On the eve of the latest Star Trek film, we bring you a mammoth tale of how the franchise made its way to the silver screen in the first place, three decades past. It's a bit of a long article, but I hope a reasonably diverting one. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that length objections are hard to address, but this has 13,000+ words of prose. That would be 50+ pages in print. Wikipedia:Article size gives 10,000 words of prose as the upper bound of acceptable article length, and says an article is getting too long when the prose would be 10 pages printed out. It just seems like the length here is beyond what an encyclopedia article should be... you're supposed to be able to read an encyclopedia article in a relatively short period of time to get a basic overview of a topic. I can't imagine many people could really read this in one go. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Good article, but should perhaps be broken down into smaller articles that the main article summarizes. The "Production" section seems particularly massive--perhaps a separate article on the Production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is in order? —Remember the dot(talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment When an editor breaks his ass to compose the definitive article--by anyone, anywhere, in any medium--on a given subject, as is the case here, I believe our foundational ethic, WP:IAR, directs us to support that definitiveness (and to support further such efforts) over length guidelines. Is this article long, l-o-n-g, extremely long? Yes. Is it too long? I'm not prepared to say so. Can it be profitably trimmed? Let's see. Does it a priori need to be trimmed? No.
I'll have much more to say about this superb article over the next couple weeks--this article needs no encouragement (and anyway, I recently learned my lesson with another film article candidate here that encouragement may breed nothing more than complacency); it merely yearns for perfection.
Here's my initial issue--referring in the main text to the film by its very generic sounding subtitle, The Motion Picture, just does not work. I've checked several general reference works--it's not easy to find coverage of this film that gives the title more than once ('cause, it's, you know, a boring film that lazy critical types don't want to linger on too long): not one refers to it this way. Nor can I think of any other movie that is conventionally referred to by a generic subtitle. If there are human beings out there who actually walk around calling this motion picture The Motion Picture...I. Am. Afraid.
It seems to me there are three better choices: Star Trek (which would require careful consideration of contextual phrasing to avoid confusion), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which is l-o-n-g, but could work if the text was edited to eliminate a share of the existing direct title references), or Star Trek: TMP (which is the oddest-looking, but better than what we currently have and the easiest concise substitution). (Anyone who wants to suggest ST:TMP, it's definitely past your bedtime.) I look forward to delving deeper into this article, but I'd like to see this matter--which obviously arises throughout the piece--addressed first.DocKino (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I used The Motion Picture because it's a fairly standard way of referring to something with a subtitled name. Also, it's been the practice on all the other Star Trek films to used their subtitled names only (The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, The Wrath of Khan, et al), so the nomenclature here is just in keeping with that. Considering that in other articles where it's not clear which Star Trek we're referring to, we have to do something like that anyhow, I figure it works. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it's arguably in keeping with how the other films in the series are referred to on Wikipedia doesn't count for much. The more important fact is I can't find a single high-quality source that refers to the film in this peculiar fashion. There's a reason for this discrepancy: The other films in the series, until the most recent, are sequels. Unlike Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the distinctive identity of each is borne not by the primary title, but by the subtitle. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is plainly different as a name. The pursuit of consistency has led you astray here.
Standard practice on Wikipedia is to refer to subjects with the name by which they are commonly known in the English language. (If more than one name or version of a name is commonly used, we have a choice. That choice here would essentially be between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.) This article defies that standard practice for no compelling reason. Featured Articles are supposed to feature "professional standards of writing [and] presentation." Referring to this film as The Motion Picture strikes me as obviously unprofessional, a view borne out by a perusal of the professional literature in the field.DocKino (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Shortening the title to The Motion Picture is "obviously unprofessional", but using the fan abbreviation TMP is considered better? I'm not seeing how. Star Trek: The Magazine and Cinefantastique, for example, were two sources that used The Motion Picture that I came across in my research, so to say it's not used is simply false. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would you want to whack at a strawman? I don't know or care whether TMP is a "fan" abbreviation—it's an abbreviation that I could imagine you making a viable argument for. It's also odd that you would dismiss it on the basis that you do, then turn to two fan-oriented periodicals for support of the current formulation.
At any rate, I believe I've made clear that the two possibilities that best accord with both standard Wikipedia practice and how the movie is referred to in--allow me to specify--reference books and other high-quality, published histories of cinema are Star Trek and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. You've offered no compelling reason to favor The Motion Picture over either of those choices.DocKino (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to set up any kind of strawman. I am simply saying that there are sources (and I would hardly call Cinefantastique fan-oriented) that refer to the film in shorthand as The Motion Picture. There's never been any other user who has objected to the nomenclature. I see no pressing reason to change it based on your notions that it is "unprofessional", when no one else has ever voiced the same opinion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My "notions," huh? Okay. Please allow me to explain the basis of my "notions." They are based on looking at how the movie is referred to in some serious published books in the field (that is, after the first appearance of the title, which is almost invariably the complete title). Books such as these:
Sound-on-Film: Interviews with Creators of Film Sound, by Vincent LoBrutto: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (pp. 159–163, 219–223).
Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979, by David A. Cook: Star Trek (p. 60).
Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture, by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (pp. 168–169).
Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science-Fiction Cinema, ed. by Annette Kuhn: Star Trek (p. 251).
Your statement that "no one else has ever voiced the same opinion" sounds impressive, until we do a little digging. You apparently started editing this article in earnest in October of last year, when it had no consistent manner of referring to the film. Since that time, before me and aside from you, a grand total of six people contributed to the article's Talk page. Well, you can't count 'em with the fingers of one hand...
At any rate, the concern has been raised here, at FAC, where we do our best to hold articles to our highest standards. Your primary defense for the present formulation--which defies both standard Wikipedia practice and, from what I can see, the norms of high-quality sources--is that it has appeared in the magazine Cinefantastique, a periodical which is not even cited in the article. And on that note, I and my "notions" bow out.DocKino (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
And in response I can list Jungian reflections within the cinema: a psychological analysis of sci-fi and fantasy archetypes by James F. Iaccino; The Art of Star Trek by J. & G. Reeves-Stevens; Star trek and history: race-ing toward a white future by Daniel Bernardi. In short, it's not at all uncommon to refer to it as The Motion Picture; it certainly isn't defying any standards. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Next time, consider weighing in from the get-go with your best sources instead of treading water with lesser references and notions about fellow Wikipedians' "notions".DocKino (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Two Comments & Leaning Support The referencing looks good overall: There are two Shay references, but nothing is done in the notes to distinguish between them (e.g., August 1980a versus August 1980b). The authors' names in two books are given in reverse order in notes versus refs: is it Roddenberry & Sackett or Sackett & Roddenberry? Ditto Kreski/Shatner v. Shatner/Kreski. Ayers (2006) is mentioned in the notes but not the refs. These notes are duplicated & could be named refs instead: Tiwari, Neha; Sackett & Roddenberry, 129.; Sackett & Roddenberry, 95.
I read it once, top to bottom. I occasionally got the feeling that a topic was discussed, dropped, then discussed elsewhere again in a new section (ee.g., something about the construction of V'ger?). Please re-read carefully for slightly scattered organization. However, I may be mistaken.:-) Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the ref calls. Ayers (2006) is only used once (for a single page) which is why it's in notes not refs. Also, the V'ger thing is due to the fact that the model is discussed in design, but the actual construction requires knowledge of the whole special effects process so it's shunted off into postproduction. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
IAR is about improving Wikipedia... while having good content is obviously a good thing, I don't think having articles so long that few people will read them improves Wikipedia. I'm sure a wonderful 20,000 word article could be written on a topic like the American Civil War... but at some point you're writing a short book, not an encyclopedia article. This is a collection of encyclopedia articles, not mini-books... and I don't think using IAR to wedge in things that aren't really encyclopedia articles in scope improves the project. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I emphasized the definitive nature of the ambition. Wikipedia is not and cannot be the venue for the definitive treatment of a topic such as the American Civil War, but it can be the venue for the definitive treatment of something like a movie. WP:IAR makes clear that the promotion of such efforts serves the mission much more than does insistence on length guidelines. Further, while topics such as the Civil War lend themselves to the creation of viable topical articles capable of attracting their own readership and whose significant content can be presented in summary style in a main overview article, individual movies do not. While Dot's suggestion of a Production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was obviously meant in good faith, the practical effect would be to expose far fewer readers to that material. In sum, our foundational ethic isn't being used to "wedge" a single thing in; I raise it as a reminder of our priorities. All that being said, it wouldn't hurt to go through the sprawling "Production" section and see if there are extraneous details that might be trimmed.DocKino (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Use p. for single page references, pp. for multiple (ref 117 (Vail..) is one page with pp. Probably others.
NY or New York? Should be New York Times not NY Times. (current ref 133 NY Tiems...)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I worked with this article for a while before it was posted and read through it several times. The prose and sourcing look good to me. It is long, but I don't think there is anything in particular to be gained from breaking it up, other than making it shorter. If that is the only gain, it's not worth it and only adding clicks for readers. --Laser brain(talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Too many headshots. Plus the picture of Jeffrey Katzenberg is ridiculous and the picture of Douglas Trumbull is watermarked. I would suggest finding better pictures of those two, or better yet, just remove the pictures from the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless you have better images to replace them, removing the images will only result in a wall of text that looks rather unappealing to look at, let alone read. The watermark can simply be photoshopped out of the Trumbull picture, if it's really such an issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is the whole recent debate about plot summaries gonna have any impact on this article? if so, what? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't do; that was over whether to include in the guidelines a proscription against articles that consist solely of plot summaries. Whatever else may be said in this FAC, no-one can accuse this article of lacking substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. SteveT • C 06:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Initial support, comments to come - Looking the article over, I don't see any problem with the length of the article, and congratulate David on his hard work. Skinny87 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - with comments. This is a tour de force; a well-written, engaging and comprehensive contribution. I read it in one sitting, which took longer than I had realised. There are, however, a few tiny things that spoil it in my view.
Spelling of cancelled/canceled is not consistent.
In ran three seasons would "ran for three seasons" be better?
The article uses "in order to" instead of just "to".
What is ultrasuede and what are nacelles?
I don't like the abbreviation of inch especially in "20 in model". (No deal breaker)
I dislike linking in general but I think Isaac Asimov deserves to be.
Here 24 frames per second, and then at the slower 48 frames - 48 per second is surely faster than 24 per second and not slower?
You can't boost f-stops, you can only increase or decrease them, and you decrease them to let in more light I think.
The BBC is a huge organisation that does not review anything so this a 2001 BBC review claimed the film was a critical failure should be "a 2001 review for the BBC.."
Finally, this book citation looks odd: Roddenberry, Susan; Sackett, Gene (1980). The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN0671251813.
Thanks for a very entertaining hour. Graham ColmTalk 12:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed most of the above. I am 99% positive they said "boost" the f-stops in the citation (unfortunately I don't have it now), but I changed the wording (perhaps they were just being overly technical.) Fixed the ENGVAR issues (it's sad that I can't properly write American English) and the citation. Thanks for the review. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Comments from Dabomb87(talk·contribs) The production section's a beast, so that's where I'm going to focus my efforts.
Spell out NASA on its first appearance.
"Wise directed fifteen takes" "fifteen" should be "15" per WP:MOSNUM. Further down, I see "fourteen days" (14 days), please check throughout for places where numbers should be words or vice versa.
"A total of 1,650 ft of film was used for the first day's shots" "A total of" is redundant; can this be put into active voice?
"420 ft were good, 1,070 ft were no good, and 160 ft were wasted; only one and one-eighth pages had been shot" So what's the difference between "wasted" film and "no good" film (I'm ignorant, I know:))
"console monitors show up better." I think "display" is better than "show up".
"LAPD" Another abbreviation to be spelled out on first sight.
"During construction one young visitor to a soundstage" A few sentences later, you call the thief a "man". I don't know, but to me, "young" is anywhere below the age of 18 (strictly speaking).
"Getting permission" "Getting" seems too loose to me, maybe "securing"?
"were composed of miniature stairs, rocks, bits of red glass and a miniature version of a Vulcan statue" Can we eliminate the "miniature ... miniature" repetition?
Conversions are missing all over the place, e.g., "16 foot high", "110 by 150 feet long", "40 ft x 80 ft", etc. Please go through the entire article and put in conversions.
"12 volt light bult"-->12-volt light bulb ... "4000 watt lamps"-->4000-watt lamps (please check entire article for missing hyphens)
"Difficulties resulting in the scene being shot ten times" Wrong tense. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed all of these issues; unit conversions put in place and a couple of text to number and time fixes. I've slightly reworded the film bit so it's active voice and hopefully clarified the difference between not good and wasted; how does it read now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"Godfrey called the effects "stunning", but conceded that the special effects threatened to overpower the story two-thirds of the way into the film." I added the quotes around "stunning", I hope that's OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"The show developed a cult following, and talks of reviving the franchise began." What do you mean by "talks"? Rumors? Discussions? Negotiations?
"Roddenberry was allocated $3 to $5 million" Consider using {{inflation}}.
"By June 30 he had churned out what he considered an acceptable script, but studio executives disagreed." "churned out" is a bit too loose, and isn't a good word in this context.
"The object turns out to be a super-advanced computer, the remains of a scheming race who were cast out of their dimension and into ours." Generally, we shouldn't be using personal pronouns in articles.
"The film was postponed until spring 1975 while Paramount fielded new scripts for Star Trek II" Per WP:SEASON, try to use a month or general area of the year instead of seasons.
"A revolving door of screenwriters" Another loose expression that will leave some readers' heads spinning.
"twenty-page treatment "-->20-page treatment
"and by the fall of 1976 the project" Same comment about seasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered using the {{harvnb}} template, for readers' ease of navigation and verifiability?
Here's how it would look. SteveT • C 22:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the linking is nice, but I'm not a major fan of Harvard style... if you really think it works I might just add in the links by hand (done it before...) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are two substantive gaps in coverage—the first involving the industrial/cultural significance of the film, the second involving its critical analysis.
(1) While a few "amplified episodes" of TV series had previously been distributed to cinemas, Star Trek was the first major motion picture derived from an original television series. We now take such adaptations for granted, but this was a significant step at the time. Here's a good place to start in addressing this matter:
Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text, by Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan
(2) The various opinions of movie reviewers' are well covered in the article, but there is a substantial corpus of scholarly literature on the film that is entirely overlooked. Aside from journal articles, its themes have been analyzed in such books as the following:
Jungian Reflections Within the Cinema: A Psychological Analysis of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Archetypes, by James F. Iaccino
Space and Beyond: The Frontier Theme in Science Fiction, by Gary Westfahl
Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture, by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren
Religions of Star Trek, by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, and Susan L. Schwartz
Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century, by Scott Bukatman
Just to be clear, all of these books address the film's themes specifically, not just those of the Star Trek universe in general.DocKino (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment on research- Hi Doc - thanks for the information. I just want to respond that I shared your concern early on in the process about the exact same sections. I discovered that not only is David a very thorough researcher, but that my own efforts to come up with additional meaningful information about this film specifically came up blank. I searched film journals, books, and other sources, and I know David did as well. There is a lot of information that applies to the Star Trek series as a whole, especially along the cultural and industry influence path, but very little that applies only to this film. I'm confident that the existing literature about this film has been tapped to an appropriate degree. The sources you list are more valuable for an article about the series or the entire cultural phenomenon of Star Trek. --Laser brain(talk) 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment "Star Trek was the first major motion picture derived from an original television series" is a very dubious claim. In America, yes, possibly so (although I could make a case for Batman), but I can think of plenty of major British movies derived from original TV series which predate Star Trek – Dad's Army (1971), Steptoe and Son (1972), the three On the Buses films (1971–73), The Likely Lads (1966), and numerous Monty Python films, none of which could be considered "extended episodes", and some of which such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail are "major motion pictures" by any definition.–iridescent 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent, you're right, I should have specified that the industrial context in which Star Trek: The Motion Picture marked a significant development is that of the world's wealthiest and most influential (in terms of global distribution) motion picture industry, Hollywood. (As for the 1966 Batman, not only was its TV basis obviously not an original series, but more relevantly the film's budget--$1.38 million--was barely more than half that of the average Hollywood feature film of the time [$2.5 million in 1965 per The Hollywood Story, Joel W. Finler, p. 36].)
LB, I can only imagine that you missed the last line of my comment. I stated very clearly, "Just to be clear, all of these books address the film's themes specifically, not just those of the Star Trek universe in general." Let's give this another shot: Scholars have identified significant thematic matters that are quite specific to this film; a considerable analytical corpus concerned with these specific thematic matters has been produced; this substantial critical discussion of specific matters pertaining to this specific film is entirely absent from this specific article. If the article can support a "Production" section that is just shy of 10,000 words, it can surely support a paragraph or two on the film's specific scholarly analysis. I've given David a head start by identifying five books that include pertinent and specific thematic treatment.DocKino (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I did miss that line, my apologies. My own research efforts were frustrated by finding promising articles only to discover that they were far too broad in scope. --Laser brain(talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I know from hard experience the toll of wading through bibliographies.DocKino (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added as much from the books as I can without misrepresenting their possible points--Google Books is unfortunately stingy with the previews. More will have to wait until I can actually get the physical books. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Another important point--this is, again, in the realm of industrial/cultural significance:
(3) Star Trek: The Motion Picture marked the start of Paramount/Gulf+Western's "coordinated approach to building a Trek product line that fed internal markets for movies, novelizations, nonfiction books, and novels" as well as other products (Why TV Is Not Our Fault: Television Programming, Viewers, and Who's Really in Control, by Eileen R. Meehan, p. 93). We've come to take that product line for granted, but it emerged in a coordinated fashion only in 1979, a decade after the original series' cancellation. The movie's release was accompanied by, among many other things, a novelization and the launch of a "line of original novels presenting the further adventures of Kirk and company." (Among those other things: Star Trek: The Motion Picture Iron-On Transfer Book, Star Trek: The Motion Picture Make Your-Own Costume Book, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture Peel-Off Graphics Book. I've put this in parentheses to indicate that, no, I don't think each of these glorious items needs to be specifically mentioned in the article.)DocKino (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Change to Support: I'm being lazy (or busy in RL); I publically confess. On my first somewhat-rapid read-through, I was 90% sure it was good enough for FA in its original state as nominated, but just as sure that some problems would come up. I now see that DaBomb, LaserBrain and DocKino are on the case, and are making excellent observations. I'm going out on a limb and Supporting now, 'cause I'm sure the problems are not at all insoluble (e.g., no probs with POV or deeper issues, such as have caused long-term discussion in other noms in the past). Congrats on an excellent article. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The infobox has the running time of the director's cut. It also (and more importantly) needs the running time of the original release version.DocKino (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, this image packs a lot of information.
It shows what the newly redesigned Enterprise looks like. (The Enterprise, of course, is the icon of the Star Trek universe).
It shows Trumbull's innovative self-illumination system, as described in the text, which, to be meaningfully conveyed, obviously requires a relatively dark shot.
It shows important aspects of the film's primary !antagonist, V'ger.
It supports and exemplifies the accompanying discussion of how the work of different effects teams was combined.
The image readily passes NFCC #8.DocKino (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Star_trek-the_motion_picture.png The source is forbidden, can the url be added, I am a little crious about the tag line, it doesnt seem to be on all versions of this poster Fasach Nua (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Go here and click on the poster to the left and it takes you to the source – don't know why it's showing as forbidden to link direct as the URL's definitely correct.–iridescent 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
For whatever reason, Trekcore's URLs are strange--clicking on links often doesn't work, but entering it into the navbar does. I'm not really sure why. As to the tag line, you've got me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Most likely they check the HTTP "Referer" header and reject any links with an unapproved referrer to prevent hot linking. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Question from FAC delegate: How are we coming on Doc Kino's comprehensiveness concerns? Can both David and Doc post an update please? Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added in some of the sources he has mentioned, but I will be unable to finish off a complete Themes section until I have access to my university library again. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that something you expect in the next week, or will it take a longer amount of time? Not meaning to rush you, but this has been open a long time.... Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't be able to pick up any books until term starts and I'm physically in Richmond... so not until August at the earliest. Doc's either gotta' be satisfied with that or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To summarize, here are the three areas I felt needed coverage (for comprehensiveness, of course, and also to balance the 11,000-word "Production" section):
(1) Industrial impact as major Hollywood motion picture based on original TV series: Not yet addressed. I offered one source, accessible via Google Book Search. This topic may warrant only a couple of sentences, given what I've been able to find of WP:V standard, so perhaps this could be taken care of now.
(2) Critical analysis of themes: Partially addressed. A mini-section of one short paragraph now exists--it's of high quality...a very good start. Only one of the five sources I offered has been used. The rest are all available via Google Book Search, but as this is a complex topic, it's certainly understandable if David wants to wait until he has access to a good library.
(3) Paramount/Gulf+Western's coordinated exploitation of the Star Trek brand: Fully addressed.
David has demonstrated a commitment to resolving #2. If #1 can be taken care of now, I see no need to hold up the article's promotion. DocKino (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the line I believe you were referring to in the first paragraph of release. If you have a better location for the info, by all means, be bold. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems fine. I boldly went and added another sentence at the end of the "Release" subsection. See what you think.
For future reference, another "Themes" source: Lincoln Geraghty's ST:TMP entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, ed. Gary Westfahl. An interesting observation or two on p. 1262. DocKino (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Support In full expectation that the "Themes" section will be completed during the next academic semester. In every other regard, this is an unequivocally high-quality article. DocKino (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Opposefor now. Switch to NeutralSteveT • C I'm really sorry I've come to this review late in the day, especially considering how I've !voted. The amount of detail here is largely superb; almost anything one might want to know about the production can be gleaned from this article, which is probably the finest single resource available anywhere about ST:TMP. That said, I have issues with the incomplete "Themes" section (see below), and I don't think the prose is quite there yet. The lead alone contained several errors of grammar, and one of fact, that probably shouldn't have been present at this late stage. For reference, here are the edits I made to the section: , , , , , , , . You may not agree with exactly how I've reworded it to resolve the issues, and that'd be fair enough, but I hope you can see why the remedies were necessary in the first place. However, the "curse of the lead" is something I've fallen afoul of in the past when reviewing, so these issues may not be representative of the rest of the article. With that in mind, I looked at the "Plot" section. Some issues stood out, but not as many, and they mainly related to ambiguous wording that could confuse someone unfamiliar with the plot, so I ran through and fixed what I could see. Plus, once written to a decent standard, the plot section is perhaps the most stable, the least edited and therefore the least likely to have had a final polish, so I picked another couple of sections from the article body for a closer look: Here are some issues I found with "Critical response"; these I've left untouched, as there are also minor issues that don't relate to the niggly prose concerns:
"The Motion Picture met with lukewarm reception from critics" – disappointed to see that the first sentence of the section just doesn't quite work. For an idea why, imagine it without the adjective: "met with... reception." It needs to say "a lukewarm" reception" or similar.
Looking closer, the statement is uncited. I know it's true, and I'd bet there are 300 cites out there that say it, but because most major productions receive hundreds of reviews, we need to avoid the potential charge that the reception section is selectively choosing those reviews that support this particular viewpoint . For example, selective quoting could be used to give the impression that even a critically-panned film is well liked, as even those are likely to have received half a dozen positive notices amongst the derision.
"Livingston also lamented the lack of "boldly characterized" antagonists or battle scenes that made Star Wars fun." – ambiguous; does Livingston mean the boldly characterized antagonists and battle scenes that made Star Wars fun, or does he mean the boldly characterized antagonists in isolation from his comparison with Star Wars?
Inconsistent use of "2001" and "2001: A Space Odyssey". At the very least, the longhand title should be used first, with the shorthand for subsequent mentions.
"The characters and acting got a mixed reception." – uncited, see above; we need to avoid the appearance of selective quoting to reach a conclusion.
"Stephen Godfrey of The Globe and Mail rated their performances highly;" – typo? It's followed by a quote, so should be a colon, not a semi-colon.
"Martin considered the characters more likeable than in other comparable science fiction films." – we don't need that "other", and the way this is worded could suggest—if I'm being uncharitable—that he means the same characters in these other SF films. A minor tweak would resolve both: "Martin considered the characters more likeable than those in comparable science fiction films." If he gives an example of one of these other SF films, that would be nice too.
"Stephen Collins and Persis Khambatta were more favorably received." – uncited, see above.
"Gene Siskel felt the film 'teeters towards being a crashing bore' whenever Khambatta was not on screen" – spot the tense mix-up.
"and Jack Kroll of Newsweek felt that she had the most memorable entrance in the film." – ignoring the double entendre ("introduction" might be better), without context (what that entrance was) it doesn't really mean much.
"Many critics felt that the special effects overshadowed other elements of the film." – uncited. While you do indeed quote some critics who say this, the comment is clearly intended to represent some kind of consensus, and that aspect perhaps needs verification.
"Godfrey called the effects 'stunning', but conceded that the special effects threatened to overpower the story two-thirds of the way into the film." The repetition ("the effects... the special effects") sounds odd, especially given the variation in how the exact same aspect is described. A simple "...called the special effects stunning, but conceded that they threatened to..." might resolve it. Godfrey's "threatened" statement is an odd one; is he essentially saying that the effects came close to overpowering the story 2/3 through, but managed not to do so?
"Later assessments of the film have echoed these criticisms." – vague enough that it perhaps doesn't require a cite, but as it again seems to be implying a consensus, it seems a bit iffy.
"The film has a 54% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 28 reviews." Context? Someone unfamiliar with the website might not know what a "54% positive rating" means. Suggest wording similar to that found at Milk (film)#Critical reception. The other problem with using Rotten Tomatoes to gauge any kind of critical consensus on older films, be it from the time of the film's release or now, is that for anything before, say 2001, it quotes too selectively to be of much use. There are 30 reviews here, dating from 2000 to the present day; I'm not sure that's really telling us anything. For an example of why this is a problem, see how the site treats something like Fight Club (1999). The film polarised critics at the time of its release, yet to read Rotten Tomatoes' selective compiling for this film (released well before the site became active), you'd think that it was released to widespread acclaim.
The other section I looked at in detail was "Postproduction":
Inconsistency: "Abel and Associates" and "Abel and Associated".
Inconsistent use of comma/no-comma after "In [date]" constructions.
Inconsistency: "carte blanche" is italicised here but not elsewhere (the lead, IIRC).
"the producers were keenly aware that after the optical effects of Star Wars the television movie could not settle for outdated effects" – I think you need to establish that this is because Star Wars' effects were groundbreaking/amazing (for the time), e.g., "after Star Wars' groundbreaking optical effects, the television movie..."
"He also suggested more cuts to supporting characters during interactions and dialogue." – I don't think this works; he's not recommending cuts to the supporting characters, but to/from their interactions and dialogue. "More" is probably unnecessary too. Perhaps the sentence would be more accurately rendered as: "He also suggested cuts to the interactions and dialogue of the supporting characters."
"Abel was not experienced in motion picture production and the company's steep learning curve worried the producers." – would we use "learning curve" like this? It's not the company that has a steep learning curve, but the effort they have to expend on becoming skilled at the process. Also, is "Abel" used here to refer to the man or the company?
"he and Trumbull formulated a plan which involved reassembling the equipment and crew from Close Encounters" – you can say "reassembling the equipment" or "reassembling the crew" without much ambiguity, but together as "reassembling the equipment and crew" it doesn't work, as the intended use of "reassembling" is subtly changed for the second instance, even though it's already been used one way. Essentially, it sounds as if Trumbull assembled each crew member out of their constituents, rather than assembled the team.
OK, I'll stop there. In truth, the section isn't badly written; some of the inconsistencies are minor enough that it might seem I'm being petty. What I really think the article needs is less easily defined, but includes a good trim of redundant words and phrases that only serve to bog the reader down instead of propelling them along. Random examples: "The effects budget figure climbed to $10 million"; "at the very latest"; "Employing a staff of 60 people"; "completing them on time and keeping the price down while they were at it". It just makes some of it a bit of a slog; the article is long enough without the long-windedness.
Some miscellaneous comments:
I'm wondering why there is no mention of Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973–1974) early on; the development section jumps straight from the original live-action series to the film's development. Did the performance of this affect considerations over whether to restart the franchise? Plus, without mentioning the animated series, the early talk of "restarting the franchise" would seem very odd to someone who didn't know that show existed, as without it Star Trek wouldn't have been a franchise to restart (technically, they'd be starting one).
It seems odd that the lead sentence mentions only the studio; most film articles reserve the space for the key creative personnel, with the studio maybe where it belongs, among the production or release paragraph. Not a big issue really, just odd.
The propensity for elegant variation also rears its head throughout; good prose renders duplication invisible; a synonym interrupts the reader, who wonders why the change has occurred, and it can lead to ambiguity for those unfamiliar with the subject. See the linked article for a good explanation.
"However" is almost never needed; some/many uses of "the film" (and its synonyms) are unnecessary, save where another subject is mentioned close by that might render the statement ambiguous. That this article is talking about its subject is implicit.
So then. Themes. I've read the discussions above, and I have no doubt that you will get around to crafting a suitable "Themes" section, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the thought of this being promoted on the promise that a major, necessary, section will be added. I might be less concerned if it was something you were going to get around to in the next week or two, but given that it won't be until "August at the earliest", promoting this article—having it sit in the "Featured Quality" pen—while still incomplete makes me uneasy, is precedent-setting, and unfair to those we've opposed in the past for not being comprehensive, despite the nominators' assurances that the work would be done (David, see the first Braid FAC for a roughly analogous situation, where you agreed with my assessment that the nominator should wait a month.
The prose issues seem generally representative of the rest of the article, though they are probably easily remedied given a sustained burst of copyediting, but the incomplete "Themes" section is a pretty large bugbear. As ever, feel free to disagree with anything I've said, and I'll be more than happy to strike this oppose if you have a good rebuttal to these points. I hope you know I wouldn't oppose this willy-nilly, with no strong reasoning, especially given my support for your last few FACs. It would just be a shame if some more time wasn't taken to get this article from "largely excellent" to truly so. All the best, SteveT • C 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made all the spelled-out fixes above, and will try and run through the rest of the article later today. For the elegant variation, I admit I had not come across the subject before and will have to run through with an eye out, however many of the listed examples are areas where changing synonyms results in changing meaning; I'm pretty sure that's not the case in most clauses and if it sounds clunkier the other way, I'll leave it as is.
In regards to your two main points. I understand how you could see the lead sentences in reception as possible POV synth, and I will try to find sources where possible (I did so already for the overall reception.) However I am loath to remove them outright. Basic paragraph writing demands topic sentences to let people know what the heck they are reading, and removing them would I believe decrease the clarity of the section. For example, Changeling just has a running dialogue with reviewer's comments. That's your style, it doesn't bother me, but personally I find it hard to keep track of what they are referring to. Is this paragraph about the characters? Is this one about the setting? It's not immediately obvious and I feel gives too much weight to each individual critic.
Finally, in regards to the themes: I think this is a much different situation than Braid. I opposed there because there was a coming PC release of the game and there was good reason to believe that its coverage might substantially improve, especially in reception. Star Trek: The Motion Picture has been out six months shy of thirty years; there's not going to be newly-published information that will dramatically change the article, or have the likelihood of dramatically changing this article, unless someone puts out a philosophical tome waxing about V'ger. Here the only obstacle is my current geographic location from James Branch Cabell. Like I told Doc, if it bothers you, I'm not going to browbeat you over the head over your oppose. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. For the prose issues, I'll take another look through when you've made further edits, and pitch in with some of my own where I can. Elegant variation is mainly a problem where the synonym hasn't been defined, such as the one I fixed in the "Plot" section that said, "Decker offers himself to V'ger. The commander..." Decker had not at this point been referred to as "commander", so to the uninitiated it would be unclear. This FAC has been open a while now, so I'm guessing we have until pr/ar day at the weekend before this is promoted/removed; given that six other FAC regulars don't see the "Themes" section as an issue, if by then that's the only substantial concern I have I'll switch to a "neutral" !vote. All the best, SteveT • C 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Struck oppose, switched to neutral. Confident that David will resolve outstanding issues. If he doesn't, well, he's just told us where he lives...:) SteveT • C 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Aye aye, cap'n. Whenever I manage to get down to VCU and hammer together the remaining section bits, I will ping you so you might appraise them:) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): –iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because... The Wikipedia currently has 2,889,825 articles, and not a single one mentions "sailing in a washtub towed by geese". This is shameful systemic bias! There is clearly a conspiracy to suppress the truth about the limitless source of Free! Energy!! that could be made available if the so-called "internal combustion engine" were replaced by goose propulsion – no doubt the result of collusion on IRC by The Wikipedia's blinkered hivemind cabal of administrators and their lackeys, probably in the pay of intelligence agencies, sinister multinational oil companies and Marxist infiltrators. I humbly submit this article to correct this great injustice and show the world the truth.
Seriously, this is another in the "Thames bridges" series and, aside from Mister Barry and his ansermobilistic washtub, there's not much to see here. No elegant Palladian architecture; no striking modernist design; no Great Artists painting seminal paintings of it; no poems and songs that will take a thousand years to die written about it. This is a functional steel-and-stone bridge, that replaced a functional iron-and-stone bridge, both of which are notable mainly for the impressive ineptitude of the many engineers the pair of them went through before anyone managed to come up with a design that would stay upright. However, it's also a forgotten landmark in the history of industrial engineering, as the first iron bridge over the Thames, as well as one of the most significant physical links between North and South London. I think it says all that ought reasonably to be said on the topic, and I can't see any obvious way to say it better. So please, take a gander at it; I'm hoping I can goose it to Featured Article status.–iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know one of the "statue" photos is looking out of the page. I think it's important to have images of two examples of the statue designs, and taking a photo of either of them from the opposing angle would involve levitating 30 feet above the river, and it's IMO more important to keep them attached to the section discussing them, than to comply with one of the more obscure parts of the MOS that has no impact on the readability/usability of the article.striking this, found one facing the other way. Also, there's one potentially unreliable source – a university thesis – cited; this serves only as the citation for the proposed width of the unbuilt Crystal Span project. As all other facts given in the thesis can be verified from reliable sources, I'm willing to accept the reliability of this one; it's only used to cite this single uncontroversial and relatively trivial fact, for which I can't find another source (everything else I've found gives the length but not the width, for some reason).–iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Hi Iridescent, that was an interesting read. But a few minor points:
Some photo captions could do with expansion, for example "Vauxhall Bridge in 2009" to "Vauxhall Bridge in 2009 viewed from downstream" (I'd have made the change myself but I'm only 95% confident of the side viewed from).
I was wondering a little about the sequencing of the article, with the pre Roman bridge being covered in Vauxhall Bridge#Vauxhall Bridge today, and I hope you don't mind but I've extracted a usage section from one on sculpture.
If available some info on clearances and thereby what size of ship could pass under the bridge would be nice. - Not sure if the 8/9metres is at low or high tide, but a sentence to the effect that it has sufficient clearance to take any boat that can pass under London Bridge would probably suffice.
Usage could do with stats on numbers of vehicles/people/cyclists etc to give more sense of the importance of the bridge.
Watchlisting ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to keep the photo captions as short as possible except on points like the first map where an explanation is necessary. If you think they need expanding, feel free to expand them (yes, File:Vauxhall Canoeists.JPG is from downstream).–iridescent 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the Bronze Age bridge in the "modern" section looks jarring, but there isn't really another obvious place to put it. It wasn't a precursor of the current bridge in that it didn't span the river, so having it at the start of the article would be misleading in implying that a bridge has existed at this point for centuries, but it needs at least a passing mention. As it was only discovered in 1993, I've used the discovery date, as opposed to the construction date, as the "anchor" within the roughly chronological structure.
I really dislike single-paragraph sections, but if you think a separate "usage" section is warranted I won't argue.
As with all London bridges, the clearance will be about 8–9m (I can get the exact figure if you think it's necessary). Aside from Tower Bridge (which opens for shipping), there are no bridges in the Pool of London (the stretch of the river open to shipping), and the low London Bridge (the easternmost bridge other than Tower Bridge) prevents anything tall coming upriver, so clearance height isn't an issue for any of the bridges.
Regarding usage figures, this has come up with the first two in this series and will no doubt come up with the next 17, so get used to seeing this answer cut-and-pasted: Transport for London don't publish AADT figures for most of the bridges, so except for occasional cases where local boroughs' traffic departments or the Highways Agency have published surveys, usage statistics aren't available. In any event, usage figures would be very misleading as the creation and expansion of the Ring of Steel, the bombing of Hammersmith Bridge, and repeated changes to the London Congestion Charge zone boundaries recently are wildly distorting traffic patterns year-on-year.–iridescent 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well we can't add what we can't get, but I think it important for FA that we considered such things so thanks for your explanation. Also after looking at London Bridge I've added a reference to the A202, and I think it would be worth stating who owns the Bridge - probably the London Borough of Lambeth in accordance with the convention that London bridges are owned by the Borough containing the place they are named after. Also I'm not sure about "In anticipation of the areas surrounding the bridge becoming prosperous suburbs," as I thought the idea was to open up the South bank for an expanding London and this wording implies both banks. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"Bridges are owned by whoever they're named after" is an urban legend (what would happen to Albert Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, Millennium Bridge etc?); the five bridges into the old City of London are owned by the City Bridge Trust and the remainder by Transport for London's Street Management Unit. As with all the bridges except London Bridge, the formal boundary between borough jurisdictions runs down the invisible midpoint between the Mean High Water marks on both banks. If you think it's warranted, that fact can certainly be added, but I've been leaving it out of all these bridge articles as I doubt it's of interest to most readers.
Although the main reason for the building of the bridge was the regeneration of the south bank, the plans foresaw the development of the north bank as well; at the time it was built the north bank was virtually empty (see this map of 1746 – the future bridge route is labelled as "Huntley Ferry"; remember, the London mainline stations other than Liverpool Street were all built outside the built-up area of the town). It was assumed by the developers that both banks would develop into residential suburbs of a growing Westminster; in the event the north and south banks were taken up by Millbank Prison and the Royal Doulton ceramics factory, respectively.–iridescent 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
(adding) Found a source for the AADT figure for 2004 – now added–iridescent 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think the location on a southern bend of the river is worth mentioning both in terms of the views and also the greater amount of land accessed on the south bank. Also the inner London ring road is surely relevant - it can be quite prominent in the signage - see File:Vauxhall cross from Wandsworth rd.jpg. Is it also worth mentioning the views from the bridge? ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Personal opinion: I don't think the location on a bend is particularly relevant in this case. It's not a sharp curve that formed a traditional fording point, as in the case of Battersea or Hammersmith bridges, and the "greater amount of land on the south bank" thing would be misleading – it's Westminster Bridge, already open long before Vauxhall Bridge was built, that opened up the whole northern half of Lambeth for development. Regarding views, I don't really want to go down the tour-guide route; every bridge by definition has views, those from Vauxhall aren't particularly notable in Wikipedia terms (it's Waterloo Bridge that has the famous views – there's no equivalent Vauxhall Sunset or Vauxhall Bridge (film), and Wikipedia is not WikiTravel). Regarding the "Inner Ring Road" thing, while (as discussed) notwithstanding what Lambeth Council's road signs say I'm unable to find a single mention in any reliable source of any entity officially called the "inner ring road", other than as a term-of-convenience when describing the boundaries of the Congestion Charge zone. I certainly don't think it's worth arguing about, and if you can find a reliable source for this term an official designation certainly wouldn't argue against including it.–iridescent 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Support and comments (because now I've read a few now). 1) I think the image in "Background" could possibly be moved up a paragraph (formatting, plus it is only a 2nd level header, so a left image could go right under). 2) "The Act stipulated that the proprietors of Battersea Bridge" Any more background that could be included? It might be too complicated to do, however. 3) "13 arches, but soon after the 1809 Act was passed, he" The "but" and "soon after" seem awkward together. Perhaps change it to "13 arches. However, he was dismissed by the Vauxhall Bridge Company soon after the 1809 Act was passed." 4) "On 9 May 1811" - comma needed after this. 5) "Act,[6], and a new Act" - there are two commas surrounding the footnote. 6) "Waterloo Bridge station (renamed "Waterloo Station" in 1886), and the terminus at Nine Elms was abandoned" - I think it would help to note the distance of the Waterloo Bridge, as I had to manually hunt it down and piece together how the situation was. 7) "early hot air balloon flights" early to what? It could read as either "in the day" or "in the history of air balloon flights". 8) "Hundreds of bags of cement were laid around" Too many "of"s makes it awkward. Perhaps - "Bags of cement were laid by the hundreds around"? 9) "However, by this" Use of however just prior. Just start off with "By this". 10) "The new bridge was eventually opened on 26 May 1906" - Remove the "was". 11) Information in "Vauxhall Bridge today" is good, but it seems like much of it could belong up in the "New Vauxhall Bridge" sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding moving the image, I agree that it would decrease clutter, but I dislike images directly under headers even when the MOS permits it – I find it makes articles look a bit like illuminated manuscripts and makes them harder to scan. Anyone else have any thoughts on this one?
The proprietors of Battersea Bridge were (imaginatively) the Battersea Bridge Company. I went with "the proprietors" to avoid the repetition of the name (as it would still need to be explained that the Battersea Bridge Company were the owners of Battersea Bridge and not, for example, a firm of bridge-building engineers based in Battersea).
Reworded the "13 arches, but", and fixed the minor edits
Reworded to "a new railway terminus was built 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4km) closer to central London, at Waterloo Bridge station" to give a frame of reference. I don't want to be too precise with the distance, as the road, river, rail and as-the-crow-flies distances will all be different.
I've taken out the "early" altogether regarding the balloon flights – "early" is such a relative term, and by the time the bridge opened the technology was already over 20 years old.
Reworded to "Large quantities of cement in bags" & removed one of the "however"s.
I've used the "New Vauxhall Bridge" section to cover the design and building of the new bridge, and the "Today" section only to cover the recent (e.g., last 20 years) changes to the area. I think this chronological structure is least confusing; otherwise, the 1980s/90s property developments would be covered before the 1940s "backup" bridge and the 1960s rebuilding proposals.
Hope that helps…–iridescent 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't even think about the people who owned the Battersea Bridge, instead, I was thinking about location and why they would care about a new bridge.:) The only thing that bothered me about the "Today" section is it following what appears to be a few sections not directly dealing with the bridge. This created a divide between the two sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the mention of Battersea Bridge being the next bridge upstream in the same paragraph would make the reason they'd be affected by a new bridge implicit; I've expanded the section slightly to hopefully make it clearer that they were concerned about a loss of customers. Regarding the "Today" section, per Wehwalt's suggestion I've retitled it "Recent history" which should hopefully solve the other problem.–iridescent 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Slight oppose due to some image niggles that need to be fixed (just to be perrrrfect...):
I had to "fix" the paintings; the worst being the 1829 engraving which was wrongly attributed to Samuel Bentham (this not be taken in angry tone, tis but a rant). Otherwise, all images except the above are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The paintings were inherited from the stub article I took over and from Samuel Bentham; I wanted to keep them but couldn't find out anything better regarding their origins. Thanks very much for cleaning them up!
I took the map from our Nine Elms railway station article, but have no reason to doubt the attribution. Cross has a distinctive style, and I've no reasonable doubt that it's from a Cross map (I can't find his 1847 map online, but compare the design to the equivalent section of his 1851 map; the overprinted blue line is the new rail line to Waterloo, built between the publication of the two maps). Even were it not a Cross map, given that it shows Nine Elms station (closed 1848) and Millbank Prison (demolished 1890) I think that it's beyond reasonable doubt a {{pd-old}} image.–iridescent 14:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
At this level (FA), the images have to be verified as what they claim to be (a link that points out what the site claims the image to be would suffice unless the site is known to be greatly unreliable). MapCo does have the map (http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cross/cross19.htm). However they deem they can copyright a scan and paste those watermarks over it... Nevertheless the issue has been resolved (link added). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You could try taking a screen grab of this 1828 Cross Map from the Crace Collection at the British Museum (zoom in to the bit you require) - although it does not include the Nine Elms station. --DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I really want one that includes Nine Elms station, as it's intended to illustrate why the station caused a growth in bridge usage due to its position. I think the Cross map is adequate enough.–iridescent 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments Interesting article, and probably will eventually support, but ...
I think the lede could use a good solid rewrite, presently it is going too much in depth about the history of the site, and too little about the Bridge today, other than the fact it has a bus lane (or had). Perhaps mention number of lanes, whether it is one way only, that kinda thing. You have an extra paragraph in reserve, you know.
"the design and appearance of the current bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." Suggest shorten to "the bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." If true.
Background:
"With the exception of the New Spring Gardens (later Vauxhall Gardens) pleasure park, opened in around 1661,[3] the land at Vauxhall remained sparsely populated into the 19th century," excepting some teenagers, people don't live in pleasure parks, suggest alter to "sparsely developed".
Battersea bridge: Maybe expand for a sentence, mentioning it was a toll bridge, the only bridge between X and Y, which might suffer because of the opening of the Vauxhall Bridge.
"and to keep all profits from any tolls raised.[6][7] The Act stipulated that the proprietors of Battersea Bridge were to receive tolls as if Vauxhall Bridge did not exist, with any loss in revenue to be compensated from the profits of Vauxhall Bridge" Two points here, I'm not sure what it means that they kept all revenue as if Vauxhall Bridge did not exist. Obviously, VB would be a competitor, but the fact that it is mentioned means something more is impled. Second, keeping all profits and making good the losses of Battersea seem contradictory. Can you clarify?
Old Vauxhall Bridge: Suggest you expand "George, Prince Regent" to "the future George IV, then known as the Prince Regent. Allows you to link to man and office. Note that he became Prince Regent in 1810, so the timeline is slightly muddled here.
Financial difficulties: Looks to me like they weren't allowed to raise more than 300 grand without leave of Parliament. I'm gathering the problem was cost overruns, it might be wise to say so. The Napoleonic Wars were probably a bad time to be building something anyway, financial instability and high labor prices (relatively speaking).
"costing only half the price of the original stone design." 150K pounds? Or are we saying after cost overruns?
"Walker's report " What'd it say?
"Regent Bridge – soon renamed Vauxhall Bridge" Officially? Or did everyone just call it Vauxhall Bridge and eventually officialdom threw in the towel?
Pleasure gardens compensation: After telling us of the 24 men, good and true, the least you can do is tell us their decision.
Usage: If you are discussing a sliding scale, I would list the higher toll first, thus "sliding" to the lower. Purely stylistic. Suggest linking 2s 6d to "half crown"
You might want to say why the Doulton factory and the Millbank penitentiary were a problem. Obviously to me, the users didn't cross the Thames much, but you should probably set that up someplace by saying what they "expected". Also, it might be helpful to the reader less familiar than London to mention what bridge travelers to/from Waterloo would use.
More later. Very good article.
New Vauxhall Bridge: No need to have "steel superstructure" twice in one sentence. Also, the diverted flow image isn't showing up for me. Problem?
"and many influential architects had complained about the lack of consultation from any architects". Awkward. I'd rephrase to use the word "architects" only once.
"Frampton resigned from the project through pressure of work" Is this a Britishism? I'd probably say "because of pressure of work" or "due to lack of time" or the like.
"downstream" and "upstream". Earlier in the article, you used cardinal directions, north and south (the underground river). Suggest you you pick one way of referring to directions and stick to it. I know it is not a true north south, but you refer to it as such, since you state the actual direction, I think it is simplest for the reader if we go north, south, east, west. And at one point, you can mention which way is downstream for those who might think the Thames estuary exits at Bristol!
"A202" for sure this should be in the lede, see above.
Millbank Bridge: I'm not clear on why it was built. As a ready made sub in case bombers hit the VB? As a decoy? Was it actually used?
Vauxhall Bridge today. WP:HEAD says we should not repeat the name of the article in a section header. Suggest "Recent history".
That's all I have. Fine article and I look forward to supporting. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with you regarding the lead. The four paragraph limit isn't a quota that has to be filled, and there's no point going into detail just for the sake of it, especially on such a short article. The history of the bridge is far more important than the current usage.
Regarding shortening "the design and appearance of the current bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." to "the bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907.", I don't have a very strong opinion on this but mildly disagree; this would then involve a longer subsequent explanation. The design and appearance of the bridge hasn't changed; the bridge has changed (resurfacing, removal of the tram rails, pavement narrowing…).
This was the 17th and 18th century; people lived in or near their place of work (you can see the housing estate just northwest of the amusement park on the 1746 map). I've reworded the offending sentence to "With the exception of housing around the New Spring Gardens pleasure park" to make it clearer.
The Vauxhall Bridge Act empowered the company to take all profits from the tolls (e.g., they didn't have to split the profits with the local authorities, the Church, the River Commissioners et al.); from these profits, they were obliged to compensate the Battersea Bridge Company for any drop in revenues on Battersea Bridge. As those who remember the tontines on Richmond Bridge will remember, 18th and early-19th century civic funding mechanisms are based on concepts that are a bit tricky to explain to modern readers, as they're based on concepts of equity that aren't used any more; in this particular case I can't see an obvious way to explain things more clearly. Does this rewording make it clearer?
I don't see the point in spelling "the future George IV, then known as the Prince Regent" out in full. It's reasonable to assume that most readers of this will be in Britain, and know who George was; the remainder can click on the link. I agree that the name was out of place, and have moved the bit about the naming down to the "opening" section to avoid breaking the timeline.
The original bridge cost £175,000 to build. Although "only half" is a direct quote from one of the sources (Matthews) I agree it confuses the issue and have reworded it to the vaguer "far less".
Walker's report raised technical issues about the stability of the piers of Bentham's design. I can add it if you think it's warranted but it seemed too specifically technical to be of interest to most readers.
It seems that the bridge was never formally renamed and that everyone just called it Vauxhall Bridge; at any rate, I can't find a source anywhere for an official renaming. Straying into OR territory, it's probably reasonable to assume that by the time of George's death in 1830 he was so universally loathed that the bridge owners were happy to lose the connection.
I don't actually know the exact amount awarded by the 24 Good Men. The total incidental costs (building the approach roads, compensating the ferry owner and buying land on the banks) came to £122,000 (with the £175,000 building costs, bringing the total in at just under the £300k allowed), but there doesn't seem to be a breakdown anywhere in a secondary source. The figures will still exist but, quite aside from the issues with using primary sources (gasp), my dedication to the Wikipedia project does not extend to wading through 19th-century account books in the Public Record Office.
For sliding scales of tolls, I've used cheapest→ most expensive as the ordering throughout this series. Aside from anything else, this is almost always the ordering modern tollbooth signs use.
I think linking to shillings and pence is more useful than linking to Half crown (British coin). It's the unit of currency that readers are likely to need explained, not the actual design of the coin.
I've expanded slightly on why the opening of factories stopped the Vauxhall area from developing into a wealthy suburb. Regarding the northern bank, while I can expand it if you really deem it necessary, I would hope it's fairly obvious why a prison, (later replaced with a biological warfare research facility) would discourage the rich from moving there.
Not sure what you mean by "to mention what bridge travelers to/from Waterloo would use" – could you clarify? The station in this period was called Waterloo Bridge Station and was as the name suggests at the southern end of Waterloo Bridge, opposite London. Other than the (re) route of the railway line there was (and is) no particular connection between the two areas.
The diverted flow image (File:Effra vauxhall 1.jpg) is showing up for me but it may be that it's in my cache. It's only 116kb so there shouldn't be any "overwhelm the browser" size issue. Are you still having problems with it?
I've removed the second "steel". Even though it means duplication, I think the second "superstructure" is necessary to make it clear exactly what is being designed by whom ("it was decided to build a steel superstructure onto the existing piers, and a superstructure […] was designed").
Can't think of a way to rephrase the "grumbling architects" without using the word "architects" twice. It needs to be clear both who's complaining and what they're complaining about – a formulation like "Architects complained about the lact of consultation with them" would imply the complaint was "you didn't ask me", not "you didn't ask anyone". Suggestions welcome.
The north/south downstream/upstream is confusing here; although the Thames flows west-to-east, the bridge is built on a meander so at this point it's flowing north-south (see the maps). There isn't an obvious way round this short of an explanation of the type I've used on Richmond Bridge, which I was trying to avoid.
Yes, Millbank Bridge was built as a ready-made replacement should any of the bridges in the area be bombed and was just used as an "extra" bridge during the war; five were built in all. (I can't find a PD image of Millbank Bridge, but it would have looked very similar to the temporary bridge further upriver at Walton.)
Agree; retitled the section.
Think that's all of them…–iridescent 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, admire an editor who stands up for his article against kibbitzers. I may look closer at some of the things like the double architect, but see no reason to withhold support. Agree, if there's no PD photo of Millbank Bridge, let it go, might be worth having an article on it someday, key word being someday. I'll have to take a closer look at the bridges next time I am in London.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Support and comments:
Public Ownership
"Despite early setbacks and the construction in the 19th century of three nearby competing bridges" - suggest move "nearby" to after "construction".
The Metropolitan Board of Works could be abbreviated to MBW or just "the board".
London County Council and LCC are both used more than once although LCC is not defined.
The Crystal Span - I love the barking made ideas of the Glass Age Development Committee. There is an article in The Times of 27 September 1963 on the Crystal Span, including an illustration (which looks rather like someone floated the Oxford Street John Lewis store down the river). It does say that the Committee's ideas were "intended to be thought provokers only" although the Crystal Span might be economically viable. Additional facilities that are mentioned in the Times article are a parking deck for 300 cars and moving pedestrian walkways each side of the road (very Jetsons).
Recent history
There is a slight chronological disparity in that you talk about the land at the southern end of the bridge remaining empty "Following the closure of a number of the area's industries, in the 1970s and 1980s" but follow that with discussion of the 1979 Green Giant proposal which falls in the middle of the period identified earlier rather than following it. Also, Land is never really "empty", although it might be out of use.
Although they're only a sentence apart, you ought to define GLC after the use of Greater London Council.
Final paragraph: "removal of the cast-iron balustrades with low box-girder structures", For the sentence to make sense, I think "removal" should be "replacement".--DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree about "nearby"
I've tried to spell the titles out in full the first time they're used in each section, and use abbreviated forms in subsequent appearances in the same paragraph. Fixed a few that have slipped through, and clarified what the abbreviations mean
I'm nominating this article for featured article as a few of us have worked on this article and whipped it into shape; I believe it now largely meets all FA criteria.
This is an operation that took place during the early stages of the WW2 Normandy campaign and is often overlooked bar the famous battle at Villers-Bocage.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Initial comments:Support
Why are there no casualty numbers for either side? Skinny87 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Because they are unknown, to me at least. While authors provide an outline of what Perch is they do not provide casualty figures. One author does provide some figures but these are for the whole month of June and then only for a few of the British forces that were involved.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to say about that; it seems unusual that not one source gives even vague casualty figures for the operation. I don't know whether to oppose over the issue, but I'll add some more comments below.
If i was to venture a guess i would say it is because the focus of the fighting is the battle at Villers-Bocage, this is what has taken up the most pages of historians work. The vauge answer would be from Forty (which i will double check later) who does provide casualty figures but if i recall correctly that would be casualties suffered to XXX Corps forces through all of June and then not includding all formations that took part. I dont see why this should be a reason to oppose, not all battles are adquetely covered.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok this comment is bugging me, since I have been thrust into the position of having to defend the lack of professional research into this operation – that is overshadowed by the Villers-Bocage battle – here is a breakdown of the info provided by the sources I have:
Buckley - overviews the operation and mentions it throughout the book as a case study but no casualties are mentioned.
D'Este - rambles on about the whole Villers-Bocage move and consequences but doesn’t even provide casualties for the battle.
Delaforce - focuses on the 7th Arm and V-B
Ellis doesn’t provide any casualty information.
Hart informs us that at least 24,464 casualties were taken by 2nd Army during June till 3 July however this not relevant to Perch.
Forty provides end of June, so outside the scope of this article, casualty information for 7th and 50th divisions but none for other British formations involved in Perch nor German casualties.
Fortin provides 7th Arm Div casualty figures for the whole of June.
Gill and Randel basically gloss over the events in both their books
Meyer provides enough information to possibly piece together a figure for 12th SS losses but none for Pnz-Lehr.
Taylor – overviews what Perch is then doesn’t really talk about considering his book is on VB
Reynolds – provides more background info than say D'Este but likewise focuses on V-B and again doesn’t provide figures for that battle.
Wilmot focuses on V-B
So a mixture of sources from those focusing on the allied side to those focusing on the axis side neither of whom give precise information on casualties. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be 'Second World War' and not 'World War II' as it was a British/Commonwealth operation?
The first para of the introduction, and part of the second, need rewriting - it's unclear which operation Perch was a follow-on from, and which operation (Perch or its predeccessor) was called off due to German resistance.
Could you wikilink Operation Tonga in the introduction in the 'British airborne forces' sentence? It sees like the best place for it.
Done and also linked to in main text.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
'and pushed through the gap' - that doesn't really seem the right wording, 'ordered to advance through the gap' or somesuch seems more accurate and less dramatic.
'After two days of intense fighting which included the Battle of Villers-Bocage, on 14 June the division was withdrawn and the operation suspended' - Stating why this occurred would be a good idea - ie, German resistance.
'Once ashore on Gold Beach, the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division was tasked with moving rapidly inland to capture Bayeux and the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles.[2][3] Operation Perch's original purpose, decided before D-Day, was to create the threat of a British breakout to the southeast of Caen' - It might just be me, but these two sentence don't seem to go together; or if they do, they don't flow logically.
'However, two days later Caen was still firmly in German hands' - expanding slightly on why this was so would be a good idea.
A bigger problem is that in the second para of the 'Planning' section, there is seemingly no link between Perch and Wild Oats; I mean, I assume the latter was a subset of the former, but this needs to be clarified - the section is confusing as it now stands.
This section is confusing because the sources are too, both on the relation between Wild Oats and Perch and even on exactly what Perch was. I've added something in, but it may be stretching the sources too far (EnigmaMcmxc will be able to advise). EyeSerenetalk 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Notes made on Perch talk page. Should be able to address this point in the next day or so.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Believe this is now addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
'OB West, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt,' - Surely this should be 'The commander of OB West...'?
Correct, changed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
'To close the gap in the British perimeter the decision was made to secure Bréville; of the 160 men with which it began the attack, the 12th Battalion the Parachute Regiment suffered 141 casualties, but by midnight had captured the village' - I don't have Otway with me at the moment, but was the 12th the only unit sent against Breville? Either way, this needs to be rewritten to make it more clear - at the momement it reads as if the 12th's losses are just being used as an example.
Support - with the copyedit complete, everything looks good. Cam(Chat) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold I've cleaned up the SS designations (SS-Panzer is written with a hyphen by the Germans and it's Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion), added links for various units, and corrected a couple of typos. I'm concerned that none of the readily available German unit histories have been used; forex Meyer's 12th SS-Panzer Division, Ritgen's book on Panzerlehr or even the recent compilation by Steinhardt; all of which are in English. Neither Zetterling's book or website on the German OB has been consulted for OB data. And Ken Tout has done a book or two on the battle for Tilly. Without these I'm not at all sure that we've gotten an accurate account of the battle and cannot pass the FAC until their data has been incorporated. It's a lot of work, but it's needed to get both sides of the picture. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Am sorry but i feel this is a harsh reason not to pass an article when other articles have not consulted these sources; it is not like the article is solely reliant on British unit histories; the majority of books used are post war secondary sources that take into account both sides of the story. Tout’s book isn’t even on this battle, it is about the fighting for Tilly-la-Campagne - a part of Operation Totailize. Meyer’s book was consulted however it focuses on the fighting north of Caen, which this operation is not about.
If you think the article is not accurate please elaborate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the article is accurate or not, I've not read all of your bibliography or even parts of it any time recently. But I am concerned that y'all are relying on American/British/Canadian sources without checking out those from the Axis perspective. You can't rely on them to have unbiased or even comprehensive data on the Germans. While I have a great deal of respect for somebody like d'Este his book covers the entire Battle of Normandy and can necessarily only devote a few pages to this particular operation. And I don't trust Reynolds, I thought his book was a bit pro-SS. And Ellis writes almost in a total vacuum about German plans and intentions because he was too close to the war to get better information. I'm glad to see that you consulted Meyer (my own copy is in storage), but a bit surprised to hear that there wasn't much coverage this early in the campaign. I'd like to read about the Germans' perceptions, actions, and plans from their own mouths rather than filtered through Allied eyes. Have y'all looked at Dave Isby's compilations of post-war German battle reports for anything useful? What about Richard Hargreaves' The Germans in Normandy? Perhaps I am being too harsh by demanding a higher standard, but I don't think so. Not for a FAC, especially when one participant appears to have been slighted in the research. And you're completely right about the Tout book <blush>, I can only plead that my copy is in storage and it's been a couple of years since I read it. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've procured Germans in Normandy, but I'm not really familiar with the subject or the area. I'll haver a flick through and see what I can find. Skinny87 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've read through Steinhardt's book on Panzer Lehr, which is mostly a compilation of the post-war historical reports by Bayerlein supplemented by accounts from Ritgen, etc., but lacks a lot of detail on this battle. I've expanded footnote 3 to cover the controversy regarding the division's losses en-route to the battlefield. Personally I'd change the main body of the text to say that some losses were incurred en-route, moving Bayerlein's numbers to the footnote, but I'm not the primary here. I do think that Ritgen's divisional history will have more info on Lehr's participation in this battle and should be read. OCLC numbers need to be added for some books. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
When did OCLC numbers become something we "need" to have? I'm really not sure that they add anything useful in circumstances when we already have an ISBN - which, in this case, is all but one of the books, and that one is already online. Shimgray | talk | 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support A very good article in my opinion. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
One image concern as follows:
File:Perch Map.jpg: could this not be replaced with a public domain map of the area that is overlayed with original designs of the deployements based on the information from the sourced book? Could any map from the US Military Academy here not fit this purpose?
Other than that, no qualms with the other images; they are either under UK's Crown Copyrights from 1944 (thus clearing the URAA hurdle) or released by the German Federal Archive. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the link however the maps do not really give the same level of detail as the one used. While not perfect and highlighting the gap in the German lines something like File:Right Hook and VillersBocage.jpg could be used? I could just pull the image from the article and not replace it if that will resolve the issue?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you prefer the maps by the US Engineers here at LoC? They are large maps that can be zoomed in and cover June 6, 1944, up to the end of the war. This map gives a clean view of Caen and Bayeux. File:Right Hook and VillersBocage.jpg is a confusing mess of what permission the file is used as (GFDL or fair use?) and I would discourage its use. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got some free time this morning, so I'll have a go at knocking up an svg composite of the various versions linked above. EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, done that. Better? EyeSerenetalk 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry didnt get back sooner - nice one EyeSerene, beautiful work!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem - looks like I've finally worked out (with some tips from User:Jarry1250!) how to get Inkscape svg's to render correctly on WP :D If it needs any alterations, let me know. EyeSerenetalk 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ace work, EyeSerene, can you list the maps (and their links) used for your work under Source? Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No image issues. Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments for now. On the wholeSupport this tour de force is engaging and very well-written. I have a few nitpicks:
Here, led to the operation being called off we have a fused participle I think, but "led to the operation's being called off" is ugly. Could this phrase be recast?
Changed to 'foiled the operation'
There are a few occurrences of "a number of" where I think "several" would be better.
Changed
What are "local adjustments"?
Rephrased sentence
This sentence is a snake, Meanwhile, to the west, American pressure had opened up a gap in the German lines, and in an attempt to keep operations mobile the 7th Armoured Division was diverted from the combat around Tilly-sur-Seulles and ordered to advance through the gap in a flanking manoeuvre intended to force the Germans to fall back. I suggest a period after "lines" followed by "In an attempt..."
Split per suggestion
Here, After two days of intense fighting which included the Battle of Villers-Bocage - should "which" be changed to "that"? If we want to retain "which" it should be set off with a comma before it. This is done correctly several times later on.
Oops, fixed
We have "due to" a few times where "because of" would be better.
Changed
This sentence should be recast: However, this was redeemed to some extent by the fact that to contain the offensive the Germans had been forced to prematurely commit their most powerful armoured reserves in a defensive role, in which they incurred heavy losses and were unavailable for use in counteroffensive operations. Mainly to resolve the clumsy "by the fact that to contain".
Heh, I didn't like that when I wrote it :P Recast
Here, a comma is needed before "which": the British 3rd Infantry Division which landed on Sword Beach on 6 June 1944. (See above)
Fixed
We have in order to acquire - how about a simple "to acquire"?
Reworded
Another snake: Hampered by congestion in the beachhead that delayed the deployment of its armoured support, and forced to divert effort to attacking strongly held German positions along the 9.3-mile (15.0 km) route to Caen, I Corps's 3rd Infantry Division was unable to generate enough momentum to get into the town on D-Day and was stopped short of its outskirts by the 21st Panzer Division. I am not sure how this one should be killed.
Reworded
Is "codenamed" one word? I am not sure.
I believe it's one of those that can be either one word or two, but hyphenated is probably better. Changed
This might be another fused participle the drop would result in the division being too scattered to fulfil its objectives,
Reworded
Is another "was" needed in here: it was incorporated into Operation Perch and Wild Oats (was) dropped as a separate operation?
Fixed
We need to check the usage of "also"; they are rarely needed.
Removed and reworded some; others remain (please alter as you see fit!)
Here, unable to overcome the formidable resistance being offered by Panzerlehr - I think "being" is redundant.
Fixed
This sentence is difficult to fathom: Ludovic Fortin implies that in the event 51st Highland advanced alone, giving the 4th Armoured Brigade's first major combat as Operation Epsom and prior to which it was supporting the 50th Division.
Reworded
This sentence, While Harris ordered his tank into an alternative firing position, a tank-hunting party led by Major John Mogg, the acting battalion commander, finished it off. - which tank was finished off, Harris's?
That did occur at the time of writing, but I hoped it was sufficiently unambiguous. Obviously not;)
That's all from me apart from the split infinitive in "to swiftly capture". I don't mind split infinitives at all. I hope this useful and I look forward to adding my support. Graham ColmTalk 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these; will address asap. EyeSerenetalk 09:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully the above points are now sorted. EyeSerenetalk 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added my support, well done. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 17:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok i have just looked at the Operation Market Garden article that has a commons link. Now i can understand why that is there as it links to about 200 images however if one does the same for Perch it only links to the map already used in the article so i dont think it is approbriate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
External links are too brief to tell me what they lead to.
Last ref has 'self-published source?' - this needs sorting.
I have removed the tag. The article that the tag links to states:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The website author has had several books published by reliable 3rd party sources. Additionally the website provides the source material used, in this instance the author has used 'H. Ritgen, Die Gechichte der Panzer-Lehr-Division im Westen 1944-1945 (Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 1979) p. 102' The German nor the English translation is in my posession.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No they are out of date templates (as per a discussed last year on the MiLHist project talk page iirc), the WW2 portal is used in place nd there is the Normandy campaign box near the top of the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is ready for FA. I puttered on this article a few years ago before I started writing a lot of the articles that have reached FA already. This one I had to leave for many months. It makes me very depressed. Submerging myself in all its intricacies, however, helps a bit. I'm not sure what else to say about it. Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Question which I'll ask here rather than on your talk or the article's talkpage to save anyone else asking: Is "massacre" the accepted name for the event? Looking over the ever-cheerful Mass racial violence in the United States, there seem to have been a lot of more serious incidents in this period (Houston Riot (1917), Chicago Race Riot of 1919, Tulsa race riot etc) which aren't given the "massacre" title. (It's not a period I know much about, and I know nothing about how the naming of this kind of event is determined.)–iridescent 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Massacre is the accepted term for the event in history books since 1994, with the understanding that the event has only been covered in history books since 1994. The most conservative term was used by the historians who wrote the report given to the Florida Board of Regents. They called it "The Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood". Newspapers in 1923 called it a race riot, race war, or racial disturbance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Some MOS tweaking needed in the references: Sasata (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Other than the non-use of pp. for page ranges, I can't find anything to complain about. This was an especially interesting article for me to read because I remember watching that 60 Minutes bit when I was a boy, and it brought back memories of the conversation I had afterwards with my dad. Sasata (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
pages ranges should be pp., not p.
"et al" should be "et al."
the reference Jones et al, "Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida in January 1923" is repeated many times in the refs; to save many characters, just put a year instead of the full title (like Jones et al. (1993), pp. 24–25.)
In the bibliography, the author name format used (ie. Jones, Maxine, Rivers, Larry, Colburn, David, Dye, Tom, Rogers, William (1993)) makes it very hard to distinguish first and last names. Use a book citation template, or manually separate authors with a supercomma (the semicolon).
The "Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida in January 1923" source has a companion called "Appendices" that is bound separately. However, it was released in the same year, so giving the year would not clarify which source I'm using.
How about specifying them as 1993 and 1993a in the bibliography? Sasata (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I use pp. to denote skipping pages so some very helpful editor does not come along and put endashes where commas are (which has happened).
That's what the revert button is for:) Besides, it's just as likely a helpful editor will come along and change it to the correct pp. format. Sasata (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Will work on some others. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources provided by Jones, et al should be clearer by use of anchor ref links. I think I addressed everything else. The revert button, by the way, is how you get accused of owning the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be a stickler for seemingly insignificant details, but the "et al" needs to be followed by a period (it's short for et alii). Use of the revert button in the fashion I mentioned should of course be accompanied by a friendly note explaining the rationale for the revert. I'll stop talking now before I'm accused of being a MOS wonk:) Sasata (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Too late. You are branded a wonk forever. Periods added. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. You said: "I'm not sure what else to say about it." You could say that the article has been peer reviewed by several superb editors (and also by me)! Moni has– as always– done some impressive research and composition work on this article. (She even went and took some pictures for it.) The article is a thorough and well-written treatment of a hideous event in Florida history, so I vote "aye". Scartol•Tok 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
I'm pretty sure D'Orso should be alphabetized with the D's not the O's.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Haaaaaaaaaa. D'Orso in the Os...I don't know what to say on that...except that it's moved. And the hyperlink on the article is gone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - How is the "Unsung Heroes" award named for Sheriff Walker? Was his first name "Unsung"? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Why, yes. Unsung is a common name here in Florida, much like Cletus. My third cousin twice removed's sister-in-law's uncle's name is Unsung T. Bucephadiddly. The way the source refers to it is the Robert Walker Unsung Heroes Award and the John Bryce Unsung Heroes Award. I am quite happy to make that clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I peer reviewed this and find it to meet the FA criteria. Well done on yet another important topic article, Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Comments - this is an engaging, albeit disturbing, mostly well-written article; I have a few comments on the prose:
I think "incident" is too weak a word. It implies a single, distinct event. Perhaps this could be deleted from the first sentence, "was an incident of racially motivated violence", what do you think?
Here, "Although state and local authorities were aware of the violence while it took place," - I think "while it took place" is redundant", as is "for the activities in Rosewood."
Here, "To avoid lawsuits from white competitors,", I am left wondering what lawsuits and why.
I think "small-knit" should be "close-knit", but this might be because I'm English.
I don't understand the "plank" in "The village had about a dozen plank two-story homes".
Is there a word missing in this sentence "The transgression of sexual taboo combined with the arming of blacks to raise fears among whites of an impending race war in the South"?
This is not well-written:— "Northern response to the urban influx of blacks was related to their frequent use as strikebreakers".
Why the "ethnic" in "ethnic whites"?
We have "as well as" instead of a simple "and" at least three times in the article.
There is redundancy here, "Sheriff Walker deputized some of them, but was unable to initiate them all."
I think "asylum" is not quite the right word, how about "refuge"?
We have "a number of" instead of "several" at least twice.
Here, "A standoff lasted long into the next morning", should this be "The standoff..."?
Here, "none publicly acknowledged what happened", should this be "what had happened"?
This is not well-written:— "One legislator remarked that mail opposing the bill was an unprecedented ten to one."
You're right. I changed everything except for the sentence about Sheriff Walker. This was a point made in the source that logistically he was just not able to deputize every single person who came to assist in the search for Jesse Hunter. As a result, those who were not deputized were taking the law into their own hands. If you would like me to clarify that I can, but I think the distinction should be made that not everyone out searching was doing so extra-legally, but it was impossible for the sheriff to control large groups of people.
Please see the other changes I made to assess if they meet your criteria. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response Moni; I am proud to add my support. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. One minor quibble, though: What is a "pencil mill"? Is it a factory that makes pencils, or just a particular type of sawmill? (Pencil milling doesn't shed much light on the matter…)–iridescent 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yah. Makes pencils. Cedar pencils. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Who says Wikipedia isn't educational? (I used to live a couple of blocks from Dixon Ticonderoga's factory – don't think we ever called it anything but "the pencil factory" – but Google Proves Me Wrong.)–iridescent 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment "Rumors circulated that black soldiers overseas were received warmly by French women, which struck at the heart of Southern fears." Great Googly Woogly! That looks "challenged or likely to be challenged" to me. Is it a quote? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, what? Are you pointing out a citing deficiency or grammar issues? --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not only should this definitely be cited, in fact it should definitely be framed as a direct quote. It is pure opinion.
In addition, where did the bit about racial disturbances being "common" come from? Can you define "common"? You mean "widespread" or "frequent", or both? Precision is a necessity... Who says they were common? If they really were common, then many sources should say so. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem citing it, but the paragraph it is in is taken from an article that is 17 pages long. Several pages discuss the armament buildup and the effect it had on race relations. The sentences preceding the section in the paragraph that quotes the UF historian verbatim read, "Compounding white anxiety and hostility, rumors circulated in 1918 that black soldiers had been warmly received in Europe and had their way with white women in France. White militants back home warned other whites that black veterans would no longer be content with black women when they returned from Europe. Such claims by militants tapped into one of the great fears of southern white men." To quote him directly would be quoting the entire paragraph, which I don't want to do. I think the historian's statement about the importance of Southern womanhood and all that bullshit should be quoted directly. He's writing about the cause of the Rosewood massacre, attributing it to specific anxieties so his quote is very important there.
I'm kinda just blinking at your second request. Either that section is so poorly written that it is not blatantly obvious that racial conflicts were common, or .... I don't know what the disconnect is. The Racial tensions in Florida section is well-cited with excellent sources, bolstering the topic sentence that racial conflicts all through the U.S. were common. Is it your contention that the facts presented in this section do not support the statement that racial conflicts were common, widespread, and frequent?
FWIW, I'm not resisting. I want to understand what it is you want and satisfy what you're asking for. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I suggest something like the ff: Rumors circulated that French women warmly received the sexual advances of black soldiers overseas, which in historian InsertName's opinion "...tapped into one of the great fears of southern white men." As for "common," well yes, I challenge it. I'm not saying I challenge any facts herein; I'm saying "common" is far too broad and powerful a word. If you use it, you must define it, and if you define it, the word "common" becomes redundant/unnecessary. So define it or drop it. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I rephrased the issue with the historian.
As for the common issue, I can replace "common" with "widespread and frequent". But it's pretty clear to me that the section supports that racial conflicts were a way of life all over the U.S. between 1880 and 1930. Rural or urban, North, South, or Midwest, racial violence occurred in numbers that are shocking for today. I apologize here. I don't know what you want me to do in this section. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, you're gonna have to write an entire article about the fact that racial violence was "widespread and frequent... all over the U.S. between 1880 and 1930. Rural or urban, North, South, or Midwest..."; moreover you're gonna hafta back it up from top to bottom with profuse, high-quality references. Barring that, you need to drop all use of "common" or anything synonymous. We can't just say it's so without documenting it explicitly and in tremendous detail. That is a disservice to WP:V. It's also a disservice... in a strange and ironic way.. to the victims of aforesaid violence... their cause is better served by watertight documentation than by broad assertions that we have not yet gotten around to carefully supporting. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm really confused here and I don't know why. I think this section summarizes both the national and local atmospheres that led to the eruption in Rosewood. It shows that there were widespread (23 cities in one year! Christ, the mob hanged the mayor of Omaha when he tried to intervene in a lynching in 1919) racial conflicts, that the Klan was going through a major renaissance, and the state government of Florida ignored race problems (21 lynchings within a political term) and by doing so made them worse. A governor ran and won! on a platform of white supremacy. In U.S. history, this is... this appears to me to be as given as saying there was massive social upheaval in the workforce between 1941 and 1945. Florida had one of the worst records of lynchings of any state or territory in the U.S. and it was not particularly noteworthy at the time. The only folks making a fuss about it were in the newly established NAACP. I think this section establishes quite well that Florida's problems were not remarkable, while at the same time staying focused on the events to follow.
There are numerous articles already written and of varying quality that address the race problems in the U.S. during this time, and some of them are linked from this section. How do you suggest that for this article, the Rosewood massacre, I have to write another article to satisfy this issue? It defies logic. Am I completely misunderstanding what your point is? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I seem to have overlooked the text in which you established that racial attacks were both widespread and frequent throughout the US, and throughout the time period (a long one) you gave. Please point that text out to me. Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the article as currently written does a fine job of establishing the shameful history of racial violence in the US and Florida at the time (shameful is my opinion, article is NPOV). I also think the language and refs are fine in this respect. Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ruhrfisch, in my view Ling's criticism is not valid. There is nothing in this well-referenced and neutral article that can be seriously challenged. Racialism is a true, and yes, a shameful part of American—and British—history; it's not fair to expect Moni and this article to re-establish and re-verify facts that no historian would contest. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Racial tensions in Florida" section is very well done. It clearly establishes that Florida was a hotbed of racial violence ca. 1920. I appreciate the good research and good writing. However, your WP:LEDE says "Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States." You mention the entire US plus the whole of the early 20th century. The only thing I see to support this extremely strong assertion is a link to Red Summer of 1919. That incident covers only a set of incidents (possibly causally linked) in the summer and autumn of 1919, and hardly warrants the sweeping language that you employ.
However, I wonder if you guys are beginning to mistake me for some sort of race-issue troll. No, there's a very clear difference between "anal" and "asshole", and while I confess to the possibility that the former may describe me, I humbly suggest that the latter does not.:-) Ling.Nut (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out additional links. I'm splitting my time between editing Wikipedia and trying to abuse a research paper until it sufficiently approximates a publishable state; the former is suffering, as I skim/scan. However, I still see three links to violence in three places in 1919; that hardly justifies painting the entire US throughout the entire early 20th century as a land of lynchings... Ling.Nut (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out - I do not see "racial disturbances" as being limited to lynchings, but I will leave this to Moni3 to resolve. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, darlin', I don't think you're an asshole. I just want to understand what you want changed. The first footnote is a categorization of the types of racial violence by historian David Colburn. Lynchings were more common in the South. Riots or flashes of violence against entire communities were more common in the North. I can take that out of the footnote to place it in full text. I can mention some of the other Northern-type riots (Tulsa, Houston, etc) in the years around the Red Summer of 1919. I can change the wording of "racial disturbances" in the lead to "racial violence". I have no problem establishing that racially motivated violence in all its forms was indeed common, widespread, and frequent. I have to understand what your objection is before I can change anything, however. I'm getting a glimmer now, but our exchange yesterday may have turned into one on the Tower of Babel. Am I closer to what you want? --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Some changes made. Don't look for that footnote because I put it in text. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Comment Taylor-Bradley-Carrier. Taylor was the white woman; Bradley was her white lover; Carrier was a black guy who in an act of infinite stupidity helped Bradley. Dogs followed Bradley's trail to Carrier's house; Carrier gets lynched. Is that more or less correct? You... left the white man unnamed all through the Taylor story, even calling him "the man"... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Taylor was the white woman, right. Bradley was her white lover, according to the historians' report delivered to the Florida Board of Regents (there was also a black family named Bradley in Rosewood, with one named John, for extra confusion). The white Bradley went to the home of Aaron Carrier who solicited assistance from Sam Carter; both were Masons. It is the testimony and stories from black survivors that the white John Bradley went to Carrier's home because he knew him to be a Mason as Sam Carter was. Aaron Carrier and Sam Carter, according to survivors' stories, would have lended aid to any Mason who requested it regardless of race, although similar consideration would probably not have been given to any blacks in similar trouble. The structure of the section is the way you described it. Are there questions or clarifications you are requesting? --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the structure is misleading. The earlier paragraphs lead one to believe that no one knew the identity of the white man (Bradley, Taylor's lover). Later paragraphs reveal it. This info should be revealed earlier. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because this relatively short article about the outermost large Uranian moon, in my opinion, fully satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I helped out a bit on this article, but its finally ready for a FA star. I might or might not add further comments. ceranthor 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I also contributed to the article somewhat, but I too will offer my support. Serendipodous 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty good... but there are still some points which need work - mostly minor, but one or two larger ones:
What effect does being outside the magnetosphere for part of its orbit have on Oberon? Sure, you can find some info by clicking the links, but spelling it out in brief here may be useful.
Composition and internal structure: The presence of water ice is supported by spectroscopic observations, which have found crystalline water ice on the surface of the moon. Observations haven't found anything; the observers have. "indicated", "revealed", or something similar may be a better verb here.
Water ice absorption bands are stronger on Oberon's trailing hemisphere, opposite to what is observed in other Uranian moons, where the leading hemisphere exhibits - the use of "opposite" here is a little nitpickingly ungrammatical (though "the opposite" would be passable), as are the switch of preposition from "on Oberon" to "in the other moons and the switch from plural to singular ("moons", "hemisphere") " - perhaps something like "...unlike those which have been observed on other Uranian moons, whose leading hemispheres exhibit..." Even then, it's a bit of a run-on sentence and may need splitting in two. An alternative structure might be to change the comma after hemisphere to a full stop and reworking the rest of the passage into a second sentence. (e.g., "Water ice absorption bands are stronger on Oberon's trailing hemisphere. This is the opposite of what is observed on other Uranian moons, whose leading hemispheres exhibit...")
...knock out ice from the surface (comma) leaving...'
Oberon's internal structure is dictated by its composition. It may be differentiated into a rocky core surrounded by an icy mantle.[19] The radius of the core (480 km) is about 63% of the radius of the moon, and its mass is around 54% of the moon’s mass. This needs some work. The first sentence is either blindingly obvious or there is more to it which needs a little explanation, though this may be alleviated by improvements to the rest. The second sentence says it may be differentiated, but the third provides some pretty precise figures for how it is differentiated. These contradicting statements need to be reconciled.
Surface features and geology: I'd suggest a link to opposition surge, but this appears to be a redlink - the term may need some further explanation, though, either in this article or as its own (stubby) article.
Are there any theories worth mentioning on why the surface is red except for the blue areas of fresh impact craters? If so, they also need mentioning.
Why is it the most heavily cratered of the moons? Theories? Is it connected with it being the outermost of the main moons? Some form of explanation is needed, even if just to say that we don't know why.
Origin and evolution: How do scientists reconcile the water-poor nature of the subnebula with the theory that Oberon "consists of roughly equal proportions of water ice and a dense non-ice component"? see note below
Is it likely to be still cryovolcanically active? Is there any evidence one way or the other? Or is any activity likely to have stopped billions of years ago?
POSSIBLE MISSING SECTION - you mention Voyager 2 - have there been any other craft to have passed close to Oberon, and if not, are there plans for more which would be able to provide more information about it?
Links etc: Checklinks suggests a few problems, including one link that may be dead, one with an access issue (registration only) and one which has a missing access date. I'll leave details of whether they're formatted correctly to someone who knows better about those things, but those three things do need looking at. see note below
Both water ice and hemisphere are linked to dab pages rather than to the appropriate articles.
Some quick work going on here - that's more than half the points covered already... Grutness...wha?
BTW, I've created a short article on opposition surge, so that there's no redlink in the Oberon article. I'd appreciate it if someone who has a more thorough knowledge of astronomy than me (such as you...) could check it out to make sure I've made no schoolboy bloopers... Grutness...wha? 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugger. An article on the phenomenon already existed at opposition effect (which seems to be the older term for it). Looks like a merge is in order... Grutness...wha? 08:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the article about opposition surge, which I should have created long ago. I added explanation about the influence of the magnetosphere on satellites. I also added a sentence saying that the endogenous activity ceased long ago. As to "water poor", I only meant that as compared to Saturn's satellites, which like Tethys with density of 0.97 g/cm3 may contain significantly more water than 50%, the moons of Uranus are depleted in water. The registration only link displays the first page of the paper. So, it is useful. The dead link is in External links section. I will wait a few days: if it remains dead, I will remove it. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for the quick work! I'd say that this is a short but impressive article, and assuming the problems with the dead (or otherwise) link are tidied up, and assuming that the references are all formatted correctly (something I know very little about, I'll admit), I see no reason why I can't support this for FA. It might still be worth explaining the "relatively water-poor" line with a direct comparison to Tethys or one of Saturn's other moons, but conversely that might unduly weight that section, so I'm happy enough with it left out. As far as the opposition surge article is concerned, although I only wrote a small article, it looks a little bigger than (and largely complementary to) the previously existing opposition effect. I'm not sure which way any merging should go, though, so I'll leave it to someone who has more knowledge of the subject. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the dead link and added a note with a direct comparison to Tethys. Ruslik (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
...in which case, my support is confirmed, though it would be as well to get a citation gnome to check that part of the article. Grutness...wha? 10:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Commentsaaah, another moon. OK let's go Well doen. Prose is much more polished with this one than some of the others I have read. Good work. Fixing below is a bonus...Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
although they were subsequently revealed as erroneous - erg, I know what you mean by the sentence, and can't help thinking there must be a better word than 'erroneous' here, but I can't think of what...not a deal-breaker but food for thought.
Thanks. I replaced 'erroneous' with 'spurious'. Ruslik (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review: replaced the GIF with a JPG version; both images are now fine, being federal works. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I replaced nineplanets with a book source. Ruslik (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Nine planets might make a nice external link (It was borderline as a ref, so it's fine as an external link) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for an advice. I added it to the external links. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support—I gave it a complete read through and it seems to be in good shape with no significant omissions that I could find. It would be nice to know more about the dark material that flooded the larger craters, but I understand why that isn't expanded upon. The one item that you might consider mentioning is the recent first-ever observation of mutual eclipses between the moons of Uranus, including Oberon. It's a curiosity at least, because of the orbital alignment. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a couple of sentences. Ruslik (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I went through this article a while ago, and now it looks ready for FA. Still, try to fix the note 4 font size consistency. Nergaal (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Excellent article. Since List of geological features on Oberon is so short, could it be merged into this main article? As Oberon (moon) is only 25k and the sublist is only 1k, there's no length problem. Some of that info is even already combined. Reywas92Talk 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I will think about merge. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I merged the list into the article. Ruslik (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Support You astronomers have done another great job! I see no other problems with the article. Reywas92Talk 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Great stuff. –Juliancolton|Talk 23:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Is there a good reason for 87% of the refs in the References section to include a nonfunctional backlink? For example, 1c, 2f, 3e, 4l, 5d, and every "b" from 7 to 16; 6, 20, 25, and 28 seem to be the only exceptions. Anomie⚔ 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a result of the use of {{Source list}} template. I wanted to solve one old problem with references: they tend to clutter wiki-text making it unreadable. This template allows creation of an invisible list of references at the end of an article. This method has its own price, of course—nonfunctional backlinks, which actually link to the invisible list of references. So, as a result of this innovation the article has the clean wiki-text with only short ref tags in it at a relatively low price of a number of strange backlinks, which are unlikely to be noticed. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So we're having broken links that will confuse any reader who does notice them in order to make the wikitext slightly less "cluttered" for editors? Anomie⚔ 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Links are not broken. They are just not functioning, and therefore they are not confusing. In addition, these backlinks are pointless for readers—they are only useful for the editors, who want to track where a particular source is used. Before the cite extension was created the reflists did not contain backlinks at all. Ruslik (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You have an interesting definition of "not broken" there, and I question your assumption that no readers care about any references enough to want to see what statements are supported by them. Also, BTW, "there were no backlinks until we got the improved software" is an entirely unconvincing argument. But enough of this; I pointed out an issue with the reference links on the page, you obviously don't care, and if those in charge want to promote it as Wikipedia's "best work" despite the issue that's up to them. Anomie⚔ 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never said that I do not care, but I do not known a simple solution either. If you have something to propose I will be grateful. Ruslik (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just the obvious suggestion: Don't do that, do it the normal way. And try to convince the devs to fix T7997, T14796, and/or T17724 which will let you do something like this without breaking things. Anomie⚔ 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support My only concerns are that it does contain some quite short sentences and I think it could do with one last copy edit to ensure that the article completely flows. The article is short and sweet, are you certain this article is as comprehensive as possible given the length?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am pretty sure that the article is comprehensive. The current knowledge about Oberon is quite limited. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought, about a moon of a planet that far away. It's a very concise article and in my own view a very readible and informative one as a lot of article on here tend to ramble on and on rather than having a complete focus. The way an encyclopedia article should be. Good work.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It's good to see the surface featured now listed in the article, but - although it would lengthen the article - it might be easier on the eye and brain if they were listed vertically rather than horizontally (that is, the names down the left hand side, with columns for origin, size, etc). That is, I'm sure, the standard way of doing such lists on Wikipedia.Grutness...wha? 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated the table. Ruslik (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GA status (one important hurdle), meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, and is presently being copyedited by two of the most outstanding members of the Guild of Copyeditors, User:Baffle gab1978 and User:Scapler. With their work, the prose will be that much more brilliant!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Good stuff. Thanks for letting me know.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: No shortage of footnotes certainly, but the overt desire to provide sources for every and each assertion backfires in that the text remains largely descriptive, with some heavily referenced passages even appearing somewhat synthetical, while the general line of reasoning often appears to be rather abruptly changing direction. Since the origins of the Han bureaucracy actually lay in the Qin administrative system, the first imperial dynasty, their inclusion would be detrimental for understanding the Han development. Although I am not much into format and lay-out questions, I found the long lists rather unhelpful in a featured candidate, more so since there is little explanation attached to them (esp. the 1st). Also, links in the lead like volunteer army are unnecessarily provided again below. Finally, the references appear decidedly outdated, not a single monograph on the topic included which was published later than the 1980s. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Uh, given that this is written about a subject 1800-2200 years ago scholarly sources which were written on the subject merely 20-30 years ago are still completely credible. It shouldn't matter if the book was written in 1908 or 2008 they are all obviously inciteful books into this subject. Often the best books on subjects like this are indeed older. The sources shouldn't be considered "dated" unless therehas been anumber of completely new discoveries or something which make the old books redundant.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having the same link in the lead section and then again in the article's main body. However, it is against Wiki guidelines to repeat links in the main body of text. The lead and main body are considered separate in this regard. Wikipedia:Linking states (bolding my own emphasis): "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" I rest my case.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, could you point out where these "long lists" are? I can't seem to find them. Are you referring to the tables I constructed for salaries and then military officer titles? I wouldn't mind getting rid of the military officer titles; it does seem a bit extraneous. But the salary table is actually quite helpful and illustrative of what is found in the text of that particular section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point about the Qin Dynasty, although to be fair to myself, I did mention the Han inheriting aspects of the Qin system in the sections "Provincial Authorities" and "Kingdoms, Marquisates, and Fiefs of Princesses" in this article. To address this point of yours, which I think is a very serious one, I have recently added two new paragraphs to the article which clarify Qin's role as a model for Han's imperial system of government. I also made a counter point to this to show how Han's imperial system was different from that of Qin's. I believe this should be sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Does a source's publication in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s make it an unusable source? That sounds a bit unreasonable. Especially since the topic is about an ancient government that existed two millenniums ago. Also, are you sure you thoroughly checked the dates of the sources that I used? From a quick glance I see Crespigny (2007), Chang (2007), Di Cosmo (2002), and Wagner (2001), although I will admit that their books did not focus solely on the Han government. However, Crespigny devotes a lot of space in his book to a section on government, and I cited Crespigny as heavily as Bielenstein and Wang. Moreover, I found no discrepancies between older sources and Crespigny's on any overlapping points covered. <Sarcasm> Older sources be damned if they are not reliable anymore! I think we should follow Gun Powder Ma's lead on this and purge everything at Wikipedia which cites a source dated before 1990. That ought to eliminate half of Wikipedia's content, but only the bad half, according to him. </Sarcasm> Lol. However, in light of your concern, I just cited a few new sources in the article: Loewe (1994), Ebrey (1999), Hansen (2000), Hinsch (2002), and Csikszentmihalyi (2006). Are these sources new and fresh enough for you? They even have that "new book smell" still. Hah.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You write: "the text remains largely descriptive". Oh come, come now. We've been over this before. Read the article again; you will find an appropriate balance of description and analysis. Gasp! Yes, I said it: analysis. I came prepared this time since I knew you would bring this up once again. You cannot argue that there is a lack of analysis in the article; I go into thorough detail about power structure, authority, the purpose behind each official's role, and the level of interaction and competing interests amongst certain officials (and even eunuchs), not merely a bare-bones job description of the emperor and each official and officer. Just to be safe, I also added further analysis about the emperor's religious role and the Mandate of Heaven (as discussed in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty already). In regards to my desire to see other reviewers' input on the matter, it's like that old saying goes: "Doctor, no offense, but I'd like to get a second opinion." In other words, I'll get a diagnosis of this article from another doctor, thank you very much.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments Not quite finished reading, but it looks very good. A couple comments:
In tables of data, I'd rather see a footer row with the source than a footnote in the header. See this done in saffron.
Point of clarification: You write that the Emperor could appoint officials who made 600-shi or higher, and then later that the Chancellor could appoint those making 600-shi and below. This leaves an overlap right at the 600-shi level. Could either of them appoint, then?
Yes, both the Chancellor and Emperor could appoint an official at the 600-shi level; the only difference is who gets to appoint officials of higher or lower salary rank (which you've already pointed out).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the method used in saffron. However, it uses the Harvard citation style, which is not the model used in this article. Any suggestions? Should I write out the entire source at the bottom instead of just having a footnote?--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point. In that case, maybe the footnote is more appropriate. I just happen to like seeing the source of tabular data right there instead of having to click a footnote. --Laser brain(talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, it is beautifully-written and a fine addition to the others in the series. The use of wikilinks seems appropriate. --Laser brain(talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article! And giving it a clean bill of health.;)--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. The article well-written and thoroughly researched to relevant, reliable sources, including modern ones. The wikilinks are appropriately used and the article is interesting throoughout as well as complying with the MoS and FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Another gem from one of our best writers. This is the sort of article who want to throw in the face of Jorge Cauz everytime he dismisses wikipedia as "amateurish". My only concerns are the relevance of some of the images. They are all beautiful but in parts some of them seem unrelated to the text. Most of them seem OK though.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you Ricardiana and Blofeld for reviewing the article! I'm glad that you both enjoyed the read.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - An excellent, well-referenced article filled with all of the information and analysis anyone could ever want on this subject. However, the table of military titles at the end seems like a bit much. Have you considered removing it?--Danaman5 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have (see above), and you know what? I will. Right now. Thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And poof! The annoying table is magically gone! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose due to niggling image issues that need to be resolved before passing:
File:OrdosRegion.jpg: move this to Wikipedia as {{PD-1923}}. Copyrights of joint-works subsist till the last living person and Robert Sterling Clark has not died more than 70 years.
Seguin has informed me that Jacquet is his brother and they will be sending an OTRS to take care of this.Jappalang (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Wu Family Shrine chariots and horses.jpg: need the advice of others. The source (the carvings from this rubbing is made from) is in public domain, but I wonder if the rubbing (derivative as it can be) can gain a degree of copyright through creative applications of pressure during the rubbing... I am not certain either if rubbings qualify for PD-Art (after all the original work is 3D). Brought up for discussion at commons:Village pump#Copyright status of rubbings?.
Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I got rid of the Ordos Desert map image, fixed the description and source name in the cavalry picture, replaced the Terracotta Army picture with a better version, and I will wait and see about the Cernuschi Museum OTRS, as well as what others say about rubbings. However, in the meantime I have replaced the Cernuschi image and removed the rubbing picture. I believe that addresses each one of your concerns.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Per removal/replacements of those images, the article's images are now fine—verifiably in public domain or licensed. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the second nomination. Since the first nomination the article has been significantly streamlined in response to concerns that it was overly-detailed and had too many quotations. It has also undergone GA and had a second peer review. The prose has been improved and I believe it now meets FA standards. Will Bebacktalk 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. All non-free images meet the WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
The Eck reference needs the link formatted with a title.
Done.
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references (I noted UPI, but there may be others)
Done.
I take it the Maharaj Ji A Very Big Little Mystery ref is self-published? It doesn't have a publisher listed.
Done.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed these three issues.Will Bebacktalk 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The following refs are duplicated, and appear in the ref section more than once, use a ref name instead [found with WP:REFTOOLS]
{{Harvnb|Rawson|1973}}
{{Harvnb|Mangalwadi|1977|p=219}}
{{harvnb|United Press International|1976}}
{{harvnb|Greenfield|1975| p=87}}
{{Harvnb|Collier|1978|p=176}}
{{harvnb|Greenfield|1975| p=275}}
{{harvnb|Downton|1979| p=189}}
{{harvnb|McDonald|1999|pp=85–86}}
{{harvnb|Lane|2004|p=75}}--Truco 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've caught all of those. Thanks for finding them. Will Bebacktalk 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting article. The text does not match the sources:
"Both the Western and Indian branches have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973.[1][2]"
One source is from 2007 and the other from 2000, and both seem to be Indian-based organizartions Pergamino (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
At the time of the split, the Indian branch was controlled by Satpal Rawat while the Western branch was controlled by Prem Rawat. However Prem Rawat went on to create an organization in India, so perhaps it'd be more logical to refer to the branches by their heads, or simply say "both branches". I've gone ahead and done the latter.Will Bebacktalk 03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was not referring to that only. Is the "have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973" in these sources? Where? Pergamino (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In one instance follow this link: . You can see files related to celebrations of the festival in 2008 and 2008. The other source is off-line, if I recall correctly. Will Bebacktalk 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the source about "since 1973"? That was what I am referring to. I suggest removing it unless there is such a source. Pergamino (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
2008 is later than 1973. I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you explain better what the problem is with the assertion? Will Bebacktalk 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Both the Western and Indian branches have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973 seems to imply continuity of these celebrations, which is not what the source says. That was what threw me when I read it. No big deal, thought, I'm sure you can fix it by making it explicit that the source says 2008. Pergamino (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's hear if others find this confusing too. I think listing a single year would be a mistake since that would imply that was the only year in which it had been celebrated. It was an annual festival before 1973, and by appearance it's still celebrated annually, though we don't have a source that says so explicitly. Will Bebacktalk 04:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* I don't think that "by appearance" is an argument worth discussing when the discussion is about the source that was used to make the statement in the text. Is either in the source, or it isn't. Pergamino (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The source shows that the festival has been celebrated again since 1973, which is exactly what the article says. Will Bebacktalk 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Going in circles? I do not see the need to repeat myself. Pergamino (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The text seems clear enough. BTW, here's another source for the festival being an annual event even after 1973: Will Bebacktalk 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This needs reviewing:
According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.[3][41][18][45] Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure,[116] a fiasco,[117] a major setback,[11] a disastrous rally,[118] a great disappointment,[119] and a "depressing show unnoticed by most".[64] A
I read that the ET and the levitation were half-jest comments, and saying that the expectations were about ETs and levitation is strange. The "Journalists and scholars called" sentence, seems selective. Were there other comments, or just these? Pergamino (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You are reading the text incorrectly, or perhaps it needs to be made clearer. Some of the people repeating the assertions about ETs did so in "half jest". But others did so seriously. There were many comments about the festival. The section contains others as well. Will Bebacktalk 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It does not read right. When I came across that sentence, I had to go back and re-read, because it seemed strange. Seems like a conclusion that mixes apples and oranges. Anyway, I'm sure you can fix it. Pergamino (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Which are the apples and which are the oranges? I don't see how this is confusing. Will Bebacktalk 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"A frequently repeated prediction, attributed to Maharaj Ji, was that the Astrodome would levitate.[3][52][53] Davis and others made often-reported predictions, repeated in half-jest, that extraterrestrials would attend.[51][54][42] Bal Bhagwan Ji said, if people saw any aliens, they should just give them some DLM literature.[50] "
For the 1st sentence there are three sources:
Levine, Richard (March 14, 1974), "Rock me Maharaji - The Little Guru Without A Prayer"
The spiritual supermarket - Robert Greenfield
Boyle, Deirdre - Subject to change: guerrilla television revisited
I can only find a mention about levitation in the last source. The second sentence is about "half-jest" comments. The last sentence, is sourced to this text in the New York Times article: "When the word was passed that extraterrestrial creatures in U.F.O.'s would be visiting the Astrodome, it was Bal Bhagwan ji who said, 'if you see any, just give them some of our literature.'" Basically, all these are tongue-in-cheek and not "predictions", hence my point about the need to revise this.Pergamino (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You've read all three sources? You seem very familiar with this topic. Will Bebacktalk 04:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The sources are easily found via Google and Google books. I still believe that the sentence is flawed. Pergamino (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that discussions of this type are better suited to the article talk page. Will Bebacktalk 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread to discuss the levitation sourcing: Talk:Millennium '73#Levitation sources. If, after discssion there, there are any outstanding questions we can leave a note here. Will Bebacktalk 07:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I see, this thread is just to support or oppose and that thread is for discussions? Pergamino (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read the sources or not? All the Google seems to have for the Greenfield book is what they call "snippet" view. I'm not sure how you can really question a source based on reading a couple of lines. Anyway, that kind of discussion is better suited o the article talk page. Will Bebacktalk 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's discuss the details of the sourcing of that assertion on the article talk page so we don't fill up this page with back and forth that makes it harder for other reviewers. Will Bebacktalk 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - The article, which now comes for consideration before FAC as a twice-peer reviewedWP:GA, is an improvement upon the version that was considered for FA in its first FAC. It flows well, and comprehensively describes the sequence of events before, during, and after the festival. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Interesting article but I'm puzzled by some of the style choices, conclusions, and overall presentation. I addition to the objections I have already explained:
In doing a quick search in Google Books, I find 150 books for "maharaj ji millennium". The sentence in the "Afterwards" subheading I have objected to, does not include other opinions, such as Miller's, Melton's, Bauman,'s Guiley's, Felton's, Barker's, and others. I could ascribe this to poor research or something else, but basically the presentation seems to be selective.
Who are Bauman, Guiley, and Felton and why should their views be included? Will Bebacktalk 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Many paragraphs read poorly, for example the subheading on "Debt" and "Impact" is not prose, but staccato bullet points. Any student of History will know a paper written this poorly will be rejected. Are wikipedia standards any lesser? Not according to this: Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria ("(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" I'd say this article fails miserably here (with the exception of the lead which is well-written)
I'd be surprised if this article would recieve a failing grade if submitted as a history class paper, but I'll see if I can smooth out the prose in those sections. They certainly aren't arranged as bullet points. Will Bebacktalk 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Read these aloud and you will see what I mean. These are bullet points strung together, no flow, no prose. A guaranteed failing grade. Pergamino (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the value in reporting that a sign said "don't run", or " You will sit in your assigned places, please"? That's another puzzling choice.
This was extensively discussed previously. The signboard was mentioned by many observers and it was called it among the most important communication channels at the event. A number of phrases are quoted in secondary sources. We had more before but reviewers asked to have fewer quotations. Will Bebacktalk 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a trivial thing that is irrelevant, unless "Please take your seats" has some unexplained esoteric connotations. Pergamino (talk)
Levitation "predictions" sourced to Boyle's Subject to Change: Guerrilla Television Revisited" (PDF available in the Reference subheading) describes devotees as "pathetically seeking stability and guidance in the guru's fold." I'd say that without the context of Boyle's negative view of the subject, that claim has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Is this an isolated instance? I don't really know.
Boyle was published by the Oxford University Press and is a reliable source. Are you suggesting adding her view of the followers to the article? We already have several views of the followers, but I suppose we could squeeze in another. Will Bebacktalk 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that you can't dis-associate a source from its views. Pergamino (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you see anything that needs to be fixed to achieve FA status then please be specific. I believe it already qualifies, but it's always possible to miss something. Will Bebacktalk 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This type of article is not my cup of tea, so I'll leave this at the discretion of these that are interested to pursue its development further. Pergamino (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
When we narrow the search at Google Books to not simply "maharaj ji millennium" (which may also include many sources not discussing specifically this event, but could also include discussions of Prem Rawat in books that more generally discuss other new religious movements/cults in the context of Millennialism), but instead search a tighter "Maharaj Ji" "Millennium '73", the results decrease to 44 hits. This article, due to the excellent work by Will Beback, already references material from over double that many sources. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a numbers game. More is not always best, and quantity of citations does not necessarily imply quality when assessing a paper or article. My objections stand. Rather that pat the author (authors?) on the back, feedback should be accepted with some humility; after all, defending a poorly written paper does not do the authors any favors. Pergamino (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of the books Google finds are not about this festival, have only very brief mentions of it, or are not reliable sources. Are there any sources that Pergamino thinks need to be added? Please be specific so that the problem can be addressed. Will Bebacktalk 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
@Pergamino(talk·contribs) - Respectfully disagree, the primary author of the article has done a tremendous job and deserves some praise indeed. And also respectfully disagree as to the writing quality of the article, which is quite good. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this review process designed to praise authors of articles? I though that it was designed as an opportunity for critique. If the writing quality is good in your opinion, obviously our standards differ, particularly if you consider the prose to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." which I believe is not. Pergamino (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I do believe the prose quality is of a high standard for FA consideration. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Compare with Slavery_in_ancient_Greece. Now, that fits the qualifier.You can actually read and enjoy the flow and the content, not here I'm afraid. Pergamino (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could give specific examples as to how to better improve the article's already high level of prose quality even further. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you consider the prose to be of high quality, then no specific examples would help you. Anyway, read the lead, and when the article reads with the same ease, then you will be done. Pergamino (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately if you are unwilling to give specific examples as to how to further improve the article's prose, then we cannot address your concerns. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This idea of "provide specific examples" is unworkable when there is so much that is wrong. Just read the "Debt" and "Impact" subheadings, for example. Pergamino (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you honestly saying those subsections should be deleted? And if so, why had you not raised these concerns previously on the article's talk page, but instead are making these comments now in the FAC? The "Debt" and "Impact" of the event are incidents that are highly reported on in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. If you disagree with the sources' analysis, perhaps this is unfortunately more an issue of the individual user's assertion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as opposed to a NPOV discussion of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My comments were not about the sources, but about the prose, which is atrocious in these sub-headings. An author that is working on the Han Dynasty article who posted on my home page, spoke of a team of copyeditors that have formed a Guild of Copyeditors. Maybe you can ask them to help you with the prose. Aanother Guild that deals with source verification may be also available, but I'm not sure. Pergamino (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've copy-edited the "Debt" and "Impact sections. If there are still any problems please point them out. Will Bebacktalk 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Pergamino, could you please provide a set of examples, so the nominator(s) can get an idea of what needs to be done? –Juliancolton|Talk 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Delete as irrelevant "You will sit in your assigned places, please" and "Attention, Attention/Please do not run and dance" from the sub-heading "Stage, signs, and effects". Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how familiar you are with the topic, but the relevnce of this material is established by the secondary sources. Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
2. The lead reads: "The following year, the movement split into branches headed by brothers Bal Bhagwan Ji in India and Maharaj Ji in the West." But under the "Impact" subheading it reads:
"Disagreements between Maharaj Ji and his family lead to the movement being split between a Western branch, led by Maharaj Ji, and an Indian branch, run by his mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji."
Which one is correct? What was the mother's role? Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The mother and elder brother are sometimes credited with running the pre-split DLM, with the younger brother as the spiritual leader and "Perfect Master". As part of the split, the mother said the younger brother was no longer the Perfect Master and gave that title to the elder brother. However the younger brother insisted that he was still the Perfect Master. So each brother became the spiritual head of a branch. The "Indian" branch was (and still is) headed by the elder brother, and it was initially run with help from the mother. Both sentences are correct. Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
3. This paragraph:
"Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure,[113] a fiasco,[114] a major setback,[11] a disastrous rally,[115] a great disappointment,[116] and a "depressing show unnoticed by most".[63] According to one scholar, James T. Richardson, the event left the movement "in dire financial straits and bereft of credibility".[117] Religious scholar Robert S. Ellwood wrote that Maharaj Ji's "meteoric career collapsed into scandal and debt" after the event.[118]"
It's the job of a lead to summarize the details of the text in an article. These are the details. If we summarized it by saying that "the festival was called a dismal failure by many scholars and journalists", then there'd probably be a complaint that we were engaging in WP:SYNTH. As for the other sourfces you suggest, Miller says followers were disappointed, which we already say. York calls it a "financial disaster", which seems repetitive but we could include it too if you think it's necessary. The Jet magazine page is an advertisement for the album Eric Mercury recorded at the festival. That would be a primary source and even so it doesn't seem to say anything useful. As for the complaint that the only one journalist is quoted despite being a plural, we can add another journalist's viewpoint. Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It still reads like a "pile-on". You can summarize by saying that there is a consensus that the festival was a failure. Pergamino (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a source that says there was a consensus. What we can do is show readers the general agreement among sources, aling with other views, if any, and let them decide for themselves. While we don't have any sources that called the event a success, that doesn't mean they don't exist, so making a generalizations isn't as good as simply listing the opinions given. It doesn't take much room in this instance. Will Bebacktalk 08:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You can show the general agreement without the sentence reading as a pile on. For example, the intro presents this consensus in a simple manner that can be expanded in that sub-heading. e.g. "Scholars and journalists generally depicted the event as a failure and a disappointment." Pergamino (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The intro summarizes the details that are in the text. If it seems like a "pile-on" then maybe that's because it was a "pile-on" - every source that makes a comment says that it was a failure. I think that, for the length of the overall article, this isn't too much space to devote to the assessments of outsiders. There is only a short paragraph on the topic so it isn't excess weight. Will Bebacktalk 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If every source that makes a comment says that it was a failure.... it makes my point that can be summarized. Similar points were made on the previous discussion. You can also check comments by Pichpich and Vasyanna in that discussion. Pergamino (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that in the previous discussion. Pichpich made a separate point about the sentence, which was altered to address his point. Vassyana made a general point about reducing the number of quotations, which we also addressed. Anyway, in this sentence and paragraph we show readers what scholars and journalists said about the festival. We do so briefly and with a neutral point of view. I don't think there's a significant problem with this material from a policy angle. Will Bebacktalk 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What I was referring was the reported inability of being receptive and the self-serving defence of the text which was observed by other people as well. What is the point of this discussion? Pergamino (talk)
I'm not sure what the point of your comments is. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the article meets the featured article criteria. Will Bebacktalk 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
4. This paragraph:
According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.[3][18][40][44]
This paragraph produces four sources, from "journalist and others" (which others?) but seems to be paraphrased from one source (The Texas Monthly "God Goes to the Astrodome"):
" There were no levitations or other miracles, no visitations from extraterrestrial believers, and—for those of us whose expectations were more mundane—not much excitement and little substantive content.
Basically, if the Texas Monthly made that comment it needs to be attributed and quoted, otherwise it means that the conclusion is attributed to all four sources.
Also, as I said before, that sentence conflates two disparate aspects, one of expectations, and other of rumors and tongue-in-cheek comments. Apple and oranges. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The several sources agree with one another that there were no ETs and that the Astroome did not levitate, nor did world peace break out. This is hardly a contentious assertion, so three sources seems like more than enough. Are there any sources to the contrary? Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
5. This paragraph:
Repeating accusations he had been making through the summer, Krassner said that the movement was part of a CIA-directed conspiracy.[3][49][107][108] He called it a neo-Fascist discipline and said Maharaj Ji was a mystic hired to seduce the youth movement into oblivion.[109] Krassner said Guru Maharaj Ji was the spiritual equivalent of Mark Spitz.[106]
Can these three comments from Krassner be strung in one sentence rather than use staccato periods? Have you heard about the semicolon? Also Mark Spitz could be linked to the article on the Olympian. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Admission to Millennium '73 was free, unlike other DLM festivals that charged sizable fees. The DLM leadership had expected that a huge attendance would be followed by generous donations. Despite fundraising beforehand, lower than expected attendance and mismanagement left the DLM in serious debt, estimated at $682,000. Individual members also carried debts incurred for traveling expenses.
Can this be written as a coherent sentence that does not leave you hyperventilated? Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, and that was just re-written. The sentences aren't overly-long. Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Same about this one:
Scholars describe 1973 as the peak year of the movement, or mention a significant drop in new followers. The financial crisis required retrenchment and reorganization. After the festival, Maharaj Ji began taking greater responsibility in the movement;
How does that cause hyperventilation? Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
These are just a few things I found when something I read triggered something in me. I see that this article has undergone two peer reviews, but these deficiencies were not identified there. What is the process by which sources are validated and cross-referenced? Seems to me that these peer reviews did not scrutinize the details and they should have.
Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The sources were thoroughly vetted during the last FAC, not to mention the careful review that Jossi and others have done. Will Bebacktalk 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that pride of authorship is often our worst enemy when it comes to these matters, but I'd expect more receptiveness to feedback. I have made some additions and corrections myself. Pergamino (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Pride of authorship isn't the issue, but familiarity with the sources is. You asked about the assertion that the Astrodome didn't levitate, and I replied to your question. But it appears that you made a change without consulting all of the cited sources. That isn't helpful. I can't see any reason for adding a "[sic]" comment to the quotation, since the word is spelled correctly. Don't forget that the article has a talk page, and substantial edits should be discussed first, especially if you're not familiar with the sources. Please use the article talk page to explain your edit. Will Bebacktalk 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Pergamino, many of your concerns have been addressed, and you've edited th article yourself to address others. Could you please cross off the items that have been handled, or otherwiselets us know which ones are still current? Will Bebacktalk 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - After noticing a concern of SandyGeorgia(talk·contribs) about cite ordering , I went ahead and fixed this throughout the article . I will be back later to do some copy-editing. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking through the article and have a few observations:
"According to the official schedule, the three evening addresses by Guru Maharaj Ji were the main events."
Perhaps it would be better to rephrase this to say that the official schedule described the three addresses as the primary purpose behind the gathering?
"A month after the festival, Maharaj Ji came of age and took administrative control of the US DLM."
Re "coming of age", is there a better way of saying this? This wording implies that his taking control of the organization was causally related to his age. Is this accurate, or did the two events merely coincide?
Is it necessary to talk about kriyas here? Do they help provide relevant background to M'73?
"Their plans for the festival were over-reaching, and some sources speculated that Maharaj Ji went along with them to keep the peace until he was legally an adult."
This seems a bit weak and overly speculative. Can you rephrase the "over-reaching" part? Not quite sure if that adequately explains the nature of their connection with the event. As for the speculation, who speculated? Attribution might help here.
"An energetic promoter of his new guru and of Millennium '73, he traveled across the United States on a 21-city tour,[5] speaking to what he said were about a million people a day through radio and television interviews,[6] telling people that Guru Maharaj Ji was the solution to civilization's collision course.[6]"
This sentence feels like a run-on. Can you split and/or shorten it? Is "his guru" needed? Also, "collision course" sounds like a direct quote, and should include quotation marks where necessary.
"A two-week, eight-city, 500-person tour, called "Soul Rush", was organized to promote the festival."
Since this is a new paragraph, perhaps you should provide context by indicating that the festival is M'73.
"One reporter who traveled in the tour wrote that they had little press coverage and poor attendance but showed obvious energy, and that the tour itself went remarkably smoothly with expressions of love among the members."
Which news organization was the reporter with?
"One spectator, impressed by the good spirits of the marchers, donated money and said, "If this is what I see on these kids' faces, I want it.""
Is this single spectator's view significant enough to include?
"The "Call to Millennium" said [...]"
What is the "Call to Millennium"? Is it a newsletter? A flyer?
"Some premies made bizarre predictions, which reflected their excitement about the event as well as authenticated its significance, according to one scholar."
The statement feels almost like it could have been taken directly out of the paper that it is citing, unmodified, which could be a neutrality problem; it should also be attributed to who is making the statement. Maybe you could say something to the effect of "Thomas Pilarzyk described devotees' predictions as 'bizarre', and suggests that their excitement validated the significance of the event".
I will continue listing off some points tomorrow if I have time. This should give you something to work with. ←Spidern→ 07:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I have addressed most of these above points as raised by Spidern(talk·contribs) . Will continue to do more copy-editing. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Recent edits to this article by Pergamino(talk·contribs) introduced problems including: inappropriate use of "[sic]", run-on sentence structure, incorrectly formatted refs, and incorrect attribution of a quote to the wrong author . Unfortunately in the last FAC, there was also the problem of an account introducing edits to the article during the FAC process which actually degraded the quality of the article's prose, while this account also simultaneously Opposed the FAC and made complaints about the article's prose. As noted in the last FAC by Will Beback, the account Jossi(talk·contribs) added redundant information to the article, and later also added unhelpful information to the article, during the FAC process , which was then itself acknowledged by Jossi(talk·contribs) . Cirt (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback has made a good faith attempt to discuss issues raised above by Pergamino(talk·contribs) at the article's talk page, so as not to take up too much space at this FAC page, but so far Pergamino(talk·contribs) has yet to post to the talk page of the article. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I did another pass through of copy-editing on the article . Will give it another read later. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Leaning towards support In general, this article is much more tightly-written than the last time I read it and I feel that it meets 1a. All issues I had with the sourcing were resolved at the last FAC and the only issue I have with comprehensiveness is listed below (which should be easy to resolve).
I am now happy to fully support this article. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I was disappointed that the "Millenarian appeal" section had been deleted, as I feel that is a crucial element of the "Background" - it puts the event in a larger historical context for readers unfamiliar with the 1970s. Would it be possible to restore it?
I've restored the last version. It had been deleted at the request of the GA reviewer.
Their plans for the festival were over-reaching - This doesn't quite make sense.
I deleted the sentence because the issue of over-reaching plans is already covered at length, and the other half of the sentence is problematic (it may be better moved to the aftermath section).
Sophia Collier, a teenaged member who later left the group and published a memoir, said that a minority of members, mostly limited to Houston, became victims of "Millennium Fever" and Bal Bhagwan Ji was the fever's carrier - This makes the "fever" sound like an actual disease. Can we reword the "the fever's carrier" section?
I've reworded the sentence - "...became victims of a "Millennium Fever" promoted chiefly by Bal Bhagwan Ji."
He said he tried to remind that the aim was to establish peace on Earth, not to travel to another planet - remind who?
Fixed by adding "them" - "... he toured the country explaining to members that the festival would be significant because of what happened there... He said he tried to remind them that the aim..."
A journalist described the scene as reminiscent of the Great Awakenings and the revivalism that has been part of American history, and observed the peculiar encounter between two absolute opposite ends of the religious spectrum: India's unstructured spirituality and the despiritualized, pragmatic American religiosity - I'm not sure that it is worth including this statement, as this entire event is clearly part of America's spiritual, revivalist tradition, not part of its despiritualized tradition. If there is only one journalist who holds this view, must be include it, since it is so manifestly false?
I removed the sentence. As you point out, this is only asserted by one journalist. The point isn't made by any of the religious scholars who have written about the event. If anyone wants to argue for its restoration, it might fit better in the aftermath section which summarizes the festival's place in history.
Reporters wrote of waiting for hours on the airport tarmac in the heat and humidity in order to cover an appearance that lasted only a few minutes. - This paragraph has no context - is this when Maharaj Ji arrives at the airport? If so, that should be made explicit.
I moved the point about impatient reporters up to the airport arrival section which places it in context, and also rearranged the media section for a more logical organization.
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback and also for your direct improvements to the article. I believe I've addressed each of your points above. If anything more is needed I'd be happy to make further revisions. Will Bebacktalk 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish you'd be as accommodating to my feedback. Pergamino (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I replied to every issue you raised and made edits as appropriate. Will Bebacktalk 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You replied, but have not been accomodating, as you are with others. Pergamino (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Which "others" are you referring to? The only other person who's made general content suggestions that I've responded to is Awadewit, a highly experienced editor. This isn't about accomodating people, it's about creating an article that is worthy of being featured. Will Bebacktalk 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Your words confirm my point. My participation is not welcome because I am not "experienced"? Pergamino (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No one said your participation is unwelcome. This page is solely concerned with deciding whether an article complies with the FA criteria, so the views of someone who is known to be experienced in making those judgments will inevitably be given a different weight than those of someone new to the process. As you can see, a number of your concerns were remedied without further ado, and you went ahead and made quite a few other changes without even discussing them. But we're here to improve the article, so suggestions that don't improve the article shouldn't be followed no matter who makes them. Will Bebacktalk 05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made a total of 28 edits to this article, while you have made 500. My question to you is then: how many of your edits were made without "discussing them", and why mine are to be scrutinized in a manner different than yours? You may say that my participation is welcome, but that is not how it feels, sorry. Pergamino (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have strayed from discussing the article's content. Let's return to that, everyone. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: Are autobiographies OK as sources? If so, the authors should be named and their affiliation explained. For example, Lonnie Lane is a messianic Jew, who wrote about her family's search for God. Pergamino (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how adding the person's name to the text helps the article. No one is going to recognize the name, and there's no biography of the author on Wikipedia. The author is simply noting her brother's reaction to the festival, which was not unusual according to other sources. Will Bebacktalk 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No one will recognize the name of many authors in the article, and they are still mentioned by name. If not the name, their relation to the subject is needed to clarify the point of view of an author that may not be as important/relevant as scholars mentioned. Pergamino (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
btw, you have not answered my question about using auto-biographies. Pergamino (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reviewed WP:V and WP:RS and I don't see anything about autobiographies. If you have doubts about the source then I'm not sure why you've added more material from it. Will Bebacktalk 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That make sense. In this case, the author who is a messianic Jew, writes about her brother being dis-enchanted with the guru (basically re-enforcing her point of view, that Jesus is the messiah of the Jews). Given that there are other sources available, is this really needed? Pergamino (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The article now mentions this is an autobiography. I see no problem with how this source is being used in the article. I looked at each of the three instances. In the last one, the article now clarifies that the view comes from, in essence, a spiritual autobiography. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, now after I added the fact that it is an auto-biography, it's OK. Pergamino (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note to Pergamino - Thank you for your input at this FAC, however it is much easier for FAC nominators to respond to your objections if you state them all at once. I noticed that you have suddenly started listing new concerns today. For FACs to run smoothly, reviewers are generally expected to list the bulk of their objections up front so that nominators know what kind of work they need to do to overcome the "opposes" listed. Thanks for understanding. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll follow your advise from now on. Pergamino (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The only remaining issue for me is point #3 above and a few minor issues that could be taken care of in the normal editing process. Pergamino (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I responded to point #3 previously. It appears that you're asking for us to insert original research in the form of WP:SYNTH. Will Bebacktalk 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
(Who is "us"? and why do you keep segregating me?) The point is still unaddressed satisfactorily, please read our exchange again.Pergamino (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't be so paranoid, my friend. "Us" refers to Wikipedia, of which each of us is a part. (English doesn't differentiate between the 1st person plural inclusive and the 1st person plural exclusive.) I thought I'd addressed your issues at #3. Could you please restate which policy or FA criteria you think is involved and how it would apply? Will Bebacktalk 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - in my view this interesting article satisfies all the Featured Article criteria. My only quibble is the use of "Holy Family". Can this be changed to a more objective expression such as "Maharaj Ji's family"?Graham ColmTalk 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I'm glad you find it interesting; I think it is too. Quibbles are welcome.
"Holy Family" is used to describe the family of Maharaji Ji by over 24 sources, at least a dozen of them about the festival, making it probably the most frequent term. Internal publications used it without quotation marks while external media tend to place it in quotes. Indian custom favors multiple names, especially for holy people. Maharaj Ji alone has been known by a half dozen names or titles, and his family have a couple of names/titles apiece. The actual family name, Rawat, is used rarely in this context. A few sources erroneously used that honorific "Ji" as the family name, which is like assuming that all folks called "mister" are related.
To address this concern I've placed three of the uses in quotation marks and deleted the other two. See: That adds more editorial distance from the term while preserving the historically correct and well-sourced usage. Will Bebacktalk 08:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I peer reviewed an earlier version of this and have a few quibbles, but these do not detract from my support.
I think as headlines dealt with the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal, the Agnew resignation, a war in the Middle East, an energy crisis, mass murders in Houston and California, and UFO sightings across the South. needs a ref (perhaps an end of year news in review article)
That material came from one of the sources already in use - for some reason the citaiton appeared mid-sentence (probably to cite a quotation). I've moved the cite to the end to clarify the source.
I would link satsang in He states the guru's mother, whose satsang... Also is it italicized or not (is someplaces, not others)?
Fixed.
(Re)explanation of premies belongs here At a stop in Washington, D.C. premies gathered in front of the White House and invited President Richard Nixon..., not a few sentences later in At each city, the touring group and local premies (DLM members) paraded in the morning...
Fixed by moving up to earlier sentence.
First paragraph in Media coverage needs a ref for the last part
I've added citations for eachof the journalists.
I would mention the debt incurred in the lead.
Added.
Hope these suggestions help, well done, Ruhrfisch><>°° 05:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful input and support. Will Bebacktalk 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Issues. The prose isn't bad, but I found a few glitches. Book citaions: need an audit for page numbers. Here are a few random points.
"The festival was billed by its organizers as the most significant event in human history, and described as an event that would usher in a thousand years of peace." Remove comma and string of five words.
Changed to "The festival was billed by its organizers as the most significant event in human history which would usher in a thousand years of peace."
" It was later described as among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s,"—but further up in the lead we've already been told that is was "the most sign. event in human hist.". This sure is a come-down. And who "later described"? Puff, uncited.
I've altered the text to read, "It was later described by scholars and journalists as..." Together with the change above that should help distinguish how the event was billed by insiders versus how it was evaluated by outsiders. In the text of the article these views are discussed in greater length and thoroughly cited.
I hope the estimated and projected attendances are referenced somewhere below. You might drop "about".
The estimates of attendance are fully cited later in the text. They range from 10,000 to 35,000, with 20,000 being the most common value. Since there's such a range the word "about" seemed like a good way of expressing the uncertainty. Perhaps it'd be better to simply say, "Attendance was estimated from 10,000 to 35,000, compared to the projected 100,000" instead of "Attendance was estimated at about 20,000... " I'll go ahead and make that change.
Refs 9 and 10, supporting the claim of 50,000 members in the US and thousands more elsewhere: such a specific claim requires page numbers in these two books. It's an important claim. Tony(talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, refs 9 and 10 are in support of the assertion that most Western members came from the counter culture. I've added a citation (with page number) for the size of the following.
I'll go through and make sure that all book references have page numbers, where appropriate.
Thanks for the input. I'd welcome any other any other prose or sourcing issues that you can find. Will Bebacktalk 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've audited the book references and added page numbers to those that didn't have them.Will Bebacktalk 08:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The poster needs cleaning up, contains damage (creases?) and jpeg artifacts.
I'm not sure how to do the cleanup. Would you be able to handle that?
The resolution is too low to do anything useful. I think it's OK as it is. Graham ColmTalk 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It could also be bigger so the text is more readable, it is a promotional poster so should not violate any copyright policies.
Enlarged to 300px. (It was there before, but someone deleted it without explanation.)
A note on File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg identifying who is who would be helpful.
Added.
File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg a scan/from website?--Otterathome (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a scan from a magazine.
Comment The quality (or lack thereof) of images is not part of the FAC criteria, so I do not see numbers 1, 2, and 6 as actionable requests. As for number 8, File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg already identifies its source (And It Is Divine special Millennium '73 issue, this is discussed in the article in its own section too - see Millennium_'73#And_It_Is_Divine_special_issue) - so it is a scan Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Quality of images and media is part of criteria 3.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed the items that I can. I don't know enough about image editing to do the cleanups you're asking about. Your help would be appreciated. Will Bebacktalk 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Ruhrfisch's point, I don't see where "quality" is a factor in FAC #3. It says:
Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
As I read it, the issues are whether the images are appropriate, have proper captions, and have acceptable copyright status or fair use. Still, I'm sure that if the images can be improved that'd help the article, so anything you can do in that department would be appreciated. Will Bebacktalk 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has received attention from several dedicated editors: First in late 2006 by Daniel Perley, an astronomer at Berkeley, then by Jehochman starting in late 2007, then I jumped on when Jehochman asked for my help back in December 2008. Although I originally got involved for the sole purpose of peer reviewing for Jehochman. After the peer review, Jehochman asked me to help expand parts of the article. Suffice it to say that I got completely sucked in. After 3 months of research, I've expanded History of gamma-ray burst research, GRB 970508, and I now have 6 books on gamma-ray astronomy sitting on my desk. I'm sure you'll find issues with the article for Jehochman and I to resolve, but in terms of pure content, I think we're both satisfied (and exhausted). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
None are needed. JehochmanTalk 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
*headdesk* No dude, he's saying that there aren't any wikilinks in the article that need to be disambiguated. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I get it: don't moon the reviewers. JehochmanTalk 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a ref name should be used instead (found using [[WP:REFTOOLS)
Alrighty, I've fixed your issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
CommentOppose– The lead needs work. There are a couple of issues remaining, but I don't want to stand in the way here.
The first line definition seems awkward to me. The section "occurring in the universe" of this sentence is unnecessary. Do events occur outside the universe? The word "occurring" also seems extraneous here.
"Do events occur outside the universe?" No, but they can be confined to a specific planet, solar system, or galaxy. I've removed "occurring".
The second sentence could also be improved. What is meant by "deep space" in this context? It could be interpreted as interstellar space, for example, and not as occurring on the extragalactic scale. Also, if the bursters occur at random places and at random times, why not just say they occur at random?
Rewritten.
The lead also fails to summarize all of the high-level sections in the article, per WP:LEAD.
Likewise, there is an overemphasis on extinction events, spending a full paragraph of the lead.
Working on it... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"Drawing of a massive star collapsing to form a black hole. Energy released as jets along the rotation axis form a gamma-ray burst." This wording seems somewhat misleading. The image shows the evolutionary history of a massive star, rather than just the collapse. I think this caption could better explain what the reader is seeing, including directions on how to follow the chronological flow.
This caption has been rewritten. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"...that GRBs are isotropic..." Frankly, it is not clear why isotropic is needed here. The text follows by a long explanation of the word, when that explanation could just as easily be used instead. It is also somewhat unlear whether isotropic applies to the GRBs or to their distribution. Perhaps this and the next sentence could be modified to better purpose, since they include some redundancy.
This is the first mention of the concept of isotropy. The concept is touched upon in 6 other times throughout the article. If the term is not given and clearly defined early on, it will remain confusing for the reader. I did change that sentence a tad, have a look.
"...but instead concentrated in..." seems awkward. Perhaps a 'would be' would help, or some other wording.
Tweaked.
"Although the luminosity of the bursts suggested that they had to be originating within the Milky Way..." The text should probably explain why.
Rewritten to more accurately reflect the source material.
"The peak flux distribution was also inconsistent with a local population, indicating that cosmological redshift effects were taking place." This statement is assuming knowledge that the reader may not have. It does not explain how the peak flux distribution is correlated with redshift, nor what is meant by "local population".
I've taken that bit out. It was added by an IP who may have worked with Piran. The journal article does sum up the isotropy bit quite nicely, but I can't find any mention of 'peak flux'. All the material I've read seems to agree that the isotropic distribution was the first strong evidence of cosmological bursts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"considered many distinct objects"; doesn't seem to need 'distinct'.
Added "classes of".
"Researchers specifically looked for"; doesn't seem to need 'specifically'.
I disagree. With "specifically", it's clear that within the previous list of objects, researchers were looking for these specific qualities. Without "specifically", it just seems like two separate, unrelated lists.
"orbital brightness modulation" seems like jargon. I know what it means but some might not.
It refers to variations in brightness as a function of an object's orbit, yes? I've replaced this item and "fast time scale flickering" with "variations in brightness."
"As early as 1980, ..." The need for this statement about the earliness is unclear. Is it because the gamma ray technology was not sufficiently developed at that time? Or because it happened seven years after the first paper was published?
Erm, no. I just wanted to provide some kind of timeline for when this research group got together. Reworded.
"...intended to serve the sole purpose of studying X-rays..." could just be "...intended to study X-rays...".
Changed. Hee, sorry, some of this reads more like a story than a scientific historical account.
I don't think "...could easily serve..." needs the 'easily'. It seems vague and is perhaps from the viewpoint of a specialist.
Yup. Changed to "also".
Please check if the "also" satisfies Tony's eliminating redundancy criteria, under "Additive terms". There are 12 instances of "further", "also" and "in addition" scattered through the text, many of which could probably be culled.
I think you're misinterpreting what Tony is saying here. He's not saying you should never use "also", he's saying you shouldn't just plop it at the beginning of sentences as we often do with phrases like "in addition" and "furthermore". "Also" as I have used it here works just fine. I have, however, gone through the text and changed a few instances of these redundant terms. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I will have to disagree, both in your interpretation of my wording and of what I think I understand about Tony's writeup. For example, the following appear additive and I think they would work without an 'also':
The amount of radiation between these peaks, or "subpulses," also varies from burst to burst.
Short GRBs, while also extragalactic, appear to come from a lower-redshift population and are less luminous than long GRBs.
Not only are GRBs extragalactic events, but they are also observable to the limits of the visible universe...
It may also be the first observation of a GRB with a black hole-neutron star (BH-NS) or NS-NS merger progenitor.
Sorry, I just think this is really stupid. When those sentences don't have "also", it sounds as if they're starting a discussion of something entirely different. That's not the case! I know that there are ways of using these sorts of words redundantly. I'm not claiming to be entirely innocent of it, either. But these sentences, when read in context, work when "also" is included. If you want to start some ridiculous "also" genocide, go ahead, but I refuse to take part. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll let somebody else mediate whether the present wording satisfies 1a. Thanks.—15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense intended here, but I think the article needs some general editing so that it will satisfy the 1a criteria. See, for example, User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Has this article been through the Peer Review process?—RJH (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
None taken. When I first started working on it, I did a fairly thorough unofficial peer review/prose tweak of the material that Jehochman wrote. However, I eventually started writing material of my own, which wasn't reviewed as thoroughly as Jehochman's writing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Two major breakthroughs..." I only count one breakthrough in the text: the redshift determination.
Whoops. Added the bit about the radio afterglow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"...or the burst did not emit energy in all directions, but instead in very narrow beams which happened to have been pointing directly at earth." This sentence doesn't read as smoothly as it should. You have an 'or' case followed by a 'but' instance with a redundant 'instead' thrown in. I don't think you can rule out the possibility that the energy is radiated in all directions. Merely that the flux varies by direction.
I can't, but Schilling can. Direct quote: "Maybe the energy from the explosion was radiated in a rather narrow beam and the burst looked bright only because the beam happened, by coincidence, to be pointed in our direction.... If gamma ray bursts do indeed radiate their energy in two opposite beams, each spreading with an angle of some 15 degrees, ... in the case the [sic] energy production was not 3 x 1053 ergs but only 3 x 1051 ergs, which can be compared to the energy of a supernova explosion, which is in agreement with the theory of the merging of neutron stars. It is an intriguing idea but there is also a downside. If we on earth only see those gamm ray bursts that happen to have the right orientation, then there must be many more gamm ray bursts in the universe than have been observed up until now. For each burst from which one of the beams happens to be aimed at the earth, there are a hundred others we cannot see.... The mysterious explosions may be hundred times less luminous but they would also be a hundred times more numerous. That also means the total amount of energy that is produced over time by all the gamma ray bursts together is exactly the same." (Schilling 153-156) I did, however, tweak the sentence for clarity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well "...the burst looked bright only because the beam happened..." does imply that it can be viewed in other directions, whereas your wordiing did not. But the rewrite works for me. Thanks.
In the "Current missions" section, it would be interesting to know the angular resolution of these telescopes. I.e. how well do they narrow down the GRB locations? The last two paragraphs of this section do not explain the purpose or benefits of the additional missions.
Changed to "new data". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Researchers generally consider two broad classes of GRBs." It is unclear what 'consider' means here. Is this saying they categorize all GRBs into two broad classes? Or those two are the only types of GRBs they look at?
The former. Reworded. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"...the majority of bursts..." is vague.
Changed to ~70% per the source. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"low-metallicity" needs clarification, per WP:Jargon.
Earth and Universe are inconsistent in their capitalization. Please use one style consistently.
All instances of "earth" changed to "Earth". All instances of "Universe" changed to "universe".
"...accretion-induced collapse of older neutron stars..." You might mention they collapse into a black hole, assuming they don't form something more exotic.
"However, in 2007 the detection of 39 short gamma-ray bursts could not be associated with gravitational waves which are hypothesized to be observable in such compact mergers." Why the 'however' here, when it is immediately contradicted by the next sentence?
Fixed by removing "however".
"...relativistic shock wave..." needs explanation, per WP:Jargon.
Paraphrased and wikified.
"Therefore, a substantial fraction of GRBs are expected to occur in such clusters." Is this asserting that a significant proportion of progenitors must be Wolf-Rayet stars? Aren't WR stars highly evolved so that they have high metallicity? Or does this fit into the collapsar model? I am unclear.
This fits into the collapsar model. I'll try to make that clear.
"The explosion had the power of about 9,000 ordinary supernovae..." Is this based on the total energy of the explosion, or the collaminated energy being observed along the jet path? Is the reference scale based on Type Ia supernovae?
I wrote what the source said. I understood that they were referring to total energy. Noted.
Supernovae can be variable in their energy output. It might make sense to list the estimated output using a primary source
The length of the External links section seems quite excessive. Are all of these justified? Can most of these be converted into cites or moved to appropriate articles?
Due to the nature of the subject, there are a large amount of high impact websites. We've organized the list by topic. We could prune the list, but none of these are spam. I have to think about how to handle this. Perhaps we can migrate some of the links to other articles. JehochmanTalk 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I can not lend my support at present.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Pfft, what is there to apologize for?:) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with my review now. I'll check back later. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments.. Great article. Please somebody check the copyedits I've made in the text, lest I've misunderstood something. I want to support, but I'd like a couple of minor issues clarified first, on the principle that our articles are supposed to be comprehensible to high school kids and even to me. Could the following details be made clear in the article, please?
The first caption makes me wonder if massive as applied to a star is a technical term here, or is just used as a way of saying "ginormous", or dense or something. If it's technical, it ought to be linked. If it isn't, it ought not to be used here, because it's confusing.
I've stolen a snippet from GRB 970508 to help explain what it is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Current missions section: I won't insist on this, but I think the sentence The mission objectives include "crack[ing] the mysteries of the stupendously powerful explosions known as gamma-ray bursts is uncommonly useless. Having the GLAST mission in this section already states that cracking the GRB mystery is part of that mission's objective. And in any case we've already been told what GRBs are. Worst, the particular formulation enforces the ugliness of "crack[ing]". Find another quote perhaps, if you want one at all? (And why indeed have one at all, when the other missions don't?)
Replaced the quote with a more informative snippet. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Back with a little more later.
Bishonen | talk 06:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
I've no more comments, except that to explain redshift—the term and the usefulness—down in section "Notable gamma-ray bursts" is too late. Should be taken care of in the "History" section. Also, again, please check my changes, as I may have misunderstood something. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
Fixed by moving the definition up and only wikilinking the first instance of redshift. JehochmanTalk 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, after a bit of copy-editing , feel free to change. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I made one minor change , but other than that it all looks good. Thanks mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, and you're welcome, nice work on the article. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Basic cleanup and copyediting needed throughout, a sample section:
This event was localized within 4hours of its discovery, allowing research teams to begin making observations much sooner than any previous burst. By comparing photographs of the error box — a small area around the specific position to account for the error in the position — taken on May 8 and May 9 (the day of the event and the day after), one object was found to have increased in brightness. Between May 10 and May, Charles Steidel recorded the spectrum of the variable object from the W. M. Keck Observatory.
WP:MOSNUM issues (4 hours should be four hours), WP:EMDASHes are not spaced on wiki, and there is a typo (Between May 10 and May, ... what?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed these particular issues, and any other wayward em dashes. More eyes are needed for proofing. I am bad at it. JehochmanTalk 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I scanned the article and changed one "10" to "ten", but there were some numerals I kept in place for comparison: "The time history of GRB 790305b, recorded by Venera 12, displayed 22 cycles of a period of 8 seconds, as well as quasi-periodic pulsations at roughly 23 ms. GRB 771029 also strongly exhibited periodicity with 6 cycles of a period of 4.2 seconds" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Image review: no problems here, all okay. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Notable GRBs: After putting some thought into it, I think the Notable GRBs section is totally useless, as it can only ever provide redundant information. If "notable" is taken to mean "notable enough to appear in this article," then they should have already appeared in the article (which is true in most cases). If "notable" is taken to mean "notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia," then this section is already covered by Category:Gamma-ray bursts. My intuition is to delete it altogether. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Lemme read and I can add my 2c. I am inclined to agree and delete it. Surely the notable ones should be sprinkled through the text at relevant points in the discussion, highlighting why they are notable. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments ok, I will begin a read through: Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The first two sentences should be swapped, as the first doesn't define but qualify or expand upon what is stated in the second sentence. Thus a better reading would be - "Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the name given to flashes of gamma rays emanating at random from distant galaxies; they are the most luminouselectromagnetic events in the universe since the Big Bang." - thus the first sentence should say what they are.
Since then, hundreds of theoretical models have been created in an attempt to explain these bursts - "hundreds?" really?? - also why not simply "Since then, hundreds of theories have been proposed to explain these bursts"
Yes, really. Hundreds. Shortened, but I kept "models". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Many speculative theories were advanced to... - are not all theories speculative (hence why they are theories) and hence the adjective here is redundant?
Quite right. Dropped the adjective. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
OK I have read down to Galactic vs. extragalactic models - I can also see a cite needed tag. I really need to sleep now but will come back to it. This is doable, but the prose does need a bit of massaging. I feel we can make it flow more smoothly and reduce repetition without losing meaning. More tomorrow. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Another editor added some cool new information about the very recent GRB 090423. I've read over the material he's cited, and it seems to check out. We're just waiting for a more definitive article to back up the claim. That's why I added the citation needed tag. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I have read the lead over and am mulling over whether para 3, which is more about what they might be, might be better inserted after para 1. I am pondering whether the lead is clear enough in stating what these things are. This is one of the trickier articles I have read in trying to balance plainer english with accuracy. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Now having read it, I can see the conflict on the notable section. I feel that this is better merged into a history section somehow. There can be a subarticle which is a list of GRBs linked from that section too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately close to supporting but I need to think about the lead - if anything it needs to spell out in plain terms what GRBs might be. I need to think on it. I will also look at the prose again. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Casliber. I appreciate your feedback, but I don't think another read-through of the prose would be a good way to spend your time. I've been discussing the article with User:Daniel Perley. Sometime in the next few days, Dan should be posting some suggestions for the article, some of which will involve substantially rewriting entire sections. Any nitpick concerns you might have will probably be lost in the shuffle. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Conditional support on improving the lede per Casliber's comments. --mav (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments I think it's great that this is being considered for a featured article (and very timely - the news on GRB 090423, whose high-redshift status I can assure you is quite genuine, is about to hit the press in (we hope) a big way) though I think there is significant work to be done before it's up to the standard of, for example, the Stars article. I'm totally on board with helping out on this project, though I'm currently too busy to work on this until probably next week. In the meantime, for those interested in looking into it now I do have a few comments.
Neutrality - The emphasis right now has some apparent "tilts" (for example, INTEGRAL's importance is greatly overemphasized) and overly uses names of individual researchers and groups. That sort of thing is great for popular documentaries but for an article we want to stick to the facts; I think we should only be bringing up specific research teams if it's absolutely inseparable from the result, otherwise it makes the article seem tilted toward particular groups and suggests that others were not involved with the effort (and almost all big discoveries have been the results of large groups; and often more than one large group in competition with others).
Up to date - Some sections seem like they're based mostly on pre-afterglow articles. The section on GRB classification is probably the biggest offender... the only classification of which there is broad agreement in the community is the distinction between long and short GRBs (and that short GRBs are further subdivided into SGR flares, which are usually not classified as GRBs at all unless they're very unusually bright, and the "true" short GRBs.) Things like the number of pulses have not been shown to be reflecting of any real underlying physical variation, and in fact I suspect the opposite could be easily demonstrated.
Emphasis - I think too much attention is devoted to some topics and not enough to others.
For example, the History section is too long considering that there is a separate article on this subject now. This could be shortened to (paragraph 1) discovery (paragraph 2) isotropy on the sky (paragraph 3) controversy over association with Galactic neutron stars [this part is fine as-is so far] (paragraph 4-5) discovery of afterglows with a segway into current status of the field (I think the Current Missions should be shortened to a sentence or two and merged.)
After the History section, I then think we should stick to explaining the current status of the field without long segways into historical development. So if there is a section on "Galactic versus Extragalactic models" it should focus on the real distinction between SGRs and "real" GRBs rather than a second summary of the great debate. (In fairness, I should say I think this particular choice of organization is my own fault!)
Progenitors needs a bigger discussion, even though we already have articles on Collapsar and GRB Progenitors. This is, I suspect, what most people are interested in finding out when they read this article. More attention should be devoted to short GRBs and the many models still bouncing around to explain them.
Emission mechanisms need more discussion of the afterglow, which is where we get most of our information about the event from. The prompt emission (as in, the actual burst itself) could also incorporate some new knowledge gained from the study of the prompt optical emission of GRB 080319B.
I agree that at this stage the section on Notable Gamma-ray bursts should probably be eliminated from this article. I do think this is a useful reference for looking up articles on particular events, as this field does (still) tend to progress mainly from insights gleaned from one event at the time, but this is probably best served by having its own page. The truly important GRBs (e.g. 970508, 980425, 050509B, 060614, 080319B) can be mentioned elsewhere in the text.
I've gone ahead and cut the section from the article, as no one seemed to want to include it. I've also linked to and created List of gamma-ray bursts, though obviously a lot of work needs to be done bringing it up to speed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(As I said, I'm quite willing to do my part in pursuing these things including providing extensive referencing from the academic literature, but I won't have the chance for at least a few days, so if someone else would like to take a crack at it (or disagrees with my suggestions and wants to air that before we actually do any major editing) please feel free to go ahead.)
I don't think we're in a rush. Why don't you take a crack at it? It's good to see that you're still watching the article. JehochmanTalk 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it is the progenitor bit that needs some more emphasis somehow - i.e. what the things come from. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
OK - to start with I made some quick edits to the new table (much more needs to be done). Major work on the primary article will have to wait until next week when I get back from travel. Daniel Perley (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What does everyone think about withdrawing this article from FAC? It seems like what Dan wants to do will involve a major revamping of the article, and afterwards we might want to take it through Peer Review. We could then simply copy the relevant concerns to the talk page. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Either way. I actually didn't think it was too far off. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should finish the review, and if he wants to edit it later, by all means, he is welcome to do so. The article is what it is. It may not be perfect, but I am not aware of any better introduction to this topic available on the web. JehochmanTalk 23:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I've now finished all the main work I was planning to do on the primary article. I don't plan to do anything else major to the text other than relatively small improvements to existing content and adding references (and maybe images). Admittedly there have been many changes since the previous revision, and I'm not sure how much this will affect the featured status consideration - a lot of checks may need to be redone (at the very least I'm quite sure I've introduced a fair number of typographical errors and not-optimally-worded sentences). At any rate, I'm now quite happy with the status of the page (whereas before I found quite a few things in error - see above), though obviously I'm perhaps not the most neutral observer anymore. But if it might help, I could ask some other researchers to take a look at the page. Daniel Perley (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perspective from other researchers would be cool, but I don't think it's imperative. At least show it to Bloom, he's sure to give you an A at this point.;). In any case, I'll read through the article and tweak what you've written, then the FAC will continue as normal, I suppose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Josh hasn't got back to me yet, but I got some comments from another student in Germany who had several good comments, which I've been working in. Daniel Perley (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaning towards support I'm unfamiliar with GRBs, so I'm here mostly to comment on the article's accessibility to interested, but ignorant readers like myself. Let me say first that I thought the "History" section did an excellent job of conveying the initial confusion over GRBs which is slowly being resolved. I also appreciated how later in the article, it was clearly explained what the different issues that need to be investigated are (for example, in the "Emissions mechanisms" section). I have just a few small things:
The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away - From where exactly?
Well, the first sentence of the lead says that they originate in distant galaxies. Do you think this should be repeated? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I meant "light years away from where?" Earth? Solar System? Milky Way? Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Added "from Earth".
A subclass of GRBs (the "short" bursts) appear to originate from a different process, possibly the merger of neutron stars orbiting in a binary system. - The first couple of times I read this, I thought it meant "orbiting a binary system" - I was a bit slow to realize that the stars were the two stars IN the system. Could this be reworded?
Swift Spacecraft - Do you think we could say a little more in the caption? Is there some interesting factoid about it that we could mention here?
I expanded it a little bit. I tried to pick a fairly neutral / non-promotional fact. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it could be a bit more exciting, but ok. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Grb profiles.png - It is actually fairly difficult to read the details on this image at the current resolution (519x519). It was hard for me to read what was on the axes. Is there a way to obtain a higher resolution image?
It looks like no higher resolution of this figure exists on the web as the primary image source seems to also be 519x519. I might be able to create a new one though. Daniel Perley (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with a higher resolution and (hopefully) clearer version made using archival BATSE data. Daniel Perley (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few "fact" tags to statements that I think should be sourced - the rationales were included in the edit summaries.
All these statements have now been appropriately referenced. Daniel Perley (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for writing such a clear, informative article. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was reading the article, I moved a lot of the citations after commas per WP:PUNC, but now I see many are again before commas. Can this be fixed again? Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just ran through the article and couldn't find any pre-comma refs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone fixed them. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support An excellent article, informative, well-written and well-referenced. A few minor suggestions:
Some people might not know the difference between the adjectives "Galactic" and "galactic". You might want to explain somewhere near the beginning (perhaps in the Vela section) that Galactic refers to the Milky Way. I know that you have a wikilink there, but something explicit might be better.
I changed all references to "Galactic" to mention the Milky Way explicitly since this does appear to be a point of confusion for people, with the exception of "Galactic plane" and "Galactic center" which I think are clear in context. Daniel Perley (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:the lead, some people might not know the expected lifetime of the Sun. Perhaps replace with something like "a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun has released in five billion years".
Changed to "ten billion year" lifetime. Daniel Perley (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This article was especially satisfying for me, because my very first research project was scanning old glass photographs at Harvard for GRBs. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support lead reads much better now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I was asked to do another round of copy-editing. But I noticed there are now large chunks of material, paragraphs, without cites - particularly in the History subsection, but also the last subsection. Why is this? Cirt (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of sentences now start out with "Because of the..." this writing could be improved upon. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
A Gamma ray burst researcher, User:Daniel Perley, helped us balance the article. He felt we were over emphasizing certain things, and neglecting others. There were substantial content changes. He and User:Cryptic C62 are working on the references now, I think. JehochmanTalk 18:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the FAC should be tabled/restarted/closed for a later date, or some other option, until the article is fully referenced properly? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the number of unreferenced statements is small enough that if we just list them here, they could be fixed within a day or two. JehochmanTalk 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully. Ideally it would have been best to avoid substantial content changes of the article while at FAC, that's more something appropriate for the peer review process. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, our goal is to create the best article, not to get some FA bling. Daniel Perley was very kind to help, and we weren't about to turn him away. Let's list the problems and fix them directly. JehochmanTalk 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Added some {{fact}} tags. I did a bit of copyediting throughout - but the recent substantial content changes also appear to have introduced some awkward wording. I removed a lot of "However...", there are still multiple awkward sentences that start with "Because...", "Because of ...", these should be restructured. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that Cirt seems to have just added "fact" tags at the ends of paragraphs rather than inserting them at the ends of particular claims and explaining why those need citations per WP:When to cite. As that policy states, "Not every statement in an article needs a citation". I think that a more careful placement of the tags with a detailed edit summary or perhaps an explanation on the talk page would help the editors more. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was basically done with referencing, but I see I did miss a couple lines, such as the first reference to 980425's SN association, which isn't specifically cited (though the reference is mentioned later when the SN connection is actually discussed.) In some other cases the reference is in the previous sentence and it seemed redundant to mention it twice, but I can do that too. I'm not sure I see that "there are large chunks of material, paragraphs, without cites", though - in a couple cases I was using the wikilinks as de-facto cites, such as the statements about 080319B and 090423 (click on the wikilinks for each burst for the same statment with references)... but if that's not standard policy I can provide direct citations as well, which is easy enough. All other paragraphs have numerous citations. Anyway, I'll take care of this shortly. .Daniel Perley (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added references for almost all of these (or moved the reference from elsewhere to a place where it was clearer what statement it was referring to.) In a couple cases I just removed the tag because the reference was either in the same sentence or the previous one and the text explicitly says "In this model," or "The authors claim" which I think is pretty clear. A couple cases are still without references which are somewhat challenging: (1) The first is about the complexity of some profiles, which has become a sort of self-evident thing (i.e. just look at the figure) although there are probably papers from the '70s and review articles that say as much, but I haven't found one yet. It's a bit of a throwaway statement that could be removed if necessary, though. (2) The statement about the relative danger of short bursts (vs. long bursts) is based on a poster at a meeting I attended, the abstract/title/author of which I have not been able to find online. I will continue to try, though. Daniel Perley (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The Fishman and Meegan 1995 review article summarizes this pretty well, actually, so (1) is set. Daniel Perley (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Found the appropriate reference for the second one, too. Daniel Perley (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(Also, if there are any other statements in the article that are lacking citations, let me know. Some things seem "self-evident" or "established knowledge" to someone in the field that are anything but to the general public...) Daniel Perley (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Impressive, but needs fine-grained fixing. Disappointed to find more than fine-grained issues in the lead, actually (third bullet).
"Their duration typically lasts for a few seconds"—"is typically a"
Perhaps remove "emitting" in first para (unsure, but do if possible).
A subclass appear?
"The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth. Because of these vast distances, GRBs must be extremely energetic events (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10 billion year lifetime) and also extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1])." Is that logical (the "Because")? Do you mean <for us to observe them, they must be extr. energetic>? And why does distance from us suggest rarity over time? If the latter issue is to do somehow with the "mass extinction" point, later, it's unclear.
"their discovery" ... not the discovery of the Vela satellites, of course, but I had to slow down in reading the clause because of this fuzzy back-reference.
Then just at random:
"and is still operational"—needs an "as of 2009".
per yer.
"6" but "sixteen".
"Types of Gamma-Ray Bursts" section: takes a dive for the worse. Title case? (MoS says, quite rightly, that an abbreviation, such as GRB, requires no caps when spelled out.) The text that follows is missing "a" and "the" in a few places. "a simple". "variationS". Perhaps "emission" can be a singular quantity, but struck me as odd.
very little.
"other, relatively nearby galaxies". Wondering why "other" and "relatively" can't be dropped.
A nit-picker is required—someone whose unfamiliar with the text thus far. It's not a long job. Tony(talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed most of these. A few specific notes:
"Do you mean <for us to observe them, they must be extr. energetic>?" ---- Correct - this is not a cause-and-effect relationship but an observation-to-conclusion inferrence. I don't want to burden the lead by splitting off too many independent sentences, but to make this more clear I changed the operative word from "Because" to "implying".
"And why does distance from us suggest rarity over time? If the latter issue is to do somehow with the 'mass extinction' point, later, it's unclear." ---- The same number of events, if coming from a large volume, implies a lower physical rate. If all GRBs came from our galaxy that would imply a large per-galaxy rate of thousands per year, for example. If GRBs are observable anywhere in the universe that indicates that only a few hundred out of the billions and billions of galaxies manage to produce a GRB in a given year. This is explained more in the actual text (and it not vital for the reader to understand now, but the three statements in this sentence are related in this way). If you feel it is confusing enough that readers will become confused reading the lead then I suppose we could remove the inferrence line completely to not show the connections of the statements.
variationS ---- Maybe this is a difference between scientific and colloquial English, but the way this is phrased in the literature is always as variation, singular. I would be reluctant to change this.
Perhaps "emission" ---- In a similar vein, this is always "emission" singular in science when referring to radiation. "Emissions" plural refers to gaseous emissions. (As I understand it.)
Conditional support as long as the list of comments from above have been fixed. More articles like this should be featured (although the redlinks should be at least redirrected). Nergaal (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: A typical event lasts for duration of a few seconds, but can range from milliseconds to nearly an hour. implies that a typical event can range from milliseconds to nearly an hour. Suggest The durations range from a few milliseconds to nearly an hour and the typical event lasts for a few seconds. --Ettrig (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Incorporated. Good suggestion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Support(Comment)- I was looking forward to adding my support for this FAC but I am disappointed to find—at this late stage—annoying little problems with the prose. For example, I cannot understand this clause: "though there may have difficulties explaining all features of the afterglow very shortly after the gamma-ray burst has occurred". And, there is inconsistent usage of "though" and "although" throughout the article. I found one redundant "also" which I nipped out but one or two others remain which are suspect. This would make a fantastic FA—it just needs an hour or two of more work on the writing.Graham ColmTalk 10:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a copyedit of the article. I'm done through the Types of Bursts section. I'll notify you (and Tony) when I'm done, then we can pick at specific phrases like the one you've mentioned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have this page, and the article on my Watchlist.Graham ColmTalk 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done with my copyedit. I happened to touch upon the phrase you highlighted; care to have another look? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Support added. Thanks for a fascinating contribution. Graham ColmTalk 20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): –iridescent 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of my long-term plan for a GT/FT on Thames bridges (probably never to be completed, as there are 33 in London alone). This one passed GAC a couple of months ago, and has now been expanded and cleaned up further and the odd stray uncited fact cited. Relatively short, but IMO says all that ought reasonably to be said on the subject. As with what seems to be every article, a significant nod is due to Malleus on this one for (again) cleaning up an article on a topic in which he likely doesn't have the least interest.–iridescent 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - With one comment that's more of a question.
Call me ignorant, but I think that the first sentence should be rewritten as Richmond Bridge is a Grade I listed 18th-century stone arch bridge which spans the River Thames at Richmond, in southwest London, England, and connects the two halves of the present-day London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. - I realize this has less flow, but the first seems improper. Once again, feel free to call me ignorant.
Otherwise, this is brilliant. ceranthor 21:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, although I've used "crosses" rather than "spans".–iridescent 21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support with some comments:
Background
The article cited in reference 3, which gives the date for the earliest recorded crossing as 1439 not 1459.
Replying point by point, even though it'll make the FAC messy, as otherwise it'll be impossible to keep track of what's a reply to what. The following list all from User:DavidCane Fixed–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"the Twickenham Ferry, slightly upstream, was also in service from at least 1652" - shouldn't there be "as early as" before the year?
I don't think it's necessary, but if you think it's a problem feel free to change it; I've no strong opinion.–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"the river crossing became a major traffic bottleneck" might be better as "the lack of a permanent river crossing became a major traffic bottleneck"
Disagree; the lack of a bridge might have caused the bottleneck but it was the ferry itself that was the bottleneck.–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It was obviously sometime before 1760, but in which year did George II grant William Windham the right to operate the ferry?
No source seems entirely sure; it must be in an archive somewhere, but I can't find anything that gives a date more precise than "by the 1770s". (Even 1760 isn't necessarily an upper limit; George could have granted it on completion of military service, or some such arrangement, and the lease not have come into place until after George's death)–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Design
You could pipe Richmond Bridge Act, 1772 to hide the year as it is already given earlier in the sentence.
I've left the date in intentionally as there was also a Richmond Bridge Act 1773.–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be a space in 2s6d.
I'll take your word for it; old British currency is something I'll never understand.–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You could add the percentage for the incline of 1 in 16 (6.25%).
Two uses of contract in the first sentence - suggest changing "was given the contract" to "was appointed".
Reworded to "The building of the bridge was put out to tender, and on 16 May 1774 Thomas Kerr was given the contract" – I want to avoid "appointed" as IMO it has the wrong connotations (of patronage rather than open bidding).–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. But my interpretation of "given" and "appointed" would be the opposite of yours - appointed suggests to me that there is a process involved whereas given doesn't. --DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "awarded", which should do nicely.–iridescent 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"The bridge was the subject of paintings by many of the leading artists of the day". To what time frame is "of the day" referring? The implication is that it is around the time of the opening of the bridge, but Constable and Turner had only just been born. As the caption says, Rowlandsons's picture was done about 1810. Constable's and Turner's pictures were even later - done in about 1818 and 1828 respectively, I think.
Changed to just "many leading artists".–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that the last three paragraphs of this section belong under the Construction heading. These could be combined with the first two paragraphs of the next section which don't really belong under 20th-century remodelling.
Agree and have changed the headers and added a section; this was a holdover from when the article was only 10kb and I didn't want "header clutter".–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Have done so – I assumed this was some long-forgotten Victorian firm that would never warrant an article, but it turns out it still exists and is one of the biggest engineering firms in the world. Oops.–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The caption to the image of the bridge is a bit misleading as the original bridge is the wider of the two portions visible in the arch rather than the narrower portion as suggested.
Added a "paler new section" to make it clear which is the new and which the old part.
Legacy
The bicentennial would have been celebrated in 1977 not 1777.
Very good point!–iridescent 00:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review: no problems with the images here. They are verifiably either in the public domain or appropriately licensed for free use. Jappalang (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Current ref 36 (Images of England) Has the publisher run into the title. Needs to be separated out.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That's down to the formatting of the {{IoE}} template, not me. As it's a very heavily used template and changing it would affect every article that mentions a listed building, I'm not going to unilaterally change it.–iridescent 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm... I added "Images of England website" after the template, that work? (It's the same sort of thing I do with any {{cite web}}'s I use, I just manually add the access date after, since I hate how the template formats the date.) That does it! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support but with some comments - 1) "Local resident William Windham had been sub-tutor to" could we have a date? or a decade? I had to guess.:) We have "until 1798" but no beginning date. 2) "in 1772 the Richmond Bridge Act 1772" the redlink may need the 1772, but having "in 1772" seems silly. Perhaps pipe the redlink in a manner like [[Richmond Bridge Act 1772|Richmond Bridge Act]]. The commissioners for the bridge are interesting, is there anything to describe that? I think people would like to know that Garrick was a famous actor without clicking the link. 3) "The commission appointed" Perhaps move this up to the preceding paragraph so it doesn't dangle out all alone there. 4) Perhaps move the picture in "Design" up to the middle paragraph for aesthetic reasons. 5) "The bridge was built in Portland stone" Perhaps "with" or "from" Portland stone, or rewrite it to say "composed of". 6) The paragraph starting "In 1846 the first railway" seems to dangle without a direct connection to the bridge. 7) "The plans were strongly opposed on aesthetic grounds" lacks a citation to it but is explained in the next paragraph. Perhaps a stronger connection between the two paragraphs (such as moving that line down, or moving the line in the second paragraph about the proposal up). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Replying in turn: 1 Regarding William Windham, while every history of the bridge mentions him, I find it very hard to find specific dates (see my comment to DavidCane above regarding the date he was granted the lease). I'm sure an expert in the court of George II could cite it in seconds, but he's only mentioned as brief background and it's a subject about which I know little, and wouldn't know where to start. The important point – "he did some favors for the royal family so they give him the ferry" – is IMO all that the general reader of the article will need. 2 As that makes two people supporting piped link and none in favor of keeping the "1772", I've piped the link. (Although it's a valid redlink, I doubt we'll have articles on either Act any time soon, so it's a moot point.) I was trying to avoid making the section on the Commissioners too long – and certainly to avoid a laundry-list of all 60 – so picked a few representative ones to try to give a flavor of the commission's composition. I agree that people who don't recognize the names will find it meaningless, so have expanded it to "including landscape architect Lancelot "Capability" Brown, historian and politician Horace Walpole and playwright and actor David Garrick" which hopefully sets enough of a tone without being too long. 3 Merged the two paragraphs. 4 I ideally wanted to keep this image next to the text description of the bridge, but have moved it; I agree that in its current placement it was too liable to push the following header sideways. 5 I think "built in" is more accurate than other wordings even though it's a bit of a formal wording – "built with…" to me suggests "included some Portland stone", not "built entirely using Portland stone". 6 Agree that the paragraph about the 19th century growth of Richmond dangles slightly, but it's too short to warrant its own section, but absolutely necessary towards setting a background for why a bridge built for a country village couldn't handle the population of a large commuter suburb. If you can think of a way around this, by all means do! 7 I've added a cite to (the same) reference to the first "opposition to widening plans" sentence. I think the duplication is necessary, as the timescale was "widening plans made→ opposed→ rejected due to opposition→ new bridge fails to solve problems→ widening plans again→ accepted this time despite opposition", and the fact of the widening plans being submitted twice – and why they were rejected the first time but accepted two years later – is such a pivotal point in the bridge's history. Hope that helps…–iridescent 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As expected, another fine page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is a balanced and interesting read on a part of Manchester's waste disposal history. The article is quite new, but I've worked pretty hard on it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it ordinance survey that's putting the site out? Or is the map hosted on a third party site? Do they have permission to host that? (I have no clue on copyright for Ord Survey maps, so I'm clueless on whether they are even copyrighted.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"this site contains historical mapping from Ordnance Survey’s County Series at 1:2500 & 1:10 560 scales dating from 1840 to 1948." - Ordnance Survey maps are Crown copyright and expire 50 years from first publication. old-maps.co.uk do watermark the images, which is an attempt to stop people from re-using them, but only the watermark is copyrighted. An add-on in Flickr easily removes those watermarks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
POD is correct here; copyright on OS maps automatically expires 50 years after publication. Using old-maps.co.uk is just a convenience; as photographing a work doesn't constitute enough original input to create a new work, they can't claim copyright over it. (They plaster watermarks on things to make it inconvenient to lift material from them.)–iridescent 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Works fine here, on 3 browsers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Works now, weird. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportOppose title not lewd enough hahaha, just starting to read through now. Did glance when it was at GAN but got sidetracked by other things.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ornamental shrubs grown in a nursery were used in the parks and gardens of Manchester - I am always curious to know what shrubs can be grown with a ruddy great frost every winter and poor drainage. Not a deal-breaker but if some can be listed I'd be a happy gardener.
Rhododendron is the only variety I know of, so I've added that. The only other plant that gets a mention is the Conifer, but only because it couldn't be grown there:) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Given it has a biodiversity plan, the section is rather small. I changed the names a bit, common practice is to have common name followed by scientific name in parentheses, be good to tweak asphodel and cranberry to get the right species. Ditto cotton sedge. any other information on wildlife such as more birds and reptiles/amphibians etc. would be good.
The biodiversity plan, so far as I can make out, is only to ensure that breeding pairs of Partridges continue to visit Carrington Moss. I will however try and find out more about the fauna. I have some big pdf files to read through that may yield some results. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment – the biodiversity reference (currently 55) links to the main website which doesn't actually mention Carrington Moss at all – it was only your mention of partridges that let me find the document in question. (With all due respect to Trafford, "protect the two surviving breeding pairs of partridges" is possibly the most sorry biodiversity plan I've ever seen.) Incidentally, "Carrington Moss is home to the only recorded pair of breeding partridges" implies that there's only one pair, but the document referenced talks about two pairs. You also say "Stigmella continuella (a species of Moth) has been observed in the area", but I think that really needs some expansion – is there anything unusual about this particular moth? (If it's just the same kind of moth as the rest of Manchester, it probably doesn't warrant mentioning, otherwise we're down the pigeons-and-rabbits list of everything in the area route; if it's unique to the area, endangered etc, that warrants a mention.)–iridescent 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the ref text to instruct the reader further, and changed the Partridge wording. I've also added more on nature at Carrington from that site, and added a line (unreferenced but self evident (not a criticism btw)) on the moth. In comparison to other Mosses around Manchester Carringon is somewhat lacking on detailed information about wildlife in the area - most of what exists is from a time before it was reclaimed, as now the area is mostly arable farmland. The notability of this article is mostly about its use as a dumping ground for Manchester's poo:) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. It's a bit choppy in places, but that's due to a lot of relatively brief facts that need mentioning but don't warrant going into great detail, so there's no way round that. Articles like this, on things that are important to those with an interest in the field but too obscure a topic for the Britannicas of the world to cover, are where Wikipedia shines. (One minor point; given its significance, it should probably be categorised with at least one of the subcategories of Category:Waste. I'll leave it to those who know more about the area to consider which, if any, are appropriate.)–iridescent 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also added some detail on a nature reserve in man utd's training ground. It isn't much but it does help reduce the 'choppiness' you noted. I work in that training ground occasionally, so one day I hope to be able to get a good photograph of the reserve. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - Great work, though I do have a few comments and questions.
Support, all concerns addressed. –Juliancolton|Talk 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is south of the River Mersey approximately 10 miles (16 km) south-west of Manchester - I can't quite identify it, but something seems odd about this bit.
Changed to "It is south of the River Mersey, approximately 10 miles (16 km) south-west of Manchester, and occupi..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Originally an unused area of grouse moorland - Might want to link grouse.
This has been done (not by me) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That last line of the lead could probably be merged with the prior paragraph.
I think that last line is a good summary of things now. I had considered moving the sports facilities onto the same line, but they're private. The lead goes from "where" to "used" to "present use". I could add some information about the public rights of way through the moss, and the horse riding school on the former nursery? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Added a line about rights of way Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
but a more recent explanation is that the name is from an Anglicised form of a Scandinavian personal name. - "Explanation" → "theory".
Nominator(s): --TorsodogTalk 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on this article extensively for the past year and I believe it is finally ready to be featured. It has passed GAN, had 3 separate PR and three users copy edited it on their own (thanks guys). Content-wise, I believe the article more than adequately covers the topic. Let 'er rip! --TorsodogTalk 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I didn't see this during peer review (maybe it was added in the melee) but there are MoS problems with logical quotation. Please go through and check for this (WP:PUNCT). --Laser brain(talk) 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I remember trying to keep an eye out for this as I was editing, but this article was kind of heavy on the quotes and it looks like I missed some. I saw that you corrected a couple of them, but I will check the quotes again, especially the ones from the book source, just to make sure. --TorsodogTalk 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Technical comments Dates in body and refs appear consistent (long month-day-year); "p."/"pp." and author name order consistent as well; links checked and work (including a few highlighted ones in the link checker). --anoddname 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (All have accessdates too. --anoddname 23:27, 14 May 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 JPBPA, but there may be others)
I changed "JPBPA" to "Japanese Professional Baseball Players Association". The only other abbreviations in the notes are in URLs (such as ESPN.com), which I assume should be keep abbreviated.
I... don't know. Let me check and see what information I can find about the site or look if there is a more easily established reliable source I can find to replace it. --TorsodogTalk 15:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like they publish study materials for the TOEIC (an English language comprehension test), as well as at least one magazine on the topic. They have been in business since 1990. The article linked is apparently an aggregate summary of English-language news information for a particular week. You can see explanation of specific English terminology on the right side of the page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Joe, but to avoid any problems I found a new reliable source (The Japan Times) that provided the same information. The reference in question is now removed from the article. --TorsodogTalk 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I peer reviewed this and I'm not seeing any other issues after the MoS fixes. Nice work! --Laser brain(talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I thought there was a problem with that dash, but it seems fine. Must be second nature.:) ceranthor 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review as follows:
File:HideoNomo.png: needs some clarification over its licensing status due to a Taiwanese wiki's claim that it is under a restrictive non-commercial license. I have contacted the original author, at User talk:CFIF#File:HideoNomo.png. An admin could also help in checking the licensing when the image was here at Wikipedia.
Okay, cleared. CFIF affirmed he released it into public domain.Jappalang (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Rest of the Images are verifiably licensed for free use by their authors. I am surprised to see this article is about baseball... From the title, I thought it was about the USPS sorting system. Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - As a participant at the second of three peer reviews, I must say that this article has rounded into shape nicely. Here are some comments from my second look at the page:
History: "(the San Francisco Giants Class-A team)." Perhaps an apostrophe should be used for Giants.
Ya, that definitely seems appropriate. I added one.
Complications: Not a big deal, but Nomo's contract amount needs a non-breaking space. The other dollar amounts in this section are fine in this regard.
Ha, I always miss at least one of these. Thanks for catching it.
Resolution: Bud Selig's first name is repeated here from the prior section.
I thought maybe since it was a new section, I'd keep his name, but I removing it seems like another good option since he is mentioned so late in the last section. I removed it.
Criticism: The quote from Ichiro's agent doesn't have a citation. Is it supposed to be cited by the subsequent reference? Same goes for the Brian Cashman quote.
Ya the subsequent refs cover all the quotes that come before it. Would it be better if I added the refs directly after every quote? --TorsodogTalk 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The current format is not bad, but it would be better to repeat the cites directly after quotes. You never know if material cited by another source will be inserted in the middle at some point. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an article that I enjoyed reading again, and I will be supporting when these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support – As I said above, a very enjoyable read. Great to see how good the finished product turned out after first looking at it so long ago. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: I recently did a full copyedit which I hope helped. I agree with Jappalang, above, that the title is misleading, and that it should have some reference to baseball in it. This might help raise the article's profile. For consideration, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. This article on an interesting man, who seems almost saintlike until you can see the anger expressed over decades of being "the man who Nixon beat" has passed GA and gone through a peer review. I should note that it does use a fair use image. I have visited the National Archives and called the House of Representatives seeking a free use image; they don't have one. I'm planning to do some research at Cal Poly Pomona and Claremont College, each of which has a Voorhis archive when I go to California, most likely in July and have been in touch with them, but for now, there is no free use image of Voorhis available, and honestly I don't think there's going to be.Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I was going to ask about the picture, and I don't think that's problematic, sometimes free pictures are difficult to obtain and he is also dead. I see you found something about the "cowboy" time in Wyoming, that is good. I personally think "nevertheless" at the beginning of that one sentence is unnecessary, as are some whiles and thoughs, but these are minor issues and I'm not regularly on FAC and don't know whether that is considered to contribute to engaging prose, but the changes added since the GA review complement the article. Hekerui (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was my fault, I thought the cowboy thing was connected with the year he spent in Laramie, actually it happened earlier. All straightened out, I'll do a reread and see if I can get rid of a few of the "though"s.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
oppose - Two non-free images of US congress men is unfathomable, the US federal government is the richest source of free image content on this site, it is not plausible these images meet NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've explained that I've looked for images at the National Archives in College Park, in person, and by calling the House of Representatives. If you want me to delete the Houser fair use image, OK, but Houser was never a congressman, and thus he would have been unlikely to have had a free use photo taken. I have also enquired of the special collections people at Cal Poly Pomona, where the Voorhis papers are stored, have not heard back yet. According to the people at the House of Representatives, the Congressional Photo Directory did not start until 10 years after Voorhis left office. They suggested I consult the National Archives. Which I had already gone to in person. If you have suggestions as to how I might proceed, Fasach Nua, I'd be grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have stricken the oppose, will take the matter under consideration and will return to the issue Fasach Nua (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you do. We need some sort of accepted guideline to cover people whose career fell between 1923 and the dawn of the digital camera age. I would love to have a free use image of Voorhis, since I would like to see this article TFA someday, and I'd like it to have a free use image of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: I had my say at peer review – not much as it happens – and my concerns were pretty much met. Just a few petty niggles now:-
I noticed some missing no-break spaces
Can it be clarified that the "Bibliography" is a list of works by Voorhis?
In that bibliography I noticed there was The Life and Times of Aurelius Lyman Voorhis. A distinguished forbear, perhaps? Any idea who he was and why a book should be written about him?
In the peer review I asked if there was any information about the origin of the name "Voorhis". Do I take it your investigations drew a blank?
These are very minor points which do not detract from the article's quality. A worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Responses to BB: Thanks. My responses are:
I'll check on the nbs. I take it we are talking about prior to an ellipsis?
I'll make that clarification
The next two go together. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of that book, Aurelius was Voorhis' grandfather and founded a bank and other businesses in Kansas and fought in the Civil War (he left a diary, which I imagine is Voorhis' source for much of it). I am hoping to get ancestry information from that. Bullock doesn't help, he mentions that Aurelius was born in Indiana but he doesn't say where the family comes from. However, I'm trying to avoid buying a copy, for obvious reasons, and am arranging for some library searches, so far no good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On the nbsps, I was actually thinking of things like 300 Democrats, 15,000 votes etc. On Aurelius, I'd say the bit of information you have is worth including as family background, even if you can't lay your hands on the book. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll do that, citing Bullock and will insert the nbsps today. I'm sure the Voorhis collection will have the book when I get out to California in the summer. Right now I am scheduled to fly out on July 12, but that is very much subject to change not within my control. I don't mind sacrificing a few hours to look over his papers, take photographs of the things named for him, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder a bit about the naming practices in the Voorhis family. "Aurelius" is bad enough, but who in their right mind would name their kid "Horace Voorhis" (say it a few times). Jeez. No wonder he went by Jerry.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
The only problem I have is that your book refs in the notes use books listed in the Further reading. Further reading is for books/articles/etc NOT used in the notes.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the section to "Bibliography", which is what I've used in other FAs. That section contains only books used as refs. Thanks for the check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Sources" works also, if you're concerned about a conflict between his own writings and sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was. I'll do that. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support but with comments - 1) National Archives -II- is in College Park.:) 2) "he faced a military school principal" makes it seem like being a principal makes the candidate weak in the context. I didn't see anything else that stood out. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the support. Yes, technically it is the Archives II, I guess, though most people seem to prefer College Park for research. As for the military school principal, the exact quote, from Gellman, is: "The next contender, who lost by a wider margin, was the commander of a small military school for boys." It's what the source says.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose till image concerns sorted out:
File:Voorhissig.jpg: this is a perculiar situation... I doubt we copyright our signatures. Regardless it is a derivative work—copying a signature. I am quite uncomfortable here (and uncertain if any policies/guidelines cover this). Should we not go for a genuine signature? What says the community?
To explain my discomfort (since as explained by Wehwalt below, US signatures are not copyrightable), my issue is that I would prefer to see the man's own work (and learn of the pen-pressure and style as he signed off his name)? Can we not upload the original signature itself? Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Frederick F. Houser.gif: WP:IUP asks not for this to be a GIF. Furthermore, as Houser has his own article, by what significance and purpose should his image be here as fair use?
File:NixonThimble.jpg: point to the page that hosts the image, not directly to the image. Is this image copyrighted? The page might make it clear.
File:Lt Cmdr Richard Nixon 1945.jpg: no given source or information to verify the details of this photo. The closest image is at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm but there is a lack of information to properly license this image (if we take their public domain claim to heart). It would be best to confirm with them if this image was taken by their personnel (OTRS). For all we know, it could be a photo submitted by Nixon (privately taken) to his Naval office and they mistakenly thought it was their own. Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Voorhis' portrait is okay as fair use (I have reinforced the fair use rationale as best as I could); searching through Google, LoC, and National Archives reveal no ready images of him. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments I've changed the copyright tag on this (of course, I took the photo of the signature) to pd-ineligible per . That seems to be the common practice for non Federal gov't employees in the post 1923 era. Does that work for you?
Houser: sliced, replaced with one of FDR.
Nixon: replaced with one of him in the Navy
Thimble: I removed it. I really didn't like having a Nixon thimble in Voorhis' article anyway. I do intend to bring the article on the campaign up through the ranks, and I own one of the famous thimbles (they are not rare) and will photograph it in due course for that article. For this article, I've axed it and put in one of the Cal Poly Pomona campus. I will be going to California in July; maybe they have some Voorhis election memorabilia I can photograph. But this should do for FAC purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
On the signature issue, please also see here. I'm not going to the wall on this; it is merely in the infobox for ornament, and if there's a view that it's copyright, I'll get rid of it. Or please just get rid of it yourself. I'm not going to hold up the FAC of a worthy (I'm biased) article on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As explained above, I am not going against it on grounds of copyrights (I was wondering about it), but more of a "if it was not copyrighted in the first place, why not upload Voorhis' own work?" Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a digital photograph of his signature, how is that not OK? I don't have a scanner, if that's what you're talking about. I will add the info you want on the source, and replace the Nixon photo again. I hope that will do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thrown off by "I created this work entirely by myself." All "free" images in the article verifiably in the public domain or licensed. The single copyrighted photo complies with fair use. Jappalang (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, then, thanks for the check. I'd be grateful if you could advise me how to handle that situation better, but my talk page is a fine venue for that. To recap, we have three supports, no opposes, and the article has passed technical and image checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A week and half has been spent researching the topic and the article has been put through a successful GA review. I believe it is now comprehensive and ready to be a featured article. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Question When I put "Elwood Haynes" into my library database, I also get this biography: Elwood Haynes: 1857-1925: inventor, scientist, metallurgist, industrialist, educator, philanthropist by Wallace Huffman. Any reason why it wasn't used, considering the small number of sources available on Haynes? Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I went to my library to find that book specifically, but they did not have it. But that is where I found Alloys and Automobiles, by Gray. Which I found to be very comprehensive. When used along with the book on the Haynes-Apperson company and what was available from the Indiana Historical Society, I feel that I was able to get a complete picture of Haynes. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you be sure that the article is comprehensive if you haven't seen the book, though? I would offer to help, since I have access to the book, but I can't until next week - this is finals week. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's apparently just 20 pages long and published by a local historical society 45 years ago. It's worth tracking down but having seen a few biographies like this I wouldn't get my hopes up. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with several books by Ralph Gray, from which about 60% of the article is sourced, and I have found his books to always be very comprehensive. It is the only biography aside from the one you mentioned that I found while searching for sources, and after reading it I believe it is truly exhausting on the topic. The primary notability of Haynes is his inventions and companies, and secondarily his brief political career and part in the Indiana Gas Boom. A third tier would perhaps be his philanthropy and awards, and a couple lawsuits he was involved in. For the most important parts of his life (autos and inventions) I was able to get quite a few sources, and used the best few for the article. Between them all, I think all the important and secondary aspects of the life are covered well, and to a fair degree the third tier of things. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
A few things:
"he formed the first profitable company in the United States to commercially produce automobiles." - this seems redundant, profitable and commercially. If you're producing a profit aren't you automatically doing engaging in commercial activities? I'd suggest "he formed the first company in the United States to profitably produce automobiles."
Adjusted as you suggested. I was trying to contrast, he was the second company to produce cars commercially, but the first company was not profitable and went out of business. But saying first profitable company carries the same meaning. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"His frequent travels drew his interest to the idea of creating a mechanical means of transportation" this is kind of awkward... numerous mechanical means of transportation already existed (steam ship and train, most obviously). Can you be more specific about his inspiration?
Changed to "to the idea of a mechanical vehicle that could travel without need of a horse,". Somewhat better I think.
"Haynes Stellite Company was formed" passive voice can be fixed here
Why did he stay at Indiana Gas if he didn't want to be associated with a corrupt company?
The source indicates he didn't want to move to Chicago where he perceived the corruption was at and where he could potentially become entangled in it, not that he wanted to leave the company altogether, so he instead sought a position more removed from Chicago. I have clarified that. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Haynes' car is believed to be the second gasoline-engine powered vehicle to be successfully road tested in the United States" - believed by who?
All but one of my sources says the second, but one says first and discounts the Duryea car. The Smithsonian lists it as second, I will go with that. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Article has some excess details... some lines I noticed that don't really seem to contribute anything to the story:
"He attempted to experiment with steel, but was unable to heat the furnace enough to work it" - no impact, doesn't seem important
"his ancestors immigrated to New England in 1689" debatable but I'm not really sure how critical this genealogy is
I think it is worth leaving his ancestry. It always helps to know where a person is "from" when building a background sketch of them. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"and once played on the school's unofficial football team in an attempt to make his time there more enjoyable." not really important?
Removed it, it was intended to be part of the response to his mother's advice to do something more fun at school. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"The school was five miles (8 km.) from his home and he found the walk to be time consuming." a detail that doesn't really seem necessary
One of the sources uses to this to indicate early experience with inefficient means of transportation, but I think that is kind of grasping myself. I have removed it. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of these are just suggestions (especially the excess details that could be omitted). --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support all my nitpicks have been addressed. This article did have issues with too much trivial detail and excessive use of the passive voice, but it's all been addressed. I'm not too concerned with the 1965 biography not being cited... see my above comment. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I have been copy editing this article through GA and here. It gives a clearly written and comprehensive picture of an interesting chapter in automotive history. Just some comments:
"Without a spare tire, Haynes was unable to run in the contest. The race was held on April 7, and thousands of spectators turned out. Duryea's car won first place and a German Benz came in second. Another contest was held in which Haynes won a prize for most intuitive design." I am confused about the contest and the race. If Haynes was unable to run in the contest, but he won first place in the race? I guess the contest and the race are different?
Yes that is correct, there were apparently different events, the auto race was one event, and a design contest was another. I suspect there were others too, but my source didn't mention them. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Would "preliminary contest" be inaccurate? I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to figure this out when I was reading it. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The source indicates the design competition occurred after the race itself, although it does not come out and say so. I would like to write an article on the race if I could find another source.. I think I will try to do that this afternoon. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on images as follow:
File:Elwood P. Haynes.jpg: could be private. If it cannot be shown as published before 1923, this can be converted to fair-use as long as no other pre-1923 published portraits can be found.
Per WP:NFCC, 10 criteria have to be fulfilled for fair use. I am not certain this photo has great significance for this article. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed - although I can't quite remember, i think I took this photo of a newspaper article at cropped the image. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this could be kept as fair use. The photo is on display at the Smithsonian, is in several places including find-a-grave where it is marked as not-copyrighted, and it is the cover image of both Alloys and Automobiles and Haynes-Apperson. It must surely be public domain? I can't find anything about its origin though other than it is taken in 1894 in Kokomo. However, I have went ahead and replaced it with the image you suggested above - I had already uploaded it on the commons. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It could be, but the projects operate on the principle of verifiability. I have seen copyrighted images uploaded to the projects that left unchecked have propagated throughout the Internet, so that does not become a good indicator of public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The image is a cropped photo of a 1910 Haynes company advertisement. You can still see a portion of the text of the advertisement towards the bottom of the photo. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you upload the uncropped image over this one, then re-upload the cropped image over it? In this way, the uncropped image (showing it as an advertisement) is in the "File history" and allows easy verification. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed - i want to readded it though, So I am going to try and find its original source. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Elwood Haynes in Denver Coloroda while on an Automobile trip in 1913.jpg: needs proof of pre-1923 publication; unlikely to be of enough significance (relevance) for fair use in this article
This is a photo from a newspaper article - I have added that to the photos source information. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you have information about the specific article (title, author, etc)? Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My photo is only of the top portion of the article, and it was a two column cut out.
File:Elwood Haynes 030.jpg: needs proof of pre-1923 publication; unlikely to be of enough significance (relevance) for fair use in this article
Removed, but I think this was from a newspaper article too. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Young Elwood Haynes c 1885.png: why is it stated to be c 1885 when the Charles C Gordon Library says 1881? Who says it was published in a yearbook?
I mislabeled it when I uploaded. I was not aware it was his graduation picture at first, and discovered the exact year later and source later. It was rather poor quality from trying to blow it up which is why I didn't use it earlier. I know it was in a yearbook because the yearbook was at the museum. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
US public domain determination is primarily based on publication, not creation date. To re-iterate, creation is not publication. Publication involves the distribution (or display) to the public of copies. Elwood Haynes museum was set up May 28, 1967. Even if we take it that the publishing date is on that date (assuming that they created brochures throughout the year, showing all the photos in each brochure); that could mean 95 years of copyright protection. There are about 564 books, published in 1890-1922, on Elwood Haynes. Photos in them (including any of the above that appears in them) can be used without issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I will check these out to see what I can find, several of these images are in a 1919 book called Indiana and Indianans, which would make them PD. When I uploaded them I put the source where I got them though, which was from photos at the Haynes museum, they are higher quality than screen shoots of the book which can be accessed online. I would think the picture of his wife and children, as well as the photos of himself would be fair use though. I will check out sources tommorrow and figure out which one cans be salvaged for use. Thanks! —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A couple questions also. The Haynes Muesem is owned by the state of Indiana, which would be the owner of all the items in it, presumably. The state does hold copyrights to works, but it waives all restrictions on government owned works and allows them to be reproduced. Also, at least two of the images are on display in the Smithsonian Institution exhibit, which is US government owned, would those count as PD? —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can note for those images that appear in the 1919 publication, that would be great (take a look at File:Elwood P. Haynes.jpg on how it can be stated, although a simple "appeared on p. x of this <title>" would also do fine). Indiana government works are in the public domain? Regardless, it would be similar to federal law, in which even though federal works are in public domain, copyrights of private works may be transfered to the government on donation, hence retaining the rights of protection for the stipulated period. It would be safer (and easier) to determine their copyright status through pre-1923 publication. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the Indiana Code, 5-14-3, states that all Indiana owned works and public records can be copied without limitations, although the state holds copyright, it waives all restrictions on using its works. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 12:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed several of the images you listed. I have left three of them that I think could be fair use, please let me know what you think. I have also provided original sources for the others to show they are public domain, as I could recall. I believe some of the ones I have removed are also PD, but I can't recall for if they were from a newspaper article or what... If I get a chance I will return to the museum to and write down original sources and put them back into the article. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess just my comment they are from certain places are not enough to establish where they are from. Not any different than any other claim made... Hmm. I will remove all the questionable ones for now. When I get a chance I will try to get page numbser, exact source information, etc and readd them to the article. I think there will still be enough images to pass this review. I have moved in a few definantly PD images from some other article to use for now. I feel they are less useful though. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose struck. Images as of this revision are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the most interesting articles I've read! As you've written it, Haynes was a fascinating man and integral to automobile history. I had no idea that one of the first American cars was from Indiana. These seem to be my only concerns, all of which are probably me just being picky:
"While giving his car a ride around the town on the following day Haynes was involved in what is believed to be the first automobile accident after swerving to miss a street car and striking a sharp curb, busting a tire and damaging the axle. Without a spare tire, Haynes was unable to run in the race. The race was held on November 28, and thousands of spectators turned out. Duryea's car won first place and a German Benz came in second." It may be in the ref at the end of the next sentence, but this is interesting and unique and needs a source.
"A parade of 2,000 cars was organized in New York City during 1908 and Haynes, who many recognized as the inventor of the American automobile, led the parade down Broadway riding in the Pioneer. He was followed by ten Haynes' cars, a model from each year to display the advancement in technology." Same.
It was formerly in the Autmobile Hall, but is now in the History muesem according to that website, I have added that to the article. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting! Aparently, Indiana rivaled Michigan for the first years of the industry. Studabaker, Haynes, Apperson, and others all were in Indiana. The Indy 500 was spawned by all that. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the 500 perhaps be mentioned in the legacy, then? Either way, I Support. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Haynes personally had anything to do with the 500, but it developed because of all the car companies in Indiana at the turn of the century. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Karanacs. I found this to be an interesting article on a topic I knew nothing about. It is very, very close to FA status, but I think there are a few little niggles that need to be taken care of first.
I think there is likely still a little too much detail in the article, especially in the section on his education. (For example, I would strike the sentence about his parents escorting him home after sight-seeing and the piece about his spending a week at Bertha's but being sick the whole time.) There's other trivia throughout the article, such as information on various parades - I don't see why all of these are that relevant to this article. Also, the grand jury information...there are other examples too, where I think sentences could be removed from the article without hindering the reader's ability to understand Haynes and his life and beliefs.
I think some of the sentences are overly wordy and could be copyedited to be a bit tighter. Random example: the two decided on the need for a roof to be installed on future models could read more clearly the two decided to install a roof on future models.
I saw some grammatical errors and misspellings throughout the article. I tried to fix most of these, but I recommend one more good read to see if there are more.
Are the labor problems after his comment on wages significant? They are mentioned but not fleshed out.
I will work on these right away. The laborors had unionized and threatened a strike unless their wages were raised to a rate Haynes thought was too high - Haynes was not much of a buisness leader (he was much more involved in development parts of his buisnesses), and already had alot on his plate with the auto company, so rather than fight them he sold the company. Union Carbine absorbed their union into their own, and that resolved the problems without and strike. I will try to work a brief explanation like that into the article. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to pare the article back a bit by removing some of the less releveant parts. I did leave the one New York Parade, since he got arrested there it seems to me to be worth inclusion. I have also tried to tighten and break up some of the longer sentances. I am not the best copy-editor though, so problems like that are not always apparent to me.. I will continue to read through it again to see if I can find anything else. —Charles Edward(Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't know if the term is used anymore, but this is a "self-nom". Since being selected as the Gaming Collaboration of the Week a few months ago, the article has seen drastic improvement. Most of the work since then has been done by me, save for the amazing copyedit courtesy of User:TKD.
The article is currently a "good article" and has undergone peer review. So, this is the next step. I believe that it meets all current FAC standards, from prose quality to verifiability. However, I will be happy to make further improvements if there is any opposition. Let the fun begin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question: all FACs are assumed to be "self-noms" in that a major contributor to the article usually creates the nomination; if not, major contributors are required to have been consulted because they are in the best position to address comments and objections that may arise during FAC. As far as copyediting goes, I do encourage others to review my work; my own idiosyncrasies can show at times.:) —TKD::{talk} 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments
The infobox uses flags to denote release regions. The development section specifically states that the PlayStation version was only released in Japan, but were the other two releases US-only, or North America?
I have no idea, and I don't know how I could find out. I could change them to NA tags instead, if that would help.
I guess I'd just recommend leaving them as US-only, in that case. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any reviews available for the Pocket PC and PlayStation versions?
None for the PlayStation version, and no reliable ones for the Pocket PC version, as far as I could find.
Is the file resource external link necessary?
Removed.
I neglected to mention this in the peer review, but the article doesn't go into much detail regarding the continuity of Ultima or the distinction between the Ultima series and the Underworld series. Having never played an Ultima game, I have to confess a certain level of confusion after reading the Plot section. What's the Abyss, for instance? Could the section be fleshed out to make it more accessible to someone unfamiliar with the series?
It doesn't really have any continuity with other Ultima games; it's a spin-off, not a real sequel. Unfortunately, I haven't found a source that actually states this, so I can't put it in the article. I could give a little description of the Abyss and its purpose in Ultima IV, and how Ultima in general works, though. If that would help, I'll start tracking down sources right away.
I've started expanding the new Setting section for extra clarity. Please give me a few days; it'll take a little while to find sourcing. I've thrown together some placeholder material for now, and added a template so I (hopefully) don't get any drive-by opposition based on a work-in-progress section.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks great now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm also a little confused by the "mantra" system. The article states that mantras can be recited after gaining experience, but it also says that mantras can be found in the manual. Are mantras like codes? Or do players get a certain amount of mantra "slots" that increases with each level, and mantras can be recited into a slot when they're discovered?
They're like codes. There are a few in the manual, and the rest are in the game. You type them into a text interface that appears when you get near a shrine. I'll include this in the article as soon as I find sources, but I might not be able to. I'll try my best.
Included it in the article. I got lucky; it was in the manual. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Game Bytes a reliable source?
See below.
Reference 18 ("The Story of Ultima Underworld") has no publisher listed.
I don't know what I'd put there. It was never published; it's a statement by Paul Neurath on a fansite.
Hmm, I guess the fansite itself could be considered the publisher. The statement was made by a first-party source, so it doesn't really matter if the website itself is reliable or not. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources referring to the game itself don't make use of {{Cite video game}}, while the rest of the article uses templates.
I'm not very familiar with this template; it must have been created after my last FAC. Do I use it on manuals or quotes? Or both? I'll implement it, but I need to know what to use it on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this one is justifiable. First, it's an interview and not an article; the statements cited are all from developers. Second, and most importantly, a Game Bytes-Looking Glass interview has been used as a source of information for an article by Eludamos, an academic journal.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. (I'll be back shortly to check them... farrier just arrived) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I completely removed the ref from the article. Since you were obviously going to strike it through anyway (it isn't some kind of decisive act), I don't see why you would bother removing mine. But whatever. Good luck with the horses, and I await your further comment. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a FAC thing, it's just one of those things, the way things are done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. As Jimmy stated, I copyedited this article before FAC. I also copyedited the story additions recently added. The article appears to be comprehensive and neutral; I searched Google Books, Google Scholar, and what I can access through my InfoTrac subscription to check that all major details were covered; as far as I can tell, they are. —TKD[talk][c] 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Images appear solid, there's a surprising depth of content for only online sources (and a search through LexisNexis turned up no print sources that could add to the content provided.) I ran through and made a plurality of changes, mostly just adding more explanation where necessary and chopping down on the hem-hawing. I did move the ports to the end, as I figured it made more sense to discuss the reception of the original game first. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Quite an interesting and informative article. I had no idea 3D gaming was so heavily rooted in a game I'd never heard of. Be that as it may, I noticed some issues which should probably be addressed. Some are minor stylistic concerns, which are not deal breakers.
Sources- All sources look to satisfy WP:RS, the Game Bytes sources looks borderline but still fine.
Ref 6 and 19 are both webpages on ttlg.com, but the publisher listed for them is "Game Bytes" and "Through the Looking Glass" respectively. Shouldn't both be the same?
The one listed as "Game Bytes" is an interview originally published by Game Bytes, now archived at Through the Looking Glass. The other one is a statement issued by the game's designer on Through the Looking Glass. If you think both should be the same, I'll change it.
Ref 31 from PC Gamer does not specify the issue number or which region it is from (US or UK). The issue number isn't as big a deal, but I believe the two regions have different content.
Specified as PC Gamer US. I don't think PC Gamer actually lists the official number of each issue, so that information isn't available.
Style
The "Development" section relies a lot on quotes; a couple which are run on sentences. This is definitely the section to use them in my opinion, but I'd say this is too much. I'd suggest some paraphrasing to minimize quotes with confusing grammar.
I'll look into this. It will require more than just a few minor edits, though, so give me a day or two to get it done.
I've never been a fan of review scores mixed in with prose. I'd say you have enough to use Template:VG Reviews. Consolidating them together generally gives the scores more meaning in my opinion. It allows you to compare them and get a quick overview of the reception.
I've never used this before, but I put it in. If it needs work, I can adjust it.
David moved the "Ports" section down to the "Legacy" section, an edit I agree with, but I question if it is big enough to warrant its own section. Maybe integrate it into the rest of the "Legacy" section.
Also, I think the PlayStation port should be mentioned first. It seems kind of odd to discuss them in reverse chronological order.
I've made an attempt at doing both of these things. Check it out and tell me what you think.
The sentence in "Technology" about the effects predating Duke Nukem 3D sounds like it belongs in the "Legacy" section as well.
It's a fairly minor note, only relevant when placed in the context of the Technology section. I've removed it entirely, for the sake of keeping the sections focused on their respective topics.
This phrase strikes me as weird: "Outside the English-speaking world..." But I unfortunately don't have any suggestion for it.
The sentence could technically be rewritten into "Response to the game was also positive outside the English-speaking world." If you think that's an improvement, I'll change it.
Overall, the article is in very good shape. I'll check back in later to see about supporting. (Guyinblack25talk 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC))
Looking better. Here are my replies to the remaining issues.
Sources-
I'm not sure what to do about the ttlg and Game Byte thing. Is Game Byte actually Game Byte magazine? If so then there's an index with some basic information. {{Cite journal}} has a url parameter that can be used for online versions.
Yeah, it's Game Bytes magazine. However, it was actually just a website; it had no print version. The site you linked to is just an archive of some of its issues. So cite journal wouldn't work here. I really don't know what to do about this.
I pretty sure PC Gamer US has issue numbers like other magazines, which admittedly can be buried somewhere obscure in the magazine. I have a similar problem finding the publication month of some Retro Gamer and gamesTM issues. But like I said, not a deal breaker for me.
Style-
I added citations to the scores. Personally, I don't think you need the awards section in the table. If you do keep it, I'd suggest citations for those too and remove them from the prose to avoid redundancy.
Done.
It's really just the phrase "outside the English-speaking world" that doesn't agree with me. I have this nagging feeling that there's a better way to say that. Maybe "The game was well received by non-English (or foreign) publications as well."?
Done.
Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25talk 15:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC))
See above comments. Also, would you mind giving me some direct examples of the Development section quotations that need work? I looked through it after you mentioned it, but couldn't find anything; it's probably a result of how many times I've read that section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been copyedited, researched, and otherwise nitpicked by many editors and its sources and prose have been run through the gauntlet. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This article has undergone a recent peer review, where images and references were check along with other things. I think that the image and reference problems should be fixed now; the only exception is RPGwatch, which we feel is reliable since it is an interview with the game's developers and, therefore, is a primary but reliable source for information. We also did some copyediting there. Just let us know if there's anything else that we can do to improve this article! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As was the case during the peer review, there are completely unreferenced paragraphs in Gameplay and Plot. This should be taken care of, although I won't commit to an Oppose; I haven't read the article thoroughly enough that I would be able to support based on that change alone. A good rule to follow: When in doubt, cite absolutely everything that can be cited, and remove everything that can't be. You end up with more concise articles that way, usually, and you get the added bonus of not having to worry about people like me, who take offense at even a single unreferenced paragraph. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly having reliable, inline citations is better, but isn't the game itself a source (although a primary one) for that information? The game contains the information on plot and gameplay. Video game sourcing can be difficult for plot and gameplay because that isn't necessarily what reliable sources focus on (development and reception, mostly), even though it is needed to make a high-quality encyclopedia article. It's kind of like with a book: You'll get some information on the storyline in reliable sources, but unless it is something enormously popular like LOTR or Eragon, the reviews will focus mainly on things like style, how the author wrote it, the book's meaning, etc., and the plot is left to be sourced from the book itself. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, this is true. But only regarding plot; gameplay sections are specific to video game articles, and a lot of times reviews will discuss gameplay in detail. The standard practice for gameplay sourcing is reviews and the game's manual. Like I said above, the best thing to do is include what you can through citations, and axe the rest. It works for the gameplay section, too. As for plot, the standard practice for video game articles is that when you don't have a secondary source, use the script. This should be fairly easy for the characters section, if any of the editors have the game, as Torment has a character database. The story itself will also need script citations, unless you've got secondary sources. I haven't seen a VG article pass FAC in several years that didn't have plot section citations. On a long past FA (System Shock), I even had to carefully transcript segments of spoken dialogue into script citations. You probably won't have to go that far; I think some fan turned the game's script into an online novel, using all the original dialogue. So if you can track that down, just cite the dialogue as though it's directly from the game, and you're set. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Some other notes:
Sorcerer's Place, last time I checked, is not a reliable source. Not sure about Game Chronicles, either.
You're going to need the CGW review in there. As much print as you can get, in fact. Next Generation Magazine (March 2000), PC Gamer UK, PC Zone (). Might as well throw in incite (Torment's review, in March 2000, is the only one Hahnchen has; you're lucky beyond belief) and some others, while you're at it.
This may or may not contain useful information for the article: . However, it is a scholarly source talking about a game. Usually, that means there's a way it should be included in the article, so I'll just leave that there for you to pick over. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes; I'll work on some of this tonight and tomorrow. Why do you mean by needing the "CGW review in there"? It is cited; and why are more print sources really needed? Certainly they're good, but if we can't access them is their missing a real problem... there are enough reliable reviews online and in the article already, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for finding that source. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, taking references out is a lost quicker than putting them in, and I need to stop for the day soon. I removed those possibly unreliable sources (I don't think that they really added much to the article anyway, except for a quotation), and will work on adding more cites tomorrow. I'll especially try to work on the gameplay; plot would seem a little less dependant on secondary sources than how the game is played. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 01:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. And to clarify my above comment: I saw the CGW award, but not the review (which I'm pretty sure isn't there). As for print sources in general, it's good to have them, even for a game as late as 1999. As the saying goes, just because a site is WP:RS now doesn't mean it was then. Anyway, almost all of the magazines I mentioned can be obtained through WikiProject Video games/Magazines. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh... wow. I hadn't known about that magazines page. I'll get right to work! Thanks! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few citations and removed some unsourced material. I'll continue to research and add citations as I see them. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This one has been discussed; our feelings are that the designers' comments should be considered reliable. However, I'll ask about this at WP:RSN for more input if wanted. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 17:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to discuss for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the official website of the musician being discussed, so I'd think that it would be reliable because of what it is being used for... primary, perhaps, but reliable. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Article's looking better, guys. I just added a few {{or}} and {{citation needed}} tags to a paragraph in gameplay, to highlight a few things that need sourcing. I'll try to help you find plot citations, shortly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll try and do some more work on it shortly. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'll have time to help you further on the plot section; I'm working on my own FAC now, along with two other off-Wikipedia projects with deadlines fast approaching. That fan-made Torment novelization is basically just the entire game's script with a little narration in between. The actual dialogue is unchanged, so as long as you only quote that, it's safe. Unless you plan on playing the game before this FAC ends, I recommend using it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand; thank you for all of your help already. Could you point me to the site where I can find this? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 16:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I cited another paragraph of the story; I hope to finish it tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The story should be all cited now; what do you think? Is anything missing? –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I'd say the story section is pretty good now. It could use a copyedit, though; a lot of the article could, now that I look. More critical, currently, is getting some more citations into the characters section. As long as you have the game installed and a save near the end, it'll be easy to get references; there's a journal in the game dedicated to character descriptions. Anything you'd need would probably be in there. As for the rest of the article, it looks pretty good now. My few concerns are mainly the fact that you use primary sources for the fan translations, and the lack of print reviews. The reviews section is enormous and well-written; it just needs one or two more print reviews. Even just the Next Generation one would probably be good enough. That's available through /Magazines, so it shouldn't be a problem. If you can take care of the remaining issues (recap: copyedit, characters section citations, print reviews, fan translations), I'll be willing to support. Sorry for making you jump through so many hoops; Torment is one of my all-time favorite games, so I naturally take an interest in its article's FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand. I've never actually played the game, so I'll add some refs to the characters section using that same transcript/book thing that I did for the two paragraphs of story. I have also requested a copy edit. I did add in the incite PC Gaming references; I'll try to get some more print sources through /Magazine when I have some time later today or tomorrow. For the fan translations, I'm not sure if there even are sources other than the primary sources for them, and if there are they probably wouldn't be in English (not a real problem to have in the article, but problematic in that I couldn't read them:) ), so I'm not really sure what to do about this. Thanks for all your help and comments! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Okay, I got another print review in thanks to Mitaphane and also added some citations to the characters section. As I mentioned above, I'm really not sure what to do with the fan translations... I doubt that there are many reliable sources that talk about them, so they either need to just use primary sources or they can be removed. I'll give this a full copyedit tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The NextGen reviews takes care of my print reviews concern. As for the fan translations, it might be best to remove them from the article, since there are only primary sources for them. Besides that, it looks good. Except for the sentence about Nordom has no reference and contains original research ("harder to find"). Deal with that and the fan translations, but I'll give this nomination a good-faith support now, and assume you'll take care of those last small issues anyway. Nice work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 10:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Tezkag72:
This article is looking good right now; just needs a few things done before I'm comfortable supporting it.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Is the emphasis on conversation and storyline rather than combat typical for the series? Has it been compared to previous Advanced Dungeons & Dragons games?
Second paragraph of Characters: "Morte, a cynical floating skull originally from the Pillar of Skulls in Baator,[21] is introduced at the game's very beginning." Remove the reference as it is unnecessary because it is also used in the next sentence.
Same with reference 1 in Audio.
I don't think any of the blockquotes in Critical reception are necessary.
Why are Critical reception and Awards under the Cultural impact header? The lead says the game has a legacy and a cult following, but this isn't mentioned later. So I guess this is two comments—Either remove the information about the legacy in the lead or discuss it later, and remove the Cultural impact and Critical reception headers and put in a level 2 header called Reception.
Again, fix these issues—or tell me why they don't need to be fixed—and I'll give you my support. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I can fix all of these; thanks for the review. My feeling is that the blockquotes are good because they illustrate reviewer opinion which doesn't quite fit into the rest of the section in any one place... are you saying that the quotes should be removed entirely, or that they should be combined into the rest of the prose? I feel that they add a lot to the section. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Put them in regular quotes in the prose. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Drilnoth that these won't necessarily work well within the existing prose, but that they work well as they are presented in the article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Other than that, I think that I have fixed all of your concerns... could you just take a look at that second paragraph of the lead to make sure that it is worded well? –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Another idea for the quotes is that they could be placed in floating sidebars like the one currently in "Development". –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Twas Now found a ref for the "cult classic" setting. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support; I think the article's in good enough shape by now for my vote. Good work, you three. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 10:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments: all the dialogue citations need to be properly formatted using {{cite video game}}. As of now there's no information about at what point in the game the dialogue appears, et al. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but there are a lot of video game FAs that don't have information on the point in the game where the dialogue appears... e.g., Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Final Fantasy X-2, and Chrono Cross. If you just want the citation template so that publisher information is included, I can certainly do that, but why would the point in the game where it appears be needed? –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation templates added. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportComment: Nice article.
The caption to File:Planescape start-room.jpg has punctuation as if it had two sentences, but it doesn't.
I have some issues (that are more suggestions) for some formulations:
"In a piece written some time after its release, ..." – be more precise or remove "some time"
"The bugs were responsible for causing slowdowns on some computers ..." – text doesn't say "some computers" but describes it as universal, or not?
"Planescape: Torment won a number of awards after its release. It was given several Editor's Choice awards ..." – vague/redundant, remove the part "won a number of awards after its release" and go right into which it won - by writing about more than one it becomes apparent that it won more than one (also I think games win awards always after their release)
"It was given several Editor's Choice awards ..." – vague, say how many or remove several, because awards indicates plural already
"... but several reviewers reported that ..." – vague, and number doesn't really matter and the sources mention this as a common problem, how about "it was reported", or something similar?
Thanks for the comments: I'll try to work on these later today. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that I fixed all of these. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 19:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We can't quantify how many Editor's Choice awards it received because there are likely some publications we missed that gave it an Editor's Choice award. "Several" works well to indicate that it won them in the several range (hah!). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Twas Now on this point; without "several" the sentence wouldn't make sense, but an exact number could quite easily be inaccurate. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I came to the same conclusion just before reading this when I went over the part a second time. Hekerui (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 21:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportComment—Unfortunately I don't think this article is quite at FA quality yet. I read about a quarter of the way through it but I kept stumbling over issues with the text. This is especially true of the second half of the final paragraph in the Characters section, where I finally gave up trying to read it. Please try to make that coherent and improve the flow. I changed my mind somewhat after reading the remainder of the article. For the most part it is a good read, but has a few issues.
I'm not completely happy with the lead. It just doesn't seem engaging and is a tad on the thin side.
I'd like to see a sentence added to summarize the 'Characters' section (per WP:LEAD) and make it plain that Nameless One leads a party (rather than this being a single character game). Thanks.
Somewhere in the lead it should make it clear that this is a fantasy setting (in contrast to, say, science fiction).
"...combat is not a big part of the game." Having played the game I would disagree with this. The Story section makes it clear to the reader that combat is essential for certain stages of the plot. Instead, I would probably say that combat is a 'secondary element', comparable to puzzle solving.
If combat is not a big part of the game, why does it say, "Death of the player character is common due to the nature of The Nameless One". Please clarify.
Please try to make the second half of the final paragraph in the Characters section to make it more coherent and improve the flow. This could possibly be accomplished by adding sentences explaining how the characters are met.
It is much better now. Thank you.
Thanks for the review. I'll try to work on these tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The document says that seven other characters can join the Nameless One, but I only see six listed.
The Reception section states that, "Reviewers also approved of the protagonist's ability to gain new powers by "remembering" past lives, which allows The Nameless One to switch his class whenever the player wishes." This somewhat contradicts the earlier statement that, "The Nameless One... may later change his character class... after finding corresponding tutors." I think this topic of remembering past lives needs better coverage; possibly in the Gameplay section. Please clarify this topic in the article.
This isn't a contradiction. As I understand it, The Nameless One is able to learn multiple character classes and swap between then because in his past lives he had been a thief, wizard, and fighter, so he is able to recall the skills he once possessed. But he still requires a tutor to coax these memories out of him. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the jargon term "pathfinding" needs to be linked and/or explained. Non-game players may not find this term clear.
These should all be fixed. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Missed the part about flow in the characters section. I'll try to fix that. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Twas Now did remove the "death is common..." line and fixed the "combat is not a big part of the game" line. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Now it should all be done. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am pleased to change my preference to support. Thank you for implementing the suggested changes.—RJH (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review. 3 images used in article, all are fair use and all appear to have adequate rationale. Tom B (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg definitely does, compare the rationales of the box pictures used in all FA Class video game articles. Hekerui (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have improved the rationales for the first two images. I'm not sure what more there is to say about the third. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
How does File:PTNameless.jpg supposed to help readers have a "better understanding of the game's graphics", when it only shows the protagonist? Why is its "only purpose is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Planescape: Torment, and for no other purpose"? What critical analysis about this character's appearance is significant and cannot be explained without words? Is his face not already reflected in the cover art if one just wants to identify the protagonist? Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I wasn't sure what to do with the third. Based on your comments, I have removed the image and tagged it for deletion. My personal opinion is that it helps the article and should be kept, but I know that the fair-use criteria are stricter than I feel they should be. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Weak support: The quality of the prose has improved since the Good Article nomination and some interesting new facts have been added. I believe that the article therefore deserves the “Featured Article” award. However, a “Themes” chapter would be the icing on the cake. I’m also not happy that all the information about fan translations and the fix pack were axed and I would strongly suggest to re-introduce them. I’m also considering to add information about the producers Guido Henkel’s important role in the development in the game. There only seem to be German sources for that. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Anyway, the fan translations and fix pack were removed because the only sources that we could easily find were primary (I think this is discussed somewhere above, but I'm not sure where). If you have more information to add, please do! It never hurts. –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
What’s wrong with using primary sources to prove that something exists (if it obviously does)? When a game with nearly a million words is translated to another language by fans that’s a quite unique feature which is worth mentioning. Saying that this is not important just because the New York Times has not written an article about it, violates common sense. A bit like in the common joke: “A hand has five fingers.[citation needed]” Therefore I recommend bringing back as much information as possible from the two omitted paragraphs at the end of “Development” and “Adaptions” of the GA version. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on this... I think that it is a very useful and interesting piece of information; I think that it was JimmyBlackwing who mentioned that it should be removed if sources couldn't be found. Maybe adding some back in would be good, but not all of them? But I guess that would show favoritism towards certain ones... –Drilnoth (T•C•L) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."
This also means that the stuff pulled from interviews we removed earlier can be reviewed to determine if they are reliably published. And if so, we can re-instate the material. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article. It is a former DYK article, featured on the main page back on June last year. Has since passed a MILHIST A class review. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Tech. Review
This reference, {{harvnb|Boyd|1966|p=133}}, appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead.
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Support This is an great article which easily meets the all the FA criteria - excellent work. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support from Dr pda. Prose is good, article is well-referenced, image licensing is OK (though a couple of the war medal ribbon images need their descriptions tided up), sources are OK, no obvious MOS non-compliance. As usual I am not an expert in the subject of the article so can't guarantee the article is comprehensive. There are a few minor things which need fixing.
The lead should have a sentence or two to cover "Later life"
Added a couple of sentences.
I added an extra sentence as well. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"First world war"—Was Martin the current or former Director of the Lister Institute in 1916? The current wording could imply the latter.
He was the current director. Added words to that effect.
"Between the wars"—The abbreviation AIF has not been explained at this point.
Added in the previous section.
"Middle East"—Fairley tackled an outbreak of bacilliary dysentery. Where?
Good question. Added text.
"South West Pacific"—but in bringing the problem to the attention of the highest authorities overseas, he lifted the global profile and priority of malaria control measures, with the matter being brought to the attention of the highest allied military and civil authorities. The last clause seems to repeat the first, as well as being a case of the disfavoured "noun + -ing" structure.
Also, the sentence is a bit long. Re-worded.
"South West Pacific"—I'm not sure whether the quantities expressed in tonnes also need to be expressed in US tons, per the usual convention of WP:MOSNUM. The one usage of tons should possibly be converted to tonnes though. (Since it's referring to American production I imagine the source did give a number in tons.)
The original documents give it in tons. The secondary sources use tons or tonnes depending on how recent they are, as no one understands the old measurements any more. (Actually, when it comes to tons, I have personal doubts about whether anybody ever did.)
I linked the first occurrence of long tons and tonne. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also fixed a few other minor issues. Dr pda (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Struck all issues. Dr pda (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure that all of the ribbons, except the last one, are user created? Since the last one comes from a website, I'm wondering about the rest.
Comment — I have updated the descriptions of most of the above images now, but cannot vouch for their provenance. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the "Honours and awards" section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not all of the ribbons were indeed not self-made but taken from another website does not need to be addressed, since those images were removed. However, I urge these editors to address it, as it is bound to come up again. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
These issues can be dealt with rather easily. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
All of the image issues have been dealt with. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Why was Fairly appointed an OBE and Mentioned in Despatches during the First World War?
I have added the OBE citation. Unfortunately, there was no citation for the MID. It was part of a list GEN Allenby submitted of everybody who had distinguished themselves in the Palestine campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Same again for his CBE and second Mention in Despatches during the Second World War?
As usually, it is the Great War that has been lovingly preserved and who cares about the sequel? Retrieved the terse CBE citation. No information about the MID.
Yes, that annoys the hell out of me, too. Although, David Underdown has access to the UK National Archives which includes the Army recommendations for honours and awards in World War II, so if you would like to seek further information on his CBE than I'm sure David will be kind enough to assist as much as he can. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a few issues with the "Honours and awards" section:
Firstly, as you no doubt already know, the "Decorations" bit just seems like unnecessary list cruft to me and I don't really see the value of such a section.
I was just waiting for you to show. I have removed the "Honours and awards" section now, so no worries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know I am an annoyingly persistent bugger in this area, though you are always kind enough to oblige.;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Honours" list mostly reiterates what is already addressed/mentioned in the prose, so I think this is a little redundant.
None of those listed in the "Medals and prizes" section is mentioned in the prose. I think information on why Fairley was awarded each of these and when should be addressed in body of the article rather than in a list.
Unfortunately, a list was all I had. Do you want me to add them to the infobox, with a reference?
Hmm, if you only have the list of information on this available then maybe just re-add the list in a separate section again. If it is added to the infobox then it will end up a mile long. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice article, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments*None of the Harvnb templates for "Butler 1938" (which is supposed to take the reader down to the bottom of the page) are working. These references are 7, 9, and 12.
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
*References 5 and 57–59 need publishers
Added "publishers" Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
*Shouldn't all of the London Gazette references have the PDF symbol as they must be viewed in PDF format?
I'm not sure... they actually send you to an HTML page with the PDF in a frame. The London Gazette references are generated with a template. I have asked on the template's talk page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about that one. For me (Firefox 7) none of the article appears in the background. I'm striking this as I'm sure it will be taken care of (and it's not a big deal, anyway). I'm also striking my other two concerns. Mm40 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the {{LondonGazette}} template to force the use of the PDF icon rather than the standard link icon. --DavidCane (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article offers a short but fascinating introduction to some of the more curious features on the landscape of medieval England. Myself and User:Malleus Fatuorum have worked hard to improve this article to the point where we both feel it is worthy of promotion.
The article is necessarily short - the subject matter is as much as 800 years old and only a few specific studies into such place names are available. The most useful of these has been a Holt-Baker paper which talks in great detail about the known instances of Gropecunt Lane, and offers several maps as to their locations. Expanding upon medieval prostitution was discussed but we felt that for this article it would be best not to stray too far away from the subject matter.
I appreciate that for some this may be a sensitive article, but we have tried to remain as encyclopaedic and as dispassionate as possible. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - in a recent check through, I didn't see anything that gave me cause for concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for those sources. I've had a look at the few that are online. I'd seen the Tom Quinn book but it didn't really add anything substantial that I didn't already have from other sources. The Wordsworth book mentions that Gropecunt was renamed Love Lane, but I haven't seen mention of this anywhere else so it seems at odds with the sources I have (this is not unusual, a different author makes the mistake of assuming that Threadneedle Street was Gropecunt Lane). "Girls" is quite interesting, so I've saved those pages (viewed on Amazon). I think that "The Mercery of London" is possibly straying from the article but is interesting all the same. "Oxford" I hoped would reveal why Magpie Lane was so named, but to no avail. "London Laid Bare" is incorrect to assume that Grub Street was once a Gropecunt. "Povery and Prostitution" - I've added that to my library, thanks:) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment, ref formatting, disambiguation links, and external links are ok, as checked out by respective tools. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OpposeSupport: I ask myself why am I constantly looking over my shoulder when reading this contribution. Well, it's because of the C-word I have to admit, and yes I have a problem with it. The article seems to be more about the lane's rude name rather than it's history. According to the FA criteria, I see no problems, but do we really want this to be an example of our best work? I would like to see more historical context—and, if possible, an explantion that the word in question was less pejorative, (if indeed it was) at the time. I feel like Mary Whitehouse, I need advice on this and may change my mind in light of responses. Graham ColmTalk 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article already explains that the C-word was once less pejorative. Why should "our best work" be restricted only to those subjects unlikely to offend? --MalleusFatuorum 23:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no answer, so this is now a test case, and in the spirit of free-thought and expression I support this FAC. Someone needed to raise this point, so I did. Graham ColmTalk 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No hard feelings. Your initial reaction was not entirely unexpected, but we ought not to blank those parts of our history that don't happen to conform to modern sensibilities. --MalleusFatuorum 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a porn star FA? This will just be one of those "best work" that are probably not shown on the mainpage.:) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There is, Jenna Jameson. I believe that Raul has said that it will never be featured on the main page, and I wouldn't be surprised if he took the same view with this article. --MalleusFatuorum 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If you check your reference [17] I think you'll find that Rillington Place became Ruston Close, not Ruston Mews. However, I don't really see this bit of info as having much relevance to this article, and I rather suspect that Ealdgyth may soon be asking: "what makes truetv.com a reliable source?" You might consider dropping it. Interesting article, possibly more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right of course, it should have been Ruston Close, corrected now. While Ealdgyth wasn't looking I've also changed the citation source to The Times newspaper. --MalleusFatuorum 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment You give "filthy street" as the translation of turpis vicus. Is this yours or the source's? Either way "street of vices" would be better - cf. "turpitude". "Filthy" could simply refer to squalour, poor sanitation, etc. --Philcha (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that translation is from the source, but Parrot of Doom will be able to confirm that later. Other sources I've seen translate turpis vicus as foul street, but all agree that it was a centre of prostitution. --MalleusFatuorum 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This is indeed from the source, I quote, "The name can hardly be an ambiguous one, and indeed Gropecuntelane (alternatively Gropekuntelane) in Norwich - now Opie Street - was also recorded in Latin as turpis vicus, the filthy street or alternatively the shameful or infamous street: the term conveys both senses." I'd be happy to include either translation if you like? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"shameful" is the closest of the options. --Philcha (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I've changed that now. The reference still holds true. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that was the only item that stuck me as off-target. If no one else finds any significant issues, I support promotion to FA. --Philcha (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
See Piers Plowman. Why? If there is a relevant quote, work it into the article; this is not helpful. The only reason that occurs to me is the suggestion that Plowman has a double meaning, which is news to me. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Piers Plowman contains a line which refers to 'Clarice of Cocks Lane' which I had deemed of interest, but forgot to mention why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done. I've done it now by removing the seealso. WP:SEEALSO "a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent". jnestorius(talk) 13:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment The caption to the map of Breadstreet and Cordwainer Wards is not much help in identifying the location of Grope Cuntlane. The Mercers' Hall was on the north side of Cheapside (approximately north of where the "ST" of "CHEAP SIDE STREET" is) but the map does not show that side of the street so its location cannot be identified. It might be more useful to say that it was approximately where Bird in Hand Alley is (indicated by the 20 on the map). Also the image is incorrectly titled "Broad street ward..." rather than "Breadstreet ward..." --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a map with the correct filename, and highlighted the three streets in blue (as with the Oxford map). I have updated the image text to reflect this change. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Much clearer. --DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
The publisher of the Crossley, Keene, and Walford works is not british-history.ac.uk, they are merely reprinting other works. Crossley's were originally published by the Victoria County History, Keene is an online publication of this work and Walford's a online reprint of an older work that doesn't list original publisher (I found an 1897 edition with a publisher, but not the 1878 edition)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. British-history.ac.uk may not have been the original publisher, but they are certainly publishing them now. With the lack of a publisher for the Walford work, I feel it is appropriate to have the same publisher details for all works that link to the british-history site. I don't however have a strong opinion on this so don't mind if others disagree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
British history merely reprints the Victoria County history works, in this case you really need to credit the Victoria County history folks who did the real publishing work. With the Walford work, it's questionable whether british-history did any vetting on the work. You can certainly add a note that it's hosted at british-history, but for the works that were (and are) available in print besides on b-h, you should also give the print information. With the FAs I've nominated (which rely on b-h's reprints of the Fasti Ecclesiae...) I give the link along with the original publication information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to do that, but I'm not sure which parameter to use in Template:Citation#Citing_books to state that the work is courtesy of british-history - can you suggest one? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is why templates ain't mandatory. Do the citation in longhand; it's only formatting. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made the requested changes, see the diff here and let me know if that works for you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment The quote from the C18 dictionary gives the only etymology for cunt, which is in fact, well, balls, and not supported by the OED, as this blog explains rather well. Given the limited range of things written in English before 1230, it is not too suprising if a gropecunt street name is the first recorded use. My older print OED coyly lacks the word, but from the blog it doesn't seem recorded in Old English (ie the OED doesn't mention an OE cognate), but was there any other word OE had? They must have had something. The "first used" bit needs adjustment, and the OED etymology including somewhere, if only to point out the C18 one is wrong. Generally the article seems FA standard, if all the issues raised above are adressed. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The main reason for using the 1785 quotation is to demonstrate the change in the perceived meaning of the word from merely vulgar to offensive, and not particularly its etymology. I think there are two options; one to cut most of the quote leaving only "a nasty name for a nasty thing", or two to find a reliable source that can be used as a note to explain what the blog does (which is very interesting reading). Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You may find A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature (Gordon Williams; 1994; Athlone Press; this is vol 1, but the page-numbering is continuous, see its TOC) helpful - pp 350-353 history of usage of "cunt"; intro, esp pp viii-x on repressive effects of printing & literacy, incl use of apologetic use of "cunt" in Chaucer (IIRC spelt "queinte" in the original). Got it via Google Scholar, there may be others later in this search's results. --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes based upon this source. See the diff here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That better, though to be picky the Lindsay quote is in Middle Scots not English, and needs translation; "knows no more of a (any?) cunt than ...er?". I can't access the pages from Williams, but could not a Chaucer quote be used? Isn't the point that the thing, not the word, was considered vulgar or impolite to mention; it was like "vagina" today. What other words were available for non-vulgar use then? Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Initially I suppose the word was synonymous with the vagina, but over time the two diverged until 'cunt' came to be used as a reference not to the vagina, but as an obscene insult. I'm not certain its worth discussing that in any detail (I think it would be better off in the cunt article). I can however change, or add to the quotes, although Middle Scots is an Anglic language. There are instances in the OED that could be used - for instance "c1400 Lanfranc's Cirurg. 172/12 In wymmen {th}e necke of {th}e bladdre is schort, & is maad fast to the cunte", and "a1585 POLWART Flyting with Montgomerie (1910) 817 Kis {th}e cunt of ane kow.", and "c1650 in Hales & Furnivall Percy's Folio MS. (1867) 99 Vp start the Crabfish, & catcht her by the Cunt.". The OED is however lacking in uses of the word in a pejorative sense. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Lindsay quote, and replaced it with a Chaucer quote. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine, although I wasn't suggesting removing Linsay (what does that second line mean?) & the coy Harvard translation "crotch" rather detracts from the point. Anyway, enough to moove to Support, although any other outstanding issues here should be addressed. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That's great thanks:) I'm in the process of trying to find some authoritative source that backs up what the linked blog states, but it may take time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
One image concern as follows:
File:GropeLane.jpg: why is the image released under GFDL when the transfer history below is written as released as "public domain" (PD)? Can an administrator please check the license for this image when it was stored on Wikipedia?
Should be fairly fast and easy to rectify. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - I am the person who took the photo and I'm happy for it to be used freely, so I think a GFDL tag is correct. Hope this helps! David (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Several users on Commons frown on the changing of licenses to a more restrictive version (GFDL requires attribution while PD does not), but it is no policy yet as long as the new license still permits "free" use. Considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose pro tem, sorry.
Subject: @Graham Colm, the article is about the rude name, not about the history of a specific lane. It's not like the wikipedia articles about geographical features at all; it's got a "Cultural Studies" subject, and I'm concerned that there's not enough culture in it. In other words, I think it's too thin for a FA.
Prose: Needs a bit of a copyedit. Examples from the lead section: the lead is pretty short, but even so, it has some excessively obvious statements such as "appears to have been derived from a straightforward conjunction of the words "grope" and "cunt"—what else? why not?—and " Grape Lane, some of which are still in use today"—why wouldn't they be? These facts are probably worth having in the article, but hardly in the lead. At least two of the three lead wikilinks, street name, Middle Ages, and prostitution, are less than useful, see MOS: What generally should not be linked.And there's a grammar boob in the form of a dangling modifier: "Once common throughout England, changing attitudes resulted in..."—No, it wasn't the changing attitudes that were common throughout England. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Replies
I think it's important sometimes to state the bleedin' obvious, as in this case. There's no artifice in the name, and I think it's important to make that clear.
Omitting the etymology would introduce dubious assumptions that may mislead readers. Elements of place-names may look like modern words but have different meanings from non-English origins, e.g -gate often has nothing to do with doors and is derived from the Norse word for "street" ("gate" pron ga-te in Norwegian & Danish, gata in Swedish). --Philcha (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, as this article demonstrates, "Grape" has in this context nothing to do with a tasty fruit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Too thin
I don't believe that this comment is relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, unless you can demonstrate missing sources that could also be used in the article. The only one I can think of is the Historic Towns Atlas, which is already referenced from Holt-Baker, and which would only add locations and nothing about the social history of such places. What research has been done on the topic is represented in this article, as per sections 1(b), 1(c), and 4. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree w Parrot of Doom, size is not part of the FA criteria. Are there any obvious, relevant unanswered questions?
I don't quite understand why "size" is brought up in response to me; I haven't complained of the length of the article. I use "too thin" in the context of cultural description: "too thin" as in "not thick enough", compare our article Thick description which you may find helpful. Pilcha and Malleus, you can see me acknowledging above that the bleedin obvious may well be worth stating with regard to the street name—just not, IMO, in the lead section in this case. Offering details on that level twice, both in the lead and the article proper, rather gives the impression that you're desperate for material. I agree that Middle Ages is a good link—I had the other two links (now removed) in mind. Parrot of Doom, I'm happy to take your word for it that "What research has been done on the topic is represented in this article", but that means, in my opinion, that not enough research has been done for a Featured Article. Note also that my copyediting suggestions for the lead are examples only. As you know, it's not my job to supply an exhaustive list for the article. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Well I respect your opinion but it does seem as though you're expecting 'something else' when the reality may be that there is absolutely nothing else to add. If more information was available, such as a list of typical properties along such streets, or court records of people arrested for naughty things, then I'd agree with you. There is however to my knowledge no more information on the subject than what is already referenced - most other available sources just rehash what is already in the article. FA Criterion 1(c) states "it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic", and I believe that this article meets that demand. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, depending on how you define "the topic", right. It's my opinion that it's too small a topic. After all, we do draw the line somewhere, don't you agree? We don't feature the world's best stub, for instance. Note that I'm not talking about article length, but about the size of the subject, and especially the amount of "relevant literature on the topic". I think we're talked out wrt those aspects; I suggest we let Raul or Sandy or whoever decide whether I make a cogent objection. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm not sure simply mentioning Thick description explains Bishonen's concern about the article's being "too thin". This article is about the street name, not about a specific street which has or had that name. What additional types of info would Bishonen expect to see in a street name article - preferably with examples from street name articles that have reached at least GA status since mid-2007 (since most FAs promoted before then would now fail GA review because of citation issues); failing that, from scholarly articles on other street names. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'm afraid the dangling modifier hasn't been fixed, since "changing attitudes" is still the subject. I'll take a shot at it later if you like, I'm in a bit of a hurry right now. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Well, I don't think there was any ambiguity in that sentence but I've reworded it again anyway. --MalleusFatuorum 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ah well..." by the time you did, there was no longer anything wrong with it. See the history tab. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments My 2c:
I'm not clear about the 1720 map. It looks like two of the blue lines are tracing the path streets that were already gone by 1720, and the third is numbered "20". Since the last recorded use of "Gropecunt" was in 1561, it would make sense that the name was gone, if not the street. But this might be explained more clearly.
I've changed the image text - have a look and see what you think now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the Grose reference should be shrunk to exclude the false etymology. As cunt states, Grose gave the headword as "C**T", which nicely highlights the taboo.
The false etymology that Grose gives seems to be widely believed so I think it's worth including if only to debunk it. To balance it though I've added a sentence demonstrating that the origins of the word likely predate both Greek and Latin, at least as far back as Ancient Egyptian. --MalleusFatuorum 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportComments ok, just reading through now. Well done, succinct, comprehensive and neutral. Prose flows nicely too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Will start off by saying this article is bigger than some other FAs, so I have no problem with size alone as long as it is comprehensive.
Minor headache - groping redirects to frotteurism at the moment, which isn't quite a synonym, especially in this meaning. Sort of beyond the scope of this review but worth pointing out I think. i.e. not a deal-breaker.
Thanks. I've altered the link so that it goes directly to frotteurism, but I agree that isn't a great explanation of groping. --MalleusFatuorum 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Well, it looks like Han Dynasty (a FAC of mine that is still located here) has received much support and I have substantially addressed reviewer's concerns. I nominate this article because it has already passed the Good Article "smell test", if you will. It's a small, manageable article that I believe meets all the FA criteria. Prove to me otherwise (I'm sure someone will)! Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've done a quick look over the article, and I think there is one thing that can be fixed right off the bat.
Support I've been very busy lately and forgot to add my support!Zeus1234 (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, The quotations below the photos are too long. On my computer, the quotations from the last two photos are so long that they push the reference section to the right of my screen. Not pretty. Please shorten them and provide description of the item, not an explanation (which can be in the article itself). Instead of giving a huge explanation of the Roman plate, just say something like "a Roman plate similar to this was found in China." I'll read through the article in its totality soon and give you feedback.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I just significantly shortened the descriptions of both those pictures. If that wasn't enough to stop the picture caption text from running into the "Notes" section, I added a small "See also" section with two relevant links not yet found in the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing... What do you mean in this sentence: "After the central government failed to provide local governments with provisions during the locust swarm and flooding of the Yellow River in 153 CE, many landless peasants became retainers of large landowners in exchange for aid." Which locust swarm are you talking about? Was it significant enough to merit the 'the' in front of it? Is the swarm related to the flooding? Perhaps this should be clarified.
"Subsequent governments of the Three Kingdoms established there on agricultural colonies on these models." This sentence doesn't make sense.
"Han historians such as Sima Qian (145–86 BCE) and Ban Gu (32–92 CE)—as well as the later historian Fan Ye (398–445 CE)—preserved in their writings the Han merchants' various enterprises and products; this is supplemented by archaeological evidence." So 'various enterprises and products' were inside the writings of these men? How would they fit in the books? I don't think a book is large enough to hold a bowl. Please clarify that the writings mention the types of products used, and clarify. Zeus1234 (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That one sentence was originally worded: Agricultural colonies were also established by the subsequent governments of the Three Kingdoms, but it was recently changed by User:Scapler. I fixed the sentence by removing the "there on"; I believe it is now grammatically correct.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the sentence about the historians and Han merchants' products. A funny mistake indeed! Also, about the swarms of locusts and floods, I don't know what you need clarification for. Ebrey (1986) simply says that a gigantic locust swarm occurred simultaneously with a flood along the Yellow River in 153 CE. She says that the central government was unable to provide local governments with adequate provisions for these concurrent disasters, and merely ordered the local governments to handle them. She writes that these disasters forced an estimated hundreds of thousands of peasants to become wandering vagrants. These landless farmers thus turned to rich landowners for aid, shelter, and tenant work. Does my article not make this clear?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll fix it. It think it just needs to be reworded a bit.Zeus1234 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the article! That's fine, we're all busy sometimes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Tech. Review
There are 0 ref formatting errors, checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
Support. Comments. The article is close to FA standards, but I noticed a few problems:
In the lead
had periods of economic stability and disaster. The article says nothing about economic disasters. I suggest "had periods of economic prosperity and decline".
The government oversaw huge public works projects; upkeep of these roadways and bridges not only aided official government ventures, but also facilitated commercial growth. An awkward sentence. It implies that "roadways and bridges" were "public works projects", but does not say this directly. I suggest "The government oversaw construction of roadways and bridges, which not only aided official government ventures, but also facilitated commercial growth."
In the gallery of coins, what were the masses of the first two items (coins of Lu Zhi and Wen)? Were they 5.7 g and 2.6 g? The third item is a lead coin of Wu. However lead coins are not mentioned in the text.
I suggest renaming "Landowners, tenants, hired laborers, and landless peasants" subsection to "Landowners and peasants". Such a long title is unnecessary.
In "tax reforms and conscription" subsection the caption of the second image reads: "... century BCE; peasants aged twenty-three could be drafted into the armed forces as either cavalrymen, infantrymen, or naval marine sailors". However this is a repetition of the text, which already says that "Male peasants aged twenty-three were drafted into the military (zhengzu 正卒) and assigned to one of three branches of the armed forces: infantry, cavalry, or naval marine". Please, remove.
I suggest renaming "Merchants and regulations" subsection into simply "Merchants".
The subsection "Construction projects and labor" would be better called "Public construction projects".
written characters of the Fan Shengzhi shu (氾勝之書) written during the reign of Emperor Cheng of Han (33–7 BCE) I think it is unnecessary to use the word "written" twice in the same sentence. It is fairly obvious that "written characters" were "written".
In the Foreign trade and tributary exchange" subsection:
In the caption of the second image the phrase foreign countries sent tributary items like rhinoceroses to the Han Chinese court. is unnecessary as it basically repeats the text.
Han envoys brought gifts of sheep, gold, and silk ... I find it is strange that these goods are called "gifts". They were used "as a means to pay for food and lodging".
You wrote: I find it is strange that these goods are called "gifts". They were used "as a means to pay for food and lodging". I believe that this is a simple misunderstanding of the passage. The full passage says:
Once the Han established their diplomatic presence in the Tarim Basin of Central Asia during Emperor Wu of Han's reign (141–87 BCE), Han envoys brought gifts of sheep, gold, and silk to the urban oasis city-states allegedly worth billions of coin cash.[105] When envoys arrived in these states, they sometimes used gold as currency, but silk was favored as a means to pay for food and lodging.[105]
Nowhere in this passage is a link made between the gifts that were given to these city-states and the gold or silk used as currency to pay for food and lodging. These are two entirely separate things: diplomatic gifts versus a means to pay for food and lodging. One is a gesture of goodwill and diplomacy, the other is simply the unrelated business aspect of traveling (i.e. providing goods and services in exchange for gold or luxury commodities such as silk).--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions except for one. You wrote: "In the gallery of coins, what were the masses of the first two items (coins of Lu Zhi and Wen)? Were they 5.7 g and 2.6 g? The third item is a lead coin of Wu. However lead coins are not mentioned in the text." Well, I'd love to be able to give you an answer, but Gary Lee Todd's site (i.e. the one I cited here for the pictures) simply does not provide the weights for these coins, only the diameters. I am the one who constructed the OTRS license for Gary Lee Todd pictures and am in contact with Prof. Gary Lee Todd via email. Should I ask him through email to update his site to include info on coin weights? That seems a bit pushy considering it's only for a Wikipedia project, but if you absolutely insist (or oppose the article over this), I can go bug him about it. As for the lead coin, that's also from Gary's site, of course. However, Nishijima says nothing about Wu's lead coins before the monopoly and the wushu coin. If it is any compensation for lack of info on lead coins, I just added info to the article explaining other various currencies of Wu's early reign, including tin-silver coins and white deerskin token money notes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that the masses of coins are fairly obvious. I am not going to oppose over this issue though. As to gifts I still find these claims bizarre (goods worth billions of coins to locals? or to bribe local officials?), and think that ancient chronicles were not a fair description of reality. Ruslik (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps you are right. Although Liu (1988) says so, I will strike the comment until other sources verify. After all, this is all alleged in ancient court records (perhaps exaggerated to show China's economic strength). Plus, the fact that roughly no more than 220 million coins were minted in a single year, how could one year's worth of tribute amount to anything over a billion coin cash? I hope the recent removal of that statement satisfies you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Still "gift" sounds as if Chinese authorities acted like a charity. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
can you make the lead 3 paragraphs?
"economic prosperity and decline" - internal link to economic cycle
"Many peasants fell into.." - a percent or another approximation is better
"From his website, Gary Lee Todd (Ph.D. in History from Univer" - typically, this type of info can be found in the source. any justification for stating this?
"..in an effort to curb the power of nobles" - is this an assumption or did "Shang Yang" actually said this??
"now landless and in the service of" - did the "great landowners" not have control over the "peasantry" because the wording changed to "in the service of"
"made efforts to ease the plight of struggling small landowners" - the whole article has this bias. please fix it.
"There were two categories of merchants.." - only two? where did these categories come from? origin.
"During the Han Dynasty" - this kind of pharsing is common in this article. WHY? this is already known. the article is on the "Han Dynasty"
"and arrowheads, as well as " - WHY is it written like this?? why is it not "arrowheads, and.." instead of this wordy "and.. as well as.."??
"finer luxuries of Han life" - WHY are these call luxuries? is that sourced?? why are they not simply called as they are: materials.
"Goods bought and sold throughout the year at the estate of Cui Shi" - is this every year of the dynasty's existence? or just a specific one?? is this all they Bought & Sold???
"Before the Han Dynasty.." - WHY is this part talking about before the Han Dynasty? maybe it's better to have a section call "History of the Economy of the Han Dynasty"?? any reason for this part?
"Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty" - I must have missed the section about the Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty. Where is it???
Hi WhatisFeelings. You wrote: can you make the lead 3 paragraphs? Sure thing. I just split the lead into three paragraphs as you suggested.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Many peasants fell into.." - a percent or another approximation is better There is no exact percent available. Ancient records are simply not that detailed. Modern scholars prefer vague terms for this because we only know that it was a significant social phenomenon with historical consequences.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
typically, this type of info can be found in the source. any justification for stating this? Well, I thought it would be good to inform the reader where all of these pictures came from, why they are relevant, and who is the credible voice behind their descriptions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
is this an assumption or did "Shang Yang" actually said this?? Well, Shang Yang actively championed against the nobles, and they were no fan of him. By breaking apart the well-field system, he was denying the nobles a huge source of peasant labor and production; this hardly works in their favor. Put two and two together. This is not only a modern scholarly interpretation, but even ancient Chinese scholars such as Sima Qian acknowledged this fact.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
did the "great landowners" not have control over the "peasantry" because the wording changed to "in the service of" We're talking about varying degrees here. There were always some peasants working as tenants for the great landowners. By mid Eastern Han, however, the amount of tenant farmers started to rival the amount of small independent landowners. I make this very clear in the article. In fact, this point is made very clear in that same paragraph.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
the whole article has this bias. please fix it.??? But that's exactly what a relief effort is: to help the plight of poor peasants. There is no assertion in the article that the Han government did this out of charity, goodwill, or because they had nothing else better to do. I make it very clear that the small landowner-cultivator was the backbone of the Han tax base. If this backbone is impoverished, the Han government loses much of its revenues. This is about mutual interest (not my "bias"), which seems to have been lost on you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
only two? where did these categories come from? origin. Yes, only two. Again, this is made explicitly clear in the article: unregistered versus registered merchants. I even went to great lengths describing the differences between these two merchants, using multiple sources to verify. I'm sorry, I don't know the origin of when Chinese governments (perhaps Warring States period?) began registering merchants on the tax roll, but is this relevant? We are, after all, focusing on the Han period.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
this kind of pharsing is common in this article. WHY? this is already known. the article is on the "Han Dynasty" That's a good point. I can change those if you like.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
WHY is it written like this?? why is it not "arrowheads, and.." instead of this wordy "and.. as well as.."?? Well, take a look at the sentence in question and it should become apparent that there is a distinction being made between two different things here: Iron was also used to make military weapons, such as swords, halberds, and arrowheads, as well as scale armor. The "as well as" is used to differentiate between iron used for military weapons and defensive gear. Simply putting "and scale armor" would imply that scale armor is a weapon and not defensive equipment! I will just assume that English is not your first language.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
WHY are these call luxuries? is that sourced?? why are they not simply called as they are: materials. Again, not a bad suggestion; I will reword that part.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
is this every year of the dynasty's existence? or just a specific one?? is this all they Bought & Sold??? What? No. It's made explicitly clear that these are the goods bought and sold on the estate of Cui Shi's and no others (what made you think otherwise?). It's merely an example of how an estate's business transactions were managed. Nothing more. In fact, I don't make any claims to the contrary.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
WHY is this part talking about before the Han Dynasty? maybe it's better to have a section call "History of the Economy of the Han Dynasty"?? any reason for this part? No. There's no need to siphon off all of this material into a section on the pre-Han economy. It's a single sentence introducing the border and tributary relations the Chinese had with different nomadic groups over the ages, particularly the Xiongnu. That is entirely relevant to the "Foreign trade and tributary exchange" section, not some other section about the economy before Han times.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty" - I must have missed the section about the Fall of the Economy of the Han Dynasty. Where is it??? Because there's no such event. The economy never "fell" (what made you think this?). The Han Dynasty ended when Cao Pi usurped the throne from the last Han emperor in 220 CE. China was split apart into three different kingdoms afterwards, yet the economy never collapsed and Chinese society remained relatively the same during the Three Kingdoms period.
"THERE ARE NO External links???" And? That's not exactly a mandatory requirement. Perhaps I could find some relevant links about the Han economy, but they must come from scholarly, credible sites. To be frank, there's not a whole lot of them on the world wide web which focus exclusively on the Han economy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose until prose issues are dealt with. I hate to say this, but this article still has many of the same style faults that originally appeared in the main Han Dynasty article. There are too many overlong sentences that become convoluted and confusing. There have been some attempts to sort this out, but this seems to have been too hasty, and produced grammar and allied problems. Taking the first sentence as an example, it reads:
"The Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE) of ancient China, divided between the eras of Western Han (202 BCE – 9 CE), the Xin Dynasty of Wang Mang (r. 9–23 CE), and Eastern Han (25–220 CE), had periods of economic prosperity and decline." This is confusing and awkward.
I would recast this completely to something like: "The Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE) of ancient China experienced contrasting periods of economic prosperity and decline. It is normally divided into three periods: Western Han (202 BCE – 9 CE), the Xin Dynasty (9–23 CE), and Eastern Han (25–220 CE)."
"The economy was marked by..." Awkward as this sentence runs. It would be better to start the sentence; "Major features of the economy were..."
"The Silk Road established overseas trade and tributary exchanges with a number of foreign countries across Eurasia that wereunknown by the Chinese." A road can't act and establish trade. " a number of" is not needed. Better to put: "The Silk Road facilitated the establishment of overseas trade and tributary exchanges with foreign countries across Eurasia previously unknown to the Chinese."
The following passage in the Urbanization and Population section seems to have had its sentences poorly divided:
These centers contrasted from older cities, which served as power bases for the nobility.[1] The use of a standardized, nationwide currency during the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE) facilitated long-distance trade between them.[2] Many Han cities, built along the same sites as Warring States cities, became quite large: the Western Han capital Chang'an had roughly 250,000 inhabitants, while the Eastern Han capital Luoyang had roughly 500,000 inhabitants.[3] The overall population of the Han Empire, recorded in the tax census of 2 CE, was 57.6 million people (or 12,366,470 households).
Sentence 1: "Contrasted from" is wrong. Sentence 2: "them" at the end refers to nothing, so the sentence makes no sense. Sentence 3 "built along the same sites as Warring States cities" - ungrammatical, and is this phrase even needed? Most cities grow on the sites of older ones. Were the cities completely destroyed, then rebuilt from scratch? If so, this should be said clearly. If not, leave out the phrase. Also Chang'an and Luoyang need to be separated off with commas.
These are examples only. This article really needs a full copyedit. Xandar 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Xandar. I have amended the article according to each one of your suggestions. In regards to your concern about the quality of the prose, I am happy to announce that User:Scapler has already begun copyediting the article. You may recall that User:Scapler was one of the major copyeditors of Han Dynasty during its featured article candidacy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
More good news! User:Baffle gab1978 has also agreed to copyedit the article! If you remember, he was another one of the major copyeditors of Han Dynasty during its FA candidacy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: User:Scapler has just finished copyediting the article, and User:Baffle gab1978 is almost there. I would ask that you look over the prose once more and decide if it is still grounds for you to continue your opposition. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There are still some rough patches. I've done some work on a few of them, but the Conscription section raises some questions.
In addition to monetary and crop taxes, during the Western Han peasants aged fifteen to fifty-six were required to fulfill conscription duties (gengzu 更卒) for one month each year. These duties were usually fulfilled with work on construction projects. Male peasants aged twenty-three years were drafted to serve in the military (zhengzu 正卒) and assigned to either the infantry, cavalry, or naval marine. After one year of training, those less than fifty-six served for one year, performing their military service in frontier garrisons or as guards in the capital city.
During the Eastern Han, peasants could avoid the month of annual corvée labor by paying a commutable tax (gengfu 更賦). This was a simultaneous development with the increasing use of hired labor. Likewise, because the Eastern-Han government favored the building of a volunteer force, the mandatory military draft for peasants aged twenty-three could be avoided by paying a commutable tax.
This is hard to read and confusing. Were peasants conscripted for one month per year, or for two years at a time? There seems to be a confusion between military conscription and feudal or forced labour. Perhaps these isuues should be dealt with in separate paragraphs.It states that male peasants were conscripted for training at the age of 23, but then states that "those less than 56" served for (presumably) an additional year. If conscription was at 23, why are we talking of people less than 56? Or were there several periods of conscription? This needs explaining. Other points: "navy" would be better than "naval marine"; "corvée labor" is an unfamiliar term, as is "commutable tax". Finally, by "volunteer force" are we talking about some form of part-time militia, or a professional non-conscripted standing army? Xandar 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Response (unindent): There should be no confusion here. There were two different forms of conscription: civilian and military. That's it. Just to be extremely clear, however, I have added this sentence to the beginning:
The two forms of conscription during Han were civilian conscription (gengzu 更卒) and military conscription (zhengzu 正卒).
I could understand why you were confused with the age fifty-six thing. It was actually quite clear before, but somehow it got jumbled and confused in the copyediting process. Here is how that part reads now:
After one year of training, they performed a year of military service in frontier garrisons or as guards in the capital city. They were liable to perform this year of service until age fifty-six.
In other words, you trained in the (conscripted) military for one year at age twenty-three, and until age fifty-six, one could either be immediately sent to serve on the frontiers or in the capital, or one could be called to perform a year of service at any time until age fifty-six. This article doesn't go into it, but Government of the Han Dynasty explains that until age fifty-six, these conscripted peasants joined their local militia to keep fit and retain their fighting skills.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the "naval marine" label to "navy", as you suggested. I was thinking about changing "commutable tax" to "substitution tax", but on second thought, there is nothing wrong with the word "commutable" here. You've never heard of the word commutable? i.e. to pay out the lump-sum present value of an annuity. I changed "corvée" to "conscription", but really, the two are synonymous terms. Our very own Wiki defines corvée as labour, often but not always unpaid, that persons in power have authority to compel their subjects to perform, unless commuted in some way, such as by a cash payment; sometimes this was an option of the payer, sometimes of the payee, and sometimes not an option. Notice the word commuted here, which is a completely acceptable word for this context.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As for your confusion about the military, as you may remember from reading Han Dynasty a couple weeks ago, the conscripted peasants formed the non-professional Southern Army (Nanjun 南軍). Later, during Eastern Han, much of this army was made up of volunteers instead of conscripts. This was very different from the paid and professional standing army known as the Northern Army (Beijun 北軍). I did not make this distinction in Economy of the Han Dynasty because it is simply off-topic in regards to the subject of conscription. This information is further explained at Government of the Han Dynasty, which I will provide a "further information" link to in the "conscription" sub-section of this article. Fair?--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
My comments are in the interests of the reader of the article. Wikipedia aims to be generally usable and understandable by the average 12 year-old. As such, the term corvee is very obscure. This has been replaced, and the issue of ages has been clarified. However the terms "commutable tax" and "volunteer force" are still highly ambiguous as they appear in the passage. To commute something is to remove or reduce an obligation or punishment. The term "commutable tax" therefore is stating that the tax could be commuted, when in fact it is the service that could be commuted by paying the tax. The phrase needs to be replaced by something like "paying a tax in substitution" or "paying a tax in commutation". "Volunteer force" is linked to a stub article, which makes us very little wiser as to whether a professional army or a volunteer militia is meant. It seems that both existed, but the words currently used imply only a militia. Saying that the government "favoured the recruitment of volunteers," might solve this problem. Xandar 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
These are all very good points. Take a look at the section now; I have amended the article according to your suggestions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the text has now improved to the extent where I can withdraw my objections on these points. Xandar 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you for your patience. I just wish more people would review the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment(s)'
"many of which were previously unknown to the Chinese.". Chinese? Where does this stand in relation to the whole "there was no China before 1911" controversy etc.? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 06:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can say "Han people" instead, if you like, or even "people of ancient China". But most Western native English speakers are more familiar with the term "Chinese" than anything else. I'm open to changing it, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I just changed it to "people of ancient China". Sound better?--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In notes but not in refs Hucker (1975) & Yü (1986). Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Forgot to add those two sources. I just added them now. Everything ok in that regard?--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are we giving a name check to Gary Lee Todd? Moreover, are we real comfortable with the licensing of those coin images? The website http://picasaweb.google.com/GaryLeeTodd/ChinaAncientCoinage# says they are copyrighted to Google. I'll pop over to their Wikimedia page...OK, I see they have OTRS permission to use, CC licensing etc. But still, why the name check? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the images' license is fine; I've even confirmed it with an administrator at Wikimedia. As for Gary Lee Todd, since he does not yet have an article, I included a tiny bit of background information on him to mention why he is relevant and how he has credibility in judging these coins of his personal collection. If I were to remove information about him or even the mentioning of his name, what would you suggest instead? I'm all ears for ways to improve the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. A detailed and comprehensive article. I made a couple minor edits; feel free to revert if I messed up your vision. One more small note: "Silk was the main export item from China to India, while the Han Chinese wrote that Indian merchants possessed tortoise shell, gold..." Maybe better would be "while the Han Chinese acquired tortoise shell, gold.. from the Indian merchants", or "the Indian merchants arrived in China with...", or just "while the Indian merchants possessed tortoise shell, gold..." To me the fact that the Han Chinese wrote about it is less important here. Lesgles (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll change that. Thanks for supporting the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportComments Were you joking at the top when you said this was small? Just curious.. I've never understood the humor of academics. Anyway, this is very good, but I have a few issues I hope you'll consider:
"However, it is known that wealthy unregistered merchants owned large tracts of land." Would the meaning here be any different: "However, wealthy unregistered merchants owned ..."
"Hundreds of laborers could be employed to produce a single luxury item" Unclear. Do you mean they all worked on one single piece, or they all made copies of that particular item?
"About 150,000 conscripted workers, serving in consecutive periods of thirty days each ..." The previous sentence reads "hundreds of thousands", which seems to overshoot 150,000 by a bit. Can you write "over a hundred thousand"?
The linking strategy in use here doesn't seem to follow any logical pattern. Some fairly common terms are linked in large lists of items (such as in "Traded goods and commodities") but others aren't. Some of the links are far stretches, like linking "sauces" to "Chinese cuisine". I'd say most common words should be delinked.
"Cui Shi's book Simin yueling (四民月令) is the only significant surviving work ..." This sentence seemingly starts a new line of thought.. new para?
"The Eastern Han period saw mass unemployment ..." Not crazy about anthropomorphism in any form. Can we reword?
""Small and medium-sized estates were managed by single families, with a father acting ..." Noun plus -ing construction needs revision.
"This was considered to be a significant increase in the amount of tribute." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" to refer to a prior concept or object.
I'm a little confused about the image of the bronze rhino in the foreign trade section. You definitely write about real rhinos being tributary items, but you don't write about bronze rhinos. Since that image appears next to the discussion of real rhinos, a reader could (and did) get confused. In all fairness, I'm also functioning on 4 hours' sleep.
Hi Laser Brain. I have amended the article according to each and every one of your suggestions, with just one exception. Are you really that concerned about the rhino? The text mentions the rhinoceros as an exotic tribute item given to the Han court from foreign states. The picture is of a rather realistic bronze-cast rhinoceros from the Han period. The ancient Chinese must have thought the exotic animal was important enough to feature in a high quality piece of artwork such as this. <sarcasm> I would love to get a picture of a real rhinoceros from the Han period, but unfortunately the Han Chinese weren't crafty enough to invent photography around the time of Christ. (Sigh). This one will just have to do in its stead! </sarcasm> Also, I was being honest when I said this article was small, but only in comparison to the other branch articles for the Han Dynasty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the rhino is a non-issue, at least until you locate a Han era photograph! Thanks for your quick fixes—it is a fine article and I've now supported. --Laser brain(talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not opposable (images are verifiably licensed for free use by their authors, or in the public domain); just two a quibbles that could be improved on. Jappalang (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, what you saw was the older version of the OTRS license. I must have missed that picture when I updated all of them with the new Gary Lee Todd template for OTRS. Thanks for pointing that out. Problem fixed. As for the silk image, I would love to get you these further details, but I've already returned the book to my university library! And I just graduated from George Mason on Friday. I don't think I'll be able to check out books anymore, since I am no longer a student. (That feels weird). However, I can physically walk my lazy butt over there and obtain the info for you there (since I am no longer allowed to leave the library with the book in hand). However, I am all the way down in Roanoke with my family visiting my sister and her boyfriend's family. I can't do anything at the moment while sitting here using a Wireless connection at a Hampton Inn. I hope you understand.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No problems; like I said, the images are okay. The above are just quibbles. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: this article needs a MoS review including (but necessarily limited to) WP:OVERLINKing (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I already delinked a bunch of stuff.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, really.:) I've had a go at some more delinking, but I was conservative. It needs another pass for those that exceed duplicate, and there may be some easter egg links that will confound users. --Laser brain(talk) 20:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool! You're obviously better at this than I am. Sometimes I have a hard time judging what to throw out, and what to keep in regards to links.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article as part of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. It has already passed as a GA. Please note' that I will be on vacation from May 3 to May 10. I will have limited Internet access and will check in here from time to time, but will not be able to address suggestions or objections as swiftly until I return. Thanks!— HunterKahn(contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Given that, would you consider withdrawing the nomination until you return? That a nominator will not be here to respond to issues will likely put many off from reviewing the article. SteveT • C 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Strike it. I can respond; I just found out I have Internet access at the room I'm staying at, I wasn't sure whether I did or not at first. Sorry about that... — HunterKahn(contribs) 03:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This character isn't difficult to describe, and does not justify the use of a non-free image, File:Hankey_flush.gif, using the text "A poo with a santa hat" would provide the same information WP:NFCC#1, WP:WIAFA#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image. Perhaps we could find a different image from the episode to use instead. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you unable to explain without an image? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, was simply making a suggestion.:) Cirt (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look too for other possible images. I don't exactly agree that an illustration of the character isn't necessary (I know he's easy to describe, but it's not an exact visualization, and I just feel given the popularity of the character from this episode, an article without his image is a lesser article) but Fasach's comments are well taken and I'm OK with the removal. — HunterKahn(contribs) 14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that that image is okay. Maybe the infobox caption could be improved, but I think that the image would pass the NFCC. Sceptre(talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could mention the Mickey Mouse connection, and show the fudge trail. - Peregrine Fisher
I completely disagree to removing the image and not having any representation of the character because (i) the character is quite popular and thus some user might be interested in actually seeing a representation of such a ridiculous character, (ii) how is this different from removing all the images from say Britney Spears by saying that it is enough to say that she is a blond female? Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(i) 'quite popular' is not included in NFCC, (ii) the licencing Fasach Nua (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The popularity by itself isn't included in the NFCC, but wouldn't you say that the fact that this character became a household name, and helped convey the show to a new level of relevance, plays to the Significance section of the NFCC? I also disagree agree that the text "poo with a Santa hat" is sufficient to create a visual illustration of Hankey, and now that the image has been removed I feel all the more strongly that an omission of some some or Hankey image would be detrimental to the article.
Taking the feedback above into consideration (especially from Peregrine), I've added a new image. In addition now to illustrating the character and "potty humor" of the episode, it also better demonstrates the Mickey Mouse/1930s elements (due to the closeup) and the (rather gross) fudge trail. (This is all under the Purpose of Use rationale.) I think this is better, but I would appreciate any more feedback. — HunterKahn(contribs) 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
oppose - FA criteria #3, inappropriate use of non-free content 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming this unsigned comment is still Fasach Nua? If so (or even if not) can you provide any more specific feedback? It seems that based on all the feedback that was left above, the image licensing problem has now been resolved... — HunterKahn(contribs) 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"this theme is overly stated by Stan" should that be overtly?
" government buildings refusing to allow models of the nativity scene and other Christian holiday symbols" Should it be "the display of models"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: comprehensizeness checks out. 40KB is twice my personal baseline () Sceptre(talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support but I'd like to see something like "The close-up of the character also accentuates the visual style of Mr. Hankey, who was deliberately designed to resemble Mickey Mouse from the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie, particularly in the eyes, so as to convey the wholesomeness of cartoon characters from that era." from the image description page used in the images caption. If other people like the current caption, that's fine too, since that info is in the body, but it's my preference to put a summary of the NFCC meeting text right next to the image. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was concerned that the caption would be too long, but I've incorporated it. What do you think? — HunterKahn(contribs) 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It is long, but I think it's OK. Let's see what others think. If people think it's too long, then a shorter version is OK with me too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has my support regardless of caption, but my preference is for Steamboat Willy to be mentioned in the caption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment—Considering that the infobox pic's caption is so long, why not move it to the Episode Production section, where the Mickey Mouse resemblance is actually discussed? I don't think there is a rule (even an unwritten one) that TV episode articles must have infobox pics. indopug (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right that there's no rule, but it's certainly preferable, especially considering that the photo illustrates elements touched on all throughout the article, not just the episode production section. What I've done, using the FA Damien (South Park) as a precident, is shorten the caption but kept the whole shebang in the Purpose of Use rationale. Does this work? — HunterKahn(contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: In the Reviews and ratings section, what does "The episode also earned a 51 share of the male demographic aged between 18 and 24." actually mean? --RexxS (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a definition to try to clarify; let me know if that works. — HunterKahn(contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - that works for me. I ought to add I slightly prefer the longer caption referred to above, particularly the "Steamboat Willie" allusion - although that's in the main text, I felt it was a good point to make in the caption. Have a look at WP:CAPTIONS and see if something like "The Mr. Hankey character helped elevate the popularity and relevance of the series through its resemblance to Mickey Mouse in the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie" might be a compromise? Anyway, I'm happy to Support however the caption turns out. --RexxS (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I think this new version covers the length issue and the Steamboat Willie allusion. — HunterKahn(contribs) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: Hunter Kahn has done great improvements to the article. The article deserves the bronze star. —TerrenceandPhillip 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Tezkag72 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that, after working hard from late January to now on this article and putting it through a successful GAN, a peer review, an unsuccessful FAC, more work, and a throrough copyedit by TKD (thanks!), it meets the FAC criteria. Issues that led to the failure of the first FAC were its fair use images (two unnecessary screenshots removed and replaced with one screenshot with a good fair use rationale and one free image), its inclusion of unreliable sources (replaced with better ones), the absence of print sources (there now are a few reviews), and the need of a copyedit (done; again, thanks, TKD). If there is still any reason for objection, I will try to respond as quickly as possible. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Mm40 I'll give this a quick read-over and point anything I see out to you:
Throughout the article, the inline references need to be in order. I would address this myself, but it is extensive.
In the lead: "Some, but not all" could be replaced my "most" to remove redundancy
Done, but with "much". Tezkag72 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"such as motorcycles and alien aircraft" It seems aircraft should be plural
"Aircraft" is one of those words that is the same in singular and plural forms, like "buffalo", "fish", and "Pokémon". Tezkag72 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"gauges" are mentioned in the second paragraph of Gameplay but not explained earlier in the section. I suggest adding a bit of clarification (though don't be obliged to do so)
In Music: I feel like all the songs that have articles should be linked
None of them do. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Reference 13 needs a space between the price and the rating
I copied the title directly from the magazine, and the magazine really does make this typo, but you're right. Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I made any mistakes, this is my first real full-text FA review. Cheers, and I thought this was a pretty good article. Mm40 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support see no reason to object, as I assume the images are ok. Congratulations Mm40 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you strike the comments you had so this can be read more easily? Tezkag72 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I did copyedit the article before FAC, as Tezkag72 stated. I just now removed summary statements that the reviews were "mostly negative". That conclusion was unsourced except to ratings, and, with the ratings information provided, we don't need to (and shouldn't) draw conclusions for the reader. —TKD[talk][c] 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: I feel that one source that was questioned in the last FAC, Gaming Age, is reliable enough here. It is cited by Nintendo World Report (), The Seattle Times ("Early jump on Halo 2 Interesting bits and bytes", November 8, 2004, page E2), and Ars Technica (). —TKD[talk][c] 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I can't make a stronger case, so I've removed/replaced references to it. Interestingly—and I didn't notice this earlier—it was being used to support information about removal of violence fromp re-release versions. The vast majority of reviews present a contrast in the opposite direction (more violence than previous games). I can't find additional RS that frame it in the former direction, so even if Gaming Age were treated as reliable, it would still be undue weight. —TKD[talk][c] 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, my opinion hasn't changed from the first nomination. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments looks good, a couple of comprehensiveness queries, but if they can't be sourced, don't worry too much. I think we're just about over the line. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I recalled an amusing promo with the American voiceover person who voices over just about every film trailer. Be nice if there was some commentary on this and how it was promoted.
If you can show me the video and a reliable source I don't already have that talks about the trailer or the game's development, then sure. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw teh trailer on youtube and am not knowledgeable in looking for sourcing in these areas. if you can't find any commentary, don't worry too much, but I thought it'd be interesting. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, has the soundtrack had any reviews? I haven't played this one - does it sound much different to the usual sonic games?
Only some praise from GameSpot, and this was in the reviews for the game, not the soundtrack. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Finally, the aftermath - it is nearly four years old now, has Shadow been abandoned as a game central character - and I don't get the sence from the last section whether it sold well or not (I guess a million is a lot, but am not familiar with game selling stats). Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find a reliable source (everyone's really a stickler for these now) that talks about how present Shadow still is in the series. As for the game selling, how should I go about this? Should I try to get some kind of ranking for the year? Tezkag72 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Not too' fussed; anything which gives some further indication of selling, even just some adjectives or something really. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominator(s): Proteins (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this mathematical article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. In its simplest form, the Euclidean algorithm is often taught to 10-year-old children; for many, it is the only algorithm they encounter in school. It has several important applications, such as the RSA algorithm (often used in electronic commerce) and solving Diophantine equations. Although the oldest known algorithm (23 centuries), it continues to play a role in developing new mathematics. It would be helpful for Wikipedia to have an excellent article on this topic, both for itself and for the introduction it provides to advanced mathematics such as abstract algebra. Proteins (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Game of Euclid
I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of the "Game of Euclid" in the historical development section. It doesn't seem to be very important as a research topic or achievement, and it certainly doesn't even come close to the other developments in that section. What was the reason for including this? --C S (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The FA criteria require that the article be "comprehensive" (criterion 1b). I admit that the game of Euclid is relatively unimportant, but it has been discussed in mathematical journals and textbooks, as referenced in the article. There didn't seem to be a better place to put that material besides "Historical development". Proteins (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I spy less than half a dozen "mathematical journals and textbooks" that mention the game. Surely there are many topics with more coverage that have not been included in this article. So I can't see how omitting this game would violate criterion 1b. Not to mention, these math journals you talk of are mainly math education related ones, except the journal INTEGERS, which seems like an ok journal but not particularly well-known. Of course, I don't mean to disparage journals whose primary audience may be math educators, but in terms of using such journals as a justification for including a mathematical topic in this article, I don't think it is sufficient. One has to separate a topic which is primarily used as an educational device from a topic which is considered an important development in understanding of the Euclidean algorithm. --C S (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oldest algorithm?
I think that the sentence "The Euclidean algorithm is the oldest algorithm in the historical record" is wrong because of Old Babylonian algorithms used to solve problems. --El Caro (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good point. The passage stated is uncited, but there is further down a box with a quote by Knuth which makes the nuanced observation that it is the "oldest nontrivial algorithm" that has survived to the present day. Since Knuth actually wrote an article in 1972 on ancient Babylonian algorithms where he examined written records of their algorithms, presumably he was aware that the "nontrivial" is an important and necessary modifier. "Oldest nontrivial...", of course, is his opinion. --C S (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read the quote in the box. Is this "only" Knuth's opinion or a statement on whom most specialists agree? --El Caro (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If "algorithm" is defined only as a set of numerical rules (without requiring proof that the rules always work or understanding why they work), then surely there were algorithms for thousands of years before Euclid. I'll review the literature and list the opinions of other people besides Knuth. Proteins (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I corrected this in the text before, but that is indeed what "algorithm" means. I have never seen anyone define algorithm to mean it must come with understanding of the person using it or a proof that it works. So I can't imagine Knuth would use some nonstandard definition of "algorithm", as you suggest, especially since he is a computer scientist and certainly computer scientists do not require algorithms come with proofs. That is probably why he says "nontrivial" as I mentioned above. --C S (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
After consulting more than a dozen mathematical sources, I concede that you are entirely correct. An algorithm is any well-defined (alpha)numerical procedure, and can well be incorrect. Thus, pre-Pythagorean carpenters constructing a right angle by a 3-4-5 triangle were using an algorithm, and so were carpenters who used a 2-3-4 triangle. I accepted the proof requirement (which I read elsewhere) because Knuth's argument for the EA's priority seemed incompatible with the obvious prior existence of many algorithms, such as calendars, money changing, tax and inheritance systems, measurement of area, architecture, multiplication and division, etc. I have also not found a reliable source besides Knuth that identifies an oldest nontrivial algorithm. The solution for this FAC may well be to leave the quote box from Knuth, but to change the assertion in the article. How about "oldest numerical algorithm still in common use", or "one of the oldest algorithms in the historical record"? Would either of those wordings be acceptable? Proteins (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Proteins. Well, as you said, multiplication algorithm was around before, so I'm unhappy with the first phrasing. The second seems acceptable. Actually, I had a bit of fun digging around the Google searches for "euclidean algorithm oldest". I had no idea that there was such a common misconception of the Euclidean algorithm being the oldest algorithm (with no qualification). Perhaps Wikipedia itself has had a role in perpetuating this. In "Mathematica in Action" by Stan Wagon , Wagon asserts "The Euclidean algorithm for computing the gcd of two numbers is arguably the best algorithm in all of mathematics. According to Knuth, it is the oldest nontrivial algorithm that has survived to the present day." So here Knuth's assertion of "oldest nontrivial..." is repeated with the addition that it is the best algorithm bar none. However, misleadingly, the section heading proceeding the passage states "The oldest surviving algorithm"! In this book, the author asserts, the "Most likely, it is the oldest mathematical algorithm in existence". Oops! Anyway, although the Wagon claim is on the strong side, I think the Knuth quote really has some content there. So I think we ought to keep that in the box, while in the text we can make a more unobjectionable assertion like "one of the oldest...record". --C S (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Applied to real numbers
"Euclid's algorithm can be applied to real numbers, as described by Euclid in Book 10 of his Elements" looks like an anachronism. Did Euclid know real numbers? --El Caro (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, now we're getting into metaphysical matters that I think are tangential. For example, when Euclid considered arithmetical operations on whole numbers, it's not the same in a sense as what we consider such arithmetic, nor is probably what the ancient Greeks considered whole numbers the same as what we do now. So strictly speaking Euclid did not know real numbers, but he didn't know whole numbers, addition, or subtraction either. So that makes your point kind of moot. --C S (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The ancient Greek certainly knew about irrational numbers, at least as surds, even if they hadn't defined Dedekind cuts. Book X of Euclid's Elements is devoted entirely to questions of incommensurability, and this real-number version of Euclid's algorithm begins that exposition. Knuth states elsewhere that the Greeks treated real numbers by infinite continued fractions, but he doesn't explain his remark further; I took him to be referring to this version of Euclid's algorithm. One could argue, I suppose, that the modern concept of real numbers embraces more than just "the set of all rational and irrational numbers", but that seems beyond the level of this article. Proteins (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Greeks considered numerical concepts mainly in terms of geometric constructions ala ruler and compass and that is how Euclid's treatment of commensurability goes. This is certainly not the way modern mathematicians think of them. Sure the ancient Greeks knew of some irrational numbers, but they certainly didn't know "e" or many other irrational numbers that are not constructible. So their concept of irrational number was far more limited than our modern understanding, even when one limits the concept of real number to mean "set of rational and irrational numbers". Even on the math where modern and ancient understanding would seem to overlap, it's clear the ancient Greeks just had a different way of thinking about it, so in a metaphysical sense, you could argue that the objects are really different. --C S (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Gabriel-Lamé.jpeg - There is no source, date, or author for this image that would lead us to believe that it is in the PD. We need to be able to verify that it is in the PD. More research on this image needs to be done.
File:Dedekind.jpeg - The website for this image does not indicate the 1870 date and we have no name or death date for the photographer, so we cannot verify the PD license listed. More research on this image needs to be done.
These issues should relatively easy to resolve. I look forward to reading the entire article. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, despite a diligent search, I have not been able to verify the copyright status of either image. Both were taken around 1870 (roughly 140 years ago) and both are widely distributed on the Internet. However, it is conceivable that the original photographer died less than 70 years ago, or that the photographs themselves were not published until more recently. I found a similar image of Lamé published in 1897, but the Ecole polytechnique asserts its unrestricted copyrights. I found an alternative photograph of Dedekind published in 1930 in Braunschweig as part of his Collected Works; however, I cannot verify that it is out of copyright, either. I'll remove the images for now, pending a fuller investigation. They're not essential. Proteins (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good news! We can use the Lame picture from 1897 then. It doesn't matter if Ecole Polytechnique claims copyright; US copyright law is what Wikipedia requires us to follow and that means the picture is considered in the public domain in the US (see Wikipedia:Public_domain). --C S (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
We can use the the French Lamé. As CS explains, it is acceptable under US copyright law. You can upload it to the English Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Lack of citations?
Problem - many of the paragraphs are lacking citations or, if having them, there are no citations covering many sentences. See the end of the section "Greatest common divisor" for just one example. This needs to be fixed before it can pass FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the subsection that begins, "Three related mathematical methods are used often in the arguments below..." That is an explanatory paragraph explaining the article elements, in particular, explaining what typical math proof method will be used further down. That does not require citation. Looking through the article, I see plentiful citations. I suspect what Ottava Rima is referring is to paragraphs where the initial statement might be sourced, but further explanation or example is not (although it is simply a further explication of what the initial sentence said). I wonder if Ottava Rima is familiar with WP:SCG, since I cannot see how the article fails the SCG. I think there is some confusion that would be remedied by reading "Examples, derivations and restatements" section of the SCG in particular. --C S (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless it is sourced, it is possibly Original Research. Now, from the guideline that you quoted: "The no original research and verifiability policies are of paramount importance to Wikipedia. Information presented in Wikipedia should be easily verifiable by anyone who wishes to do so. To ease verification, sources should be detailed by the articles." This article fails that. The whole page has over 50 sections needing citations. Such things are 100% unacceptable in an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You've been claiming a lot citation violations, but have yet to demonstrate one example. Could you show me an example paragraph from the article that violates the SCG? You cited the opening sentences of the SCG, but I'm not sure you've read further past it since the rest of the introduction explains that there are different ways to satisfy these core polices. Then further on down in the first section it is explained that not every sentence or paragraph may require a citation depending on the type of material. --C S (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Violations? No. FA has as a requirement that everything is verifiable. This requires all information to be cited. There are over 50 spots that need citations. I read through the whole article, as, when working on my classics degree, Euclid books 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were included, so a page dealing with Euclid is something that I find interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's true that FA has a verifiability criterion. But it does not automatically follow that all information is needed to be cited. This is a logical jump not supported by any listed policy, guideline, or FA criterion. In addition, SCG has been found to be satisfactory in prior FA nominations by Raul and Sandy. So I'm afraid your opinion is just your opinion, without consensus, and will probably be ignored as far as this nomination goes. --C S (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with CS. Please re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability to gain a better understanding of the policy. My only quibble with respect to verifiability was the "oldest algorithm" bit. The discussion above has laid that objection to rest. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you two, but I've been here for a long time, I've worked on many FACs, FARs, and the rest. I know what the verifiability criterion is. Your arguments have shown that this wont be corrected, so I have no choice but to oppose. 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As a conciliatory gesture to a numerically-minded classicist, I'll be glad to add some more references to the 130 already there. When I've finished, please reconsider your strong oppose. Proteins (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added 22 more references. Proteins (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There are just a few more passages that I think need to be cited: 1) "However, the solutions cannot shrink indefinitely, since...." until the end. 2) "The remainder is equivalent to the congruence class in modular arithmetic." 3) "A generalization of this result is known as Sturm's theorem." 4) "Bézout's identity, and therefore the previous algorithm, can both be generalized to the context of Euclidean domains." 5) "The GCD is said to be the generator of the ideal of a and b. This GCD definition led to the modern abstract algebraic concepts of a principal ideal..." 6) "this is impossible for a system of linear equations when the solutions can be any real number." 7) "Such finite fields can be defined for any prime p; using more sophisticated definitions, they can also be defined for any power m of a prime pm. Finite fields are often called Galois fields, and are abbreviated as GF(p) or GF(pm)." 8) "Euclid's algorithm is widely used in practice, especially for small numbers, due to its simplicity. For comparison, the efficiency of alternatives to Euclid's algorithm may be determined." (statement of practice definitely needs a citation for verification) 9) "In the latter cases, the Euclidean algorithm is used to demonstrate the crucial property of unique factorization..." (see above about statements of practice) 10) "The polynomial Euclidean algorithm has other applications as well, such as Sturm chains...." 11) "Many of the other applications of the Euclidean algorithm carry over to Gaussian integers." 12) "This failure of unique factorization in some cyclotomic fields led Ernst Kummer to the concept of ideal numbers and, later, Richard Dedekind to ideals." 13) "An important generalization of the Euclidean algorithm" (characterization as "important").
Question - do you cite a first line, but that citation carries into the next? That could be a problem, because your citations would cover the next sentences but you don't place them where they would acknowledge that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment on terminology
Often in math books, the Euclidean algorithm is not the actual procedure for finding the GCD, but rather the statement that for two a, b (natural numbers, integers, residue classes of integers, polynomials over commutative rings, power series over complete local rings, and so forth) we can solve the equation:
uniquely with a (degree) condition on r (and some conditions on a and b). They are related, of course, but I was wondering if it might be worthwhile saying something to that effect off the bat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you're referring to the "division lemma" or division algorithm? If so, the article mentions it in the subsection "Calculating the quotients and remainders". But I haven't encountered a source that calls it the "Euclidean algorithm"; could you point me towards one? Proteins (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I had a vague feeling Fowler had a point there, so I dug through some books I had handy. I found that (as expected) Hardy & Wright's number theory book states that "Euclid's algorithm" is defined by generating the sequence of remainders which terminates (it seems to give no name for the "division algorithm", merely calling it division with remainder at times), Dummit & Foote's abstract algebra book states that the "Euclidean algorithm" comes from the division algorithm, but Herstein's Topics in Algebra does indeed call the above, the Euclidean algorithm. Herstein is a pretty well-known algebra book, so I dug a bit more and I found that a source on the Euclidean domain article, which was published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society in 1949, also uses the term Euclidean algorithm for division algorithm (see ). I think in number theory books there is a pretty well-established tradition of using "Euclidean algorithm" to mean generating the sequence of remainders from the two initial numbers. In algebra texts that discuss Euclidean domains, my suspicion is that books here and there may use Euclidean algorithm to mean division algorithm but I suspect that modern books generally don't; I find Dummit & Foote is pretty reliable regarding modern terminology, while Herstein is from 1961 and sometimes a bit outdates on terminology. In any case, I think a note or footnote is in order. --C S (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you are right: number theory texts do call it the "division algorithm," and in fact, come to think of it, in high-school we called it the "division algorithm" ourselves, perhaps because it was introduced as a part of elementary number theory. Somewhere in college though the name became less certain (as I remember it). As for texts, among the classic algebra texts, both van der Waerden and Birkoff/Mac Lane do call it the "division algorithm," but Herstein doesn't (as you say). The more recent texts seem to be a mixed bag. I don't know Dummit and Foote, but among the books published in the last 20 years that refer to the "division algorithm" as the "Euclidean algorithm" are (the links should take you straight to the page about the "Euclidean Algorithm"): Hilton and Wu's A Course in Modern Algebra (1989), Rowen's Algebra: Groups, Rings, and Fields (1994), Lang's Algebra: A Graduate Course (2002), Murty and Esmonde's Problems in algebraic number theory (2004), Lang's Undergraduate Algebra (2005), and Lowen's Graduate Algebra: The Noncommutative View (2008). Lang (2002), in particular, is still widely used, I think. So the footnote will be useful for any others who have questions like mine. :) Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't check all those books publication dates, but certainly Lang's well-known classic Algebra is not really a book "published in the last 20 years". The revised 3rd edition is from 2002, but the original was from 1965, and subsequent versions are essentially the same (but with fixing of errors and so forth). Unlike the others you mention, which I've never heard of, certainly it is still used (mainly by the top graduate programs and more that like to think they are in the same class). --C S (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I expect the Hilton and Wu book must be from the 60s too, since "Hilton" is Peter Hilton and he wrote several books in that period, all of which are well regarded but never really caught on like their competitors. Indeed, Hilton is rather infamous (in a humorous way) for writing a book on homology/cohomology (with Wylie) and using the terms homology and cohomology to refer the opposite way as everyone else used them. That never changed in subsequent editions even though by then it became clear they had lost the terminology reformation attempt. Herstein is also a bit weird in that he composes linear transformations from left to right instead of right to left. That never changed in recent printings. So anyway, if your point (which I think it may be) is that even though these books are old, but they were recently republished and so must reflect more modern terminology, I'm afraid I don't buy that. In my experience, republished classic texts often retain their classic (read: outdated) terminology, and the reader is supposed to be on guard for it. --C S (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
My point was simply that these books, regardless of their provenance, are still being used by students (as both books by Lang are, by your own admission), so it doesn't hurt to have the note. I have no idea if the terminology is outdated. Certainly Lowen's Graduate Algebra: The Noncommutative View (2008), published by the AMS does look recent. Anyway, this is not a biggie for me. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps I should have forestalled your comments by mentioning that Herstein is still a widely used book. --C S (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added the following as a footnote to the introductory sentence: Some widely-used textbooks, such as I. N. Herstein's Topics in Algebra and Serge Lang's Algebra, use "Euclidean algorithm" to refer to division algorithm.
I don't know if that's the best place for it, but it should save some confusion on terminology. --C S (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on animation in lead
I oppose anything that flashes. Sorry, I know it's cool but it's very distracting to readers. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've found a way to hide the animation until it's requested. Proteins (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Intelligibility
It's excellent that the atmosphere here is cordial and constructive; I appreciate everyone pitching in to make the article better. For my part, I'm determined to make the article as intelligible as possible to lay-readers. I'd appreciate advice on how to do that, or alerts to obscure sections. Thanks! (We should continue this discussion on the article talk page.) Proteins (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The article should NOT have its technical aspects toned down. Readers searching for information on the topic will 9 times out of 10 be looking for the technical explanation. The technical explanations are excellent. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and no worries! I just want to avoid unnecessary obscurity. Proteins (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
!Votes
Conditional Support. Overall, the article is excellent and it certainly meets criteria 1 and 2. In fact, arguments could be made that the article is too comprehensive i.e. includes too much on related topics (criterion 4). However, I would not support that argument. The image copyright issues raised by Awadewit should be corrected. Unless I have missed something major, in my view, the article should be featured. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and I hope that the copyright issues will now be resolved. Proteins (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - lack of citations for over 50% of the page means that it fails the citation requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking to support. I haven't read it yet, but it looks pretty good. Will make vote more definite upon reading. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. I have (inofficially) reviewed the article recently and found it very good (see the article talk page), and think it has even improved since. It is very comprehensive, accessible, provides pictures where useful. I only have one suggestion, which is easy to fix: please consider adding reference(s) for the section "Induction, recursion and infinite descent". I don't agree with Ottava Rima's point above, which is exaggerating verifiability, but that section could do with a brief reference for each of the three methods, just in the sense of a "further reading", if readers are interested in learning more about induction etc. (A reference mentioning these techniques in correlation to the EA would be ideal.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet, is that not why we have separate articles on mathematical induction, recursion and infinite descent? Each of which has a well-written, extensive introduction, and with the except of 'infinite descent' has plentiful references? Is your suggestion because you don't like the look of a paragraph without footnote symbols? I'm genuinely confused by your comment, as we don't have a reference in the article for many other terms either (like ideal (ring theory). I would suggest just adding some references to infinite descent instead. --C S (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that was not my intention. It is not that I a priori don't like paragraphs without footnotes, I just think it is a service to the reader to come up with a reference. For example mathematical induction does give a number of references, which is good, but assume you don't have the time nor ability to read that article nor scan all the references given there. In that case, an additional reference (in this article here) would be helpful, wouldn't it? Secondly, it is reassuring to have good surrounding articles, but you can't be sure of what happens with them. (You are right, taking that idea seriously would also mean to add references for all other notions like ideals, but I think ideals are far less crucial to the EA than induction etc.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first concern I suppose I have a hard time seeing how providing a reference footnote would be helpful. If I don't have time to read one of the linked articles, I don't see why I would have time to go look up some reference in the library or read some other website or read some downloaded paper. I can see the point of the second concern, that something bad can happen to a linked article. I suppose it doesn't hurt to copy over some of the references from those articles; I'd feel a bit too silly doing that myself, so I'll leave that to you:-). --C S (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
These are good suggestions! I've added some textbook references to the "Induction, recursion and infinite descent" section. Proteins (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Leaning to support. I haven't looked through the the whole article, but will do so. The "Game of Euclid" thing is not a good addition, but that can be argued (by those who care to) on the article talk page. Other issues discussed above all seem resolved. --C S (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Support the lead - I have a very hard time reading mathematics articles. I tried very hard to understand this, but I kept getting lost. I understood the lead, but after that, not much. I'm too verbal, I suppose. (Even the diagrams slightly confused me. I was like, "why are there 10 squares?") Anyway, the lead makes sense to idiots such as myself. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the 10 square example could be improved. It's not important the exact numbers that are being used there. The basic idea is that the gcd of two numbers is the largest length which can be used as a unit for both numbers. So for the two numbers illustrated by the 10 square picture, the gcd fits in one number twice and fits in the other number 5 times. This is illustrated by the 5 x 2 grid. There is no way to tile that rectangle with a bigger square. --C S (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I rewrote the passage with the visualization example to say:
Imagine a rectangular area a by b. Suppose d divides both a and b with no remainder. So we can divide the sides of the rectangle into some number of segments of length d and furthermore divide the rectangle into a grid consisting of squares of side length d. The greatest common divisor g equals the largest value of d for which this is possible. For illustration, a 24×60 rectangular area can be divided into a grid of: 1×1 squares, 2×2 squares, 3×3 squares, 6×6 squares or 12×12 squares. Thus, 12 is the greatest common divisor of 24 and 60.
Is this an improvement? --C S (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't follow the thread of edits, but talking to the reader ("imagine ...") and "we" should be avoided as unencyclopedic language. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Proteins is responsible for the "imagine".:-) In any case, WP:MOSMATH is ok with limited usage of this type. If MOSMATH is inconsistent with FA, that's a shame. Feel free to edit my version. --C S (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with such language (particularly when explaining examples) - it is used by professional mathematicians. If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Awadewit (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Minor suggestion for improvement. The animated gif File:Euclidean algorithm 1071 462.gif is a very nice idea, especially for readers with limited math knowledge. But it would be more useful if the dimensions of the successive rectangles were given. (Hope you see what I mean) They're given in the caption but that forces the reader to look at the image, go to the caption, return to the image and pedagogically I think that's suboptimal. Also I think it's one of these rare cases where it makes sense to point out on the caption that clicking on the image will enlarge it (many readers are unaware of this). Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are both good suggestions, Pichpich, thank you. Although they may be more difficult to implement elegantly than you imagine, I'll work on them. Originally I left the numbers out of the animation on purpose, because I wanted it to be usable on other Wikipedias that do not use our digits, such as the Arabic Wikipedia. Proteins (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I really like this article. It's comprehensive, well-written, interesting, and informative. I do have one minor quibble, although I'm not sure anything can be done about it, and it's that at least on my laptop screen some of the formulae are difficult to read. For instance, in
rk−2 = qkrk−1 + rk
qkrk−1 looks like qk to the power of rk−1. It may just be an artefact caused by the tail of the "q" though, either that or my tired old eyes.:-) If nobody else has a similar problem I'll just chalk it down to my default character set. --MalleusFatuorum 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I sympathize with the small-equation issue, although the equations read correctly on my screen. The equations could've been rendered better in math mode (LaTeX), but that approach produces images that are not accessible to people using standard screen readers. Perhaps the best long-term solution for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects would be a script that generates ALT text automatically for a given math-mode equation, while allowing the editor to fine-tune its output. That would require a major investment of time and effort, however. Proteins (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The lead does not adequately summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, it appears that Other number systems is not represented in the lead.
Apparently you missed the sentence "In the 19th century, the algorithm was generalized to other types of numbers, which led to modern abstract algebraic notions such as Euclidean domains." in the lead. But you're right, that's too terse, so I expanded it to "The original algorithm was described only for natural numbers and geometric lengths (real numbers), but the algorithm was generalized in the 19th century to other types of numbers, such as Gaussian integers and polynomials of one variable. This led to modern abstract algebraic notions such as Euclidean domains." Proteins (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Caption: "The greatest common divisor of a and b is the largest square tile that covers an a-by-b rectangle exactly. Here, a 24-by-60 rectangle is covered with 12-by-12 square tiles." In the first sentence, it needs to be made clear that it is not one single square tile that covers the rectangle, but multiple iterations of that square tile. "exactly" is somewhat ambiguous, consider expanding. It would also be helpful to say "ten 12-by-12 square tiles". Addendum: upon reading the relevant paragraph, it might be helpful to make this into an animation which demonstrates the various ways in which a 60-by-24 rectangle can be divided.
Reworded caption, thanks. The animation might be helpful, but that would require someone to create and position precisely 1440 1-by-1 squares. It's possible — are you volunteering, by any chance? Proteins (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how to convert a series of images into an animation, but I'd be willing to make the images (or at least try). If I make them, can you make the animation? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"The greatest common divisor is often written as GCD(a, b) or, more simply, as (a, b)." Yes, the second version is simpler, but that notation is also used for lots of other things in mathematics. What (a, b) represents depends on the context of the problem, and I think it would be wise to mention this so as not to mislead our less mathematically-inclined readers.
Mentioned ambiguity of "(a, b)" notation, and swapped order of last two sentences in paragraph for better flow. Proteins (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh, better, but instead of "although the simpler notation is also used for unrelated mathematical objects, such as two-dimensional vectors." how about "although the latter notation is also used for various other mathematical concepts, such as two-dimensional vectors."
That's a good suggestion! I followed your wording more-or-less exactly. Proteins (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hesitant to use the word "unrelated", but I couldn't figure out exactly why. Here's why: "unrelated" may imply that the two components, a and b, are unrelated, which is obviously never the case. "other" makes it clear that the concepts are unrelated to EA without introducing the ambiguity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the wording now is "although the latter notation is also used for other mathematical concepts, such as two-dimensional vectors." Proteins (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"neither 6 = 2×3 nor 35 = 5×7 is a prime number, since they both have two prime factors" I think it may be a tad confusing to include the prime factorization at first; perhaps this should be added later: "neither 6 nor 35 is a prime number, since they both have two prime factors: 6 = 2x3 and 35 = 5x7." or something like that. Also, shouldn't it be "neither 6 nor 35 are prime numbers"?
Excellent suggestion for the rewording. Proteins (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither/nor - it depends if you think 6 and 35 are singular or plural. Are they singular because they are individual numerals or are they plural because they abstractly represent "more than one"? Tricky. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hrm. Well, I'm not particularly sure about it myself, so use your best judgment. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In my way of thinking, it depends how we are using "6" in the context. Since we say "6 is composite" (just as we say "7 is prime"), it seems to me we are thinking of it as singular.
"Neither," the converse of "both," usually has singular verb concord (as the Bartleby reference suggests as well). So, "Neither 6 nor 35 is prime" sounds correct to me. The adjective "prime" will not apply to instances of plural occurrences of 6; in other words, you can't apply "prime" to "six sheep," although you can say, "The number of sheep (viz. 6) is prime." That is as far as prescriptive grammar goes. If you look at usage on the web, "Neither * nor * is" has approximately 7 million hits, whereas "Neither * nor * are" has 16.4 million hits (some are using "are" for plurals, but not all). So, even though most prescriptive grammar books don't look kindly upon plural verb agreement for "neither" in the case of third person singular nouns, as in "Neither Hamas nor Hizebollah are ...," if people, by a margin of two to one, are making such constructions, sooner or later the descriptive grammar books will take notice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "6" and "35" (in the sense used here) are each singular, as in "7 is a prime number" or "12 is a composite number". Per Bartleby's and other references, I feel that "neither...nor" should take a singular verb if both nouns are singular, as in "Neither Clara nor John was absent from class". Proteins (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Imagine a rectangular area a by b, and consider any common divisor c that divides both a and b exactly." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an episode of Spongebob Squarepants. No sentence in an encyclopedia should start with "imagine."
I presume that you are not objecting to the imperative mood (a staple of mathematics: "Let x be..."), just the verb "imagine". I re-worded this to use "consider" for both: "Consider a rectangular area a by b, and any common divisor c that divides both a and b exactly." Since this is an encyclopedia, we should both strive to keep our comments less colorful. Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"the GCD(462, 1071) = 3×7" In all other instances thus far, you have chosen not to use an article before GCD. Did you mean to say "then GCD(462, 1071) = 3×7"?
Thank you for catching that inconsistency, which I've fixed. Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Integer factorization is thought to be a difficult problem for large numbers." A bit weaselly, and it's not particularly difficult if you have a calculator handy. Perhaps "can be" instead of "is thought to be"?
I clarified the sentence, although perhaps I should have been more clear about "large numbers". A pocket calculator might help in factoring numbers up to 20,000 (5 digits), but it won't be useful in factoring numbers with 500 digits, the rough size of number used in modern cryptography. Nevertheless, the Euclidean algorithm can quickly find the greatest common divisor of two 500-digit numbers. That was the point I was trying to convey. Should I spell that out in the article, do you think? Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the statement the first time from asserting "is a difficult problem" to "is thought to be..." since it is "only" thought to be difficult, not proven. The new version which states "The computational difficulty of integer factorization grows exponentially with the size of the number being factored" is a step backwards in that regards. The computational difficulty of integer factorization is in fact unknown. --C S (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right that I was inferring too much about the specific scaling of factorization. I've re-worded this sentence to "Factorization of large integers is believed to be such a difficult problem that many modern cryptography systems are based upon it.", which is supported by the Schroeder reference. Proteins (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good enough for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"A more subtle definition of the GCD is helpful in advanced mathematics, particularly ring theory." This statement should probably be accompanied by a ref.
"GCD(a, b, c) = GCD(a, GCD(b, c)) = GCD(GCD(a, b), c)" Shouldn't this also include " = GCD(GCD(a, c), b)"?
If only for symmetry. Good catch! Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two numbers, suffices to calculate the GCD of arbitrarily many numbers." Odd wording at the end. Suggest switching to "integers" to allow the following rewrite: "Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two integers, suffices to calculate the GCD of any number of integers."
That's a good point and a good rewording. By using the word "number", I was trying to be general, since this result applies not only to integers, but to any number system for which the EA works, such as real numbers or Gaussian integers. Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you'd still like to stick with "numbers" rather than "integers", how about this: "Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which directly computes the GCD of two numbers, can be used to calculate the GCD of any group of numbers, regardless of the size of the group." Or something? As long as we avoid phrases like "number of numbers", it should be fine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"This approach begins by showing that, if the theorem holds for n, it also holds for n + 1." I just learned about induction last semester, and this doesn't seem to be quite right, specifically the last two clauses. My understanding of induction is that it is a two-step process. The first step is proving the basis case (usually n=0 or n=1), and the second step is proving that it holds for n+1. The sentence in question is written as though the first step proves the second step, which is not the case.
For induction, it doesn't matter whether you prove the basis case first and the (n implies n+1) step second, or the reverse. I chose to present the method in the reverse order because (1) I thought it would be easier for lay-people to follow, (2) it emphasizes the (n implies n+1) step, which I feel is more important; and (3) it de-emphasizes the basis case and clarifies that a proof could start with any basis case, e.g., n=7. Proteins (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I've reread that section, and I'm not sure why I had a problem with it the first time, as it makes perfect sense to me now. Perhaps I should have read the entire section before commenting on individual sentences... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"A recursion is an equation relating numbers that form a series a1, a2, a3, etc." This is a very poor definition of a recursion, as it does not adequately explain the concept to a reader with no prior familiarity to it. How about "A recursion is an equation in which an, an arbitrary term in a series, is defined by the values of previous terms in the series, such as an-1 or a0". This will also help the reader understand the Fibonacci example a bit more clearly.
That's a good suggestion. I've re-worded the recursion along these lines. Proteins (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Several equations associated with the Euclidean algorithm are recursive, such as rk=rk−2−qkrk−1." This example is essentially useless, as neither the meaning of the equation nor the terms used therein have been defined yet.
Eliminated foreshadowing. Proteins (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Finally, in infinite descent, a given solution is used to construct a smaller solution." I read this sentence and thought I understood the concept being explained. Then I read infinite descent. Then I reread this sentence, which I now realize does a fairly poor job of explaining infinite descent. My familiarity with the concept is limited to that which I have just read, so I have no suggestion as to how to concisely summarize it, but I strongly urge you to rework the current explanation.
I hadn't wanted to talk about the (more common) use of infinite descent in impossibility proofs such as Fermat's Last Theorem. Rather, my goal was to prepare the reader to follow the logic of why the EA must stop eventually. Nevertheless, I've re-written those sentences to to give a broader understanding of the argument. Proteins (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"The validity of the Euclidean algorithm can be shown by two-step argument." Since the title of the section is proof of validity, perhaps this sentence should include the word 'proof': "The validity of the Euclidean algorithm can be proven with a two-step argument."
I had avoided that wording for fear that mathematicians would cavil that the "proof" was not rigorous. I prefer your wording, however, so I replaced it. Proteins (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're worried about what mathematicians will think of the section, perhaps providing a rigorous proof would be better than simply avoiding the word 'proof'. In any case, I'm happy with it as is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"This agrees with the GCD(1071, 462) found by prime factorization above." Erm, there is no mentions of 1071 or 462 in the Background section. Why not just give the prime factorization here?
Perhaps I'm not following you but the the paragraph about prime factorization and GCD in the Background section uses 1071 and 462 as an example. For example, it says, "since 462 can be factored into 2×3×7×11 and 1071 can be factored into 3×3×7×17, the greatest common divisor of 462 and 1071 equals 21 = 3×7, the product of their shared prime factors." We could repeat that here, but it seems redundant. Proteins (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
>.< I swear you put that in after I made the comment! :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"The sequence ends when there is no residual rectangle, i.e., when the square tiles cover the previous residual rectangle exactly." This paragraph desperately needs to end with: "The length of the sides of the smallest square tile is the GCD of the dimensions of the original rectangle." or something like that.
Excellent suggestion, thanks! Proteins (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"where the magnitude of rk is strictly less than that of rk−1" The use of 'magnitude' here strikes me as being a bit odd. Why not just write a simple inequality? rk < rk-1
The "magnitude" wording also covers versions of the algorithm when the remainder can be negative. For example, -37628 < 4, but 4 has a smaller magnitude. Proteins (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
True. I wonder if using absolute value notation |rk| would be better. Up to you. In any case, magnitude or absolute value should be linked to avoid confusion for math noobs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Another good idea, which I followed. Proteins (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Euclid finds the quotient and remainder by repeated subtraction" Last time I checked, Euclid is dead. Past tense, perhaps?
I don't think the implementations section belongs in this article. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this section does not contain any new relevant information.
Your initial reaction is similar to mine. Bu let me argue that the implementations contribute at least epsilon to the article for most readers, and for some readers may convey the algorithm's idea better than anything else. I note that when I arrived at this article — then rated at nearly GA level by the Math WikiProject — the implementations were the article's main content, having been debated and perfected for over seven years. Some editors champion the pseudocode as the only valid way of defining the algorithm precisely. In deference to these editors and in deference to the many readers like them, I feel we should retain the Implementations section. Proteins (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deference to these editors? Pfft. Perhaps you have forgotten the disclaimer: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." As for the readers, they come here for a lot of things that they really shouldn't (medical advice comes to mind). The very most we can do in regards to instruction content like this is to provide an informative link — perhaps to a WikiHow article or a programming site. I realize that you have the best intentions by wanting to keep the material, but the fact of the matter is that it really doesn't belong here. The other points you've brought up are largely irrelevant. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify the question with a triple negative.;) I'm NOT saying that we should violate WP:NOT in order to NOT hurt the feelings of some devoted editors. Rather, the pivotal issue is whether the Implementations section allows us to explain the algorithm to readers who might not really understand it otherwise. I argue yes. It's not about providing snippets of HOWTO code, but rather providing another avenue that connects the algorithm to our readers. Proteins (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You will not be able to find a pseudocode representation that all programmers will be able to understand. I am very experienced with TI-BASIC and I've twiddled with C++, but I'm not familiar with some of the notation you've used. As I see it, you have three options: Give whatever programming language you choose WP:UNDUE weight by explaining all of the relevant syntax, leave it vague and hope for the best, or remove the section altogether. I think at this point it's clear which option I'd prefer. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"if the resulting negative remainder is smaller in absolute value than the typical positive remainder" You used "magnitude" earlier. I recommend swapping out "absolute value" for "magnitude" for consistency.
OK, sounds good. Proteins (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"to the greatest length g that measures a and b evenly" The word "measures" seems a bit off. Shouldn't it be "divides"?
A geometric length is qualitatively different than an integer. "Measure" or "measure off" is the standard vocabulary used for the former. The ancient Greeks distinguished the two operations (division and "measuring off"), and their concepts have carried over. Proteins (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"in other words, the lengths a and b are both multiples of the length g" I suggest the injection of the word "integer" before "multiples", without it, the whole concept is meaningless.
Great catch, although I predict that most non-mathematicians would assume that "multiple = integer multiple". Proteins (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Aye, it's the finnicky mathematicians I'm worried about here.:) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"The algorithm was likely known by Eudoxus of Cnidus (about 375 BC). The use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in Euclid and Aristotle (Topics IV) suggests that the algorithm predates Eudoxus." I see what you're getting at, but to some readers, these sentences may seem to contradict each other. Suggested rewrite: "The use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in Euclid and Aristotle (Topics IV) suggests that what we now know as the Euclidean Algorithm may have predated Eudoxus of Cnidus, a Greek mathematician who died in approximately 350 BC." or some such. Meh. That's not exactly perfect either. Give it some thought.
That's a good suggestion, and very helpful. I toyed with the wording beforehand, but I didn't come up with anything as good as yours. I've uploaded a third wording that may combine the best of our efforts. Proteins (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, much better! More direct than mine, too. I'm confused about the last bit, though: "use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in Euclid and Aristotle (Topics IV)" Did Euclid and Aristotle collaborate on a book called "Topics IV"? What's going on here? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That interpretation didn't occur to me, thanks! The Topics reference was just a clue for the reader where to find Aristotle's comments on reciprocal subtraction. Euclid and Aristotle didn't co-author anything, at least to my knowledge; IIRC, Euclid was much younger than Aristotle. The passage now reads "The algorithm may even pre-date Eudoxus, judging from the use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in works by Euclid and Aristotle." Proteins (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"Euclid's algorithm was re-invented both in India and in China" "re-invent" often implies that an existing concept was significantly improved. I think "independently developed" or "independently discovered" might serve better.
Good idea, made additional minor changes in wording. Proteins (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"the Indian mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata described the algorithm as the "pulverizer"" Erm... why?
Good question! The historical record does not say, as far as I can tell. One author speculates that it's because the algorithm "pulverizes" difficult linear Diophantine equations in only a few steps, emphasizing its power to solve problems. Its operation also vaguely resembles a pulverizer that breaks a large stone into medium-sized stones, then into small stones, and thence into dust. Proteins (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Both of those certainly make sense. Whichever explanation best adheres to the available sources should probably be added to the article—I'm sure some readers will have the same question I did. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Added "perhaps because of its effectiveness in solving Diophantine equations." with a citation to the speculating textbook. Proteins (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"and applied it solving linear Diophantine equations" Consider changing "applied it solving" to "used it to solve".
Much better, thank you! Proteins (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"Although a special case of the Chinese remainder theorem was described earlier by Chinese mathematician and astronomer Sun Tzu" The use of "earlier" implies a relation to the previous sentence rather than the following clause. Suggest "was described earlier" to "had already been described".
"The algorithm was first described in Europe in the second edition of Bachet's Problèmes plaisants et délectables (1624)." Which algorithm? The EA? Or the Chinese Remainder Theorem? Also, do you have a translation for that French title?
"In the 19th century, Carl Friedrich Gauss used the Euclidean algorithm to demonstrate unique factorization of Gaussian integers by 1815 (published 1832), although he did not mention the algorithm in his earlier work, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (1801), except as a method for continued fractions." If you include specific years, "In the 19th century" is redundant. Also, I'm confused by the 1815/1832 thing. Also, the second chunk is somewhat misleading. Suggested rewrite: "though he had mentioned the algorithm in his earlier work, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (1801), simply as a method for solving continued fractions."
Yes, this was worded awkwardly. I've re-arranged the material and added a topic sentence so that it flows better (I hope). The 1815/1832 issue is that Gauss did the calculation in 1815 (as we know from his notebooks), but didn't publish it until 1832. Proteins (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so much better! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Dirichlet seems to have..." A person's full name (or at least their first name) should be given the first time they are mentioned.
OK, Peter it is. Proteins (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"would hold true for any other system of numbers in which the Euclidean algorithm could be applied" Should be "to which the", right?
Right on! thanks, 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Dirichlet's insight likely inspired Richard Dedekind to develop theories for new types of numbers, the algebraic integers, and more generally Euclidean domains." As this is written, it implies that Dedekind might or might not have developed those theories. Also, the ending construction implies that "new types of numbers, the algebraic integers, and more generally Euclidean domains" are all separate items in a list, but my hunch is that the second is an example of the first. Suggested rewrite: "Richard Dedekind's theories for new types of numbers, such as algebraic integers and Euclidean domains, may have been inspired by Dirichlet's insight." If you do end up rewriting this sentence, be sure to tweak the following sentence to make sure it flows logically.
I made a draft - does it read better now? Proteins (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks very good up until this sentence: "Dedekind also defined the concept of a Euclidean domain, a number system in which (roughly speaking) a version of the Euclidean algorithm can be defined." Unfortunately, the speaking is so rough that I have no idea what it means. "(roughly speaking)" is unencyclopedic, and the statement that follows doesn't provide any real information.
I changed the wording slightly to "Dedekind also defined the concept of a Euclidean domain, a number system in which a version of the Euclidean algorithm can be defined (as described below)." I'm hoping that the wikilink to the fuller explanation within the article itself will satisfy the readers' curiosity. Proteins (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's better, but the wording is still a bit odd. "...in which a version of the Euclidean algorithm..." isn't worded in the best possible way, as it leaves the reader thinking "Uhh... what version?" Any adjective before "version" would make this read more smoothly.
Perhaps "generalized version"? I don't want to have to go into details in the hHistory section about how we need to define the norm and the definition of divisibility in the new sumber system to make an EA work there. Proteins (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"In 1829, Sturm showed..." Not sure why this chunk comes after the Dirichlet/Dedekind bit. I'm assuming that Dirichlet/Dedekind did their work after 1832, which may not be correct. If that is correct, then this section is somewhat out of order. If is not correct, then this is still out of order and specific years should be added for clarity (if possible).
I was trying to discern between two developments of the EA in the 19th century: the general development of new number systems and specific applications of the EA such as Sturm's theorem. Proteins (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. This distinction is clearer now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"In 1829, Sturm showed that the algorithm provided an efficient method for counting the number of real roots of polynomials in any given interval." Again, be sure to include given names when introducing people. Also, "efficient method" is currently linked to Sturm chain. WP:MOSLINK advises that the article being linked to should be made clear by the words being linked. In this case, I fully expected the phrase to link to an article about the efficiency of algorithms. I suggest rewording the sentence to include "Sturm chain" and then linking that directly.
Both good calls. I added "Charles" to Sturm, and I re-arranged the sentence to clarify the Sturm-chain method. I also removed a double link within the paragraph. Proteins (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"A generalization of this result is known as Sturm's theorem." The use of the indefinite article "a" implies that there are multiple generalizations of the result, in which case I would recommend swapping out "a" with "one" or explaining the other generalizations. Or both. If this is the only significant generalization, I recommend swapping out "a" for "the". I wouldn't worry about it too much though; if the number of pertinent generalizations was not made clear in your research, "a" will do just fine.
Since it wasn't really germane to the EA itself, I dropped the "generalization" sentence. I might add another EA application later, though, to flesh out that paragraph somewhat. Proteins (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"No new general algorithms were developed until 1979" Erm, I seriously doubt this. I think you may need something more specific than "general algorithms".
Reworded to be briefer and to keep within the bounds of the references. Proteins (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"The PSLQ algorithm, a "jazzed up" version of Euclid's algorithm, has been recognized as one of the top ten algorithms of the 20th century." This is totally irrelevant trivia and really doesn't fit in with the section.
Yes, I should've listened to my conscience on this one. Gone. Proteins (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Game of Euclid section belongs in the Historical development section. It does seem to be worth mentioning in the article, but it really doesn't fit in with the content introduced here. It might be better off being listed in the See Also section.
Another difficult call. I sympathize with the critique, but I'm not sure where else to put the discussion. Hitherto I've included the discussion and early in the article, because it's mentioned prominently in some textbooks, it's been the subject of a few research papers, and because I suspect that it might help make some readers more comfortable with the topic, less daunted by the otherwise unbroken wall of math and more likely to push on. Proteins (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd that the Bezout's identity section is a subsection of Applications. Applications sections, in my (probably biased) experience, generally deal with how the subject applies to real world problems, not theoretical mumbo jumbo. Some readers will probably jump down to Applications thinking that they are going to be reading about how the EA can be used in sailing or accounting or whatever. To avoid crushing their tiny little hearts, consider changing Applications to Mathematical applications, though I may be alone in thinking that this is a good idea.
That does seem like a good suggestion; more specific section headings are always better. Changed to "Mathematical applications". Proteins (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"to the set of multiples of a single number, their GCD g" This would probably be slightly less confusing if "a single number, their GCD g" were replaced with "GCD(a, b)". Much simpler.
Excellent idea; changed wording as you suggest. Proteins (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"For example, suppose that a cook has two measuring cups of volume a and b, respectively. By adding and subtracting multiples of these two volumes, the cook can measure out any volume ua + vb. These volumes are all multiples of g = GCD(a, b)." Although I appreciate the real world connection, the inclusion of the cook is somewhat unnecessary and unencyclopedic. This analogy should work with just the measuring cups.
Good point; I hope you like the new wording. Thanks for your continued keen reviewing! Proteins (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"For example, consider two measuring cups of volume a and b, respectively" Why "respectively"?
"By assumption, this can be written as" I've never heard the term "by assumption" before. If it is indeed the correct term here, perhaps it should be wikilinked.
The closing lines of Extended Euclidean algorithm (before Equivalent matrix method) are, to borrow a term of yours, a "wall of math". I think an example with real numbers would be very helpful here, something I'm sure you can find in any math textbook.
The term matrix should probably be wikilinked somewhere in the section Equivalent matrix method.
"The inverse is well-defined" I have the feeling "well-defined" is jargon that should either be wikilinked, explained, or reworded.
"Bézout's identity is essential to many higher applications" I think "higher" was supposed to be "higher-level", though omitting it entirely would also work.
"For if the greatest common divisor of u and w is 1, then integers s and t can be found such that" Extraneous "for" at the beginning of this sentence? Perhaps I'm misreading this section.
"Specifically, if a prime number p divides L, it must divide at least one factor of L" If you want to introduce a new letter for this sentence, be sure to actually use it: "Specifically, if a prime number p divides L, p must divide at least one factor of L". One the other hand, if you want to be brief and reduce the number of letters being thrown at the reader, try this: "Specifically, if a prime number divides L, it must divide at least one factor of L" or "Specifically, if a prime number p divides L, that prime number must also divide at least one factor of L".
"where a, b and c are also integers" It may be helpful for the reader if "also" were swapped out for "given". This clarifies the distinction between the variables (x, y) and the constants (a, b, c).
"where s and t can be found by the extended Euclidean algorithm" Throughout the article, you've mentioned several times how the EA is extremely helpful in solving Diophantine equations. However, this is the only line (along with the bit about Bezout's identity, although that is arguably a separate topic) of the section Linear Diophantine equations that mentions the EA. Perhaps I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that whatever connections exist between the EA and linear Diophantine equations need to be spelled out more explicitly in this section.
Thank you very much for your careful reviewing! The article is definitely improving. Proteins (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments
1) The spacing convention is not followed consistently through out. (e.g. 252 = 21 × 12 (with space) but 35 = 5×7 (without space), k=0 (with no space))
Thank you; I tried to be consistent about this, but a few expressions may have escaped my notice. I'll go through the article myself, but please correct any unspaced expressions that you happen to see. The spaced version (using a non-breaking space) is the correct one. Proteins (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2) "Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two integers, suffices to calculate the GCD of an arbitrary number of integers."
Can it calculate the GCD of a countable infinite set of integers? An uncountable one? Be specific.
You're pulling my leg about the uncountably infinite set of integers, right? I may not be a mathematician, but I wasn't born yesterday.;) How about "arbitrarily many integers" as a compromise wording? Proteins (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
3) "The latter argument is used to show that the Euclidean algorithm for natural numbers must end in a finite number of steps."
Citation needed.
OK, citation provided. Proteins (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
4) Redundant phrase (found a lot at the beginning of paragraphs):
"the Euclidean algorithm is an efficient method for computing the greatest common divisor (GCD)"
"The Euclidean algorithm calculates the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two natural numbers a and b."
"Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two integers"
"The Euclidean algorithm finds the greatest common divisor g of two numbers a and b in a series of steps."
I write that way on purpose to provide a touchstone, a "red thread" running through the article for newcomers to grab onto. I may have overdone it, however. I'll go through the article and try to trim the unnecessary. Proteins (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
SCENE I. FAC.
Alarum. Enter Jappalang, head bowed, heart heavy with apologies to ole Willie Shakespeare for the following...
Jappalang
Where is the bronze star that marks a Featured Article?
How far hence is the mark, mine honest fellows?
Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend or foe,
And tell me is this article, featured or not?
Why ask I that? my cramping fingers show,
My edits, my want of prose, my tired mind shows.
That I must yield my pen to this page
And, humbly, request the star from ye all.
The text has been given the red pen's edge,
Whose strokes marked out many redundant words.
Many eyes, that came in the peer reviews,
Have purviewed the content, giving deep insight,
To ensure the article yields all secrets.
The images brought forth, mixed amongst the text,
Are verifiably free to use for all in any means
Sweet call to pens! Voice, editors, your concerns and thoughts;
For Jappalang offers this article to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: Dude. I, like, did an aforementioned copyedit and stuff. I think this article is, like, totally awesome, what with all its research and comprehensive sourcing and thorough explanations and what have you. Jappalang is totally sick widdit for doin' all that work. Scartol•Tok 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I realized that I should have done it in verse. So here's what I should have posted initially:
I must admit I did a peer review
and yet I say about the piece to you:
it's great, it's fine, it's excellent and more
relating thence the Roses gone to War.
The images are fine; we are no fools
you followed all the righteous Commons rules
the research carried out so thoroughly
has made this piece an article to see.
For all the noble work performed thus far,
I say, "Attach forthwith the FA star!"
Iambic pentameter, baby. What. Scartol•Tok 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, I say, from me to you, dear sir;
it is a fine example you offer.
There is but one complaint I have to bear,
a thing that lacks consistency (a hair):
When thou dost state "In <year>" to start a verse,
Prithee that soothes any choler. Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
to not use a comma is quite perverse.
So is splitting an infinitive. =) Scartol•Tok 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I refuse to write in iambic pentameter. How much time did you guys taken writing those?:) As to the article: I felt that it was close to FA when I reviewed it for MILHIST's A-class, and it looks even better now. Great work! Regarding poor Duke Exeter: is it believed by secondary sources that he was murdered in 1475? "[...] the duke was reported to have fallen overboard and drowned without any witnesses" seems to imply that to me... If sources do say that, it might be an interesting tidbit to include. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry... we got carried away there (heh). Thank you for the support. For Exeter, he was deduced to have fallen overboard and drowned; his body was found washed ashore at Dorset (hence, no eyewitness account). A Milanese envoy, Giovanni Pannicharola, claimed that Charles, while drunk, told him Edward had planned it; this information, however, is brought up by a "popular" historian. Respected historians and publications fail to give due to this claim—perhaps they consider it as plain gossip and hearsay—so it was advised to leave such unreliable information out. Jappalang (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Only a little bit (though I now feel bad for breaking the chain;). Could there be any other sources? It's not a big deal; I just feel that this would be rather interesting. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, no other sources exist (as far as I know) for this information, except Seward's The Wars of the Roses, which is the source I mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting hard to read. Look at what you started.;) @ above, no problem then. Good luck with everything else! —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 06:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment sorry to interrupt all the merriment, but the first reference needs an additional "p" as there are multiple pages. Fix this. And you think this can be an FA... Mm40 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
...which was easily fixed. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent: At the peer review a number of small Concerns were raised by me. Use of obscure Terminology, when simple modern Equivalents exist. Image placement. Confusion about the current and the Historic status of Barnet village. (Is it Hertfordshire? Middlesex? London? Even the residents can be confused.) And inconsistency in the use of Metric and Imperial measurements. It is all minor nitpicking, and yet Minor nitpicking, it is the stuff that All Featured Article candidacies Do stand and fail on. Thus I'm pleased to see That all the issues raised have been addressed. It would be hypocritical of me To raise fresh concerns, having been given The chance to raise issues previously. And so, while issues may be unresolved (I do not pretend to have a knowledge Of fifteenth century military History, or of the policies that MilHist enforce, but are ignored elsewhere) To this article I give a support. Exit stage left, pursued by Sandy–iridescent 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Chase you off the stage? Never! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review - All images are impeccably described and licensed.:) Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment (all in good fun) by the noted literary critic Awadewit. Jappalang, whose user page reveals his interest in games, has treated the FAC world to a linguistic game in his nomination statement. In a series of postmodern allusions, he references not only the "red pen" and its "strokes" but also the "cramping fingers" associated with the computer keyboard. The imagery tying both together is clearly phallic, as he reveals the homoerotic orgy behind the creation of this article. As readers, we are left to conclude that "The Internet is for Porn". Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ye forgot "Willie" if ye be tryin to delve along this path. Words cannot express my reaction, yet take a look at this. Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support (Full disclosure: I peer reviewed this article.) This is clearly-written, comprehensive, well-illustrated article. Thank you for working on it so diligently, Jappalang! Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominator(s): Grutness...wha? 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is an excellent example of a Wikipedia article, on a topic area not much covered by current FAs (an urban area in New Zealand), and one with some notable and unique features - among them a notable international sports venue and a unique historical academic survey. I feel a little reticent about describing it as "excellent" given that I have been the primary author on it, but hope that it isn't simply hubris on my part: two months ago, this was simply a redirect to Suburbs of Dunedin; today it is a 46k article (larger than many articles on entire New Zealand cities) - well written (I believe), thoroughly referenced (again, I believe), extensively augmented by pictures, templates, and map, and... well, just the sort of thing that an FA candidate should be. The article has undergone a peer review, and - in a talk page message with the leading reviewer (user:Finetooth) after that, he indicated that he thought that - with extra referencing - it was close to FA standard. There is now considerably more referencing than there was at that time. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I highly recommend to check out the shortened footnote format and apply that style to the references in this article. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I had quite a few of them in that format, but it was suggested to me that the long form was better. To be honest, a lot of the footnoting protocols seem very convoluted (there are places where WP:CIT directly contradicts itself, which isn't helpful, either) - but that's by the by. Given that I've now had two piece of advice stating the opposite to each other, if you don't mind I'll wait to hear what others think about it one way or the other. If others also say the short form is better, then the short form it is. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth dealt with it, so it's in short-format now. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see the reference format change! I'm leaning towards support, but wanted to first mention some minor issues I found with a reread:
The article looks like FA quality to me, so I will now SupportSasata (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The lede is currently 5 paragraphs, including a short one of 3 sentences, and that finicky MOS states "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Might it be possible to incorporate that short paragraph into the others?
"known locally simply as "The Glen""
"It is occasionally simply referred to as "Hillside","
"It is occasionally simply referred to as "Hillside", after the house of the city's founding father Captain William Cargill which was located here,[7] overlooking "The Flat", as the plain stretching across to the Pacific coast was (and is still) locally known." Try reading this out loud and see if you agree that the sentence seems run-on.
"...who was largely responsible for the joining of the Kai Tahu and Kati Mamoe iwi." Passive voice, change "the joining of" to "joining"
"...the school was later a boys' home, and is now an adult training centre." What's an adult training center? Adult education?
"...including one species of Peripatus (velvet worm) believed to be endemic to the Dunedin area." If the worm is found in other areas (eg. Costa Rica), shouldn't it rather be called indigenous than endemic? (Also, as a genus name, it should be italicized)
"The multidisciplinary nature of the study has allowed for information of subjects ranging from urban planning to gender studies." Not sure what is meant by the phrase "allowed for information". The phrase "has allowed for" is then repeated in the next sentence.
"A small handful of shops..." Rather colloquial... how about just "A few"
"Other sporting associations with the suburb..." with -> within?
"The workshops cover a total of 8 hectares..."
"Opened in 1883, the ground has a capacity of 35,000," I would use venue instead of ground, but this may just be a British English terminology, in which case never mind. Also, specify 35,000 people.
"...this church has a severe Classical style" is "severe" the best adjective to use?
"This building, which was constructed in 1893,"
"Architect Edmund Anscombe was a Caversham resident,[80]" comma->period
I've changed most of these, though there's a few where the changes would not be useful:
An adult training centre is an adult training centre. That's the only term I've ever heard used for one, and that's what its website refers to it as. I've linked it to adult education, though that's not identical.
as explained below, this species of Peripatus is only found in the Dunedin area. It isn't found as far away as Christchurch, let alone Costa Rica. The genus may be found there, this particular species ain't.
This cryptic species has piqued my interest. Reference 13 (The Forest Reserve Document Plan) claims "The reserve provides a moist forest habitat for a new genus and species of invertebrate (Onychophora) apparently endemic to Dunedin City. This forest extends beyond the reserve boundaries, as does the invertebrate habitat. The reserve contains an unusually high density of the invertebrate." Unfortunately, it neglects to actually name the genus/species in question, and does not give a source for these statements, so is not really a good reference to use (IMO). Reference 14 (New England Entomologist 1996, 19:51) is also somewhat vague: describing one of "five distinct groups of viviparous New Zealand onychophorans", it goes on to say "Morphological examination suggests that a new genus exists in the Leith Valley and Caversham regions of Dunedin", then corroborates this statement with unpublished data. A bit more digging: [this] site has a photo (but doesn't give a name, just mentions that its ovoviviparous).
Ah, this paper probably has the answer. Unfortunately, I don't have web access to it, so I'll just post the relevant part from the abstract:
Trewick, S. A. (1999). Molecular diversity of Dunedin peripatus (Onychophora: Peripatopsidae). NZ J. Zool. 26:381–393.
"The application of allozyme electrophoresis to New Zealand peripatus that were thought to belong to a single widespread species (Peripatoides novaezealandiae) has revealed several undetected species, including a taxon specific to Dunedin (southern South Island, New Zealand). However, almost nothing is known about the geographic range and variability of this species, nor indeed whether it comprises one or more cryptic taxa. ... Two principal groups with a boundary on the east coast of New Zealand near the mouth of the Taieri River can be defined, and these are denoted "Dunedin" and "Catlins" peripatus. There is a third, possibly distinct lineage at Piano Flat. A rearrangement of the mitochondrial genome, relating to the position of the tLEU ma gene, was detected in these and other New Zealand peripatus and may be present in all Onychophora." I'll let you decide how to use that info (or not) in the article. Sasata (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit more on this creature in my reply to Gadfium further down this page. It's a recent discovery, and there are two schools of thought - either it's a subspecies of the NZ-only p. novaezealandiae or it's a distinct species onl,y so far found around Dunedin. Either way, it's endemic. The New Zealand Etym. link I provided has more information. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"Other sporting associations with the suburb..." "within?" - Definitely not! "Within' would be incorrect grammar, at least in NZ (you associate one thing with another, not within it). In any case, as pointed out, these connections are not all within the suburb - the football club, though named for Caversham (and therefore associated with it) is not located within the suburb.
Sorry, was reading "sporting association" like "sporting organizations", rather than the meaning you intended. Sasata (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay - that makes perfect sense. I've changed the word "associations" to "links", which is clearer. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"Ground" would definitely be the local usage in this sentence rather than venue.
Other than these quibbles, though, all the suggested changes have been made. Grutness...wha? 21:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I like what I've read though the section on Notable people needs some meat to expand as to why the people notable, like I did with Grimmett just adding Wisden cricketer of the year 1931, who is Architect Edmund Anscombe I know its linked but a link one or two of his works would just explain for a passing reader, I also reworded the open sentence to improve the flow which I originally found difficult to read. Visually the string of images down the right side especially with the common theme of street scenes is distracting, maybe reduce the number or even add a persons image in the notable people to break it up, consider if the building images can be linked to Anscombe or Thomson just to tie them in beyond decorations Gnangarra 11:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the notable people section to include more information, and added a photo of Grimmett and one of one of Anscombe's more notable buildings. Hopefully that will be enough to override the problem with the photos. Sadly none of the Caversham pictures are of buildings by Anscombe, or it would have been easier to tie one in as you suggested, but in most cases the pictures do relate directly to the text. It is beginning to get overloaded with images, though - if necessary losing one of the church pictures or the view down Caversham Valley Road would seem reasonable. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
support the articles promotion .... <thoughts only> Looking at the photo choices with the lookout point sumit image I'd replace with File:DunedinfromLookoutPt.jpg which is in the transportation section, ah ok just noticed all the photos you have provided are hosted here suggest that they be on Wikimedia Commons then you can have a lot more photographs etc in a {{Commons category}} link. I'd also drop the statehighway 1 image, along with lisburn house and with the economy section I'd drop the town centre/hillside road and move the ropewalk there. </thoughts only> Photo choices are difficult because everyone sees things differently I'd still support promotion of the article anyway. I'm presuming the place is close to home for you given the number of and location choices for photographs, if thats the case then maybe some different compositional images are possible where by you can combine subjects like having a street view with multiple churches in it or the town centre and a church. There is one church I think is an important image(not in there) and thats the South Dunedin Wesley Methodist Church since its under threat of demolition, from personal experience I'm kicking myself for not photographing a historical house(already fire damaged) near here before they commenced developement near it as the buildings were severly damage by the earth works with two of the main walls and three of the sheds in the complex collapsing, once a building is gone its gone theres no way to photograph it. In short decide how many photographs are really necessary for the article, then decide what you want to have photos of. There's 15 photographs in the article excluding the map, 1 for the notsble people(Grimmette rather than the dunedin building) I suggest reducing the number by about 4-6 thats leaves the article with 8-10 photos enough to break the text up but not enough to crowd the image. Gnangarra 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reduced the number of images by three, taking out the Anscombe building, the SH1 one and one of the churches, and swapping the Lookout Point ones at the top and bottom of the article. I think the Lisburn House one is quite important - it really is Caversham's best-known building. That leaves 12 photos and the map, which is hopefully not so many as to be disruptive. Yes, I'm a local (I live 2.5 km away in St Clair) - problem is we're in the middle of some pretty lousy early winter weather, so getting good looking photos of anywhere at the moment might be a problem. I take your point about the threatened church, though. Also, it would be difficult to get photos which show several of the things together (the Baptist Church and school gate, maybe, but that would be about it). Grutness...wha? 06:06, 5 May 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 (I noted a few Otago Daily Times that were missing italics, especially up towards the beginning)
Current ref 26 (Hyland...) is lacking a publisher (would appear to be the tunnel preservation organization?)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As to the short vs long footnote issue, I've noted that most city/state/region/country articles use the long format. I slightly prefer the short but it's a matter of taste, either is correct (as long as you're consistent). You can even combine the two into one, give the long form for the first instance of a book, then a shortened for for all subsequent refs (as long as you give page numbers, it's good). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought that VicDir was a reliable enough source, but if not, I shall hunt down another. As to the trains.wellington reference, all the necessary info cited there is also in the following (Otago Witness) reference, so it can refer to both quite happily. As far as I can tell, other editors have fixed up the italics problem. As for Caversham FC, the *&^%*s have revamped their website in the last month and the history section has now gone. I'll have to find another reference... Grutness...wha? 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found a reference that works pretty nearly as well for the Caversham football club. That only leaves the VicDir one to replace... I'll deal with that later when I have a bit more time. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Realised the AA atlas works just as well as the VicDir source, so used that reference again. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The Hyland one's fixed, too. They didn't make it easy to find the name - I had to work backwards from the authors. The two authors are the leading members of the Old Caversham Rail Tunnel Preservation Group, and they are the publishers of the site. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Caversham Primary School, located at the corner of South Road and Surrey Street." Is this a case of part of a sentence being inadvertently deleted?Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
More a case of this bit being left behind when some copyediting was done - I've reworded that paragraph so that this is no longer a sentence fragment. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments: I think this article is generally excellent and is very close to meeting the criteria, and I'm leaning toward support. However, the lead needs to be expanded to become a true summary of the whole article, and I have some other small concerns. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I reviewed this article twice before, once on 19 March 2009 and again on 18 April 2009. The second review was not done as part of the formal peer-review process but appears here: Talk:Caversham, New Zealand#Second peer review. User:Grutness has improved the article considerably since then, and these new suggestions are about things that I did not see or did not think to mention on either of the first two sweeps.
Lead: The existing lead is awfully thin. I would suggest adding at least a brief mention of governance, demographics, education, the economy, landmarks, and notable people.
Caversham Project: I'd consider merging the whole section into a single paragraph. The two one-sentence orphans look a little odd to me.
Governance: "Its current MP is Clare Curran (Labour)." - Suggestion: Its MP as of 2009 is Clare Curran (Labour).
Demographics: "The left-leaning politics of the area is still reflected to some extent in local political views (the Dunedin South electorate, of which Caversham is a part, tends to return New Zealand Labour Party Members of Parliament and support this and other left-of-centre parties)." - Since the parenthetical words form a complete sentence, I think the punctuation should look like this: "The left-leaning politics of the area is still reflected to some extent in local political views. (The Dunedin South electorate, of which Caversham is a part, tends to return New Zealand Labour Party Members of Parliament and support this and other left-of-centre parties.)"
"A large proportion of the suburb's houses are small, with 39% being either one- or two-bedroom dwellings." - I'd suggest revising this to eliminate the "with plus -ing" construction. Here's a possibility: "A large proportion of the suburb's houses, 39% of which have either one or two bedrooms, are small."
"In 1889, Mark Cohen had been a major figure behind the founding of New Zealand's first kindergarten." - "Was" instead of "had been"?
I'd suggest merging the two one-sentence orphan paragraphs at the end of this section.
Landmarks: "The most impressive private residence in Caversham is Lisburn House... " - The "most impressive" claim needs a source. Since the source for the next sentence says, "Lisburn House is one of the finest townhouses of the 1860s in New Zealand", you could tweak the "most impressive" sentence a bit and cite this same source.
"Unusual among Dunedin buildings, this church has a severe Classical style, with its brickwork augmented by pediments and square columns." - Wikilink pediments?
References: Some of the citations end with "retrieved on" and some with "Retrieved on". Capital "R" is standard.
The linked publication dates in the citations should be unlinked.
I agree with User:Sasata that a shortened footnote form would make the citations more cleanly readable. It would be no big deal to move the Alma Rutherford bibliographic data, for example, to a "Works cited" section and then to substitute "Rutherford, pp. X–Y" in place of the long refs. I'd be happy to make the changes myself if User:Grutness agrees.Finetooth (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all that - I'll tackle these when I get time (hopefully this weekend. Some comments on each of your points:
Lead - agreed. Will tackle that.
√Caversham Project: I've reformatted it slightly, turning it into two paragraphs rather than the previous three. One paragraph is a little thin for a separate section.
√Governance - yup - should be "as of 2009". Done.
√Demographics - I've split it into two sentences - and removed the parentheses, which now seem redundant
√Housing - I've changed it to "Many residents of Caversham are still of relatively low socio-economic status when compared to those in surrounding hill suburbs. A 2007 Dunedin City Council report indicated that a high proportion (39%) of the suburb's houses were one- or two-bedroom dwellings."
Both "was" and "had been" work, with slightly different emphasis. I used "had been" since it referred t a time before the events mentioned in the previous sentence. I can change it to "was" if you prefer, though.
Lisburn House - will look for a reference, if not, combining the sentences seems reasonable.
√Pediments, yup. Done.
"Retrieved on..." is a mess because WP:CIT does them that way. There, the general idea seems to be that those following an article and publication name use ". Retrieved..." and those following an article name alone use ", retrieved..." If this is not the case, I'll tidy up the article, but I'd recommend that the templates at WP:CIT are similarly tidied.
I think I see what has happened. At the top of WP:CIT, you'll find an explanation of the various families of citation templates. They vary somewhat in the way they format elements, and they can't be mixed in the same article. The "cite" family uses full stops between elements and therefore a capital "R" at the beginning of the final element. You haven't used templates, but you still have to choose a format and stick with it. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Linked publication dates - again, this follows WP:CIT, which appears to be in need of a total overhaul.
Alas, some of the full dates in WP:CIT are autoformatted, as you say. I would delink them now, but I don't want to risk violating a temporary arbitration committee injunction against mass date delinking. However, you will not be violating the injunction by delinking the dates in the Caversham article. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've no objection to you changing the footnote style - one of the other editors of the article has also offered help with that - either of you could do the job probably molre effectively than me, so feel free to go for it (and thanks!)
I've ticked the ones I've dealt with. As I said, I should have time to tackle the rest over the weekend, though sadly probably not until then. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I re-arranged the citations along the lines suggested by User:Sasata. While I was doing that, I fixed the "R" problem and unlinked the linked dates except those that are parts of book or article titles. I'm striking the finished things to make it easier to see what's left to do. Finetooth (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for all that help. You're right that i was fooled by the layout of WP:CIT, though i still feel it could explain things a bit more clearly. I've fixed the two stray sentences in the education system that I failed to notice the mention of above, BTW, and changed the Cohen sentence to use a "was". That just leaves the lede and the Lisburn House comments to do at the weekend. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the Lisburn House information as you suggested, and also added in a little more info on it from another source. That just leaves the lede. Grutness...wha? 07:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
...and I've rewritten the lede, thoroughly extending it. I'm not totally happy with it (it feels a little too long but also very "bullet-pointy"), but it's far better than it was. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: Thank you for responding quickly to all of my suggestions, especially for re-working the lede. I believe the article meets all the criteria. If I ever visit Cavendish, I'll be sure to seek out the Lisburn House. Finetooth (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Any time - and thanks for all the help (Caversham, BTW;) Grutness...wha? 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments: The ref given for the Peripatus (velvet worm) only names the phylum and not the genus. Could you find a more specific reference please. Also, I'm a bit confused by it being called endemic, since the genus also exists in other places. Presumably the species is endemic to Dunedin.-gadfium 03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to give you details of its species name, but the scientists can't agree themselves yet - but yes, it should read species, not genus. Some seem to claim it's a subspecies of peripatoides novaezealandiae, others say it's a completely separate species. It has only been found in Caversham and the Leith Valley, some 10 km to the north, and is definitely endemic to the Dunedin area. Unfortunately most of the on-line resources relating to it are abstracts only, so using them as references isn't perfect... but I'll see what I can find. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Now support this article becoming featured.-gadfium 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
One image concern as follows:
File:Clarrie Grimmett.JPG: this image is missing information by which its details (year taken, under which country's copyright laws) can be verified. Regardless, it appears that Getty Images claims copyright on it (which might be true). Note: cricinfo's other photos are not recommended for use either (those by the Cricketer International would have to abide UK laws). Might I recommend you use File:Grimmett1937.jpg instead? It is verifiably PD-Australia and should be PD-US as well by virtue of non-publishing under US copyrights during 1923–77 and compliant with URAA. Jappalang (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Other Images are verifiably licensed for free usage. Jappalang (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. That other picture was listed as PD when I added it to the article, honest guv...:) Grutness...wha? 12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment. In view of the discussion at , please add pronunciation info for "Caversham". (I'll help you with the IPA if you want.) +Angr 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that Faversham doesn't use the style recommended at WP:IPA for English, which is to show /r/ sounds wherever rhotic speakers, and allow non-rhotic speakers to simply ignore them as necessary. Thus I'd use //ˈkævərʃəm//,/ˈkævərʃəm/, because rhotic speakers would have an /r/ sound in there. (Yes, I know New Zealand English is non-rhotic, but that doesn't mean New Zealnders are the only people to ever pronounce the name.) Also, showing the stress is a good idea; pronouncing dictionaries and encyclopedias pretty much always do that. +Angr 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to your suggestion. Actually, in the far south of New Zealand there is a slight rhotic tendency due to the Scottish origins of many of the early settlers (it's called the "Southland burr" or "Southland R"). Less common as far north as Dunedin, but still acceptable. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Great! I've removed the unnecessary slashes both in the article and here. (The tag {{IPA-en}} adds them automatically.) +Angr 10:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - and for your help and suggestions in general. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Another comment. File:CavershamDnNZ.jpg seems pretty low-quality (JPEG is really disfavored for maps). Wouldn't it be better to use {{Location map New Zealand}}? +Angr 19:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no it wouldn't. {{Location map New Zealand}} wouldn't show its location within Dunedin, and all Dunedin suburbs use the same basic image as File:CavershamDnNZ.jpg. If you can find a better base image to use and can convert all the Dunedin suburb maps, fine - if not, it the alternative suggested would reduce both the amount of information and the uniformity of the Dunedin suburban article maps. As a compromise solution, I've created a new, larger, slightly clearer version of the file in png format - I hope that will be acceptable. Grutness...wha? 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the png looks a bit better, and I can see that consistency is important. +Angr 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Scartol•Tok 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen: Roll up and witness yet another glorious article about a novel by Honoré de Balzac, lovingly reconstructed and painstakingly researched by myself. Marvel at the thorough peer review executed by Figureskatingfan and Awadewit. Gaze with wonder at the lovely images and highly polished prose. Then lemme know what you think. Scartol•Tok 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, another excellent Balzac article (keep 'em coming!). I made a few brief edits a few weeks ago, and I see nothing else to fix. Lesgles (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on image issues until resolved:
File:Bette Davis in That Certain Woman trailer.jpg: this is a copy violation (the trailer was copyrighted). Please remove this from the article.
Okay, but what about this and this? In any case, I've replaced it with this image. Scartol•Tok 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sabucat's assertion that all trailers before the 1960s were not released with copyright notices is false once we watch the original trailers on Turner's site. There are some trailers that are not copyrighted (e.g. Gone with the Wind), but not this one. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
File:La Cousine Bette Huard Steinbock.jpg, File:La Cousine Bette Huard Valerie Marneffe.jpg, File:La Cousine Bette Huard Lisbeth Fischer.jpg, File:La Cousine Bette Huard Marechal Hulot.jpg, and File:La Cousine Bette Huard Hulot and Agathe.jpg: Oeuvres Completes de Honore de Balzac is a French publication (http://www.derbycityprints.com/doc-details-317-artist.htm and search Worldcat) and most likely published before its US version. On that point, Charles Huard died in 1965. Hence his work is not PD in its source of origin (France). Please move these images to Wikipedia (where we would not bother with PD at source of origin, only in US).
I can do this, but is it really necessary? (I'd like to confirm that it's essential before taking the time to do it.) Scartol•Tok 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires PD-US only as the minimum, whereas Commons requires PD-US and PD-source-of-origin as minimum. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, they've all been moved and replaced. Scartol•Tok 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
These should be easily resolved, so looking forward to striking this oppose quickly. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Image issues have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful review, Jappalang! Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I peer reviewed this article and it has only improved since then. In my opinion, it is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. Let me just reiterate how wonderful it is that we have someone working on FAs outside the English literary tradition. Thank you, Scartol! Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Dargan, Kanes, Marceau and Pasco in refs but not notes. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I tend to fold in texts that may be useful for other folks (what some list as "Additional reading") even if they don't show up in the notes. Do people think they need to be separated? (I originally planned to include some stuff from Kanes, but when I realized how long the article was, I reconsidered.) Scartol•Tok 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't Oppose based on sources that were in the refs but not the notes; I would if it were vice-versa & remained uncorrected. Having said that, I think it's just tidier and more logical to put such in an "Additional reading" section. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Done. Scartol•Tok 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I found this article to be very well researched. The prose is excellent. The references to Shakespeare and Tolstoy will help make this article more relevant to a more traditional literary audience as well as encouraging reading outside the traditional English canon of writers. Jamesrnorwood 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Enthusiastic support. Marvelous article; it was a joy and pleasure to peer review. I learned heaps about Balzac. Shoot, I may even go out and read, if not this novel, then another Balzac. More articles like this *must* be written, and Scartol is doing his best to fulfill it. This article being an FA would be a great service to the project. In addition, the prose is excellent and the information included is interesting and educational. Good work! --Christine (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I've done the research, and I feel this is a complete account of the man's life. He wasn't really a "bad boy" but he was certainly in dispute with a saint. Prior, abbot, and bishop, excommunicated by Thomas Becket, writer of numerous letters and those letters are a major source for his time period. Co-nom with Malleus, as he's gone beyond the call of duty here with this monster. All suggestions welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Informative, encyclopedic, and formatted in an aesthetically pleasing way. This is definitely a fine example of what Wikipedia pages should be. I've kept my eye on this for a while and the improvements were outstanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If I ever go bald, it will be because of pictures in Wikipedia articles. Thank you Awa, you're a gem (even when you're dragging me kicking and screaming through image liscencing) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be there buying you the wig.:) Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, same as Ottava. –Juliancolton|Talk 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, with a few comments and suggestions for further tweaking:-
(Lead): "...translated, or moved, to the..." As "translated" is wikilinked, do we need the further explanation "or moved"? It's a personal view, but I think the insertion, with its commas, spoils the prose flow (go on, tell me I put this in during the peer review)
This one, I prefer to leave in. I tend to agree that it breaks the flow somewhat, but if the reader doesn't know the term, it breaks it even more if they have to click to another article to understand the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Same section): Perhaps a word of explanation as to why Matilda was the "Empress"
Put in explantory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Bishop of Hereford): "In early 1148, Foliot accompanied Theobald of Bec to the Council of Reims, even though the archbishop had been forbidden to attend by King Stephen;[33] he was presumably with Theobald when the archbishop used a small fishing boat in his escape from England to the continent." Identity of "he" not clear. Suggest you replace with "Foliot"
(Same section): Suggest a brief explanation as to why Henry became head of the Angevin party although Matilda was still living.
There isn't anything "concrete" that says she renounced her claims, but by mid-1148, the barons and earls that had previously listed her as their overlord were listing Henry instead. Put in a quick explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Same section): I wonder whether "Böker claims..." might be better wording than "Böker argues..."?
(Bishop of London): "He objected on the grounds of Becket being too worldly..." You need to say what he objected to, e.g. Becket's candidature, Becket's appointment or, probably, just "to Becket, on the grounds of his being too wordly"
Changed to "He objected the king's choice on the grounds of Becket being too worldly,..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Same section): "This was contrary to the customary and normal procedures, but Becket and his supporters pointed out that there were some situations in which it was possible to excommunicate without warning,[90] although Foliot claimed the present situation was not one of them." Three ideas in one sentence suggests it should be split, thus; "This was contrary to the customary and normal procedures; Becket and his supporters pointed out that there were some situations in which it was possible to excommunicate without warning,[90] although Foliot claimed the present situation was not one of them."
I've rearranged that section slightly, along the lines you suggest. --MalleusFatuorum 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Death of Becket): "Foliot and Becket seem to have been on amicable terms until 1163,[100] but their relationship seems to have soured after that date.[101] Becket returned the sentiment..." The souring of the relationship sounds like a mutual thing, so saying that "Becket returned the sentiment" doesn't sound right unless you are saying specifically that Folot initiated the souring.
(Same section): Too much moderation/moderating in first line of penultimate paragraph. Suggest change to: "Foliot was mainly a force for moderation in the quarrel between the king and the archbishop, urging restraint on Becket and curbing the king's attempts to impose the Constitutions more rigorously."
Changed as per your suggestion. --MalleusFatuorum 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise a fine article presented with exemplary care. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - for an interesting, well-written and referenced article. Just one nitpick; could the nominators check the usage of "himself" for redundancy? Graham ColmTalk 21:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll let Malleus do that since he was trying to claim he didn't deserve the co-nom... make him feel useful... (snickers) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to be useful I've removed all but one occurrence of "himself", as I think Graham is right. --MalleusFatuorum 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I renamed the article's second "References" section "Works cited" to distinguish the two. I was hesitant—I'm usually BOLD but also familiar-and-a-half with Ealdgyth's FAC source checks, and Ealdgyth might know something I don't. --anoddname 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Graves and Huscroft in notes but not refs. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Excellent and informative article on a little known cleric. Nit-pick: "In 1139 Foliot was elected Abbot of Gloucester,[1] blessed by the diocesan bishop on 11 June 1139" Since he was a "mitred abbot", should it be that he was "consecrated" by the bishop? Not sure, just checking. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No Parliament then, so no "mitred abbots". The source specifically says "blessed" in it, not consecrated (which they use when appropriate), so blessed is correct. Fasti Ecclesiae uses blessed also. (I honestly don't know when the mitred abbots started being consecrated, it's long after the time I studied.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable enough for me. If it's what the source says, then that's what the source says. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia is becoming the place to learn about Medieval English bishops. Lesgles (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice article, no problems I can see. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's an interesting one with a number of sub-topics that continue to make the news today. It's undergone significant work since being nominated for FAC a month ago, and has recently passed an A-Class review of the military history project. Lastly, all the concerns raised during the last FAC review have been addressed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Thule radar.jpg - Can you link to the actual html page for the source, please, instead of the jpeg image?
All done, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Thule Air Base aerial view.jpg still does not have an accessible source. I did a quick sweep of the others. Those look good. I'll do a recheck when I have time in a few hours. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not used in the article anymore... Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
A source has been added today and this link works fine for me. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Great article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments — Nice to see this article again, and it's especially nice to see all the improvements you've made. This version is a lot better and answers many of the questions I had last time. I still have a few comments and questions for you, though.
Could you put March 2009 with the Time reference in the lede?
I'd suggest giving at least a sentence or two of explanation for the Palomares crash at first reference, even with the link. Not a big deal if you don't think it's necessary, though.
Did the 1961 North Carolina crash affect procedures at all prior to this?
There shouldn't be an apostrophe in "rheostat's" ... it's plural, not possessive.
I also assume that we're talking about rheostats controlling cabin heat ... you might want to state that if it's the case.
Was the engine heat bleed vented through the heating system? It's implied that it was, since the cushions on the heating vent caught fire, but I don't want to assume that.
The first sentence in Project Crested Ice is in passive voice; I'd suggest changing it to something like "The crash scattered debris over a 1-mile (1.6 km) by 3-mile (4.8 km) area, and some material was completely destroyed by fire."
Why was there pressure to complete the project by spring?
The fourth paragraph, first sentence, second clause of "Crested Ice" is in passive voice.
In the fifth paragraph of "Crested Ice", who was making these decisions?
The sentence "a decision had been taken to send a Star III mini-submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb" needs to be taken out of passive voice and past perfect tense. Instead, say something like "Gen. XXX ordered a Star III mini-submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb".
Under "Thulegate", who decided to not allow nuclear weapons onto Danish soil? Unless the country hosted a plebiscite on the issue, you shouldn't say "it" made the decision; it's the prime minister or someone like that who makes that move.
As of November 2008, the workers' compensation case has been unsuccessful -- has there been any progress since then?
When in 2009 will the land report be released? Both of the sources are in Danish, and I don't speak it, I'm afraid.:)
You've come a long way on this article, and I look forward to seeing where you take it. When I get a chance, I'll dig into the article myself and lend a hand. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback. For each of your points above:
Date added to Time article
Expanded details of the Palomares incident and added a reference
No documented information about the North Carolina case. Unlike Thule and Palomares, fewer documents have been declassified.
"rheostat's" is correct - there's one and the apostrophe indicates singular possessive case.
Added explicit link between the rheostat and the heater
Added explicit link between the bleed value and the cabin heater
Changed to active voice
Spelled out why the contaminated ice melting in the spring was an issue
Changed to active voice
Added decision makers and made active voice
Added decision makers and made active voice
Expanded info about who in Denmark made the decision
No information about any progress since Nov 2008
The press release is not any more specific than 2009
More comments: I spent a bit of time going through the article tonight and made a few changes. Please look them over and let me know if I've gotten something wrong. I haven't finished, but you've spent more time researching the subject, so I yield to your judgment. I've got a few more questions in regards to some of the items:
Thank you - fixed a few errors introduced during this edit, and tweaked some terminology that I felt did not work.
I reworded the section about McNamara's reduction in the Chrome Dome missions; based on the source, it appears that one of the four bombers allowed for live training was assigned to the Thule mission. I've brought that fact out in the article, but if it's contradicted by another source, let me know.
No problems with this other than the passive voice, which I've changed
"Instructor navigator" isn't defined when it's used. That position should be defined either here or in a stub. Is it the primary navigator? I don't know what it is.
It's a qualification - someone who is qualified to instruct other navigators; I thought the term would be self-explanatory?
In regard to the rheostat, what is it possessing? I'm missing this.
Not my wording - see below.
The weapons involved are B28FI model hydrogen bombs, but there's a picture of four Mk 28s used in the article. Would it be better to use the picture of the B28FI used in that article?
Same thing (see the "28" in B28FI) - renamed the caption for consistency
It's stated that "off-duty staff were recalled to the base" ... I didn't think there was anything other than the base. Would it be better to say that they were called back to work?
Changed to "mustered"
Can we wikilink or explain "shroud lines" for people who don't know what those are?
Done
I'll be back when I wake up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the possessive rheostat, consider it by rewording to replace the item with yourself. You wouldn't say, "me being turned up," but, "my being turned up." Hence, "rheostat's". It is grammatically correct, though granted, it does sound a little odd. The effect could be avoided by rewording to avoid the possessive, or perhaps merely lessened by saying, "the rheostat's having been..." or similar. SteveT • C 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not my wording, but a tweak by another editor during the previous FAC. Will look at changing it, as it's been bugging me too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Aye, it was me.:) Looking at it now, with some distance, I definitely agree it should be reworded, despite its being correct. SteveT • C 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support — I've read through the article twice now, you've addressed every change I suggested, and I'm more than happy to give my support now. It's reaching the point where I can't make a judgment about how understandable this is to an outsider, though, so I'm sure other folks will have comments on that. I believe this article is complete, understandable, and neglects no information about the incident. I encourage other editors to read, review, and offer their support of it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently reviewing this, and giving a minor copyedit, but to give you time to respond before I comment further, I thought I'd tell you that the reference "European Parliament, 2009" (used in the Workers' compensation claims section), doesn't seem to appear in the references section. SteveT • C 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
One last question for now: the "Further reading" section may imply that sources are present that haven't been mined for useful information. The presence of Broken Arrow - The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents doesn't bother me; we determined during the first FAC that while the writers of the book have military experience and seemed to have thoroughly researched their book, it was best not to cite it due to issues over the reliability of their publisher. So I'm fine with its inclusion in the FR section, but does the other item, the "Draft Union Parliament Resolution" provide anything of significance that the article doesn't cover (but should)? If so, that information should be included. If not, it would be more appropriate in the "External links" section. SteveT • C 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed the European Parliament link as the case brought before them is already covered by 2 other refs. BTW, the "Broken Arrow" book has quoted verbatim from the 1968 USAF Journal of Nuclear Safety, which we have as a reference already. Thank you again for all the effort put into copyediting. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. At the first FAC I reviewed this pretty thoroughly; the nominator resolved my concerns swiftly and with good grace, and by the end my only issue (save for a few minor MOS and grammar fixes) was with the article's scope. I'm pleased to see that since then the nominator has heeded the recommendations; the article provides a more informative context to the crash, and with the size increased by almost half in the last six weeks, it paints a comprehensive picture of each aspect. The prose is good, the images seem to check out, and the sources are reliable. Nice work, SteveT • C 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows four FAs as models (Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park and Colton Point State Park) and has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to MBisanz, doncram, Jackyd101, Brianboulton, Michael Devore, Moni3, and Finetooth). We also want to thank Kevin Wigell for four astronomy photographs, Curt Weinhold for photographs of telescopes in the park, and the astronomy domes in the snow, and Timothy Morey for help with the OTRS license of the Woodsmen's Show (still in progress) and coauthoring the very useful park history.
Since the most noteworthy aspect of the park is the clarity and darkness of its night skies, the lead image is the view of the Milky Way as photographed from within the park. The article also follows the MOS on naming plants and animals: title case for common names of species throughout (see WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history
Support - I thought this article was very well-written and enjoyable to read, and I agree that it's representative of WP's best work. The many images make it very attractive; I especially like the panorama at the end. I'll list a few minor quibbles, none of which affect my support vote. Sasata (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"...a hotel replaced the tavern in 1874, then burned in 1897." Did it just burn, or did it burn down?
Thanks - Harrison and Morey's history of the park just says The first chapter of Cherry Springs’ history ended when the hotel burned in 1897 and was abandoned. I assume it burned down, as the picture I have seen of it shows a wooden structure - would it read better as "burned down"? Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking originally (I'm more used to the expression "burned down"), but it's probably fine the way it is. Sasata (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"...were under the nominal control of the Iroquois, who lived in long houses," Not sure what the relevance of the long houses is
Both the Susquehannocks and Iroquios lived in long houses and they also both spoke languages in the Iroquoian family, so it shows the connections between them. It also counters the common misconception that all Native Americans lived in teepees. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good call, since they cut the forests and burned the wood to make charcoal for iron furnaces, I linked charcoal instead of coal mining. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How about using the inflation convert template to give the acquisition prices in current dollars?
While I like the idea in theory, I am not sure how practical it is. There are three places where dollar figures are given. The first two are in the cost for the major acquisitions was an average of $2.50 per acre ($6.18 per ha). The original source says these purchases were over a thirty year or so period (1901 to 1930, if I recall correctly), so I am not sure how to adjust these for inflation. Should I just plug in 1930? The only other price is the acquisition of natural gas rights in 2007, so is inflation since then (two years) great enough to add in? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about the old purchase price, as it's nice to have a current dollar amount to help give the $$ value perspective, but I see the expanded time frame complicates it. How about determining what both the 1901 and 1930 current equivalent values would be, averaging the two, and qualifying the value with "roughly equivalent to xx 2009 dollars"? Sasata (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I double checked the "Public Use Map for Susquehannock State Forest" which says the first purchase for the state forest was made in 1901 and that "By 1949, all the major purchases of the forest land had been made at an average cost of $2.50 per acre." (so I was off a few years in my recollection.) Using the {{Inflation}} template, $2.50 in 1901 dollars would be $97 today, while $2.50 in 1949 dollars would be $34 today. Following your suggestion, I averaged these two figures ($65 and $23) to get $44 per acre ($109 per ha) in 2009 dollars. I also left a note on this at the article's talk page and a hidden comment in the article. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
After clearing the woods, they planted stands of Norway Spruce and white pine, as well as an apple orchard." Why link Norway spruce but not white pine?
Eastern White Pine is already linked at the first occurrence in the previous Pioneers and lumber section. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see the acronym NRHP defined anywhere in the text, although it's used several times
Good catch - now after the first use in the lead, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"Both creeks are approved trout streams for fishing, which means they will be stocked with trout in season." will be -> are
"Within the park, overhead electrical lines have been buried so they do not obstruct views," Can they be called overhead if they are buried?
Changed it to Within the park, former overhead electrical lines have been buried so they do not obstruct views... is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"All these were before it was named an International Dark Sky Park..." -> all of these commendations
Thank you for your kind words and support. I will try to make your suggested changes, but a little annoyance called work is calling me to leave soon. Dincher (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My thanks too - I have fixed most of the rest and will work on the remaining items next. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Current ref 65 (Cherry Springs State Park team..) is lacking a publisher
Added, thanks for catching this, Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support with comments and a few questions:-
(Lead) "the state forest was established in 1901 and contains a second growth forest. A forest contains a forest? Sounds a bit awkward; could you refer to a "second-growth woodland" while keeping the link via a pipe?
(Lead) First sentence, third paragraph: "Cherry Springs State Park was named Pennsylvania's first dark sky park by the DCNR in 2000, and the adjoining Cherry Springs Airport, built in 1935, was closed and its land was added to the park to expand its stargazing area in 2006." This is really two sentences, with a superfluous "was" for good measure and an awkwardly placed date. My suggestion is: "Cherry Springs State Park was named Pennsylvania's first dark sky park by the DCNR in 2000. The adjoining Cherry Springs Airport, built in 1935, was closed and its land added to the park in 2006, to expand its stargazing area."
Changed both of these to your suggestions, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(Native Americans): Should there be a linking sentence between the first paragraph and the rest of the section? The first para seems to be discussing Pennsylvania as a whole, rather than the specific region of the park.
Before there is recorded history, information on the Native Americans is based on archeology and is pretty general and broad (centuries and statewide). With the start of written records we start to get more specific information (which tribes lived where and when), but the level of detail is still fairly coarse (the Susquehanna River drainage basin where the Susquehannocks lived is roughly half the state, for example). I will think about some sort of linking sentence, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I tweaked the first sentence of the first two paragraphs here - to make it clearer the first paragraph is based on archeology and the second (and following) paragraph(s) are based on the historical record. I hope this is better, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Native Americans): "...primarily in what is now Newc York." City or State?
State - changed it to upstate New York (linked now) to make it hopefully clearer, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does the term "Last Purchase" (capitalised and in quotes) have a particular meaning – is it a quote?
It refers very specifically to the land in Pennsylvania acquired in the second Treaty of Fort Stanwix. To confuse matters the same treaty led to the acquisition of land in other US states, and despite the name it was the next to last purchase of land that became Pennsylvania (the Erie Triangle was the last bought, from the federal governemnt as four states claimed it). It is a quote and I am always aware it was not really the "last" purchase, so I tend to put the name in quotes. Would it read better without quotes? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
On further thought I removed the quotation marks from Last Purchase, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Pioneers and lumber): This sentence: "The hotel was in a very remote location 16 miles (26km) south of Coudersport, and had very few visitors other than the occasional wandering traveler or Native American." The second "very" should go. Also, I imagine that the few visitors were the occasional wandering traveler or Native American, but as you have worded it it sounds as though there was another category of visitor. Perhaps simplify?
removed the very and made a change to the visitors sentence. Dincher (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(Pioneers and Lumber): "This era was not to last, as the more profitable lumber industry came to West Branch and surrounding townships, which were home to "some of the tallest, straightest timber left standing" along the East Coast of the United States." Could you clarify – is it that the era of hunting and angling ended because the lumber industry arrived and, as it were, trashed the landscape?
Yes, that is it. Added "as a 'sportsmen’s paradise'" so it now reads This era as a "sportsmen's paradise" was not to last..., which then ties into the Ecology section later. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Civilian Conservation Corps): "...a park of which the people of Potter County can be proud of." It's part of a quote, but shouldn't the repeated "of" be highlighted with a (sic)? (I love doing that).
(Same section): DCNR hasn't been mentioned since the lead and I'd forgotten what it was. Could it be written out here?
(Same section): It's probably truer to say they built an "airfield", rather than an airport, which is what it evidently became later.
All three preceding fixed per your suggestions, thanks and good calls, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Modern era): The "Dark Sky Fund" was established – a little more information is due about this body and how it operated.
Thanks - it still operates and there is more about its activities and receiving an award later. I changed it here to In 1999 the "Dark Sky Fund" was established and continues "to enhance the stargazing and astronomy experience" by funding improvements at the park.[10] Is this clearer or is still more needed here? Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Geology and climate): I'm no expert, but from what I've read, the description of Gondwanaland as "Europe and Africa" doesn't seem quite accurate. Weren't the components of Gondwanaland essentially from the southern hemisphere?
Thank you so much - not sure how this slipped in, but you are absolutely correct. Changed it to ...formed in the Alleghenian orogeny some 300 million years ago, when Gondwana (specifically what became Africa) and what became North America collided, forming Pangaea. I will check other articles as I think this error shows up elsewhere - eek. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(Astronomical observing): I can't quite fathom the dimension "4-and-6-foot". Does this mean 4 x 6 feet?
They are square pads of two sizes (4 foot square and 6 foot square). Changed it to "next year 4-and-6-foot (1.2 and 1.8m) square concrete pads" - is this clearer? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, my recollection was faulty - when all else fails go back to your sources. The pads are roughly circular and so are 4 or 6 feet in diameter - see photos 19, 24, or 29 on the website. I changed it to The next year concrete pads 4 and 6 feet (1.2 and 1.8 m) in diameter were placed at random in the field...Ruhrfisch><>°° 00:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
These are all minor points which I don't anticipate will cause any difficulty in resolving. Congratulations on a fine article; as already stated by another reviewer, the panoramic photograph is a particular joy. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and the support! Dincher (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, earlier review, and support, working on addressing all your questions, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe all of your points have now been addressed - thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I did one of the peer reviews of this article. All of my concerns, except for two new ones, have been addressed, and I have no doubt that the article meets the criteria. I especially like the illustrations, which seem to me to be far above average. I have posted some further thoughts about inflation data on the article's talk page; they might or might not be useful. I would also suggest a slightly different wording for the "square pad" sentence to avoid confusion and the triple-hyphen problem. Suggestion: "The next year two sets of square concrete pads of either 4 square feet (0.37m2) or 6 square feet (0.56m2) were placed at random in the field." It crossed my mind that the pads might be 4 feet or 6 feet on each side. Four square feet is pretty small.Finetooth (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the support and the help over on PR. Dincher (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks too for your kind words, earlier review, and support. I believe both points you raised have now been addressed, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Stifle to check the OTRS tickets, so I guess this only requires some waiting...? Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the email for the photo awaiting OTRS clearance has been sent (they kindly copied me). User:Howcheng handled the OTRS tickets for the other six images. I do not have OTRS access so I can't check this. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS has been cleared. All images okay! Jappalang (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help checking these, Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Was excellent when I peer reviewed it and is even better now. I have no additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and the PR! Dincher (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My sincere thanks for your review, kind words, and support too, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Can the pretty naval cadet and the pompous old buffer in the infobox possibly be one and the same? They can: Tempus edax rerum. My thanks to the peer reviewers for spotting the mistakes in the article and suggesting many improvements, making this a viable nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support as one of the peer reviewers. I rather groaned when I saw who Brian had asked me to review (not another old creep with a connection to the (Ant)Arctic), but it is a very engaging article, well written, and with four peer reviewers (I should be so lucky on MY articles), I think most of the bugs are out of this one. I look forward to a speedy promotion!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Images - There are a lot of images tagged as free only in the US, could these be reviewed to get them fully free, i.e. free in the country of origin and in the US, thus furthering the m:missionFasach Nua (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I will work on this. It is likely to take some time, because of lack of information on some of the images, but I will do what I can. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Support as another of the four peer reviewers - all of my minor quibbles were addressed in the Peer Review. Well done and fully meets the FA criteria, Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support as another one of the nitpicking peer-reviewers – all my minor quibbles were quickly addressed/discussed too at PR. The comment above about the images, while important, is, in my view, outside the scope of the FAC process. Graham ColmTalk 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment It appear reference 21 needs page numbers. Mm40 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Are all books by Markham listed in Writings? Otherwise, what is the criteria for inclusion? --Skizziktalk 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am working on both of these, will report back later. The short answer to the second point is that I attempted to list all books (as distinct from articles, ssays, reports etc) by Markham, but I have discovered others, so the list will be extended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I found a better source for Markham's books and the list has been extended. Wherever possible I have linked these to the Internet Archive. As I said, the list is intended to be complete, not a selection. I will keep on the lookout for any obscure titles that might have been omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to Support. Thanks for an interesting read! --Skizziktalk 10:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Death and Legacy section should include what family members survived him. I see that he married a woman and they had a daughter named May. Were there no other children born to he and his wife? If so, the sentence should say "only child, a daughter named May" or something to that effect so Reader is not left hanging wondering about the rest of his family life. NancyHeisetalk 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have specified "only" child in the text, and have added a little into the Death and Legacy section, as you suggest. Neither Minna nor May lived public lives, and there is nothing on record about them outside of Sir Clements's orbit. All we know of Minna is that she survived him, because the 1917 biography was dedicated to her, but there is no public source for her date of death. May is even more obscure; all we have is a brief sentence in the biography saying that she devoted herself to church work. Whether she married, or when she died, are not public facts. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Great job, I copyedited one of the new sentences in Death and Legacy. NancyHeisetalk 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Support comments have been addressed, the article meets FA criteria NancyHeisetalk 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the Markham family in Burke's Landed Gentry. Nothing on Minna, but I found that May's full name was Mary Louise, and that she died in 1926. I have added – and sourced – this information. Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. Burke's is ... not always the best source, but for this is probably safe enough to use. Given that the edition you used was from 1972, and the data was earlier than that by a good bit, perhaps you might attribute the information as coming from Burke's? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: I was one of the peer reviewers, and all of my concerns were quickly and cheerfully addressed. I thought the article met the FA criteria at the time, and nothing that has happened since then or in the discussions above has caused me to change my mind. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support This article certainly meets wikipedia's FA criteria. Well done and an interesting read. Dincher 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment, leaning Support No problems with refs! Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it satisfies the criteria. RelHistBuff (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. For transparency's sake, I should first declare that I have copyedited this article intensively since the last FAC, but I have added very little content. In my opinion, RelHistBuff has produced an outstandingly thorough article here, which will be gold dust to anyone who wants to find out about Bucer on the internet. He has carefully referenced all the information, which, as far as I can see from checking a lot of it in Greschat and other sources, is accurate and judiciously weighted. Since the last FAC, RelHistBuff has improved the article in response to reviews on the talk page, and he has added a context section and a map showing the main cities Bucer visited. I feel sure the article can make it this time, and I believe it deserves to. qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources and tech review completed in first FAC; image review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just looked through them and made some adjustments. All images are in order, except for two problems:
File:LutherZwingli.JPG. This one is just sourced to other images, and the trail of the Luther half does not lead back to a source. This is a small problem, since this image is readily available in books and online and if another copy were uploaded, sourced, and then grafted in as the left half of this image, that would solve it.
File:Hermann von Wied (detail).jpg. This had a frame, which I've now trimmed off (annoyingly, the frame was an awkward shape). It doesn't have a source, so I've dropped the uploader a request to add where he/she scanned it from. Can't be sure of getting a response, though. Unlike the Luther, this is not an image with a ready alternative.
Should I remove my support for the moment because of these two problems? I don't think so, because I cannot imagine any circumstances under which they would not be public domain. The first is easily solved, and if the second cannot be, it may just have to go. Hermann's no great looker, anyway.qp10qp (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The von Wied can probably go. I have tried looking for another image of the same picture, but no luck. I will see if I can make another Luther/Zwingli pairing with a properly sourced Luther image. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the von Wied picture and remade another Luther-Zwingli image using a Luther image with the proper source info. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
All images fine now. What a shame about the von Wied, which slotted in so nicely there. No reply from the uploader yet. qp10qp (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I exhaustively reviewed the article on the talk page after its first FAC, and almost all of my concerns have been addressed. The few that I might still quibble over aren't enough to hold back my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I am concerned that there is no "Theology" and/or "Writings" section. Both the John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli articles have a "Theology" section. Such a section helps the reader intensely focus on the theology of the reformer and, often, his writings. It is a little difficult within the current structure of the article to remember, as one is reading, both the narrative of the life of Bucer and his theological views. A separate section can also add a bit more detail on Bucer's thought. The following kind of statements could be give more detail in such a section: "The De Regno Christi (On the Kingdom of Christ) was the culmination of Bucer's many years of experience, a summary of his thought and theology that he described as his legacy. In it he urged Edward to take control of the reform of the church, and proposed that Parliament introduce fourteen laws of reform, covering both ecclesiastical and civil matters. He made proposals on religious instruction, church offices, and matrimonial law, and advised that evangelists should preach the gospel to the people. His ideal society was distinctively authoritarian, with a strong emphasis on Christian discipline." - What kinds of proposals did Bucer make exactly? What kind of religious instruction did he recommend? Etc. I think a section summarizing his theological views would help the reader understand Bucer's ideas. Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Bucer is a different case. My impression is that his theology is derivative of Luther and Zwingli and contained nothing seminal. I tried hard, for example, to find what distingushed his view of the Eucharist from that of Zwingli, but the difference seems to rest in some vague view that the precise nature of the bread and wine isn't crucial anyway, because God will know who is faithful (supremely wise, actually). This seems typical of Bucer, in that his role was political rather than seminally doctrinaire. What could be added, I suppose, is a more detailed account of Bucer's advice on the organisation of the church in Strasbourg and in England. I think a "Writing" or a "Theology" section would be a mistake, given that the general and biographical books on Bucer don't have them, and that any additions on these matters should be slotted into the narrative where they had a political effect, since Bucer's intention in writing them was political and organisational. Perhaps some more could be said about the ideas he was recycling, I suppose. qp10qp (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Just got an edit conflict with Qp10qp. As in the Calvin and Zwingli articles, I did consider a Theology section (I even mentioned this in the Bucer talk page). However, when I started to look up resources, I found them to be somewhat scattershot. As you can see in the references, there are sources on marriage, Christian discipline, patristical influence on his eucharistic thought, etc., but nothing that covers his theology overall. The problem is that Buceran studies is in its infancy relative to studies in Calvin, Luther, and even Zwingli. Modern annotated compendia of his works (which started in the 60s) are being released but are not yet complete (Deutsche Schriften, Opera Latina, and correspondences). I thought of making a couple of paragraph summaries on two subjects on which I have books (marriage and patristical influence), but then I thought this would give undue weight on those subjects. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to expand a bit on Bucer's ideas throughout the article, then? I found many of the statements (such as the one I quoted above) to be frustratingly vague. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit, you are a very intelligent person who makes very intelligent comments that I respect. However, further expansion will not make this article better. It is already almost too heavy on the theology side and a bit light on the actual person of Bucer side. I considered opposing because it might be too theological but I read it again and decided that the article needed what it had in order to tell the story of the man. The article is a bio, not a theo and making more of a theo will not make it a better bio. NancyHeisetalk 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Understanding Bucer's views on theology are crucial to understanding his role as a Protestant reformer. Currently, the article is a bit too vague on some of these points. See the examples that Qp10qp has placed on the talk page, for example. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On the article talk page, I've added a list of spots where something could possibly be added on theology. I think if it was done subtly, it could enhance the article unobtrusively. It's up to RelHistBuff. qp10qp (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You picked out just the sorts of places in the article that I thought needed more information or clarification. I've added little notes at the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I will see what I can do with the ones you noted. Just in case someone suggests to gather up the additional bits and put them in a separate Theology section, I just wanted to say that Bucer's theology evolved over time. So something about Bucer's thoughts while he was in Wissembourg in 1523 may not apply when he was in Cambridge in 1550. So it would be best to keep the bits in context. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikilink to daughter articles is enough I think but whatever you decide is OK with me as long as the page isnt turned into a Theo that obscures the bio. Otherwise the page name should be "Theology and Biography of Martin Bucer". NancyHeisetalk 22:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have tried to address each of the points and I hope it is enough to convince you to support. Some of them will reveal how frustratingly difficult it is to pin down Bucer's theology. In fact, Luther and Zwingli learned about this first hand! Calvin's theology is a lot easier to write about. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I've read the additions and I think they are very helpful - they put his ideas in context very well. The ending summary is particularly effective. Thank you for all of your hard work on this! I am now supporting as I believe the article to be well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. Awadewit (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - my concerns and comments from the last FAC have been incorporated into the article. Regarding Awadewit's comments above: I think they are intelligent comments but I don't think they would make the article better. Bucer's theology is intertwined with others as revealed in modern scholarship about him. Per FA criteria, the article should reflect modern scholarship - which it does. NancyHeisetalk 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think adding details of theology in a largely biographical article might even make it more difficult to understand, certainly more difficult to read. But there may be a plus side: adding the details might trigger a reader's curiosity and read more on theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Since my concerns at the last FAC have now been dealt with, I withdraw my oppose made at that FAC. I'll leave the decision on whether to actively support until any major changes as a result of other objections have been made. Xandar 11:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Very nice. Dincher 01:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because since the prior FAC many troubling issues have been resolved. Three maps have been consolidated into one. About a dozen refs have been removed from the WP:LEAD. The article has gone through a thorough copyedit by one of FACs best editors (Brianboulton(talk·contribs)). It is the best peace memorial article on WP and I think it is now ready. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm going to go through and order the references, since I know you're so busy wiki-wise. Mm40 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please link to the ISBN of reference 49 (I would, but I'm afraid I don't know how) Mm40 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a typo with only the first nine digits of the ten digit isbn. Since ISBNs are either 10 or 13 characters the template was not recognizing it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: I did a substantial copyedit after the last FAC. I can't say that the prose is perfect, but I think it meets the standard. It seems to me that the other major issues left outstanding at the last FAC have been addressed – though I still have some reservation about the number of images. I would like to see some comment from editors who supported or attacked the last nom, so that Tony the T can take appropriate action. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. This is much, much better. I'm so pleased to see this. However, I'm talking only in terms of Cr. 1a, and other reviewers may want to cover other aspects. I did a quick c-e of the top and noticed a couple of instances where a comma probably needed relocating earlier in the sentence. You might watch that pattern. A small point: "the" is usually required where "of" is used in a nominal group; so, "Installation of this model near its intended location was delayed by ..." needs to start with "The". Tony(talk) 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I told TTT I wasn't going to comment on this one, but have changed my mind; this is a high quality article in an underrepresented area, and (while I have to agree with Brianboulton that the images look messy) I can't see anything to fault it.–iridescent 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I especially like the many and varied photos of the fountain. Dincher 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I supported this the first time around, and the prose has only improved since then. Am very glad to see the lede not chock-full of citations! Sasata (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review: no issues, mostly self-taken (appropriately licensed ) images. Press photos were likely published near the time they were taken if we take LoC for its word. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Stable article on major sports topic. A former FA, the article has undergone sweeping changes (including the addition of comprehensive referencing) from the version that was demoted two years ago.—DCGeist (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment It would be great if this could be an FA. Two things I notice:
The notes section probably should be references.
The ISBNs for the books listed in Further reading should be listed. Mm40 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. And done.—DCGeist (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout; normally, I would address this myself, but it is extensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
images licencing fine. images should be alternated left right to balance article per WP:MOSIMAGES, with the exception that the subject should be looking into the text. I have seen line drawings of baseball in England from the 1800s, these should be PD and might be nice to illustrate the history (if you can find them) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please reread WP:MOS#Images. There is no directive that images "should be alternated left right to balance article". Our guideline simply states that "images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Per the MOS, a design with all right-aligned images is no less preferable than a staggered design. In the case of this article, several bulleted narrative lists are employed—it is awkward to place images to the left of those, much more awkward than having a subject facing away from the text. Note also that there are several illustrated sections under third-level headers that are not long enough to accommodate a left-aligned image. As anything close to a full stagger is thus impractical in this case, right alignment has been chosen for consistency.
While the suggestion to locate an image for the Origins of baseball subsection is thoughtful, the presence of the HistBaseball nav template unfortunately precludes the inclusion of such an image, which would result in undesirable subsection overlap in an unacceptably large share of screen/browser combinations.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have staggered some of the images, as indeed this article was illustration-heavy on the right-side. I have respected the lists and third-level headers. A full stagger is not necessary, but some variation breaks up the tedium. I have also de-sized all of the images per WP:MOS#Images (except for the diagram). Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
I think there should be something about Baseball books and films. BUC (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the four current featured articles that, like this one, are general surveys of a present-day sport or pastime (aikido, association football, chess, and gliding). None of them feature the sort of coverage of books and films that you suggest (while I don't know how much popular culture involves aikido or gliding, certainly many books and films do involve soccer and chess). It's my sense that given considerations both of length and of focus, such coverage of popular culture is not generally seen as suitable for these general sports articles. Let's see if anyone else also believes that the article should be expanded in this manner. If not, I can still add a sentence or two to the existing Popularity section along the lines of what appears in ice hockey.—DCGeist (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't it's really notable enough in any other sport but in baseball it's a huge part of it's culture. BUC (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Buc, could you explain what you mean more precisely? Baseball, of course, appears in many American novels and films because of its popularity as the "national pasttime", but it is an amorphous topic. Are you thinking of a particular way that it has affected film and fiction? At the moment, I can't see how the editors would add anything specific. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Buc, your observation, followed by Awadewit's below that fantasy baseball and baseball cards should be mentioned in the main text made me realize that, contrary to my original view, there is a place for a Baseball in popular culture subsection in the article. Let me know if it provides the kind of summary coverage of baseball books and films you had in mind.—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - My style of reviewing (reading an entire article to pick out flaws) is rendered ineffective by massive articles like this one, so I probably won't be able to read through the whole page. Here are my thoughts on the opening part of the article:
First off, can the See also links and External links sections be trimmed? There is a massive number of links in both sections. Check for See also links that have already been used in the body of the article, and see if external links provide added value for readers above and beyond this article.
Origins of baseball: "and more recently uncovered historical evidence suggest that the game in fact originated in England." Not a fan of "in fact" because we should should be striving to use facts (or at least verifiable information). If you want to maintain a contrast in the sentence, try using "actually".
"By the early 1830s, there are reports...". are→were for proper tense usage.
"with the 'New York Nine' defeating the Knickerbockers, 23–1, in four innings." This is an example of a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a hard-to-spot prose glitch. For advice on how to fix this, please read this guide.
The game turns professional: It would be nice to offer initials in parenthesis after the first usage of the National Association of Base Ball Players.
Baseball around the world: "because it would force the playoffs deep into cold weather." I think this means the winter season, but it's somewhat confusing, not to mention a slight exaggeration; they wouldn't be playing games in January.
Distinctive elements: "making the comparison between cricket and baseball an intriguing one" is almost certainly POV.
There are several embedded lists as the article goes along. Can any of these be condensed into paragraphs for improved readability?
I noticed a formatting error in reference 143 (Harris poll), and couldn't see how to fix it.
I've been doing much more article work recently, so I make no promises about returning here. Hopefully these will be good examples of things to check for in the rest of the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
See also and External links: No See also links have already been used in the body of article; the current roster of links has been trimmed from a substantially longer one. Most of the External links are important organizational or independent, high-quality informational resources. Per your suggestion, I've removed three that are more specifically applicable to the History of baseball in the United States.
Copyediting observations: All of these have now been addressed.
Embedded lists: I believe all of the current embedded lists fall well within the Wikipedia:Embedded list#Appropriate use guideline; none of them are the sort of contentless list of links that our guideline focuses on steering contributors away from. The use of lists to describe different statistics, in particular, as well as different manners of making an out or recording a strike also reflect the practice of many baseball textbooks. Let's see if other reviewers have a particular issue with the current presentation of any of the relevant material.
Formatting of ref 143: I've been unable to identify the source of the problem. This a strange glitch that has persisted for a long time—I've tried every trick I can think of, to no avail. It may have to do with some quality of the linked site. Any tech whizzes out there capable of figuring this one out?—DCGeist (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Some kind of soft return in the title field. SteveT • C 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks much.—DCGeist (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the lists in the article work well. They enumerate details that would get lost in paragraph form. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
GIven that this is very definitely an "entry level article" let's not use abbreviations like MLB.com for publishers in the references. For that I'd use Major League Baseball website. Same for AAGPBL Players association, MILB.com, IBAF, etc.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Style for publishers' names: Done. The full names of the publishing baseball organizations have been given in the references.
Questioned sources: Addressed. In each case, the link has been removed and a superior source cited.—DCGeist (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor and tell me what sources replaced which ones? I'd appreciate not having to dig through diffs (I do so many FACs...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The BellaOnline cite was replaced by references to a Metro article and a report appearing on the official Washington Nationals MLB site. The Baseball-Catcher.com cite was replaced by a reference to Stallings and Bennett (2003; Baseball Strategies: Your Guide to the Game Within the Game). The Straight Dope cite was replaced by a reference to Keri (2007; Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game Is Wrong). Thanks for prompting the improvement of the sourcing on these.—DCGeist (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
The article should mention that managers wear team uniforms, unlike most other sports, and also that there have been managers who were also players at the same time. Examples could be cited. Maybe I am correct that there are also coaches at first and third base who are uniformed, but not players.
Also, should the first few paragraphs have references? I see none.
Are there statistics available about overall paid attendance in recent years? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion about managers is a fine one. A sentence incorporating the point you raise has been added
Not sure what you mean about references. The first few paragraphs of the main text are richly referenced. If you're talking about the lead section, that normally comes without citations unless there are quotations, hard data, or something particularly contentious—none apply here.
Statistics on recent attendance are discussed in the Popularity and cultural impact section.—DCGeist (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've made some minor changes (putting page numbers in order, adding extra "p"s. The changes can be seen here. If you get a chance, could you quickly check to make sure I didn't mess anything up to badly? Mm40 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know too much about baseball, but the lead (not yet read the rest) seems to be a little US-centric. In particular, should a third of the text (ie, the third paragraph) be devoted to the MLB and the structure of the American baseball system? Sentences such as "These teams allow younger players ... similar levels of skill" seem better suited for a "baseball in the United States" article than one that should be about the game as a whole. indopug (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone in to making the article less US-centric (and less pro-centric). However, the lede does recognize the fact that a lot of users of the English-language Wikipedia will turn to this article to understand the basics of how the American major leagues work. Like it or not (and, believe me, I don't particularly) for many people, U.S. Major League Baseball is baseball. How do other reviewers feel about the balance struck here?—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up Per a similar observation from a subsequent reviewer, the third paragraph of the lede has been edited to address the structure of the game's top level in the two other countries were baseball is indisputably the leading team sport—Japan and Cuba. The minor league passage has been retained, in edited form, as it applies to these countries as well.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Great article but two minor suggestions. The image File:Baseball diamond.svg in its thumbnail form is hard to read. Of course, this is because a thumbnail is, well, small but I think a lighter shade of green in the background would make the text easier to see without clicking to get the larger image (note that many casual readers of Wikipedia don't realize that you can get the larger image. This image is probably very informative for those who know little about baseball and along the same lines, a diagram showing the typical defensive setup might be helpful. By the way, does there exist a detailed article on the various fielder setups? Or even more broadly on baseball strategy? Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you came across the article during a period when other Wikipedians were doing some copyediting, and the File:Baseball diamond.svg image was temporarily converted to thumbnail size. The image has to be of a certain dimension to be useful--its size has been set for a long time and is now again. I can't take credit for this wonderfully helpful image--it is the work of Cburnett, who worked very hard indeed on it, including several adjustments to the background shade of green. The hue arrived at is the one that worked best for the plurality of editor/readers who gave feedback during Cburnett's development process. In answer to your questions, there are currently no independent articles on the fielding setup or strategy, though both topics are explored in detail in the article on baseball rules.—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Leaning towards support - I don't know anything about baseball, so I am an ideal reader for this article. I think that it is clearly written (I was never confused) and coherently presented. I do have some questions regarding material I expected to find and did not as well as a few minor issues:
I am happy to fully support the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
File:JackieRobinson1945.jpg - This image is not linked to the LOC correctly (the ID number is wrong). Note that the license says "This license does not apply to pictures from the collection which were not taken by the magazine's own photographers." - We need to verify that Maurice Terrell is not one of the magazine's own photographers. Could you fix the link?
File:Cy young pitching.jpg - This image has no detailed sourced information, so the license cannot be verified. I tried to click on the LOC link and add this information myself, but the link does not work. Please fix the link and add the necessary source and date information.
The lead does not mention leagues or tournaments outside of the US. Perhaps these should be mentioned?
"Early racial division" is such a small section. Should it be expanded or merged into one of the preexisting sections?
What do you think of including an image of the bat, ball, and mitt instead of the batter, umpire, and catcher in the "Rules" section?
About halfway through the "Rules and gameplay" section and again in the "Statistic" section, we hit patches of sexist language. All players are referred to as "he". There are a couple of ways to solve this: describe everything in the plural "Batters...they" or include both pronouns ("s/he" or "she or he"). The most elegant solution is to make the text plural.
Ex: A typical 25-man roster in a league without the DH rule, such as MLB's National League, will feature - This seems ok to me, as the MLB is entirely male, so it is accurate.
Ex: A batter strikes out if he gets three strikes. - This does not seem ok, as we are discussing general rules that apply to anyone, not just men. Unless just men strike out.:)
The pickoff throw would be demonstrated better with a video than a still shot. Would it be possible to get a video clip of such a throw?
The "See also" section needs to be cut down.
I'm wondering if more of the business and economics of baseball should be covered in the article. The players' strikes are an excellent beginning, but what about changing salaries in MLB? How much money does baseball make in other countries? How have changing ticket prices over the years changed the nature of baseball's audience?
Topics that perhaps should be added to the article:
Women's baseball - There are apparently contemporary women's baseball leagues. I feel that these should at least be mentioned.
Baseball cards - This seems like an important offshoot of baseball and integral to the fan experience. Perhaps a paragraph?
Fantasy baseball - The popularity of baseball has led to this unique game. Again, I would think that such an important part of fan culture would not be left out.
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your close reading and analysis of the article. I'll add to the following roster of specifics as items are addressed.
Jackie Robinson photo: The LOC ID number is correct. This LOC page confirms that Terrell was a Look staff photographer—to be clear (there was a typo in the above request), the license does cover work by the magazine's own staff photographers; it does not cover work by freelancers.
Cy Young photo: The LOC ID number is correct. All available date and source information has been added to the image's page at Wikimedia Commons.
Waseda University photo: The LOC ID number is correct.
Internationalizing lead section: Done. The third paragraph of the lede has been edited to address the structure of the game's top level in the two other countries were baseball is indisputably the leading team sport—Japan and Cuba.
Early racial division: Over the weekend, someone made a good faith, but ill-conceived, effort to create this new mini-section out of material that was part of the consistent chronological structure of the history section. The "section" has been dissolved, and its contents reintegrated (!) at the appropriate points.
Rules and gameplay image: There's two primary reasons I believe the current image works better than the proposed one: (a) if a reader is interested in getting a look at a ball, bat, and or glove, they need only click on the relevant links (which stand out, as they occupy the lone sentence at the beginning of the graf that leads into the descriptive list); if the image of the batter, catcher, and umpire were removed, there would be no similarly obvious place to go for this fundamental image; (b) proper placement of such an image as that proposed would unavoidably crowd against the baseball diamond image. As secondary matters, (c) in addition to the fairly obvious links, the article already does have several images of each of the three items (while a close-up obviously helps one to understand what distinguishes a baseball from other balls, the bat and the glove are quite clearly represented already, I think); (d) such an image would have to be created—I can find no such existing free image.—DCGeist (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)/DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand if you don't want to put a picture of the bat, ball, and mitt in the article. I just thought since they are an essential part of the game, they should be pictured. There are already other images of gameplay in the article. However, this is not the most important point in the world. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not at all about not wanting to, it's about space constraints. Reason (b) above suggests that there is space in the relevant section for only one of two images we might like (ball-bat-mitt and batter-catcher-umpire), and that the latter is much more satisfactorily accommodated given proper positioning vis-à-vis the text; reason (a) (and, to an extent, c) confirms that the reader has clear and ready access to the visual information that the ball-bat-mitt image would contain. Perhaps I should have reversed the order of those reasons. That's all.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Gender-neutral language. Done. As you observed, there are a couple instances where major league play is specifically being discussed, and the male pronoun is applicable. Otherwise, gender-neutral language has been instituted: the Rules and gameplay, Strategy and tactics, and Statistics sections are now entirely gender-neutral.—DCGeist (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Video: Video would certainly be nice. But (a) I'm not sure there's encyclopedia-quality, free-content video available for this, and (b) I do almost all of my work via a dial-up connection, so I'm not really well-equipped to vet what might be out there.
Anyone could go to a game and record it. Perhaps this is something to work towards? If you get the video, I can edit it and transfer it to the right format for Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I've put in a request on the baseball WikiProject talk page. We'll see if anything turns up. So far, I haven't been able to find a video camera owner among the people I know, and the local college baseball season has ended anyway. High school runs for a few more weeks, so if I come up with a camera, I might be able to do it myself. (This discussion inspired me to find the website that gives the local—New York City—high school baseball schedule. Thanks! High school ball is a lot of fun.) So, nothing might come up within the timeframe of this FAC discussion, but eventually something probably will and—thanks for the offer—I'll get it to you for formatting.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. This will only enhance the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Baseball economics/attendance: The rapid growth of MLB salaries since the mid-1970s is mentioned in the history section; more detail on this is available, appropriately, in the topical History of baseball in the United States article. I've added information on revenue and attendance in the sport's two other leading nexuses, Japan and Cuba (though, in the case of the latter, we must report ideological positions rather than data). I've also added to the coverage of baseball at the youth level in those countries. Finally, I've added information on the effect of ticket prices on the nature of American baseball's audience—the story here may be somewhat surprising.—DCGeist (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Women's baseball. Addressed. Mention of present-day women's participation in baseball has been added to both Baseball around the world and Popularity and cultural impact.—DCGeist (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Baseball cards and fantasy baseball. Addressed. Now well covered in new Baseball in popular culture section.
See also. Since recommendation, 15 See alsos have been eliminated, cutting list by more than 50%.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Section headers should not have "the" in them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Addressed. (One remains: The game turns professional is a clear, common-sense exception to the guideline; Game turns professional is awkward and nonidiomatic.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment (btw, you can disregard my earlier comment) In the stats section, one should point out the importance of very large sample size. It's even more crucial than the discrete/limited outcomes aspect of things. Also, that section could/should be summarized and some of the content could/should be used to improve the somewhat dry baseball statistics article. I know that this isn't part of the FA criteria but it would be nice to make sure that articles linked to as main article are relatively clean (tag-free, sourced at an acceptable level). For the most part, they are already in very good shape but Baseball in the United Kingdom, Baseball in Japan, History of baseball in the United States could be improved. Pichpich (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
xtra comment. Would it make sense to shorten the see also section at the end by creating lists, such as List of sports related to baseball? Or simply use a link to Bat-and-ball games? Also, Fantasy baseball looks out of place in the "Culture" section. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts I have to disagree with you on several of these points, Pichpich. Discussion of sample size belongs in the article on statistics, not this article on baseball. You can arrive at large sample sizes in many statistics from just about any sport. And it strikes me that the section is already very effectively done in summary style, while recognizing the need to plainly describe each statistic for the entry-level readers who will be coming to this sort of general article. I mean, the baseball statistics article details 95 different statistics (yes, I hand counted); this one, 24. More summation--either in count or in phrasing--would not be helpful at this point. If there are problems with the baseball statistics article (it actually doesn't seem so terribly dry to me), they're up to that article's editors to address, just like the others you mention. As for the links to the related sports, i find them the most useful part of the "See Also"s. And there's just not nearly enough to warrant the kind of list-article you suggest (even if we do add cricket, rounders, and...er...T-ball?).DocKino (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Been tracking this one for a while. Terrific job. I look forward to supporting as well. Two observations:
I see you recently added data on female participation. Is there any data available on overall participation?
Well done with making the language gender-neutral, following Awadewit's suggestion. In just one place--the list of the five basic outs--does the solution seem a tad verbose. What do you think about removing the phrase "an out is" from each of the five points? It still works structurally, e.g., "The ground out: recorded against a batter..." Actually, I think it works even better structurally.DocKino (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Participation data. Addressed. Reliable data added on (a) Little League participation both in U.S. and worldwide, and (b) U.S. high school and college participation. No one seems to have attempted a global participation study. I have also added a mention of the trend in overall participation in the United States. There are figures available for this, but they vary so drastically, I believe it's best not to get into them in this summary overview, and leave them for a careful appraisal in the history of baseball in the United States article. If you're interested, here's what I'm talking about:
Forbes (2002 data): overall participation—10 million, down 31% since 1987
SportsEvents Magazine (2008 data): overall participation—16 million, participation by boys 13 and younger—13.3 million
There appears to be no specific data (in the English language) for the other main baseball-playing countries.—DCGeist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit outs. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Want to support - Couldn't ask for a more comprehensive article on one of my favorite pastimes. I won't give a full support because I haven't read the entire article, due to its massive size, but what I read looked mostly good. My one concern is the use of peacock terms; in the history section, I saw "the brilliant, and often violent, Ty Cobb", and "the legendary player Babe Ruth". Also saw "storied pitcher Roger Clemens" later in the text. Hopefully, there aren't too many more of these in the article. I won't come down too hard on the article, however, because there are many redeeming qualities. The one that sticks out in my mind is the section on gameplay. As any baseball fan knows, the sport is difficult to understand for newcomers due to its complexity; this article does a great job of explaining how the game works. It's not a perfect article, but that doesn't mean it isn't a high-quality one. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: I don't think these are peacock terms. I know nothing about baseball, but I know these players, so they must actually be famous. There is nothing wrong with saying someone is a legend, when they actually are a legend within the sport itself. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As a follow-up, it's certainly true that in most Wikipedia contexts it would be preferable to have, for instance, "seven-time Cy Young Award–winning pitcher Roger Clemens". But in the context of this entry-level article, we would have to stop and explain exactly what the Cy Young Award is, and how seven of them is an exceptionally high number, and that just won't work in the kind of summary history the quotes have been pulled from. The terms you cite are used not at all for peacocking, but to tell a highly summarized story in a way that is both accurate and efficient. Those are the only three players whose undisputed greatness (at least performance-wise) is communicated in this summary fashion, serving the needs of the historical narrative. Note that no such description is used for Honus Wagner in the popular culture section, despite the fact that he is widely regarded as among the greatest players of all time—his quality as a performer and consequent fame are, of course, relevant to the value of his exceedingly rare card, but indicating those facts is not essential to the purposes of this section.
As for the specific terms used, they really shouldn't be controversial, as Awadewit points out. "Brilliant" is a very common epithet for Cobb in high-quality sources, as is "legendary" for Ruth—a quick Google Book Search can confirm this. "Storied" for Clemens was more off the top of my head, frankly with the intent of avoiding more extravagant possibilities. But I think we're on very solid ground here as well: within a few seconds of searching, I found a recent news article in a major metropolitan newspaper describing Clemens, his connection to the steroids scandal, and his "storied career." Here's an MLB.com article describing him as "contemporary baseball's most storied pitcher."—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Comments from Dabomb87(talk·contribs) I hate baseball, but I couldn't ignore a core article of sports, well-written at that.
"The distinct evolution of baseball from older bat-and-ball games is difficult to trace with precision." How does "distinct" add to meaning here?
"However a 2005 book, Baseball Before We Knew It: A Search for the Roots of the Game, by David Block, and recently uncovered historical evidence suggest that the game originated in England. " Not grammatical. I think the "and" should be deleted.
"and a woodcut showing"-->and a woodcut that shows
"pushing off it in order to gain velocity"
"a runner on first base must attempt to advance if a ball lands in play." I think the italics are unnecessary.
Support Excellent job rassling a very complex topic down to earth. The cultural coverage really completes the article. Well done. And thanks to Awadewit, we also have a model example of a fruitful FAC collaboration.DocKino (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On a very cursory scan, I easily found three undefined terms and acronym not defined on first occurrence; please review the entire article for lingo, linking and definitions. See my edit summaries.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I found the article extremely accessible. Not every term can be defined. As I said, I know nothing about baseball, but could easily follow this article. I don't think jargon/lingo is a problem in this article. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Samples included: terms like putout and slugging percentage should be linked; sometimes, even people who do know baseball may be unsure how to calculate stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, that is just the sort of thing that should not be explained in the basic article. I did look at your edits, but I think explaining the terms would interrupt the flow of the prose and actually impede understanding. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Links for putout/strike/expansion team on first occurrence all good. Per suggestion, found a few more linkable terms in lead and history sections (farm system, fair ball, baserunning).
Note that slugging percentage has always been linked on first occurrence. A good faith effort was made to gloss Babe Ruth's "slugging records" by linking slugging to slugging percentage, but this is improperly limited. The words slugging and slugger have been applied idiomatically to power hitting and power hitters since at least the 1880s. "Slugging records" have thus long referred to a range of power-related records, only one of which is slugging percentage (the term was introduced in 1923 and did not become an official statistic in Ruth's American League until 1946, well after his playing days). Trust is is placed in our readers that even those entirely new to the field of baseball will be able to make the connection between Ruth's "slugging records" and the description of him as a "great power hitter". I'll note also that to slug means to hit hard in British English as well, and that slogging has a very similar meaning in all English-speaking countries where cricket is played (though there is a standard connotation of artlessness, which applies to slugging only among us antediluvian small-ball connoisseurs).
The introduction of the term safe has been recast—concision and the existing structure of the Rules and gameplay section have been maintained, while the definition has been clarified to address Sandy's inline queries.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been through again, but if you doublechecked all the linking, I'm satisfied (I went through several sections myself as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I gave it another pass and added a couple of more links in the lede (section links for batting team and fielding team). I believe linkage of the baseball-related terms is comprehensive now.—DCGeist (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation to be resolved: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
No offence, but citing a dead tree source from 1896 seems far from a satisfactory resolution. A relevant quote in the footnote might help. As it is, I imagine the source is meant to support the "no statistical equivalent" comment. Traditionally, this is correct, but cricket statistics have undergone some innovation recently and I think this is now too categorical a statement. I'm sure I've heard commentators comparing the number of fielding errors committed by each team in recent years. Anyway, my main concern here is not that claim, but the implication that there is less emphasis on personal responsibility in cricket as a result. I believe this is highly misleading. Personal responsibility in cricket focuses on aspects that are more critical to the game; fielding errors don't usually matter much (except perhaps dropped catches) compared to losing your wicket. I think this sentence needs to be reworded at least, or even deleted. -- Avenue (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, my compliments on a very nice article. Sorry if the above seems picky, but I think that's our role here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm happy to address the issue you raise. Relevant quote added to footnote. Here it is for easy access:
The scoring is one of the most interesting features in this new importation from America [baseball]. Every detail of play is recorded, and a man's mistakes are tabulated as well as his successes.... A line in a cricket score may read, 'Lockwood, caught Stoddart, bowled J. T. Hearne; 30.'... [T]here is so much that is left out! There is no mention of the fact that O'Brien missed Lockwood before he had scored, and that somebody else failed to take a chance when his score was ten. These are items that go to make cricket history; but there is no record of them in the analysis.... The man who catches a ball is thought worthy of mention, but the man who muffs one does not suffer by publicity.
As for your other observations, one could take the age of the source as an indicator that this distinction between baseball and cricket was apparent and noteworthy even early in the history of systematic statistical record-keeping. I'm afraid that—remarkably—statistical innovation in cricket has still not reached the systematic recording of the missed or dropped catch and the categorical statement still stands: even the most complete match scorecard does not record fielding errors; even the most complete player's statistical history does not record fielding errors. Indeed, one of the ways we know that dropped catches are important in cricket is that commentators do regularly comment on them, but try as you might, you will not find a scorecard that names the culprits or a player's history that tallies his blunders. After the front page of the New York Times, the first thing I look at online every morning is Cricinfo.com—believe me, the day cricket fielding errors start getting scored and tabulated, I'll be on top of it.
Finally, the article does make clear that this distinction is limited. There is no implication that there is ultimately more or less focus on individual responsibility in baseball batting vs. cricket batting or baseball pitching vs. cricket bowling, but only in the area of fielding, and specifically there in the recording or nonrecording of individual failures. Quoting the article now: "There is no statistical equivalent in cricket for the fielding error and thus, in this way, less emphasis on personal responsibility." I believe that is precise and properly focused, and about as precise and focused as we can get.—DCGeist (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice quote - it even addresses the issue of accountability. My recollection is that the only cricket fielding statistics I've heard were about teams, not players, so they are probably not relevant to personal responsibility anyway. My biggest concern now is that the limiting clause in the responsibility sentence seems a bit too weak. I'll reword it slightly to address this. -- Avenue (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The rewording is fine.—DCGeist (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support — Nice work with this article! Given the complexity required of a core article, it can't have been easy to develop. Everyone involved should be congratulated. I do have two suggestions: First, that you explain farm team in the text as well as the lede (I suggest wikilinking the text reference to minor league teams), and second, the sentence dealing with Baseball Before We Knew It in the origins section is somewhat awkward. Grammatically, you need a comma after "however". This might break up the sentence with too many commas, however, so I'd suggest rewriting to eliminate that interjection — it's not needed. Other than these two minor things, it's a very fine article. Great job. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done (And thank you.)—DCGeist (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you for writing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Nice job on the re-write, DCGeist. Very comprehensive and easy to understand. I made several changes throughout, mainly nit-picks, and if any of them offend you, feel free to revert. Tex (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I'm no expert on the topic, but this seems to be a very solid article on a vast subject. Well done. -- Avenue (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because significant work has been done since its previous review, finished in February 21. Some of the review can also be found on the article's talk page. I have attempted to address all the concerns in this review, and have endeavored to improve the article beyond just the suggestions made during its FA candidacy. H1nkles (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As checked with WP:REFTOOLS: the following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a ref name should be used instead.
Slack (2004) p. 192
Buchanon & Mallon (2006) p. ci
Cooper-Chen (2005) p. 231
Findling & Pelle (2000) p. 209
Slack (2004) p. 194
Buchanon & Mallon (2006) p. cii--Truco 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
All done as suggested. H1nkles (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
The hatnotes on the top pointing out to the current/previous/next games are long, can they be shortened somehow?
I removed the next Summer Games to be held in 2012, a bit far off for the hatnotes.
I'm not sure what the numbers in parentheses in the Olympic Games host cities add. My initial reaction was confusion - perhaps a separate table or paragraph showing which countries have the top or interesting number of times they have hosted would be better?
Perhaps simply putting the final number of times the city and country has hosted either the summer or winter Games would be an acceptable alternative? I'll make the change and see what people think. I'm reticent to do another table if it can be avoided.
I agree with not introducing another table on reflection. How about eliminating the numbers entirely and then writing a paragraph below with the interesting things these numbers convey: "The United States has hosted the Olympics 4 times, the most of any nation. The cities Paris, Stockholm, Los Angeles and London have each hosted the game twice. After 2012, London will have hosted the Olympics three times – taking the lead. [.. and then some more ..]"?
I would eliminate the Youth Olympic Games host cities table (crystal-balling and all that) and re-add it in 2010 once the games have been played for the first time.
I'm fine with this, will delete.
The prose of the first paragraph of "All-time individual medal count" seems a bit awkward and doesn't really flow (to me at least).
I made some edits that tighten up the prose, not sure if it's any less awkward but it is less words, which usually helps.
References are occasionally repeated for successive sentences, perhaps they can be merged? ref 24 in Winter Games is an example. Otherwise the citation frequency is good, not over-cited like so many current FA candidates.
Removed one ref since the same one appears one sentence later.
Link Black Power salute in the caption of File:Carlos-Smith.jpg perhaps? I know it's in the text, but there is where I'd expect most readers to look for it.
Your suggestion makes more sense than the raised fist link.
I have not looked into prose or Manual of Style questions in detail.
The article went through a thorough MOS and prose review in the previous FAC.
Thank you: interesting article—and as one that gets a hundred thousand views a month, it's a perfect one to put some effort into. henrik•talk 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your time in reviewing the article. H1nkles (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - my above comments have been addressed. I did some changes myself to the lead and hatnotes. My thoughts were to keep the lead focused on what the reader is likely to be interested in - most people will likely read the lead more thoroughly and then skim the rest.
A few more comments:
Perhaps consider changing 'performance enhancing drug' in the lead to the shorter and perhaps more common but maybe more colloquial doping? (I'm a bit unsure what the connotations are in English, not being a native speaker. Feel free to ignore this suggestion)
The original wording was "doping" but it was changed after an editor raised POV concerns. Doping has an inherently negative connotation. I would be doing a disservice to try and reiterate his arguments here, and at the time I felt it didn't harm the article to make it more PC. This certainly isn't a hill I'm willing to die on so I don't have a problem with it being changed.
Changed to "doping" with the link still to the performance enhancing drugs at the Olympics article.
I changed the List of top medal winners to contain 10 instead of 16 entries, the article is rather long and 10 is a nice round number. Let me know if you have any objections:)
That's fine, I think it was originally 10 and then others came along to expand it to include all athletes who have won at least 7 gold medals. Why 7? I don't know, seems like an arbitrary number to me.
Why are the notes for the Olympic Games host cities table not in the notes section? They don't appear to be of such importance that they must be close to the table for understanding. I'd rather see some interesting factoids in that space (see above suggestion).
Not sure, I don't think it would harm the article to put an in-line cite there and move the notes into the notes section.
I'm trying to format the table with the notes going in as in-line cites and showing up in the notes section but I'm not very adept at tables and the formatting isn't quite right. I'll keep working at it though. H1nkles (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The punctuation and sentence structure in some more places is a bit boring with sentences that look like this: "First this. Then that. And then another thing.". I'd like to see a bit more varied and flavorful structure with commas, semi-colons and en- or em-dashes as alternatives to the full stop (where appropriate, it can be easy to overdo it). An example of a section that could be improved like this is Host cities and Champions and medalists.
I've done a bit of editing, especially in the Host cities section. Does it match your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
After this, I'll be happy to support.:) henrik•talk 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've hit the concerns you outline above. I'm not very experienced at tables so I apologize if the table overhaul isn't up to snuff. Let me know if there's anything else you feel is hindering the article. H1nkles (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm happy now: Support. Good job! henrik•talk 07:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the time you spent reviewing this article and for your support. H1nkles (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - This is my second time reviewing this article, so I'm not as fresh to it as I would like to be. Still, I want to review it again because it's one of the more important sports articles we have.
Two capitalization issues early in the third paragraph: first word of "International sports federations" shouldn't be capitalized, while the last word of "National Olympic committees" should be.
Done
"The host city is responsible to organize and fund a celebration of the Games consistent with the Olympic Charter." → "The host city is responsible for organising and funding a celebration of the Games consistent with the Olympic Charter."
Ancient Olympics: "when the emperor Theodosius I declared that all pagan cults and practices be eliminate". Missing letter in the last word.
Done
1896 Games: The stadium name is presented differently in the text from the photo. Which was it?
Changes and adaptations: "The homogenous nature of this edition was a low point for the Olympic Movement, even though it was in Paris that women were first allowed to compete." I don't see the contrast between the two parts of this sentence that's implied. The presence of female athletes wouldn't have made the games more international if they were almost all Americans, right?
Done, I don't know how those two sentences ended up being together.
Youth Games: Remove comma from "held in July, 2007 in Guatemala City."
Done
Replace comma after "These Games will be shorter than the senior Games" with a semi-colon.
Done
International Olympic Committee: Spell out the following abbreviations: FIFA, FIVA, and USOC.
Done
Effects of television: For the dollar figures, this format is recommended in the Manual of Style: US$394,000 (note that there is no capital D and no space). Also put in a non-breaking space for the $3.5billion NBC contract, like I used here (click edit button to see formatting).
Done. I also added non-breaking spaces to the other instances of numbers followed by millions or billions.
May be a while before I can return, but I do want to come back and have another look at some point. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. H1nkles (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That was longer than I would have liked. Better late than never, though.
"the television lobby demanded concessions from the IOC in order to boost ratings." "in order" can be safely chopped. Another "in order" comes up two sentences later. Sentence after this has a "being" that is unneeded. Please check for wordiness like this throughout the article.
Excess Brundage and Samaranch links in this section; both are linked already in Commercialization.
"When Brundage retired the IOC had US$2 million in assets, eight years later the IOC coffers had swelled to US$45 million." Change the comma to a semi-colon.
Commas before and after "led by Peter Ueberroth".
"with the goal of creating an Olympic brand." This is a noun plus -ing structure; please see this guide for information on how to fix it.
"Specific criticism was level at the IOC...". Levelled?
Sports: "There are recognized sports have never been on an Olympic program in any capacity." Add "that" before "have".
"The goal being to apply a systematic approach to establishing the Olympic program for each celebration of the Games." "being" → "was". It's a fragment the way it is now.
"and costs of competing the sport." "competing" feels awkward. Is "holding" better? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for returning and for more edits. Most of what you've reviewed was new since your previous FAC prose review from a few months ago. The wordiness issue is one I've always dealt with as a writer. I'll return to the article and continue to excise unnecessary verbage. All of your suggestions have been implemented. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Last round:
"Neither sport attained the required two-thirds vote and were not promoted to the Olympic program." Awkward sentence, especially with the contrast in tenses ("Neither sport" and "were").
Reworded.
Use of performance enhancing drugs: "By the mid-1960s, sports federations were starting to ban the use of performance enhancing drugs, in 1967 the IOC followed suit." Change the second comma to a semi-colon.
Fixed.
"Both urine and blood tests were used to detect not only banned substances but also blood doping." Instead of a wordy "not only...but" structure, why not use a simpler structure like "used to detect banned substances and blood doping."? Come to think of it, wouldn't drugs used for blood doping count as banned substances?
I removed the blood doping reference altogether.
"Several athletes were barred from competition by their National Olympic Committees prior to the Games, only three athletes failed drug tests while in competition in Beijing." Again, the comma should probably be a semi-colon.
Fixed.
Host cities: "with all applicant cities being asked" is another noun plus -ing sentence structure, like the one from before.
reworded sentence to remove noun+ing.
"Once the candidates cities are selected". Make "candidates" singular.
Fixed.
"There are thoroughly analyzed by an evaluation committee specifically established for the effect." What effect? I'm not seeing anything that explains this. Is a different word supposed to be there?
Reworded and took out the bad end of the sentence.
"but only by cities outside Europe and North America on seven occasions." It would make more sense to move "only" to before the word that it is intended to be matched with, in this case "seven". Giants2008 (17-14) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, all your suggestions have been addressed. Thanks again for the review! H1nkles (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Please spell out lesser known 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 VANOC, but there may be others)
Fixed, I searched through the rest of the notes and addressed one other abbreviation issue. As far as I could tell those were the only ones.
Current ref 93 has a bare url in it, as does ref 95 105, 110, and 111. I looked at them and tried to fix them but couldn't figure out what was wrong.
I fixed the issue, it was a formatting problem with the dates, everything should be in order, good catch!
Removed source and added a Deutsche Welle source instead.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for catching those issues. I hope I have addressed everything that concerned you. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments. Let's see if this time is the lucky one for this valuable article to get its star back. I'll post a section-by-section analysis, but I'll do it in parts, since the article is quite big. You can review these concerns in the meantime:
Lead:
Since I think this section could use an overall copyedit, instead of pointing out every little change, you can compare my version with the current one. The major change was the clustering into three paragraphs. I removed "The IOC navigated the Cold War and the overt use of the Games for political gain." because it seemed a strong statement that could be placed, developed and sourced in the rest of the article.
I like your rewrite of the lead, I know it's current edition is a bit awkward at times. I would like to suggest a couple of modifications:
There are several editors who do not believe the IOC and Coubertain were the originators of the Modern Olympics. They return from time to time and add in a reference to Evangelos Zappas, who they claim first started the Modern Olympics. Much debate has gone into this issue and so I intentionally left who initiated the Games vague in the Lead and gave credit to the various parties in the body of the article.
I would suggest breaking the second paragraph into two, per WP:LEAD an article of this size can have four paras in the lead. In reading your version it appears as though the second para addresses two subjects: The evolution of the Modern Games and the Olympic Movement and the IOC. It moves from past tense to present tense and I think it would be more appropriate if they were separate paragraphs. Otherwise I would copy and paste as is. Do you object to the above modifications? H1nkles (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to address those two items. Check again my userpage. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I love it! Do you want to do the honors of inserting it or should I? Thanks for your work on that. H1nkles (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Rewrote first sentence and removed "certain". I think it is worded better now.
"It is was Heracles..."
Fixed
"...Olympic stadium and as an honor to Zeus."
Fixed
"After the stadium was complete,..." → "Following its completion...". It avoids close "after...complete(d)" instances.
Good catch, fixed.
You can link "unit of distance" to Stadia (length), but it's optional.
done
"... is 776 BC, this is based..." — replace comma with semicolon. Moreover, is there a ref for this statement?
Added ref for this assertion.
I already did the semicolon. Reywas92Talk 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"From then on, the Olympic Games became important throughout ancient Greece. They reached, reaching their zenith in the 6th and 5th centuries BC."
Fixed
"..., known as an Olympiad, and this period..." → "... and this period, known as an Olympiad,..."
Fixed
The 3rd paragraph could start with the last two sentences from the first paragraph ("From then on... 6th and 5th centuries BC", these would be moved), but beginning like "Since their establishment, the Olympic Games became important...". Then would come "... centuries BC, but gradually declined in importance as...".
Fixed with some modifications of my own. H1nkles (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Some scholars date...", "... others believe that..." — reword as per WP:WEASEL
Fixed
Since their demise date is not certain, it's better to say "After the demise of the Olympics, they were not held again for another 1,500 years until the late 19th century."
Agreed and changed.
Many individual refs include more than one source. Not too sure about this, but I think it ought to be one source per ref.
I think this is a matter of preference, I have broken out the combination cites that I could find in this section. H1nkles (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Forerunners and revival:
"Olympic games" — Capitalize. Moreover, shift "nationwide" to before "... Olympic festival held annually..."
Fixed, changed "nationwide" to "national", seems a more fitting word.
"In 1850,..." and "Later, Zappas..."
Rewrote these sentences for flow and to fix chronological problems.
Panathenian, Panathenean, Panathenaic, Panathinaiko. Which one?
It is supposed to be Panathenian stadium, in a search of a article this is the name given in the body of the article. There is a reference to the "Panathenaic" stadium in the title of one of the references, but I don't think I can change that since it is the title. Is it confusing?
"In the search French historian Baron Pierre de Coubertin was searching for a reason for the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). He, historian Baron Pierre de Coubertin theorized that..."
"In 1948, [notice comma just before] Sir Ludwig Guttman, determined to innovate new ways to rehabilitate promote the rehabilitation of soldiers".
All fixed as suggested, added a little work of my own on this one as well. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Youth Games:
"...will feature athletes who are 14–18 between the ages of 14 and 18 years of age."
Remove blank space just before ref #31.
Recent Games:
Remove "noticeably" as per WP:EDITORIAL. Can you find a source for this paragraph?
Good catch, removed "noticeably", added cite and removed unciteable information. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
General remarks:
Make notes format more consistent by employing the same style for all of them. By this I mean using only "[author] (year), page(s) X" or "[author] (year), p(p). X" or even "[author] (year), X" throughout.
Good observation, I am going through the article and changing all cites to the "[author] (year), p(p). X" format. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Great job! I only have two comments, which shouldn't be too hard.
I know you've been working on it for a long time, but I'm not sure I fully like the lead, especially the final two sentences. I think there should be more emphasis on the sports. I know it should be general in the lead, but I think you could give the current number of sports and athletes, and also mention medals. I think some of the Recent Games section should be there. The lead's not too long, so there could be more info in it to summarize the entire article.
There is a rewrite of the lead in progress as we speak, it is more succinct and to the point. It does not go into the sports in as much detail as you indicate above. I am working on it with another editor and once it is implemented I will look for ways to incorporate your suggestions if that is ok with you.
The lead has been redone, I will try to accommodate your suggestion regarding sports. Let me know what you think. H1nkles (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think really Evangelos Zappas and William Penny Brookes need to be in the lead; they aren't as influential to the entire article, and they especially don't need to be right in the third sentence. "Olympic festivals inspired" would be enough. The new sentence with the sports is good, but I really think that the sports - the main event of the games - should be in the first paragraph. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, I know you've had to cut down much of the article and that it's in the subarticle, but you should say that the Ancient Olympics originally had only footraces, wrestling, etc., with more focus on sports.
I have added a sentence on sports competed at the Ancient Games along with two cites. Please see if this meets your suggestion. Thank you for your input, I really do hope to garner enough support this time around to get it passed. H1nkles (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Excellent article overall! Reywas92Talk 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Everything looks great! Reywas92Talk 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose 1a (prose).Comment I note from other review comments that the article has had a thorough prose check. I'm sorry to say that in spite of this, the prose still has numerous rough edges in the lead and in the first few sections, which is as far as I've got. Here are examples of what I found:-
In the lead: "The second, known as the Modern Olympic Games, was first revived in the late 19th century in Greece." Two points: the word "first" is redundant. And I think the word "revived" is wrong. The second generation, known as the Modern Olympic Games, was inaugurated, not revived, in late 19thC Greece
Also in lead: "As a result the Olympics began to shift away from the pure amateur athlete as envisioned by Coubertin." Surely, the shift was away from the amateur ethos, or from amateurism, not from the amateur athlete?
See below regarding the Lead.
Ancient Olympics section: "Greeks gave several rather incompatible foundation legends" This is awkward and obscure; which Greeks "gave" these legends? I assume the meaning is that different legends exist about the origins of the Ancient Olympics. There is no reason why these different stories should be "compatible". Suggest you replace this phrase with the simple "Different legends exist;"
Fixed
Same section: "One story claims that after Heracles completed his twelve labors, he went on to build the Olympic stadium and as an honor to Zeus." Not grammatical
Fixed
Same section: "The most widely held estimate for the inception of the Ancient Olympics is 776BC; this is based on inscriptions found of the winners of a footrace held every four years starting in 776BC." "Widely held estimate" is curious phrasing - perhaps you mean "accepted"? I think the word "date" needs to be worked in somewhere, e.g. "The most widely accepted date estimate..." etc. Could you then indicate where these inscriptions were found?
added more info and incorporated "accepted" and "date".
Forerunners and revival: "Until that time, attempts to create a modern version of the ancient Olympic Games had met with various amounts of success at the local (one, or at most two, participating nations) level." The sentence is clumsily worded, particularly towards the end, and needs rephrasing.
I removed the sentence as unnecessary, I also combined the, now very short paragraph, with the following paragraph.
Changes and adaptations: "entered a doldrums". "Doldrums" is a permanent plural; there is no such thing as a doldrum or "a doldrums". You could say "entered the doldrums", or you could avoid the word by saying "entered a period of stagnation".
Fixed
I think someone needs to go through the prose carefully, to identify and correct other prose problems. I will look myeslf, but it may be a few days before I can.
I have implemented your suggestions. As you noticed, the article has undergone a couple of prose reviews including one by User:Giants2008, part of which is here and the other part is here. That said there is obviously more to do and I will go back through the article to give it more polish. I appreciate any further work or suggestions you can make as fresh eyes usually tend so see more issues. I know that your opinions carry strong weight here so I do hope to be able to bring the article up to your expectations. H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops I didn't talk about the lead. There is a rewrite of the lead going on as we speak. I'm working with another editor on this and when it is implemented I hope it will address your concerns. The newer version will tighten up the prose and make it more concise and focused. H1nkles (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll look again in a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the lead has been updated. H1nkles (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional comments: My earlier prose issues have been addressed. While it is clear that much recent work has gone into the article, there are still many examples of inadequate prose. Some examples:-
Impact of TV section: "They also expanded the swimming and diving programs..." without defining who "they" are.
Commercialization section: This sentence "Brundage believed the lobby of corporate interests, would allow them to unduly impact the IOC's decision-making" has an unwanted comma. Nor is it clear who is allowing "them" to unduly impact etc
Same section: "He helped to establish The Olympic Program (TOP) in 1985..." "He" is presumably Ueberroth, but Ueberroth hasn't been mentioned for several sentences.
Medal presentation: "the best three athletes" is too vague for covering all sports, some of which are team events. Perhaps "The winner and the second and third-placed competitors..."
Good catch it's been fixed. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Politics: "Contrary to its founding principles, the Olympic Games have been used..." "Its" and "have" don't go together grammatically. "Has" would sound utterly wrong, so I suggest "the" founding principles.
Ref [144] actually cites Ref [143], I'm not sure how best to format that, if I'm wrong then I'll need some guidance. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The claim that it was not until the Summer 1960 games that the Soviet Union merged as a sporting superpower doesn't square with the Soviets winning most medals at the Summer 1956 Olympics in Melbourne.
Good catch, I've fixed it to 1956 and added a new reference. H1nkles (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Opening ceremony: It might be worth mentioning that the athletes' parade is always headed by Greece.
As you have a table of the most individual medal-winners, it might be interesting to include a table of the top-ten medal-winning countries.
Interesting thought, I'm terrible at tables so I would need some aid on that. I'll see what arm twisting I can do before the article's fate is decided. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't have time to continue monitoring this article, so I am striking my original oppose. You do seem to be making great efforts to get the article right, and I am confident that you will also respond positively to these later points. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, since the last FAC, this article has improved much! Congrats. While I had major stomach-ache last time, this time I think the article does give an overall satisfying picture. However, there are still some (mostly minor) spots to work on.
Sports section: first it says about 400 events. Later that it was limited to 301 events (and does not tell that this number has been revised later). How should the reader reconcile the two?
The first number is the total for both Summer and Winter. The second is the Summer Games program. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"The three major components of the Olympic Movement beyond the IOC are described in further detail below" -- do you mean the directly following (brief) explanation? If so, consider rewording this. Somehow I kept looking for more info down in the article. Also, I find the section a bit repetetive. First you give the list of the three, and then you give it again with brief explanations. I guess there is a way to avoid the redundancy?
I removed redundant wording earlier in the paragraph, instead leaving just the list of the three components of the Olympic Movement. I also made it clearer that the explanation of those components was immediately following this paragraph. I think that will be clearer and less redundant. H1nkles (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the redundancy is removed. "in further detail as follows" is, however, still not to the point. You didn't describe it before, so "further detail" is misleading. Perhaps just write "The Olympic movement consists of three major members:"? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Noted and I've fixed it. Instead of members I used "elements" but members would work fine as well. H1nkles (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a great improvement over the last FAC that now you deal with commercialization questions! However, the structure is still not perfect, in my view. First "Impact of television" and "Commercialization" are not, IMO, proper subtopics (and thus should not be subsections) of "IOC". Also, impact of television and commercialization should somehow be in the same section, right, because it's kind of two shoes of the same pair? I would consider making a section "IOC" (including the lead section of the current section, and the "Criticism" section) and another section "Commercialization" or something like that.
I've broken out the "commercialization" and "impact of television" subsection into a new "Commercialization" section. If I'm reading the critique right you would prefer to see both subsections molded into one section, what I'll do is write an intro and then create one subsection entitled "Impact of television and marketing". Would that suffice? H1nkles (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The two sections are good.
Ok the work has been done though I'm not 100% on the flow of the new section, please let me know if it is better than the previous version. H1nkles (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "An uneasy relationship exists between the corporate world and the International Olympic Committee. " though. As far as I can see from the article, the relationship is very close, if not intimate between business and IOC. Perhaps reword to "While early Games did not chiefly rely on funding by corporate sponsors, more recent Games gradually shifted toward being financed (or something similar) by international sponsors, which in turn seek to link their brands to the Olympic Games."
Perhaps the "Commercialization" section could do with a few subsection headings? Currently the only one is fairly long and does not cover all aspects of the section. I'd try the following: 1) little section lead (as it is, perhaps rewording the first sentence as indicated or similarly). 2) Budget -- " During the first half of the 20th century the IOC was run on a small budget. ... in their publications and advertisements.[73]" 3) Impact of television 4) Criticism (last paragraph) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestion, I reworded the intro para using your suggestion and some work to blend the rest of the para with the first sentence. I also broke the subsection down the lines you suggest. I think it accurately reflects the contents of the section. H1nkles (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"However, at the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney there was a sudden drop in ratings" -- It would be great to tell how many viewers they had then. Otherwise the sudden drop stays a little bit mysterious.
I'll try to find this information. H1nkles (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to find specific numbers but I was able to find a source that indicates the ratings were the lowest since 1968, since I previously state that the 1968 Summer Games drew 600 million viewers I'm hoping this will suffice. H1nkles (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In the all-time individual medal count, it would be good to have some indication whether the athletes listed there are male or female, I find. Perhaps put (m) or (f) into the sports column?
I added and (m) or (f) per your suggestion with an explanation in the intro paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I already suggested this in the last FAC round, and like to reiterate: the "Host cities" section provides little or no added value compared to the subarticle. I would remove the table.
This suggestion is a bit tricky to implement. Per your previous suggestions I expanded the prose to discuss the bid process. I posed your suggestion to the Olympic community talk page after the previous FAC attempted failed. Here is the brief discussion, it received two responses in favor of keeping the table. You may notice that it has been significantly revamped to become more streamlined and user-friendly. Is this sufficient? I do hope this would not keep you from supporting the article. H1nkles (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to dig my heels in. (The arguments at the discussion you mention don't convince me at all, though.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps consider somehow linking to Olympic bid in that section? I suspect there is a subarticle describing the selection process? (I don't find it right now.) If so, it should be linked.
The article still does not say anything about the Olympic village. it should, in order to be comprehensive.
I added a couple of sentences about the Olympic village to the "Recent games" subsection. I'm not sure this is the best place for it, but aside from creating a new subsection somewhere I couldn't figure out a place to put it. Perhaps under the "sports" section? H1nkles (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I also think it is not exactly where it should belong, but I don't see a good alternative right away. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Youth Olympic Games": You use future tense throughout. Why? (e.g. "The Youth Olympics will feature athletes between the ages of 14 and 18")
"The first Summer Youth Games will be in Singapore in 2010, while the inaugural Winter Games will be hosted in Innsbruck, Austria, two years later." -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Perhaps you move the last sentence up to the beginning of the section? I really didn't realize that the y.games have not yet started. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"Winter games": The opening sentence to that section is a bit odd, I find. You should probably first say what the Winter games actually are, in case people don't know.
Actually I just see the same problem with the youth games. Perhaps have "Starting in 2010, the Olympic Games will be complemented by Youth Games, where athletes of age between 14 and 18 will compete. The Youth games were conceived ... "? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Done as suggested. H1nkles (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"The IOC desired to create equity between winter and summer sports." -- this seems to be contradictory to "The scope and scale of the Winter Olympics is smaller." later on. Perhaps reword to "The IOC desired to create an alternative venue for winter sports" or something like that?
Good catch, I've removed the reference to "equity" as it isn't really equal given the difference in scale. I reworded the sentence to try and balance it a little better. H1nkles (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Lead section: "at an Olympic Games" -- is this correct? (I'm not native, so I'm not sure, but it reads weird.)
Somehow I'd like to know where most athletes come from. Could you provide that piece of information?
Do you mean what countries traditionally send the most athletes? H1nkles (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know if that's an interesting information, but if -- say -- it is about as unbalanced as the distribution of host cities (geographically), it might be an idea to say a word about that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a little blurb about it in the host city section. The info is a little hard to piece together but for the most recent summer Games the top three were the US, China and Russia, which isn't quite how the concentration of host cities breaks out (at least for Russia and China). I could not find info on overall athlete numbers, which would likely be different since China wasn't been involved in the Olympics until the '80's. H1nkles (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Every four years, the Olympics" -- somehow it should be every two years, right? On the other hand an individual athlete will probably only be able to participate every four years, but this is not implied by the current wording.
Changed it to two. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
A final minor thing: "The bomb was set by Eric Robert Rudolph, an American domestic terrorist, who is currently serving a life sentence at ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado." is probably off-topic (at least where he serves the sentence!). I'd trim that down. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I'd like to support the article becoming featured. Kudos to H1nkles and Jonel, whose work will be of use to wide audiences interested in this multi-facetal topic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article and for your support! H1nkles (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support worthy of returning to the FA. igordebraga≠ 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. H1nkles (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two sections with the same name (Criticism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent catch, it was a recent change and I've renamed one of the sections. H1nkles (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this conflicts with WP:ACCESS, which requires all photos under third-tier sub-headings to be right-aligned. H1nkles (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a free image of a medal ceremony, I'll keep looking though.
File:Carlos-Smith.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 hence FAC#3 (I am also a little suprised that a picture from the 1936 games isnt included, possibly the most notable games of all time for politics)
Removed photo, I'll have to see if a 1936 Games photo will fit with the text. H1nkles (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The 1936 Games (summer or winter) aren't mentioned in this section, which is probably an oversight. I'll try to add a little something and see if there's an appropriate photo to include. H1nkles (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found a compelling photo of Jesse Owens receiving one of his gold medals, Jesse Owens on the podium after winning the long jump at the 1936 Summer Olympics. Does this meet the appropriate criteria to be included? H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not photo expert so I usually error on the side of safety, I've removed the photo unless a clear free version can be added. H1nkles (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, I've reworded the first paragraph to include more information on the host nation. I've also renamed the section to cover both the host nation and host city. Will that suffice? H1nkles (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The images are all on one side, which I feel unbalances the article
I've moved some of the photos to the left side. More work to come. H1nkles (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
As near as I can tell from the article that is linked above, The original tricolor of red-white-blue was official until 1813 when the House of Orange took over and authorized the official use of both the red-white-blue tricolor and an orange-white-blue tricolor. Both appear to have had the same rights though the red-white-blue edition seems to have been given preference. My interpretation would be that we're still historically accurate to keep the red-white-blue tricolor that currently is on the article. I may be reading something wrong here though, and I'm no expert at flag history so if I'm in the wrong please point it out to me and I'll make the fix. H1nkles (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be more concerned with the flag used by the Dutch Olympic committee at the time, not the state guidelines (all other image related queries addressed approprietly) Fasach Nua (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this image review. I was waiting for one to be done to make this review comprehensive. I will address the concerns raised here one by one. H1nkles (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, I've updated the link, I've left United Kingdom as the display, but switched the page link to the one you've suggested, which is historically accurate. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Is use of technology in events worth a mention here in the main? For example, the unprecedented level of broken records in the swimming due to LZR swimsuits (amongst other advances in other sports) could become quite a prominent aspect from now on. However, I'm not sure if this information is too general and better off on a sport/swimming article etc. What do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 22:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote and expanded this article last month, and it has subsequently passed GA and WP:MILHIST ACR (see here and here for those reviews). I think the article is at or close to FA, so here we are. Thanks in advance for all comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett comments
There's a instance of separate multiple references: Staff p21 GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, there are always little things like that one can miss:) Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Preferences>Gadgets - add the refTools gadget. When you edit the article a little cite button appears on your toolbar, click that and use the error check feature;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I merged the ref you pointed out. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment In the quote that begins Visibility had generally become unfavorable... there does not seem to be an pair of end quotes. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that! Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Design section comments
What's a Marine turbine or boiler? Is that a brand-name, a specific type of engine, or what? And since I don't think that it's either I'd suggest removing it entirely or putting it in lower case as it's not a proper noun. If known I'd suggest putting in the manufacturer's name for the boilers and turbines. I'd italicize the names of the weapons. It might also be worthwhile to add the Construktionsjahr to specify the exact model of gun since some guns had the same caliber and barrel length, but differed in details. You can get that info from Navweaps.com if it's not in Groener. I've reworded part of the armor paragraph to simplify the language; check to see that it works for you. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gröner's states (and I quote) "Two sets of Marine-type turbines..." and "27 Marine-type boilers..." I'm thinking that it's something of a translation issue; I've seen "Naval boilers/turbines" in reference to other ships. I wonder if it's a design from one of the Imperial Dockyards? Since it doesn't state the actual manufacturer, so I thought I'd just reproduce what the book says. Navweaps has a goodly amount of information about the main guns (here); I don't know why, but I tend to forget to look there. Thanks for your fixes to the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Support This is a very solid article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
CommentSupport Some redlinks in the article - will they be resolved? Isn't GMT more common than UTC in British works? What does "SM" mean in the high seas disposition depiction; where in the world was this (some people only read captions) The "Seydlitz in port" and "Seydlitz in harbor" images - which ports were these and when? "there was still significant debate " = peacock term? Are the "Navy department" and the "Kaiserliche Marine" the same thing? "Queen Mary explodes" caption - why is she exploding and where? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, most if not all of the redlinks will eventually be made blue, probably by me. The reason for using CET is that the article is about a German ship, and the article relies on to a significant degree Tarrant's Jutland: The German Perspective (I didn't really use works from the British perspective). It makes more sense to me to use what times would be in German histories for a German ship. As for the photos of Seydlitz, the images don't have any further detail (I uploaded them myself). As for the "significant debate", I don't really follow your point; I don't see anything wrong with the phrase. There was a great deal of arguing between Tirpitz and the rest of the Navy department over along which lines the ship was to have been built. No, the Kaiserliche Marine is analogous to the US Navy or Royal Navy, and the Navy department (the Reichsmarineamt) would be analogous to the United States Department of the Navy and the Admiralty, respectively. The destruction of Queen Mary is stated twice in the text, in the intro, and next to the image. Should I expand the caption to clarify? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone will read the body text - some people scan the images and captions initially, and only read further if drawn in by them. So the question for you is whether someone viewing the article cold will understand any context or be drawn in to read further having read just the captions. Regarding the note about the use of UTC: I've only ever known system administrators in the UK to use this term - people there still use GMT routinely, hence my question above (which is unrelated to the use of CET). Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, one more question: Ruge calls the ship a Großer Kreuzer (large cruiser) rather than a Schlachtkreuzer (battlecruiser). Is there any significance in the difference? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take another look at the captions and see how they can be improved. I thought GMT=UTC, but apparently not; I'll change it to GMT since that would make more sense. As to your last question, the main reason for the difference was politics. Tirpitz kept referring to the ships as large cruisers (aka armored cruisers) in his annual budgets in an attempt to reduce opposition from the Reichstag (the thinking was that those who wanted to reduce naval spending would be less opposed to a "simple cruiser" than they would be to a full-fledged capital ship). They weren't referred to as schlachtkreuzer "officially" until after the war, I believe. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Last annoying question - have you seen the photos in the German article? The ones of battle damage and scuttling caught my eye in particular. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, those are all on Commons; the problem is their licensing. They're all from the US Navy Historical Center, which is PD in the US. Obviously the US Navy didn't take the photos themselves, so they're not necessarily PD outside of the US (so they really shouldn't be on Commons unless that can be proved). I moved a few of them onto en.wiki and corrected their license tags (such as this one), and intend on doing the rest at some point. So, the short answer is: I didn't want to put them in the article while their license tags and where they're hosted are wrong. Once I get around to moving them to en.wiki, they'll go into the article (probably the Jutland battle damage ones will go into a gallery at the bottom of that section). Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The eighth note (the last one in this section) needs a period.
Footnote 57 needs a space between "p." and the page number.
Same as above with footnote 22 (needs a space between "p." and the page number).
The ISBN for the first book listed under "References" (Naval Battles of the First World War) should be linked to Special:BookSources like the rest of the references.
At the beginning of the quote "he decided on a measure which...", should "he" be capitalized? I'm not sure about this one.
The OCLC for the third book listed under references (A Naval History of World War I) doesn't appear to be working.
And you think this can be a featured article? Tsk, tsk (just kidding, great article). Mm40 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for digging through the footnotes. I've fixed everything except for the OCLC for the third book (I don't know how that works, I think User:the ed17 did those, I'll have to ask him to take a look). I think the "he" in the quote you pointed out should be capitalized, so I fixed that too. I guess if we're wrong, someone will tell us:) Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Done; I think that I had pasted the ISBN into the OCLC slot by accident. By the way, to get the OCLC, type worldcat.org/isbn/######### into your browser, replacing the #'s with the ISBN of the book you want to find.:) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. No issues with this article as far as I can see. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose due to concerns over images (WP:WIAFA#3) as follow:
File:SMS Seydlitz 1916 1-350 .jpg: who owns the copyrights to the scale model? I really hope that is not a Tamiya model we are seeing in this photo...
File:SMS Seydlitz damage.jpg: not very happy with the reasons given. By what reasons are the justifications given by this site reliable? From which page was this image taken from? Since the site state the book from which images are scanned from, it will be better to point out the publication.
Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As to the first image, do model producers hold copyright to all photographs of their products? If so, then it'll have to go. I had a feeling that the second image you pointed out would be a problem, and I can't find it here, so it'll probably have to go as well. As for the last set of images, they're all here. This was briefly discussed on Commons here, although it seems it was more focused on where the images should be uploaded and under what license templates. User:the ed17 seems to know more about this particular set of images than I do, so perhaps he can lend a hand. Parsecboy (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Was asked to come here. I sent an email to the NHC a little bit ago concerning this; the Historical Services Manager, Laura Waayers, said that "All images posted on the Naval History & Heritage Command's website are in the public domain." Whatever the case in other countries, I believe that they are PD in the United States. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
However, looking at one of the photos, I think that {{PD-US}} or something of the like would be a better tag (or at least add that PD only applies in the U.S.:)) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing. It's slightly confusing to read on wiki, but I put a copy of an IRC conversation I had with Bastique(talk·contribs) regarding this in my sandbox here. Also, a similar image can be found here. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For the model, please refer to commons:Commons:Derivative works. The design of the scale model is copyrighted by its creator. It does not have any utilitarian aspects; hence, it is considered a work of fine art. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
For the NHC photos, the main problem is the reason given for PD: "because it is Naval Historical Center photograph." is not a valid reason. Either it is PD because it was published before 1923 (hence requiring proof of the publishing, not creation), or its copyright has expired (not very likely unless the German photographer is verified to have died before 1938), or it is considered "war booty" (see Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images). In any case, a more detailed explanation should be given for why the photo from the NHC is considered as PD. As mentioned in the_ed17's links, this is easy for most US ship photos in the NHC, as they are likely taken by US federal employees. The foreign photos are more problematic. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the images you've pointed out, at least temporarily (in the case of the photos of the ship itself, the model photo can't be used, since it's derivative) until I can find something more definite. Thanks for taking the time to explain things to a copyright layman:) Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In searching for information about the NHC photos, I did come across this photo of Seydlitz, which appears to be an uncropped version of this one, which was already on Commons, but under a seemingly incorrect copyright license. I've fixed it and placed it in the article. I also tracked down two images from the GWPD collection that are clearly PD File:SMS Seydlitz.JPG and File:Seydlitz in drydock.JPG (they were published in 1920 and 1914, respectively). So thanks for pushing me to do some more digging:) Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Seydlitz in drydock.JPG and File:SMS Seydlitz.JPG: move them to Wikipedia. Commons require the photos to be PD in both source of country and the publishing country. Although published before 1923, the photos are very likely German in source (the drydock photo is by Carstens, see this image) and still copyrighted there. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Seydlitz steams to Scapa.jpg: this image is okay, but I corrected the information. The waves are different from the IWM image. It is conceivable that a US force would be on hand to witness the internment (scuttling) of the German fleet at the end of the war, so Lt Booth could have been there. Safe to use for this one (PD due to Navy). Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've moved the two images onto en.wiki, and will request that they be deleted on Commons shortly. Yeah, now that you mention it, the waves aren't exactly the same (although the photos appear to have been taken from the same ship). Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Image issues have been resolved. All okay. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support An excellent article, for which I have one or two comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
"As with the rest of the German battlecruisers that survived the war, Seydlitz was interned in Scapa Flow in 1918, following the end of the war" - repetition of war, suggest "As with the rest of the German battlecruisers that survived the war, Seydlitz was interned in Scapa Flow in November 1918." instead.
"Despite the success of the previous German battlecruisers designs," - since this is the opening sentence and no earlier designs have been mentioned in the main body of the article, I would suggest linking those previous designs at this point rather than lower down in the paragraph: "Despite the success of the previous German battlecruisers designs, the Von der Tann and Moltke-class,"
Sometimes you use the prefix HMS and sometimes you don't (i.e. HMS Aurora) - can you be consistent please?
Thanks for your comments; I've fixed the problems you pointed out and dropped the "HMS" from the article, since it rarely uses it, and "SMS" isn't used at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - seems to be an excellent and thorough article on my read-through. Regarding this: "[...] a 13.5 in (34.3 cm) shell from the British battlecruiser Lion struck Seydlitz's "C" turret and nearly caused a magazine explosion that could have destroyed the ship." Poor casual readers will have no idea what turret is "C" turret.:) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense:) It was actually "D" turret, for the record, I must've gotten my wires crossed at some point:) It not reads "rearmost" instead of the letter code. Thanks for pointing that out:) Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because Reyk and I have significantly improved it and would like an independent assessment. This was previously assessed as a good article by OhanaUnited and later received a thorough peer review by Chzz and several other editors. 243 Ida is one of the few asteroids imaged by a space probe. Wronkiew (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Wronkiew and I have extensively rewritten this article and improved it a lot. The suggestions and concerns raised at the Good Article review and the Peer Review have, I think, been addressed and have further improved the article. I think it is now good enough that it meets, or at least is very close to meeting, all of the featured article criteria. ReykYO! 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, while going through GAN, I'm very impressed with its current condition and its thoroughness. This is one of those few GAs that are ready to go for FA at any time. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments Hey mate! I believe I owe you some review work. Oppose for now. Lots of ambiguities and fuzzy patches. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
More information Collapsed resolved issues. Wronkiew (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ...
Collapsed resolved issues. Wronkiew (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"but its mass constitutes an insignificant fraction of the belt's total" This seems a tad unnecessary. Isn't the main belt comprised of enough asteroids that no one asteroid would ever constitute a significant fraction of the total?
Well, 1 Ceres and 4 Vesta account for a third and a tenth of the mass of the asteroid belt respectively, so the really big ones can constitute a significant fraction. Ida isn't one of them. Wronkiew wanted this sentence left in because it gives some perspective on Ida's size compared to other asteroids. I agree, but it could be made clearer- I'll have a think on how to do that. ReykYO! 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
By my calculations, Ida makes up 0.001% of the belt's mass, but since you're the second to recommend against the comparison, I removed it. Wronkiew (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida was named by Moritz von Kuffner" This is the only mention of Kuffner. Who was he and why was he the one who got to name the asteroid instead of Palisa?
I'm working on this one, but it's going to take some time to come up with additional sources. Wronkiew (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Added more detail on von Kuffner. Palisa's reasons for letting von Kuffner name his asteroids is probably lost to history. Wronkiew (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida's reflection spectra was measured on 16 September 1980 by astronomers David J. Tholen and Edward F. Tedesco as part of the eight-color asteroid survey (ECAS). This led to the classification of Ida and other members of the Koronis family as S-type asteroids"
"reflection spectra" is redlinked and no explanation is given. I know what a spectrum is, but many people won't.
Fixed by Reyk. Wronkiew (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's totally unclear how the first sentence "led to" the second sentence. What about the spectra led to the S-type classification?
Reworded. Wronkiew (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Who classified it as such?
This is attributed in the inline note. Wronkiew (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Many observations of Ida were made in early 1993 by the US Naval Observatory in Flagstaff and the Oak Ridge Observatory, prior to the Galileo flyby" Yikes, not very good use of the comma there. "prior to the Galileo flyby" needs to be worked into the sentence better or dropped completely. Also, what Galileo flyby? The sentence is written as though the reader should already know what it is. I don't.
I removed the "prior to" clause, as it was repetitive. The flyby was introduced in the lead. Wronkiew (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"These improved the measurement of Ida's orbit around the Sun and reduced the uncertainty of its position during the flyby to within 60 km (37 mi)" Alright, what was the uncertainty before these observations?
78km- now in the article. ReykYO! 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"The decision to attempt an Ida flyby was delayed until the consequences of the loss of 34 kg (75 lb) of propellant, the amount needed to change Galileo's trajectory, could be evaluated" Not clear what's going on here. Who lost the propellant?
The loss refers to burning 34kg of propellant in order to change the course of Galileo. I've used the word "consumption". ReykYO! 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: In the process of changing the trajectory of the satellite, it would consume 34 kg of propellant. Because this would significantly alter its total mass, it would have an affect on later parts of the mission, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Reworded. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, much better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"it flew by Ida on 28 August 1993 at a relative speed of 12,400 m/s (28,000 mph)" Relative to Ida, correct? Then what was its absolute speed?
The sentence now more clearly says the speed was relative to Ida. Absolute speed? Albert Einstein would have fits if he heard you talking like that.;) Do you mean the speed relative to the Earth? The sun? ReykYO! 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Because Ida has a short rotation period, the probe imaged about 95% of the its surface during the flyby" It isn't entirely clear how the rotation period affects the surface imaging. Perhaps you should include how long the entire flyby lasted.
It now reads "95% of the surface came into view of the probe". ReykYO! 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, that doesn't really help. The way I see it, how much of the surface gets imaged depends on two variables: How quickly the asteroid rotates and how long the spacecraft approaches/images. This will not be clear to everyone unless you include some sort of time frame.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The details would be unnecessarily distracting, so I removed the part about its rotation. Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida's relatively large surface exhibits a diverse range of geological features." Should be past tense, yes? We can't be entirely certain that the surface hasn't changed since Galileo.
I have reworded this sentence. ReykYO! 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"and that the asteroid contained mostly core material" What is "core material"?
Reworded. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Still confusing. What do you mean by "from the core"? Did it start at the center and work its way out? Or did it come from the core material of some other object? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The two sentences comparing stony-irons to OC meteorites aren't vital to understanding the discoveries made by Galileo, so I removed them. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Calculating Dactyl's orbit around Ida enabled a rough measurement of Ida's density"
Who calculated this orbit? When? How?
This is completely described in the inline reference. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Statement include the actual estimate, if possible.
I added a number for the upper bound. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Is "enabled" the right word here?
Removed. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"This low density ruled out the presence of significant quantities of metal, and indicates a non-stony-iron composition" Switches from past to present tense.
Amended "ruled" to "rules". ReykYO! 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"The Galileo images also led to the discovery of a space weathering process active on Ida" Reads awkwardly. Suggestion: "The Galileo images also led to the discovery of an active space weathering process taking place on Ida"
Done, though I edited your version a bit. Wronkiew (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, but now I've noticed something else: "The Galileo images also led to the discovery of an active space weathering process on Ida, which causes older regions to become more red in color" This sentence reads as though the "which" refers to the discovery, not the process. Here's an idea: "The Galileo images also led to the discovery that space weathering was taking place on Ida, a process which causes older regions to become more red in color over time." or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"Space weathering changes the appearance of Ida's surface over time, with older regions becoming more red in color" I thought this was going to be a brief generic explanation of space weathering, but then it mentioned Ida. It should either serve as a standalone explanation or the relevant details (more red over time) should be merged into the previous sentence.
Done, good idea. Wronkiew (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"The same process affected both Ida and its moon, although Dactyl showed a lesser change. " So what does this mean? Is Dactyl younger than Ida? This just seems like an important but somewhat dead-end statement.
Sorry, not enough information in the sources to say for sure what causes it. Wronkiew (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. I was just curious to see if the sources made any conclusions, but if not, then that's fine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"The color change revealed another detail about Ida's composition" This may be confusing for some readers since the previous sentence also dealt with Dactyl's color change.
Reworded for flow. Wronkiew (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"S-types are the most numerous kind in the inner part of the asteroid belt. OC meteorites are, likewise, the most common type found on the Earth's surface" Both of these statements should make it explicitly clear what "kind" and "type" refer to.
"Ida's mass is between 3.65 and 4.99 x 1016 kg, a measurement derived from the poorly constrained orbit of its satellite"
Again, consider replacing "measurement" with "estimate".
Removed text. Wronkiew (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"poorly constrained orbit" is ambiguous. Is Ida a bad parent that can't seem to properly constrain its child Dactyl? Or were there loose mathematical constraints on Dactyl's orbit?
Agreed. The discussion of Dactyl's orbit also isn't very relevant in this section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't the mass/density also depend on the apparent size of the asteroid?
The density would, but not the mass. Wronkiew (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"This field is so weak that an astronaut standing on its surface could leap from one end of Ida to the other.[39] An object moving in excess of 20 m/s (70 ft/s) could escape the asteroid entirely" Consider merging these two sentences together, as they are making essentially the same point.
"Ida's weak gravity coupled with its short rotational period produces some counterintuitive effects" This is true, but somewhat confusing. It might help to include the phrase "trajectories of projectiles" as it appears in the source.
I don't have a better way to explain it, and it isn't vital information, so I removed the two sentences about projectile trajectories. Wronkiew (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida is a distinctly elongated asteroid, with an irregular surface,[41]" Ref 41, Bottke et al, doesn't really seem to be an appropriate reference for this statement. The ref seems to be a very broad overview of several satellites, not a presentation of new information: "We briefly review their characteristics below" Surely a claim as simple as this one can be attributed to a primary source.
Found a somewhat better source. ReykYO! 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
...then why not use it? Bottke et al is still the ref for "with an irregular surface." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right. I thought you meant the source for "elongated". Fixed. ReykYO! 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Whilst steep slopes tilting up to about 50° are present on Ida, the slope rarely exceeds 35°" These two claims seem to contradict each other. Suggest rewording the second clause to "the slope is generally less than 35°." or some such.
I've expanded it a bit so that, hopefully, it is more clear that the 35 degrees is the rule and 50 degrees the exception. ReykYO! 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Besides craters, other features are evident, such as grooves, ridges, and protrusions." A sentence like this should ideally come right after the bit about craters, not at the end of the paragraph. Assuming you keep the paragraph at all, that is.
We're keeping the paragraph. Like you said, it explains terms which are used later in the section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, perhaps I wasn't clear. "the bit about craters" refers to "Ida's surface appears heavily cratered and uniformly gray, although minor color variations mark newly formed or uncovered areas. Cratering has reached the saturation point, meaning that on average new impacts erase evidence of previous ones, leaving the total crater count unchanged." I wasn't suggesting to remove it from the paragraph altogether, I was suggesting to just move it up a few sentences. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I see now. Done. Wronkiew (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"The surface is covered in a blanket" The surface of what?:)
Of Ida. Duh;). Fixed. ReykYO! 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Caption: "Galileo mosaic recorded 3.5 minutes before its closest approach" Uh... what? Might be less confusing if you nix the technical details and just say something like "Image of Ida's surface taken by Galileo."
I reworded it to make it clear that this is a mosaic of images. Wronkiew (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"The material for this layer originates from the many impact craters" This sentence is written as though the craters intentionally donated material for the regolith project. Perhaps "The material in this layer originated from the many impact craters" or some such.
Reworded. Wronkiew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Regolith can be moved over the surface of the asteroid by geological processes. One observed by Galileo was the downslope movement of debris." Yikes, needs some serious reordering. How about "Geological processes and Ida's own gravity can cause the regolith to move across the surface of the asteroid." or something?
Reworded. Wronkiew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you've cut too much out, because now the reader is given no clue as to why/how the regolith moves. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored the detail that it moves downslope. Wronkiew (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
"The appearance of this substance changes over time through a process called space weathering" Which substance? Silicate? Or olivine? Or pyroxene?
"The older regolith appears more red in color compared to freshly exposed regolith" It isn't entirely clear that this is connected to space weathering. Consider merging with the previous sentence.
Clarified. Wronkiew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Impact event" is used several times. It should be linked or explained at some point, as its meaning might not be clear to non-nerds. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
Wikilinked, good idea. I don't think an explanation is necessary, as the term is not used in an introductory section. Wronkiew (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of "Surface features" does not have any references. I see that the information is repeated later on in the subsections. Is this paragraph even necessary then? It may be confusing for some readers that terms like "regolith" and "ejecta block" are linked and well-defined here but not later on.
Yes, it's just a summary of and introduction to the material in the section. If there's anything controversial there, I can add a reference to it. We didn't reference anything in the lead, either. Wronkiew (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to treat this paragraph as a lead, then we'll follow WP:LEAD, which specifically states that information introduced here must also be present in the main body. "Saturation point" appears here but not in the crater section. Ida's color ("uniformly gray") is mentioned here but not later. "ejecta blocks" are explained in detail here, but not later. Either cite the new information in this paragraph, or make sure to include/cite everything in the main body. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I waffled on the "uniformly gray" sentence and added an inline citation for it. Inline citations are not required for every piece of new information. In the two other cases that you brought up, these definitions could be considered "subject-specific common knowledge", and are well covered by the sources in the references section. If you think either of these definitions are controversial or contain original research, I can add more inline citations. Wronkiew (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll buy the "subject-specific common knowledge", I had forgotten about that exception. However, "saturation point" should still be mentioned in the Crater section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved it to the crater section and added a ref. Wronkiew (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"Most of them are located within the craters Lascaux and Mammoth, but were not produced there." I skimmed through the source you've cited for this statement and found this statement: "The blocks that lie within or near the rims of craters Lascaux and Mammoth were likely mobilized in the low-velocity tail portion of the excavation flow that formed those craters." The inclusion of the word "likely" in this statement makes me think that "but were not produced there." is a bit too strong. You're more familiar with the material than I am, but my instinct tells me that "but were not necessarily produced there" would be a better choice.
You're right. Done. Wronkiew (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"This area attracts debris due to Ida's odd gravitational field." Perhaps "irregular" instead of "odd"?
"Some blocks may have been ejected from the young crater Azzura on its opposite side" Eh? Whose opposite side?
Clarified. Wronkiew (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"The asteroid appears to be split into two halves, each featuring slightly different geology, connected by a "waist"... If [the waist] formed from impact craters, then the two halves may share the same geology" These two statements seem to contradict one another.
Not really contradictory, more an indication that several interpretations exist about Ida's geology. I removed this and some other speculative material in the section. Wronkiew (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think the material had to be deleted, it just needed to be clarified that the two ideas are both speculative. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The two sections of the asteroid that are separated by the waist are Regions 1 and 2, yes? This isn't made explicitly clear in the Structures section. Also, it might be useful to have some sort of simple comparison between the two, such as noting which of the two is larger.
The main difference between them seems to be the crater size distribution. I noted that the "regions" refer to the two halves of Ida. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"One is a prominent 40 km (25 mi) ridge named Townsend Dorsum that stretches 150 degrees around Ida's surface.[26][52]" Ref 52 adequately covers this material, but Ref 26 (Chapman p. 707) does not. I read through that page, but didn't find any mention of Townsend Dorsum. It only vaguely alludes to "the prominent ridge". Was this just a superfluous reference, or did you mean to cite a difference page?
Only one prominent ridge on the asteroid, but the extra ref was superfluous. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida's Region 2 features several sets of grooves, usually about 100 m (330 ft) deep and up to 4 km (2.5 mi) long" The use of "usually" implies that these grooves are not permanent. Also, what defines a "set" of grooves?
Replaced "usually". The relevant dictionary definitions of "set" are sufficient to describe the arrangement of grooves, and I don't think we need to repeat that definition here. Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I was just wondering if there was a more specific definition that the reader should be aware of. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"for example a set opposite the large indentation Vienna Regio" I don't think "the large indentation" is necessary, as you introduced Vienna Regio just a few sentences earlier.
Removed the duplicate information. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Caption: "Asymmetric 1.5 km (0.93 mi) crater Fingal at 13.2°S, 39.9°E" What measurement does 1.5 km refer do? Diameter? Depth?
Clarified. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"leaving the total crater count unchanged" Not necessarily true. Consider replacing "unchanged" with "approximately the same".
"It is covered with craters of all sizes and stages of degradation" Is there something to which we could wikilink "stages of degradation"?
Stage of degradation is a descriptive rather than a technical term. A possible link is to Erosion, but that doesn't describe the erosion of asteroid craters better than this article does. Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"The major craters are named after caves and lava tubes on Earth" Is this true for all craters? Or just craters on Ida?
Clarified. Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Infobox: "Alternate name[note 1] A910 CD; 1988 DB1[2]" Note 1 doesn't seem to work. Ref 2 says it's just A910 CD; 1988 DB1, no subscript.
The subscript is standard notation for provisional designations. However, a provisional designation from 1988 doesn't make any sense for this object. Without any other source to corroborate the alternate designation or any explanation in the JPL database, I think we may have misinterpreted the data. I've removed it until another source can be found. That also takes care of the strange note, which was a standard part of the infobox. Wronkiew (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"The craters are simple in structure, bowl-shaped with no flat bottoms and no central peaks" That comma should be replaced with either a colon or "and".
"The composition of Ida's interior has not been directly analyzed, but is assumed to be similar to OC material based on observed surface color changes and its measured density" Whose measured density? Ida's? Or the interior's?
In this case, it doesn't matter. As explained in this section, Ida's density is even throughout its extent. Wronkiew (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd say it does matter. To someone who assumes that "it" refers to the interior, the notion that the interior's density has been measured conflicts with the notion that the interior has not been directly analyzed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"The range of stable orbits for Dactyl correspond to a bulk density between 2.27 and 3.10 g/cm3 for Ida" Does Dactyl's generally stable orbit vary within a certain range? Or is its exact orbit not known?
Removed the information about Dactyl's orbit. This is already covered in more detail elsewhere. Wronkiew (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"The grain density of Ida's chondritic material would range from 3.48 to 3.64 g/cm3" The use of "would" implies that these values are derived from the previous sentence, but the next sentence discusses the discrepancy between the two sets of values.
Rewritten. Wronkiew (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"The mineral content appears to be homogeneous throughout its extent. Galileo found minimal variations on the surface, and the asteroid's spin indicates a consistent density" minimal variations of what?
Minimal variations in mineral content. I don't think it needs to be re-stated. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Close
"Prior to the flyby" Erm, what flyby? The lead previously mentioned that the asteroid was visited. Do "visit" and "flyby" refer to the same thing?
Clarified so it reads " Galileo flyby ". ReykYO! 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that "visit" implies that something actually landed on the asteroid, so it's not clear that Galileo's "visit" and "flyby" are the same thing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree there; I don't think the word "visit" implies an actual landing. The featured article Jupiter, for instance, uses the word "visit" to describe the New Horizons probe flying past it. ReykYO! 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I am not at all confused by the mixed terms. Wronkiew (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That is probably because you wrote the article. I suppose, however, that it is not the mixed terminology that concerns me, but the fact that "visit" appears before the first instance of "flyby". Without any hint up to that point as to whether or not Galileo actually landed, it is entirely up to the reader to guess. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ida's irregular shape is responsible for the asteroid's highly uneven gravitational field. The surface gravity is lowest at the extremities due to the fast rotation, and near the minimum radius due to less mass being present interior to that location" Why is this in a separate paragraph? It doesn't really make sense to discuss the gravitational field in two different paragraphs, though I see that this information should follow the paragraph about Ida's shape. Consider merging this paragraph into the astronaut rock chucking paragraph, then moving that paragraph to after the shape paragraph. Also, this little paragraph makes total sense up until the final clause about the interior location radius birthday present. I had to read that at least 3 times, and I'm still not entirely sure what it means.
Merged the paragraphs as you suggested. ReykYO! 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good, but the part about the interior mass gravity thingo is still confusing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Rewritten. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to communicate with this statement, and I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with a clear, concise way to explain it, and it looks like you guys have been too. I think splitting it off from the extremities sentence definitely helps. I think the best thing to do would be to fully explain the characteristics of the "waist" when you first introduce it earlier in this paragraph. That will allow you to explain the differences in the gravitational field like this: "The gravitational field is also weaker at the "waist" because it encompasses less mass than the main body of the asteroid." That's not exactly a perfect sentence either, but eh. I definitely think giving more info about the waist earlier on will help. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Some grooves are related to major impact events" Perhaps this sentence should include "though" or "however" as it contrasts the sentence before it.
It does not contrast. The only seismic waves on an asteroid are caused by impact events, and I think that's knowledge we can expect readers to start with. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not! I, too, am a reader, and I had no idea that that was the case! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to explain the association between impact events and seismic waves, but the resulting prose had so many "might be"s and "appear to"s that I decided to drop it entirely. Wronkiew (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Also, what does it mean to be "related to" impact events? "Caused by" seems more logical. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"and range in age from fresh to very old" Yikes. This sentence is totally useless without some hard numbers. Even rough estimates would be better than "fresh" and "very old".
The next sentence defines "very old" as comparable in age to Ida itself. Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
...Which isn't discussed until section 7. If, by chance, the reader reads through the article backwards and gets a sense of the age of Ida by the time s/he gets to this section, "How old is very old?" will have been answered, but "How fresh is fresh?" will remain. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the "range" has lost its meaning entirely at this point. Why not just shorten it to "and some are as old as Ida itself."? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Region 2 contains nearly all of the craters larger than 6 km (3.7 mi) in diameter, but Region 1 has no large craters at all. Some craters are arranged in chains" Cool stuff. Any conclusions that can be drawn from these statements?
I believe we have hit the best parts of the available literature. Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had a look for myself, and found this sentence: "Crater chains may result from low-velocity impact of ejecta from a primary crater (although no crater chain can yet be linked to a larger primary) or from a string of original impactors". Also, this source was published in March 1994 and is based on images taken in August 1993. The author makes reference to new images that would be made available during that spring, as well as the increased accuracy in identifying features that such images would provide. Has any attempt been made to find an analysis of these images? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Chapman 1996 and Sullivan et al. 1996 seem to be the most detailed analyses of the full set of images. I have not seen a better analysis of the crater chains, and the one in Greeley et al. 1994 is not specific to Ida. Wronkiew (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Another significant crater is Afon, which marks the prime meridian" You've linked to prime meridian, but that is an article that is devoted almost entirely to discussion of the prime meridian on Earth. Did you mean to link to a subsection? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Prime meridian does emphasize the prime meridian on Earth, but the lead section contains a useful definition of the term which applies to all bodies. Wronkiew (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Are we reading the same article? Nothing in the lead of prime meridian gives any indication of its use on other bodies. Perhaps linking to the woefully inadequate subsection on other planetary bodies would help. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
We are. The lead section contains the important information that the prime meridian is arbitrary and that it corresponds to the International Date Line on the Earth. The other planetary bodies section contains no useful information whatsoever in the context of Ida's prime meridian. Wronkiew (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Argh, now the sentence reads quite awkwardly: "Olivine and pyroxene were detected on Ida by Galileo." How about something like this: "During its flyby, Galileo detected the presence of both olivine and pyroxene on Ida's surface." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"interior voids have been predicted by simulations and observed on other Solar System objects" Shouldn't this be in other objects? Also, "simulations" is a tad vague.
Removed. Wronkiew (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"the asteroid's spin indicates an even density." This sentence seems to conflict with the final paragraph in this section. How can an object with interior voids and a layer of megaregolith have a consistent density?
"Interior voids" removed, as it was general to all asteroids and not Ida in particular. I don't see a conflict beteen the roughly consistent density and the fractured rock throughout. Wronkiew (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, perhaps I'm envisioning "fractured rock" differently than I should. However, the conflict still remains with the interior voids, though it seems you've swept that under the rug, something I'm not really a fan of. You said there were simulations which predicted voids. I said your description of said simulation was vague. Vagueness and the fact that the content "was general to all asteroids" is not an excuse to eliminate relevant conflicting content. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really "swept under the rug". I can explain the discrepancy, but it's just not worth going into that much detail about scientists' theories about what Ida's structure might be. If you think this information is vital to the article, I can add it back with a better explanation, otherwise I'd rather stick to more solid facts if possible. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just explain it to me here so we can discuss it in greater detail? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure. What we really know about Ida's internal density variations is that it is roughly consistent in terms of angular momentum. This would imply a homogeneous interior only if Ida were shaped like a perfect, tasty doughnut. Since it is a three-dimensional, irregularly shaped object, it could have extreme variations in density and coincidentally look like it had a consistent density. For example, Ida could be made of styrofoam in the northern hemisphere and lead in the southern hemisphere, and it would move the same way that Galileo observed. However, this is considered unlikely based on our understanding of how asteroids are formed. The nature of this measurement also leaves open the possiblity of large internal voids inside Ida, because if they are distributed evenly throughout it, they would be undetectable. What this all really means is that the two halves of Ida do not differ in bulk density to a measurable degree. Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"The calculated maximum moment of inertia of a uniformly dense object the same shape as Ida coincides with the spin axis of the asteroid." Um, what? "Coincides" implies that these two values are comparable, which is mathematically unsound. This is like saying "The maximum number of employees at Big City Construction coincides with Eric Bobrow, the foreman." Yes, the two are related, but in no way do they "coincide". My guess is that you meant to say something like this: "For an object with the same shape as Ida, the maximum possible moment of inertia is achieved when the object is uniformly dense and has a certain axis of rotation (INSERT DESCRIPTION OF AXIS HERE). Ida's axis of rotation (SUMMARIZE DESCRIPTION OF AXIS HERE), implying that it is uniformly dense." That isn't perfectly logical either, but at least it provides all of the steps required for the comparison to make sense to the reader.
"Ida's axis of rotation precesses with a period of 77,000 years" Another mention of the axis of rotation, but still no description of such an axis!
Not sure what you're looking for here. The direction of Ida's axis is defined in the infobox. We don't have any additional information on where Ida's spin axis is located, except at +90 and -90 degrees latitude. Wronkiew (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole time I've been reading this article, I've had no idea how the latitude-longitude coordinate system works. It totally makes sense on the lovely spherical Earth on which we live, but I don't understand how it applies to asteroids. Perhaps this is something that those in the field of astronomy would consider "common knowledge", but not all of our readers are astronomers. What I'm trying to get at here is that some sort of of physical landmark would be incredibly useful in helping users to visualize this. Does the spin axis go through the waist?
Ida and Earth both rotate around a single axis, marked by the poles. The midpoint between the north and south poles, in spherical coordinates, is the equator, or zero degrees latitude. The equator does not coincide with the waist, and no one has planted a flag on its north pole yet. You might want to watch the Galileo approach animation for a better sense of Ida's rotation. Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
*headdesk* Perhaps I'm not making it clear what I'm asking for. The animation is helpful, but not precise. My question is this: Where (physically where, don't tell me 90° north latitude) is Ida's spin axis? The article repeatedly abuses the coordinate system without ever making it clear how it is defined on this asteroid. Something like this would help: "The spin axis runs perpendicular to the asteroid's longest dimension and passes through the asteroid approximately 20 meters from the waist." Do you see what I'm getting at? Physical landmarks. Not flags. Not mumbo jumbo. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a section labeled "Orbit and rotation". It contains no information about the orbit. It does, however, contain totally irrelevant historical information that should probably be moved to "Origin".
Discovery information moved to "Discovery and observations", added more detail about Ida's orbit. Wronkiew (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Much better, though I think this paragraph would benefit from some more numbers. What is Ida's orbital speed relative to the sun? You say it orbits at an average distance of 2.862 AU. Any mention of what the variation is? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
More detail about Ida's orbit can be found in the infobox, where it belongs. Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately for the entire non-astronomy-obsessed English-speaking Wikipedia-browsing population of the Earth, the infobox uses terms that go way over our heads. This section gives you an opportunity to explain some of the more interesting orbital characteristics in full sentences. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"However, this is inconsistent with the estimated age of the Ida–Dactyl system of less than 100 million years; it is unlikely that Dactyl, due to its small size, could have escaped being destroyed in a major collision for longer" Yikes, very awkwardly arranged. How about: "However, it is unlikely that Dactyl, due to its small size, could have avoided being destroyed in a collision for more than 100 million years."
I think the first version is clearer, if a little verbose. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"The difference in age estimates may be explained by an increased rate of cratering from the debris of the Koronis parent body's destruction" Not entirely certain what this sentence means. My understanding is thus: At some point, the Koronis parent body was destroyed entirely, and the resulting debris created craters on Ida's surface much faster than before. This discrepancy in the rate of cratering affected the accuracy of the age estimate, yes?
"A small satellite named Dactyl" Is there something to which we could link "satellite"? Some of the less nerdy readers might not be aware that "satellites" are not necessarily man-made.
"Dactyl was initially designated 1993 (243) 1" Was this meant to be a placeholder name like ununoctium?
This is explained in the wikilinked article. Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"Dactyl is an "egg-shaped", but "remarkably spherical" object measuring 1.6 × 1.4 × 1.2 km (0.99 × 0.87 × 0.75 mi). It was oriented with its longest axis pointing towards Ida" Why the random switch from present to past tense?
It's safe to say that it did not change shape in the past 15 years, but we've no idea if it is still oriented the same way. Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"These features, and Dactyl's spheroidal shape, imply that the moon is gravitationally controlled despite its small size" This strikes me as being a bit odd. Why would the size of an object be relevant to whether or not it is gravitationally controlled?
"roughly 10–20 times smaller than Ida" I've never understood how something can be "10 times smaller" than something else. Does this mean Dactyl is 1/10th to 1/20th the size of Ida? Or that Ida is 10 to 20 times larger than Dactyl? Both of these mean the same thing and are clearer than the phrasing currently employed.
"the Hubble Space Telescope observed Ida for eight hours and was unable to spot Dactyl" Bolded for emphasis. Not particularly scientific.
We now seem to have the opposite problem here: Dactyl's rotation and orbit section has no information about its rotation!
Renamed the section. Wronkiew (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"It is extremely unlikely that it was captured by Ida" Because...
I recommend that instead of giving Dactyl four subsections (which are confusingly similar to those about Ida), you split Dactyl off into a separate article.
This has come up before. In my opinion, we do not know enough about Dactyl to make a decent standalone article. Wronkiew (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Backtracking: "Ida's rotation period is 4.63 hours, making it one of the fastest rotating known asteroids. It is in the top 10% of measured asteroids by spin." Yuck. How about: "Ida's rotation period is 4.63 hours, making it one of the fastest rotating asteroids yet discovered." the second sentence is useless trivia.
This concludes my read-through. Good work so far. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Cryptic, do you mind if we move the struck comments to a collapsed section? Wronkiew (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have no problem with it, but my understanding is that the use of collapse templates is discouraged because it borks WP:FAC. I suppose you can make the struck comments small, if you like. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Discouraged only if it causes the page to run into transclusion limits. Wronkiew (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"Physical characteristics" is used as a header twice; please change it up per WP:MSH. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Wronkiew (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be to call the section about Ida "Physical characteristics" and the section about Dactyl "Physical characteristics of Dactyl". This seems more logical, and I seem to remember reading something about avoiding using the name of the article in its sections. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Tentativesupport—It's good overall, with only a couple of nits to pick:
"...Ida is one of the larger asteroids in the main belt." Unfortunately this doesn't really say anything. A JPL Small-Body Database query finds 1,735 known MBAs with a diameter of 15 km or larger. So you could potentially say something more definitive, such as it is among the 2,000 largest known MBAs.
I couldn't find a reliable source that has a size distribution of main belt asteroids, so I removed the comparison. Also, the diameter is 31.4 km, according to the source cited in the infobox, so I fixed that as well. Wronkiew (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Estimates of Ida's density are constrained to less than 3.2 g/cm3 ... This low density rules out the presence of significant quantities of metal..." Please clarify whether you mean iron here. Note that the the density of aluminum is 2.7 g/cm3 and the density of silicon is 2.33 g/cm3, which are both lower than this value and the latter implies there is a non-trivial proportion of denser elements. Also, wouldn't a maximum porosity of 42% indicate a much higher density for the solid parts?
I reworked the sentence with information from a new source. Wronkiew (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
SVG is the native format for this diagram. It could be converted to JPEG, but it would lose some information. The ID 202562313 is the time stamp for the image, which you can search for in the database with the start and end time fields. Wronkiew (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
See below for comments regarding the format. I am still rather confused on how to obtain the image. The PDS brings up a field of checkboxes, tabs, and fields. I keyed the ID in the OBSERVATION_ID and clicked on SUBMIT, but the next screen stated the image cannot be found. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to enter the ID in both the Min and Max fields of SPACECRAFT_CLOCK_START_COUNT. The database does not allow direct links to the images. Wronkiew (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Same as above. Neither of these images have a particularly large file size. Wronkiew (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That does not quite answer the question. Inproper format comes into play here. SVGs are containers of vectors; they are scripts of lines (text), not data. The two images are not rendered in terms of vectors; rather, their bitmaps are pasted in the scripts as arrays of raw data, which would not benefit from the scaling that vectors give and may result in larger file sizes than JPGs. No benefit is derived from them as SVGs. I have constructed File:Fingal on 243 Ida.jpg from the large image. Is this acceptable (as inserted in the article)? Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer that the SVG version be placed in the article. The Fingal image in particular contains a rather high-resolution overview which is lost in the JPEG version. The SVG version is also not much larger than the file sizes of its included images. The overview image by itself, in JPEG format, takes up 238 KB. The SVG is 245 KB. A rasterization of this diagram at full resolution in JPEG format would take many times that amount. In my view, this is an entirely appropriate use of the SVG format, and, on top of that, it's in an editable format, so labels and other elements can be added later with no loss in quality. As for WP:IUP, it says diagrams should be in SVG format, while photos should be in JPEG format. We obviously disagree over whether these images are diagrams or photos, but, in any case, these recommendations are subject to common sense. There is no reason to degrade the quality of these images as displayed in the article just to follow the policy. Wronkiew (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I still fail to see the purpose of it stuffed in SVGs. The "rather high-resolution overview" is of no use; no one would get to see its full resolution unless they open it in an SVG editor and zoomed in. The overview is simply a reduced size File:243_Ida_large.jpg with an orange box to denote the zoomed in area. There is no degradation of image quality as far as I am concerned. It also does not answer why the above image (Ejecta) is in SVG; it has no high resolution texture stuffed in it. Diagrams, as definitions go, are plans, sketches, drawings, or outlines. While I do not disagree that this definition could be narrow in the sense that marked photos serve pretty well as illustrated guides, there could be reasons why such wording is used. SVGs are advocated for diagrams, mainly (in my opinion) because text and fine lines will not be lost when rescaled; I doubt it is to stuff high resolution textures into small size images. Jappalang (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I posted a comparison of the two images at 800x800 on the talk page. 320x320 is just the preview resolution for the SVG. Wronkiew (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:IUP would ask for the two above images to be JPGs. All other images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Support — I'm not at all familiar with asteroids or space objects, but this article was written well enough and included enough information for me to understand the subject and grasp its significance. Nice work by everyone who contributed. I've got just one criticism — commas aren't being used correctly in spots throughout the article. In the last sentence of the first paragraph: "It was the second asteroid to be visited by a spacecraft, and the first found to possess a satellite.", you shouldn't use the comma before "and". This is because the second clause — "the first found to possess a satellite" — can't stand alone as a sentence. If you'd said "It was the second asteroid to be visited by a spacecraft, and it was the first found to possess a satellite.", the comma would be needed. But since the subject isn't restated, you shouldn't use a comma before the conjunction. I found a handful of examples of this throughout the article. But as I said, this is a minor thing and doesn't affect the ability of a reader to understand the article. Nice work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Support some minor prose-flow issues but tricky to reword. No deal-breakers left. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article has been significantly improved to the point where it meets the FA Criteria. I first found the article as this in the beginning of March. I've worked on it since then, with the assistance of several editors, such as Bibliomaniac15, Awadewit, and Laser brain; the latter two even quite graciously copyedited the article. The work done by Titoxd, CryptoDerk, and Jesse0986 were before my time; they possibly could have been major contributors and are free to add their names to the nomination.
Just to give a bit of background for those who are unaware: The United States Academic Decathlon is one of the premier academic competitions in the United States for high school students. Since the early 1980s, it has held annual competitions that start at regional levels and culminate with a national championship in April. For those who like to counter one area of Wikipedia's biases in coverage: USAD falls under WikiProject Education's scope, an area that has only about 35 featured articles. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 04:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper (I noticed Current ref 97 (PHS...) but there may be others)
I fixed that one and looked through the rest, and I think they are good. Thanks for noticing that. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
One concern is going to be the large number of references that go to the organization itself. I'm not saying this in necessarily bad, but it can be a concern to reviewers. I'm merely noting the fact for other reviewers to consider for themselves.
I remember thinking that myself, but unfortunately, I have pretty much exhausted every source I could find. I went through some of the newspaper and magazine archives I have access to (Gale, mostly) and Bibliomaniac did as well (Newsbank), and we are essentially tapped out. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the material that is sourced to the organization (such as structure of the tournament and scoring) is uncontroversial). The controversial material, such as the cheating scandals or the criticisms of the changes in the competition, are sourced to external sources, such as newspapers. This seems to fall in line with our policy. Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support (Disclaimer: I reviewed and copyedited this article. I also briefly participated in AD way back when I was in HS.) This article is comprehensive and well-written - it coherently explains the competition without going into excessive detail. As I mention above, I think its use of sources abides by our reliable source policy. Nice work. Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review - All of the free images in this article have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. The image of the medals, a fair use image, is one of those that I would say reasonable people could disagree about. Personally, I think it meets WP:NFCC, but I think other reviewers should weigh in on it. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - I was impressed with the overall quality of this article. Here is a list of tweaks that could be made throughout the page; note that I don't normally make it through an article of this size in one shot.
History: "In 1981, the nationwide United States Academic Decathlon Association was formed, which held...". The "which" is awkward in this position, since it should be for the association, not "formed". Tweaking the sentence structure should be enough to fix this issue.
Changed in "In 1981, the newly-formed United States Academic Decathlon Association held the first national competition..."
"as the the material was a persuasive essay...". Grammar error.
Huh, I'm surprised AWB missed this. Fixed.
Later in this paragraph, move ref 27 outside the parentheses.
Done.
Levels of competition: "but these are largely for practice and do not determine whether a team can compete at the regional level which uses Round 2 tests." Comma before "which".
Done.
"participated in the the national competition." This is the second time a repeated "the" has shown up.
Hmm, it isn't on mine. Can you tell me what size monitor you are using? I'll see if I can change to that and reformat it.
I'm on a large widescreen (don't know the exact size, but you'd be happy to edit the encyclopedia on it:-)), and the table is pushing three edit tabs to the left. To be honest, I don't know if the problem can be resolved without taking the table out of that section. Note that I'm talking about the yearly table, not the percentage breakdown; that table is fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, that happens to me on mine as well. From the way the sections are set up, I don't think it is possible to fix without changing the structure of the article drastically. Honestly, since it doesn't make the edit links merge into each other on any resolution that I tried, I don't think it is a big deal. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's a simple matter of changing the CSS you used. I'll see what I can do. - Yohhanstalk 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the weird spacing issue, but if viewed on screens with resolutions of 1920x1080 or 1900x1200, bunching is caused by the "Book of the Dead of Nany" picture. This can easily be fixed by floating either the picture or table to the left (one or the other). Any preference on which to do? Another possible fix is shortening the caption for that picture, but that is more of a band-aid than a fix. - Yohhanstalk 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yay, you are back:) I moved the image to the left and shortened the description somewhat, but that still did not fix the problem. I then added {{clear}}, which fixed the problem, but made it look kind of odd. Can you check that out, please? NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What problem were you having with it before you added the clear template? Removing it makes everything work fine for me. Yohhanstalk 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Without {{clear}}, the "Objective Events" header gets bumped left over a little. I think it looks better if all the subheadings are in the same column, so I felt that clearing it and adding a tiny bit more lines wouldn't affect it that much. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ah, I take it you're looking at this in 1280x1024 resolution. At a higher resolution (e.g. 1680x1050), there's a rather large gap of white space when using {{clear}}. How about this... Why not just move the table to below the Themes and topics subheading; make it centered and 80% width? Either that or remove the clear div and put up with slightly misaligned headings? I've taken the liberty of changing the layout to what I think is a decent solution. Feel free to revert; a little white space never hurt anyone. However, another idea is to remove it entirely... I mean, if a person really wants that information, they can just click through to the main topics article. *shrugs* Just a thought. - Yohhanstalk 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Scratch that. That looks amazingly ugly. My personal opinion is that removing {{clear}} is the best option. But, then again, a little white space never hurt anyone. - Yohhanstalk 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Scoring and winning: Take the en dash out of "near-perfect" and just use a regular hyphen.
Dashes confuse me. Fixed.
Controversies: "Three days before the 1995 Illinois state competition, Steinmetz obtained copies of the tests from the DeVry Institute of Technology where the state finals were being held." Comma before "where".
Done.
Virtual competition: Comma for 1300.
Done.
"Despite it being a virtual competition". The word "being" is somewhat awkward here. How about tryinig something like "Although it is a virtual competition"?
Changed to "Although it is only a virtual competition,"
After these are done, I plan on supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I got all of these except for the one dealing with edit bunching, to which I left a followup. Thanks for your review. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Table is still forcing one edit button to the left, but that seems to be unavoidable due to the size of the table. Despite that, it's one of the best articles I've reviewed so far this year. It has clearly been written by someone with a passion for the subject, and it definitely looks comprehensive. Also seems pretty well-sourced; although there are a lot of primary sources, nothing looks overly contentious. All in all, fantastic work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, I worked through this prior to being posted at FAC. I was already quite good, with due credit to everyone that worked on it before me. I think it's ready. --Laser brain(talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This must have been linked relatively recently, as it wasn't there at the start of the nomination. I have disambiguated the link. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This is another article about one of eight sister ships built for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company in the 1910s. This ship served as a transport for the US Navy in World War I and was scuttled off one of the Normandy beaches as a breakwater during World War II. The article underwent a peer review and passed a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
images All licences are free, however I would have concerns regarding the frequency of flag use in the infobox, why are these used in preference to stating the country per MOS? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
For ship infoboxes, a consensus method of identifying the registry of a non-military ship is by display of the civil ensign of the country of registry (through the use of {{flagicon}}). For military vessels, the larger flag in the header bar is the consensus method for identifying the navy for which the ship operated. (Unlike many other countries, the national and civil ensigns of the United States are identical to the national flag, which may make it appear redundant.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment In the introduction" she reverted to her original name of Pennsylvanian. This makes it sound like the ship changed its own name, but it may be that it's supposed to be this way. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see how one might easily interpret the sentence that way, so I've reworded to make clear that American-Hawaiian (and not the ship!) instigated the name change. Thank you for you comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the NavSource citation with the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships citation and another page from the Naval History & Heritage Command (formerly the Naval Historical Center) website. (As an aside, the information at NavSource is reliable—from my personal experience—even if it may not necessarily fulfill the requirements to be considered a "reliable source".) Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Support This is an excellent article which meets the FA criteria. The level of detail is remarkable and the article is a good read and well illustrated. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. Excellent article which meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Fine article, in keeping with its sisters. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The latest step in my evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not an actionable oppose per the featured article criteria. There is no requirement for citations in an article's lead, as it is just a summary of the article's content. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If anything, no lead cites would be a plus, since it shows that the lead is a proper summary of the article. Wizardman 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Her mother, Miriam, died late in the summer of 1978, two weeks before the move to California - before the move is informal. Suggest re-wording of sentence.
She won the part, and later worked with Hunt on several other projects - Replace won, also informal.
More later, those were my initial nitpicks. Ceranllama chat post 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I delinked American. See WP:OVERLINK about linking common geographical terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - Nitpicks have been brought up by Karanacs, and have, for the most most part, been resolved. Ceranllama chat post 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Image reviewFile:The Simpsons star.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person, so we cannot be sure that the author has actually released the rights. Can you contact them and ask them to leave a note on the image description page and sign it? Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason is that the uploader decided to be a dick and made me upload a new file and relink to it rather than just let me straighten the image. This is the original file. -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting on the note. Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the original image to the "other versions" field. Does that work? -- Scorpion0422 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The uploader and author of the original image aren't the same, either. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's because the uploader uploaded it under an impossibly long name, so I asked an admin if they could move it to a shorter one. -- Scorpion0422 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please ask the author of the image to leave a signed note at the image description page saying that they release the image under the specified license. We cannot assume that the author released anything at this point, since the uploader is different. (It does not matter why this disconnect has occurred - we have to find a way to rectify it.) Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll ask, but I don't know how well it will go over. Just to make things go quicker, should I replace it with a different image (like this one) for now? -- Scorpion0422 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The replacement would be fine, but I encourage you to ask the author of the other one to leave a note. That way, the image can be used without problems in other articles. Awadewit (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to suggest that the editors add a fair use clip of Cartwright's Bart voice. She is famous for that voice, after all, and a brief clip would be a good addition, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added this myself. Please let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That works, thank you. I have no idea how to do things like that and I was going to ask someone, but I kept forgetting. -- Scorpion0422 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Leaning toward support. I thought the article as a whole was pretty well-written and interesting. A few things that need to be addressed:
Quotations should have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means that the cite is duplicated in subsequent sentences.
I added in a few extra citations. Did I miss any?
I'm a little confused at the chronology in the Personal life section. It says that she married her husband in 1988 but then says she join the church of Scientology in 1989 while looking for a relationship
I agree that that part is confusing, but it's what the sources say. There are multiple sources that say she got married in 1988 and multiple sources that say she joined in 1989. The article is a direct interview and it's on newsbank if you want to try finding it. My guess is that she was just affiliated with the church for several years before finally becoming a full member in '89.
It might be possible to get rid of the apparent inconsistency of her marrying in 1988 and seemingly looking for a husband in 1989. In she says, talking about why she became a Scientologist, "I was rapidly approaching 30 and I wanted to get married and have kids. I thought that maybe I could find a relationship by going to a church." Her birth date is October 1957, as per our article, so if she was "rapidly approaching 30" she must have started going to Scientology churches before October 1987. We could drop the confusing 1989 reference, along those lines: 'Cartwright was raised a Roman Catholic[67]. A Scientologist today, she became involved with the Church of Scientology in her late twenties, depressed that she did not have a "committed relationship", wanting to get married and have children. She thought ...' Some such wording would avoid the apparent contradiction. Jayen466 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a whole paragraph on the Scientology phone call from earlier this year is overkill. That's more text than is devoted to some pieces of her career. Can this be shortened to, say, two sentences?
Well, it did generate more media attention than a lot of the rest of her career. I've trimmed a few sentences out of it, is it better now?
Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the paragraph on the phone call is still much too detailed. I understand that it got a lot of press, but in the long run, how important is this actually? The article admits that it was blown way out of proportion. If it's really not that important an event in her career, then it shouldn't warrant such a lot of text in the article. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed a few more sentences out. Is there anything specific in that bit that you think could be removed? -- Scorpion0422 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It can be trimmed further without losing any of the intended meaning. The quote is probably unnecessary; we already have the description of it as an introduction, so it could instead read: "She introduced the message in Bart's voice, before using her normal voice in most of the rest of the message." The second part that could be cut is: "In a 2000 interview with The Oregonian..." We don't need to know this; the paper is a reliable source, so we don't need that level of attribution; instead the sentence can open with: "Cartwright explained..." SteveT • C 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it needs to be mentioned that the interview is from 2000, and not a response to the controversy. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Prose is passable, from a quick look through. Here are a few random points. There are surely many others. An unfamiliar copy-editor would find them more easily.
Overlinked, at least at the opening. Infobox: Many US writers would prefer "United States" rather than "you dot es dot". I agree when it's right at the top, first time. Shouldn't be linked, I think. The days of linking words such as "film", "television" and "actor" are over. (Can these items not have capitalised initials in the infobox?). "Voice artist" I've left linked, and now it's not crowded out by the low-value ones in that sentence; but then it's linked again a few seconds later, this time piped to "voice actor", an irritation if a reader clicks on both expecting different destinations. Choose one to link. Why is "Database" piped to "List of recurring characters in the Simpsons"? Can you make it more explicit, or link instead in the "See also" section, where there's space to elucidate?
In terms of the overlinking, those were likely added by someone else as I usually avoid linking common terms. As for Database, the link goes to his section at the recurring page. The character does not have an individual page, so the section has to do.
"the series' creator"—I'd drop the apostrophe. "allowed her to audition for Bart, and offered her the role on the spot"—smoother without the comma?
Done.
half-hour show
Fixed.
Start of first section: by now, "Dayton, Ohio" has been linked three times. Are you a fan of this location?
Removed, but Dayton isn't really a well-known city, so I figured the links didn't hurt.
"Cartwright described Butler as "absolutely amazing, always encouraging, [and] always polite"." You might consider not inserting the square-bracketed "and"—kind of nice rhythm without.
Done.
"to do voice work" ... English can be a dull thud, can't it.
"easy to perform compared to other characters"—the repetition can be avoided by "with other", and some would prefer this when contrasting.
Done.
I don't particularly like the staccato quotation technique in such parts as "The Simpsons". No big deal, though, but if you can paraphrase a few to break down the density, all the better. "freaks [them] out" sticks out because it's very informal, and requires the insertion—that's a candidate for a more formal wording to paraphrase; look for others too? Tony(talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Conditional support This article appears comprehensive and is well-written. I will fully support once the image issue is resolved. I would also suggest adding a sentence back to the Scientology phone call paragraph. The reader ends up with Groening's comment that the issue had been "blown up beyond what was intended" but there is no description of the press coverage that would necessitate him making this comment. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the Scientology paragraph needs this additional sentence. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Support prose, comprehensiveness and balance are about right. Be nice to sort out the image as per Awadewit, these things can be frustrating. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Question Has anyone tried to track down the sources listed under Cartwright's entry here? They may be helpful in resolving the apparent contradiction between the fact that she joined Scientology in 1989 looking for a husband, but actually got married in 1988. Zagalejo^^^ 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
FAC#3 - Is a piece of non free content in which 80% of which is dedicated to covering another actor justified under NFCC? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We need context for the quote. Please note that this audio clip is 26 seconds of an episode which is about 20 minutes long. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
My concern is not context it is NFCC, why is the quote needed at all, if that can be justified then context can be considered. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, she is a voice actress and Bart is her most famous voice, so I think an example of her voice is beneficial. The clip shows her range and includes "eat my shorts", which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. All of this is explained in the fair use rationale: "To provide the reader a demonstration of Cartwright's voicing of Bart Simpson, the character she is best known for, since her performance cannot be described using words alone. Cartwright was responsible for introducing Bart's catchphrase, "Eat my shorts", as she felt it was appropriate for the character." Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
oppose - FAC#3, I cant see this clip passing nfcc#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain your oppose - why doesn't it meet #8? (To be clear, I feel that it does meet #8 since Cartwright is famous specifically for her voice, so having a recording is essential in my opinion. Her voice cannot be described in words.) Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support after some MoS fixes. I can't believe I never noticed she played Ethel in Twilight Zone: The Movie. "It's time for you to go away now, Ethel..." Creepy. --Laser brain(talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Given this is promotion/archiving day, I'm going to go on a limb and support its promotion. It still needs a very minor copyedit in places, which I'm in the middle of (feel free to disagree with any of my choices), but should this be promoted (or "failed") before I'm done (at some point this evening), I'll still finish that off. Nice work, SteveT • C 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Excellent article, one that Cartwright herself should be pleased with. Not to suggest that it favors her, but it appears to be quite comprehensive. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because, after passing GA and receiving a very helpful peer review, I believe that it fulfills the featured article criteria. Even if I'm wrong about that, I have done a lot of work on the article and I am eager to keep improving it. Ricardiana (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Note. User Fasach Nua has just placed a tag on this article for possibly excessive image use. I would just like to note that the use of these images was discussed at some length in the peer review. I believe that this tag is unnecessary, but I don't wish to remove it peremptorily, so I would welcome input. Ricardiana (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the tag as I believe it is unnecessary. Each non-free image has a very detailed fair use rationale that meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Support: This article underwent a very thorough peer review, and in this process developed from being a generally good article to an excellent one. Many issues were discussed and resolved, and I have no hesitation in saying it now meets all the FA criteria. There is evidently one dablink that needs fixing, by the way.
I have tried to fix this link - I believe it is fixed, but for some reason it keeps showing up on the list of disambiguated links. The only occurrence of "hybrid" that is linked is in the lead; I changed this to "hybrid electric vehicle|hybrid" and then just to "hybrid electric vehicle," but for some reason it keeps showing up. Maybe somebody can see what I'm doing wrong? Ricardiana (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The troublesome link was in the Cultural impact section, not the lead. I've fixed it now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Agh, how did I miss that? - that was stupid of me. Never mind - thank you very much, Brianboulton. Ricardiana (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
On images, this was a major area of discussion at PR. My belief is that the images now in the article under FU rationales all significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject. During her long fictitious lifetime Nancy had many makeovers, which are well-described in the text, but the effect is much enhanced through having visual evidence of how these chages were presented. Although fve non-free images is a lot in one article, I think that they are all justifiied in this case. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The images only represent one individual's interpretation of the the makeovers, and as to whether one anons interpretation in significant (#8) is questionable. They can be easily described as text (#1) as you have admitted, minimal use seems to have gone out the window, this is not plausible as a FAC and would recommend recommend a more appropriate forum would be Wikipedia:GARFasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not the case - please read the article and the fair use rationales. They cite Nancy Drew scholarship. If you are going to dispute the images, please explain which one and why in detail. Thanks. (GAR is completely inappropriate when your only complaint is the images, by the way.) Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fasach Nua, you are incorrect. The article does not rely on "one individual's interpretation" and the sources are not from "anons" as you suggest. I cite both Jennifer Stowe and Karen Plunkett-Powell. As Awadewit points out, please explain which images you find objectionable and why. Ricardiana (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few other commentaries on the web or book reviews/articles that have commented on the covers, such as MSNBC and Library of Maryland University, so I do believe illustrating the notable portrayals can be warranted. However, as far as I can tell, there are only three notable artists for this series: Tandy, Gillies, and Nappi. Each artist's style should be represented only once to avoid undue weightage or excessive use of copyrighted images. It would be best to identify the artist in the FUR, even though Simon and Schuster owns the copyrights now. To qualify for fair use, the FURs should focus on the styles identified with the artists, and more on the atmosphere associated with the drawing and aspects of the age of the protagonist if it qualifies. As such:
File:Origndths.jpg is fine in this aspect
File:Secondndths.jpg too is okay
File:Ndtsmitpbkcvr.jpg falls short of the mark. "Passive" and "blank, lost in thought" might be easily conceived. Is there other critical aspect of Nappi's art that can be expressed with this or other covers? Would "bobby-soxer ... a contemporary sixteen-year-old. This Nancy was perky, clean-cut, and extremely animated" be a better concept to illustrate with a cover?
Of other covers (I presume these are by unknown artists?)
File:Ndharh.jpg: the covers should be talked of in the main text. This image does not seem to be talked about. The caption is a separate entity and, in my opinion, not of great weightage (significance) to claim for fair use. This cover might not be a good choice for the purpose stated. While skimpiness is displayed, Drew's sight is not particularly directed at the "hunk"... She is looking at the reader (if she is eying the guy, her eyeballs would be at the edge of her eyes). Side note on the caption: why should the young man investigate a clue rather than ogle a nubile young girl?
File:Ndtcotvv.jpg is a bit of the same; the FUR's text description (breathless, frenetic energy, hunted) is quite descriptive on its own. The cover does not seem to convey the same impact. Here she just looks startled by someone who shouted behind her or tapped her shoulder...
Other points
Should the identifying image not be Tandy's cover, the first publication? Why not use the latest icon for the series, if any (as far as I understand it, Tandy created a silhouette detective, and Gillies updated it with a coloured bust shot)?
Why are File:ND1tsotoc.JPG and File:Ndtcotvv.jpg enlarged in size? Undoubtably, the blown up images are of low resolution, but I do not see why one should be exposed to jaggies and mosaics...
File:ND1tsotoc.JPG and File:Secondndths.jpg are both Gillies' work. Only one is needed.
In short, my opinion is to keep Tandy's and Gillies' covers that are in the text for commentaries, look for another better cover to illustrate Nappi's portrayal, eliminate or re-evaluate the FUR for the anonymous covers, take away Gillies's The Secret of the Old Clock cover and replace it with an icon identified with the series. Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Ndtsmitpbkcvr.jpg illustrates a concept, passivity, whose easy conception is I think a matter of opinion. Illustrating a different Nappi cover could work, except that Stowe's overarching thesis as laid out in the beginning of the section is that Nancy is portrayed as increasingly less active. Showing an earlier Nappi cover of a perky Nancy would not, I believe, adequately illustrate Stowe's point.
Further, this cover is one of those that Stowe herself uses, which was my original reason for choosing it. See Stowe (1999), 35. Ricardiana (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Ndharh.jpgis talked about in the main text, under the section "Evolution of character," sub-section "1980–2003." Yes, the artist is unknown. Regarding the caption: the grammatical subject here is Nancy Drew, not the young man and the point of the caption is that Nancy is here shown in relation to a man rather than, as before, in relation to a clue. I will change the wording to avoid implying anything about the position of her eyes.
File:Ndtcotvv.jpg The more relevant text here, as given in the FUR, is not the part about "frenetic energy" but "Nancy does not have any control over the events that are happening in these covers. She is shown to be a victim, being hunted and attacked by unseen foes.' Nancy is also sometimes pursued by a visibly threatening foe, as on the cover of The Case of the Vanishing Veil.""
As explained in the FUR, the identifying image is used because this particular cover is the single most disseminated pictorial depiction of the character. The MSNBC source that you linked refers to this picture specically and calls it "prototypical." It is the image used on the new "Girl Detective" series covers and it is the image of the best-selling Drew book. Other silhouettes or images are not as widely-disseminated as this one.
The cover of "The Secret of the Old Clock" shown in the article is by Rudy Nappi, not Bill Gillies. As such, of the five covers, only one artist's work is repeated: Rudy Nappi. As the ND illustrator with the longest tenure, Nappi was in the unusual position of sometimes updating his own covers from one decade to another; any representation of ND's visual portrayal that only gave one Nappi cover would therefore have a bit of a gap in it. The two covers chosen are: 1, the cover of the most widely-disseminated version of the single best-selling ND volume whose image is more widely-disseminated than any other image, symbol, or icon, and 2, a later cover in Nappi's later style to fairly represent the argument of the source being cited. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Not every portrayal of Drew is required to be illustrated, even if notable. If the identifying image is by Nappi, then I do not really see a need for another Nappi image, especially one that is showing "passiveness" (doing nothing), which does not require imagery. Notable copyrighted images might still fail free use because they are used to portray something that is adequately described by words alone. Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not illustrating every portrayal of Drew - as one glaring example, I have left out any illustration of the current incarnation of ND in the "Girl Detective" series, although I do, of course, mention it in the article. The Nappi image used in the section on ND's visual portrayal is, I believe, necessary in that it is typical of a trend of moving away from active/confident portrayals to passive, fearful ones, and I might note that Awadewit and Brianboulton seem to agree. Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Would this Master's dissertation qualify as a reliable source for analysis on Drew's portrayals? If not, surely the sources it used are reliable enough to boost the critical analysis in this article, right? Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The thesis is by Jennifer Stowe and is cited repeatedly in the article as the most sustained and substantive discussion of Nancy Drew's visual portrayal. As it is already cited numerous times, and nothing more substantive is available, I'm not sure that I can "boost" things more without engaging in original research. Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I failed to spot the author. Since Fasach Nua's opposition is based on the singular source of image critical analysis, perhaps as I suggested, you can find the books Stowe researched from and find further commentary that she chose to leave out in her thesis? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have already looked into this. Stowe's sources are very general ones and none of them mention Drew. Also, Fasach Nua is wrong that I am relying on only one source; the section on ND's physical depiction relies primarily on two sources, the afore-mentioned Stowe and Karen Plunkett-Powell's Nancy Drew Scrapbook.Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered Cheryl Homme's Storybook culture? Although I am uncertain how much academic or scholarship weightage Collectors Press has. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with the work. I will take another look, but in my recollection this is mostly a coffee-table book filled with glossy photos and little to no commentary. Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As I recalled, this is a coffee-table book of little substance. The few half-pages devoted to Drew discuss how Tandy portrays Nancy as a fashionable young adult and how Gillies and Nappi portray her as a teenager. This information, such as it is, is already in the article. Ricardiana (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate that I think the FURs represent Nancy Drew scholarship (something very few FURs do, by the way) as well as the way that most introductory lectures on ND explain the physical evolution of the character. I have given a fair number of these lectures in my time and I actually use most of these book covers (particular covers have become iconic). I think that we are introducing new standards in this FAC. Since when do we require multiple scholarly sources in a FUR? Awadewit (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I am not talking about FURs. Fasach Nua said, "The images only represent one individual's interpretation of the the makeovers, and as to whether one anons interpretation in significant (#8) is questionable.", which I take to mean that he find the opinion of a single person (of perhaps unknown reputation) to be of little weight to support several copyrighted images. In other words, if we find other reviews/analysis of the cover art from several other reliable sources and integrate them into the article, each art style of Drew is expounded on in greater detail (increasing comprehensiveness and probably the chance that there is some metaphysical quality a reviewer might be attributing to the image that would require imagery for clarity), thus increasing the significance of an image to support the commentary. Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read the article. The article cites more than one source re: ND's physical depiction and no sources are "anonymous." This is 100% factually incorrect. Further, there are no other sources to cite. You have dredged up as a suggestion for "further sources" the very source that I in fact cite, multiple times, in the article; when that was pointed out you dredged up a coffee-table book wholly lacking the analysis you feel this article lacks. You do not appear to have read the article closely, as evidenced by such statements as "File:Ndharh.jpg: the covers should be talked of in the main text. This image does not seem to be talked about" when in fact it is talked about, and you are applying standards which are subjective and in the application of which you are in the minority. Until I hear better rationales than those you have offered, and a demonstrated familiarity with the actual text of the article and the citations therein, I will not be removing this image. If you would like to express your opinion in the form of a formal "oppose" vote, please do so. If the article fails FA on this ground, so be it. I stand by my use of sources, and my rationales for the images. Ricardiana (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Fasach's views are not mine. Yes, I know you have already stated that you used mostly comments from two sources—"the section on ND's physical depiction relies primarily on two sources", but I am pointing out his opinion to offer ways for you to overcome his oppose. The only ideas of mine on the article I have given so far are what I thought of the non-free images, which if you do read them, talked nothing about the "insignificance of a singular reviewer". I feel addressing what I think are the issues with the copyrighted images might help resolve Fasach Nua's issues as well (since doing so either removes images or increases their FURs in some way or the other). Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I see; well, my apologies for misconstruing your comments. I guess I got a little hot under the collar there; I apologize. However, I'm not sure if Fasach's opinion can be addressed, as it is so briefly expressed that I don't have much to go on. Yes, adding sources would indeed be helpful, but regrettably there really are no others. I have searched library databases country-wide, done inter-library loans, searched article databases such as MLA, ProjectMuse, JStor, LexisNexis, and Gerritson; I have searched using a number of different keywords through Google Books and regular Google; I'm just coming up dry here. You seem to be okay with all the images except for the cover to "The Strange Message in the Parchment" - I added more from Stowe on this cover specifically. I can't think of anything else to do except to perhaps leave a message at Fasach's talk page and reiterate the request for him or her to elaborate on their objections. Again, I apologize for getting snippy; I see now what you're trying to do and I appreciate your help. Mea culpa.... Ricardiana (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Support This is an excellent article. It is comprehensive and well-researched (being familiar with Nancy Drew scholarship, I know that it represents the major scholarly points of view on the topic). It is also well-written and well-illustrated. To properly show the changes in how Nancy Drew has been illustrated over time, it is necessary to have the five non-free images in the article. I believe that the non-free rationales explain in detail why each image is necessary. I hope to see more such articles from Ricardiana! Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Support The article is remarkably comprehensive. The rationale for fair use seems clear to me: each image represents a distinct phase in the evolution of Nancy Drew's appearance, and the characteristics of that evolution are cited to reliable sources. To leave any one of the pictures out would impede the reader's understanding of the different phases. I just have one other comment: check to make sure that the use of quotation marks complies with Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks; for instance, "Nancy Drew and Daughter." should be "Nancy Drew and Daughter". I would also replace the curly marks “”‘’ with straight ones ""''.Lesgles (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Lesgles, for spotting the quotation marks - I thought I had caught all of those but obviously I was wrong. I'll get to work on that ASAP, thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I've fixed them all now. Ricardiana (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I caught a few stragglers; looks good now. Lesgles (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Like Awadewit, I agree that this is an incredible article, and that Ricardiana seems to have quite a future in this field. Please keep it up, we could use more 20th century literature articles. Ceranthor 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - (a) I agree with Ceranthor above; go to The Sword of Shannara next?;) (b) I thought that block quotations had to be led into with a colon or the end of a sentence, as continuing a sentence
Is that a comment or a formal "oppose" vote? Also, what do you suggest needs to be done to make the article more "cohesive"? Ricardiana (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Never mind -- my bad/stupid. Yes, that's a rule often taught; I don't know, however, that it's required by any style manual. I'll look over the blockquotations and see if any can be better segued into. Ricardiana (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I just took a look at all the block quotations and as far as I can see most of them are led into with a colon. Those that aren't are led into as part of a sentence, which is how my graduate school profs have told me to do it and also, according to them, what literary journals expect. Ricardiana (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
The Lapin ref is lacking a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed the news sources.
The Lapin piece was originally published in Books at Iowa and is, along with a number of other pieces by Lapin, indexed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. I have edited the entry to reflect the origin of the essay.
The Literarture source is the only source for this info. It's not terribly important and can be removed from the article if others agree.
The last three sources you mention are web sites written, respectively, by Sharon Reid Harris, Lea Shangraw Fox, and Jennifer White. They do not have publishers, beyond perhaps the web host. Shangraw Fox's web site is the premier source of info on international publications of Nancy Drew books; more "reliable" sources, such as the essay on the French translations of ND recently published in Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths (2008) has little info compared to what Shangraw Fox has. Also, I'll have to get the book and check, but I think that that essay even cites Shangraw Fox. As for Reid Harris and White, their sites are used primarily because there's a severe dearth of info on the ND Files, and Reid Harris and White are nearly the only sources that talk about them; the previous-to-me version of this article acted as if the only ND books were the first 56 hardcovers (see talk page, for example), and I was trying to change that. While not the most scholarly sources, they provide needed info, and I'm not willing to ditch them just to get a little bronze star on my userpage. Ricardiana (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the last three sources is that they need to satisfy WP:SPS, our guidelines on Self-published sources. 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 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, I'll do my best to dig up some info to help establish the reliability of these sources, or replace them. Re: Shangraw Fox, she is mentioned and cited on Jennifer Fisher's Nancy Drew Sleuths website (Fisher has a book deal in the works); she has spoken at Nancy Drew conventions; and she is cited in an article published in the Los Angeles Times available at http://articles.latimes.com/2002/may/31/news/lv-nancydrew31. I'll look into the others momentarily. Ricardiana (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to get shot for this, but strongly suggest you contact Awadewit for some help with those sites, she's much more clued into literature and author type stuff than I am. (My interest in authors ends (unless it's science fiction) sometime before Thomas Aquinas) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. I'll impose on her good will one more time and post a message on her talk page. In the meantime, my info on Reid Harris is that she presented at the 2005 Nancy Drew Conference, along with such published ND scholars as Melanie Rehak, Geoffrey Lapin, James Keeline, and Leslie McFarlane (Hardy Boys author) biographer Marilyn Greenwald. The conference program is available at Jenn Fisher's website here: http://www.nancydrewsleuth.com/nancydrew75conference.htmlRicardiana (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: White, I've removed those citations and was able to replace one with an article published in The Lion and the Unicorn.Ricardiana (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Reid Harris - I'm unpersuaded by the Nancy Drew conference, since that is not academic. Perhaps she presented at ChLA as well? Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Fine; in that case I will remove the references to her site and work with what I can say without needing a source, as there's really not much out there on the Files. Ricardiana (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
White: Replaced by Lion and the Unicorn - preeminent children's lit journal Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Fox: website cited by the LA Times - meets WP:SPS (barely); if it is true that the recently published essay mentioned above cites this website and Fox, I would feel much better about including this reference Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The essay I mentioned, on the French Nancy Drews, does indeed cite Shangraw Fox. I just came from upstairs and I forget the page number - 62 or 72. But it's there. Ricardiana (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So, bottom line: a)replaced White with journal article; b) replaced Reid Harris with newspaper article; c) Shangraw Fox is cited in both books and newspaper articles. Ricardiana (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments. A few questions and remarks occur to me:
The character's visual portrayal has also evolved over time, from a fearless, active young woman to a fearful or passive one. This wasn't clear to me in the lead, because I thought "visual portrayal" referred to the descriptions of the character in the books. As I read the article, I realised that it referred to illustrations of the character by artists. Unless it's just me, it could need clarifying.
I see what you mean, but right now I can't think of another way to phrase it. I'll keep thinking about it - in the meantime, do you have any suggestions?
I dunno ... Illustrations of the character have also evolved over time, from a fearless, active young woman to a fearful or passive one.? qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, thank you for all the edits you made to make the article more concise. I was surprised at how much verbiage there was ... you really made the article much better. I especially like the "more mot-justeish" edit - are you a Wodehouse fan, by any chance? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, once you've read six or seven you've read the lot (I've read about fifteen), but yes. Actually, it strikes me that this character of the resourceful, natty young woman, independent of her parents, is familiar from Wodehouse, too. qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, early Nancy has the uber-confidence of a Bobbie Wickham, without the heartlessness. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The very character I was thinking of! qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On the illustrations, the article goes into great detail, perhaps rather out of proportion to the mentions of Nancy's physical appearance and dress as it evolved over the years in the actual writing. Are the covers a precise response to the descriptions in the books?
Hmm. Well, Tandy read all the books, so yes there. I don't know about Gillies; Nappi's wife read the books and told the plot to her husband. I believe I mentioned both those things in the article. Later on, though, I don't think there's much relation between the covers and the books in terms of portraying plot. In any case, no source talks about the later covers in those terms. If you're saying that the character's visual portrayal is not necessarily relevant, I would argue that it is and that the covers, tied to the texts or not, influence reader's perceptions. I have some websites that talk about this, but they're not technically reliable sources - just blogs and stuff. But readers are influenced by these covers. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's very relevant. I just felt the textual information about her appearance was limited in proportion. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the textual discussion of her appearance is very formulaic and brief. It generally goes something like this, usually on page 1, chapter 1: Nancy Drew, an attractive, titian-haired girl of eighteen, jammed her hands in the pockets of her scarlet jacket -- before noticing a clue. No other physical description for the rest of the book. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Smart policy. Very Maltese Falcon. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It would have helped me in my flicking back and forth from text to images if the captions gave a date for the covers.
Agreed; I'm working on this right now but it is proving surprisingly difficult to date the covers in some cases, and when I can find info it's, again, from "unreliable" sources like blogs. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have dates for all the covers except for The Secret of the Old clock. It's either 1965 or 1966, I can't determine which. I'll keep looking. Ricardiana (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The Mystery of the Covers is solved! Could use circa, if the Clock won't yield its secret. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, but I think I've confirmed the date for the last cover. I emailed one of my sources, Jennifer Fisher, who's often cited in newspaper articles as an authority on ND, and she confirms the date as 1966. Ricardiana (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I find the method of quoting at times a little offputting: an example would be the two quotes starting from "in the words of one commentator ...". The way this was put together made it seem as if both quotations were from the same commentator, but checking the notes, they were from two different ones. I don't say that every commentator needs naming in the text, but there is a certain vagueness about who says what throughout. For me, a Wikipedia text has a voice of its own—for want of a better term, an encyclopedic voice. If one quotes without distancing the voice of the quote from the voice of the text, the quotation may seem to borrow the article's voice and vice-versa, leading to fogging or ventriloquising of viewpoint. The bit from "Many find Nancy to be simply a good role model for girls ..." is particularly confusing, I think. Three quotes follow so closely on each others heels that the article's voice is lost and one doesn't know who's saying what without checking the footnotes.
I think this is a bad habit made possible by usually writing in MLA format where citation info is right there in the main text. You're right, it's not the best. I'll go over the article soon and work on this. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've gone over the article using control + F for such words as "many" and "some" and phrases like "in the words of." I could only find one instance of "in the words of" which I changed to give the name of the critic. Other instances such as you mention of references to unnamed critics are to a number of critics. See more below. Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On a connected note, there are several places in the article where we have words to the effect that "many commentators say/ agree/ argue that", followed by a quotation from only one of them. I think that unless the source specifically reports that many commentators say something, we need to give multiple sources. I think three, though not strictly "many", is usually convincing enough. So the form might be something like "many commentators believe"/quotation from source A/(in footnote) see also source B and source C. On the whole, though, I don't usually find the "many" form satisfactory or often necessary.
I thought I'd caught all those. Clearly not! Will work on this too. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As above, I searched the article for a number of phrases. I found several instances such as you're talking about and I corrected the footnotes to reflect the names of people making this or that claim. Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not being familiar with book publishing, I was unclear at certain points of the distinction between volumes and titles. Do I deduce that each book has a volume number as well as a title? Are the volumes in groups within the series? I think in places that the word "book" would be a clear word to use, where nothing more complicated is involved. By the way, I wondered if the rewrites had new volume numbers or not. I also don't know what a "book packager" is (excuse my ignorance). It sounds like it involves more than just packaging the finished books.
Well, re: book packagers, I tried to explain the process briefly in the "Creation of character" section. Essentially a book packager is a firm that produces books in assembly-line fashion - one person writes an outline, somebody else fleshes that out into a book, someone else edits it; sometimes the writer makes substantive changes and the book's edited again, by the same editor or a previous one; and then the finished "product" is handed to a publisher and produced. I think that a detailed exposition of this, though, is better left to the entry on book packaging.
OK. It's probably just not known much about here in blighty. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to your other point, yes, the books have volume numbers as well as titles. The volumes are not really in groups (except in the new Girl Detective series, which has some [crappy] storylines that span three volumes). The re-writes did not have new numbers. The link to "List of Nancy Drew books" gives details for the various series. In any case, just to be clear, you are suggesting that I use "book" instead of "volume"? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it could be mentioned early on that the books have both titles and volume numbers, then all would be clear. I was getting muddled up between volume (part of a set) and volume (form of a book), especially as "titles" was also used. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, number 1, I think that this is info that could be found if people bother to click on the links in the article, for instance to "Nancy Drew Mystery Stories" or "Girl Detective"; that is what they are there for. Further, the word "volume" is primarily synonymous with a book, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which lists the meaning you are thinking of, "A separately bound portion or division of a work", not as a second or third meaning, but as the fourth. My computer finds 23 instances of the word "volume" in the article. Do you really think that this is important enough to change 23 times in order to avoid confusion with the quaternary definition of a word? Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a phrase early on would do it, but no matter. It's probably just me—a lot of the books I own are in sets of volumes, and I think of the books from those as volumes but never use the word volume for the others. Given that the Drew books are written in series and volumes, I was probably groping for extra significance where none exists. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Was the name Carolyn Keene used right from the start? The wording on that seems to me not quite clear.
Yes; could you give an example of a sentence you think is unclear? I think that "Subsequent titles have been written by a number of different ghostwriters, all under the pseudonym Carolyn Keene" (emphasis added) makes it clear. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Stratemeyer accordingly began writing plot outlines and hired Mildred Wirt, later Mildred Wirt Benson, to ghostwrite the first volumes in the series.[25] Subsequent titles have been written by a number of different ghostwriters, all under the pseudonym Carolyn Keene. Here I wasn't clear whether these titles were subsequent to those written by Wirt. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The cooking quote about Beulah does not seem to be racist, unless by "the old-fashioned way" is meant, according to the cuisine of her race. I wonder if a stronger example can be found to support that point. If the examples are all this mild, then it might simply be enough to change "racist stereotypes" to "racial stereotypes".
Well, this is a matter of opinion. First, I used this quotation b/c Mason uses it and I didn't want to be guilty of original research. Second, I think it's pretty racist - it's all part of the plantation legend that blacks are really so much happier in their proper place. Third, yes, there are plenty of other, more obvious examples I could use; I was hesitant, however, to shove in the most egregious example I could find when another one, cited by the critic in question, seemed to me to make the point. But off the top of my head, there's the evil mammy character in the original Hidden Staircase with her "sho'nuff" style dialogue, and the part in the original Nancy's Mysterious Letter (I think) where Nancy is startled by Ned and says something like, "Goodness, you startled me! I half expected to see a colored man leering at me." Fourth -- part of Mason's point, and the other critic, whose name I don't recall at the moment, is that the revisions just eliminate mention of race, rather than portraying a non-racist diverse world, and this example worked well for that too, I thought. Thoughts? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you are quite right to use this example if it's the one you have a secondary source for. Being British, I'm probably just not attuned to the nuances here. I had to read the quote twice to grasp that the clue must be in the dishes she was cooking, some of which I've not heard of. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, here in the States this is cringe-inducing. It's not the food, and the having a black servant who is "old-fashioned". Here that really means one thing: nostalgia for a racist past. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It works the other way round, too. The expression "people of colour", as used in America, would be horrific on our side of the pond. Thank goodness Austin Powers has done so much to smooth away mutual incomprehension. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On this question, the revised version is dated to 1975, whereas the publishers wanted the books revised for racial stereopes in 1959. Was the progress that slow?
Oh, yeah. They had to keep writing new titles, while re-writing the old ones, and the Hardy Boys books had to be revised and re-written as well, while also coming out with new titles. The Stratemeyer Syndicate was also a pretty small operation after E. Stratemeyer's death, so not that many people were doing all this work. So, yes. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The point about Hannah Guen in this context, that Nancy consulted her on attire, seems to date from 1953, whereas the section (as named) starts with the call for changes in 1959.
Yeah, I know. Some IP address is really gung-ho about adding details about Nancy's attire. I kept that stuff in b/c I didn't wish to seem like I think I own the article. I can take this out. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I realize that "full-figure" has bosomy implications, but to me "full-length" implies Nancy sprawled on the ground, Jean Harlow-style. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? For me a head-to-toes portrait is a full-length one. For one moment I thought they'd made Nancy full-figured to get round the slim heroine stereotype (I think you're by now getting the feeling you're dealing with someone rather slow on the uptake, or who is drinking. Not the second, anyway). qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. Upon further thought, I think the problem can be solved by implication: "a silhouette of Nancy bending slightly and looking at the ground". Changed to that - hope that's clearer. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Drew books have been published in European, Scandinavian, Latin American, and Asian countries, with the exception of China. This rather implies that the books were published in all Asian countries except China. Do we know this?
Yeah, that's awkward, and no, I don't. Will change. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Series order. I wondered if the series, volumes, etc. are in a specific order, or if the stories are random. Clearly, when she had a boyfriend there must have been a sequence. Does this follow all through? Do the books refer to each other (Wodehouse fans, for example, have used clues in his books to create a spurious chronology, despite the fact that the stories seem to all take place in some kind of never-never year sometime around 1920.) Is continuity a factor?
Ah, you are a Wodehouse fan. --Continuity depends on the series; the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories have one thing going on, the Nancy Drew Files another, and so on. Do you have a suggestion on where to incorporate this info? also, i don't have a source for this -- is that the kind of info you don't need a source for? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a reference fascist myself. Anyway, I think the books count as sources for themselves, so long as they are described non-interpretively. Maybe could go briefly in that first bit of the "Books" section. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Added something to "Books" section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an idea of a typical Nancy Drew plot, beyond the fact that she solves mysteries. I am left unclear how much action there is, who she reports to, etc. (does she hand the criminals in to the police, her father, or whatever?), etc.
Hmm -- I'll see what I can add about this. The problem of course is deciding what's "typical" - for that I need sources; Prager and Billman talk about this a little, but only for the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. The Nancy Drew Files are a different thing ... for the moment, to satisfy your curiousity, The Hidden Staircase is an ND book that's often cited in one connection or another. The plot is this: Nancy is sitting at home alone when she receives a visit from crazy Nathan Gombet. He shoves his way in the house, demands some papers of her father's, and threatens her. Nancy forces him out of the house. Shortly afterwards she learns that two local sisters living in an old mansion are being troubled by mysterious events - shadows in their house, weird noises, disappearing objects, etc. They've heard of Nancy's prowess and ask her help. Nancy gains her father's permission to stay with them and investigate (in the original version, Mr. Drew gives Nancy a gun to take with her). Nancy soon concludes that there must be a secret entrance to the house, but she can't find it. Meanwhile, her father has disappeared. This and that happens, and Nancy realizes that Nathan Gombet is involved somehow in "haunting" the sisters' house. She breaks into his house for proof, and stumbles upon a secret passage. Though it's dark and slimy, and the stairs are full of holes, and her flashlight goes out, she presses forward and comes out in the attic of the sisters' house. She then gets the police who go to arrest Nathan Gombet, in whose house they find Mr. Drew, who had been kidnapped by Gombet. Nancy rescues her father, tells the authorities to arrest Gombet, and returns the sisters' missing stuff to them. (In the revised edition Nancy is much less bossy at the end.) A typical ND Files story involves Nancy doing Law & Order style detective work, looking stuff up on computers, digging through trash, diligently questioning suspects, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the first one's much the better type, definitely. Nathan Gombet, what a great name. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Impressed with your responses. May I say what a pleasure this article was to read. Many thanks to you for bringing Wikipedia such a thorough and fascinating piece of work. I've never a read a Nancy Drew book, but I was a Biggles fan as a boy and still admire the early ones, so I fully understand the fascination with this sort of character and series. qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - I'm happy that you enjoyed the article. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nominating this article on the highest-scoring ace in Australian service of either war, a gallant fighter but something of a tragic figure as well. Recently passed its GA and MILHIST A-Class reviews, so time for a go at the bronze star methinks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Support This is a great article which easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Strongly support As one of the prime authors on the subject of World War I flying aces, I felt I should be rather scrupulous in checking this article. I checked all citations, and found them on target; the reference to the actual original text of military decorations was quite striking. This article is a well referenced one, showing the effects of much research effort, and is well written to boot. I can only hope that more articles of this quality can be written on the subject of pioneer fighter aces.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Image review: images check out fine. No explicit evidence that they were published between 1923 and 2002; the only possible book appears to be Cobby's High Adventure, which was published solely abroad and not registered with the US Copyright Office. Regardless, these images were in Australian public domain by 1 January 1996, and so these photos are considered to be US public domain as well. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - I commented and supported this article in its A-Class review and have no reservations in supporting it in this FAC. This article is well composed, structured, illustrated and comprehensive. My only comment is that the Australian Flying Corps should probably be mentioned in the lead as the service Cobby flew with during the First World War. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Tks Bryce - but I thought I mentioned the AFC in the second line...;-)
Whoops! That'll teach me for skimming over the initial introductory sentences of the lead! Sorry about that. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment:The article repeatedly uses single quotes (i.e.: 'word' instead of "word"). According to WP:MOS, the use of single quotes should be reserved for quotations within quotations.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Tks mate - the single quotes were used to indicate expressions or figures of speech as opposed to direct quotes; on the other hand, the terms are also quotes from the sources so I've changed them to avoid controversy...;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Comments. I think this is generally a nice looking article, but there are a few places where I think the prose needs sorting out before I'd feel comfortable supporting:
*From World War I: "... were thus considered a dangerous if valuable target." That doesn't really make sense. Only dangerous if valuable, not otherwise? Would something like "valuable but dangerous" be nearer the mark?
*Also from World War I: "No. 4 Squadron was credited with being the most successful fighter squadron in France," Awkward noun +ing. Suggest something like "was recognised as the most successful ...".
*From Between the wars: "He married Hilda Maude Urban in Caulfield, Victoria, on 24 April 1920; the couple would have a son and a daughter." Why the tense switch to "would have"? Would have if what?
*Also from Between the wars: "Cobby handed over to Squadron Leader Bill Bostock on 22 November 1931. He was promoted Wing Commander on 1 May 1933 and subsequently served as RAAF Director of Intelligence." Who was promoted? Cobby or Bostock?
*Also from Between the wars: "The resulting surveys of Queensland and the Northern Territory would provide valuable input for the establishment of military airfields and other installations following the outbreak of World War II. Once again, why "would provide" instead of the more straightforward "provided"?
*From World War ii: "... a role that traded on his name before the public." Before the public what? Presumably this means something like "traded on his public image"?
*Also from "... he commanded 20,000 personnel in the RAAF's major mobile strike force in the South West Pacific, comprising fighter, close support, and airfield construction units." Should be consisting of; parts comprise the whole, the whole consists of its parts.
*From Post-war career and legacy: "One of the aluminium cutouts of Charlie Chaplin that Cobby attached to his Sopwith Camel in World War I later went on show at RAAF Museum, Point Cook,[9] while the tail skid of one of his victims was displayed at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra." "While" implies simultaneity; were these two things displayed simultaneously?
Nominator(s): –iridescent 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the putative Buildings of the Moselle valley topic, those with long memories may remember my saying that an earlier version of this article was unexpandable, but, well, it's been expanded. The article may appear vague on the early history not through lack of research, but because little is known about the origins of the two buildings (the house and the detached tower) that make up Bruce Castle and the early records are lost – even the usually authoritative Pevsner is unsure of the century of construction, let alone the specifics – but I think the article does as good a job as possible of covering what little we do know of the early period, and in covering the building's history since then. It's been through an extremely thorough GA review, as well as a peer review last month which fizzled out somewhat. Mostly by me based on an earlier stub article by JackyR, with significant nods due to Giano on the architectural history and Malleus for general cleanuppification.–iridescent 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
On the whole, very good, but a few problems need fixing and matters need reconciling.
Problems
1. The first sentence is much too long. It attempts to state 7 facts about the house. You can afford to use a short paragraph to do this.
The Grade 1 listing is almost certainly linked not to the house’s present architectural state, which is not particularly impressive, but to its archaeological significance as the earliest-surviving brick house. These facts ought to be linked.
I agree regarding the first sentence and have split it. Regarding the reasons for listing, as I've already said on the talkpage, Wikipedia is not the place for your pet theories with no evidence. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that being brick-built had any impact on the decision to list the building; virtually every surviving Tudor building in London is Grade 1 listed, and the register entry gives no indication that the construction material was a factor in the decision.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean that the apparent fact that the house is possibly the oldest brick house is not mentioned in the statement of significance? That sounds like an oversight!
I gave a link to the listing in my reply above (IoE looks like a fansite, but it's actually English Heritage's central register of listed buildings). No, it is not mentioned, and I very much doubt it's relevant; any surviving building from this period in London would be Grade 1 listed regardless of building material (as per its near-neighbour, Forty Hall, also brick-built – the third surviving manor house in N London, Broomfield House, is only grade II* listed as only a shell remains).–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Repeatedly remodelled in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is not well expressed.
I would suggest that the remodelling of the 17th century was not repeated. The major and repeated remodelling and extending was 18th. If Pevsner is correct about the courtyard, and he may well be, then a substantial part of the house must have been demolished and rebuilt to a different plan.
I've taken out the "repeated", which I agree was confusing, but there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extended in the 18th century; it was remodelled in the late 17th century, and extended in both the 18th and 19th century, but "extension" is a misleading word to use in the context of the renovations; while some of the renovations added additional rooms, others such as the demolition of the west wing and the removal of the attics reduced the overall size of the house. "Remodelled" is a word that encompasses both types of alteration.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You've written here something here that is perhaps not exactly what you intended. You say "there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extnded in the 18th century" and then say exactly the opposite- "extended both in the 18th and 19th centuries". Did you mean to write "there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extnded in the 18th century"?
Oops, my mistake – it should have read primarily extended in the 18th century. Are you happy with the current wording?–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm happpy to go with the removal of the word repeated.
My comment about "demolition" is not something that I intended for inclusion. I merely have an academic interest in the suggestion that it was a courtyard house.
3. There was no castle in the area at the time however, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally.
This sentence implies that there was a castle at a later date, and that this building actually is as castle. That implication is one of a couple that imply that the building was or is a castle. Neither is true.
Whether or not there was a castle is not directly linked to whether the Bruce family lived locally.
I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous objection. The sentence does not imply anything of the sort. It's clear from the context that it's to make clear that while the name "Bruce Castle" was later used to describe the house, the Bruce family did not live in a castle on this site and are unlikely to have lived in the area at all.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no castle at that time however implies that there was a castle at some other time, presumably the "Bruce Castle" which is the subject of the article. In fact (as far as we know) there never was a castle.
Are you happy with "However, there was no castle in the area, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally"? That should be clearer.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
4. To say that Lysons dates the use of the name to the 13th century is inaccurate. Lysons dates the use of the name Brus to the 13th century, and “supposes” that this gave rise to the name “Brus Castle”.
The Lysons quote in question is "The portion allotted to Robert de Brus (who was competitor for the crown of Scotland with Baliol) was called the Manor of Bruses, by which name it is still distinguished. Richard de Brus, a younger son of Robert, who held this manor for life by grant from his father, died seised of it, anno 1287 (fn. 23) . His father survived him, and died in 1295 (fn. 24) . Robert Earl of Annandale, and in right of his wife Earl of Carrick (eldest son of Robert de Brus above-mentioned), after his return from the holy war retired to England (fn. 25) , and it is probable made Tottenham his residence, whence the mansion-house belonging to this manor obtained, I suppose, the name of Brus, or Bruce Castle." To me, it's clear that he's attributing the use of the name "Brus or Bruce Castle" to this period. Lysons was published over 200 years ago, and to the best of my knowledge no reliable source since makes this claim; all concur that the first usage of the "Bruce Castle" name dates from the 2nd Baron Coleraine (1635-1708). I've mentioned Lysons, to show that the debate did exist, but am not treating him as a reliable source.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Lysons says "I suppose". Your dealing with this should state that Lysons "supposes" this, rather than although Lysons dates the usage of the name to the late 13th century. The current reading indicates that Lysons is definite which gives a sense of reliability. The word "supposes" must be inserted, otherwise the statement is misleading.
How about "although Lysons speculates that the usage of the name dates to the late 13th century"?–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
5. The linking of the simple neo-Gothic window frame inserted in a Gothic window in the tower with “Strawberry Hill Gothic” and taking it to imply that the interior was changed in the 18th, rather than the 19th century (as would be expected) is problematic, unless the interior treatment is much more suggestive of Strawberry Hill.
Agreed; that was a piece of speculation by Giano, and while (being from Giano) it's likely correct, I've removed it as uncited; English Heritage believe that the window dates from the 19th century.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
6. …….little evidence of its early antecedents, appearing more an 17th-century manor house than a castle.
This is a very misleading sentence. It continues to imply that the house once was or at the very least looked like a castle. The first is not true and the second is probably not true.
The second part of the sentence states that it appears like a 17th century manor house.
No, it no longer does appear like a 17th century manor house, despite the fact that it has retained its distinctive 17th century central feature. Other than this, the building has been remodelled to look 18th century. Even the bays have been given an 18th century appearance by the sash windows.
Agreed; this was misleading, as even if one does believe that the sourth elevation has a 17th century appearance, that certainly isn't the case of the Georgian east, Queen Anne north, or Victorian/Art Deco melange to the west. Removed.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
7. The house was substantially remodelled in 1684, following Henry Hare's marriage to the dowager Duchess of Somerset, and much of the existing south facade dates from this time. ref. Cherry and Pevsner.
This statement, and the dating of the engraving to “following Hare’s alterations’’ are in serious conflict with each other.
The engraved picture shows the south façade (put me right if I am wrong.) … and is based on a painting (which might or might not be considerably earlier?)
Most of the details of the house in the picture are not consistent with a date of post 1684, but are entirely consistent with a late Tudor date. The form of gables is Tudor, the transoms of the windows are Tudor. The different heights of the windows in the right turret suggesting that it was a stair turret is Tudor. None of these things are consistent with a building period of post 1684. Only the central feature and the parapets/ finials of the turrets are apparently of a later date. And these features occur in buildings of the first half of the 17th century, rather than the second. Hence the fact that further down the page you cite the similarity to buildings of 1611 and 1616, not buildings of 1684.
The implications are either that the painting on which the engraving was based represents the building prior to all Hare’s alterations, (which means that the caption is incorrect) or else the implications of Cherry and Pevsner have been misinterpretted in the article, or (Heaven help us if it could be so) Uncle Nick got it wrong. Please check exactly what the Cherry Pevsner reference says.
Hare's alterations were made in 1684; the engraving is based on a painting of 1686. These are two of the very few dates in the house's vague early history which aren't up for debate; both the records of the reconstruction, and the date on the painting, can be verified from primary sources.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The big question is, at this stage, do we have any idea of what parts of the reconstruction were actually done by Hare, given the fairly extensive nature of the changes that took place in the 18th century.
If Hare, commencing in 1684, inserted those windows shown in both engravings, then they were very dated in style. If Hare built the bays/turrets, then they were also very dated. If Hare was responsible the gables, then those were also very dated. Even the style of the central feature had been around for seventy years. (on evidence which you or Giano has included in the article.) Is there any evidence of exactly which changes Hare made to the house? Did Hare's changes to the south front consist of laying out a garden to please his wife? What did he actually do?
The recorded changes made by Hare in the 1684 remodelling (I really don't want to go into detail in the article itself if it can be avoided, as they're irrelevant for most readers) – Pevsner's wording, but Pegram's summary of the changes is similar: "The central porch was given lively stone quoins, two orders of pilasters, and a balustraded top, and surounted by a tower and little cupola, and the polygonal end bays were heightened". As these are the two most reliable sources for the architecture – and there's no source saying anything to the contrary – I will stand by the current deliberately vague wording of "and much of the existing south facade dates from this time" as being consistent with the (sketchy) detail available from the sources.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
8. The engraving, regardless of the date of the painting on which it is based, is the most important indication of a major stage of the building’s development. It is a very detailed pic and needs to be much larger than thumbnail.
So click on it. While there are circumstances where it's legitimate to violate WP:MOSIMAGE for the sake of clarity, this is certainly not one of them.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Read it more closely. The max recommended size is 300 for very detailed pics. No reader wants to be hopping backwards and forwards to see images. And most casual readers are unaware that they can chose a size in which to view images. We write for the public. Or don't we?
Sorry, but I really don't believe that the detail of that particular image is essential enough to warrant invoking the "Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article" exemption from the MOS. It's no more significant – in some ways less so – then the photographs of the four current faces of the house.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
9. ...gabled attics on the south front were removed, giving the south facade the appearance it has today.
This is not an accurate description of the particular architectural event. The attics were not removed. They are very much in evidence. The attic storey was rebuilt to the height of the gables, and given a straight parapet. Count the number of stories.
Changed "removed" to "replaced by a top floor and parapet", which describes this particular rebuilding more accurately.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Good.
10. In the lower section of the article the pictures are cluttered and badly arranged. There is Rowland Hill facing out of the pic on the left, and the new extension facing out of the pic on the right.
The cramming of too many pics causes squeezing of the text. This problem doesn’t matter much on wide screens (where it is most likely to occur). However some editors are very strongly opposed to it. If the text is being “squeezed” on a very narrow screen, (which makes the text extend further and therefore the problem less likely to occur, but more problematic if it does) which is happening in this case, then it definitely needs fixing. I suggest the removal of the lest significant picture.
Agree regarding Hill facing out, and I've swapped two images over to resolve that one. I completely disagree with you regarding clutter; there's no image in this section (with the arguable exception of Hill's portrait and the detail of the entranceway) which isn't necessary, and this page displays fine on everything from a 25" widescreen to an iPod.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
See wiki style, which you have quoted elsewhere, on the subject of squeezing text between images.
The current placement of images isn't violating the "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" line of the MOS, which I assume you're citing – if any parts of this article are violating MOS, you can rest assured Sandy will shout at us. It's been tested on various browsers at various window widths, and I'm unable to find any combination in which the current image placement causes either image-stacking or "toothpaste tube" squeezing of the text, which is what that particular clause of the MOS is intended to avoid.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Two issues
Fortification. The “fortification” of a manor house was not necessarily strategic. It could be purely cosmetic. The façade of Leeds Castle is a splendid example of a structure that is purely domestic but has been given corner turrets and battlements, in this case very much in keeping with its real status as a castle and the home of royalty.
In the case of Bruce Castle, the two octagonal turrets, on the evidence of the engraving, were not “bays” in the normal sense of an open space jutting from a room. Their windows are indicative of this, particularly those of that on the right.
These turret gave a castle-ish air to the building, and justified the affectation of it being called a castle, as did the tower, to the left. It is plain that the turrets were not strategic. However, like the addition of battlements to a roofline, or a moat, six feet wide and two feet deep, they constitute “fortification”.
Here’s a good example: the present Chilham Castle justifies its name of “castle” with “fortification” of battlements and corner towers. They are neither serves any practical defensive purpose, but both are “fortification”.
We have already had this conversation on the article talk page. There is no evidence whatsoever for any fortification – cosmetic or otherwise. The name "Bruce Castle" was a late change postdating the alleged "fortifications" by at least a century; the change in name was almost certainly due to the fashion for all things Scottish following the Union of 1603. If you can find any reliable source for fortifications other than your own personal theory, feel free; otherwise, the name has no more significance than nearby Jack Straw's Castle.
You are (I feel) deliberately misinterpreting my statements about "fortification". By the 16th century, and certainly by the 17th, few houses were being strategically fortified. However, houses were being "castellated" (a better word) by adding Castle-ish features. Two octagonal turrets and a ditch served to make the house somewhat "castle-ish". Crenellations (not here) were often added to rooflines.
I doubt very much whether a manor house without some feature that was regarded as fashionably castle-ish in style would have renamed Brus Castle. Turrets and/or crenellations were a common feature of such buildings. In this case, there were two turrets, nad an ancient tower to support the renaming, whether or not one terms the ditch that obviously existed to the left of the building, a "moat".
The moat. What constitutes a moat? And what is the archaeological evidence for somethin akin to a moat having existed at Bruce Castle?
Once again, like “fortification” the word does necessarily imply a truly defensive encircling moat.
The undeniable fact, proved by the archaeologist, is that the ground level on the left side (facing) of the house in the vicinity of the old tower was very much lower than it is at the time of the tower’s construction. There are cross-shaped windows which are now below ground level.
The engraving supports this. The linear perspective of the engraving is fairly accurate. It indicates clearly that the land fell away very steeply directly beside the main part of the house, and the left wall of the garden in front of the house. The ground level across the façade is clearly indicated, but suddenly disappears in front of the little extension to the left. Likewise, the tower is standing in a deep space. If the ground was level, or sloped gently, then the line of the ground level would appear on the tower, at the angle at which the view has been taken.
So the tower stood on much lower ground, or in a wide ditch, that extended back for some distance, along the side of the house.
At the rear of the house, archaeologists discovered a brick culvert of the 17th or 18th century (memory lapse). A culvert covers a ditch, drain or water course. It would be interesting to know the size of this culvert.
See above. The evidence for a moat is the single line "The spread of London's population is responsible for the recent levelling of the moat" in a 1911 magazine, and a passing mention to "the repair of a drawbridge" in 1742; the evidence against a moat is the fact that it doesn't appear on two centuries of Ordnance Survey maps, is not mentioned in any source, does not appear in any images from any period, has left no archaeological traces, and that there would be no reason for a house built in this area in this period to have a moat. The windows below ground level on the round tower are an effect of stratification with no necessary implications that it was built at a lower level – assuming it was built as a dovecote there would be no reason to build a dovecote in the moat, in any case. As per what you've been repeatedly advised, if you can find reliable sources for the building being moated feel free to include them, but Wikipedia is not the place for your original research.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
So we ignore the report that a "moat" was levelled. (Call it a wide ditch if you like). We ignore a report that gives "passing mention" to the repair of a drawbridge? We ignore the fact that "stratification" has occurred to a singular degree around the tower, but not to the house right beside it? We ignore the fact that two engravings (and presumably the painting on which they are based) show that the base of the tower was at a very much lower level than the house and garden.
The mention of a drawbridge is just that – a mention of a drawbridge – with no mention of a moat. I am starting to get fed up with repeating this; you can say (as the article does), that the existence of a drawbridge implies the existence of a moat at this time. We are not going to include original research and speculations to come to a firm conclusion on whether the building was or was not moated, in the absence of sources.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoever said that there was a "reason" for the house to have a moat? You keep misinterpreting my statements as if I was referring to something as wide as the English Channel and as deep as the Mindanao Trench. I have made it fairly clear that I am not.
Concerning the ordinance surveys- How detailed are they? While they undoubtedly show watercourses, do they show ditches?
Yes, OS maps should show ditches (they're most obvious with railway cuttings). Even were it to slip past on early maps, it should certainly show on later maps; there's no sign of any earthworks on, for example, the 1895 map (Enfield S, OS ref M7.07). I'm willing to be give the matter of a moat (whether defensive or ornamental) more weight if someone can find a map or picture showing a moat – or a reliable source mentioning the moat – but a single passing mention in an article on another subject, which is all we currently have, is not sufficient grounds to warrant mentioning anything more than the possibility, as the article currently does.–iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OR warning! This is a suggestion which the interested parties might like to consider. The presence of "windows" towards the base of the tower and lack of such windows higher up suggest that the building's purpose was something that required an updraft.
So find a reliable source. Again, we don't do speculation.–iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is added, as I have made obvious, for your interest.
Style: Some comparative pics.
Melford Hall, 1554-78 has twin brick turrets
Eastbury Manor House, Elizabethan, has the gables and windows
Cadhay, before 1550, with Elizabethan and Jacobean additions. Note the polygonal central feature.
Thank you for the changes that you have made. They are a real improvement. You have addressed the real issues, as against those which would require a major funded dig or detailed investigation of the building's fabric to sort out. If the statement by Lysons is turned into a "supposition" by Lysons, then I think it's probably fine. I'll take another look.
There was no castle in the area at the time however, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally.
The words "at that time" imply that there was a castle at a later date. There was not. They need to go. Bruce Castle was not and is not a castle. While there may be a British custom of naming a building "castle", the use of the word "castle" on its own carries the implication of a real castle. It needs to be changed.
The "at the time" has already gone – see above.–iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Although there is or surviving historical record of its construction, and it does not appear in any illustrations, court rolls of 1742 refer to the repair of a drawbridge, implying that the building then had a moat.[5] A 1911 archaeological journal made passing reference to "the recent levelling of the moat".[Jean Pegram 1987]
I want to know if this entire sentence comes from Jean Pegram, 1987. The document comes from the Journal of a local historical society, the website of which is very brief. The document doesn't appear to be on line.
Does all the information in this sentence come from Pegram?
The sentence from Pegram is "In the Tottenham Court Rolls there is a reference to the repair of a drawbridge at the Lordship House in 1742 implying that a moat was in existence at this time", which is what I've tried to convey.–iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I presume that Pegram is the source for both dated facts, of 1742 and 1911. Does the statement that there is no archaeological evidence and the statement that it does not appear in any illustrations also come from Pegram?
I don't know why you're presuming that – the 1911 source (["Ancient Earthworks" in A History of the County of Middlesex) is clearly cited. I'll concede the " I agree on the "no archaeological evidence or surviving historical record of its construction, and it does not appear in any illustrations" shouldn't be there, and have removed it.–iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My error entirely. The other refence is there. But this was not the matter that I was really wanting to know. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Pegram was writing in 1987. If Pegram wrote that there was "no archaeological evidence", then she wrote it twenty years before a dig discovered windows in the tower below current ground level, (and well below the entrance to the house itself which hasn't changed by more than a few inches since the engraving.) She would also have been unaware of the underground brick culvert at the rear of the house. (I want to point out here that although members of the public were employed in the dig, there is no reason to presume that it was carried out in anything other than a professional manner. The relevant material here is of large size and was not going to go unnoticed, regardless of who manned the trowel. Professional digs have often employed local unskilled labour.)
See above – that "no archaeological evidence" has gone.–iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement it does not appear in any illustration is incorrect, regardless of whether Pegram made the statement, or it is original research on the part of the writers of the article. I have made it clear that both the engraved versions of the painting of the late 17th century indicate, by their perspective, that the base of the tower was at a much lower level than the ground level of the forecourt. This may not be apparent to you, but to someone who has educated others in the skill of perspective drawing, it is a fact beyond dispute.
I want to point out to you that the western boundary wall, dating from the 17th century (or earlier) runs parallel to the school building, (and parallel to the demolished west wing). The wall, for no currently apparent reason, then makes a right hand turn and meets the house, parallel and adjacent to the south front. The engravings both show that previously there was a continuation of that masonry wall, having made another right hand turn, on the left side of the forecourt, separating the forecourt from whatever lay to the left of it. The right hand side of the forcourt only has a picket fence. Why the large dog's leg kink in the fence? Why did the boundary fence not encompass the feature of the round tower? The reason is made clear in the two engravings. The round tower was standing in a deep ditch (otherwise referred to as "moat"). When that forecourt was built, the level area was walled and fenced as a garden. The ditch (moat) was not included.
Let me reiterate, the statement that I am making that the tower was at a lower level is not "OR". It has been plainly illustrated twice. Any editor, looking at the engraving, could state with certainty that (at that date) "the house had gables" or "the house had a forecourt", (both of which are plain to anyone). An editor whose observation is a little more scientific will state with equal certainty that "the house had a round tower at a lower level". (This is the same editor that drew to your attention the fact that an attic storey was still present, although transformed, and suggested that you should count the levels.)
Leading out of the forecourt, apparent in both engravings, is an arch or doorway through the wall, near the house. The tower has a projecting masonry structure pointing in a roughly north easterly direction, which would align (approximately) with that door, were the door still present.
I am not going to keep repeating myself on this. As already discussed on the article talkpage, you are basing this on this illustration, in which you can see a ditch but nobody else appears able to. If you can find a published source for there being a moat or ditch by all means add it, but the only written evidence is the 1742 mention of a drawbridge and a passing mention in a 1911 article on another subject, and that is not sufficient evidence for anything stronger than the "implying that at this time the building had a moat" currently used in the article. There are any number of reasons a wall could make a sharp bend – to accommodate a stable yard, to avoid crossing onto the lands of the nearby church, to avoid a boggy patch of the Moselle floodplain – in the absence of stronger evidence, we are not going to rewrite the article to state that a moat definitively existed.–iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What I am seeing is not, precisely, the presence of a ditch. What I am seeing, in both engravings, is that if the ground level were at the same height around the tower and in front of the now-demolished wing, then it would be clearly visible and would have been drawn by the engraver. The ground level is not visible. In fact, it is not visible for some feet. This indicates that the ground around the tower and in front of the western wing, (immediately adjacent to the south front) was several feet lower than the courtyard. The two ground levels are separated by a wall (in the engraving).
The land that is being avoided is not church land, because it has the Bruce tower standing on it. The land avoided by the wall was very probably "a boggy patch" as you have suggested, because it was at a lower level.
I took a look at the 1896(?) survey map, and it had a big capital T for "Tower" just where one might hope to see indication of a steep change in level. I think that there is a more detailed map than the one I viewed online, but I couldn't access it. Anyway, the map is 300 years later than the engraving and the level of soil would have changed in that time, perhaps by several feet. If this occured it would leave not very much levelling to do, at the time that the "levelling" was recorded in 1911. However, at that date, the dip might still have been substantial enough to indicate that what one might term a "moat" had once been there. This latter is speculation on one hand, but on the other, it is to be expected that the ground level would change, particulalrly once the wall between the two levels was gone. (maybe it fell down into the ditch)
The two statements there is no archaeological evidence and it does not appear in any illustrations should both be removed. A statement such as "the ground around the house is (now) level" or even "although it is not (now) apparent" could be inserted instead.
Are you happy with the current status of the article regarding the "moat/ditch" issue, which seems to be the only item left unresolved? As per the current wording, I'm perfectly willing to concede that there may have been a moat, but that there's insufficient evidence to state it as fact – which is the current wording used.
Incidentally, replying to an earlier point of yours I forgot to reply to earlier – although the "Hornsey Historical Society" sounds like a club, it's in fact one of the main publishers and shops on historic material on the London N area (which is why they're publishing an item on Bruce Castle, which is nowhere near Hornsey). The current edition of Pegram is now actually published and distributed by Bruce Castle Museum themselves, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's reliable.–iridescent 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the citations (I could have sworn I already did that, but hey ho). Regarding the Middlesex Regiment, I agree it's not the best of sources but can't see a way round it. It's certainly possible to cite the fact that the collection has now been moved to the National Army Museum, and there are numerous sources for it formerly being at Bruce Castle – but no obvious reliable source I can find for the date of the transfer. (Pegram was published before the transfer took place, and the council minutes don't appear to be online.) Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions on how to treat this? (I can certainly reword it to "the collection was later moved" or something similar, leaving out the date").–iridescent 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with the "collection was later moved" and stick with reliable sources for the information. You can always add the date if you find the council minutes or something else reliable later. I don't see the exact date of the move as being something needed for this article, it might be required for comprehensiveness on an article about the collection, but for this article, the fact that it moved is enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
✓Done – before you ask, www.armymuseums.org.ukis a reliable source ("This website is approved by the Ministry of Defence as the definitive guide to the regimental and corps museums of the British Army spread throughout the United Kingdom.")–iridescent 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As this article is about the house, I think there should be sections on its architecture and its history. Instead, the story of the house is told through its owners and bits of architectural history are scattered throughout the biographies of the owners. I would reorganize the article to focus on the history of the house, rather than the owners. I would also recommend a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. I would be happy to continue copyediting myself, after this larger organizational issue has been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As originally written, the article was formatted the way you're suggesting (with an "architectural history", followed by a separate "history of the house's residents"). Following this discussion – in which I initially took the same position you suggest, but changed my mind – it was restructured into the "straight chronological narrative" form it currently has. I think it makes more sense doing it this way. It avoids the need for duplication of explanations on who the people involved were, or repeated "see below"s. It puts the architectural changes into some kind of context, making it easier to follow which person was responsible for which set of changes. It also avoids the "switchback ride" element of a 15th-century to 19th-century chronology for the architecture being followed by a lurch back to the 16th century for the "residents" section.
There's also a broader issue, in that – because so many of the early architectural records have been lost – a stand-alone architecture section is by necessity going to be very spotty. (As mentioned above, even the usually-authoritative Pevsner is unsure even of the century of construction, and a firm set of records doesn't start until 1684.) A chronological narrative avoids a large gap between 1514 and 1684, where we can show that the house existed and was occupied but have no architectural history, by allowing us to at least cover the occupants of the house (who are documented).
If there's a broad consensus to re-split the article into separate sections, it could certainly be done, but I think it works better in this format – the history of this house is very much the history of its occupants and the assorted alterations they made, and (especially in the 19th century) the changing nature of the surrounding area, and I think in these circumstances it works better as a straight chronological narrative.–iridescent 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Writing an architectural history of the house would not be partcularly easy, as there is a considerable amount of conflicting evidence. What is possible and not too hard, is to include two written descriptions, one of the house as it appeared in the painting and two engravings of the late 17th century, and another description of the house as it is now. This should also mention the interiors. You said before that the toilet block was evidence of changes made in the 20th century. Were there changes in the Art Deco style made to the interiors?
I would tend to structure this so that the description of the present house comes towards the top, before the history of the owners. I would tend to call the section "Description" rather than "Architecture".
The description of the earlier state, based on the Primary evidence of the pictures could then be included at the point in the narrative at which the painting was done. I would be happy to contribute a description of the earlier state.
Otherwise, I agree that moving through the history of the house, owner by owner, works well in this particular case. I would not suggest a complete restructuring, because of the nature of the house itself.
Just thought about this. An easy way to go would be to merely relabel the headings with a date or the name of a period. Then it would constitute a history of the house, rather than a history of its owners.:-) Amandajm (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I see there has been a reorganization of the article. Should I reread it or wait? Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It should (touch wood) be stable in its current structure.–iridescent 13:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - This organization is much better, in my opinion, and the writing is tighter. Thanks for your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Declaration: I have edited this page (in a minor way) in the past, so won't vote support or oppose. I think it is a good informative and well illustrated page and the prose is fine, but I do have one of two queries and observations. The info box states that the style of architecture is Elizabethan - it is not! It is stated "The house and detached tower are among the earliest uses of brick as the principal building material for an English house" - is this true? Brick building had been fairly commonplace for years before this, see Tattershall castle which is just one English example that springs instantly to mind. Is all the brick work contemporary to the stated building of the house in 1513? - I doubt much of it is. So is this statement true "the current house is one of the oldest surviving English brick houses."? The tower is interesting - the machiolations are crenelations look to have been added (to romanticise it) in the early 19th/late 18th century. Whatever, I don't see any Tudor features to that tower at all, so what leads to the conclusion that it is Tudor? In all, it's a good, interesting page, but, I would prefer to see solid complete sections on architecture and history, to my mind the article seems all over the place with too many little half sections. It needs to be made more solid. I don't agree with those, above, who feel this is not possible. Giano (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely about the infobox; that's my fault entirely, as I added "Elizabethan" as a placeholder and forgot to expand it – now fixed (to the clumsy Elizabethan/Georgian/Gothic Revival, but I can't think of a clearer way to summarise the confusing melange of architectural styles).The "one of the oldest surviving brick houses in England" is a direct quote from Pevsner (from the introduction of London volume 4 – page 11 in the current edition). As it seems to be causing problems, I'm more than happy to remove it if it's causing problems – I agree that it's potentially misleading (Forty Hall, for example, is only a couple of miles away and is also brick-built and from the same period). Regarding the tower, I agree that it doesn't look Tudor, but as every source seems to concur that it dates from the late 15th or early 16th century, I think we need to go with what the sources say. (The crenellations definitely date to before the 18th century – they're already there in this engraving of circa 1700 based on a 1686 painting.) As I say above, it's certainly possible to separate the architecture and inhabitants back out into separate sections, but I think it's a more useful article as a single chronological narrative, as it makes it clearer as to who was making which alteration at which time – a separate Architecture section would need to keep breaking off to explain who all the persons involved were, duplicating content.–iridescent 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the info box - that is one of the problems with info boxes and historic buildings. At least, as yet, no one has forced the dreaded "design team" section upon it. All this complicated detail needs to be properly explained in the lead, an info box in this instance is just meaningless. I think the the page does need a synopsis of the architecture in a section of its own, eg: The building was remodelled in 1650 with a new roof; in 1750, the west wing with sash windows was built; in 1850, an extension in appalling taste was added, in 1950 a new lavatory block was built and so on with a short architectural description of each development. Then in a later section you can say Sir Humphrey Bumphrey was responsible for the 1750 wing, where he kept his mistress and 14 cats - try to distinguish the architecture and what happened within. This is so near FA standard - don't despair. Giano (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe you (Giano) have heard my opinions of infoboxes on architectural articles and the necessity thereof once or twice, but I thought that in this case it might actually be quite useful to have it as a summary near the top. I agree with adding a synopsis of the architecture to the lead – I'll have a go at one, although I still think that it makes sense to have the details of the changes in the text, attached to the section on the people who made each change.–iridescent 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK then, let me know when you are done, then we'll see if we can rustle up some independent reviewers who are interested and knowledgable on the subject. Giano (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Tower I'm sure that there is a source somewhere that says the crenellations were added to the tower in the 19th century. This plainly isn't accurate, because of the pics.
The source that I found makes it clear that the purpose of the tower was known, and there hardly seems reason to doubt that statement, made in the 1820s.
I've yet to see any source that says the purpose of the tower is known. There's speculation that it was a dovecote or somehow connected with falconry, but the sources saying that make it clear that it's conjecture.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet there is another source that says that a previous owner didn't know what the tower was for, but kept it in order. This seems a very curious contradiction. Until one looks at the map of the 1600s.
Ok! Here's some more questions to consider:
I recommend ignoring the red colour which seems to indicate roofs. They might not all be roofs, but a misinterpretation of the colourer. Part of it is the "ditch"/decline/"moat" to the west of the house. (right in this pic)
Nobody except you is interpreting the red shaded area as depicting a roof. It clearly shows the red walls bounding the south and west of the estate from the Moselle floodplain, which still stand today.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the map. There is a statement in the caption in the present article that neither the house nor church is depicted accurately.
In the case of the house, we are looking at it from the rear (because north is south and south is north). (so east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet..... ). We really have no idea if it is an accurate depiction of the house or not.
This is a small detail from a much larger map, which depicts dozens of buildings. As plenty of structures such as Dovecote Manor and the Tottenham High Cross can be verified against contemporary sources as not being shown correctly, there's insufficient grounds to assume Clay's depiction of this particular building is accurate without corroborating evidence from elsewhere.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the church, the map shows a building with a tower at the western end, the nave higher than the north aisle (which is the one we can see), the nave/chancel continuing at the same height beyond the aisle, the aisle being crossed by a transept or vestry with a high gable, which is well towards the eastern end of the building. Though crudely drawn, all these features are still visible in the church as it exists today. The one feature which is depicted on the map that is no longer present is a spire on the tower. Let me put it to you that I believe that describing the depiction of the church as inaccurate is in error.
The depiction of the church has no particular resemblance to the church as exists today, and is identical to the depiction of other churches on the map. (The buildings on the map are almost all shown in generic forms, with all houses identical and with north-cacing doors and windows and all churches shown as long huts.) The long straight building ending in a pointed spire has no particular resemblance to the actual All Hallows, which is a cruciform Norman church with a crennelated tower, and certainly not enough resemblance to claim that it's an architecturally accurate depiction.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The house. What we see in the image on the map of the 1600s is the "back view" of the house, presumably. The tower which still exists (the "well tower", if I may call it that) stands to the right side of the main part of the house. The "back view" shows us two blocks with gables, and what could be another tower, rising out of the centre of the building.
One thing is absolutely unmistakable. This is that (on the map at least) there was another tower, narrower than the "well tower" and at the diagonally opposite corner of the building. This tower is topped by a spire.
My question is this: when a previous owner said that he maintained the old tower because of its history (or words to that effect), was he in fact referring to the tower at the north-eastern corner of the building, (and not longer there,) and not the well-tower which stood in a decline near the south-western corner of the building, the purpose of which he was perfectly familiar with?
If he was, there's no evidence for it, so we're back into original research. It's certainly possible that the map is correct in showing a tower on the northeast corner, but there's no written, pictorial or archaeological evidence for said tower being there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it's insufficient grounds for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Foundations. There is a stament in one of the texts that the "foundations" indicate the great antiqity of the building. Which foundations precisely?
Not sure what you're talking about – which source? The only "great antiquity" quote I can think of is the 2nd Baron Coleraine's "In respect to its great antiquity more than conveniency, I keep the old brick tower in good repair, although I am not able to discover the founder thereof; and among the other anticaglia of this place I range Sir William Compton's coat of armes, which I took out of the old porch when I raised the tower in the front of the house", but that's a reference to the round tower and the remodelling of the south porch, not to the foundations of the building itself.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The archaeologists dug in a couple of places. One dig appears to have taken place in the vicinity of the north-eastern corner of the present house.
At some point the archaeologists turned up old chalk foundations. It would be interesting to know more about these foundations, precisely what they were like, how extensive, and how deep. Someone must have written a "dig report".
They may well have done, but if they have it's certainly not been published.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Are the foundations of the south front in evidence? Are the lower courses of bricks of the south front any different from those further up the building? What sort of bricks and bond are used in the "well tower" and how do they comply with the south front?
The tower is built of typical Elizabethan pantile type bricks – I haven't the slightest idea about the bond used, to be honest, although someone who really cared could work it out. The facade of the house itself has been so heavily rebuilt that the brick facing is consistent on each of the four faces (although it varies between the four faces), while the interior is swathed in plaster from its time as a school so there's nothing of the original stonework/brickwork to be seen.–iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
PS I loathe all boxes, unless they are horizontal and at the bottom of the page, like the one that lists the dioceses and cathedrals of England.
Support. All architectural pages on older subjects suffer from the same thorny structural issue, namely: should it be based on a chronological narrative, or on topic-oriented sections such as "Architecture", "History", etc? Both patterns have their advantages. Neither is perfect, as discussed above and here, and the main author has apparently changed his mind a few times. I like the compromise currently in place, which seems to be the product of much thought, and reads very well to somebody—me—coming to the page for the first time. Good prose, too. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
Support. A reasonably comprehensive account of the little-known Grade I building in London. More information on architecture is welcome, though. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned somewhere in the morass above, it's a hard one to expand architecture-wise – the records of its building and early history are destroyed, so even the most reliable sources are just speculation – it would be perfectly possible to make a lot of educated guesses, but they would be pure OR. The only two recent sources to discuss the architectural history are Pegram's 1987 paper (later published as a stand-alone short book) and Pevsner, both of which have been pretty much strip-mined dry for what little we have.–iridescent 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets all Featured Article criteria. It uses images to enhance the subject and uses non-free images sparingly, is written in a neutral and grammatically correct format, and is properly organized and sectioned. Notability has been established by numerous third-party sources, the plot sections are brief and written out-of-universe, and all information within the article is factual and verifiable. It has already been assessed as a Good Article, and with the improvements made since I believe it has met the criteria to be a Featured Article. The Clawed One (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: While you do cite a good number of reviews, I would say that it needs more from magazines. As is often said on FACs for older games, sites that are considered reliable now might not have been when the game was released. It was a fairly major release, if I remember correctly, so finding a few magazine reviews shouldn't be difficult. Props on the newspaper sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply: The two most prominent sites cited are GameSpot and IGN. IGN, as far as I can tell, existed before Soul Reaver was released, and I believe GameSpot as well though it was under a different domain name back then (videogames.com, I think it was). For magazine and newspaper sources, the papers came from another user and I've no idea how he got them. Alone, I didn't have much success finding printed material to source. The Clawed One (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's PC Zone's review of the PC version: . That was a UK magazine review, now archived online. Judging by this, it was reviewed by OPM, EGM and Next Generation, as well. User:Mitaphane has all these issues according to this, this (October 1999 review) and this (June 25, 2003). Mitaphane can be contacted for scans and/or excerpts from each review on his talk page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll talk to him, if he can provide magazine information I'll certainly incorporate what he has into the article if possible. The Clawed One (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In case you haven't, you might want to try Mitaphane's email. S/he hasn't edited since April 1. —TKD::{talk} 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I incorporated a bit from the PC Zone review in. One thing I remembered as well, I previously had cited an issue of Official Playstation Magazine for providing a demo disk for the game, but removed it because I couldn't find any appreciable information on the exact issue, just that the magazine came with a demo disk. >< The Clawed One (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who found the off-line newspaper reviews (through InfoTrac). Unfortunately the subscription that I have access to seems to find more on Soul Reaver 2 than Soul Reaver, which doesn't help this article. —TKD::{talk} 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And... as soon as I wrote that, I found Computer Gaming World's write-up. I didn't catch it in my initially two times through the search results because they somewhat confusingly call the game Legacy of Kain 2: Soul Reaver, which I must have interpreted as Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2. It's definitely talking about the first Soul Reaver because it's from January 2000. I'll incorporate it later tonight. —TKD::{talk} 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. I also found a blurb on BBI action figures for Raziel and Kain, which I added. —TKD::{talk} 22:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have an old copy of Official UK Playstation Magazine (issue 42) sitting in front of me, which has a 4-page analysis on the game, including many allusions to the deleted stuff. Most of it is an interview with the producer, Rosaura Sandoval - the editors managed to misspell Raziel (Ralzeil) but it's valid nonetheless. I also have another issue with the official review, buried somewhere. If you want some citations from either/both, let me know. Monere (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Just noticed this, but the lead doesn't mention anything from the Development section. It should, especially given that the legal issues and other delays caused material to be cut, which in turn influenced reviewers' reception of the story. —TKD::{talk} 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Legacy Of Kain- Sould Reaver Cover.jpg needs a full fair-use rationale.
I reduced the resolution on File:SoulReaverRealmComparison.JPG, since its primary purpose was to illustrate the general comparison of the two realms, so violating the general 0.1 megapixel guideline for that didn't seem to be too strong of a case for me.
File:SoulReaverEarlyConcept.JPG is sourced to thelostworlds.net, a fan site, but the copyright is actually held by Eidos, the game's publisher. Where did thelostworlds get the image? If it was from hacking the deleted material in the game, then we're basing the image on the reliability of the site (which is bad). If it's actually from a game magazine, we should get and cite it from the magazine directly instead.
I cover I didn't upload, not sure what to do about that. As for the Lost Worlds, I can't even find the original image on the site now. The Clawed One (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I found the image. It's listed with several other alternate or deleted weapons, but the page doesn't mention where or how the images were acquired. The Clawed One (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the fair-use rationale for the cover image. As for the The Lost Worlds' image, if we can't verify its provenance (pending being able to find print sources), it should probably be removed. —TKD::{talk} 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that the image is from a prerelease magazine, not from hacking of any version of the finished game. However I have no memory of which specific magazine or issue. I'm pretty certain it's been discontinued. You could ask Ben Lincoln through email if worst comes to worst - I'm sure he'd have no trouble sourcing it. Monere (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I emailed him, he confirms that the image appeared in "2 or 3" game magazines, but can't recall which ones. The Clawed One (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a pity. I'll go looking for my other magazine with the review, which had alternative shots you could use and source. Pretty sure a few of them are on The Lost Worlds. Monere (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
←Yeah; a similar development screenshot from a reliable source would serve the purpose. If we can get one and incorporate the other print magazines mentioned, I would support this article for FA. —TKD::{talk} 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article" is not an acceptable non-free content rationale. Rationales must be catered to the exact situation; the specific image and article. When writing the rationale you should know whether it's a game and in which article it appears. Jay32183 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
OK; I've revised and expanded on the rationale. —TKD::{talk} 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
According to their about page, the IASIG is a subgroup of the MIDI Manufacturers Association, which is responsible for maintaining the MIDI standard (an important electronic music standard). The page referenced is an interview with the game's audio designers, which seems to fit with the group's focus on interactive audio. —TKD::{talk} 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Was the game released anywhere besides NA? GameFAQs says the game was released in Europe, and a Japanese version was cancelled.
Gameplay needs just a little more, I think, to be accessible to a non-gamer. There's no mention of the perspective that the camera uses, for instance, or the genre. Wikilinks to both of those may help a non-gamer better understand the game.
The series in the infobox should probably be italicized.
Is the MobyGames external link necessary?
Can the publishers in the reviews infobox be arranged alphabetically?
The article's flow is great until that list of voice actors. Can it be rearranged somehow?
Support. I'm satisfied with the research and use of sources. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the voice actors, I was the one who suggested that it be presented as a list, simply because the prose version was essentially: "Y and Z were voiced by X. X2 voiced Y2." I'm not a big fan of lists, but I felt that, in this scenario, it was the better way to present the information (while copyediting I struggled with a way to present that information less blandly). TheClawedOne(talk·contribs) said that he had a better prose version, though, so I'd be curious to see whether he's been able to invigorate that section. —TKD::{talk} 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks better now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the MobyGames link. It doesn't really add anything. —TKD::{talk} 09:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Finally dug up OPM UK's official review of the game, with pre-release screenshots. Both of these images at The Lost Worlds appear in this review:
You could use them as replacements for the Human Citadel image which unfortunately, like Ben, I've been unable to source. As for the review, if you'd like to include it in Reception, OPM gave Soul Reaver a rating of 9/10 and their StarPlayer award ("Special games which deserve to go on your must buy list"). There were a multitude of comparisons made to Tomb Raider 3 (OPM felt Tomb Raider was narrowly superior). A promo screenshot of Raziel was also used as the cover image, if that's of any use.
Details: Reviewer - Daniel Griffiths, Issue - 43, Date - March 1999. Hope this is of some help, if you need any further specifics I'm happy to oblige. Monere (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded a new image, don't know what to do about the rationale now though. To answer the above questions, it seems the rating box can't be arranged alphabetically, must be how the template is set-up. I added a tiny bit more to gameplay, removed the external link to MG, and restructured the VA section. I looked but couldn't find anything so far about a European release, but I'll keep searching. The Clawed One (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Found it, GameSpot confirms that it was released in Europe. It also says it was re-released as part of the "Ricochet" collection, and a Platinum edition. Does anyone know what those terms mean? I'd note them in the article if I could explain it. The Clawed One (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I live in Europe and bought it here, plus several UK magazines reviewed it, so it's reasonable to conclude that the game was released outside of NA. LoK is very popular in Brazil, too, so it's likely there was also a SA release. Matter of fact, mine is the "Ricochet" version (the exact same game, just an Eidos re-release with a different case after the initial shipping due to overwhelming popularity and sales, similar to Sold Out Software). The Platinum range is similar except handled by Sony. Monere (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. So Platinum Range in Europe is basically the same as Greatest Hits in NA then? The Clawed One (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone slapped a template on the article for too many copyrighted images. Anyone else have a problem with this, because no one has said anything about too many images until now. The Clawed One (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that all three images would be justifiable. However, to be compliant, the development image should be tied into the prose a little better; the superseded glyph menu that the caption highlights isn't mentioned in the running prose, so it's a bit confusing to the reader. Also, the Official UK PlayStation Magazine review needs page numbers, as does the updated development image.—TKD::{talk} 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly add page numbers, if Monere can provide them. The Clawed One (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Monere left them on my talk page. I see that you added them to the article; I added the page number to the image description page. —TKD::{talk} 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, for what it's worth. Note that, if it wasn't obvious, I've been significantly involved in copyediting, finding and adding a few sources here and there, and addressing miscellaneous concerns. I've read the article over several times before and during FAC, and I now think that the above concerns are addressed satisfactorily. I'd personally feel more comfortable if the Next Generation and EGM sources could be consulted. However, given that their scores, according to GameRankings, are fairly in line with those of other reviews, and given that major sources—electronic and print, American and UK—are cited already, covering all three versions of the game, I feel that coverage is sufficient to be "thorough and representative" as required by criterion 1c. —TKD::{talk} 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry, TKD; I hadn't thought to check my talk page the last few days, so I only just got your message. Honestly, I still think it needs the Next Gen and EGM sources, due to the sheer number of times the GameSpot and IGN reviews are cited. Even if the general critical opinion is behind what they're saying, it would be best to show that by replacing a few mentionings of the GS and IGN reviews with other sources that say the same things. It also wouldn't hurt to expand the range of sources covering the console versions, preferably with the EGM and Next Gen reviews. I'll add my support if these issues are taken care of. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't work with what I don't have. I don't have Next Gen or EGM, and no one has volunteered the information on them. The Clawed One (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, much of what the Gamespot and IGN reviews is just from the Gameplay section describing the gameplay. I don't see how that's a problem since no matter which magazine or website reviews it, it's the same gameplay and the same game. The Clawed One (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the number of times the article mentions IGN and GS in the reception section. I hadn't even looked at their overall usage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll inquire at WT:VG to see whether anyone else can help. One thing that may make tracking down the EGM review more difficult is that I somehow doubt that it's actually originally from 2003, four years after the game's release, as GameRankings claims. —TKD::{talk} 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Has Mitaphane been emailed regarding these reviews? I've never known him to ignore requests; he might just not have noticed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked TheClawedOne(talk·contribs) that a couple days ago, and apparently there has been no reply yet. It's possible that Mitaphane is busy in real life; I certainly know the feeling. —TKD::{talk} 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I added Game Informer's score. I also used GI as a source to add a few new things to the reception section. -sesuPRIMEtalk•contribs 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; it's much appreciated. —TKD::{talk} 09:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I just came back to check out how the article looks with the GI review. I'm sorry if it sounds like I have a bone to pick, but even though the GI stuff is welcome, the IGN and GS reviews are still mentioned either in name or through a citation something like 7 times in the first paragraph of reception alone. Surely other reviews exist that could replace at least a few of those. Even just removing a few of them entirely would help; the whole section just seems incredibly biased because of the constant barrage of the same 2-3 reviews. If it isn't a bother, I could just shut up and replace/trim them myself, to keep my obnoxious comments at a minimum. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries mate, a little sentence rearranging, and the two are mentioned once in each paragraph. The Clawed One (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that's a pretty big improvement. The only thing I think now is that it could use one more print source; it has a pretty good assortment of reviews, but one more print review of the PSX version or Dreamcast version would cause me to support. I'll trawl the Internet and see if I can find anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
And there's Mitaphane with the DC and PSX Next Gen reviews. The EGM review would be nice, as it's the most famous and important console magazine, more or less. But the addition of Next Gen is enough for me. No reason to wait until you include them; I'll support now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You wait for either: A) The nomination to close; or B) Someone else to show up and oppose. In the mean time, mind incorporating those Next Gen scans Mitaphane gave you on his talk page? My support was on the condition that you put the Next Gen reviews in there. It shouldn't take long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice those. Certainly, I'll look at them and work them in shortly. The Clawed One (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have enough for citation yet, I need to find out the issue info and such. The Clawed One (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, all three issue scans have been added. I believe, if it were needed, that the scans could also be used to cite parts of the Gameplay section and lighten the load on the IGN/GameSpot/RPGamer refs being used there currently. The Clawed One (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'd like to believe this article is ready for FA consideration (as my first nomination was); it's been through MILHIST ACR and received additional attention since. Thanks for your time and feedback. Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - one dab ("vanguard") needs to be addressed (the other, to Ticonderoga class, is purposeful). —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Vanguard, while a dab page, seemed like the best place to link. I could link it to tactical formation; I'm not sure whether that really makes any more sense. Magic♪piano 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - I reviewed this in the A-class review, and I think that this is ready to be featured. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just tried refining the reference to the NHL summary webpage about the site. It should not be asserted that the webpage is the "listing" of the site on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or that the webpage is the designation of the place as a National Historic Landmark. Another example FA with a NHL summary webpage reference, formatted differently, is Joseph Priestley House. Perhaps that could be adapted. But, the titles of references in both my version here and in that example (as "Joseph Priestley House National Historic Landmark Summary Listing") is not exactly the title of the webpage. Not sure how to present best. doncram (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I find the NPS/NHL page titles to be extremely unhelpful (they're generic, not even showing the place being described); your language is probably as good as any. Magic♪piano 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no dead external links nor errors in ref formatting with the links checker tool and WP:REFTOOLS, respectively.--Truco 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the dab links. Magic♪piano 12:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Noble Comments - Hm, just reading through the lead, I find some problems: "an aura of invincibility", "ill-considered", "merely" are all rather POV. "During the American Revolutionary War..." That sentence seems to be almost a run-on. "became a stop on tourist routes of the area" feels rather informal. And: "Early in the 20th century, the fort was restored by its private owners, and is now operated by a private foundation" You repeat "private" twice in this sentence. There are other similar corrections to make in the body of the article, but these are just examples. Noble Story (talk • contributions)
I'll agree that "ill-considered" is POV (and have removed it), although there are probably few historians who would disagree with the assessment. I'm uncertain why you think "aura of invincibility" is somehow POV.
I've recast the Rev War elements in the lead, and removed the superfluous "private".
I'm not sure how to respond to your comment about being a "stop on a tourist route".
I will be copyediting the rest of the article, just waiting for more feedback. Magic♪piano 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, "aura of invincibility" is hardly a phrase used for just anything. Maybe you have a ref or two to justify the use of that kind of term? Noble Story (talk • contributions)
True. See the Wayne quote in the Saratoga campaign section. If you want historical perspective supporting this idea, I can also pull in a quote I used in Capture of Fort Ticonderoga about Ti being the "Gibraltar of America". The idea that Ti was an invincible bastion had a great deal of currency in 1777, and its defense was complicated because of it. (This is an idea that I've put more detail on in Battle of Ticonderoga (1777). If you think the treatment here is inadequate to support that phrase, I can certainly elaborate.) Magic♪piano 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
"The site controls a portage between Lake Champlain and Lake George that was strategically important during the 18th-century colonial conflicts between Great Britain and France, as it controlled commonly-used trade routes between the English-controlled Hudson River Valley and the French-controlled Saint Lawrence River Valley." Too many uses of the word "control" in this one long sentence.
Support I went ahead and fixed some issues with the lede, such as two overlong sentences and use of peacock terms like "aura of invincibility". Pretty darn good article and an interesting read. --mav (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I did some copy editing. The article is clearly written and well organized, in my opinion, and carefully referenced. There probably too many External links and I am thinking of removing them. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your edits and support. Magic♪piano 23:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose due to image concerns as follows:
File:The Victory of Montcalms Troops at Carillon by Henry Alexander Ogden.JPG: in which media was this painting published in before 1923? If this painting was first published between 1923 and 2002, then it is not in public domain. In this case, I can find no earlier illustration of it in either book or catalogue than p. 81 of Ticonderoga 1758 (2000), which means that it would be copyrighted until 31 December 2047. Note that publication of a painting means the distribution or public exhibition of its copies. Hence a painting that exists on its own is not considered published by any means.
The original upload mentions this book as a source. I actually am intending to visit a library containing it to see what, if anything, it has to say about provenance of this image. Considering the artist was nearly 70 in 1923, and he was an illustrator whose other works were generally used in books, it's certainly plausible that this painting was published in some form before then. Magic♪piano 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It was published earlier, but copyrighted. Earliest known publication of this painting is as the cover of the first volume, first issue of American Heritage (September 1949). The publication was copyrighted, which has been renewed in 1976 under registration R641454. (p. 394.) This painting is not in public domain until 2045. Verifiability matters here. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that verifiability is what matters. I'm just pointing out that there is (to me, at least) a sufficient body of evidence that assertions of "first publication" dating to the 1940s are somewhat suspect. I will point out that the Chartrand book's cover bears this image; Chartrand describes the image as "an early 20th-century-painting" in the credits. I've sent email to the curator at the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, which owns the painting, with questions about provenance and publication history. Magic♪piano 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
One more note: the definitions section of the copyright code also says this: The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. I (not a lawyer) would read this to mean the painting itself is considered a copy for the purposes of the act. Magic♪piano 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Creation does not equate publication. A painting created in 1920 does not mean it was published in 1920. I have already considered Chartrand's book (in my first comment); as such I see no relevance in it here again. It cannot prove the first publishing, nor is it the first publishing of this painting. Publication is defined as "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Note the plural, not singular. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm waiting for more feedback from the fort's curator, I've also invited the original WP uploader to comment here, but he appears to be only intermittently active. If I do not see satisfactory resolution by Sunday, I will remove the image from this article in order to not impede the nomination. Magic♪piano 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Ogden image. If its usability is ever properly established, I'll put it back. Magic♪piano 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get an admin to poke at this. Magic♪piano 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Antandrus has kindly retrieved the Wikipedia file history:
22:06, 29 May 2006 . . Ebedgert (talk | contribs | block) 640×480 (99,036 bytes) (This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert.)
He also retrieved the page from that date, which reads as follows:
== Summary == This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert. == Licensing == {{PD-self}}
I interpret this to mean that {{Copyrighted free use}} was incorrectly added when it was moved to Commons, so I have updated the Commons page accordingly. Magic♪piano 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The map's creator appears to be dormant. Are you concerned with the entire data set (i.e. including the blank), or just the Adirondack addition? I obviously can't speak for the source actually used, but the bounds of Adirondack Park appear to be freely available. (I imagine that data usable to populate the blank is also available from the same site.) Magic♪piano 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More concerned with the geographical boundaries set by the blank. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm the creator of File:New York blank.svg. I can't remember now what map I traced it from; it was probably one of the public-domain ones at the Perry-Castañeda collection. But it doesn't really matter - information like the locations of coastlines and boundaries isn't copyrightable. Only the creative content of maps (the use of various colors, fonts, and symbols, etc.) can be copyrighted, and this image contains none of the creative content of the map it was traced from. The map is thus completely free to use and to make derivatives like File:New York Adirondack.svg from. —Angr 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Boundaries or not, Commons deem it as copyrightable, per commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps: "Maps are always copyright works unless they are old enough to be in the public domain. You may not upload copies of copyright maps to Commons, nor may you trace or even re-draw such a map yourself. Any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license." Tracing obviously does not apply to colors or fonts, and no exceptions for boundaries or coastlines are given (such lines are subject to the discretion of cartographers to omit or go into fine detail). Regardless, since you have brought up the Perry-Castañeda collection, might the base map of NY be the map you used? Jappalang (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. It looks familiar. But what the Commons link says about tracing maps is simply mistaken. —Angr 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall note the map as the base map for the blank and strike the issue. As for the Commons ruling, I am just following what it say. If it is wrong, someone should voice out at the Admins board there to get the ruling changed. Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. Second time through for Lane, first time it had one support, no opposes when it aged out of the system. I've now taken it through GA, though the reviewer had no recommended changes, gone through the article with a fine tooth comb, and restructured it a fair amount. I think this interesting and too often overlooked character from American history is now ready to join the ranks of the immortals at WP:FA.Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) and external links are all up to standards (links checker tool).--Truco 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Dab fixed. Not sure what you are referring to with the self-redirect, can you point me in the right direction? I changed the Wikisource to Franklin Knight Lane from Franklin Lane, was that what you were talking about?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing so, since the dab finder tool can't pick it up anymore.--Truco 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably that is what it was. Anyway, I guess your issues are resolved then. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Image review
File:Lane1902.jpg - Please add a page number to the reference on the image description page so that users can find the photo in the book.
File:Laneposter.jpg - Please add a page number to the reference on the image description page so that users can find the photo in the book.
File:Laneburleson.jpg - As this image is actually from the LOC and not Flickr, it would probably be best to find it there and link directly to the LOC record.
These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added the page numbers, done a LOC source for Laneburleson, and added a URL for Lane1909 which seems to work, though it is a very long URL. I'm not sure it is the best URL for it. Thoughts? I'm not experienced in working with their collections and may have screwed up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This has all been taken care of. Image issues all resolved. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
images I am not happy with the licencing, they are listed as free in the US only (with one exception), the goal of wp is worldwide these should be relicenced as free everywhere is possible Fasach Nua (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you do that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate they are free in their country of origin, they are generally free everywhere, if can do this tag them as {{PD}} and get them uploaded to commons using {{Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem. Lane, after all, died in 1921. I'll work on this when I can and will drop you a note on your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the images to commons using a bot. A couple were already there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Support
In the "Commission work" section, I would try to summarise the result of the oil pipeline investigation, and avoid calling Lane "The Californian" as this creates difficulties if the reader considers him Canadian.
Both "nonpartisan" and "Non-Partisan" are used.
Sandy doesn't like it when the dates are different formats. In this case, the retrieval dates are ISO format but everything else is MDY. DrKiernan (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Non-Partisan had a specific meaning in California politics at the time, please see also the election poster, the other usage is as a common noun (the explanation of why Lane did not campaign for Wilson). It was an additional ticket that cut across partisan lines. The rest is all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up last time: with respect to the remark about Lane's potential as POTUS, the sources are POV and unverified. They originate with the dept. that Lane headed... The one that Wehwalt referred to as written by a "historian" is hagiographic. It now points to a newspaper, but does the newspaper have a verified source, or is it repeating hagiography? Certainly the part about Lane's presidential potential needs to be deleted. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, they did not originate with the Department of the Interior, not sure how you are getting that. Two contemporaneous newspapers said it, plus Villard. And the newspapers the day after Lane's death. I don't think that is repeating hagiography. Do you want the exact quotes of what the papers said? Or would you prefer language such as "Contemporary sources reported that it Lane had not been born in Canada, he would have become President"--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
have you taken the time to read the Villard source? I don't mean the sentence that the quote is taken from; I mean as much as you can find on the Internet.:-) It's an embarrassing foray into pure POV, and should be completely removed as a source.. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm unable to access the newspaper link (pdf). Is it subscription-based, or is the URL incorrect...? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course I've read it. Then I had to have myself checked for diabetes. That is why the info is inline cited to Villard. The newspaper is subscription, you have to buy an article pack. The quote in the LA Times article is "It was often said of Franklin K. Lane that if he had been born in the United States instead of Canada, he would have been presidential timber." The NY Times said, "Friends of Franklin D. (sic) Lane said that if he had been been born three years later (sic, actually seven) he would have become President of the United States. They meant that he was three years old when his mother and father moved from Canada to California ..." The Washington Post: "Mr. Lane was a native of Prince Edward Island. If he had been born in the United States, he probably would have been nominated for the Presidency by the Democratic Party, and if nominated, he probably would have been elected." If you like, I can do it as a direct quote from the newspaper, and note that Villard was a great admirer of Lane's.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent). Good. To be honest, I think the newspapers are just repeating fluff that Lane's bestest buddies said about him. They saw no harm, I assume, in speaking well of the man.. these were all obits, am I right? They saw no harm in speaking well of the man after he had passed away. The problem is that in the retelling, Wikipedia takes this kindhearted repetition of friends' high praise and transforms it into verifiable fact. For example, the current wording "It was often said of Lane" leaves open the question, "Said by whom, and how often is often?" So this observation needs to be dealt with in two ways: first, it should be to be attributed to the newspapers—not to Villard and not to the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/lane.htm). Both of those latter two sources need to be removed from the article, IMO, as being too POV. Second, the quote about "Lane could have been POTUS" needs to be hedged in some way... I dunno, just off the top of my head (please do improve it), "After Lane's death, obituaries published in newspapers of record such as WAPO and NYT suggested that he might have been the Democratic party's nominee for POTUS, if he had been born in the US". Then cite at least WAPO and NYT and even LATimes if you're feeling energetic.:-) Sound fair? Again, I assume those were obits. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will put that in. If the article is otherwise satisfactory, I hope you will support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I meant to support this one last time through, but missed the opportunity due to an unexpected break. The prose seems tight, references check out, and the article generally seems to meet the criteria. From a technical/semantics/nitpicky standpoint, I noticed the dates in the {{persondata}} template at the bottom are Day Month Year while the rest of the article is Month Day Year. Not sure if that's supposed to be like that for standardization reasons for if it should match the rest of the article, but that's the only item that stuck out. --auburnpilottalk 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've always seen the persondata done in that way, regardless of nationality. And though Lane was born on PEI, he spent most of his life in the US, so I do Month day year. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: "On July 1, 1911, the Commission ordered a "sweeping investigation" into the activities of express companies, which transported and delivered parcels." What commission this is referring to is ambigious, as the section as a whole deals with Lane's work on the Interstate Commerce Commission, but the sentence immediately preceding this one mentions his election to the International Railways Congress's Permanent International Commission. Otherwise, the article looks good to me--Carabinieri (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
Thanks, I changed "Commission" to ICC. Hope you will support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
CommentsAfter further review, I have changed my Weak Oppose to Oppose. You suffer the same problems that I do as a thorough researcher of uncommonly researched subject matter. You will need a quality writer to clean up your prose to achieve the current FA standard in my opinion. I sympathize and wish you well in getting some better writers interested in the subject. I am not a good enough writer to really clean it up for you. I am willing to continue my slow review and to help you at WP:PR should it not pass. I will not be a sufficient reviewer to bring it up to what I believe is par myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am unable to support or opppose. If I were forced to be on one side or the other, I would concede the article is greatly improved and probably weakly support. I would prefer to remain neutral at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that it would be preferable to link to Governor of California rather than Governor of California in the WP:LEAD. Maybe you could move the California link to American Democratic politician from California. I also think Mayor of San Francisco should be linked.
It does now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
the first of four children for Christopher Lane and the former Caroline Burns s/b the first of four children of Christopher Lane and the former Caroline Burns, I believe.
You should either say San Francisco Chronicle (henceforth Chronicle), San Francisco Chronicle (Chronicle) or write it out fully later. Just jumping in with the nickname is not appropriate.
I think you should do this upon first use in the LEAD rather than waiting until the body. Probably there henceforth is unnecessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the lede should be cluttered like that. Better to do it at the first use in the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
He attended Berkeley for two years and then you refer to it as his alma mater. Did he ever graduate?
Avoid consecutive In YYYY constructions in "In late 1894, Lane moved back to California, and began to practice law in San Francisco. In 1897–98"
in a year which otherwise saw s/b in a year that otherwise saw, I believe.
The railroads, which were loosely... probably should be the The railroad companies, which were loosely or The railroad operations, which were loosely or some such. The railroads don't actually control anything.
"Roosevelt forgot his promise and instead named Senator Francis Cockrell of Missouri, who was retiring from the Senate after five terms." could be cleaner as "Roosevelt instead named retiring five-term Senator Francis Cockrell of Missouri."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made those changes. Nice catch; he did not in fact graduate, though it took a very careful reading of the bio information to find that one. Albright actually says that, but I had disregarded it, because he isn't really writing about Lane and he didn't like Lane. However, he's right. Looking forward to more, though I won't be on much until late tomorrow, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
These two sentences don't go together: "Railroad companies were accused of failing to send cars with coal there because the cars could then be used to transport grain to Great Lakes ports. It was alleged the companies were waiting for the lakes to freeze over, necessitating longer rail journeys to market." It seems to me that the first sentence says the companies were sending the cars for use in grain transport and the second says they were delaying doing so. Also the first is not realy quality prose. After the because it is not gramatically clean, IMO. Try something like "Railroad companies were accused of failing to send cars with coal there in order that the cars could be available to transport grain to Great Lakes ports." Then, I don't know what to about the second sentence until you clarify it.
Shortage and shortfall are not synonyms.
"In October, Lane determined that the Southern Pacific Railroad, one of Harriman's lines, was engaged in rebating, effectively giving special rates to favored shippers, a practice outlawed by the Hepburn Act." is another sloppy construction. I would try "In October, Lane determined that the Southern Pacific Railroad, one of Harriman's lines, was engaged in rebating, a practice of effectively giving special rates to favored shippers that is outlawed by the Hepburn Act."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you switched to oppose and hope you will continue to work here to address your concerns. I don't consider "I don't like the prose" actionable, since I could bring in another editor and you could still not like the prose. The prose has been gone through during the article's two FACs. I'll try to address your specific points, I don't see what else I can do.
I don't see how the railroad car thing is unclear. The practice was to send the cars in the late fall to North Dakota loaded with coal; when they were unloaded, the cars were filled with grain. Your sentence I think would be less clear. I have made a change to the section which I think spells it out more clearly. The others are fine, though I would say "was outlawed by the Hepburn Act" because I have no idea of the present status of the Hepburn Act. I look forward to addressing specific concerns.I hope that after your concerns are addressed, that you will not feel so painted in a corner by your previous comments that you will be able to support, or at least withdraw your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to make some adjustments based on my understanding of the topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We need to do something with this sentence:"According to House in his diaries, Lane, while reluctant to leave his position as chairman, was willing to serve in the Interior position, which he considered the most difficult Cabinet post, if offered or in any other capacity." How about "According to House's diaries, Lane, while reluctant to leave his position as chairman, was willing to serve in the Interior position if offered. He considered the position the most difficult Cabinet post but was also willing to serve in any other capacity."
make "Lane was considered by the President-elect and Colonel House" active voice.
The previous two were taken care of by a rephrase of the sentence to active voice, using the word "adjusted". Wilson had problems putting together his cabinet, mostly his own fault in my view, a combination of indecision, overreliance on House, and kowtowing to bigwigs like William Jennings Bryan. It explains why he didn't write to Lane until eight days before the Inauguration, at which, by the way, Aretha Franklin had no role.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we come up with something more encyclopedic than "The Department of the Interior in 1913 was a hodgepodge of different agencies."
Assortment?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about adding "composed of" or "comprised of" to an assortment. Also consider other words such as variety, combination, cornucopia, mixture, blend, melding, etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
"composed of an assortment" it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that article mentions a 1908 event. I've piped to Conference of Governors (1913). I don't know if it evolved into the present day governors' gathering or what.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry! I think I've taken care of your specific concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Make sure all citations follow punctuation. At least #4 and 12 are following regular text. I did not check beyond 12. 8 is in the correct place, but the comma is missing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I realize that this article has been on a long time, but I would ask the FAC delegate to wait and see if Tony switches his vote. If he does, it will have three supports and no opposes. If not ... but give him that chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Support with a few comments:-
Would it possible, instead of always saying he was born in "what is now Canada", to include the information that he was born in what was then a British colony?
I don't always say that, if you look at Early Life, we refer to Reverend Lane disliking the island colony's cold climate. I felt there was a fine line between being accurate and being pedantic when it came to PEI's status. However, I've thrown in a mention when we initially mention PEI.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any information about when he became an American citizen?
No, blast it all, and I really wanted that info because of the great pride he had in being an American. No article I've been able to find has mentioned that. I imagine that his parents were the ones who were naturalized at some point, and the kids became American thereby, but I can't confirm that. I also would have loved some info on how the Lanes got to California. I'd bet a Canadian dollar that it was via the transcontinental railroad, but I can't confirm that either.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Lead says he became an editor of a newspaper. Text suggests that he was the editor (papers generally only have one)
Othere than wikinews, that's true. Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Lead statement that Lane's record on conservation was mixed is your own summary and therefore POV
Good point. I've kept the contrast but avoided the POV.
Can "Committee of One Hundred" (in Early life section) be briefly explained?
It was a group organized to rewrite the city charter. I've added a few words to make that a bit more clear. I haven't researched this extensively, but from what I understand, San Francisco City had expanded to be coterminous with San Francisco County, and they were reorganizing the government to eliminate duplicate services, and what is important to Lane is that there would no longer be seperate County and City Attorneys, but one man holding the combined position (one salary, I'd assume, not a Pooh-Bah situation). Wish today's politicians were as considerate.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In the Selection by Wilson section it might be as well to say that Lane said he was happy in his present post.
OK. Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise a clear account of an honourable career almost lost from sight. Question: did Lane always look about 20 years older than he was? See 1898 poster showing him at 34.
Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
True. Walter Page mentions in Part I of his series of articles on Lane that Lane appeared middle aged from a young age, but then did not age other than losing what was left of his hair in his final years. Lane's life was honorable indeed. He was very well regarded. Contemporary accounts said that Lane and his contributions to the US would never be forgotten. Of course, today he virtually is, except for a cruddy inner-city high school (though certainly with a beautiful building), a mention by Nabakov, who was impressed by the letter Lane wrote after having that heart surgery (at which I shudder every time I think about it, imagine having heart surgery awake!), and because of Hetch Hetchy. He deserves better. Thanks for the support and the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am happy with these responses. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. By my count, there are three supports, no opposes, one neutral in which Tony indicates that if he had to fish or cut bait, he'd be minded to support, and a fair number of comments. It's passed its technical and image checks. It's now the second most senior article at FAC. Looks pretty good right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it now confroms to the FA criteria. It's well structured, factually correctly and – in my opinion – well written. Thanks to Jza84, Malleus Fatuorum, and Parrot of Doom who have all been great helping with copy editing (and Malleus since the start) and have improved the article beyond what I am capable of on my own, regardless of the outcome of this nomination. And thanks to anyone who takes time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ref formatting checks out fine with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, no more dab or dead links. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick observations – You give the population breakdown by religion, but not by ethnic group – if the data exists, that would probably be quite useful (something along the lines of the Demography section in Trafford). Also, "The only mosque in Trafford is the Masjid-E-Noor in Old Trafford" seems a bit out-on-its-own for someone like me who has only the haziest knowledge of where Sale is; is this a long way off? (Note: I started to read this before I realised how long it was – I'll read it properly tomorrow.)–iridescent 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The table in the demography section breaks down the population into white, Asian, and black exactly like in the Trafford article, although the table contains some other information too. I've added a note that the mosque in Old Trafford is about 3 miles away. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave the sourcing concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, still waiting on the citation template conflict. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I went through and copyedited this to the best of my ability. Some comments:
They should all be cite xxx now, there were a couple of citation templates that had been copied from elsewhere, but it didn't take long to fix. Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
From the lead:
"Its fertile fields and meadows were used for arable and cattle farming." This sentence doesn't seem to flow correctly with the sentences surrounding it (i.e. it's too short). I tried fixing it myself but it made it worse...
I think this edit makes things better. It introduces a link with the previous sentence, and the following sentence is already linked to the one about farming as it is on the subject of the economy. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
History:
You've started to put hyphens in the century years, e.g. 4th-century. Why? This is not consistent with the lead in any case.
From MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words: "Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth-century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century." So "4th-century hoard" needs to be hyphenated, but "a hoard from the 4th century" does not. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Another weird use of a hyphen - "early-5th century" and there are more examples
Thanks for the explanation - you'll have to forgive my poor knowledge of the MOS:) Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"Etymological evidence in the form of field and road names, and the name of Sale itself, are Anglo-Saxon in origin and indicates the town was founded in the 7th or 8th centuries." This sentence isn't clear: is it the evidence that's Anglo-Saxon or the names themselves? If it's the evidence, then it should be "is Anglo-Saxon in origin". I'm really not sure because there's a mix of things there. The sentence needs work to clarify this.
True, it was trying to do too much. It now reads "Some local field and road names, and the name of Sale itself, are Anglo-Saxon in origin which indicates the town was founded in the 7th or 8th centuries", which I think is much clearer. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"The first recorded occurrences of Sale and Ashton upon Mersey are in 1199–1216 and 1260 respectively." Is that an estimated set of years, or the period in which the first recorded occurrences were from? Also, how many occurrences were there?
It's the period the documents date from, I'm note sure why the author of the source used gave a range for one and a single year for the other (presumably because the document could not be very accurately dated). Could you explain why the number of occurrences is important, because I don't see how it is (also, I don't think that information is available). Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, if that's the best you can get, I'm happy. Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"In 1745, Crossford Bridge – which dated back to at least 1367[13] – was torn down." The ref should follow some punctuation, and shouldn't a dash of some sort be used there?
The reference has been moved. ndashes, as used in the article, are acceptable within MOS:DASH. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"...and led to the middle classes using Sale as a commuter town – a residence away from their place of work." Can that be reworded to avoid the dash?
Replaced with a comma. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"The land in Sale Moor was the cheapest in the town because the soil was poor and difficult to cultivate (part of the reason the area was common land until the early 19th century)" Any way the brackets could be avoided?
Because it's not villa in what (I'm assuming) everyone thinks of when they hear the word. It's perhaps unnecessary. The villas in question, while called villas by several sources, are less grand than I imagined the word villa meant (possibly what wikipedia thinks it means too juding by [[villa|its article on the subject). Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, I've removed the scare quotes. After all, the villa article does say "In the nineteenth century, villa was extended to describe any large suburban house that was free-standing in a landscaped plot of ground". Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"...amenities such as sewers, which were built in 1875–80" Again, is that a duration, or an approximate period? If it's a duration, should it not be "built from 1875-80"?
It's the duration, and you might have a point about in/from so I've changed it. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"The end of the war in 1918 resulted in a rush of marriages, which highlighted a shortage of housing" I don't see how it would highlight anything - also needs a source.
Marriages leads to more kids, leads to less space in the house. The reference was at the end of the paragraph and has been doubled up. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*"Six hundred incendiary bombs were dropped..." Any reason that's written with words instead of digits?
Because it's at the start of the sentence. MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words states "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark". Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OK - forgive my lack of knowledge on this:) Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Governance:
"The petition was successful, and on 21 September 1935 Sale UD was granted borough status, and becoming the Municipal Borough of Sale." Doesn't make sense.
Removed the stray "and", should be fine now. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not too sure. Shouldn't "becoming" be "became"? Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
True, it's a slight change of tenses. It has now been changed to "and became". Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You'd mis-typed 'became' as 'become', but I hadn't noticed this before I changed the sentence to read 'The petition was successful and on 21September 1935 Sale UD was granted borough status, becoming the Municipal Borough of Sale' Hopefully this reads as well? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Economy:
*I can't tell what this means: "Industry was slow to develop in the area, as in most of what would become Trafford, partly because of the reluctance of the two main land owners in the area, the Stamfords and the de Traffords, to invest."
Talking about Trafford before 1974 is tricky because it didn't exist, hence the necessarily tricky phrase "what would become Trafford". It might seem odd to compare Sale with towns in the modern borough as opposed to its immediate neighbours, however most of its immediate neighbours are actually in the borough (on the east of the town borders somewhere that isn't Trafford) and "what would become Trafford" was owned by two main people (the Stamford and de Traffords) hence the comparison is valid. To make the sentence simpler I have split it in two, it now reads "Industry was slow to develop in the area, as in most of what would become Trafford This was partly because of the reluctance of the two main land owners in the area, the Stamfords and the de Traffords, to invest." Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Education:
*"Sale's first school was built in 1667, but it fell out use in the first half of the 18th century" Seems a bit vague, and no source.
Records from the period are sporadic, so not much more detail can be added. Records are so poor, the exact location of the school isn't even known. The sentence has been rephrased to "Sale's first school was built in 1667 and was used until the first half of the 18th century". Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That sounds better. Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*The last sentence of the first paragraph is a bit too general imo.
Agreed, it has been removed. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Transport:
"However the arrival in 1849 of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway[24] sounded a death-knell for both the canal packet services and turnpike trusts, with many trusts going into terminal decline, mirroring a national trend." This sentence doesn't flow very well imo.
Split into two sentences. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. There's still one point in the Governance section I'm not happy with though. Majorlytalk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Assuming no big problems emerge, I'm happy with this. A lovely article, a great job from all involved. Majorlytalk 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Support My one (very) minor quibble has been resolved. Says as much about the subject as anyone would reasonably want to know, without saying too much.–iridescent 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, all other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Commentsok, let's see now over the line prosewise and comprehensivenesswise.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In this period, its fertile fields and meadows were used for arable and cattle farming. -I thought the adjective arable was a descriptor for the land (i.e. ability to be farmed/ploughed/sown with crops) rather than the process of farming (??) - what about just crops and livestock? or crops and cattle? or somesuch?
"Arable" is a type of farming, not a description of the land, so "used for arable and cattle farming" is perfectly OK. --MalleusFatuorum 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have NFI so I will take yer word for it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems we're both right on looking more closely. It may be though that "arable farming" is a phrase more common in British English. --MalleusFatuorum 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A 4th-century hoard of 46Roman coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey (a settlement now part of Sale) - not sure if parenthetical bit is redundant.
True, Ashton upon Mersey being a part of Sale isn't directly linked to the Roman hoard, but I think it needs to be explained why Ashton upon Mersey is being talked about in an article about Sale. As this is done in the lead perhaps it doesn't need to be so early in the history section, so I've removed the parenthesis. Nev1 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
After the Roman departure from Britain in the early-5th century, Britain was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons. - needs a cite hahahahaha, just having a lǎff:) Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sale Old Hall was built c. 1603 for James Massey.. - any reason why we have the 'c' here and not the more prosey "around"?
No reason at all, so I've changed it to "in about". --MalleusFatuorum 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
) Sceptre (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
