; in fact, I have avoided using Eleanor Perényi's biography entirely about Raff becuase it is so rabidly pro-Lisztian. But your point is a good one. Since the article itself does not use the word "exaggerated," it may not make semse to use it in the caption either. To play it safe, I removed the word "exaggerated" from the caption. Even without that word, the caption "Joachim Raff, who made claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process" still seems to get the point across. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have one further suggestion. It was an issue I didn't raise the first time through, but on re-reading, I would like to address it. The section "reception" beings "Liszt foresaw the potential controversy over these works in the context of the War of the Romantics,..." I think a couple of sentences more here, to give context, are needed, and I have implemented my proposed suggestion (in the article), but because the War of the Romantics article lacks inline cites, i don't know what you do about references:

• "Liszt was preparing his symphonic poems during a period of great debate amongst the musicians of central Europe and Germany, known as the War of the Romantics. All admired Beethoven's work, but a conservative group, including Brahms and members of the Leipzig Conservatoire, saw his work as an unsurpassable peak. Wagner and the New German School (including Liszt), in contrast saw Beethoven's innovations as merely a new beginning in music. In this climate, Liszt foresaw the potential controversy that his symphonic poems would elicit, writing..." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like what you've done and you're right, the article needs context at that point, but we're also opening a can of worms here. The trick is to say something without letting the worms get too far out of the can. Walker talks quite a bit about the War of the Romantics and there may be something usable in the New Grove. Let me see what I can come with as to tweaking and attribution. Jonyungk (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Im done here and have switched to support, and am confident any tweaking needed for that new intro I've done will be OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Much of the prose is beautiful, but could do with an independent run-through for polishing.
• Redundant "also" in first para.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "To capture these dramatic and evocative qualities while achieving the scale of an opening movement, he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." I wondered whether "... and symphony in a modified sonata design" would be better, linguistically and conceptually. I hesitated at the use of the word "amend", which is repeated in the section "Inventing the symphonic poem".

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• And Walker's distinguishing of "modify" and "develop" is unexplained, and probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

I tried explaining it in the following paragraph.

There was a lot of puff around in the 1850s about sonata form, and too much has been made of its casting in terms of binary distinctions since. There's a problematic "Liszt amended sonata form by adding two compositional practices [i.e., cyclic form and thematic transformation]" (my italics). Yet it is openly admitted 10 seconds later that neither was new, and both were children of the previous classical period. I'm concerned at the claim that "Liszt perfected the creation of entire formal structures through the use of these two concepts"—I think Beethoven, Schubert and Mozart would have scoffed at that.

The point is that they did not use thematic transformatio or cyclic form as a regular practice—they were exceptions rather than the rule. With Liszt they became a regular practice. On a slightly related note, Walker mentions that, "[o]n the general question of cuts, it is true to say that wherever Liszt recommends them he tended to lose conventional development and preserve metamorphosis" (Walker, Weimar, 323 footnote 37).

You might consider toning down these more cut-and-dried claims from the main text and the rather long quotation from Walker Vol. 2, and modifying the last sentence ... "the creation of significantly longer formal structures ..."; isn't it the extension of the duration of sonata form that he managed? Beethoven and Mozart, of course, were doing the same in their own way (Mozart, as a simple example, by mode mixture, especially of the home key in the exposition—see K503i). Can Liszt's contributions be seen as part of gradual and inevitable trends rather than as the ownership of discontinuities? Tony (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's how Walker follows the section quoted:

... Liszt's "reply" to the classical symphony, as we have seen, was the symphonic poem, a form he invented. Briefly, his work showed three departures:

1. He invented the single-movement "cyclic" structure which rolled the separate movements of the sonata into one. In this, Liszt was only carrying on a procedure established by Beethoven, in whose works—the Fifth Symphony, for example—certain movements are not only linked but actually reflect one another's context.

2. He perfected the "transformation of themes" technique, in which the contrasting ideas of a work are developed from a single musical idea.

3. He believed that the language of music could be fertilized by the other arts, poetry and painting in particular. He popularized the concept of "programme music," and so began a controversy that still goes on today.

Could some of this be included either instead of or in addition to what is currently in the article to better explain Liszt's intentions and practices? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: You have dealt with some earlier points I raised, and the article has improved since then due to your responses to other reviewers' comments. There is one sentence that's bothering me: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and opera houses were mainly for the orchestra" What does this mean - "opera houses were mainly for the orchestra"? Weren't they mainly for the productions of operas? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What about this: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and orchestras served mainly in the production of operas—symphonic works were considered far lower in importance"? Jonyungk (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wind

Nominator(s): Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have spent months upgrading it from Start/C class, and I think that this article is very important to wikipedia, since it is one you'd find in any encyclopedia. It has gone through a peer review process, but there wasn't much feedback, unfortunately. Also, it has taken me many months to get over the shock of my last couple FAC processes, and finally feel emotionally ready for another one. Or so I think. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quick-skim driveby comments without reading the whole thing

Most of those images are forced way too large (and most – other than the maps and diagrams – don't show any particular detail so don't need to be forced at all)

The Plotting on surface weather maps section needs globalising; neither it, nor its "parent" article at Station model, mention any country other than the US, and every source is talking about US usage. – iridescent 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And so it begins. Station model does talk about Great Britain, oddly enough. Despite that, I'll take your suggestion and shrink the image size to 200 px, which will hopefully address that concern. Think you can point me to a more global reference for the plotting of wind onto weather maps? Last I checked, the US had a similar format to other countries (including Japan and Great Britain). I'd be very appreciative of whatever further help you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding station model, honestly, I don't know (although some of The Hurricane Crowd will no doubt be along soon, who will presumably know; if it's used globally, there's no need to single out the US ("In the United States, the change to the modern convention of flags…"); if the US was atypical until this change (or became atypical because of it), the circumstances ought to be spelled out. Regarding the images, I can't see a need for forced image widths at all, other than on the lead image and the maps/charts, but wait & see what others say.

And note that this isn't an oppose, just a comment… – iridescent 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate your feedback. I removed the line regarding the United States change in practices regarding the station model. The last time I went through FAC for the List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States, there was a comment that all the images needed to be the same size throughout the article. That's why I've done the same through this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Does the "Bible" section need to be in the article at all? It just seems dubious to single out one holy book and make an entire section that consists of quotes where it mentions wind. Artichoker^[talk] 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think that subsection could be merged in Ancient religions, and as it's also in the History section, 'Events where its influence changed history' could be changed to something like 'Influence on historical events', per the MOS. Cenarium (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  The bible section has been removed and the historical events section has been reworded and merged per your suggestions. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First, congratulations for having substantially worked on this important article. I'll comment mainly on the subject of the section 'Outgasing from objects in space': I think the section name is a little too obscure for most readers, would 'wind in space/outer space' be an accurate description, or could it be expanded to that subject ? Further, outgassing (also, outgassing is the most frequent spelling according to google) is not described in that section, I think at least a link to outgassing should be given (if it remains). Winds in space, in particular on other planets, may deserve a more comprehensive description, in this section, as readers may wonder if there are winds on other planets, and if they are formed and behave in the same or similar way (when a planet has a sufficient atmosphere, they are created by differences of density between regions, I guess). A more consequent introduction in that section and a few links, with some references, should suffice (not going so far as evoking things like "intergalactic winds", of course ;). It's also not clear in the section 'planetary' what are hydrodynamic winds, is it those ? To give a few relevant links, extraterrestrial winds are mentioned in Extraterrestrial atmospheres, for planets particularly in Neptune, and I also see that HD 189733 b is linked in weather. On another note, maybe the external links section should link to Commons:Wind, I let you decide how you want it, {{commons}}, {{commons-inline}} or else. I'm sensible to the abuse of sister links, but commons is generally worth it, and it has some good media on Wind, decently presented. Cenarium (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to address your concerns by simplifying the title and adding a new section concerning winds on other planets within our solar system. I checked out that extra-solar system planet you mentioned, and its article mentions nothing about wind, so I do not see any information which would be relevant for this article. Hydrodynamic winds are actually described in the sentence where the term is used. Do you think the wording could be clarified better? If so, how? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know that subject, but imo, the way hydrodynamic winds are introduced may be ambiguous: two new types of wind are introduced in that section, solar and planetary, and it's not clear whether hydrodynamic winds are simply normal winds (those discussed since the beginning of the article) with the distinctive effect to move up hydrogen, so which defines them; or a new kind of wind, with that particular effect. That exoplanet HD_189733_b is noted in weather, as having the strongest planetary winds discovered, and they are mentioned in this section, but that may not be worth mentioning, may be too specific. The new section on wind on other planets looks good, informative.
      • Thanks for the comments. The hydrodynamic wind in the upper portion of the atmosphere, from what I understand, ultimately allows for the escape of gases into space, which is the planetary wind. Therefore, the first process aids and abets the second. The winds mentioned on the extrasolar planet rely on assumptions, and haven't been measured like those on the solar system planets have via probes, so it would probably be best to leave it out, for now. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with that. Could an article be potentially made on planetary winds, is it worth a redlink ? Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Done, although it is a redirect to atmospheric escape, since they are the same thing. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • On the comprehensiveness: the article doesn't discuss specific examples of winds, I added List of local winds in the see also section (as well as wind wave and the 'four winds'), and (although it needs some work), it contains some particular winds with relatively developed articles like Santa Ana winds, Shamal (wind), Tramontane, Mistral (wind), and Monsoon. I believe that the subject of particular winds is important, some have a strong significance (and enduring influence on the civilization, sometimes on a large scale), and deserve to be discussed in the article, with a few mentioned, maybe in a section.
      • Addressed this concern. Many local winds are now mentioned within the mountain effects and desert dust migration sections, with a new paragraph concerning upslope and downslope winds now existing within the mountain effects section. Lines concerning the monsoon now exist within the newly-renamed tropics section within the global climatology section. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Good enough, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wonder if the subject of the influence of the wind on civilizations, already well-documented, couldn't be expanded further, or present a larger overview. The introduction of local winds could participate, as they influenced the culture of some societies, and this is documented in several of those articles. This influence is also visible in that wind is frequently present in 'popular' culture and fiction, which could warrant a rapid overview (although that may be better served in a separate article, but I heard it's a sensitive subject at AFD and not only, so just an idea).
      • Which articles mention its influence on culture? I haven't run across this aspect before. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The influence of wind(s) on culture, etc, is disseminated over winds articles, like Viento de Levante, Nor'west arch,Barguzin wind,Witch of November,Mistral (wind),Khamsin, ,Santa Ana winds and Tramontane, and a few more generalist like Winds in the Age of Sail and Winds of Provence. I recognize this is a more disparate subject, and finding the proper balance could be difficult. I'll think about it a little more, on how this could be introduced. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I also have concerns around the general organization and dynamics of sections, I'll try to comment on this later. A suggestion: the effect of the wind on fire could be mentioned in the section Related damage, with Wildfires. There were some linking incoherences, most have been addressed. References 43 and 10 are not formatted (search for "[ht" in the main body). I adjusted and added some internal links in the references, but there doesn't seem to be any common way to link in the footnoted references, so I chose to link the first instance of relevant links among footnotes, and only. Do you concur with that ? Cenarium (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a paragraph on wind on wildfires per your suggestion. As for wikilinks within the refs, only wikilinking the first instance is probably best...it would limit the size of the overall page. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The third section, Plotting on surface weather maps, looks a little specialized, and isn't used in the latter sections, does it really deserve a section ? Or could it be merged into another section perhaps for example in Scales, so as to form a 'representation and scales'/'scales and representation' section. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Dealt with. I merged to the two sections into one now called "meteorological use". Is this too broad of a title? Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I'll refer to your judgment for those final calls. The article has become much more comprehensive, and I think it satisfies the criteria I'm in measure of judging. So, support. Cenarium (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I have had a readthrough of this article - evreything seems to make sense and i think it meets the critera. Jason Rees (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• A bit long at 75KB perhaps? Stifle (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article contains 5,365 words of prose, which is safely below the 10,000-word recommended limited. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've noticed in other FACs (such as tropical cyclone) that the wikipedia cite web reference requirement can take up a significant amount of space in articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Check dablinks... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue has been resolved. This also helped out with finding duplicate occurrences of wikilinks within the article. Another pass was made through the article to remove extra wikilinks. The singular dead link has also been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Exeter-20may44.jpg has an incorrect license tag. Its description says crown copyright, but it is tagged GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed the GFDL tag, per your comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think there's a comprehensiveness problem around the effect of wind on animals. The existing section Effect on flying animals has only one sentence describing the effect of wind on animals, followed by two sentences describing the effect of animals on weather radar. The cited reference is a university press release, which doesn't inspire confidence that a broad view of the subject is being taken. The opening phrase "Insects, also known as arthropods..." is inaccurate. The phrase "birds follow their own course" is misleading; a quick Google search tells me that migratory birds are known to exploit prevailing winds, and on a smaller scale, I'm sure local wind patterns strongly affect gliding flight.

  Then there's the effect of wind on non-flying animals. Wind speed, in the form of windchill, is important to large, warm-blooded animals in cold environments. I'm thinking of penguins huddling against the wind. Wind also affects whether or not a predator detects an odor plume from its prey.

  Browsing through textbooks and review articles in biology would probably turn up a lot more material. WikiProject Ecology could probably help with this area. Melchoir (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I fixed the problems you noted with insects and birds, and have included its impact on other animals, such as sheep and cattle, as well as foraging, hunting, and defensive strategies. The penguin behavior you noted is more about cold than wind, but luckily I found a source which also mentions wind. Let me know if that is enough information on the topic...I'm worried about the article becoming too large, as it has gained about 15 kb since its nomination for FAC. Thank you for your input. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, nice turnaround! I think that's probably enough of a sampling on animals. If significantly more material were added to the animal subsection, it could be exported into a sub-article (Ecology of wind, perhaps?), and the comprehensiveness of sub-articles shouldn't block a FAC. I understand that article size is a concern, but while you're at it, perhaps you could also flesh out the effects on plants? There's already wind dispersal but that feels lonely without wind pollination (anemophily). Also perhaps some mention of adverse effects (exposure tree line, windthrow). Melchoir (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Your new issues have been tackled, and I also added a line concerning pruning of plants near the shore. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Great! Melchoir (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://library.thinkquest.org/26634/desert/formation.htm (ThinkQuest is "Over 7,000 websites created by students around the world who have participated in a ThinkQuest Competition.")
  • http://www.pantheon.org/
  • http://www.theoi.com/
  • http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1134.html
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20071014140647/http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/v_navigations.htm
  • http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hot-air-balloon.htm
  • http://www.infovisual.info/05/093_en.html
  • http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/ss/airship_9.htm
  • http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/scientists_track_migration_of_asian_dust_and_pollution
  • http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/why_is_the_treeline_at_a_higher_elevation_in_the_tetons_than_in_the_white_m
  • http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/cold_penguins.htm
  • http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/comets/comet.html#coma
  • http://www.solarviews.com/eng/vgrsat.htm
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UCAR, FAA, but there may be others.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Magazine/journal titles likewise should be italicised.
• When using a book that's reproduced on Google books, please format it like a book, with {{cite book}}. I noticed a few of them (espcially "Ultimate Guide to Elk Hunting") were lacking authors, etc. Need page numbers also.
• Current ref 124 (de Souza Costa..) is a journal article and should be formatted as such, giving the journal title, etc.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Encyclopedia Mythica (pantheon.org) is an award-winning internet encyclopedia, which sounds like a reliable source to me. Theoi.com quotes the original classical texts for its website. The scientific blogging source is an actual news story, and news stories have been used in past articles as reliable sources (it's not a blog entry). Northern woodlands.org is a site of an educational organization, which should make it a reliable source. Earthsci.org is sponsored by the Geological society of Australia. Solarviews.com is sponsored by NASA. The other websites can seem more flaky though, even if a couple of them are considered, or are hoping to become, academic websites and one is a dictionary (which I would have thought would be fine). I'll see if I can find suitable replacements for those 5. Spelled out the acronyms and italicized the newspaper/journal titles, per your request. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • We need a bit better than "sounds like a reliable source to me" Are you finding those awards for Mythica from their own site or from others? Okay, so theoi quotes the originals, what makes their interpretation correct? We need to know who is behind them. If the scientificblogging source is a newssource, I'd prefer to see it from a news organization? Alternatively, we can show that the news information on the scientificblooging site is considered reliable by other news organizations. On the educational organization, we need to know what makes them reliable. On the two sponsored by sites, sponsoring doesn't make them reliable. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.--Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You know what? This is nuts. There is no way I'm going to be able to determine all you're asking of me concerning these websites as sources. I would think it would be common sense if NASA, etcetera, were sponsoring a web site that they would consider them reliable. But you're right. This is wikipedia, and common sense rarely matters here. I've spent 10+ hours editing the article per the previous FAC comments, and this is getting tiring. I can't even prove to you that journal articles are as reliable are you're asking of me for those other websites. In fact, I know the opposite has been true in the past, particularly within scientific journals. But you know what? That doesn't matter to wikipedia. Why comment on the prose, when it's the minutia of the references that is clearly more important? I will try to replace all of those references, per your command, my leige. And I'm sorry about this outburst, but I'm doing all this editing, and only a couple of the previous comments up this thread have been followed up upon from those that made them, so I don't even know if the edits I'm making are actually improving the article. I'm just frustrated. I'm sorry I'm taking this out on you. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • I know its frustrating, but yes, it's Wikipedia. We need to fulfill WP:RS and WP:SPS, which are the basics for any wikipedia article. The journal articles get covered because they are published by reliable scientific publishers, thus they fulfil WP:RS. The same goes for newspapers by mainstream newspapers, etc. I do my own share of FACs, so I can understand that it's frustrating. On the gods/etc. I'll try to find time this afternoon to source the information to some printed books I own, which will solve those problems. Where I don't have information is on the scientific stuff, so I can't help you there. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thank you for your help and understanding, especially if you own printed media which can be used as references concerning ancient mythology. I'll replace the science information references; maybe I own some books which can be used instead. I replaced the first one from your list already. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Gods have been sourced to a printed work published by Facts on File. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
                • All the other refs have been replaced. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I"m still waiting on the other unstruck issues with the refs to be addressed. (As a side note, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I haven't bothered with unstriking and then restriking my comments above, but you might want to remember that in the future.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • The other concerns should now be addressed. All the acronyms should be gone from the references (unless I missed one and didn't realize it), the references for de Souza and the Elk hunting book have been fixed (the author was there but the reference coding was slightly off). Where the author info and publisher info are the same, I've made the publisher the author. A number of cite webs were converted into cite books, which allowed page number locations to be clearer within the refs. This does differ from the cite journal format, however, If you notice any others, please comment further. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed that problem a few days ago, according to that link. When I hit dablinks in the toolbox a minute ago, all I get is a blank page. Which ones do you see still remaining in the article? The dablink link was incorrect. Fixed it, along with the two remaining disambiguation links. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a summary of what's happenned with this FAC so far this past week. I have expanded the article by 25-30%, and appear to have fulfilled several editors requirements, both in regards to expanding its content and the references used. I've removed the disambiguation wikilinks (twice) and the one red/dead reference link. The one issue that remains is whether or not wind's effect on civilization needs a fuller treatment within this article. Any opinions? Is there anything else that needs to be done? So far, there is one support vote (made prior to most of the significant content changes), no opposes, and a bunch of comments/requests, which have been apparently been fulfilled. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it now says all that needs to be said, although it could maybe warrant a mention of early windmills in the "Power" subsection; I appreciate that it's all covered at Wind power, but at present the section as written gives the impression that wind power is a new technology and used only for electricity generation, which obviously isn't the case. – iridescent 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A paragraph concerning the history of windmills was added to the article, per your request. Also, per Cenarium's request, a couple lines concerning the Khamsin wind's influence on a couple historical events have been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Great article on the whole. Major kudos to the nominator for taking on such an extensive and important project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support great article. igordebraga ≠ 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Citations are inconsistent: some are first name last name; others are last name, first name. I also suspect the {{main}} template is misapplied several times. The main template is used when this article is a summary of the other aticle. When that is not the case, another template should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I have made the appropriate fixes. Thank you for the clarification on the see also/main template issue. Let me know what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support- Looks good. --Anhamirak 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Gregorian mission

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the FA criteria. And it's not a bishop or a horse! As is usual, Malleus has done his usual wonderful job of massaging my prose. Any errors still remaining are mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport all my issues have been resolved.NancyHeise ^talk 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section entitled "Motivations" I think is incomplete. It mentions Gregory's possible motivations and is referenced to only one source. I checked Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners which devotes several pages to discuss the Gregorian missions. On pages 70-71 (paperback edition) it says of his motivations: "In all probability we must attribute the English mission simply to Gregory's desire for 'an increase of the faithful'. He sought the spread of Catholic Christianity to the barbarian kingdoms of Britain as he had seen it spread in his own lifetime amon the barbarians of Spain and Gaul, and as he hoped to see it spread among the Lombards. Whatever Gregory's motives, however, the Roman mission to England was to have an impact far beyond the bounds of Britain."
• These sentences in the article section "Motivations"

  "Gregory believed that the end of the world was imminent, and that he was destined to be a major part of God's plan for the apocalypse. His belief was rooted in the idea that the world would go through six ages, and that he was living at the end of the sixth age, a notion that may have played its part in Gregory's decision to dispatch the mission. Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts.'"

  I have a problem with these sentences, they are very specific about Gregory's beliefs but I can not find the bolded one in the referenced source here . I think that undue weight is given to this and that it should be reworded to more accurately reflect the source.

It's further down on that page, the paragraph starting:

Gregory clearly had a continuous and ongoing commitment to the spread of Cahtolic Christianity through his role as the senior bishop of all Christendom, and more particularly of the West. He saw himself as the key agent on early through whom God's plan for mankind might be made manifest beofre the sixth age of the earth should end - an he believe that ending to be iminent. His interst in conversion was, therefore, ideologically rooted.

In this context, the six ages theory means the end of the world and the coming of Christ once more. I myself don't see the problem with the paraphrase here. It's an inference, but it's certainly there to be read in what Higham's saying. If that last sentence is a bother, I'm not sure how else to condense what Higham's saying, honestly. The preceding sentences won't make much sense without drawing the conclusion, at least not to most folks. I can trim it if others feel that it's not a valid conclusion, but I think removing it will make Higham's thoughts less clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to oppose your FAC over this, I just think it would be better if it were more concise, perhaps a wikilink to Six ages of the world could help?NancyHeise ^talk 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It's Six ages of the world, and I'll try to fit it in, somehow. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Higham' explanation for Gregory's motivations differ from Eamon Duffy's. If two different authors make specific rationalizations about a pope's intentions, I think any mention of these in the article should mention the specific author making such comment and that the article should include both viewpoints to meet WP:NPOV.

Higham's ideas of Gregory's motivations differ from Markus' also. I thought I'd made it explicit that Markus (and most other historians) think that increasing the faithful was one motivation, but I can see it didn't get through. I'll mine Markus for that, since he's the most recent scholarly biographer of Gregory. Let me work on that in the morning, as facing Markus' prose is not something I wanna do right before bed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what I did was move the previous first paragraph of "Practical consideration" into the "motivations" where it really should have been to begin with. I also explicitly drew out that the desire to increase Christian numbers was part of it. (Drew on Hindley for that, Markus never says "of course they wanted to increase the number of Christians... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I think it is better but it still does not make the point that Duffy makes in that Gregory's motivation was for an 'increase in the faithful'. To say that he did it because he thought the world would not end unless he did is wrong. This sentence: "Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts." is unreferenced and Higham does not say this neither does Duffy. I think that sentence could easily be tossed and something inserted to help make Duffy's point which reflects the understanding of most Catholics as to his motivations. I think a lot of Readers will think the article lacks all points of view if Duffy's POV is omitted. Can't you just use Duffy as a source as well and insert a line to reflect his comments on Gregory's motivation? See also the second paragraph on page 52 of Donald Logan's A history of the church in the Middle Ages . He makes the point that the motivation was "it has come to our ears by the mercy of God the English race earnestly desire to be converted to Christianity". NancyHeise ^talk 12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I don't find Duffy's work specialized enough for this topic. I've consulted more specialized works for this article, ones that aren't covering a whole 2000 years of church history, but instead cover the time frame here. Markus' biography of Gregory is one of the most recent, Higham's work on the conversion is quite good. There is also Yorke and Mayr-Harting who wrote specifically on the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. I'll find it somewhere, but I myself DO see the connection in Higham's work and what the sentence says. Let me wake up and find something specific. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the last paragraph of Motivations now starts: "Although one of Gregory's main motivations was to increase the number of Christians,[27] more practical matters, such as the recruitment of new provinces acknowledging the primacy of the papacy and the gaining of new Christians looking to Rome for leadership were probably involved." which hopefully addresses your concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I read your adjustments to this section. Ealdgyth, I am always happy with your articles and I think this one meets FA too and intend to support it but I can not do that yet because this section on "Motivation" seems to be so POV to me. I have read Higham, Duffy and Logan and, although Higham speculates on Gregory's motivations, this is actually one scholar's speculation that is not mirrored by other scholars. The article should state this, not make it seem as if Higham's speculation is fact. Duffy actually states something completely different from Higham regarding motivation and even frames this the same way as Higham, as scholarly speculation. What they are saying is that no one really knows for sure what Gregory's motivations were but they think it may have had something to do with 1)"an increase of the faithful" 2)a response to the request for conversion by English royalty 3)Higham's Six Ages theory 4)extension of papal authority (this is in the article already but is unreferenced, is this from Higham? It needs ref). NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I"ve added a "Higham theorizes ... " in front of the six ages theory stuff. The bit about papal authority is specifically cited from Hindley (it's cited in the following sentence and the citation covers the sentence before it also. It could also be cited to Stenton, and probably others (I havent' checked for it specifically in Yorke or Mayr-Harting. It's coverage in Hindely, who is writing a generalized history of the Anglo-Saxons makes it more than a one-person theory. Hindley's basically writing a college level textbook on Anglo-Saxon history) All four of your motivations are covered in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Duffy is cited many more times on Googlescholar than Higham, he is a Yale University Press. His theory of Gregory's motivations should be included in that paragraph to offset the sentences referenced to Higham to show scholarly disagreement. Also, is this sentence referenced: "Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts." My problem with this section centers on that sentence which I can not find in Higham and which I think should be tossed out. NancyHeise ^talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to toss the sentence, (although I disagree with you that it's not covered by the Higham citation, but that's probably because I've got more background on the things that Higham is assuming the reader knows) but I think the other point is covered sufficiently. I've thrown in another cite to cover the fact that more than one historian feels the obvious motive of increasing Christians was behind the mission. (This one is to Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England) Duffy's point is IN the article, and it's common so it doesn't need attribution by name to Duffy, since most scholars writing on it assume it's covered, as 'increasing the number of the faithful" is pretty much the glaringly obvious reason to send out missionaries to convert folks. If i attribute it to Duffy, I'm going to have to attribute it to all the OTHER historians, it's so common. By not attributing it by name, I'm making it clear that it's a motivation commonly held by historians. As for using Duffy as a citation, Google scholar isn't perfect, and we shouldn't base our sourcing on how many hits on that someone has, but rather on the scope of their work and whether it is relevant to the subject. The subject here is the specific mission to the Anglo-Saxons, so I'd think Anglo-Saxon scholars would be more pertinent and better sources to cite than Duffy, who is a scholar of the late middle ages (Here is a search on his works for Google Scholar, if I was writing on late medieval church history into the Dissolution, I'd quote him before I'd quote Higham's words, as in that case, Higham would be operating outside his specialty. Likewise, here on this subject, Duffy's outside his specialty.) If you decide to oppose because I won't cite a late medieval history specialist over an Anglo-Saxon historian, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Furhter note, the offending sentence is gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your sources. I am just stating that Duffy does cover this subject in some detail and has opinions that differ from the sources used. You have presented his POV using another source and I am fine with that. I am also happy that you tossed the sentence that struck me as undue. I have just tweaked the last paragraph in "Motivations" to eliminate weasel words like "probably" and mention the fact that some scholars believe his motivations were for one reason, others for another. Please see the changes and let me know if you are OK with my edit. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your edit, but it's kinda a "duh" to say that Gregory's motivation for sending the mission was to increase the number of Christians. I mean, the purpose of the mission was to convert folks, so it is kinda obvious that Gregory was motivated to increase the number of Christians. Surely, he wouldn't have sent the mission hoping they wouldn't succeed in converting the pagans to Christianity? But I'm not going to change your wording, I just kinda feel it's implicit in the whole "missionary endeavour" thing that one purpose was to increase the number of CHristians in the world. It's a "fact" kinda thing, not something subject to scholarly debate. What they DO debate is what other motivations Gregory might have had. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you can't have a "Motivations" section and not state what scholars actually say, and they actually say that his "motivation" was to increase the number of Christians. I don't think it is "duh" at all but essential to that section. The first sentence in the section says "Some historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission, although exactly why remains unclear." The last paragraph now states that scholars have theories as to why instead of stating those theories as facts because "exactly why remains unclear". The last paragraph reflects the truth revealed in the first sentence otherwise one would have proven the other wrong and it would have made no sense. If you are fine with this edit, I am now ready to support. I am sorry to have had so much to say about this, I was just trying to give you a thorough FAC review, it was an act of LOVE from me to you! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IT's fine Nancy. (grins). Thanks for the review, I'm always glad to have a thorough one. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Section entitled "Composition and arrival" could be expanded with information from the Saints and Sinners book (Yale University Press) pages 69-70 "Just why Gregory should have decided to evangelise England we do not know. The earliest biography, written in England a century after his death, tells how, while still a deacon, he saw handsome, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon boys in Rome. When told they were Angles, he replied, 'They are angels of God,' and immmediately formed a desire to convert the nation from which they had come. The story is quite plausible in itself, and Gregory's interest in this people 'worshipping stocks and stones...at the edge of the world' may well have been aroused by seeing English slaves in the Roman market. Certainly by 595 he was instructing the Rector of the papal patrimony in Gaul to buy up seventeen or eighteen year-old English slave-boys, to be trained as monks in the Roman monasteries. He may already have been looking for interpreters for a mission to England. One year later he despatched his mission, a party of Roman monks led by Augustine, prefect of Gregory's own monastery of St. Andrew"

Nancy, that information is already in the article, under motivations, the first paragraph. And most historians are divided on whether the story is true or not. (It first appears in the Life of Gregory written over a hundred years after the fact, so it may be a fable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Duffy states "Certainly by 595 he was instructing the Rector of the papal patrimony in Gaul to buy up seventeen or eighteen year-old English slave-boys, to be trained as monks in the Roman monasteries. He may already have been looking for interpreters for a mission to England. One year later he despatched his mission" and this information is not in that section discussing "Composition and arrival". Duffy is suggesting that Gregory used these purchased English slave boys that were trained as monks as interpreters for that mission. NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But those boys were not used as interpreters. They got their interpreters from the Frankish kingdoms, as is known from letters Gregory wrote, soliciting interpreters from the Frankish kings. If he had trained slaves as interpreters, he wouldn't have asked for Frankish ones while the missionaries were traveling to Kent. Duffy's off base there. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not an expert on this subject, I am just relating to you what Duffy says and it strikes me as relevent. Can you just put a sentence that says something like "Some scholars speculate that because Gregory purchases English slaves to be trained as monks, that he had planned to use them as interpreters but other scholars disagree....." or something to that effect to cover the differences in scholarly opinions? NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Further, we don't know if the slaves were ever bought. Markus discusses the letter ordering the purchase, but whether the boys were bought or not is never mentioned again by Markus in his biography of Gregory nor in any other source I've read. It's not that some historians speculate, it's only Duffy. No other historian I've read for this article speculates on that, so I think mentioning it would be undue weight here. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, if Duffy is the only one to make this speculation its OK to leave it out especially since it is speculation and not a solid fact. NancyHeise ^talk 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I did some more checking and found that Duffy is not the only scholar to suggest that these English slaves were being sent on the mission - see this Routledge Press book by Donald Logan pages 51 and 52 . I think you should insert this in the article just to cover all POV's.NancyHeise ^talk 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Logan doesn't say they were interpreters, he says "... quite possibly with a view of sending them on a future mission to their own people." This speculation is already covered in the article. And it's an interpretation that's pretty common among historians. You're asking me to add Duffy's further speculation that they were interpreters instead of missionaries or on top of being missionaries, and it's the interpreter speculation that isn't covered by any other source I've seen. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, right, I see where that information is in "Motivations". I think you're right, I don't see any other authors saying that they were used as interpreters and your article portrays the use of English slave boys properly. I am fine with this. NancyHeise ^talk 13:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Section entitled "Pagan practices". Is there any information that we can include about what pagan practices were? Were they polygamists, slave traders, child sacrificers; did they practice infanticide or other things that conflicted with Christian beliefs? NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We know next to nothing about the Anglo-Saxon pagan beliefs. We barely know the names of some of their gods. That's about it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can that be mentioned in the section? NancyHeise ^talk 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It could, but I'm not sure why it needs to be, quite honestly. It strikes me as not really important to the mission itself to explicitly state that we don't know something. There's a link to Anglo-Saxon paganism in the lead, for those interested in specifics. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, I didn't see that link. I dislike Wikipedia's first mention rule about wikilinking. I don't think it helps Readers find information. Although I would like to see that linked in this section, I'll wait and see what others have to say. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph you're looking at here is far enough down that I went ahead and threw a link in there too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's better. NancyHeise ^talk 12:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some points Dodwell Anglo-Saxon Art is not in the references, & the notes all misspell "pictoral" for "pictorial" in the other Dodwell. I'd drop the Vespasian Psalter personally, but there is a lost Bible of St Gregory mentioned at Canterbury I'll try to dig up. It's clear from other early AS miniatures (like the Vespasian Psalter) that there were other Italian books around, as you would expect. Looks to be the usual quality generally, but I need to read through properly. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I included Vespasian Psalter because there is three/four articles on it out there, getting into the seriously covered territory, but if you feel it's not needed, we can drop it. I'll throw Dodwell in the refs, sometimes I get interupted while adding stuff and the bibliographic stuff gets missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the missing Dodwell and fixed the spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the "Gospel of St Gregory". I'd drop the Vespasian psalter because the evidence connecting it to Augustine is not so much "slight" as non-existent; there has been much controversy on its date, but ranging from c720 (David Wright) and c775 (Wilson, claiming support from others). The earlier view seems to be winning out, but that is still a century too late. There is another MS, I think unilluminated, that is supposed to have some reasonable chance of coming from Italy to the mission, but I can't track it down. Must we convert all book cites to US editions, even where only the original UK edition has been used (Wilson), and where the US reprint was 3 years later (Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon)? I'd have thought some version of WP:ENGVAR should apply; it is very irritating. It's "Burns & Oates" not "Oats", btw. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should cite the edition we use, you gave a 1984 date on the Wilson, so I assumed it was the US edition that you used. If you used the UK editon, I can switch it out. I cite the US on Dodwell, because that's the edition I have. I'll drop the Vespasian in a second. (I included it as part of an effort to be inclusive on the art stuff! At least I'm hunting for it now!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Wilson was the UK edn. The "artnet" web ref (ref 12?) is the start of the Grove entry, no? This should be indicated somehow. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. Sorry for me misunderstanding about the Wilson ref. My bad. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all sorted. More below. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:English kingdoms 600.gif - The font on the map is difficult to read, even when viewed in full resolution - this needs to be fixed. Ideally, maps should be in SVG format. There is a service on Wikipedia that will do the switch for you (ask for help here).
• File:Gregory I - Antiphonary of Hartker of Sankt Gallen.jpg - Can you make the source a little clearer for this image?
• File:AugsutineGospelsFolio129vStLuke.jpg - Please add a date to the image description.
• File:St Boniface - Baptising-Martyrdom - Sacramentary of Fulda - 11Century.jpg - Can we get more detailed source information on this? Is an author known? If not, please write "unknown" in the author field.

Not much to do here at all. I'm enjoying the article - will post a full review soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've dealt with all but the map. I have a help request out to Mike (who made the map) and Malleus (who is a wizard with non-photographic image files) for help on the map. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Pending any changes to the map, I've replaced it with a different, SVG version. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• All image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support This article is well-structured and clearly written. After reading it, I have a clear idea of what the mission was and what it achieved. I was particularly impressed with how well the historical questions about evidence were presented - differing theories were distinct and fairly presented. I've listed a few sentences below that could do with some polishing and/or expansion, but these are minor issues:

• As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would add to the areas in which the primacy of the pope was acknowledged, and perhaps also have an influence over the increasing power of the Kentish state. - This sentence is awkward - "add to the areas" and "have an influence" are not clear phrasings.

* Changed to "As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would increase areas acknowledging papal primacy, and perhaps influence the Kentish state." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How did he think it would influence the Kentish state? Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the phrase from the lead. I can't think of a way to explain it in concise phrasing, and it's borderline being mentioned in the lead anyway. it's more that Kent's power was on the rise when the mission set out, which probably influenced the location more than the motivation behind the mission. (At one point, there was a much longer discussion of this in the lead, which has been slowly whittled away as the rest of the article grew bigger.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Material remains testify to a growing Christian presence, at least until about 360 - What kinds of remains?

• added examples. Mainly it's objects inscribed with christian symbols, lead basins, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, which implies that the Germanic tribes' settlement aggravated existing problems that caused Roman culture to change from an urban to a rural civilisation. - I don't see the "implication" - I think this material needs to be explained better.

• I've reworded this to tie it closer into the preceding sentences, and make it's connection more clear. Hopefully this is better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how evidence of a variation in establishment suggests that the Germanic tribes aggravated existing problems. Could you explain it to me slowly? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some sections of Britain were settled more densely with the tribes. We get that from the number of pagan burials, and the density of them. Burials also show variation with what was in them, some regions have more warrior type goods in the burials than others, suggesting that some regions had more warriors, while other regions had more farming settlement. Some of the burials in places lack weapons and the bones show malnutrition, suggesting peasants were buried there. That make more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That makes much more sense - could you explain that way in the article? Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I threw it into an explanatory note, since it'd be a big chunk of information that would disrupt the flow of the text. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• However it happened, the effects of the Anglo-Saxon settlement was that when Augustine arrived in 597, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had little continuity with the Roman civilisation that had preceded them in Britain - wordy

• Reworded to "However it happened, the net effect was that when Augustine arrived in 597, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had little continuity with the preceding Roman civilisation." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other sources include biographies of Pope Gregory, including a life written in Northern England as well as a 9th-century life by a Roman writer - Is there a date for the life written in Northern England?

• Added in dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is some inconsistency in the article's presentation of centuries: some are written as numerals and some are spelled out. Please choose one style and stick with it.

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Archaeological remains support the notion that there were cultural influences from Francia in England at that time - What kind of remains?

• My source doesn't specify what sorts, just says "A Frankis presence or at least a marked cultural Frankish influence has long been detected in the archaeological record of southern England in the sixth century." It's cited to two archaeological reports that I don't have access to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another reason for the pause may have been the receipt of news of the death of King Childebert II, who had been expected to lend the missionaries aid - "lend...aid" seemed like a strange phrase to me - lend them money or give them aid?

• "Lend aid" is a phrase you'll see often in the older historians works. Have reworded to "... who had been expected to help the missionaries;" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• When Laurence woke up, he showed the whip marks, which had happened to him physically during the dream, to the new Kentish king, who promptly was converted and recalled the exiled bishops - awkwardly phrased

• Reworded to "When Laurence woke up the whip mark had miraculously appeared on his body. He showed these marks to the new Kentish king, who promptly was converted and recalled the exiled bishops." It's just an awkward episode!
• Indeed! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Once the image issues are resolved, I will fully support. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on the image issues next. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now fully supported! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments Ah, bishops travelling through Britain, presumably on horses? Up to your usual standard, so I'll support anyway, but a few concerns jimfbleak (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would increase areas acknowledging papal primacy seems inelegant to me. Would something like Gregory probably hoped the delegation would expand the areas acknowledging papal primacy, as well as fulfilling its missionary role. be any better?
  • Evidence for the continued existence of Christianity in the eastern part of Britain during this time... makes it sound as if there was any doubt about the existence - having said that I'm not sure how to improve it
  • Bede no link? Even I've heard of him also Liudhard needs a link
  • "however" sprinkled like confetti. Could you check that they are all necessary, and not just padding?
  • apocalypse - wikilink?
  • Gregory was not popular in Rome, and it was not until Bede's Ecclesisastical History began to circulate that Gregory's cult also took root in Rome. Do we need the second in Rome?

jimfbleak (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replies.

• Changed to "add to the areas acknowledging", as the existing areas weren't expanding
• Liudhard now linked.
• "Howevers" have been pruned.
• Apocalypse now linked.
• Changed to Gregory was not popular in Rome, and it was not until Bede's Ecclesisastical History began to circulate that Gregory's cult also took root there.

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything about Dark Age Britain (from about 400 AD to 650 AD or so) is very... fluid. Especially so for the pre-600 period. We just don't know much. There is Gildas and what Bede wrote, but we need to take both those sources with a big grain of salt. It's assumed that Christianity remained, but it's pretty much an assumption and some meagre bits of evidence. Not much written evidence, and some of the archaeological evidence is equivocal, so it's best to say that evidence is scanty. We're pretty sure there were Christians among the native Britons, but where/how much/how they were organized, etc. is not really known. Make more sense? And thanks Malleus for catching the prose glitches. I do like HOwever though! --Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• "His wife, Bertha of Kent, was a practising Christian, and before her marriage had been a Frankish princess" - which she remained after it. Why not "His wife, Bertha of Kent, was a Frankish princess and practising Christian."

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Augustine was the prior of Gregory's own monastic foundation in Rome," link San Gregorio Magno al Celio. This left me unclear if Gregory was the founder or a monk there - in fact he was both, having set the monastery up in the family house.

Fixed. I've linked it in the body of the article, left it just "Gregory's own monastery" in the lead.--Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "bearing items and books" sounds odd - "bearing books and other items"

Malleus fixed this. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Although the missionaries were unable to remain in all of the places they evangelised" - "evangelized" is intransitive without a preposition. Either:"Although the missionaries were unable to remain in all of the places where they had evangelised" or something with "worked" or "made conversions".

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "by the time the last of them died in 653 they had established themselves" - "by the time the last of the original group died in 653 they had established [something else]" - if they were all dead they hadn't "established themselves". The next bit "and had contributed a Roman tradition to Christianity in Britain" could be improved too.

Changed to "established Christianity" and made the last clause "... had contributed a Roman tradition to the practice of Christianity in Britain." --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and the style of the tonsure haircut" - helps the uninformed I know, but tautology nonetheless.

Changed to "tonsure, or haircut, ..." --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• link Boniface, unless it is not the famous one.(he is linked later, re the synod, & then again - 1 removed). Are we not using "Saint" s?

I generally use "Saint" when discussing events after the saint's death, and since I'm not here, I've avoided it. I find if use Saint all the time it implies that the person was a saint before they became canonized. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "In 595, when Pope Gregory I decided to send a mission—often called the Gregorian mission" - put last bit in the lead, or drop it.

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and if not for the discovery of a gold coin bearing the inscription Leudardus Eps (Eps is an abbreviation of Episcopus, the Latin word for bishop) his existence may have been doubted." -"may" is the wrong tense, and is there not enough documentary evidence to confirm him, by 6th century standards?

The source says his existence might have been doubted. I believe our first evidence for him comes from Bede, not from Gregory's letters, so that may be the reason for possible doubt. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "with orders to be consecrated as a bishop if needed" - sounds odd; was he supposed to consecrate himself?

Clarified. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gregory not only targeted the British..." gets repetitive. Better with last sentence of the para collapsed into this one: "Gregory not only targeted the British with his missionary efforts, but he also supported other missionary endeavours, encouraging bishops and kings to work together for the conversion of non-Christians within their territories.[42][44] He urged the conversion of the heretical Arians in Italy and elsewhere, as well as the conversion of Jews. Also pagans in Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica were the subject of letters to officials, urging their conversion.[43]"

Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Some scholars suggest that Gregory's main motivation was to increase the number of Christians;[28] others wonder if more practical matters such as extending the primacy of the papacy to additional provinces and the recruitment of new Christians looking to Rome for leadership were also involved." - reads awkwardly. Rather a distinction without a difference, and why the 2nd is "more practical" than the 1st is not entirely clear. More political perhaps.

Changed to "political" and changed the political at the start of the following sentence to "such". --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the language barrier between the two regions was apparently only a minor obstacle," that this was more minor in Kent than elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England might need citing.

This is cited at the first following footnote. All the information in the first five sentences is sourced to the footnote at the end of the fifth sentence. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "support from the Frankish kingdom" - weren't there several?

My understanding is that theoretically they were subkingdoms acknowledging one overlord, but I'll change this to "Frankish kings" just to make it more precise. I've been trying to avoid the whole problem of "was it one kingdom with subkings or lots of kingdoms" by some fancy word choice. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Most likely, they halted in the Rhone valley" - not really British FA prose style. I've changed another one just after.

Wider points, that the sources must cover, I'm sure.

• No mention of the Hiberno-Scottish missions to the Continent, that Gregory must have been aware of (Columbanus was supposed to have sent him letters, though apparently without an answer). Whatever the doziness of the Britons, the Irish had established Luxeuil Abbey in 585-590, and others in Gaul & Germany, & Gregory may well (& correctly) have thought they would start on the Anglo-Saxons if he did not get there first.

• Markus doesn't mention that as a possible motivation in his work on Gregory, nor do York or Mayr-Harting, both of whom have written reasonably recent works on the conversion. In fact, they both seem to argue that in the end Gregory knew very little of the actual situation on the ground in Britain. If you can find me a cite for that as a possible motivation, I'll be glad to include it, but I've not yet run across it in my (rather extensive) readings. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just I haven't seen it yet. --Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the situation on the ground in Gaul & Germany. Am I right that the article does not link to Hiberno-Scottish mission at all? Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At one point it did, somewhere. Whether this went elsewhere in the copyedits, I'll have to check. It should. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been relinked back in, in the lead and in this section. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Æthelberht must have been aware that paganism was just ceasing to be respectable in the European politics of the day, & that it was getting harder and harder for pagans & Christians to enjoy friendly relations. That some of the Franks were apparently sniffing around claims to his kingdom, which if it remained pagan might easily have obtained Papal support, must have occured to him, one would think. Both the Norman Invasion of England in 1066 and their invasion of Ireland had Papal backing, the Christian powers that be of the time not being well enough in with the Pope.

• Again, if you can find me a citation for it, I'll include it. Higham, in Convert Kings doesn't mention that as a possible motivation, although he has a number of other possible motivations for Æthelberht converting. --Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• " Other than the trip by Laurence, little is known of what undertakings the missionaries performed in the period " - "Other than the trip by Laurence, little is known of the activities of the missionaries in the period" seems better.

• Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The conferred pallium was the symbol of metropolitan status, and signified that Augustine as a new Gregorian archbishop" - Messy - cut "conferred", grammar, why "Gregorian"?

• Changed to "The pallium was the symbol of metropolitan status, and signified that Augustine was in union with the Roman papacy." --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "which for reasons unrecorded never happened" - enough unrecorded reasons follow, cut to "which never happened".

• Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The well-known quote from the letter to Mellitus would add character here.
• Eadbald bit gets rather tangled; maybe needs another look.

• The whole subject of Eadbald is one of those lovely tangles that historians love to argue about. I've done a copyedit on it, hopefully making it a bit less wooly. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The missionaries were forced to proceed slowly, and were unable to do much about destroying the pagan practices" - I don't think you destroy a practice, maybe: "The missionaries were forced to proceed slowly, and were unable to eliminate pagan practices, or destroy ...." To have paganism made illegal within 45 years is not bad going! It took Rome far longer.

• reworded. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• " to combine with the Gaulish and the Irish strands already present" - was there really a Gaulish strand? And the Celtic strand was not just Irish.

• Yeah, there was, not counting Bertha's bishop, there was also Felix, who came from the continent and was only kinda connected with the Roman missionaries. And there were possibly some Franks present who influenced things. Changed Irish to Hiberno-Irish. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to Hiberno-British! I notice Wilson, in a similar comment (p.12), treats these two as distinct even in the 660s, also allowing a Frankish strand. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am following these, and will get to them tomorrow if my head stops pounding like a bass drum. (If Malleus doesn't beat me to them) --Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Late point - A sentence on the introduction of the Roman chant could be added to the last section. Not something I know about. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DUH! Added. A real "face-palm" moment, there. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• A couple more:

• It should be made clearer that the second meeting with the Brits was with different people at a different place. Their "great monastery" is now Bangor Cathedral.

• I'm not sure why this level of detail is important? Also, it appears from some works that the monastery Bede talked about (whose monks prayed before the Battle of Chester, which is the great monastery I presume you're referring to..) is actually located in Bangor-on-Dee. (Wallace-Hadrill's Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People p. 54)

• Anyone reading the text as it is would assume they were the same people in the same place, which was not the case. Since everybody agrees the British side of the matter is under-represented in the sources, I rather agree with Xandar below that where we have information, it should be included. I'm not sure the 7 bishops monastery & the Battle of Chester one are the same - I notice the Fordham Bede translates them differently. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have reworded and added a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Adding this online Bede would be a useful external link.

• Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since there is so much discussion of everybody's motives, the possibility that King A invited them (leaving "initiated" aside), should probably be mentioned quickly. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• "One of Bertha's biographers states that, influenced by his wife, Æthelberht requested Pope Gregory to send missionaries." in the Immediate background section. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets FA criteria, & Ealdgyth's usual high standards. Any chance of her widening her scope to do some of the Celtic church articles, which really need improvement? Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, my next FAC candidate isn't a bishop or a horse or anyone clerical. It is a person though. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. A good, comprehensive article, but there are some quite important flaws.

• The Lead. I think it needs to state early on that the mission was significant and ultimately successful. It was one of the most significant advances for Christianity of the age, and that needs to be made clear. It had later implications for mission to Germany.

• The Roman mission however, wasn't the whole story though. After the initial successes, they were pretty much confined to the southern parts, and while they had influence later, Northumbria and the western parts were converted as much by the Irish and others as by the Gregorian missionaries efforts. The part about it being successful within it's limits, however, does need to be mentioned in the lead. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I"ve added a bit to the lead. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's definitely an improvement. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Background" section. This is the biggest problem with the article, as I see it. Starting the section with the withdrawal of the Roman legions in 410 is confusing, since you then go back in time to mention the establishment of Christianity in Britain, then come forward again, to talk about the Anglo Saxons. It would be best to start by stating that Britannia was largely Christian by the end of the 4th century, with details of the Bishops etc., and then go on to the withdrawal of Roman troops and the pagan invasions.

• Will rework. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• And have done so. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This reads much better now. Thanks. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mention of the "native celtic church" in this section is confusingly done. The article needs to distinguish between the "British" church, ie the Church of Roman Britain, which survived in Wales and the West of England, and the "Celtic" Church of Ireland and later Western Scotland. I don't think there's a lot of evidence that the British Church developed under influence of missionaries from Ireland - rather the reverse - with Patrick, being a leader in the founding of the Irish church, and Saint David inspiring Irish monasticism and figures such asSaint Finnian. The British Church (as opposed to the Celtic Church) was hostile to evangelising the Saxons.

• I'll double check this to be sure that the terminology is consistent. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I"ve removed the offending "under influence of Irish missionaries" which I believe was meant to apply to a discussion about the Pictish and northern Britian conversion which later got axed. Should be a bit clearer now. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that solves the problem, although ideally I would have liked a little more on the British Church. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Did Roman Culture "change from an urban to a rural civilisation", or did it just break down? I would say the latter. The cities were abandoned, the villas burned, transport, industry, trade and infrastructure broke down. People walled themselves up in towns or old forts. A few years later they were saying the cities had been built by giants. That's not "rural civilisation." So the statement "it is likely that" the former happened, is going too far in the way of endorsing recent revisionist views. The half sentence "..or if it merely was a coincidence that the decline of Roman culture in the later Roman Empire happened at the same time that Germanic tribes settled in Britain, is unclear." Is unneccessary. I've never heard the collapse of the Roman Empire called a coincidence before. Why not just shorten this passage and say that there was a breakdown in Roman society, economic and religious structures when the invaders arrived, rather than get into a debate on reasons for the decline?

• Current historical thinking is that the barbarian invasions weren't quite so fire-death-and-destruction. And the statement of "coincidence" is exactly what the source states. It is possible that Roman culture was breaking down on the frontiers before the Saxons settled in Britain, we just don't know. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't know fully, but the way this section is written implies that we do. The most problematic sentence here is: "Because the archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, it is likely that the Germanic tribes' settlement aggravated existing problems that caused Roman culture to change from an urban to a rural civilisation, rather than the tribes causing the decline on their own." This is referenced to Yorke's 1990 Kings and Kingdoms, which does not seem to state this so boldly, and remains only one view. Her later book the 2006 Conversion of Britain seems in pages 43-45 to return to the view of a more devastating Saxon impact. I would also decline to write off the only contemporary historian, Gildas, as well as the linguistic evidence and that of Britonic flight to Armorica. The very fact that there are no written records argues against the concept of a "rural civilisation." However is this even the article for such a debate to take place? The offending sentence adds little to the main topic. Wouldn't it be simpler just to remove it? (The note could still remain, attached to the previous sentence.) And the issue of what caused the destruction of Roman culture could be left to a more relevant article, with more room to discuss the differing evidence and viewpoints. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

I think it's important to note that the Roman urban culture had pretty much vanished by the time the mission arrived, but I've chopped down the offending sentence to "The archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, which happened concurrently with the disappearance of the urban, Roman culture in Britain." which leaves the exact cause of that disappearance to other articles. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's great. I think that resolves my concerns. Xandar 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "Motivations", the section starts: "Some historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission". Surely this should be "Most historians"?

* I had "historians" but Nancy insisted it be changed to only "some historians" ... see the discussion above. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read your conversations with Nancy, but this wording still perplexes me. I think Nancy's point was about the motivations some historians apply to Gregory in initiating the mission. However the sentence that starts "Some historians", is written in such a way that it implies that most historians DON'T believe that Gregory initiated the mission! To correct this, (I presume) false impression, would it not be better to recast the sentence into something like: "Historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission, although some remain unclear as to his precise motivation." or "Some historians remain unclear as to the exact motivation behind Gregory's initiation of the Augustinian Mission."

Xandar 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now it's clearer to me what the problem is. Actually, there are some historians who think Æthelberht initiated the mission, by sending a letter to Gregory asking for a mission to be sent. Ian Wood and Janet Nelson are two of those. (they are mentioned in the paragraph before this) Most historians seem to feel that Gregory was behind the idea of the mission, but those two historians are noted enough in the field to make it impossible for me to say that ALL "historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission" Can we settle on "Most historians take the view that.."? --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would solve the problem then. Xandar 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Saw the FTC, and I've been wondering why Ealdgyth had some articles on her page that weren't featured... :) ceranthor 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

House (TV series)

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article has really improved since its last (suddenly interrupted) FAC, thanks to various copy-edits. If you have comments about the cast image, see the previous FAC. I believe the article meets all the criteria now. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The character has similarities to Sherlock Holmes; both are forensic geniuses, musicians, drug users, aloof, and largely friendless." Colon, surely. In your list, where is the boundary between nouns and adjectives? Jerks the reader.
  • done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• It has been largely filmed. I find "Holmes uses a similar method" a little difficult, since it was so long ago. Unsure. Present for House and past for SH might be a good device ...?
  • Why has been? the show still films there. Holmes comment is fixed.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hate those fly-spots after every single "Dr". Oh well, it's your choice, I guess. While I usually ask for more constrained blue in links, via piping, here, it's odd that "Dr" is not included in all of those name-links.
  • What exactly do you want me to do?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. "Dr." included in blue links when title preceding name. (As our friend Tony knows, those "fly-spots" are good American English style.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Conception"—second, maybe third paras are stubby.
  • Maybe, but merging them is hard, do you have any suggestions?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merged third with fourth paragraph, eliminating some stubbiness. Given both the verifiable substance and the structural logic of the subsection, it looks like the second paragraph works best as is. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • We've taken care of that one as well now.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "doctors...check"—spaces (non-breaking, probably) either side of the ellipsis dots.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The others are linked, but The West Wing isn't.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Multi-clutter citation numbers: Is it possible to conflate each set into one? If they're not used elsewhere, I can't see why not: "Critics considered the series to be a bright spot amid FOX's schedule, largely filled with reality shows,[112][113][114] and reacted positively to the character of Gregory House.[115][116] Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him, "the most electrifying character to hit television in years".[117] Critics have compared House to fictional detectives Adrian Monk, Hercule Poirot, Nero Wolfe, and Perry Cox.[118][119][120] Laurie's performance in the role has been praised by critics.[119][121]". So hard to read; so unattractive.
  • Yes, this is something of which all nominators should be aware. The simple merging of unique cites goes a long way toward making an article more readable. I'll take care of them here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Table: I'd always use just two closing digits, and here it will make the whole thing more manageable within the limited space: e.g., 2006–07. Remove "in" from "in millions". Do you need the #s? Distribution table: the countries (exotic and little known) are all linked? They don't even pipe to something more specific. Please ...
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ref list. Do you really like the ISO gobbly dates? Not good when you get strings such as "2008-01-29. No. 10, season 4." Trust me, most readers would love the month to be spelled out. But it's up to you.
  • Fixed by Dabomb87.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good as far as I can tell on a swift look through. But it could be polished up a bit. Tony (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I used a script to convert to MDY format. Revert if you don't like. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, this is looking in good shape. One significant exception: the episode citations are a complete mess.

• They all read House M.D. Obviously, they must all be changed to House.
  • Done.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The links to the episode articles appear to be nonfunctional (check 'em out).
  • That's a problem with the cite episode template. It is protected so I can't change it.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the citations list just the writer(s); some list David Shore and the writer(s); some (e.g., "Frozen", "Honeymoon") have no credits at all. These must be made completely consistent. If you choose to include Shore in all (as opposed to none), then he must be identified as "Creator" and the writer(s) as "Writer(s)" (in that case, for episodes written by Shore, he should be identified as "Creator/Writer").
  • All episode refs only include the writer.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing. It seems weird to learn about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron romances only in Critical reception. And there's no mention of the House-Cuddy...whatever it is...at all. All of these relationships should be mentioned either in Series overview or Cast or characters (where it does mention that Cameron "developed an affection for Chase"--that's fine, but insufficient.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work on that, however, the full fifth season hasn't been broadcasted in the Netherlands yet (that's where I edit from), so I can't fully describe the Thirteen-Foreman or Huddy relationship.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think all the romances could be mentioned in the main characters section since they are all between main characters. It might also be a good idea to mention House and Cameron's relationship. That could be fit in the first paragraph of the recurring characters section since it ties in with Vogler. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Information on relationships has been added to the main characters section. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Casting, then Cast and characters, with a template linking back to a section within the same article?? Have never seen such a layout, doesn't seem optimal. Also, there are collapsed templates in "Critics' top ten lists"; default should be show, not hide, for printability and mirrors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The casting section could be moved, but I think it casting has more to do with production than with the characters. Also, the reason why it links back to the same article is for people who are looking for casting info and might have skipped it.--Music26/11 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music here that the casting section in this article is probably more suited to be in the production section. After the production section you have the series overview and characters sections which are both in-universe, whereas the casting section is out of universe and probably fits better in production. This is possibly true of all TV show articles and putting casting in the characters section might not be the best way to go about it. A way to solve this issue for this article would be to rename the "Cast and characters" section simply "Characters" and delete the template for the casting note. I'm not sure if that really improves anything though, it's probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music and Marble on the basic structure. The same thought did occur to me about renaming "Cast and characters" simply "Characters". What do you think, Music? The template as well, though it certainly does no harm, is not necessary. If its elimination brings the article more into conformity with standard style, that's a valid argument for cutting it. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion ties into another situation I'm thinking about right now. I made some edits to the article today and one of them cut a mention of Laurie as an executive producer because the reference and other evidence doesn't back it up. However I'd like to add that reference back in somewhere as it mentions Laurie made around $400,000 per episode in season 5, which is pretty interesting information I think. I don't know where it would best fit in the article though. It doesn't exactly fit in casting because it's about a cast member but not the casting process, and it doesn't fit in with the cast and characters because that section is about in-universe characters, not how much money Laurie is making. So basically after thinking about this I think the best thing to do would be to just rename the section "Main characters" (or simply "Characters" if people prefer) and remove the casting note since there won't be any ambiguity anymore. I think I'll just do that now, if anyone disagrees or wants to modify it you can revert my change. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I changed the title of that section to "Characters and story arcs" which I think fits well. The comprehensiveness of this article looks good. One thing I think is missing though is a little more information about the story arcs. House getting shot which was the arc in the season 2 finale and beginning of season 3 is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes section but I think that could probably use a mention somewhere in the "Characters and story arcs" section too. In response to DCGeist's comments, relationships could be expanded a little in that section as well. There were a couple major events that happened in the season 5 finale, those could probably be mentioned somehow. I will finish looking over the article and references and see if I find anything else than can be improved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Renaming the section to "Characters and story arcs" was a good decision, I'll try to add some more info regarding relationships etc. to the section tomorrow (I don't have a lot of time right now). Oh, I didn't know where to put the salary info either that's why I left it out, also is Laurie really not an executive producer? I think I saw his name after the credits once. That's it, thanks.--Music26/11 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: With additions and copyediting by various hands, the article is looking increasingly strong. On a structural level, I have only one remaining, relatively minor, concern. Do we really need a subsection and highly detailed table for DVD releases? The table is pretty, but doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic. I argue for cutting the table and simply making the text of the subsection the last paragraph of the parent Distribution section.

Please note that I have already cut another pretty table from that section. As I explained in my edit summary, the table that gave the networks where the show airs in six selected countries was both (a) 100% redundant of the accompanying text and (b) wildly incomplete--implying that the show airs only in English-speaking countries. On that note, we should have a sentence or two on the show's presence in non-English-speaking countries; there must be something out there up to WP:V standard.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I searched quite a bit, and there doesn't seem to be any good sources for its overall global distribution. I was able to find good references for its popularity in a couple of non-English-speaking countries, and have added a sentence covering that.DocKino (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just found and added much more on foreign distribution from Variety.DocKino (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you on all points here pretty much. Most people are reluctant to remove tables like these because they are pretty, but they don't really add much. What I think we should do is move all the relevent date information and references to the table already at List of House episodes, that way the information is still being used. But it's not that necessary or helpful to this article, it doesn't matter much what specific date each season's DVD was released in each region. The distributions section could and probably should be expanded a little with any relevant information that was lost, but I think you're right that none of the tables there add that much. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree as well, there was a brief discussion regarding this just before the previous FAc (see this). You can remove it if you think it is redundant.--Music26/11 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Once the information on the main characters' relationships is added, I'm ready to support.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the info about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron relationships, and you guys did a good job cleaning the prose up and adding more references. I just added in info about House and Cuddy's relationship with some references. So I think this article might be ready for featured status. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question and comment (unrelated to above update): I'm pretty sure I solved the "mystery" of Hugh Laurie as executive producer. Firstly though I have a question: is Film.com, which is part of RealNetworks, a reliable enough source to be used for a featured article such as this one? At a glance at the site and looking at their FAQs, it doesn't appear to accept member-submitted info like TV.com or IMDb, but I might be wrong. I ask because Film.com lists all the writer, producer, director, etc. info for all House episodes, which could be used for a reference in the "production team" section for the info about who wrote and directed the most episodes. I also ask because I discovered that Hugh Laurie was credited as executive producer for episodes 2 and 3 of season 5: , . It appears those were the only 2 episodes he was given an executive producer credit and that would corroborate the reference that says he'll get a "producing credit", it was just for those 2 episodes. So I don't think he should be listed in the infobox under executive producers but it could be mentioned in the "production team" section he was for those 2 episodes. The question is if Film.com can be used as a reference. If it can't I found this Blogcritics reference that mentions Laurie as executive producer: , and Blogcritics appears to be deemed reliable since it's used in some other references in the article already. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Film.com looks like a good source. Everything I've been able to find out about it suggests that information-wise it is a completely professional site.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Terrific job, everyone. With a lot of hard work, you've turned this into a high-quality, comprehensive TV series article.—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I've been a contributor to this article for awhile now, but had for a time not edited this article much. Big credit to Music2611 for greatly expanding the article and adding in a lot of references and pushing the article's comprehensiveness and verifiability to featured quality. Previous FAC was dominated by discussion on the image in the characters section, but that has been resolved. All issues brought up on this FAC have been resolved. Big thanks to all the editors who have helped make the final push to make this article comprehensive and have sharp prose. This article has been greatly polished since the start of this FAC, and I think is featured article quality now. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support It's there. I just want to say that there are articles that first come to FAC needing less substantive work than this one did when it first appeared here five weeks ago--but quite a few of those never make it all the way because psychological issues ("ownership", defensiveness, etc.) turn the effort to achieve FA standards into a trial. This FAC process, on the other hand, has been a pleasure to participate in. Thanks to LonelyMarble for all the effort on the article over the past 17 months, and a timely reappearance here; to DCGeist for some superb copyediting; and, of course, to Music2611--it's not only the effort of the nominator that makes the difference, but also the attitude. Well done. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per DocKino. I see no problems at all (and I'm a fan of the series and would really love to see it on the main page). It meets all of the criteria without question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, leaning toward support. I have a number of relatively small issues with the article, but they unfortunately add up to an oppose. Several of them, you can just ignore if you disagree (I have labeled these as such). Added: I have found a number of sources that are misrepresented in the article or used as citations for statements that they do not justify. This is absolutely unacceptable in any article, much less a featured one.
  • "FOX officially credits Shore as creator." I think this might read better as "only Shore". That's really nitpicky. Ignore if you like.
    • I think it's fine the way it is, saying "only" is possibly misleading and inaccurate because I'm sure FOX acknowledges the contributions of all the initial executive producers. Shore had a more prominent role as he wrote the pilot, and this is explained in the conception section. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Best as is.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "House's diagnostic team originally consists of " Should this really be present tense? I could go either way, but "At the end of the third season, this team is disbanded." is in past tense so I think the other sentence should be as well for consistency.
    • Addressed with "disbands". (Please be aware, "is disbanded" is not past tense, but simple present tense in passive voice. The passive voice was used to suggest the team was acted upon, but as two of the three [Foreman and Cameron] are agents of their own departure, the active voice is more appropriate.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, I quite glossed over the "is" the first time I read it and just saw "disbanded". I think disbands is the best anyway, though. Cool3 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rejoined by Foreman, House gradually selects three new team members: Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), and Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn)."
    • If the problem here is "Rejoined by Foreman", I don't think this is a problem. All prose about fictional storylines, as is the case in this article, should be in present tense, but qualifiers at the beginning of sentences like this one are fine I think. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In my very humble opinion, again feel free to ignore, Amber is sufficiently significant to merit a mention in the lead.
    • The lead is already fleshed out and is a nice summary, I don't think it should be any longer. Some of the other recurring characters had comparable airtime as Amber, I think it's probably best to not mention any recurring characters in the lead to avoid making it too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. There's a sufficient amount of in-universe information in the lead already.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " After three seasons among the top ten rated shows in the United States, it fell to nineteenth overall during the 2008–09 season. " Shouldn't some mention of the first season be made?
    • I was initially going to make clear somehow that seasons 2–4 were among the top 10, but I don't think it's necessary. The lead is supposed to be a succinct summary and this is explained further on in the reception section. The fact that season 5 was 19th overall probably doesn't have to be mentioned. I think it's probably mentioned to help make the article neutral and because it's the latest season so it's more relevant for most readers. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it would be better either to say something about the first season or drop the mention of Season 5. Although it is stated in the infobox, the number of seasons is not made clear anywhere in the lead. Mentioning 4 seasons makes it seem like there were 4 four seasons, not 5. Cool3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It was a little ambiguous but I changed it to make clear seasons 2, 3, and 4 were among the top 10. I don't really think a mention of season 1's ratings needs to be said because it would seem a bit awkward, whereas the latest season's ratings is more relevant. Plus, the final sentence of the lead already makes clear the show has aired for five seasons with a sixth scheduled for September 2009. I don't think there is any ambiguity here anymore. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " Gail Berman, made clear, "I want a medical show, but I don’t want to see white coats going down the hallway."" I think the quote needs better introduction than "made clear". I think it would be better to say something more like "told the creators"
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "of Berton Roueché, a staff writer for The New Yorker between 1944 and 1994 who specialized in features about unusual medical cases" another comma is needed after 1994.
    • Done. (Though arguable: the second comma is only necessary if he specialized on medical features for other publications in addition to The New Yorker.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added." "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." What's the connection between the two? Did Shore add the idea of the curmudgeonly character or did he come up with the concept in response to someone else's demand for such a character?
    • The teaching hospital experience was the main influence on the character's personality.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that still doesn't make things quite clear. The passive voice in "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added" leaves me wondering who added it. "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." seems to imply that the idea came from Shore, but the article leaves this point frustratingly unclear. Did Shore simply respond to someone else's idea for a curmudgeonly character by drawing on his experiences, or was it his idea to have a curmudgeonly character?
        • I have fully addressed this issue now I believe. I have the season 1 DVD and on one of the bonus features called "The Concept" Shore makes clear that he was the one who felt there should be an interesting lead character. So hopefully I have removed the ambiguity here. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Well done. I gave it a little copyedit tweak. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "but turned the opportunity down." Any idea why?
    • This is explained in the reference cited: . It could be mentioned why in the article text but it doesn't seem necessary, it doesn't really have that much to do with House. Here is the quote from the reference that explains it:

"Friend and Lerner have been writing as a duo for 13 years. When offered a place on the House writing team before for season one they turned down the offer. “We had just come off of the drama Boston Public.” They felt that House “was so good that it didn’t make sense to be on FOX;” it didn’t fit the network’s typical audience. And they were concerned that the network would cancel it without giving it enough of a chance. Instead, they went to work on LAX, which they thought was a “shoe-in” with Heather Locklear in the lead role (it wasn’t, and was soon cancelled). So they watched House’s season one “from afar,” seeing it really take off by mid-season. They were impressed (and astounded) that the series, as it unfolded, was as good as the pilot. Which, they noted, doesn’t often happen. “They didn’t have to change anything.” When lightning struck a second time and Katie Jacobs again offered the partners a spot on House, they jumped at the opportunity." LonelyMarble (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that necessarily needs to be in the article. Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "only Greg Yaitanes has directed as many as 10 episodes." Does this mean he has directed exactly ten episodes or more than 10?
    • Exactly 10.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "According to Shore, "three different doctors ... check everything we do"." Any idea who the other two are?
    • This quote is simply from the reference cited: . Here is the exact quote: "There are three different doctors who check everything we do and we have a medical consultant on staff all the time," Shore says. "The best thing we can get is our three doctors disagreeing, because as a writer that is the best thing, because you are wide open. If the doctors don't agree that means there is no right answer." Research into the doctors' actual names could be tried, but I doubt the information is readily available, and I don't think it really matters much. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The son of a doctor, Ran Laurie, he said he felt guilty for "being paid more to become a fake version of my own father."" the sentence switches from "he" to "my" the quote should probably be redone as "fake version of [his] father."
    • Changed my to [his], done. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As well as the script for House, actor Robert Sean Leonard had received the script for the CBS show Numb3rs." I think this is an odd way of introducing Leonard. Would it be more appropriate to start the sentence with his name?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but that his lengthy friendship with Singer helped win him the part of Dr. Wilson." This sentence is also put together oddly, making it appear only incidental that he got the role. I'd suggest something more like "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but won the part of Dr. Wilson, a fact he credited at least in part to his lengthy friendship with Singer." I'm not married to that particular wording, but I think something along those lines would be good.
    • The current construction of the sentence is perfectly fine, and more terse than virtually any plausible alternative that conveys the same essential information. (For example, the proposal is six words longer, but conveys no additional information.)—DCGeist (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "ultimately, the decision was made to add three new regular cast members." Any idea why? Also, who made the decision?
    • The reference cited for this information does not contain an online link so I cannot immediately find the answers to your questions. The current reference is: Finn, Natalie (October 4, 2007). "Vatican Decries Golden Compass' Lost Soul". E!. The date of the reference corresponds to the beginning of season 4, so the reference seems to be for this information. Offline references are perfectly acceptable for featured articles so this is not really a problem. Perhaps more information about this specific decision can be found in online sources. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, after some searching, I've come across something rather troubling. That story is available online , but it was published in December not October (title and author the same, so I'm fairly sure that it is the same story) and it says absolutely nothing about House. This is a big problem. Cool3 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think I know what probably happened. When this reference was first posted it contained a link to a page on the site http://uk.eonline.com/. That link is now dead so someone must have just deleted the url from the reference. This is usually not a good idea as the Internet Archive can retrieve web pages of dead links, however it usually takes at least 6 months. I checked this dead link in the archive and it is not there yet. I think what happens on this E! site is they list a bunch of news stories, so the title of this reference was simply of the first news story perhaps and is thus mislabeled. This reference was initially put in by Music when he did the first major expansion so I'm sure there has just been a mix up over time. I and other editors have been checking all the references to make sure they back up what they are referencing. Thank you for discovering some that were incorrect, I doubt this is a big problem with the article though. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I have removed that bogus reference and replaced it with a reference that specifically backs up the fact that they originally were going to cast two new people, but decided on three. To answer your original questions, it was the producers who made the decision, which can already be extrapolated from the current sentence structure. The reference does not specifically say why but I'm sure the answer is probably just what is explained in this reference: , which is already referenced in the section. The fact that the producers fell in love with more characters than they thought they would. This can be quoted from Katie Jacobs in the section if you want. But I replaced the reference so this issue is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any more info on the style? That section feels a bit short.
    • Searched for it, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Maybe another editor comes across something, but I wouldn't count on it.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Addressed. I identified a couple more significant visual points in the Jacobs interview and added them to the section.—DCGeist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I like the additions. Anything else? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I've fleshed this out with observations from a couple of critics concerning the special effects. DocKino (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Added technical information on effects from extensive article on same.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The names are shown next to, or superimposed upon, old-fashioned anatomical drawings, X-ray images of the human body or graphic design images of body parts." and " with Morrison's name, but FOX disagreed. Instead, her title card shows an aerial shot of rowers on Princeton University's Lake Carnegie." There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The section "Series overview" is rife with the word "usually". Could you replace a few instances with a synonym?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Diagnoses range from relatively common to very rare diseases." This bit appears to be uncited.
    • Cited.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ""Everybody lies", or proclaims during the team's deliberations, "The patient is lying" or "The symptoms never lie"." This is phrased as if these are all three equivalent, but the last one has a totally different meaning, which I believe should be better drawn out in the surrounding text.
    • Done.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you don't mention Tritter in the overview? That whole saga would seem highly relevant to the paragraph on Vicodin.
    • The "Series overview" section is meant to explain what can be expected in any single episode, as most episodes of House can stand on their own for viewing purposes, regardless if the viewer is aware of what story arc is going on. Tritter is already fully mentioned in the recurring characters section and works better there in my opinion as he is a story arc. House's hallucinations are also a story arc, but I'm not really sure where a mention of him checking into the psychiatric hospital (which I think should be mentioned) would fit better than the paragraph on Vicodin in the overview, that's why that is mentioned there. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. Adding Tritter to the overview would disrupt the existing structure, which is logical and coherent.—DCGeist (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright, I see what you're trying to accomplish there. I think, though, that working along the same lines it would be best to move the stuff on the hallucinations and mental hospital to the recurring characters section under Amber (where some of it is already covered)
          • The problem with moving the mention of House's hallucinations and the psychiatric hospital to the recurring section is two-fold. Firstly House is not a recurring character and it would seem out of place there, whereas Tritter is and fits perfectly there. Secondly, the existing flow right now is House's hallucinations are explained at the end of series overview; in the main characters section one of the results of House's hallucination, he and Cuddy, is mentioned; in the recurring characters section another result of House's hallucinations, Amber, is mentioned. Everything flows and fits perfectly as it is, I don't think anything needs to be changed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, the current structure makes the most sense and should not be changed. From a copyediting perspective, if I saw the material on the hallucinations and the hospital introduced in the "Recurring characters" subsection, I'd move it right to where it is now. Please leave as is. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As of June 2009, there is no indication that a show featuring Douglas is under development." This is uncited, and in my opinion, borders on original research.
    • Well, this is one of those situations where common sense obliges us to flirt with what seems original research (what it actually represents, of course, is extensive research in search of any indication that a show is in development, the failure to find any, and the common sense conclusion that there is none). Without the sentence, the implication of the paragraph is that such a show is presently under development—an apparently false implication. There is no perfect solution to a case such as this, but the present solution is the one that best serves our readers. I'd oppose any change here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean, but I still see it as a problem. "No indication" carries an air of great authority. While Google search or LexisNexis searches may demonstrate no indication, perhaps an expert would know something that we don't (unless one of the editors here happens to be a TV producer). Is there anything you could possibly cite this to? Some TV columnist who has commented on the lack of any indication? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I just spent another solid chunk of time looking into this. There is simply no sign of anything happening on this and no authoritative source commenting on it since last fall. And I disagree that "'No indication' carries an air of great authority". It is merely and purely descriptive. If we flatly stated something like "Plans for the show have not progressed" that would be an overauthoritative claim. I think we're well within appropriate bounds here given the available information and lack thereof. DocKino (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The show has been nominated for various Golden Globe Awards" This would seem to imply that it received none. I would recommend adding "and received one". Also, how many total Golden Globe nominations has it received?
    • Rephrasing done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And total nominations added. Fully addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "For a charity action, American Apparel 100% cotton T-shirts bearing the phrase "Everybody Lies" were sold in limited numbers from April 23 to April 30, 2007." Any idea how many were sold? How much money was raised?
    • The ref doesn't say, info is unavailable.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • A reference did say they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the charity, so I have added this information in. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The following links in the citations section appear not to be working: 18, 19, 48, 65, 69, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113. Addendum, should the page be changed before these are addressed, the number refer to this version.
    • As described above—in response to my initial raising of the matter—that's a problem with the protected cite episode template. Once those in charge of the template resolve the issue, those links will be operable. There's no way to correct the problem on this end. We could eliminate the links entirely, but I think it's best to maintain them in faith that the template problem will be corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you just replace the spaces with underscores (_) the links will work properly. Cool3 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You are correct! Thank you. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In almost every episode, his investigatory method is to logically eliminate diagnoses as they are proved impossible; Holmes used a similar method." This is cited to the Hartford Courant. The actual article in that paper states the following and only the following: "House (Fox, 9 p.m.). Hugh Laurie is terrific as a bitter, brilliant doctor at a teaching college in Newark, N.J., who loves science but hates patients. With deductive abilities like those of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. House, who walks with a cane, is surrounded by three potential Watsons, who second-guess and follow the brilliant curmudgeon. Though it is marred by some of those useless into-the-bloodstream special effects, it's one of the smartest things on network TV. The main problem is that you'll have to wait nearly until Thanksgiving for this one. Nov. 16." Although it does mention Sherlock Holmes, it makes absolutely no mention of either House or Holmes logically eliminating anything.

• Sorry, sorry, sorry. I misread the deductive powers thing. I'm very very sorry. LonelyMarble found a ref to back it up. Again, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Source 34 is used to support the statement, "The pilot episode was filmed in Canada", the actual story from the Toronto Sun makes absolutely no reference to any such thing, although it does include the statement on the bin Laden tape (which is also cited to it)

• Removed.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Given that these three misrepresentations are the result of looking at just a few of the offline references, I can only assume that there may be other serious errors with the referencing, and I kindly ask other reviewers to help check the other refs. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The main patient in the pilot episode is named Rebecca Adler, after Irene Adler, a character in the first Holmes short story." is sourced to ref 16, which makes absolutely no mention of either Rebecca or Irene Adler, although there are some interesting comments on the House-Wilson/Holmes-Watson dynamic that might be worth including. Cool3 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, took the ref directly from the Pilot FA, with your database access you might be able to find a ref that does confirm this.--Music26/11 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cool3 did add a reference to back the Adler statement up, so this is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "House ultimately selects Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), a former plastic surgeon; Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn), a sports medicine specialist; and Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), an internist." This is undoubtedly true, but unsupported by the citation which says only "According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde and Peter Jacobson will be series regulars for the remainder of this "House" season. " Please supplement with another citation(s) containing the additional information.
    • Necessary supplements added. DocKino (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 124 refers to a story in the Daily Telegraph as having appeared on page N9. According to my sources, the article never appeared in print, but only the online edition. A link is available here.
    • Took care of this. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In Ref 133, the USA today story is misidentified. The correct name is "Note to 'House' fans : 'Things will never be the same' on the Fox series" (not drama as currently stated). The story also makes no reference to critics being "surprised" by the teams departure. (the story is available in the free preview here, the rest of the material is actually irrelevant under the subheading of "In other TV news"). The Hartford Courant story also doesn't say anyone was surprised. All that it really says is "'House' fans relax. True, the fourth season ended in May with the cantankerous doctor firing his staff or otherwise seeing it leave, followed by an announcement that many new faces would join the cast of the hit show when it returns this fall on Fox." with most of the rest devoted to news on the next season.Cool3 (talk)
    • And this as well. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for focusing in on this issue. I found a couple more cases in the "Critical reception" subsection. With one exception, I'll now vouch for all the sourcing from that section to the end of the article (that is, at the moment, citations 118 through 199 plus the few specific repeat appearances of citations introduced earlier in the article)--I did a lot of cleaning up of the lower sections in the past few weeks. The one exception is this, currently (20:29 EDT, June 17) citation 145: << "2006–07 primetime wrap". The Hollywood Reporter. Nielsen Business Media. May 25, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2008. (Subscription required) >>. The link is dead. I don't have any question about the data--it has been replicated in many sites that cloned the data from the Hollywood Reporter--but we do need a new authoritative source, unlesss we can verify the offline publication of this data. DocKino (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • I fixed the problem of the dead link for the Holly Reporter. The problem was the link in the article was going directly to the login page for subscribers, which was causing a problem. I replaced it with the link to the actual article and then the Hollywood Reporter site redirects you to the login page if you are not a subscriber, which solves the problem. This information is no doubt correct as there are plenty of mirrors and using references that require a subscription are perfectly fine, so I think the problem with this reference is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • All the reference problems identified by Cool3 have been corrected and resolved. All the rest of the questions and problems brought up by Cool3 have been addressed and (I think) resolved. The only thing left to do would be a final confirmation that all the references are correct. DocKino has already done this for a good chunk of the references. As it is right now, it appears all issues on this FAC page have been resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Has anyone conducted such a check yet? It appears that there are only about 100 left to verify, which while it might be a bit painstaking shouldn't take too long. Once someone is ready to vouch for those, I'm prepared to support. Cool3 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I will go through and check all the online sources for the references in the first part of the article that DocKino hasn't checked. I don't have immediate access to offline sources right now so I can't check those. You appear to have checked most of those already. If there are any others you could check that would be helpful. I can vouch for the two citations that reference the season 1 DVD. I have the DVD and have verified the information being referenced is mentioned and is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I have verified all of the offline refs except for those to books, and am prepared to vouch for them. Cool3 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can now vouch for all the references from the production section except for the last subsection Opening sequence (so currently I have checked references 1 - 62). I have to go for awhile, I only have 4 problems from my check, and there is only 1 reference I wasn't able to access at all: LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think the reference for this sentence backs it up: The resemblance is evident in House's reliance on psychology in problem-solving, even where it might not seem obviously applicable, and his reluctance to accept cases he finds uninteresting. The first part about psychology even when it is not obvious may be supported by this: "EVERYBODY LIES - House's mantra, based on his cynical yet usually accurate assumption that patients are always hiding something. Like the case of the lady with African sleeping sickness who swore she'd never been to Africa...while neglecting to mention she was cheating on her husband with someone who had been there." The other part isn't directly said but inferred, plus the fact that he only accepts cases he finds interesting doesn't really need a reference anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a reference at the end of the sentence for House not accepting cases he finds uninteresting. I also think the other reference backs up the psychology mention in the first part of the sentence, as it gives a good example of when a person's secrets are not always obvious. So this question is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reference I can't vouch for is the one after this line in the casting section: Leonard said that he had some familiarity with the medical profession, because his father-in-law was a doctor. (currently reference 41) The link wouldn't load in my browser, maybe someone else can have more success, that sentence can easily just be deleted if it can't be verified. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I've listened to the interview (the link takes you to an audio file). It's true that his father in law is a doctor, but the interview doesn't really back up what the article says. Here's the quote as best I can transcribe it: "But yea the writing is remarkable; my father in law is a doctor and he's really ... he said you know you guys you know ...we cheat on the time a little bit like when the medicine kicks in or how quickly someone gets better but the medicine and what's wrong with people and the diagnoses are all totally researched and backed up. It's totally remarkable what the writers come up with." The interview also has a few tidbits on the nurse who's there when they film that might be worth including: "Once we're on the set we have a nurse there named Bobbin(?) believe it or not who's great and she you know so far as when someone has to be intubated or given a shot or just stupid stuff she'll help us because we're all idiot actors we don't know what we're doing." (to get to where both of these are said skip to about 2/3 of the way through the interview). Cool3 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've cut the sentence about familiarity, given that it is weakly supported at best and not all that pertinent.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The info regarding Hugh's salary was a bit messed up. The reference to support the $100,000 per episode didn't quite do it because the figure was actually in pounds. I reworded the sentences so everything regarding this is resolved, but if anyone wants to research his past salaries some more go for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The locations section of the filming section was a bit messed up. The reference for the line stating shots of UCLA and USC are used for exterior shots of PPTH was not sufficient. The reference was only of one instance that the show shot at USC, I changed the wording to reflect this. The info right now is backed by the references, the only thing that could be done is add in a reference about the exterior shots of PPTH because that is unreferenced at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added in a reference for the PPTH aerial shots and also added in the info that the series' setting was because Singer's hometown is Princeton. So everything in this section is referenced and the refences check out. This paragraph has the potential for expansion but as it is now it's fine. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Working my way backwards, I can now vouch for all the citations from "Recurring characters" on down (104–203, at the moment). However, every single one of the sources cited for the occupations of the four eliminated audition finalists was irrelevant and had to be cut. An existing source gives Volakis's occupation, but I couldn't find anything up-to-standard online for Brennan, Cole, or Dobson. If we want to list their occupations, it looks like we'll have to give the appropriate episode cites. Is someone equipped to do that? DocKino (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Good work, looks like we're almost there. As for the occupations, this article form USA Today should be moderately helpful. It confirms Brennan as an epidemiologist. As for Dobson it says "In the last episode, he revealed he is not a physician but had learned by working for 30 years at a medical school," which probably isn't quite good enough and should be supplemented (though it does at least tell us where to look). Unfortunately, it has nothing on Cole's specialty. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for picking up on the Brennan info in the source. I provided an episode cite for Dobson--his background as a medical school admissions officer is unambiguously stated in the show. No good evidence has been found for the claim that Cole is a geneticist. LonelyMarble did a transcript search (as did I) and there is simply no in-universe indication that this is true. No Fox press release, official Fox online statement, or professionally published article supports the claim either. As a result, the "geneticist" claim has been cut. Referencing work now complete for citations 104 on down. DocKino (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Great work. Looks like the only references not double-checked and verified are references 63-103, only 40 more. I intend to do this sometime tomorrow as I should have a good chunk of time to devote to it. Anyone is free to start checking the references left in the meantime, but I intend to finish what's left of the references tomorrow when I have more time and am not as tired as I am right now. This was good that Cool3 brought this issue up. There weren't that many problems but there were enough mistakes and other problems that the article continues to really improve. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I just tackled "Main characters" (so now covering citations 85 on down). I can vouch for everything except one claim and the content of two refs:
        • The claim: "Dr. James Wilson...is the head of the Department of Oncology." There's lots of evidence that he's an oncologist, but I haven't been able to pin down a source for the claim that he's "the head of the Department of Oncology."
          • Wilson is definitely the department head like House. I'll find an episode site for this. I had also noticed Cameron's job description earlier and thought it was possibly a little off because I remember her being described as the "senior attending physician". I think however the way it works is there are a couple senior attendings in the ER and then one of those seniors is also the head. So I think the way you did it with the extra note is the best way. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I added an episode cite for Wilson, 1x07. Cuddy specifically calls House and Wilson "department heads". Wilson being the department head is seen in a lot of episodes, this episode may be the first time in the series it's clearly spelled out though. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The refs: The two offline ones: <<Kochman, David (August 8, 2007). "House The nasty docs tests his new victims...er, staffers". TV Guide. pp. 41–42.>> (currently #95) and <<"Spoiler Alert: House Selects Three Regulars". Virginian-Pilot. October 7, 2007. p. E2.>> (currently #99). DocKino (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for those two refs.--Music26/11 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have just gone through the Series overview section and I can vouch for all the references and information there being correct. The only thing is an offline reference to Playboy is cited 4 times and an offline reference to the book by Paul Challen is cited 5 times. The information cited by the offline references is just basic in-universe plot info. But can anyone vouch for the offline references in this section? If so, this section is all set. Also, is there anyone that can vouch for all the references to the Challen book that appear throughout the article? LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've double-checked almost all the Challen refs via Google Book Search. I'm happy to give them all another pass for final verification. DocKino (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• All Challen refs checked and appropriate edits made.
• One last issue, I have. LonelyMarble, great job expanding and refining the "Opening sequence" subsection. But it now strikes me as weird that we describe the images accompanying the names of four of the six featured actors, but not that of the lead. We need to make clear how Laurie's name is presented. Given that we would then be describing the presentation of six of the seven names featured in the sequence, it would seem odd to omit only Leonard. What do you think about completing the description by mentioning both of them? DocKino (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Terrific job, LM. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was already working on doing just that before you made the comment here (hence how I added it in 4 minutes later). So we were thinking along the same lines. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for the playboy ref.--Music26/11 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that Music2611's "vouch" for this ref is worthless, a remarkable thing at this point in the process. I tracked down the Playboy interview online--of the three specific claims it has been cited for, it does not support a single one. There is zero discussion of the "pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptom"; there is zero suggestion that the team's attempted treatments "often fail until the patient's condition is critical"; there is zero discussion of House's clinic duty, let alone that his "grudging fulfillment of this duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. And yet it was "vouched" for. Unbelievable. Please tell us why we should put any stock in the vouching for the TV Guide and Virginian-Pilot refs above.
• Luckily, I believe all of the claims relating to sources M2611 has "vouched for" can be covered with other sources. LM, you may be better equipped to do that than I am right now. I'm cutting the Playboy refs and waiting for...what would I trust?...faxes of the other two refs, which appear in the "Main characters" section. This article is in very, very strong shape now--it's unfortunate that we still have to contend with this last...situation. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I found the article online too, however, I own that particular playboy (yes, you can laugh at me for it but that's not the point right now), the printed version contains a "regular house episode", I can scan it if you want (although then I have to find out how the damn machine works). Anyhow, the other two sources can be traced back here (registration required) and here /.--Music26/11 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The other two refs turned out not to be necessary, and referring to the actual episodes actually improved the text of the "Main characters" section. As for the Playboy, maybe we can forego the scan. Can you explain in more detail what you mean when you say it contains a "regular house episode"? And could you give us the quotations upon which the three claims in question are based:
  • Most episodes revolve around the diagnosis of a primary patient and start with a pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptoms.
    • A reference explaining how the "cold open" works to back this sentence up is still needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I added an online reference to support this sentence. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • attempts [to diagnose and treat the patient's illness] often fail until the patient's condition is critical.
    • Found an online reference to back this, says they often almost kill the patient. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • His grudging fulfillment of this [walk-in clinic] duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. [I did find support in Challen for this, but the phrasing doesn't make absolutely clear that it is a recurring subplot, so a little more support would be helpful].
    • Same online reference makes it clear this is a "weekly comedic subplot". LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. (Music2611, I apologize for overreacting. I should have checked with you to see if there was material in the print version--which, after all, is what you cited--that didn't appear in the online version.) DocKino (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• We've all been working really hard on this article, and looks like we finally may be pretty much "done". I could use a break to read that particular Playboy (just for Hugh Laurie's interview of course). LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are still 3 offline references in the series overview section (currently 74, 75, 78). 74 and 75 are newspapers and Cool3 has said he can vouch for all the offline references except the books. 78 is a book though. Any verification of this reference? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The book's text is accessible on Amazon. I did a word search on "clinic" and looked through the pages where it appeared. While the book (Leah Wilson, House Unauthorized) was useful on a few points, I did not find support for the passage for which it was being cited: "During clinic duty, House confounds patients with unwelcome observations into their personal lives, eccentric prescriptions, and unorthodox treatments. However, after seeming to be inattentive to their complaints, he regularly impresses them with rapid and accurate diagnoses." Maybe you might give it a look over to see if you can find sufficient evidence for that...or we may need to seek out another source...or, of course, reword or trim the passage. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Everything in these two sentences can be cited from the pilot episode. I can think of a bunch of examples in other early episodes as well, but I think a pilot cite is good enough. Plus for the second sentence I think I found a pretty good reference showing how he is able to make rapid and accurate diagnoses (while not actually even doing that much). Are there are any other reference problems, I think we may have finally finished. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a couple book refs to the surrounding passages, as well. Yes, I believe the entire article is properly and comprehensively ref'ed now. DocKino (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• As a die-hard fan of the show, I look forward to supporting once these are addressed :). Cool3 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Images comments:

• File:Robert Sean LeonardCrop.JPG is a flipped and cropped version of File:Robert_Sean_Leonard.jpg. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines [image placement and facing]".
  • Image has been replaced.--Music26/11 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing how File:HouseCastSeason1.jpg adds much to the article. Two of the characters essentially look exactly the same in their free images, and the rest of the characters have their own articles. Considering there is little in the summaries about their appearance, costumes, et al that would warrant the images as subject of commentary, I'd remove the image (basically, analogous to image concerns in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter.)
  • Sorry but I'm not going over this again, the previous FAc was dominated by this discussion and we eventually had more people supporting than opposing the image. If you would like to start this discussion again, please take it elsewhere, else we would have the same problem all over again.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images appropriately tagged and licensed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fuchs is correct that images of persons should not be flipped to meet a placement/facing guideline (or, really, for any other reason).
• As Music points out, the cast photo has been extensively discussed, and a final image selected that best serves our readers within the letter and the intention of our image policy. The ability to visualize the core cast of a TV series is essential information about the show, and goes to the heart of criterion 1b. The fact that there are separate articles on the characters is irrelevant—readers should not be obliged to move around to multiple articles to acquire this basic information about the show in question. House's cane is also referred to multiple times in the article—it and his posture relevant to it constitute significant visual information. Furthermore, the information I have added to the Filming style underscores the visual importance of Laurie's height. While I suppose a police-style lineup image might be ideal, the present image does explicate Laurie's stature relative to the rest of the cast, even with his stoop.—DCGeist (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then the fair use rationale needs to be expanded; right now it reads as "this illustrates something", which is always a poor reason for anything without elaboration. Also, that reminds me, we need the original location of the image; linking to the raw .jpg is nice, but for source the location it appears is more important. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right. I'll deal with the rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also want to point out that the image shows House's lack of a white coat compared to the other doctors, which is somewhat mentioned in the conception section. When the reader gets to the characters section they'll see a result of that conversation mentioned. DCGeist did a nice job with the fair-use rationale. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I recropped the image of Leonard without improperly flipping it; uploaded the new crop to Commons; and brought the properly oriented crop into the article.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if this screws up your work, but I replaced the image with an image of Edelstein. I think it fits better.--Music26/11 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up: Lonely Marble has substituted a still further improved (and properly oriented) crop.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Princeton Frist Campus Center back.jpg. The file says it was released under the CC-BY-3.0 license by the author, but the author is not the uploader. The file was uploaded to Commons by Commons user Kyro, but is credited to Jterrace here on en, and there's no indication on the description page that he actually has confirmed the license of the image. While there's about a 99.9% chance that everything is perfectly fine here, I think that in an FA we should have confirmation from Jterrace that he indeed took the picture and has agreed to license it in this fashion. Although Jterrace does not seem to be too active, he has the EMail use function enabled, so that's probably the best way for someone to get in touch with him. Cool3 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe Commons user Kyro should be contacted about this, he might know Jterrace personally. He seems to be a trusted and established user on Commons. If you think the licensing needs verification this should be brought up on Commons as that site is the one hosting the image and Commons does not host non-free images. If you brought this article up for deletion on Commons I suspect it would kept either by resolving the issue or on good faith of user Kyro. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I solved the issue. If you look at the history of revisions to the Commons page for the image you can see that the image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and then deleted after it was moved to Commons. See the original version of the page: . Jterrace I'm assuming uploaded the image to Wikipedia. This can easily be confirmed by an admin by seeing the record of the deleted Wikipedia page for the image or a record of Jterrace's contributions. Jterrace originally posted the file to the Frist Campus Center Wikipedia page: . LonelyMarble (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not bringing this up, but the original copy (en.wp) was uploaded by JTerrace, which is why I didn't bring the issue up. Unfortunately bot migrations to commons often screw up the original info. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Is there anyone really against removing this image. I mean it doesn't really add anything to the article. If the decision is made this image could be placed in the article instead, since filming also takes place there.--Music26/11 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm against removing. The shot of Frist Campus Center for the hospital is shown in pretty much every episode and usually more than once. I don't know why you would want to remove a free image of PPTH and substitute it for an image of a building that is only going to be used for season 6. An aerial shot of the campus center would be the most ideal image but I think this free one is still good; perhaps the caption should be more clear that this is what PPTH looks like. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, does this mean that the above discussion is solved? Great work on the lead thing below by the way.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the problem was the image says the author is Jterrace but the user who uploaded it to Commons is Kyro. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia by Jterrace, so the original uploader and author are the same. This information just got a little lost when the image was transferred to Commons. David Fuchs is an admin so he can see the deleted records and he confirmed this. So everything is fine with this image, the license is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• My bad.--Music26/11 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Weak. Maybe good enough to be a Featured Article but I think it could be better. Intro too long. Please see comments on the House talk page for more details. (I'll elaborate later, I've written this comment more than once, previewed it, checked details but not actually submitted it. -- Horkana (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To quickly address my concerns with more brevity than I did on the talk page: Sherlock Holmes references are interesting but it is a comparison best explained in the main article, the mention in the lead is too long. The production details about who came up with what aspects of the show are interesting but the introduction should not go into detail behond mentioning David Shore who is listed in the credits as the producer. House is critically acclaimed and highly rated, no doubts there but isn't one example enough for the introduction if an example even needs to be provided in the lead. -- Horkana (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretations of WP:Lead section and WP:Article length are not correct. First of all, the most important thing to evaluate in regards to article length is readable prose. That article size number that you see in the history page or when you edit a page does not mean much because it includes all the references and other things that are not a part of readable prose. The current readable prose size of this article is about ~40 KB (read WP:Article length for a definition of readable prose). The guideline at WP:Article length states:

Readable prose size What to do

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division

The most important thing to note here is that the only thing that matters is readable prose and this article's readable prose size is about 40 KB, therefore the length of this article is pretty much perfect and is perfectly within limits to expand with more prose. The current total article size of House right now is 109 KB, but that number does not really matter. This article has almost 200 references, that is why the total article size is so large. Finally, the guideline at WP:Lead section states that an article with >32 KB of readable prose should have a lead section of 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article has 3 paragraphs that summarize all the major points of the article very well. The lead is a perfect length. I suggest you look at other featured articles to get an idea of how long leads should be, and also keep in mind that the most important thing when evaluating an article's size is readable prose. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a more accurate assessment of readable prose size and I'd say the current number is 37 KB. So more expansion with any new useful information, or for sections that seem a little short, or in the future for more information about the new seasons, is perfectly fine. The readable prose size is not that large. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have been hasty about the article length, admittedly there is a lot to cover. However the introduction could keep it short and sweet and stick to introducing the article and leave the rest to be explained later. You interpret a 3-4 paragraph length introduction like a target rather than an upper limit, I disagree. There is a temptation to write a long "summary" as the introduction. The fact the writers have made the deliberate to connections between House and Holmes can be made in a single short sentence, with the examples and references provided in the article. Again the fact that House has been critically praised can be expressed succinctly. Many editors seem okay with having articles with introductions the size of a small article, the featured articles I've seen seem to back that up. I would point you to The West Wing as an example of a good introduction and it is for a television series that ran longer then house and could potentially have a much longer introduction (but it doesn't need more to just introduce the article). There are many editors in love with their own words and who do not want to keep introductions short, even going forcing thing to grouping together things which don't belong in order to keep the paragraph count down. In the House article for example the not about House having run for 5 seasons and being renewed for a 6th is logically separate from the text before it and would benefit from being spaced further apart and not stuck so much on the proceeding text. It's only a weak oppose, this article will be no less sprawling than the many other articles which have been deemed adequate for featured article status. -- Horkana (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to guess if the lead was shortened to the length you want there would be many editors who would not support it as a featured article until the lead was expanded. The lead of this article is perfectly within featured article criteria and Wikipedia guidelines. The lead is not just an "introduction". It introduces the article by summarizing all the major points of the article so that the lead can stand alone on its own, so readers will have a basic knowledge of the topic. That is why the length of the lead directly depends on the length of the article. This article is sufficiently long enough to warrant a lead of the length it currently has. Regarding The West Wing, it is not a featured article and its lead is not even that well organized. Most people would probably say The West Wing's lead should even be expanded a bit. You either have an unusual interpretation of WP:Lead section or you are not reading that guideline carefully enough. If you simply have a different opinion and interpretation, there's not much else to say here. You have the right to oppose, but I don't know what the point of your oppose is except that you disagree with core Wikipedia style guidelines, which is a problem you should take up elsewhere, not here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To further address specific things you mentioned, Sherlock Holmes comparisons is mentioned because there is a full long section on the comparison. Also the Holmes mention doubles in usefulness because it also lets the reader know some key facts about the character of House. The fact that House has been critically praised is currently expressed succinctly, the reception paragraph in The West Wing is longer than this article's. Finally the mention of the show running for 5 seasons does not need its own paragraph and one sentence paragraphs are strongly discouraged for good reason. The sentence flows fine in that paragraph as the show's ratings specific to its seasons is mentioned earlier. If there is a big section about a topic in an article, it is usually warranted a sentence in the lead. That is how lead sections work. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Amazing work. The episode refs don't seem to have directors in it, which I would include, as well, TIME magazine recently reported House as being the most popular TV show due to it's ratings, which I don't see mentioned. Other than that, very good. The Flash ^{talk} 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the directors for all the episode references, so that is done. As for being the most popular TV show, it is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and in the Distribution section, that House was the most-watched program of 2008 in the world. House's specific ratings in the U.S. has its own subsection, and ratings in other countries are included in the Distribution section. So I'm not exactly sure what information you think is missing, but if you have a link to the Time magazine article you are referring to, any relevant information from it can be incorporated. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Flash appears to be referring to the "Pop Chart" in the current issue of Time. It's a compendium of pop culture factoids with one-liner joking commentary; the two sentences on House don't convey any worthwhile information that isn't already better articulated and sourced in our article. It's nothing that needs to be cited. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Great job LonelyMarble, DocKino and Music, and everyone else who contributed. With the resolution of the referencing problems, I think this is there. Cool3 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Cheadle Hulme

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has pretty much been my baby for the past few months. It was made a GA at the beginning of May, and it has had a very detailed peer review. It's about as comprehensive a source as you can get on the town (or village, not sure which it is) anywhere really. As my history teacher used to say, I literally squeezed every source like a lemon to ensure it was as comprehensive as possible. It was even more detailed before, but this has been cut down significantly. Hopefully the prose is up to scratch, as that was the article's weakest point. I'd like to credit people from WP:GM who have been very helpful to me, giving me advice on all sorts of things. They know who they are - you are very much appreciated. Thanks for your comments, Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
• The article looks pretty good, not yet sure if its FA status but with help from Malleus and Nev1...
  • Evidence of Bronze Age, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon activity has been discovered locally. - Like what? Just because you are summarizing doesn't mean you can leave out major details such as this. :)

• Added examples. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is possible to get a more recent consensus number? Excuse me if England performs it like the US, every ten years.

• Sadly not really possible. As in the US, the UK has a census every ten years. I'll be sure to update in 2011 :) PS I think the wikiculture has affected you when you typo census as "consensus" :) Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Valued at £20 - It would be really, really cool if you could use a source to find how much this cost has inflated.

• Could be difficult. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Inflation only goes back as far as 1264, and unfortunately I don't know of any reliable estimates for how much this would be today. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Danyers was rewarded for his efforts in the crusades through an annual payment from the king of 40 marks, as well as the gift of Lyme Hall. - In the Crusades article, the titular name is capitalized, it should be here, too.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • For many years Cheadle Hulme was rural countryside,[49] consisting of woods, open land, and farms. - I think made up of would be a better word choice than consisting, it seems to fit better, IMO.

• Changed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Link corn mill.

• Done. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how fast you complete these, I have a couple more concerns before I support. ceranthor 13:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Turns out there weren't any actionable concerns, so I think this is ready. ceranthor 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (Specifically I noted UKBMD.org.uk and SMBC)

• Done - I changed UKBMD.org.uk to GENUKI (which is always referred to as such). Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 31 (Met Office ..) is lacking a last access date.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Decide and stick with one: either Stockport MBC (and explain it), SMBC (and explain it first usage) or Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council...

• Done, I opted for the last one. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

• Done. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.filmreference.com/film/55/Tim-McInnerny.html
    • I'm not sure what makes it unreliable - however the only other source that wasn't a copy of IMDB or Wikipedia seems to be this, which is published by Newsquest. I don't know if it would be more appropriate. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find anything on their site about their editorial processes, etc. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Me neither. This source is probably better. Majorly talk 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Definitely. I'll mark this resolved and you can change out the refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://shed-insider.net/wiki/index.php?title=WR_Series_1_Press_Pack_Lauren_Drummond_Interview

• Hmm, I know it's an unofficial website, but I don't know why they'd fake an interview they had with her. Otherwise I can't find any other sources (other than one hosted on freewebs) of this fact. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. A lot will depend on what's sourced to it (and since this is basically not something that's negative I'm assuming, it probalby is bearable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've decided to remove it. It is supposed to just be a selection, and not an exhaustive list anyway. Majorly talk 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.whydelilah.co.uk/

• It looks like a fan site, and I can't find any other reliable sources for him. I'll remove him from the list. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support with comments (none dealbreaking, but "weak" unless/until #3 is resolved)

1. The lead photo (of the road) is a bit "meh". There's nothing particularly distinctive about this road; would it make more sense to have either an "iconic" building, or something typical of the area? (See Altrincham, Sheerness or Westgate-on-Sea for the kind of things I mean.) Remember, most readers will never have heard of CH and their first reaction will be "It's got a road and a tree? So what?". I'd suggest this one of yours from Flickr – I'm sure Durova & co at WP:GL could "blueify" the washed-out sky – or this one looks quite scenic and less it's-grim-up-north.

   Thanks for the support. I have to agree with you, I really don't like the main picture. However, it really does represent the area quite well. The pic of Bramall Hall is all very well - but Bramall Hall is more connected with Bramhall than Cheadle Hulme. And the viaduct is a little out of the way of the main centre. The fact is, the pic there now represents the "district centre" of Cheadle Hulme. I could go out and take a better pic - in fact I believe I have quite a few pics of the area. But, Station Road is really the main part of Cheadle Hulme. How about I get one of the two railway bridges? They surely define it quite well. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Scratch that, the bridges are ugly as sin. The problem here is it's such a large and varied area, there's not one thing that would represent it well. Would a montage be appropriate? Majorly talk 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   How about "typical houses" or "parade of shops", or something like that? Even "ugly tower blocks" can work quite well – or if there's a hill or a tall building nearby, a view of the area can be quite good. Remember, the lead image is explicitly exempt from the MOSIMAGE Police's rulings on forced image widths, as long as you don't go over 300px in width, so you can get away with images that would be unusable at the low thumbnail size. – iridescent 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I went for a pic of the railway viaduct in the end, though not the one on flickr. Majorly talk 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The bit about "The modern-day Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College" sits a bit oddly in "Early history" – it would probably make more sense in "Education", with at most a footnote in the Early history section.

   Yes, I agree. I'll get moving it. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3. My usual post on urban geography articles; what was the impact on the area of the 19th century transport revolution? You mention urban growth in one section, and the railways in another, but in an urban-industrial area like modern Manchester the two are intimately connected (in the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation this phenomenon is particularly apparent – even now, the built-up areas follow the routes of often long-closed railway lines and canals). Was the rapid growth implied in the Modern history section a result of the 1842 station making CH a commuter town, or that the opening of a station meant that mills opened in CH itself and people moved there to work in them? You briefly touch on this in the "Economy" section, but only briefly – the history of the massive social, geographic and economic change in 19th century Britain is the history of transport (from railway-induced industrialisation, to the steam-powered gunboat, to cheap international bulk-shipping).

   I'll see to work on this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I've expanded this slightly, but there isn't all that much to go off when it comes to sources. The early 20th century population boost was due to people moving from Manchester to live in the area, with the car being more popular it was easier than ever to commute to work that way. It had little to do with the railway as such. The effect from 1845, when the current station opened is, I think, explained in the article sufficiently. Majorly talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

4. "Anciently" is a bit of an odd word. Would "formerly" or "historically" be usable?

   Yes, I'll change it to historically. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Changed. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

5. "A corn mill, which collapsed during the First World War" – is this expandable? And was the collapse linked to the war (either direct bombing or lack of maintenance with workers off fighting) – if not, it might be better to just say "in 1915" (or whenever).

   Hmm, I don't think there was anything else from the source I used. I expect it collapsed from lack of maintenance, but I'm not sure. I'll see if rewording it is better. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I reworded it slightly. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6. The transport section should probably give the travelling time to Manchester and at least a rough train frequency, to give non-Mancs some sense of CH's degree of isolation from the rest of Manchester; "trains run every 20 minutes" would make it clear that it's not an isolated outpost. Since there's no value judgement involved, I'd consider a timetable to be a RS for these purposes.

   Well, this is given in more detail in the railway station article, but I'll add something. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

7. "There are restaurants throughout the area that sell food in styles from all over the world, including Indian, Chinese, and Italian" could be describing pretty much any town center in Europe or North America. Anything particularly distinctive or unusual (award winners, first-in-the-northwest, waiters all dress as Elvis and sing while you eat, etc). Not saying this shouldn't be mentioned, but it just seems a bit of a so-what? way to end a section.

   It is a bit vague, and I don't believe there is anything particularly special (some famous people have eaten in the Chinese restaurants that I know of, but nothing really remarkable). Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Rearranged. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

8. I've no idea if it was or not, but if it was bombed in either war or subject to any significant IRA bombings, that probably warrants a mention.

   I don't think it was, not a single source I have mentions a bombing. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'll have to leave this one as "not done", but it's not really actionable. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

9. The separation of the "Notable residents" section into "Notable talented people" and "Notable people" reads quite oddly. I can kind of see why you've done it this way – to keep the Big Brother contestant separate from the Great Artists – but it's an arbitrary line (that Julian Turner is "talented" but Felicity Peake wasn't is surely debatable).

   I'll see what I can do with this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I merged them. It's more like one long sentence now. I don't know if that's worse or better than before. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I say, none are dealbreakers worth opposing over, but I think the transport history thing in particular could do with a polishing up. – iridescent 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll get working on them. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I could probably list a few dozen examples of minor MoS breaches and redundant words, but on the whole I think it's ready. FA by no means equates to perfection. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do list them, or fix them. Better to be better than worse. Majorly talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a couple fixes, but everything else seems to have been resolved already.

• Images look fine as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Before this FAC I gave the article a run through. The article was (and of course still is) comprehensive and my only concern was some minor copyediting which was addressed very well by a peer review from Finetooth (talk · contribs). I would have supported the article at the start of its FAC and after further tweaks its even easier for me to declare my support. Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another of the 2008 race reports. Special thanks go to AlexJ for his peer review and Midgrid and Malleus Fatuorum for their respective copy edits. Fire away! Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't you mean "Gentlemen, start your engines"? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think the engines were already started, tyre warmers off, etc. ;) Apterygial 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool is showing a dead link, but it worked when I clicked through) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are websites listed in the sources in italics? See WP:ITALICS, they are used for periodicals, journals, newspapers. If those websites represent hard print sources, the name should be used; otherwise, they shouldn't be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Apterygial 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a minor point, but there are valid citation guides out there that use italics for titles (For example the Modern Humanities Research Association, a standard in many UK Universities) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "at the Circuit de Monaco, the sixth race of the 2008 Formula One season." The last part doesn't fit in well with the sentence as a whole. I recommend structuring it like 1995 European Grand Prix, another Grand Prix page currently at FAC. A similar change is needed later in the article.
• "was won by the season's eventual Driver's Champions Lewis Hamilton for the McLaren team." Commas before and after name?
• "with 12 races of the seasons remaining." → "with 12 races remaining in the season." Wonder if the last three words could be dropped.
  • This one wasn't changed. Do you want to leave it? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't notice this one. I think it is probably worth keeping it there for clarity's sake. I'm not really big on it, so I'll remove it if you feel it's necessary. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hyphens for "five place" and "second fastest"?
• "with only Piquet starting the race on the extreme wet." One of these awkward "with" and -ing structures. Try "; only Piquet started the race on the extreme wet."
• "but the damage to Sutil's rear suspension forced him to the pits and retirement." Eliminate a coule words and there would be "forced him to retirement." Needs a tweak.
• "resulting in his pass on Massa. Massa...". Please structure this so Massa's name is not used consecutively.
  • Found another one like this: "and he emerged 13 seconds ahead of Massa. Massa's...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "three-times" → "three-time".
• References 9 and 10 are identical and can be combined.
• The Times Online publisher needs italics. Also, make all autosport.com references into Autosport. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply. All done except for "second-fastest", which I do not think would be correct in the sentence: "Hamilton managed second fastest, ahead of Räikkönen, Rosberg, Kubica and Massa" as it is not being used as an adjective. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 10 should have been another Autosport article (I must have copied it and not changed the details), so I've fixed it. Apterygial 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Nothing about qualifying in the lead.
  • I felt that since qualifying is only there to determine grid positions, you might as well just say what grid position they started at when you describe the race. Seems fairly normal in F1 articles. The race is the important part, after all. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it shouldbe mention though. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What would you suggest? I've said Massa had pole and Hamilton started from third and passed Räikkönen for the lead... I can't see what more from qualifying would be relevant without becoming superfluous. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Felipe Massa was second with 28 points. McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was third, also on 28 points" so why wasn't Hamilton joint second?
  • The rules for ties are described here. Might be helpful to add a short bit explaining that he was third because of Massa's higher average finishing position or whatever though, I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Image captions need punctuation.
  • Image captions should be punctuated according to the Manual of Style, which they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • They need full stops.
      • Not if they are only sentence fragments, as outlined in the part of the MOS Malleus linked to. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why the image of Räikkönen in the "Background" section?
  • There were no decent pictures of him during the race, and I thought it would be good to see what he looks like. He's featured talking in the background section.
    • Give it a caption to justify this. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "deployed on lap 62 after Rosberg crashed at Piscine" comma after 62
  • Don't agree that the comma is even desirable, much less necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's necessary. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• With the Classification tables, does the ref need to be part of the table on it's own row. I think it looks a bit odd.
  • That was the best we could come up with, and it is a lot better than having it at every stat or like this, which are the next best options. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BUC (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this looks good. I made several fixes that more subjective, so feel free to revert me. For example, you have a slight penchant for anthropomorphisms ("Sunday morning saw...") that usually don't belong in professional prose. Good work. I am particularly pleased to see some of the things explained (like the confusing fuel situation after qualifying) that previously confounded me when I read race articles. It's good to see WikiProjects apparently absorbing feedback from past FACs and applying it to other articles they bring here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As Apterygial said in his/her nomination statement, I did some copyediting on this article, but there really wasn't that much to do, just a bit of tidying up. Like Laser brain, I was impressed at the efforts taken to explain the more arcane aspects of formula one racing, and I think this article deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I found this to be a great read, and the writing does seem superior to previous Grand Prix FAs. Jargon, a concern in past FACs, has been handled well, and the copy-editing helped a great deal. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Apterygial 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: per

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, ..." and
• #Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used, "The country name may be omitted if a flag appears with its country name earlier in a list or table. When a flag icon is needed more than once, the flag-and-name template, for example {{flag|Japan}}, or its shorter variant {{flag|JPN}} should be used first, but may be reduced to {{flagicon|JPN}} in subsequent uses."

Please do so for the Classification section. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this without contravening WP:F1 guidelines, used in almost 1000 articles. Is there any chance that these guidelines could overrule the MoS here? Note that I've started a conversation about it here. Apterygial 08:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an example given on the MOS page which points us to List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions. This example appears to use them in the style similar to the F1 tables. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nine-ball is using what the MOS states: name the country next to the flag (although it is using it throughout instead of the first list). This F1 article is simply printing the flags without naming the country. Jappalang (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not by my reading. It uses flag locations in the location table but with no regard to if that is the first use of the flag and not all flags present in the table are present in the location column (Canadian for example, which appears only as a flag icon). I'm one of the first to say that F1 articles overuse flags but when conveying a drivers nationality in a succint fashion in tables it can be useful. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? ' UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

←I've removed the flags, so they don't get in the way of this FAC, and in the meantime at WT:F1 we'll keep discussing a way which fulfils the MoS. The flags aren't important enough that they need to be there, after all. Apterygial 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments struck, continuing discussion at WT:F1 in the thread mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Military history of Australia during World War II

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A large number of editors and I have been working on this article for just over three years, and I think that it may now be FA standard. The article was assessed as a GA on 22 January and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review on 26 January and has been improved further since then. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting article Well I did some random copyediting and have learnt a lot so far from the bits I tweaked. I thought that the last section was very interesting, ewspecially the last para about how it changed social roles. I think this definitely needs expanding because the way it's written sems to imply that the effects of the war last for a generation or so. Also because the section is relatively subjective I think it would be better to have a wider range of sources and ideas about the effects of WWII on society, especially elaborating on the indept foreign policy. I assume mass immigration was encouraged because of the worry that war depletes so much but I am not sure YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. As the article is primarily about the military aspects of Australia's involvement in the war, I've tried to keep that material to a minimum as it's at the margins of the article's scope. It belongs somewhere on Wikipedia (History of Australia since 1945 perhaps?), but I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate article. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• I'm sure we've discussed www.uboat.net before, but I can't find it on my cheatsheet. Someone refresh my memory if it's reliable?
• Minor quibble - current ref 179 (HMAS HObart..) says "Sea-Power Centre" as the publisher, but certainly appears it's the Royal Australian Navy when I click on the link.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for those comments. www.uboat.net was used as a source for FA SM U-66 (promoted to FA in March 2009) and I'm pretty sure that I've seen it used in other FAs and A class articles. I've asked User:Bellhalla for comments on the site's reliability. I've updated the publisher details for ref 179 - it used to be on the Sea Power Centre part of the RAN website, but moved into the main part of the website when it was redeveloped a few months ago - great work spotting this! Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Bellhalla will fill in my faulty memory. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • As mentioned above, Nick asked me to comment on the reliability of Uboat.net. Some recently published books that use Uboat.net as a non-trivial source are:
        • Atkinson, Rick (2002). An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943 (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805062885. OCLC 49383747.
        • Conley, Tom (2007). Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816643578. OCLC 73501932.
        • Lecane, Philip (2005). Torpedoed!: the R.M.S. Leinster Disaster. Penzance, Cornwall: Periscope. ISBN 1904381308. OCLC 74335239.
        • Treadwell, Theodore R. (2000). Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557508178. OCLC 43706924.
        • Whitlock, Flint; Smith, Ron (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
        • Wise, James E.; Baron, Scott (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
        • Zuehlke, Mark (2008). Operation Husky: The Canadian Invasion of Sicily, July 10–August 7, 1943. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. ISBN 9781553653240. OCLC 245556470.
      • — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Got it and added to the cheatsheet. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No issues that I could find. Great article. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)