Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2011

William Brill

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article focusses on a country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, eventually commanding No. 467 Squadron RAAF. He managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young. Recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews -- any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why cite the RAAF sources using the volume number and the Herington using the volume name?
  • Heh, good point, what was I thinking?
• Herington sources appear to be out of order
  • I was sorting alphabetically on title but with the volume name in there as well, it looks better reversed.
• Compare formatting for notes 17 and 38
  • Thanks, that was a typo stuffing up the newspaper name.
• Even if the original source gives the title in all-caps, we should still use normal capitalization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had the opposite suggested to me as well in the past but I prefer normal caps myself so no prob with that. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't make it back to the A-class review because my laptop's buggered, but I looked at the article in some detail then and didn't see any issues. It's a high-quality, engaging article with an interesting story to tell and worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, HJ -- glad to see you back on the air. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images - File:SUK11562BrillPortrait1943.jpg: since this photo includes a painting, you also need to indicate the copyright/licensing status of that painting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure why this question arises. If you check the source file, it's marked as public domain by the Australian War Memorial, an Australian Government agency, so I don't know how that proclamation could be leaving out the painting. It's not my interpetation of Australian copyright, it's the Government (which would incidentally have owned copyright on painting and photo if copyright was still in force). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Our most experienced image reviewers are long departed, but we need another read on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I hate to be the spanenr in the works, but I agree with Nikki. We need to know who owns the copyright for the painting and what its copyright status is. I'd be surprised if it was usable, because I think paitings don't enter the public domain until 70 years after the artist has died. Put simply, we have to treat it as two images, thus we need copyright information on the second (the painting). Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to support HJ Mitchell on this one. The picture isn't incidental to the photo (e.g. coincidentally in the background). Its not covered by right of panorama, as its a 2D, not 3D object. The Australian Government can release the copyright on their rights to the photo, but unfortunately that doesn't mean they can release the original artist's rights to the painting. If the Australian Government owned the rights to the painting as well, of course, that would be different - but we'd need to take into account the difference between owning the physical painting, and owning the rights to its reproduction (which can be separate). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm still curious as to why people are second-guessing the explicit declaration of copyright expiry by the govenment. Why would you assume that the Australian government did not own all rights to a painting sitting in the overseas headquarters of its air force? By the way, HJ, I think you'll find an Australian artistic work enters public domain if the author died before 1955, not 70 years after they died. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
          • If you could argue that UK law didn't apply in this circumstance, then you could perhaps fall back on Australian law, which is partially quite helpful. The relevant bit here in the Australian Copyright Council website notes that "The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than temporarily” without permission. There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft work. We are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court." UK law, if it covered the headquarters, would differentiate (unhelpfully in this case) between 2D and 3D artwork though.
          • On the issue of owning copyright and physical paintings, though, the Australian ACC notes the presumption that "You are not usually entitled to make copies of an artwork you have bought, unless copyright in that artwork has expired. A transfer of ownership of copyright must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner. In most cases, an artist who sells a piece of art keeps the copyright, and the purchaser needs the artist’s permission to reproduce the artwork." One could argue that the Australian War Memorial agency will have checked this paperwork themselves before releasing the photograph, but, speaking personally, I'd be very surprised if they had. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
            • The problem is that the photograph is in the public domain, but there's no statement that the painting's copyright is owned by the Australian Government. There's a statement that it was made by a third party, and that third party died after 1955 (1987 according to the AWM) so, much as I hate to say it, I think we have to assume that the painting is still in copyright. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Bit of an anomoly that we accept the AWM as a reliable source as far as its text goes but not its declarations regarding image copyright... ;-) Still, I genuinely appreciate you guys responding to my request for further comment, and in the interests of wrapping this FAC up I'll just substitute a more conventional photo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
                • A certain delegate is appreciative :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It mentions 'feet' and 'lb'. I recommend that conversions are provided to make it widely accessible. Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair point -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support:
  • I believe that the article is well written, well referenced, comprehensive, is neutral, stable and comprehensive. It is supported with appropriate images and is an appropriate length;
  • there are no dab links, ext links work and alt text is present;
  • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations;
  • spot checks of the online sources didn't reveal any violations to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Appreciate that, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, a bacon-flavored waffle manufacturer.

• "a member of the Australian Militia" I find this linking format to be somewhat odd. How about "a member of the Australian Militia" instead?
• "Following a spell as an instructor" This language is too informal. I suggest replacing "spell" with a word that is not "spell".
• "Brill's leadership and determination to always press home his attacks despite damage to his aircraft—on one occasion inflicted by another Lancaster's bombs from above..." The purpose of the lead is to given an informative summary of subject, not to declare how amazing he is and why we should all go back in time to give him a high-five. I suggest dropping the intriguing but largely irrelevant anecdote and rewriting as follows: "Brill's leadership and ability to consistently finish his attacks despite damage to his aircraft".

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• First two points no issue, will do. Re. the last one, I don't think I'm using langauage different in tone to what the sources employ, and this wording has stood GAR and ACR, but will think about how it might be modified without becoming too pedestrian -- FA writing is supposed to be engaging after all... Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Modified last-mentioned to replace "always press home his attacks" with "complete his missions" but "determination" seems more appropriate than "ability", and the sortie involving being hit by friendly fire was one of those for which the DSO was awarded so I think it's relevant as well as interesting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the immortal words of Blackadder's firing squad, we aim to please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy sectionrm2dance (talk)

Thanks, but what would you suggest for the new section's content? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with Rm2dance, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this for GA status and found it to be a compelling read then. Since it's undergone an A-class review and FAC since then, I can only assume the article is in even better shape now. (As a caveat, I have not re-read the article since my GA passage.) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Sack of Amorium

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the most memorable events of the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and one with major religious consequences. The article passed thorough GA and MILHIST A-class reviews with positive comments. I added a few more details since then, and believe that it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• Anatolic or Anatolian? Be consistent between captions and article text

Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 done, I've elaborated the captions a bit. On point 2, they are two completely different things: "Anatolian" refers to Anatolia, aka Asia Minor, while "Anatolic" refers to the Anatolic Theme, a province in central Anatolia. I have added "(Anatolia)" next to Asia Minor in a few places to try and make this clear to readers unfamiliar with the geographical context. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Is Whittow 1997 or 1996?
• When using citation templates, make sure you're consistent in which type you use - you're currently mixing "citation" and "cite book", and it's causing some formatting inconsistencies
• Be consistent in providing or not providing publisher location
• Consider bundling some of your citations
• Publisher for Kiapidou?

Sources look appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, I standardized citation format and content, and corrected Whittow's date. I'll try to find some time to do the citation bundling. On comprehensiveness, Bury and Treadgold are the only relatively detailed accounts of the period in English. There's also Alexander Vasiliev in French, but he too is dated and largely tells the same story as Bury (the primary sources, Byzantine or Arab, are the same after all). Treadgold is virtually the only detailed recent synthesis. The other sources have been used for corroboration and for specific details or for showing the wider picture. Constantine ✍ 09:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Quoting my review: "Holy $!@$%$, this is good writing." - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Theophilos reportedly fell ill upon learning of the humiliating disaster, and his death three years later before the age of thirty was attributed by Byzantine writers to his sorrow over the city's loss. This sentence is not awesome, especiallythree years later before the age of thirty - how about a year and a number? Also I understand you've cited two historians and they like to use weasel words like Byzantine writers but its not appropriate for an encyclopedia; honestly, I'd leave out everything after the comma!
  • If I can butt in ... it's not true that "Byzantine writers" is always bad; many history FAs are full of things like "according to chroniclers of the time" and "authorities were divided"; the alternative would be to list all the writers and what they said ... and really, for ancient history, almost no one cares for this level of detail, readers just want to get an accurate sense of what was said at the time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm...this is a FA criteria 1d concern; citation 36 actually reviewed some 'Byzantine sources', described the story, then says explicitly it was probably a legend; Constantine reworded that to "Byzantine writers" which I assumed he didn't review, cites the secondary source(s) and leaves out the legend part. Another way to resolve this is to transform the sentence into a note: "A Byzantine legend says shortly after the battle Theophilos fell ill and ultimately died of sorrow in 841 over the loss of the city." leaving the mysterious 'writers/sources' out of it and giving the reader some clue to the veracity of this story but then we just have a probably false story mixed in with a bunch of facts. I was just giving my opinion I don't see the point of including it at all.
      • I included it as an example of how the Byzantines themselves viewed the impact o the city's fall, or at least how they felt it should have been received. Later interpolations by historians are always indicative of the way an event is viewed by them. and the importance later generations attach to it. A military defeat due to which the emperor falls ill and dies is indicative of its influence in later minds. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm switching to oppose on this point; its simply not factual the emperor died of sorrow as an impact of the battle. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Do you get what he's saying here, Constantine? I can't help much with this point; you might ask for help at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I really am at a loss here: I rephrased the relevant passage to make explicit that this is a later tradition, and not a factual account. I have yet again rephrased it, please re-check it. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • My preference is you delete both sentences but if you really want this in your article you have to make it clear its not true. A better beginning to me is 'A Byzantine legend says Theophilos' etc. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • The sentences stay, per my reasoning above, and because Theophilos' health most likely did suffer from the psychological impact (see poor Samuel of Bulgaria for instance). At least Treadgold agrees with this. I have yet again rewritten it and added an explicit reference to his death being "most likely" a legend. I really cannot make anything else here, the statement "Byzantine historians attribute his death" is factual. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • It still bothers me your sources put a trivia item without any facts or analysis, but its at least better. I don't get the Samuel of Bulgaria comparison; these kinds of trivia or rumors don't really fly with modern historical writing. Anyways, if some other uninvolved editors think the current wording is ok I'll strike my oppose. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Another potentially troubling section was the second paragraph of the Impact section - its just the opinion of one historian, and without his opinions you really don't have much evidence the battle had anything to do with iconoclasm vs. iconolatry. I assumed he was a reliable source and it doesn't sound like a legend or fringe theory to me so i didn't say anything. But I think you could wikilink iconolatry/iconophiles and maybe define the two since neither are exactly everyday words. Kirk (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Treadgold is in this case used to summarize the prevailing scholarly opinion on this issue. I could likewise add Bury or other writers as refs, but IMO Treadgold is more than adequately established as a scholarly authority in the field. If it is felt necessary, I will add more sources. I have linked the relevant terms, and tried to give a short explanation on iconoclasm per Ealdgyth's advice below. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • BTW, Whittow too makes the connection between Amorium and iconoclasm, since he is available online, you can check this easily. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, I second toning down the opinion and aim for WP:NPOV (i.e.:brutal sack made me chuckle...see below).
• You need to work on describing the strength and casualties in the infobox with more detail; the numbers don't match up to the numbers in the text and it doesn't make sense to the average reader that an army of 30,000 could lose 70,000 men. There are additional parameters (casualties3) which are occasionally used for civilian casualties. Kirk (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On this issue, I clarified that the casualty numbers refer to a total count, including civilians. AFAIK, there is no separate estimate between military and civilian casualties, so separating them doesn't seem a good idea. I'll respond on the concerns above tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Its at least less confusing now; weren't there 6,000 captured and sent into slavery?
• What's a Khurramite? Needs at least a link but since Emperor T over-relied on them I think it needs a little description.
• I think the instances of Sack of X is ok but I would suggest eliminating as many instances of sack as you can; use some synonyms.
• The city was thoroughly plundered, with the spoils and the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. - what does surviving population divided among the (Army/Caliph) mean? Slavery? Kirk (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Explained the Khurramites a little without going into too much detail, and clarified the issue of the captive population (they indeed became slaves). On their numbers, Mu'tasim executed some 6,000, others (unknown how many) escaped, still others (again of unknown number) were carried with the Arab army into captivity. Because of this, and since there is AFAIK no even an estimate on their number, I have therefore refrained from mentioning a total number of captives. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This section still needs some work I think:
    • The city was completely sacked and thoroughly plundered... I don't think the adjectives help here - what would an incomplete sack or a sloppy plundering look like? Just describe the extent the plundering and sacking & you don't need this sentence. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ...except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. Reserved isn't the best verb maybe enslaved? Active voice with Caliph as the subject?
      • On the first, I replaced both with thoroughly, on the second, I rephrased it slightly, but IMO there isn't any apparent problem. Treadgold uses almost the same phrasing. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not a fan of Treadgold's writing; you work with the sources in English you have I guess. Did they take any treasure as plunder before destroying the city or were the slaves the plunder? Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • The Arabs took everything they could from the city, which is why I have retained "thoroughly plundered". I've rephrased the sentence combining "spoils and slaves" to make it clearer. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Words like 'sack', 'plunder', 'spoils' with nice adjectives attached sound good but I think you could just delete the lead sentence, describe what happened and let the reader decide if this was a thorough plundering of spoils or not. Your sources substitute POV terms for facts so I don't know if you should use them as role models & maybe that's just the way Byzantine historians all write. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
              • I really don't understand where you see the problem. "thoroughly sacked and plundered" isn't POV as far as I can tell, neither the words themselves nor the phrase as a whole. This is not a subjective statement, but a description of fact, a summary of the paragraph. How is this statement biased, or how do I mislead the reader towards a wrong or one-sided conclusion here? I could substitute a direct quote, but I'd rather avoid it if possible. Anyhow, as I suggested, in your talk page, if it is a phrasing issue, by all means please propose an alternative that makes the same point in a more neutral fashion. Other than this instance, do you have any other objections? Especially re the issue of the legend surrounding Theophilos' death. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Plunder, sack & spoil are all subjective terms which make it more interesting to read but don't really have a meaning without describing what happened; without the description they are POV; now they are just unnecessary fluff. Since it appears there's a consensus for promotion, I'll just get out of your hair; good luck!Kirk (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:21, May 6, 2011

Comments

• The opinions about the size of the armies seem dubious: an "exceptionally large" army of 80,000; "huge army" of 70,000; "vast army" of 80,000. These seem like fairly typical numbers to me. It should be sufficient to just list the size of the army and let the reader decide. Alternatively, comparisons can be used showing the typical manpower of the time.
• I was struck by the considerable amount of strong opinion expressed in this article; sometimes bordering on hyperbole. Per WP:NPV, I question whether the tone is sufficiently impartial and ask whether a quoted source shouldn't be provided for the more excessive remarks. (Alternatively, comparisons could be used to clarify why these are so.) Examples:
  • "reinstated harsh suppression of the iconophiles"; "outraged by the brazenness and brutality of the raids"; "city was subjected to a brutal sack"; "sack of Amorium was one of the most devastating events"; "humiliating disaster"; "disaster of this magnitude"; "brutal sack"; "major military disaster"; "traumatic event"; "heavy personal blow"
• "Looting and devastating the countryside": how does one devastate the countryside after one has looted it?
• How can this event be termed "devastating" and a "major military disaster" if there so little impact?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk)

I have tried to answer the first concern with a footnote. I have tried to tone down the article, although frankly, a sack where 30-70,000 people are killed qualifies as "brutal" in my book. On the third concern, I tried to convey not only the plundering, but also active destruction, i.e. setting fire to fields etc. However, since looting does contain that, I removed "and devastating". On the last issue, the impact was ideological: it put an end to Theophilos' pretensions of an iconoclast revival, and directly contributed to its abandonment. Given the importance of religion especially in the Middle Ages, I wouldn't say that it had "little impact". Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As a general note on the tone issue, the "hyperbolic" language is very much the language used by the secondary sources. As an example, I inserted a verbatim quote of Whittow's (generally much less given to hyperbole or accepting inflated accounts than Bury or Treadgold) at the end of the article. It should give a good idea why terms like "humiliating", "devastating" and "disaster" are present in the text. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't support this. I'm going to abstain from further judgment and let others decide. Thank you for the reply.—RJH(talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain why you won't support? Is it the tone alone or are your other concerns unaddressed as well? The object of the review is first and foremost to improve the article, after all. Constantine ✍ 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, you just caught me on a particularly bad day. I read the article again and it looks much improved. Thank you for the updates. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and again sorry for the pestering. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Lead:
  • Ouch. "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 represents one of the major events in the long history of the Byzantine–Arab Wars." "represents one of the major events"... while I"m not a passive voice Nazi, this is a bit much. Perhaps "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 was a major/definitive/turning point in the long Byzantine-Arab Wars. Also, can we state where Amorium is and who the Abbasids are?
  • Why "exceptionally large"? And "eager to avenge"?
  • "The city fell after a short siege, probably by treason, and a large part of its inhabitants were slaughtered, with the remainder driven off as slaves." Do not like the construction of "probably by treason" here, it's awkward in my reading. Perhaps "After a short siege, the city fell - probably due to treason - and ..."?
• Background -
  • you need to explain iconoclast and iconophile more than just links.
  • "...some 14,000 Khurramite refugees under Nasr..." Should we know who Nasr is? I see you link his baptised name, but a short explication about why Nasr was in charge of 14,000 folks might be good...
  • "His successes in these years were not spectacular..." Theophobos/Nasr or Theophilos? Context isn't clear here.
  • "In this spirit, he issued a new follis..." should explain briefly this is a coin. Yes, you've linked it, but you lose readers when you force them to click to something else to gain a basic understanding of things.
  • Who's army gathered at Tarsus? I THINK it's the Caliphates, since they are the ones who sacked Amorium, but the previous paragraph is all about Byzantine forces, so I'm not sure. Needs clarification. And WHEN did it gather?
• Opening stages:
  • "His army included the men from the Anatolian and possibly..." this sounds like ALL the men in the theme went, which is surely not the case...
  • "The Byzantines expected the Arab army to advance through the Cilician Gates and then to Ancyra, but it was also possible that the Arabs would march directly onto Amorium." I'm unclear what the second part of this sentence has to do with anything..
  • Honestly, "...the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph." sounds like it came from a Victorian-era history - I'm assuming you mean that the survivors were made slaves by the army except for the leaders, who were prisoners of the Caliph, but this sort of phrasing isn't usual in historical writing any more. Better to make it clear.
• Aftermath -
  • "al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun" linkage for him?
  • "..and offering to ransom the high-ranking prisoners for 20,000 pounds of gold and to release all his Arab captives." The "his Arab captives" is somewhat ambigous here, as the last "him" mentioned was Basil, the one before is the Caliph, and Theophilos is at two person's remove here - suggest "to release all Arab captives of the Byzantines."
  • "...and is thought to have executed Aetios in retaliation." Is thought? Surely there is some controversy over this, which needs explication.
• General -
  • Definitely a few too many "weasel" words "brutal sack" "throughly plundered" "vast army" "major campaign". Some of these may indeed be justified, but you need to state more conclusively why they are justified, rather than just using them.
  • "6 March 845" but "July 22" and "August 1"... pick one and stick with it.
  • Images appear to be correctly licensed and tagged.
  • Earwig's tool showed no copyright issues.
• I have some concerns about prose and with jargon/not giving enough context for those not familiar with the subject, but it's close to gaining my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my absence during the past few days, but things have been hectic in RL and my own laptop picked the most inopportune time to have a disk malfunction... I'll be taking care of the voiced concerns gradually over the next few days. Thanks a lot for the input from everyone. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth. I think that I have corrected most of the issues you raised. Again, for the adjectives qualifying the opposing armies, see the comment on army sizes. On Aetios, I'll check my sources tomorrow to see how this can be clarified. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "20,000 pounds of gold". Many readers have no idea what that amount is and will benefit from a kg value. It may be worth going back to the sources to check if it is avoirdupois, troy, roman, or other pound.
• It says "impact" in more than one place. I think this would be better as 'effect'. Not a big deal.

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now that it says "20,000 pounds of gold (about 9,000 kg)".

• If it is avoirdupois, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of gold'
• If it is troy, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 troy pounds (7,500 kg) of gold'
• If it is roman, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 roman pounds (6,500 kg) of gold'

There are other pounds in use. It may well be that the source meant troy or roman pounds. Can this be resolved from the source? Lightmouse (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. You are right, I forgot to take into account that the Byzantines used a different pound measurement for gold. It derived from, but was not identical to the Roman pound. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a slight adjustment, hope it works for you. If not, just change it. I also went and added your definition of Byzantine litra to the 'pound' article. Please take a look and amend it as you think best. All my comments resolved now. Good luck. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I notice that some of the books in the Sources section include external links to Google books when no view of the actual text is allowed. When adding references I do not include this type of link (although I can see some advantages in doing so) and wonder whether there is a Wikipedia guideline. Also, Bury (1912) is not viewable from London on Google books – but the same book is viewable on the Internet Archive. Would this be a better link? Aa77zz (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am not aware of any guideline, but I find it useful to link books to Google Books: some of the books that are currently not viewable sometimes become preview-able (or a preview-able edition is uploaded), and generally, I find Google Books as a good starting point for searching for related reference works. You are right on Bury however, the Internet Archive link is better. I have replaced it. Constantine ✍ 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good. After a quick review of the article's lead, the details of which have been moved to the FAC talk page, I am happy with the lead. --23:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)

• Support comments - beginning a read-through now - I will post queries below. Please revert any copyediting I do which inadvertently changes the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In 829, when the young emperor Theophilos ascended the Byzantine throne, the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting on and off for almost two centuries - not thrilled with this - I do think "By" is a better preposition than "In" to start with as it relates to how long the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting up to that date (the ascent is a subordinate clause).

Arab attacks continued unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily was making headway - I think the tense would be better thus: " Arab attacks were continuing unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) had launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily had been making headway"

link "siege engines"

I think that some form of image in the infobox would be good. I hadn't a clue where Amorium is, so maybe a map with the paths of the relevant armies? I can do a map if I have an image of the original schematics to work on if you want.

Other than that, looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Made the suggested changes, and reverted only one of your copyedits, where the emphasis was changed. I have already been working on a campaign map based on the one already in the article, expect it in a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. all goodCasliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments - leaning support - this is an interesting article, but I need to do another read through. For now, I'll start adding comments and more will be on the way.

• Lead: "The Abbasids penetrated deep into Byzantine-held Asia Minor" > it's not clear that one part of the split army were the Abbasids - perhaps say that the Caliph split the army into the Abbasids and whatever the second portion was called.
  • I see the point, but I went with a minimal change: and -> while. I think that will divide them into 2 mutually exclusive piles for most readers, with a mimimum of words. - Dank (push to talk)
• This sentence is too long and roundabout - needs to be split or shortened somehow: "An ambitious man and a convinced adherent of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which prohibited the depiction of divine figures and the veneration of icons, Theophilos sought to bolster his regime and support his religious policies by military success against the Abbasid Caliphate, the Empire's major antagonist"
  • Broken up.
• In the "Siege and fall of Amorium" section some repetition: the wall was "badly damaged as a result of heavy rainfall" & the next sentence begins with "As a result"
  • as a result of -> by
• In the "Impact" section more repetition of poor health occurring in close proximity
  • shortened
• Why a legend that Theophilos died because of his reaction to these events? According to whom? Perhaps mention or attribute that sentence to a scholar or historian.
  • It says "Later Byzantine historians attribute ...". Most of Milhist's writers don't say "he said this, this other historian said that", although a few do.
• Same sentence > "sorrow felt" should be reworded somehow
  • Ack, if I missed that, I suck. Fixed.
• Last sentence in the same paragraph, I think "other side of the hill" is idiomatic and should be reworded
  • Okay, I know I didn't see that :) rewritten.
• Last paragraph > brackets not necessary for ellipses. See MOS:ELLIPSIS for formatting.
  • Fixed.
• I want to re-read the lead - it feels a little heavy to me. I was quite confused at the first reading, though less confused after reading through the article.
  • Okay, it looks like you copyedited this.
• I also want to re-read the sections regarding iconoclasm. It seems iconoclasm was at the heart of this series of events and if that's true then I think the controversy about iconoclasm and schism it caused needs more clarification for the lay reader.
  • Replied to this below. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will return later. Sorry for taking such a long time to get to this. TK (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more:

• Regarding iconoclasm, this sentence: "Seeking divine favour, and responding to iconophile plots against him, Theophilos reinstated active suppression of the iconophiles and other perceived "heretics" in June 833, including mass arrests and exiles, beatings and confiscations of property" I think needs clarification to explain why Theophilos believed he would receive divine favor by moving against the iconophiles. I think a smallish paragraph explaining iconoclasm and Theophilos' philosophy regarding the schism is necessary. I think that would create a better context for the events.
• The prose is a bit stiff in a few places but nothing overwhelming. Do you mind if a make a few copyedits?

I think that's all. Thanks. TK (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review! You can copyedit as you see fit, if you change the meaning too much, I'll just correct it myself. I'll go through the text clarifying the issues raised later today. Constantine ✍ 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note ... Sandy's time is going to be limited for the next few weeks, and I know she's going through seeing what she can promote tonight. It would be nice if we could get this one finished. Truthkeeper, I've reviewed your edits ... great work. I'm going through now trying to respond to your questions. On the question of adding a paragraph about iconoclasm ... iconoclasm is linked in the lead, and at some point in the copyediting process, I start to think that if that link was good enough for the first 10 copyeditors (many of whom were exceedingly thorough), then it's probably good enough. I'm not an expert, but IMO a discussion of the significance of iconoclasm could lead us far afield, and invite NPOV edits ... better to have those fights in the iconoclasm article than here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that this has been sitting here for a long time and that Sandy will be promoting tonight so there's a reason to get it wrapped up. I wouldn't have bothered to review if I'd been more careful and realized there were already four supports. That said, I do think that a short blurb about iconoclasm is important. Given the manner in which the article is written, it suggests that iconoclasm was the cause for Theophilos' first campaign and the retaliatory campaign against Amorium. Any dogma that causes such a loss of life and destruction deserves a bit of description. As it happens I do know a bit about iconoloclasm and unfortunately was the last person to land here. Anyway, I think it's a nice page and the absence of the explanation won't keep me from supporting. Thanks for making the suggested fixes. TK(88) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. I'm happy with however you and Constantine want to handle it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for your edits, you handled the issues better than I would have... On the Iconoclasm issue, in short, like most state-supported religions/ideologies it relied on military success for legitimization, particularly since it was always a sort of imperial pet-project and in the Roman-Byzantine culture the main secular aspect of the emperor is that of a triumphant general. Iconoclasm by itself was neither more nor less militant than other forms of Christianity, but it had become associated with military success during the time of Leo III and Constantine V who beat back the Arabs and Bulgars. The essential points of this argument are I think already mentioned in the article. However it would be wrong to say that Iconoclasm was the cause of these campaigns. The Byzantine-Arab wars were older than Iconoclasm, and Iconoclasm did not produce a perceptible change in their pattern. Even if Iconoclasm had been a non-issue, Theophilos as a Byzantine ruler would still have acted in pretty much the same way for the usual raisons d'État. The main difference is that Theophilos was more eager to up the stakes and risk a full-blown military confrontation than his predecessors. The 837 raid was almost unprecedented in size and geographical scope since Constantine V and a clear provocation to the Caliph to respond. On the other hand it is hard to tell in which measure Theophilos's actions were dictated by the need to prop up Iconoclasm or by his own rather extravagant character and apparent over-confidence. I could elaborate on the lines of this, but it enters the realm of historical speculation and it would derail the subject, which is first and foremost a description of the events of 838. Whatever Theophilos's set of motivations, it was Iconoclasm that was state doctrine, Iconoclasm that promised divine assistance and victory and Iconoclasm that suffered due to the emperor's failure. I am prepared to add more detail in the background section, but I won't have time today. Truthkeeper, could you tell me what exactly you'd like to see covered in more detail? Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've explained well above. Given the explanation, I think it's fine as is. I'll strike the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the relevant articles that could provide more details are rather superficial. Byzantine Iconoclasm for instance focuses mostly on the religious aspects and events and completely ignores the socio-political aspects that first raised and later doomed Iconoclasm. Anyhow, my thanks for a thorough review. Constantine ✍ 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given up trying to keep up with MOS; WP:BOLDTITLE has been edited to distraction and is no longer clear. It used to say we shouldn't include links in the bold title-- now I can't tell what it's trying to say, so ... anyway, fine article, but I don't see a spot check for WP:V or close paraphrasing or accurate representation of sources. Has that been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been done yet. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Bury 1912: are you using the original pagination or that applied by the host site?
• Ref 12: note 3 seems to be about the position of Theognostos, not about the size of the Arab army
• Spotchecked a few of the other Bury refs, and none of them seem to support the material they're citing. I'm not sure whether this is a pagination issue, but this needs to be checked
• Very limited spotchecks of other sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bury references refer to the original book page numbers, not the versions of the Internet Archive, which for some reason are truncated. The actual book has some 550 pages, not 297... I included the Internet Archive link at the suggestion of another reviewer, because Google has apparently taken its version entirely off. Constantine ✍ 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is no ISBN listed for this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-History-610-867-Aikaterina-Christophilopoulou/dp/9025610447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1306791234&sr=8-3

Amazon shows one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, I'd read it in the Greek edition and found its English-language equivalent on Google Books, which did not include an ISBN. Also corrected the date, volume 2 was published in 1993. Constantine ✍ 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Halifax Gibbet

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the popular imagination guillotines are associated with the French Revolution, named after the eponymous Dr Guillotin. But in reality similar decapitation devices were in use long before then, including this one in the English town of Halifax, now on display near the town centre, a warning to all petty thieves tempted to steal anything worth more than £5. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Query From an ignorant Canadian, is "13½ pence" the same as "13½d"? Canada Hky (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review: 3 pictures all okay—2 PD in US and source country, 1 appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've just read the first paragraph and see that the link from the word "pence" goes to "£sd". Shouldn't it go to something more precise? Tunnelling down through the links from there, I found Penny, British one penny coin, Penny (British pre-decimal coin), History of the British penny, Penny (English coin), History of the English penny (1154-1485) (other periods and no doubt other articles availble!). All rather confusing (not your fault, of course), but they are all specifically about the penny or pennies rather than the £ and s as well as the d. (I look forward to going through the rest later.) --GuillaumeTell 10:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the link to Penny (English coin) as being the most relevant. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Minded to support, a few small issues: — Wehwalt 17:42, May 21, 2011 — continues after insertion below

• Lede

"or decapitating machine" Don't people know what a guillotine is?

"13½ pence" Perhaps put in a Lsd reckoning so that people are reminded this is "old money?"

"victim" to my mind, victim implies a crime or injustice. Perhaps "subject" or "condemned"? I like the latter more.

"petty theft". As a lawyer (who just did a little quick and dirty research into larceny at common law) suggest [[larceny|petty larceny]] (or petit larceny if you like law French).

I suspect that Fifelfoo may object to your attempt to try to get a present value off of pre-Restoration money, but personally, I don't get that excited over it. Just letting you know.

• Replies

• Well, strictly it wasn't a guillotine, as that wasn't invented until towards the end of the 18th century.
• I think that the conversion to new money already makes it clear that 13½d is old money.
• As far as I'm concerned theft and larceny are synonymous, and "theft" is what the source uses.
• My dictionary defines victim as "a person or thing that suffers harm, death, etc., from another or from some adverse act, circumstance, etc", which I think sums up the plight of those being decapitated perfectly. There's no implication of crime or injustice.
• I'm aware that Fifelfoo has made such objections in the past, which is why the basis for the calculation is explained in a note. I am firmly of the opinion that not giving some idea of the equivalent value of 13½d is more misleading than giving one.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• History

"Halifax Gibbet Law" Do we have some idea when this law was passed? Is there a citation to the law books (something that looks like 6 Henry VIII, c. 8)?

"rather unwisely" Under the circumstances, I'd delete "rather", rather.

"victim" Same argument as before.

" Local weavers specialised ..." I'm guessing these sentences are in here to explain the unfamiliar word "tenter" in the Defoe quote. Why not put it in a note, and hang it off the word tenter?

"Eighteenth-century historians ..." this paragraph seems mildly out of place, in the middle of the history. Perhaps it would be better as the last paragraph of the section?

• Replies

• There was no such law ever passed; it was simply a right claimed "from time immemorial" by the lords of the manor of Wakefield.
• As above re "victim".
• I quite like "rather unwisely", but if others object I'll quite happily remove it..
• I think it's necessary to explain the process in the text, at least in outline, as many historians see the gibbet law as an efficient way of dealing with thefts from the all too tempting tenterframes.
• I think the sentence beginning "Eighteenth-century historians" is in the right place, as the argument is that these "wild and ungovernable" people were the ones that the gibbet was intended to dissuade from stealing from the tenters.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mechanism

but it may not have been until some time in the 16th century" A bit awkward, perhaps end the previous clause with a semicolon and substitute for the remainder of the sentence, "it may have been as late as the 16th century."

" allowing it to be raised" it is uncertain to what "it' refers, I'm betting on the block but I could be wrong.

"In Thomas Deloney's ballad ..." This sentence seems a bit out of place, perhaps move it to the first paragraph of this section as second sentence? I would include the paragraph beginning "Although the guillotine ..." immediately following in the paragraph, splitting the paragraph at the end of that text. So the discussion of the actual mechanism would be in its own paragraph. Frankly, I think what would now be a paragraph on the introduction of the gibbet to the History section.

"Dr Guillotin" I would mention that he invented the guillotine. So that the reader can guess on who copied who, I would mention the date of introduction of the Scottish device.

While an image caption says the gibbet stood in Gibbet Street, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article and supported with a reference, as well as the subsequent site.

This reference seems to discount the idea that the Gibbet Law was pre-Conquest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

• I've clarified what the "it" refers to: "A rope attached to the top of the wooden block holding the axe ran over a pulley at the top of the structure, allowing the block to be raised. The rope was then fastened by a pin to the structure's stone base."
• Actually, Dr Guillotin didn't invent the guillotine. :-)
• I'll add a citation to the image caption confirming that the gibbet is in Gibbet Street.

• Actually the local council's register of historic monuments says that the gibbet was moved in 1645, and that the replica is in its final site now known as Bedford Street North, so I've removed Gibbet Street from the image caption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I discussed that source with Ealdgyth, and we agreed that it couldn't be considered to be high-quality and reliable, as required by the FA criteria. James Holt, one of the authorities on the period, suggests quite unambiguously that the claimed right of decapitation was a vestige of the Anglo-Saxon custom of infangtheof.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support These are matters of editorial judgment in my view, which the nominator has ably defended. It's a fine article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review Wehwalt. I'll address the few remaining issues asap. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Np. One more thing, you have "fourth psalm", aren't psalms usually rendered something like "Psalms 4" (or less commonly, like the Twenty-third Psalm)?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a question better addressed to a Christian, but my understanding is that the name of the psalm would be rendered as "Psalm 4", and that as "fourth psalm" isn't its name then it wouldn't be capitalised. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Christian myself. I fear that "fourth psalm" would be confused as meaning that 2+2 psalms were read during the execution service. You are right, there is actually a stub Psalm 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue though is that the source uses the term "fourth psalm", not "Psalm 4", and that's what's the note is elaborating on. It would seem a little bit patronising to me to add a "[Psalm 4]" note after "fourth psalm". Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - I'll hopefully get a chance to look at prose and related issues later. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Formatting on FN 9
• Missing bibliographic information on Watson 1775
• FN 5: is it possible to include the original publication and pagination info as well as the archive version?
• FN 7: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look, I think I've got those now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further comments - I've read it through and made a few copy-edits in the History section. Two other points, not major ones:

• Neither was the decapitation of convicted felons unusual to Halifax; the earls of Chester amongst others also exercised the right to "behead any malefactor or thief, who was apprehended in the action, or against whom it was made apparent by sufficient witness, or confession, before four inhabitants of the place", recorded as the Custom of Cheshire.
  • "unusual to Halifax" is a rather odd expression. I'd say "Neither was Halifax the only town which decapitated convicted felons" or some such; also, "recorded as the Custom of Cheshire" also sounds odd. How about "This was known as the Custom of Cheshire"?
  • The word "tenters" makes an appearance in a quote from Defoe. I'd be inclined to pipe this as [[Fulling|tenter]]s - the fulling link does appear, but several lines further down. Alternatively, there could be mention of tenters first and the Defoe quote later.
• Support - Leaving the above aside, support: a good read! --GuillaumeTell 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking. I've changed "unusual" for "unique" and moved the explanation of tenters before the quote from Defoe. I really don't like to put links in quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want to go too far beyond what the source says by changing to "known as the Custom of Cheshire"'; there appears to be only one reference to it, so to say it was known as anything seems too strong to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • On the Custom of Cheshire, it's the grammar that bothered me. One more thing: there are two red links, neither of them linked from any mainspace articles: Beggar's Litany and The Imperial Magazine. The former apparently relates to John Taylor (poet), but this well-known (to me, anyway) phrase or saying isn't mentioned in his article, and it would be nice to see a ref there and a better ref here. On the latter, there's no reason, AFAICS, why it should be redlinked, unless you have an article on it up your sleeve. --GuillaumeTell 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see a problem with the grammar. So far as the redlinks are concerned I have an article about every 19th-century magazine up my sleeve, and every 20th-century comic, but a redlink may encourage someone else to get there before I do. So far as John Taylor and the Beggar's Litany is concerned, well, it's a recurring theme that what ought to be supporting articles are often so poor, or as in the case of the Litany don't exist at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: Nice, compact, yet comprehensive article about a deadly device. I understand and support the idea of conveying the value of old currency to the reader, but "equivalent to about £5.40 as of 2008" (most particularly in the lede) still strikes me as a bit off. I would have thought (could be totally wrong) that the 13½d was some medieval value that a peasant could not raise readily; £5.40 seems to be something panhandlers could receive in one day in these times(?). As the article mentions the cost of two horses, perhaps those values ("two horses stolen in 1650 were worth 9 and 48 shillings.") could be used in the lede instead, letting the reader to draw his or her own inference on what 13½d is worth now? Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• On the basis that decapitations are known to have been carried out for almost 400 years, and that the value of 13½d would obviously have varied considerably over that period, I've removed the conversion from the lead. The important point I wanted to get across was the value of 13½d in 1650, when public opinion turned against capital punishment for what was then seen as petty theft. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Approval of the use of inflation (goes to 1c) As the resident inflation disciplinarian, the inflation used here is sensible and reasonable. Purchasing power represents small petty goods, much like those goods people who'd steal 13½d would steal. England's rural economy had suffered from proletarianisation and enclosures by the 1650s. A large rural proletariat and lumpen-proletariat were in existence. Halifax is sufficiently "South" for the Officer time series to be reasonably relevant. The note and citation adequately describe the method of calculation and the source used. The method of calculation chosen was a good one. Further context is provided later with the execution for the theft of goods with a good "modern" commodity equivalent worth 9/- and 48/-. (I like this article, and will be happy when it is featured). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your observations, much appreciated Fifelfoo. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with yet more comments, some of which are probably unanswerable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "allowed landowners to execute summary justice" - this is technically correct, but given the subject of the article you might use a synonym for "execute"
• Lord of the Manor of Wakefield or lord of the manor of Wakefield
• "The jury had only two questions to decide on: were the stolen goods found in the possession of the accused, and were they worth at least 13½d" - so if the theft is witnessed or confessed (as you mention earlier) but the stolen goods are not found in the thief's possession, what happens?
• Wikilink assizes?
• Could someone who purchased the stolen goods (knowingly or unknowingly) also face execution?
• Who threatened the bailiff? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

• I've changed "execute summary justice" to "enforce summary justice".
• I've gone for a (hopefully) consistent "Lord of the Manor of Wakefield" and "lord of the manor".
• If the thief confessed then there was nothing for the jury to decide on; the confession was accepted at face value and the malefactor was executed. There was no cross-examination, prosecution, or defence as in a modern court of law. Perhaps I ought to add a sentence elaborating on that aspect of the proceedings.

• Now done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Assizes now wikilinked.
• The law only applied to those who took part in the theft, and who either were found with the stolen goods in their possession or confessed to having stolen them, as the case of the last executions demonstrates. The two stolen horses had been sold on by the time the thief was apprehended, but the purchasers weren't prosecuted.
• Unfortunately the source doesn't say who threatened the bailiff, but judging by the fact that Oliver Cromwell clamped down on the use of the gibbet one might speculate that it was either local Puritans or the local Parliamentary forces.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – despite its off-putting subject it is finely written, and is (as we would expect from this editor) authoritative and thoroughly referenced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Malleus Fatuorum 10:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's significantrm2dance (talk)

No it doesn't. Its significance is explained in the text. Malleus Fatuorum 11:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of minor comments I've just had a glance through the Toolbox up at the top here and find that the Dashboard seems to be up the spout - anyone know how to fix it (not that it's of any great importance)? The slightly more important other thing is that if you click the Toolbox's External links section there's a missing access date for one of the refs. I tried to fix it from there, but everything is so confusing (i.e. it's written by computer people for computer people rather than ordinary mortals) that it's far from clear how it should be done, so I gave up. Probably easier to fix by other means, but I'll leave that to you. --GuillaumeTell 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the Dashboard, it looks like the external site is down. So far as the "missing" access date is concerned I don't think that one is needed for a book, only for a web page, and even then only if the publication date is unknown. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

access dates for books are pointless. Its web addresses thats concerned with. They change or are taken down. Ceoil 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with cmts.

1. once part of the Manor of Wakefield. - The guillotine or Halifax
2. 'the authority to summarily execute by decapitation any thief caught' - presumably he was alowed to choke or shoot them if he so wished. If not, 'summarily decapitate any thief'
3. between the time of the first recorded execution in 1286 and bla
4. 'The Halifax Gibbet's final two victims were Abraham Wilkinson and Anthony Mitchell'
5. 'use of the gibbet was forbidden by Oliver Cromwell'. [New sentence] After the use of gibbets were outlawed
6. Eighteenth-century historians - 18th c?
7. 'could be operated either? by cutting the rope supporting the blade or by pulling'
8. 'An article in The Imperial Magazine of 1832' - An 1832 article in

These are quibbles only. The sources are all good, the ref formatting consistent. The images are free or PD old. Nice work. Ceoil 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

1. Halifax. I've rejigged to make that clearer.
2. The authority was specifically to execute by decapitation.
3. Removed the redundancy in "between the time of".
4. Similarly with "final two victims".
5. The Halifax Gibbet was unique in England, and it was specifically the Halifax Gibbet that Oliver Cromwell forbade the use of, so I think "the gibbet" is correct.
6. Needs to be "Eighteenth-century historians" as it begins a sentence.
7. I've removed the arguably redundant "either".
8. I think that changing the wording to "An 1832 article in ..." subtly changes the meaning, as it opens up the possibility that although the article was dated 1832 the magazine in which it appeared could have been later, e.g., 1835 ... but thinking about it what I'd written is slightly misleading as well. The present wording suggests that it was published only once a year, whereas in reality it was a monthly magazine, so now changed to "An article in the September 1832 edition of The Imperial Magazine ...".

Thanks for taking a look and for your observations. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All good, though 'specifically to execute by decapitation' is chilling. What bastards. Where I grew up, in that period, shooting people on the spot, if you were gentry and so inclined, was considered fine, but decapitation bad form. Ceoil 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Execution by decapitation wasn't uncommon in England, although usually reserved for the toffs. Halifax was only unusual in two respects: they invented a machine to do it, and it went on for so long. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Put those two facts (the 2nd with dates) in the opening paragraph, would have very stong impact. Ceoil 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, nice hook. Can I support twice I wonder. Ceoil 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I have. </JOKE> Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is more clever than that. I think I'll have to go the sock route. PS the next redlinked user/usertalk support is me, wink wink Ceoil 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You get caught, she reactivates the gibbet.Hi, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the internet, its not Halifax. We're grand. Ceoil 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Off with their heads, both of 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Appaloosa

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC), User: Ealdgyth, User:Montanabw

A breed of spotted horses originally developed by the Nez Perce Indian tribe, named after a river in the northwestern United States, and now registered by the third-largest breed registry in the world - this is the Appaloosa. This article has been a long-term collaboration among many from the Equine WikiProject, although Ealdgyth, Montanabw and myself have been the driving forces on bringing the article to this point. A GA review back in 2008, two peer reviews with comments from multiple editors, more comments from many editors on the talk page, and a wonderful copyedit from Malleus have also made a huge difference in the article. We have put a lot of work into this article, and look forward to all of your comments (and hopefully your support). Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Domesticated horses with leopard complex spotting patterns have been depicted in the art of Ancient Persia, Ancient Greece, the "Celestial horses" of the T'ang Dynasty in China, and 11th-century France.": nonparallel. There are several fixes, take your pick; for instance, you could put the "Celestial horses" in parentheses after "China".

  I'll take a tweak on this, noting that according to the best of our online sources, we had the wrong Chinese dynasty too, so I shall fix all. --Montanabw

• Some second commas are needed; I'll fill them in unless it gets tiresome. (See WT:Checklist for support in the style guides.)
• I won't change unbeknownst because there's plenty of support for it, but be aware that quite a few writers consider it (and unbeknown) "colloquial".
• I won't change "The battle—and the war—was over." because I like it in context, but WP:EMDASH recommends commas.
• "new horse breeding program ... tradition of selective breeding": It's not clear to me in which ways it's new and in which ways it's traditional. Depending on what you're saying, you might be able to omit "tradition of selective breeding".

• I've tweaked this a bit. The new program is the breeding of the Nez Perce Horse, a new cross between the Appaloosa and the Akhal-Teke. The part about selective breeding being a tradition is important, IMO, because it shows a continuation of the selective breeding they did with the Appaloosa, brought into the 21st century with the NPH. However, I could be wrong... - DB

• Yep, that's the deal, the Nez Perce want to bring back their traditional animal, as opposed to the spotted quarter horse look that's more common today. I'll play with that a bit more. I think Dana got the rest --MTBW

• "color pattern/characteristics": WP:SLASH recommends against slashes.

• Changed to "and" - DB

• "distances between 350 yards and a half mile; an Appaloosa holds the record for the 4.5 furlong distance ...": some conversions needed.

• Done - DB

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've made a few changes per your comments above. Please let us know if further work is needed, and thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Can Footnotes be two columns?

• Done - DB

• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs

  I think we got them (?) I added pp to the HYPP testing (it was only two pages, all relevant), board motions and registration fees, updated the FEI link. The only one not paginated (that I can now find) was the Appaloosa Horse Club Rule book, which is updated yearly and sometimes repaginated in the process, there it makes a lot more sense to cite to the rule rather than the page number because we need to change the url annually ... was that the problem child? --Montanabw

• Equine Color Genetics or Equine color genetics? Appaloosa Horse Club or Appaloosa horse Club Inc? Check for small inconsistencies

• These two done. Didn't see any others, but will keep my eye out - DB

• FN 15: why cite by year here?

• Fixed - DB

• FN 16: check authors

• Think I fixed this? - DB

• FN 20: the lab is part of the publisher, not the work

• Done - DB

• FN 23, 67, 69: repetition

• Done - DB

• FN 25, 37, 64: volume/issue?

• AFAIK, no volume/issue # for any of these, just dates and page numbers. A lot of horse magazines don't use volume/issue numbers. - DB

• FN 36: et al for only 3 authors?

• Fixed - DB

• Use a consistent formatting for retrieval dates

• Think I got them all - DB

• FN 94: the association is a publisher, not a work

• Done - DB

• Use a consistent formatting for editions

• Done - DB

• Be consistent in providing or not providing publisher locations, and if you do be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or spelled out

• Fixed, although a couple are listed as "No location given" Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Found a location for one per ISBN to WorldCat, noted on talk page, not sure if I should fix, or...?

• External links could stand to be culled - don't repeat cited sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Culled some. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have begun work on the above issues; more later. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It says "350 yards", "half mile", "4.5 furlong". These need conversions.

Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking good for me now. Lightmouse (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Breed characteristics: Two breed horse links is probably one too many here.

• Where? I'm missing what was double-linked? (Can fix if we know what you spotted) --MTBW

• Sorry; that was meant to be draft horse. Fixed it myself here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Color and spotting patterns: "The coat color of an Appaloosa is a combination of a base color with a overlaid sporting pattern." *I believe that the third "a" should be "an".

• Fixed. --MTBW

• History: "Domesticated horses with leopard complex spotting patterns have been depicted art dating as far back as Ancient Greece, Ancient Persia, the Han Dynasty in China". Could use "in" before "art" and "and" before "the Han Dynasty".

• Fixed. --MTBW

• Nez Perce War: In a very minor style point, numbers like 2000 should usually have a comma in them when used this way.
• Drug rules: "considered drug maskers and as diuretics that can be used to make it difficult to detect the presence of other drugs in the horse's system." Something's weird about this sentence, and I think it has to do with "as". Either it shouldn't be there, or some form of connection is missing ("act", maybe?).

• Will tweak, see what you think --MTBW

• Note 3: Another very minor thing, but does Acepromazine need the capitalization?

• Dana fixed that -- MTBW (for Dana)

• Reference 78 is missing the PDF indication that the other similar cites have. Again minor, but worthwhile anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like Dana fixed that too. --MTBW

• I actually didn't see it, so I did this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Re your point about "2000", the modern convention is that 4-digit numbers are not separated by commas. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I'll let you two fight that one out, whatever the wikigods decree, we shall humbly obey ;-) --MTBW

• • Support. Says here that commas are optional for four-digit numbers. Never noticed that before. Oh, and I support since everything up there is done, and this is a fine article overall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments Just a few quibbles from a non-horseman Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Equine Recurrent Uveitis and congenital stationary night blindness — Why is the first capped, and the second lower case. Is this inconsistency, or is there a reason?

• I'm taking a stab here, but "congenital stationary night blindness" is probably a generic term for a number of complexes, and ERU is probably one defined disorder/disease. My understanding is you capitalize single diseases, but I could be wrong here. Better to check with MTBW though, as they are the expert on the blindness thing in horses, not me. I do bloodlines and history, the others do the usage/diseases stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like Ealdgyth's explanation, but the main reason it's probably really that way is that it's capitalized in the Wikipedia article on that topic!  :-) We can do whatever the wiki MOS wants us to do, just someone let us know which is preferred. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Skin mottling is "a basic and decisive indicator of an Appaloosa" and is usually seen around the muzzle, eyes, anus, and genitalia. — I'm unclear, the photos seem to show much more wide-spread spotting than just those areas

• Skin mottling is different than spotting, and can be seen in Appaloosas with solid coat color (no difference in hair color). This is discussed further in the "Color rule controversy" section, but basically, a horse with leopard complex genetics won't always have a spotted coat, but will almost always have skin mottling in the locations listed. This last fact is what makes it one of the secondary characteristics that is looked for when registering a non-spotted Appaloosa. - DB

• Yes, like Dana said, and the registry states it that way in their standards. Also, the mottling isn't quite the same as the "halo" effect seen under the hair coat spots, in fact the body skin isn't mottled the way the "bare" skin is around the genitals, eyes and muzzle. Weird, but there it is. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• King Louis XIV of France — Is "king" necessary, there can't be many other Louis XIV of Frances?

• Done. - DB

• (Autumn, 2010). — Looks odd and inconsistent having only one ref with a month/season. If it's needed to avoid ambiguity, can it be moved to the title?

• This is a quarterly publication where the date of publication is given by the season (spring, summer, autumn, fall). So, IMO, it actually is consistent with the other references; it's just that we have used no other quarterly publications, so this one instance stands out a bit. I'm not sure why we would move the "autumn" to the title? - DB
• Verified what Dana said. I have the hardcopy; this is a quarterly publication. I believe that the "date" parameter is correct, though "issue" might work? (I don't really get template syntax very well). But definitely not part of the title. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Follow up: per online cite, http://mhs.mt.gov/pub/magazine/autumn2010.asp added Volume and issue number to template (someone fix it if I got it formatted wrong??). Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can US states be written in full in the cited texts for the benefit of us poor limeys?

• Done - DB

I've replied to most of the above comments, but am leaving the first one because I'm really not sure. Hopefully my co-noms have a better idea on this than I do. Thanks for the comments, Jim! Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the ERU capitalization is probably one of these things that's all over the place on wiki. Whatever the wiki MOS says for diseases with specific names in general, we shall do. (But if we go lower case, we will need to rename the other article too, probably) Even the horse articles are all over the place on this, so not a huge deal for us. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the caps issue needs resolution, but it looks as if it's beyond the scope of this FAC, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment I'll do some spot-checking and probably a spot of copyediting, and jot points down below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"SPOT?" Ohhhh baaaad pun for this article! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In mid-18th century Europe, there was a great demand for horses with the Appaloosa coat pattern among the nobility and royalty. - strictly speaking I suspect this is anomalous as this predates the development of the breed and the name. Can we just say "spotted" here?

Went with "...there was a great demand for horses with the leopard complex spotting pattern among the nobility and royalty." as we'd just used "spotted coat" in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed

and thus were notable as horse breeders by the early 19th century - erm, well anyone who keeps horses breeds them? I guess I'd tweak to "and thus were highly regarded as horse breeders by the early 19th century" or "and thus were notable as able/canny/good horse breeders by the early 19th century" or something....

No, actually, not everyone who keeps horses breeds them. Lots of Native American tribes sorta kinda bred horses, but only the NP were really noted as breeders. Kinda like how a lot of noblemen in England had horses but only a few were noted breeders. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Like E said... Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

is a very basic and decisive indication --> "confirms" (?) or "is proof positive" (??)

(I assumed you didn't mean to change the direct quote) now reads "...therefore this characteristic is proof positive of membership in the breed." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to depart from the quotation -- we have no clue WHAT this means, I'm going to fiddle with that a bit, open to further suggestions. Can't "prove" anything until they release a DNA test for LP. (Which is in the works but not out yet). Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand teh need for care here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking good otherwise (dang, forgot I reviewed this for GAN! Looks much improved since then :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

• "few spot" or "fewspot" leopard?

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• Think I got all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg - if the author is unknown, you can't say with certainty that he or she died more than 70 years ago. Same issue with File:Barnesspottedhorsephoto.jpg

• I just removed these - we're still trying to figure out where the author of the book we got them from originally got the photos from. Easier to just remove. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I put one back; I don't care about the circus image, though it's cool. But for the two men with the Appy, I have scraped the bottom of the barrel on this image. I also fixed the tag. The copyright status of the book (Appaloosa: The Spotted Horse in Art and History) is public domain, because it was published in 1963 and the rights were never renewed on it. There's no doubt about that. As for the original photographer, I personally contacted the Amon Carter Museum, the University of Texas Press (both involved in publishing the Haines book), Elliot West, and the Montana Historical Society (MHS), which used the image in the West article (scanned from the Haines book) and they were, likewise, unable to track it to any place other than the Haines book. Essentially, the MHS staff did an extensive search and they couldn't locate the original anywhere (they commented that if the original it still exists, it's probably in a box in someone's attic). The person who took the photo was "Mary Himes of Cayuse, Oregon", I did find here a Mary Himes born in 1877, but no clue if the same person. If push comes to shove, we can put this under a fair use designation, I suppose. I mean, I don't intend to derail the FA over one image, but it seems that there has got to be a way to salvage this image, which I consider a pretty critical image for the article, showing the people most responsible for the breed with a typical representative. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:AppyPlate.jpg has two different FURs for this article and two different licensing tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  I took off the Fair Use tag for the article where it is no longer being used. On the licensing tags, I thought I needed both, but if not, just tell me which one to use. FYI, I personally took that image, edited it to take off the actual number (it was a cousin's car) and uploaded it, so just let me know what needs to be fixed. Whatever we need to do, I won't derail the FA over the image, so whatever the policy is this week, I shall humbly obey. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar ?? "Domesticated horses with leopard spotting patterns have been depicted in art as far back as Ancient Greece ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My eyes have fried on that one, I've seen it too many times, but am open to ideas to fix. All the nuances are needed, domesticated, leopard spotting, ancient Greece -- evidence of how far back the pattern has been desired by humans is the point. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Follow up: I took a whack at this, not sure I improved matters, am still open to any way to say it better. Montanabw^(talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How ?? "The Appaloosa has influenced many other horse breeds, ... " This is explained in the body of the article, but is unclear in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Open to suggestions if there is a better way to say that. :-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Inline query left in the lead. I am not sure all of those External links to different clubs is a good idea-- could tend to become a farm, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Can't those be added via a DMOZ link instead? See the Open Directory Project links at the bottom of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed inline inquiry. Not sure DMOZ is a solution to the External links, part of me just says toss 'em all. But thoughts, everyone? Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy! Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Water Rail

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My previous Rallidae FAC was for a species, the Zapata Rail, about which virtually nothing is known, including whether it still exists. It was good to be in the position with this nomination of being able to decide what to leave out, rather than scratching around for any crumbs of info. Thanks to Shyamal for help with the eastern indicus subspecies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: Sources and citations appear impeccable. Spotchecks difficult because of the technical nature of the material, but no problems indicated. Exemplary. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for checking Brian, I'm blushing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• How do the two bacterial infections mentioned affect the Water Rail? If more could be said about these infections, then the bacteria theme could form a small paragraph and therefore be separated from the paragraph on the larger parasites. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• On checking, the rail was not a species carrying C. psittaci, so removed now. The research just has the Water Rail as one of many affected species, but Borellia is described as rare, and wasn't present in throat swabs, so there is no indication that any of the birds very obviously ill. There is nothing anywhere I can find about the effects of this Borrelia bacterium specifically on water rails Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps some details of the life cycle of the nematode, Gnathostoma spinigerum, with specific reference to the Water Rail should be included to avoid over simplification. There are other species of the genus Gnathostoma. Can I presume from the article that there is only one of these species that relevant to the Water Rail. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've added the first and third stage hosts to the text. The article only mentions Gnathostoma spinigerum, and I haven't found any mention of other species, so I don't know if they are relevant or not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do Water Rails contribute to the infestation of freshwater cyclopses with Gnathostoma spinigerum, and therefore provide a possible route for infected cyclopses to be consumed in untreated drinking water by humans? Could infected cyclopses be consumed by small fish which are in turn eaten by ducks and mammals that could go into the human food chain. With this in mind, I am not sure if this line of the article is logical; "The rail is unlikely to be a source of human gnathostomiasis, because ..." . Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• To get infected you have to consume the live nematode, either, as you say, by drinking water contaminated with the cyclops first host, or by a eating raw or insufficiently cooked secondary host, especially freshwater fish, which is often eaten raw in the two main countries for this disease. You would have to eat near-raw water rail to get infected by that bird, which is unlikely to say the least. Water rails do not contribute to infecting the cyclopses, which is only done via the final carnivora host Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Water Rail is omnivorous and eats fish, possibly fish infested with the nematode. Does this make the Water Rail a final host of the nematode? Snowman (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, the nematode remains in its larval form irrespective of host until it gets to a carnivore, usually a cat or dog. Only then doe it mature in the stomach and release eggs in the faeces to start the cycle again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see. The parasite is fastidious. I think that a little more explanation of some of the key stages of the parasite would make the section more readable. I would probably be able to find my orientation on these nematodes as soon as I have found my main parasitology book. Snowman (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've tweaked a bit to make the life cycle clearer,I wouldn't want much more detail, since the article is about the bird, and the nematode has its own page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• How does the Water Rail become infected with Borrelia burgdorferi? In mammals it is a tick-borne infection, so I wonder if the Water Rail's ticks infect birds. Is there a Water Rail tick that can bite humans to cause Lyme disease? I would like the article to quantify the risk of Water Rails directly or indirectly transmitting Lyme disease to humans. Can I presume that Water Rail contribute to maintaining a population of wild Borrelia in birds and mammals? Snowman (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've clarified that it's a tick-borne infection in the rail too. The only Ixoides tick that I know bites water rails is I. frontalis, which I think is a largely avian tick that is unlikely to bite humans, and I don't know if it's a carrier of Borrelia anyway. The source makes it clear that there is little information about this bacterium in birds, although Mallards deliberately infected with the disease remained unsymptomatic. The listed reservoir species are pheasants, seabirds and migratory passerines. Only three individual rails were involved in the research, and only one was positive,, so not much to go on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for image review, Nikkimaria, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It says "25.8mm". There should be a space before the unit name. It also looks like excessive precision to me. I'd recommend '26 mm'.
• It says "15.6 million km² (6 million mi²)". A million expressed as a fraction requires a mental calculation to work out what 0.1 of a million is. I'd rather just have the plain numeric value. I'd also be inclined to use the convert template to sort out all the formatting as follows (look at this in edit mode): '15,600,000 km² (6,000,000 sq mi)'. It's not a big issue, feel free to disagree.

Lightmouse (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for comments, I've inserted the missing nbsp and rounded as suggested. I'm less convinced by the "millions" comment, I've used that style in many facs without problems, but no big deal, so changed that too. For reasons I won't bore you with, I dislike the convert template. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The space isn't a big deal for me, but is mentioned at the official SI website, in 'ISO 31-0', and in MOS.

Precision is part art, part science so 25.8 mm versus 26 mm was just my opinion.

There are fractional millions in Wikipedia like "0.10 million" and "0.358 million" and they look so weird that I question it's use. The '15.6 million' isn't so bad, particularly because of the two significant figures to the left of the decimal. Use million if you prefer.

I opposed the convert template for a long time. I then drank from the poisoned well (parable of poisoned well at ) and now think it's faults are worth tolerating. But it's only a tool. If the reader sees the right thing, it doesn't matter so much how it's achieved.

Keep up the good work Lightmouse (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally great. A couple of thoughts:

• "The binomial name is, of course, the Latin equivalent of the English "Water Rail"." Yep, it's obvious, but I am not certain "of course" is so Wikipedia.

OK, done

• Para 2 of taxonomy could be smoothed. Not wild about the bold, and the tenses are a little funny.

Tweaked, any better?

• "the dark barring on the undertail undertail of this species is"

Sigh... how did I miss that?

• Perhaps a map showing the ranges of the subspecies? Perhaps I am spoilt after seeing the likes of File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg, but it would be interesting.

I thought about that, but decided against. The three main breeding ranges are fairly obvious, and adding subspecies dividing lines, and text or a key, makes the map cluttered. It aslo gives an illusion of accuracy which is unwarranted given the the lack of detailed knowledge of the Asian breeding ranges. My sources do not show the ssp on their maps either

• Is R. a. hibernans completely extinct? It's not clear. (See para 2 of the distribution section)

• Clarified, the birds outside Iceland came from that breeding population, so all gone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I will read the rest of the article later. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for review so far, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more thoughts-

• "A Welsh study suggested that winter territories overlap" What does that mean?

• changed to individual winter territories overlap, with each bird using a significant proportion of the reed bed — is that clearer?

• "in the lava" Not actual lava, presumably?

• Well, yes actually, lava refers to the solid as well as the liquid, but changed to solidified lava for clarity

• In the predators and parasites section, don't be scared to link to articles on species. Redlinks are not a bad thing.

• redlinked, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to turn blue

• "The louse Philopterus ralli and a nematode Strongyloides avium, have been found on the subspecies R. a. indicus." Lose the comma?

• lost

• "Water Rails have been eaten for thousands of years" Specify by humans?

• added

• Seems to be a bit too much details about the minks- are they of particular note in relation to Water Rails? If so, it's not clear.

• the introduced mink exterminated an entire subspecies, and came close to clearing the Hebrides. It's a particularly potent threat to wetland creatures in Europe (eg 90% losses of Water Voles in the UK) since the only native predator so well adapted to wetlands is the otter, which specialises in fish. As opposed to the harriers etc, losses to mink, which kills more than it can eat, place an unsustainable burden on this and other marsh species. I thought it was worth explaining how it spread through the Scottish islands, but if you think the history is unnecessary, it could go.

Generally looking great. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks again for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support (providing everything else checks out, which I am sure it will). Nice work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for support and kind words

• Support (moral or otherwise) as birds wikiproject co-member. I read through it and nothing jumped out as needing improvement prose-wise. It looks like this one came together really well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review, kind words and support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with a few comments:

• If it is so closely related to the African and Madagascar rails, how can it be more closely related to Gallirallus than to other Rallus?

• I don't think that's what I said, the text states that it is the most closely related of its genus to the Pacific Gallirallus rails

• If the genus is monophyletic, how can it be more closely related to Gallirallus than the other species are? Ucucha 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I read the source as meaning that the whole Gallirallus genus diverged from an ancestral Water Rail that spread from Asia into the Pacific, presumably changing enough to become a different genus. I'm no geneticist, if what Taylor says is wrong/unclear/misleading, I'll take out that non-essential comment.

• Why do you use the Catalan "Eivissa" instead of the common English form "Ibiza"?

• Its the version used in the (English language) source, so I've followed their usage, but it's linked to Ibiza

• "vagrants have been found in the Azores, Madeira, Mauritania, the Arctic, Greenland and Southeast Asia"—the text previously says parts of Southeast Asia (e.g., Borneo) are within its normal range

• Good point, changed to south of the normal range in Southeast Asia

• In Indonesia, that is? That seems the only part of Southeast Asia that is south of its normal range on Borneo. Ucucha 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, on checking, it's just Malaysia and Vietnam, so changed to that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 29 May 2011 (

Ucucha 11:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) UTC)

• Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

RAF Northolt

Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way in recent months and I feel it meets the featured article critera. It was recently promoted as a good article, has been peer reviewed and had copy edit. In my opinion it is well referenced and covers the history of the station well. Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - it's not perfect, but it's much improved, and I now feel it meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Comments - issues adequately addressed to remove opposition. I'll try to offer further comments later. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time

• "Runway 26/08 had been extended in February that year to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command" - source?
• "As a result, Northolt has been extensively redeveloped with new facilities for these operations." - source?
• Avoid using one-sentence paragraphs and other choppy constructions
• WP:OVERLINK - don't link common terms like Europe, don't repeat links (especially in close proximity) (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), not fixed)

Many links have been removed. Could you point out which articles shouldn't be linked to? Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I delinked everything I could come up with a reason to delink. Let me know if it's not good enough, Nikki, it's not what I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOS edits needed - don't use single quotation marks except within larger quotes, check hyphen/dash use, etc (Rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), remaining issues include linkrot)
  • Not something I usually check, but I've run the link checker at the top right of this page, and that's the only dead link. Anyone have a substitute? - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It was a PDF, so I have linked to the page the PDF is linked to from. It appears that when the file is linked to from elsewhere, it displays as being unavailable. Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• I think more copy-editing is needed - for example, "during the First World War I" (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), issues remain - for example "an annual maximum of 7,000 a year")
  • Amazing ... how did you find the only one so quickly? I just went through the article again, and found no other redundancies (within a sentence at least), with the arguable exception of two "alls", which I've removed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Referencing needs to be checked - missing bibliographic details for Birtles 2010 and Bader 2004, books sources need page numbers, referencing format is overall rather inconsistent
• What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. So far, references have been added for the first two points, several repeated links have been removed, the copy edit mistake you have highlighted has been fixed and the source you have drawn attention to has been replaced with a book source. The other references given to books withot bibliographic details should be on the way as these were added by another user who I have asked to add them in. Harrison49 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A new copy edit has been completed and the referencing has been harmonised. I am in the process of getting the page numbers for the Bristow source. Harrison49 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers for the Bristow source have been added. The book does not have an ISBN which explains the absence of this. Harrison49 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still issues with wikilinking - for example, Her Majesty is a dab link, RAF West Ruislip is repeated, etc - and referencing format remains fairly inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remove the extra links, however, what is inconsistent in the referencing format? I have removed the author details where individual names were not available and the names of the organisations responsible had been used in their place. Harrison49 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some examples: in ref 17 the author is listed first name first, whereas in most other refs the author appears last name first; ref 12 repeats "Royal Air Force" for both author and publisher while ref 2 does not; "Hansard" is not an author but the name of a publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, these have now been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comments - Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• "with services transferring from other stations" seems quite vague, even for the lead. I would just omit it completely
  • Agreed, I removed it because it was implied by the first half of the sentence, but I wouldn't object if someone wants to add more detail (probably not in the lead). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Use of "whilst" is considered to be somewhat deprecated
  • I will gleefully replace "whilst" whenever I see it at FAC, but only if we can get a stronger consensus than we've been able to get so far. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• "They then sought an aerodrome" - are "they" the aviation pioneers or the British Army?
• "led to the need for" -> "necessitated"? Check for other instances of excessive wordiness
  • Done, and checked. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If I may, Nikki, I'd like to pull in both directions here. I encourage anyone bringing something to A-class or FAC to read it through slowly thinking about "tightness". This isn't just a fussy copy-editor preference; if a "tighter" way to put something occurs to you, it will usually be clearer and easier to read, and sometimes it fixes problems you didn't even know were there. OTOH, don't force it; the time spent obsessing over word choice or grammar might be better spent writing another article, especially if you're not that comfortable with word choice and grammar. Others can help with the polishing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Glebe Farm in Ickenham, Hundred Acres Farm and Down Barnes Farm" - are these all in Ickenham? If so, reorder, if not, where are they?
  • Agreed that knowing where the farms are would help, and if you don't know, maybe some more general description (what county, near what city) would be better. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've added that these were in Ruislip.
• Is "British Government" a proper noun (ie. is that the official name)?
  • I've lowercased all 3 instances of "government"; anyone have a problem with that? - Dank (push to talk)
• Additional hyphens needed, for example "fifteen month period" -> "fifteen-month period
  • Done. Checked month, day, week, year. - Dank (push to talk)
• Conversion for "within two miles"? (and did they just have really bad aim?)
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• What is a "day fighter base"? By "civilian flights" do you mean commercial flights or recreational flights?
  • A day fighter base was where fighter aircraft optimised for daytime operations flew from. I've changed this to read "a base for daytime fighter operations".
• "the crew's lack of understanding of English and military air traffic control procedures had contributed significantly" - the procedures themselves or the crew's lack of understanding of them contributed to the crash?
  • Seems clear; does it seem implausible? - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've added "both" to make it clear that the crew struggled with both points.
• Wikilink aggregate?
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• Don't capitalize "the" in "the Queen". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Judging purely from ghits, I'm not sure about this one. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria is right, no capitalisation of "the". Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most reviewers prefer to see consistency on "First World War" vs. "World War I". We tend to prefer "First World War" in BritEng and "World War I" in AmEng, but I don't think it matters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. See if you can either do without them or find a way to work them into the narrative.
• Ref 61 is oddly placed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Dank. The GOCE copy edit replaced most links for the First and Second World Wars to read World War I or II, per their article names. I have changed all mentions so that this is the same throughout. The reference 61 now has a supporting line and I have expanded the single sentence paragraphs. Harrison49 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. I checked the things Nikki mentions above; I got most of them the first time through, and I've combined the one-sentence paragraph with another paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- Taken first pass at the article, making various trims and tweaks. While it looks quite comprehensive, I'm not entirely sure about the way it jumps about in time, though I appreciate this is to try and keep related information together. Will have another look from top to bottom tomorrow, when I review references and other aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Had another look, further comments:

• Structure/flow: I still think the jumping back and forth in time, even if it's to try and keep related info together, perhaps does the article more harm than good. This sort of thing is fine when done sparingly but it seems a bit wearing here. For instance in "Battle of Britain and Second World War" we go from 1939 to 1937 to 1943 to 1940 to 2008 to 1940 to 2010, all within the first four paragraphs. I think generally (not necessarily exclusively) keeping to a more conventional chronological narrative will work better.
• Referencing: The "Bibliography" looks like it should be labelled "Further reading" -- I can't see any citations to those books. The citations themselves are heavy going too, be better to create a "References" section where you list your full book titles once, and then cite them in short form, e.g. "Birtles 2010, p. 22" or something similar.

Time for another breather, be back again as/when things are modified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Would the style of the reference section in the Avro Vulcan article be worth copying for this one? Harrison49 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That style should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the reference style and changed most of the history section to run in chronological order. I've kept the paragraph in the later civil and military use about accidental landings together as the stories of the two 707s fit quite nicely. How does this look? Harrison49 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts responding to these comments. Reckon it flows better now. I've made a few minor mods and also alternated the images to mix things up a bit and reduce stacking on wider screens -- let me know if I've mucked up anything. Last thing I want to check is the references themselves and if they look okay to me I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks a lot. Harrison49 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Had a quick check of references and they seem okay to me so I'm done, good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments A few captions have unnecessary trailing periods; use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC; intrigued as to whether a free alternative might exist to RAF_Northolt_aerial_view_1917.jpg. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article. I've removed the full stops you've mentioned. The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example. I'm unsure if a free alternative of the 1917 aerial photograph does exist but if one is available, I'd be pleased to see it included. Harrison49 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an image expert, but isn't it possible that this image (the 1917 aerial photograph) is actually in the public domain? The description page says that it is subject to Crown Copyright, which implies to me that it is British government photograph. Wouldn't it then be more appropriate to tag it with {{PD-BritishGov}}, which states that images which are created by the UK government before 1 June 1957 are in the public domain? Given that it appears to have been taken in 1917, would that not mean that this actually is a public domain image? I'm not sure of this, though, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianRupert (talk • contribs) May 12, 2011 Comments:
  • in the Later civil and military use section, this doesn't seem correct to me: "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) aircrew killed during the Battle of Britain" - during the Second World War, Australian and New Zealand aircrew that participated in the Battle of Britain would have either been in the RAF, RAAF or RNZAF. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps was a First World War formation, the abbreviation of which has later been used colloquially to generically describe military personnel from those nations. Using it in this way is probably confusing to readers, particularly if they click on the link. I would suggest just saying "British, Polish, Australian and New Zealand aircrew..." (and leave off the ANZAC);
    • Supported above, but I agree with AR that this colloquialism should be changed lest it confuse. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • for consistency, shouldn't the works in the Further reading section be arranged "Surname, first name"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ANZAC was how this was presented in the A History of Royal Air Force Northolt book, though I agree it was confusing so I'll make the change. The aerial photograph is from the same book which is covered under Crown copyright so I played it safe with the image and uploaded it under the same licence. A specific photo credit is not given in the book so it is to be presumed it was created by the British government and can be tagged as being in the public domain. If this would definitely be the correct licence then I'll be more than happy to change that too. Also, I'm sorry for the oversight on the Further reading section. Thank you to everyone for your reviews and suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly sure that the image would be PD-BritishGov, but does anyone know a FAC image guru who can confirm this or otherwise? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Update on the image: I asked at the Media Copyrights page and was told the {{PD-BritishGov}} was the correct licence to use. I have replaced the non-free licences for the image with that one. Harrison49 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Excellent, good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • in the first sentence of the Battle of Britain section, I suggest adding a clause "during the Second World War" to introduce the reason why RAF and Polish squadrons were defending the UK;
  • this sentence seems like it is missing something: "The aircraft used to fly him to meetings with other Allied leaders". -- "was used" ??
  • I'm not sure what this sentence means. Is it missing something? "The much larger civilian airport at Heathrow though its operations became constrained by its proximity to the new facility". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for spotting those, I've corrected them in the ways you've suggested. Harrison49 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • All my concerns have been addressed, so I've added my support. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, the prognosticating octopus:

• "Northolt pre-dates the establishment of the Royal Air Force by almost three years." This is indeed a fun factoid, but it is sadly uninformative without giving the actual years that are relevant here.
• I don't understand why the second paragraph of the lead is not written in chronological order.
• Is there a difference between "civilian flights" and "civil flights"?
• "RAF squadrons including No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF are based at RAF Northolt whilst its location close to the A40 road link with central London has made the station popular with business people and politicians." This is what happens when you take two completely unrelated facts and try to bash them together into a sentence. I suggest dropping the "whilst" and splitting this into two sentences.
• I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not there should be an In popular culture section, but if you are going to include it, it should be mentioned in the lead.
• Question that should be answered in the lead: how big is this place? I would be happy with either a measure of area or the mileage of runway.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I've added in the date the aerodrome opened and a mention of film productions. I've also changed the paragraph to read in date order, replaced mentions of "civil" with "civilian" and made a change to the sentence you mention. The length of the runway is in the infobox but I'm not sure if it would fit in the lead. Harrison49 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How about putting it at the end of the first paragraph? That paragraph seems to be dedicated to numerical / bare-bones facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added this in. How does it look? Harrison49 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to go! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Support as the GA reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Image question. Above, Jarry1250 says: "use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC". Harrison replies: "The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example." Could we get a couple of outside opinions on this NFCC issue please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Drive-by reply after noticing Dan's appeal at WT:MILHIST) I would say that meets the NFCC, becuase it's being used for identification purposes, which we allow without question in articles on companies and organisations, for example. However, File:Northolt-600.jpg is too big to comply with NFCC 3b and should be reduced and tagged with {{non-free reduced}} so the old version can be deleted. I assume that's the one at issue, since the RAF flag itself appears to be user-made and properly licensed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've reduced the crest image to 125px. Harrison49 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone happy? - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Was a spotcheck for WP:V and close paraphrasing done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• " the station houses No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, No. 600 Squadron (Royal Auxiliary Air Force), 621 EOD Squadron RLC (part of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment) and the Royal Logistic Corps.[2]" - ref 2 supports The Royal Squadron but not the rest of this sentence
• "Civilian flights ceased when the central area at Heathrow opened in 1954 with Northolt reverting to sole military use in May that year" - don't see this in the cited source
• "Thirty Allied airmen including servicemen from Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, Poland and the United Kingdom were killed flying from RAF Northolt during the Battle of Britain, of whom ten were Polish." - first part not in source, source gives only 5 Polish airmen from Northolt KIA
• "By 1952 the airfield was the busiest in Europe, with a total of 50,000 air movements per annum" vs "during 1952, Northolt was the busiest airfield in Europe, handling an annual total of 50,000 air movements" in source

Checked 5 web sources, found above issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I have corrected the references and changed the sentence relating to your second point. Harrison49 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Nikkimaria found issues of close paraphrasing and text unsupported by citations on a spotcheck, I would like additional review for same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have the changes I have made related to the spotcheck made an improvement? Harrison49 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked another 6 or 7 sources. I didn't find any issues with close paraphrasing, but The headquarters of the London and South East Region (LaSER) of the Air Training Corps is also located at RAF Northolt doesn't appear to be in the given source. I don't have time to check all the web sources atm. I might be able to in the week if you think it's necessary, Sandy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback, HJ; since you also found info not supported by the cited source, more checking might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt there'll be a queue of volunteers to mcheck the rest of them! I'll get to it... probably tomorrow (Monday) or Tuesday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell. To make it clearer, I've replaced "London and South East Region (LaSER)" with "14F (Northolt) Squadron". Harrison49 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the air cadet squadron has now been removed by MilborneOne. Harrison49 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've checked all the remaining online sources and found the following issues. It was better than I was expecting, given that two spotchecks reveled issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Following the relocation of the British Forces Post Office and Defence Courier Service from Mill Hill,—source doens't mention Defence Courier Service
• First paragraph of RAF Northolt#Project MoDEL redevelopment: only Bentley Priory and the Air Historical Branch are mentioned in source. Redevelopment (last sentence of the paragraph) checks out.
• Other airlines including Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Scandinavian Airlines System and Swissair used the airfield for scheduled services across Europe doesn't seem to be in the source (add: Aer Lingus is supported in the next online ref)
• He became regarded as an ace of the sky and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) after downing six German aircraft, before being shot down and killed on September 27, 1940 over Borough Green in Kent. (source) Paszkiewicz became a flying ace and received the Distinguished Flying Cross after shooting down six aircraft, before he himself was shot down and killed on 27 September 1940, over Borough Green in Kent. (article) That's almost verbatim.

Thank you for checking it through. I'm sorry about the mistake with references and have replaced some and added others. What happened was I included several facts in a paragraph or sentence with a reference only covering one or two. Hopefully these problems have now been addressed. I have also rewritten the sentences on Ludwik Witold Paszkiewicz, hopefully this is an improvment. Harrison49 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, they're easy mistakes to make. Btw, Defence Courier Service redirects to Defense Courier Service, which about an American unit. Is that the unit you mean or is there a British unit with the same name (that spells its name properly ;) )? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be the British version. I'll remove the link. Harrison49 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any remaining issues. The problems I brought up above have all been fixed and I read through the article while I was checking the sourcing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

USS Chesapeake (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok here it is. Bad Luck Chesapeake the malignant frigate of the early US Navy. Bad luck followed me during the building process with all of the controversial and contradicting information about this ship. Hopefully I've done an adequate job of clarifying all the points. There is one external link used as a source that has gone dead three times and each time I've found the new link. Of course the link is dead again for the fourth time and I cannot locate it. I do have an offline copy of this PDF which I can mail to anyone wishing to verify the source. The article was wonderfully copyedited by the GOCE just recently. Be careful not to allow the malignant Chesapeake get the best of you. Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in whether you provide volume number for citations to Maclay and Smith
• Why does the first dictionary include a date and the others do not?
• Why do some citations use curly brackets instead of parentheses?
• Ref 97, 102: page(s)?
• USS Lake Erie website is a work, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Found one instance of missing volume number; fixed.
• The date was there as an editing reminder no longer needed. Removed.
• { instead of ( is a habit from typing templates all the time; fixed. (good eye)
• The 97 source has no page numbers on the document itself unless you want the PDF reader page number. The 102 source now has an external link to it but its only a one page archive document from the NYT.
• Lake Erie fixed. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Added sources comment: The links in the references all worked for me, though some were more reluctant than others. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as sure as the sun rises someone else will report it as dead. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the link to the Daybook Journal(archive). It seems the site for volume 13 is broken (lucky 13=P) as one of its tag attributes aren't closed. The other volumes look fine.Smallman12q (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix but I still blame it on the Chesapeake Curse. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• "Mediterranean Sea area of operation" - can this be clearer and more precise?
• As a photo of a painting, File:USSChesapeake.jpg qualifies as PD-art, so copyright status depends on that of the painting, not the photo
• File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg - page number?
• File:JamesLawrence.jpg - need more information. Is the author known? Where specifically on the source site can this image be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed caption a bit. Hopefully clearer. Brad (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • File:USSChesapeake.jpg has been updated with a PD-art tag.
  • File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg There are no page numbers in that Gutenberg source. Instead I gave the Volume, Part and Chapter.
  • File:JamesLawrence.jpg was changed to File:JamesLawrenceATcommons.jpg where I've placed a PD-art tag. Thanks for spotting the pic issues. Brad (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose review. This went through A-class a long time ago, and I haven't worked on this one before. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "USS Chesapeake was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy.": Even though "designed to carry" is not as accurate as "rated" (because she wasn't really designed to carry a specific number, she simply had a rating that allowed her expected armament to be compared to that of other ships), I've asked a couple of intelligent people what the first sentence means, and they couldn't figure it out. Would this work? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy, designed to carry 38 cannons." - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "USS Chesapeake was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" because "designed to carry 38 cannons" is dumbing down for the reader and it would also really upset the Age Of Sail Nazi's who insist on using "nominally rated". Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I asked a question at WT:MIL#FAC question about "rated". I take it from "Nazis" that you're not going to insist on "nominally rated". How about this for the first two sentences? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. She was assigned an armament rating of 38 cannons, although the actual number of cannons varied." - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This is quickly spiraling out of control. You want to remove "nominally" because no one understands what "nominal" (an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value) means. Removing "nominal" is dumbing down text but I'm willing to live without it.
      • "cannon/s" are always called gun/s; there is no such thing as a "38-cannon ship". All of the sources I've read on these age of sail ships use the word gun; never cannon.
      • The US Navy did not have a rating system like Rating system of the Royal Navy. There is no such thing as a "6th rate" US Navy ship. Applying a Royal Navy definition or pointing to an article about the Royal Navy for more information about a US Navy ship is ludicrous. And I don't care what Fifelfoo thinks just because he reads Aubrey novels. He should stick to referencing uniformity.
      • The solution is still: "was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" as I pointed out before you ran the opinion poll. The explanation on rating vs number of guns is covered in the armament section. Brad (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Done per your suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The US Navy certainly did have a rating system, it just wasn't the same as the Royal Navy. There were three ratings of frigates, 44-gun, 36-gun and 32-gun, which determined their complement and how much the officers were paid and had nothing to do with the designed number nor actual number of cannons/carronades/etc. on the ship which was determined by the individual captains during fitting-out. So officially, the Chesapeake was a 36-gun ship but through a mixture of a hasty redesign, contradictory official documents, and traditions that don't make sense to our modern eyes the ship was termed a '38-gun' ship as a compromise to all these forces, and that's the common way the ship is described all modern sources. Not all sources even mention the officially 36-gun part of the story and Brad explains this pretty clearly in the Armament section. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm going to have to pour water on this "3 ratings of frigates" theory because that passage was found in Lardas, Mark (2008). American Light and Medium Frigates 1794–1836. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1846032660. OCLC 183265266. I was able to obtain a copy of that book through my library and it's amounts to no more than a 48 page "travel brochure" on 36-gun and lower rated frigates by an author described in the book as an "amateur historian". More emphasis is placed on artwork and drawings than content. Lardas goes on to speculate that Chesapeake retained her 44-gun rating even after being built and was rerated to a 36 only prior to the War of 1812. However, I've have yet to come across any source that would support this theory. Lardas uses typical sources of which I've read several and none of them support argument. Brad (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Our naval war with France By Gardner Weld Allen has no mention of this 38-gunning stuff so it must have happened between 1801 and 1812; it should be in a congressional document somewhere related to the pay of Captains. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Here's the 1825 Naval Register's official ship list w/three 'classes' of ships. Congress and Constellation are both listed as second class, 36-gun frigates ; not the time period or ship we're interested in but at least its something. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• A few notes on the capitalization of "Navy". American style guides have become more or less uniform in promoting what they call the "down" style of capitalization, meaning roughly, if you can get away with lowercasing, do it. If I were strictly following those style guides, I'd be lowercasing most instances of "the Navy". However, a popular approach to copyediting these days is to leave things alone if a particular style occurs throughout the work and it isn't horrible ... and "the Navy" isn't horrible in this article, when it's clear it means "US Navy"; the justification is that "the Navy" is what it's often called, so it qualifies as a proper noun. But it's not called "the young Navy" often, so I can't see capitalizing that, and I also can't see capitalizing "modern Navy" where it's ambiguous, following a long list of British ships. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're looking for my approval or disapproval here. If you would like to go with lower case then knock yourself out. Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying what the style guides say to help you make the call. If you don't care, I'll lowercase. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do you have any sources that will convince me that Quasi-War doesn't need a hyphen? Per the usual dictionaries, "quasi" isn't an English word. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There was only the instance of a missing hyphen in the lead. I fixed it; Quasi-War is now standard throughout. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This edit changes the meaning of clause nine of the Naval Act. It's important to note that construction was to begin on all six frigates and continue unless a treaty was reached with Algiers. The way you've worded it doesn't make that distinction. The clause was inserted into the act to appease those who disagreed with building a navy. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that; I've changed it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS Chesapeake (1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Was hoping for help finishing up, but Godot seems to be late. Plodding on.
• See if you can do something about all the short sentences in the first paragraph of USS_Chesapeake_(1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair; I think the flow could be better.
• "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior.": In which regard?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the entire content of the paragraph that explains Shannon's crew who were well trained and crack-shots with the guns. Therefore: "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior"

Overall I'm not understanding why copyediting issues keep arising when this article was copyedited 3 times by two different editors in the GOCE. It seems like copyediting on WP means the personal preference of the editor instead of cleaning up the style of what's already there. Brad (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to Support: An excellent article and very readable. Apart from some minor issues below, it is very clear to a non-specialist like myself. Just a few points before I switch to full support.

• Where does the name of the ship come from? (At first, I thought it said "cheapskate"!)

Clarified in the construction section. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "On 22 June 1807, in what has become known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, a precipitating event of the War of 1812, she was fired upon by HMS Leopard of the Royal Navy for refusing to comply with a search for deserters.": A slightly long sentence?

Entire middle paragraph of the lead section redone for clarity. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "or Secretary Stoddert rerated Congress and Constellation to 38s" The 38s does not look or feel quite right to me. At first, I thought "-s" was an abbreviation, but that might just be me. Feel free to argue.

38s was out of continuity with the rest of the article. Changed to 38 guns. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Chesapeake was launched without ceremony on 2 December 1799": Forgive my ignorance, but what does launching mean in this sense, as it says soon after this "Chesapeake first put to sea on 22 May".

Linked to ship naming and launching. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Quasi-War": Minor point, but reading this section, it is not clear that the war was ongoing while these events took place. It makes the section read oddly in isolation. Could a sentence be added to the beginning to give context to the war? Particularly useful for the non-specialist like myself who does not know anything about this event.

Done. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but not quite sure about this sentence: "The undeclared Quasi-War (1798–1800) arose from the French navy's seizing of American merchant ships and Chesapeake was launched on 2 December 1799." The two parts of this sentence do not seem obviously connected but seem to be implying the Chesapeake was launched in response to the war. If this is the case, I think a stronger word than "and" is required.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing this sentence, but please revert if it is wrong or does not work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That works very nicely. Thanks for the fix and the review. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It took several months to get the vessels ready for sea; they departed individually as they became readied." Ready ... readied.

Rewritten. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The English minister to the United States requested...": Again, forgive the ignorance, but is "minister" similar to an ambassador? I have a mental image of a clergyman! I think clarification would help.

Changed to ambassador. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Leopard also got under way and preceded Chesapeake to sea": Was Leopard in port? The previous sentence suggests the squadron was all at sea.

Clarified. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Confusion and disarray were the state of affairs on the deck of Chesapeake": Slightly odd phrasing here: "was the state of affairs"? Why not just "there was confusion and disarray on..."

This is to point out the different "state of affairs" on both ships. Whereas Shannon had a well-trained and organized crew (mentioned previously), Chesapeake's crew were confused and running amuck not knowing what to do. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Contemporary sources place the number between 48–61 killed and 85–99 wounded.[89][90][91][92]": Does this really need four sources? If nothing else, could they be put in a note to make it tidier?

I have six sources that mention the number of killed and wounded and not one of them agree with each other. In this edit I moved two references away from the counts. The two references moved, back up the entire paragraph anyway. No need to overcite. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Chesapeake went into ordinary..." Could this be explained for non-specialists? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ordinary" = reserve. Changed to reserve. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've made one tweak myself (see above). Thanks for the prompt response, switching to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I don't really have time to review this article at the moment, so I'm not opposing or supporting the nomination, but I do have a couple of comments:
  • The map showing modern borders in the 'First Barbary War' section is rather confusing, particularly with its current caption of "Barbary States in southern area of the Mediterranean" (which seems to be outright wrong as most of the countries it depicts didn't exist at the time). If a map showing the borders at the time of this war isn't available, I'd suggest developing a new map by marking a blank map of the southern Mediterranean with the relevant locations.
    • There are two other maps I found: File:Barbarie - 1806.jpg and long file name but neither of them are in English or very appealing visually. If the map is a problem I'd rather just remove it as there is no suitable replacement at present. Or maybe I can sneak in File:Barbary coast 1983.jpg. Think anyone would notice? Brad (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is Theodore Roosevelt's book still considered a reliable source? He's better known for his enthusiasm for the US Navy (and, of course, being the President) than the quality of his scholarship. I'd suggest replacing all uses of this book with references to more recent works, if possible. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The most recent book I'm aware of and have here is Toll's Six Frigates (2006). Toll uses source documents as a main biblio but his secondary sources include Roosevelt as well as Beach, Chappelle, Cooper, Fowler, and the further reading book by Poolman. It also contains many other books that I've read which were not applicable to this article itself. With that in mind there aren't any large discrepancies between sources in any listed for this article. Toll has on several occasions provided new light on a subject such as the discrepancies over the number of killed and wounded on Chesapeake after her capture. Wherever a more recent book reveals new information I've made sure to note it. Brad (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • And noting that Fowler (1984) and Beach (1986) also use Roosevelt. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Some ignorable comments:
• Infobox: The armament is cited but I've seen in other places she was armed with 28 18-pounders and 20 32-pounder carronades which leaves out any chasers or cannon on the main/spar deck; you might be better off using Danfs' 1807 armament.
  • Ignorable maybe. In "other places" where have you seen this? I'm listing the 1813 armaments since that was her most in/famous skirmish. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This table says 15 18-pounders, 10 32-pounder carronades and a 12-pounder carronade as a top gun (and I'm not sure what that is...) for a total broadside of 605 lbs. Kirk (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, I saw in this bibliography an article entitled: Purcell, Hugh D. "Don't Give Up the Ship!" United States Naval Institute Proceedings 91 (May 1965) which our library happens to have in the stacks. On p. 85 he says the ship has 49 guns with 4 carronades on the forecastle with a 18-pounder cannon as a chase gun, but unfortunately, he didn't cite his sources. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your high level of sleuthing (something seriously lacking at WP) but I feel this is an issue that likely will never be solved. A lot of source documents themselves contradict each other and there doesn't seem to be any one source that agrees with another regarding guns. When an author can't cite a source then he is likely making a WAG just to get his publication finished. Additionally I don't really see a purpose in nit-picking over the location of the guns; it's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Not trying to nit-pick; its a mystery to me why the sources we use don't agree (and don't cite their sources). Kirk (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun Deck

28 x 18-pounder (8 kg) long guns

18 x 32-pounder (14.5 kg) carronades

Spar Deck

2 x 12-pounder stern chasers

1 x 18-pounder bow chaser

1 x 12-pounder (5.5 kg) carronade (Guessing the roles...)

• This matches the other org. frigate articles, but both tonnage & displacement? And no unit of tonnage?
  • I need specific sources to cite. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the C vs. Shannon section, add a sentence to the lead paragraph.
  • Add what sentence? Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Its a two sentence paragraph, that's all; I couldn't think of anything.
• Mention 3rd Lt. William Sitgreaves Cox somewhere (C vs. Shannon or 'cursed' paragraph)
• Nice work - only two to go! Kirk (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and review. There are 3 more to go including the main article. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Very readable and educational. By this time most "nit-picks" have been taken care of so I can't find much of anything wrong with article. Keep them coming and thanks for contributing your talent to the Ships Project. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your high compliment. It was probably nice to read about something other than a battleship for a change ;) Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• My only quibble is that I think that there should be a comma after "38-gun" in the opening sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Richard Barre

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's a lawyer! Well, a proto-lawyer, sorta-kinda. Barre was a minor player in the dispute between King Henry II of England and Thomas Becket, and spent many years as a justice, royal official, and general all around go-fer for kings and bishops. Besides, this is the only medieval biography article you'll likely ever see with a citation to the science fiction magazine Analog Science Fiction and Fact! Much like Urse d'Abetot is as a layperson, Richard Barre is a prototypical medieval clergyman who never quite managed to secure enough royal patronage for a bishopric. Think of him as "everyman-clergyman". The article has a GAN review, as well as a copyedit by Malleus, and if there is anything lurking in any sources about him, I'd love to know about it, as I've been unable to turn up anything new. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the lookover! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. I'm not following: "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, as Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Are you saying the fact that he witnessed charters proves that he must have worked for one of them, but doesn't prove which one?

  Doesn't the fact that he witnessed charters for both men indicate that he worked for both, not just one of them? Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. He could have just be around when one or the other needed witnesses. It's not always possible to be sure on these things - more later. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's try "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon; the main evidence for this is that Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Is that a bit clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It could just be that I'm not a scholar of the period, but I'm still not getting it. I get that witnessing charters doesn't necessarily mean he worked for Chesney. So, how do we know he must have worked for one or the other, if witnessing charters doesn't prove he worked for either? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because he witnessed enough to make it clear that he was working for someone, and he had no other job that we know of (no visible means of support). It's a guess, but in this period, you basically rely on guesses. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've skimmed it ... no general comments, and I'll save myself some work by waiting til after you've made the edits you mention below before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I removed the "with" in front of "Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon" to keep it parallel; if that's wrong, then some explanation of what "for" and "with" mean in this context would be helpful.

• Nope, it's fine as you changed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Although Barre returned to England, Longchamp did not return to his diocese, and much of the administration of Ely would have devolved on Barre during Longchamp's absence.": Not following; did Barre leave England?

• No. I've changed this and reworded it to reflect that it was Longchamp that returned. Not sure how this got mangled (quite likely it was me at some point). Double check that the revision works? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Letters of St. Paul": There are options; personally, I'd go with "Epistles of St Paul".

• I generally perfer "Letters" but have changed to Epistles (and removed the "St" ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with bonus points for the superglue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support from Nikkimaria - I checked sources (formatting, at least; no spotchecks, and I'll see if I can find any relevant unused sources) and found only one small inconsistency (compare the title given here with the one you use). Here's a long list of niggles on other topics:

• Fixed the missing "n" also. The actual print article has the Compendium title in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Does "the law school of Bologna" have a name?

• Not in this period, no. Later it evolved into the University there, but ... at this point in time medieval universities/schools aren't organized or named in that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "He also briefly served Henry's son Henry the Young King. Barre served Henry as a diplomat" - it's implicit that this is Henry II and not his son, but someone unfamiliar with English history will likely get confused

• Now reads "Barre served the elder Henry as a diplomat..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Got anymore synonyms for "served"? Lead paragraph uses that verb three time close together

• Down to one "serve", replaced with "worked for" and "briefly was in the household of" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "in the period 1194–1199" - this sounds a bit awkward to me, maybe "from 1194 to 1199"?

• Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Because of Barre's close ties to King Henry, Becket considered Barre one of the king's "evil counselors", and was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop" - implied that Barre is the subject of Becket's denunciations, but it could be more clearly worded

• now reads "...Becket considered him one of the king's "evil counselors", and Barre was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop."

• "advising the king on how to resolve Becket dispute" - missing word?

Searched out, found, and returned the missing "the". Superglued it in so it shouldn't stray again. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The historian Frank Barlow argues that Barre was not specifically named was because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's association with those under the church's ban" - unclear, and is there an extra "was"?

• Now reads "...argues that Barre was not specifically named in the restoration of excommunications because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's having associated with excommunicates." I was really trying to avoid too many excommunicates, but "under the church's ban" is obviously not clear to folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that made it less clear. I understood the "ban" part, it's just that the last part of the sentence is a bit muddled. Maybe "considered him already excommunicated because of his association(s) with those under the church's ban"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why link excommunication in second paragraph of "Service" and not first?

• User/editor error? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why use American spelling for an English biography?

• There shouldn't be. But I am American, so I usually tend to (mis) spell things in American ways. What got missed? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "behavior", maybe others. It's not internally inconsistent, I just found it odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Inserted the errant "u" in behaviour. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "there is evidence that Alexander ever made any written allowance for the coronation in 1170" - should that be "never"?

• Yes, never was meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Translate "in curia domini Regis"?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Did the projected crusade ever occur? When did Henry die? Why was Longchamp exiled? A bit more context is needed for readers unfamiliar with this history

• I"ll take a stab at this later... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added two more sentences - one at the end of the last sentence of "Service" and one in the middle of the first paragraph of "Later years". Let me know if more is needed, I'm trying to avoid rewriting the entire William Longchamp article here...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's a "sure mention"?

• It means a mention in something that isn't possibly a forgery. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript, which" - not clear which manuscript the "which" is referring to

• Now reads: "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript. Richard Sharpe, a modern historian who studied the both works, stated that the Harley manuscript "provides [a] well structured and..."" Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "the fact that Longchamp, who is named as "bishop, legate, and chancellor" but was driven into exile in October 1191, it is likely" - grammar

• Let's try "Because of the dedication to William Longchamp as "bishop, legate, and chancellor", it is likely that the work was composed between January 1190 and October 1191, as Longchamp only held those three offices together during that period."

• Some missing hyphens, for example "a late 15th century library catalogue"

• I suck at hyphens. Got that example. Hopefully Malleus will hunt for others? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "some satirical verses that were said to be Barre's" - that were owned by him, as the previous sentence discusses, or that were written by him?

• Written by, now clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note 2 needs editing for clarity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at clarifying it a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick replies here, and I should get to the rest of these later today.Thanks muchly for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: As usual, the scholasrship looks impeccable. I feel that the prose needs a little further tweaking:-

• In the lead, the sentence beginning "After King Henry's death..." is overlong and should be split
  • Butting in: the length is more or less in line with sentences in scholarly medieval articles I think, but I have no objections to shortening it or even splitting it if you can suggest a way to do it while maintaining the logical connection between the two halves. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've cut it into two by the simple expedient of removing the "but" and starting the new sentence with "During the reign of King John..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In Early life, "he was related" is ambiguous. Does it refer to Richard or Hugh?
  • Sorry, that was my language. Changed to: "Barre was related to the Sifrewast family, knights in Berkshire, and had a relative, Hugh Barre, who was Archdeacon of Leicester in the 1150s." Does that work, guys? - Dank (push to talk)
• On the question of who he worked for, discussed above, there seems such uncertainty about this that I think you should say "he may have worked for..."

• I've qualified with "seems". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• "By 1165, Barre joined the household of King Henry II of England" should be either "In 1165..." or "By 1165, Barre had joined..."
  • Oops! Fixed with "had joined", but that might be wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
• Service to King Henry: another convoluted sentence, beginning "In September 1169, Barre was sent...", needs subdivision
  • Agreed, that sentence splits neatly in two. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• I feel that, when it is stated in the text that "there is evidence", the nature of such evidence should be briefly indicated in the text.

• Let's try "... but there is no written evidence that Alexander agreed to allow the coronation in 1170." that better? It's hard to sort out exactly what went on when and why in the whole Becket affair... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Later years and death: Likewise, I think the statement that "he may have been alive as late as 1213" should be attributed in the text.

• Added the necessary qualification ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I have raised points already highlighted by other reviewers but not yet implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I addressed most of these. Thanks for the review! (Did you notice I did two peer reviews last week?) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: All issues addressed now. I have said before that the value of these articles is that nowhere else is there such a body of work accessible in one place. So keep them going (and keep up the peer reviews, too, please). Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Support just a few minor comments:

"During the reign of King John, Barre was no longer employed as a judge". This sentence doesn't read particularly well. Perhaps changing the sentence into the active voice would help? Was Barre sacked or did he resign?

• This is actually the correct method - judgeships didn't really exist, the king appointed judges ad hoc, and after John took the throne, Barre was no longer appointed. So sacked or resigned doesn't really apply - he was "no longer employed". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"During January and February 1170 Barre was engaged in a diplomatic mission to the pope in Rome" -- active voice might be better here too if we know who engaged Barre.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"In 1187, Barre was once more employed on a diplomatic mission by King Henry" Too many words -- change to active voice?

fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"The work arranged passages from the Bible under topics, and then annotated the work" doesn't make sense - "the work... annotated the work"?

changed to "annotated the passages" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"publicly published" tautological? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case, this is correct - as the act of "publishing" as we know it wasn't quite there in the middle ages. Technically every manuscript that was written was "published" but many were not intended for circulation - such as this manuscript. That it survived showed that it had more use than Barre thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you very much for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Meets 1a as far as I can tell. Seems comprehensive enough. ceranthor 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: 1c / 2c / Sources. One fixit: footnotes: "Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England" italics please for the title!. I love your citation style for history articles, btw. I conducted 3 randomised plagiarism / copyright spot checks and all three passed. DOIs are correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (I had lost Nikki's source check in the above; but multiple eyes always help Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC))

Fixed, and thanks for the review. And thanks for the praise on the citation style. I particularly detest the "Name (year) p. #" style of citation, because I can never remember what YEAR the works are published in. Makes so much more sense to use a short title so folks can find the thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Images - there is one, it's appropriately captioned and licensed, you may wish to throw on a FoP-UK tag but that's not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — GabeMc, Malik Shabazz, Protonk (talk)

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN, Peer Reviews, and three FACs we believe the article to be FA worthy. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this at its last FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Images have been previously checked and okayed, no changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Further reading should be a different section from references. "References" list all the references about the info in the article. "Further reading" provides links or any other books that the reader can go and get their hands on, which are not cited in the article. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources: Not a problem, checked out well last two FACs, no material changes now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from a co-nom: We had a lot of questions in the last two FACs about the tone of the construction section as well as its presentation of Haley. I don't want to say those questions were prima facia unworkable but I got the feeling that many of them would have been resolved had those editors sat down the the secondary sources. Perhaps this is our fault for not being as clear as possible, but the questions about Haley's unorthodox role as a "ghostwriter/co-author" were central to late scholarship of the Autobiography. As such it is hard to take seriously a complaint that the word "unique" is somehow unecyclopedic or inaccurate. Multiple sources lavished time on the nature and implications of Haley and Malcolm's collaboration and the article would suffer were we to impose unnecessary stricture on the text because some editors are incredulous that the sources say what they do. Many of the volumes cited are available on google books and I am happy to recover and scan copies of those which are not for interested reviewers. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with comments.

• I'm surprised there isn't more detail on the origins of the Autobiography. What prompted Haley to approach Malcolm X with the idea (if indeed it was his) after he'd written about Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam in the past, and was it clear what Malcolm X was expecting? More explanation on this could perhaps set up better the dynamic between the two during the writing process itself.
  • I'll talk about this more, but it is far from clear what the relationship between the two men was like before they started the autobiography. Even though Haley wrote about NOI and Malcolm previously, Malcolm treated him with a great deal of suspicion. There is some really sketchy speculation that Malcolm was worried about Haley fictionalizing things (as he did to some extend in the autobiography and to a great extent in Roots) but only one source mentions this concern and only very briefly--brief enough that I get the feeling the source is imputing their knowledge of Roots into the relationship between malcolm and haley. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I added some detail about the impetus of the Autobiography. — GabeMc (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• I notice "Though Haley is nominally a ghostwriter" was changed to "Though Haley is technically a ghostwriter". I believe this was a change in response to Jakob's comments at the last FAC, but to me this is more confusing; "technically" suggests the opposite to "nominally", in that it says that Haley's role was definitely (in a technical sense) that of a ghostwriter, which is contradicted by the scholars you then cite. What was wrong with "nominally" that "technically" fixed? Was Haley originally credited as the ghostwriter (which would suggest "nominally" as the best word, although perhaps "ostensibly" would work better)? This might appear a minor point, but it introduces to the reader of the article Haley's role in the work, and it's critical for understanding the rest of the article that it is clear.
  • I think nominally is fine but ostensible may be better. Technically is the wrong word. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I changed it to ostensibly. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Marable argues that a critical analysis of the Autobiography, or the full relationship between Malcolm X and Haley, do not support this view". Does, surely (I mention it here, instead of changing it directly, because it could be an AmEng thing. Perhaps Dank can offer guidance).
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Are the in-quote clarifications in Stone's quote in Narrative presentation really necessary? Can't the article's reader understand without these clarifications that the writer is Haley and the subject Malcolm X (presumably Stone didn't have this problem when he wrote the source or he would have changed it himself).
  • I added the in-quote clarifications there because Jacob.schoolbach suggested it was confusing as it was. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". Haley's "pocketing" of Malcolm X's discarded notes for sub rosa integration of his "subconscious reflections" into the workable narrative is an example of..." A little repetitive. Perhaps "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". This is an example of..."
  • Good suggestion, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "In April 2010, the New York Post reported that the missing chapters would be published with a foreword by Malcolm X's daughter Ilyasah Shabazz." While I'm confident you will, make sure the article is updated when this is released (and probably the Missing chapters section expanded as well).
  • Agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Apterygial ^talk 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Interesting and well-written article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is all of that "Further reading" necessary? It seems to be more of a list of books about Malcolm X, rather than further reading about *this* book about Malcolm X-- in other words, why are those here, instead of cited in the article about the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The Magdalen Reading

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, Johnbod.

An oak panel fragment from a lost 1430's altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden. I saw it in London about two months ago, and it has qualities and depth you can never get from reproduction. Whatever. The hope is thats its as interesting to read as it was to write. Ceoil 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Early Renaissance artists often conveyed this idea by portraying contemplative eyes, associating tears with words, and in turn weeping with reading." - source?
• Don't include leading zeros on dates
• Use a consistent formatting for multi-author works and refs
• Ref 31: why include only one editor here?
• No references to Campbell 1997 or White 1996
• Use English spelling for Antwerpe?
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. All done except: I cant see any leading zeros (and surprised I might have missed them, though its easy to develop a blind spot about these things), and I'd prefer to keep Campbel 1997 and White 1996 in the biblo as they are good authoritive sources and the section intended as a resource as much as evidence of fact. Your first point, re tears, will need a few hours to fix, I know where it came from, but its not where I am this evening. Bear with me. Ceoil 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the only leading zero was note 5 - now removed. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite at the end of the parapgraph covers the "contemplative eyes" section. TK (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This looks like a fascinating article, and I look forward to reading it through. In the meantime there are some prose issues in lead:-

• The citation in the first line is awkwardly placed in the middle of a phrase: "oil on oak[1] altarpiece". What exactly is being verified here? Couldn't the citation be placed at least at the end of the phrase?
• Some reference should be made in the first paragraph to the background figure, since its presence was evidently important in identifying the piece.
• "which she uses in biblical sources to clean Christ's feet". Might benefit from a slight rephrase: "which according to biblical sources she uses to clean Christ's feet".
• The construction: "A sacra conversazione, substantial portions of the original altarpiece are now lost" is not grammatically sound. It needs to be recast along the lines "The original altarpiece is a sacra conversazione, substantial portions of which are now lost".
• "The date..." rather than "The dating..."
• 1438 CE?
• Why is the artist referred to as "Rogier" in the lead, and "Van der Weyden" later in the text?

Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

All done, except I can't see "1438 CE". Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I was fussily enquiring whether the year 1438 was CE. Forget about it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• Description
  • Will non-Christians identify "the Lord" with Christ?
  • "counterpoint" is not a hyphenated term
  • The quotes from Campbell in the first paragraph should be attributed"
  • "her quite detachment" → "her quiet detachment"
  • "Charles Darwent observed that a hint of the Magdalen's past is given through the nap in the fur lining of her dress and in the few strands of hair loose from her veil". This is a little cryptic for those unfamiliar with the Gospel depiction of the Magdalen as a saved "fallen woman". There is also the question of how Darwent deduces this past from the very sparse features that he mentions.
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("He...")

    All fixed except 'Charles Darwent observed'. Will take of. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Reworded to clarify the position. Darwent was writing for The Independent in 2009, so probably its recieved wisdom, taken from art historians, likely he deduced nothing himself just borrowed from sources (as we do, they are likely already cited in the article). Do we need to dig back further to reinforce, its the default position, fur lining and loose hair strands are strong indicators. Ceoil 00:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Added a source and clarified this point. TK (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Altarpiece fragment
  • "...the point on the London panel" - this is the first reference in the text to "the London panel"; this description previously occurs in image captions. For clarity, it might be worth incorporating this wording into the lead.
  • "...which first appeared in 1907." I don't think "appeared" is the right word here.
  • I looked in vain on the image of the Catherine fragment for the "small triangle of red, outlined by a continuous underdrawn brushstroke" that Campbell describes.
  • A couple of awkward subjunctives in the last sentence: "would have been one of ... he would still have been". The word "was" could replace each.

    All done except, 'small triangle of red'. Need to find a high resolution version. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Added and clarified that the piece of red is only visible when the panel is removed from the frame. TK (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Iconography
  • The Luke page range should be a dash not a hyphen
  • I don't understand "in which the eyes of sinners turn contrite and tearful when forgiven by Jesus." Luke 10: 38–42 says nothing about eyes turning contrite, forgiveness, etc (see the link). Could it be that a different passage of scripture is intended here? This is important in view of the iconographic analysis which follows the biblical reference.
  • 2nd paragraph onwards: Until now you have always referred to "the Magdalen". Now we have: "Magdalen's devotion...", "Magdalen lived..." etc, as though this was her name. This is surely not correct; "Magdalen" means "of Magdala"; it is not a name.
  • We have the phrase "firmly established" twice in close proximity.

    All fixed except, contrite and tearful - might ask Johnbod to help on that one. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Replaced the bible verse which really only underscores her identification as the tearful sinner. The contrite, etc., is an extension of that, but more has been added to clarify. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Provenance
  • No hyphen in "early 19th"
  • Again, paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("It is...")
  • "the leading dealers" needs a little qualifying. "Haarlem's leading dealers", perhaps, or something similar?
  • National Gallery – which National Gallery? Location and link required
  • The comma after "plain brown" should be removed to preserve the meaning.
  • "Norwegian Christian Langaad" is a very poor formulation. Perhaps "a Norwegian collector, Christian Langaad"?

    Got these. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of these are relatively minor points which should not be difficult to resolve. PLease ping when you need me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: the link on Sybil goes to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian, thanks for such a detailed view, and for catching those. We're working through, almost there. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: My comments listed above have been carefully addressed. For the sake of prose flow, I would humbly suggest that the words "who were" are inserted after "Nieuwenhuys brothers" in the final section. And I still think the "plain brown" comma shouldn't be there. However, I shall nitpick no more; overall this is a first class article – informative, well-researched and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help. Ceoil 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The dimensions of the painting are given in a figure caption. It might be useful to include this information in the body of the article.

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• The date is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Why c. 1435? Why before 1438?

Now explained the article body. Ceoil 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The transfer onto a mahogany panel is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Who did the transfer?

Now moved, and nobody knows - see below. Note added. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• My own preference if for the lead to have no inline citations (other than for direct quotes). The lead should summarise the article.Aa77zz (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the edits Aa77zz, getting to these. Your quite right about the lead and citations, but some of the info available is so sparce, there is not much to expand upon in the article body. But I'll see what I can dig up. I do remember a rationall for c. 1435 rather than 1438, just trying to remember where.....Ceoil 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is explained in John Ward's essay. Give me a chance to get up to speed here and will address it. Almost there .... TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• More on the date

The sentence for the 1435 and 1438 dates in the lead cites Drees (2001:501). The reference is incorrect. Drees (2001) is an edited book. Drees is the editor. Pages 500-502 contain an article with the title “Weyden, Rogier van der (c. 1399–1464)” by Nicola McDonald. On page 500 McDonald states that the Miraflores Triptych is dated to around 1435 while on the following page she states that Magdalene Reading (sic) is “commonly dated to this early period”. The 1438 date is not mentioned here but I notice that the National Gallery website claims that the picture dates from "before 1438". The McDonald article is not an ideal source. Does Lorne Campbell speculate on a date for the painting?

The McDonald article claims that “by 1435 he had settled in Brussels, where he was the town painter from 1436 until his death”. If you can find a better source then perhaps Brussels could be mentioned in the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Two items in the Bibliography section are not cited: Campbell (1997) and White (1996). A "Further reading" section could be created for these. In addition, there is a recent book on Van Der Weyden that was published to accompany an exhibition held in Leuven in 2009. This could also be added to the "Further reading": Campbell, Lorne; Stock, Jan van der, eds. (2009), Rogier Van Der Weyden 1400-1464: Master of Passions, Waanders Uitgeverij, ISBN 9085261058. Aa77zz (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Citing edited books

When citing a particular page in an edited book, the author and title of the article cited should be specified - and not just the editors and title of the book. Page 203 is cited in Ridderbos et al (2005). This is an edited book and from the preview in google books the reference would appear to be to a page in an article by Till-Holger Borchert (pp173-217(?)). The citation should therefore be to “Borchert, 2005” and the Bibliography should contain something resembling: Borchert, Till-Holger (2005), "Collecting early Netherlandish paintings in Europe and the United States", in Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Buren, Anne; Van Veen, Henk (eds.), Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 173–217, ISBN 978-9-053-56614-5.

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Riches & Salih (2002) is also an edited book. The reference in the article is to page 130. Here again the author and title of the chapter should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these have been fixed. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead

The lead does not mention the Provenance, and only briefly mentions the Iconography.

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the second paragraph beginning with: “Its date is uncertain but believed” – is slightly ambiguous – does “Its” refer to the drawing or the painting?

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence “The Magdalen Reading was transferred to mahogany panel in the 19th century; the Lisbon male head is still on its original oak panel.[5]” is rather detailed for the lead and appears slightly out of place at the beginning of the third paragraph that continues with a discussion of the drawing introduced in the second paragraph. Aa77zz (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead is reorganised, but still looking for more info on the transfer. Ceoil 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Campbell's catalogue says the transfer was "Certainly after 1828, probably after 1845, and certainly before 1860" when the NG acquired it (p. 394). He adds that the mahogany is West Indian swietenia. Added as a note. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• More comments

The sentence in "Dating and provenance" beginning "The Magdalen Reading can first be traced to an 1811 sale" cites an article in the Independent. The article does not support the details in the sentence - and a newspaper article is a poor source for this information. A more scholarly source is required.

I trimmed down the claims. I read the section of the Master of Passions book a number of weeks ago (in a book shop while traveling), and can say Darwent was borrowing heavily from Campbell; will have a copy fairly soon, and can reinstate the claims then, but though they are interesting they are not substantial overall, so gone for now. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any published information on the current condition of the painting? How extensively has the painting been restored? (The use of oil paint is currently only mentioned in the first line of the lead)

Beyond the panel transfer and cleaning of the actual canvas there is no mention of other restoration in any of the sources I have seen. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Added on this. Generally it is in "very good condition". Campbell has more on small problems than I have added. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any information in the uncited Lorne (1997) article that could be usefully added to the article? Aa77zz (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – another fine article from a great team of editors. This is the first time that I’ve participated in the FAC review process and I’ve been impressed by the rapid and thoughtful responses to my concerns. Today I popped into the NG to take a look at the picture – very beautiful. I was fortunate not to get delayed by the Obama visit to the palace. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the helpful review and the support! I'm envious that you've seen the painting - I've not seen it, but hope some day to have the opportunity. TK (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, great help. Glad you saw the painting. What a room its in, two pics down from the The Arnolfini Portrait. Ceoil 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: Thorough job, excellent article. JNW (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JNW. Ceoil

Support It's very interesting. Good job...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist! TK (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Disclaimer: I've made small edits to the article, asked questions on the talk page, and interact with the editors... but the main point is that the article has come along nicely since the FAC started and now seems objectively FA-worthy. Very well researched. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Image licensing

• File:The_Magdalen_Reading_uncleaned.jpg - would this not be PD-art as a photo of a 2D painting?
• File:Campin_Annunciation_triptych.jpg - PD-old, not PD-self. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've correct both. Ceoil 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Conversions (from m and cm to feet and inches) missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The Red Badge of Courage

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Less than a month after the 150-year anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter, I present to you the best known novel about the American Civil War. The Red Badge of Courage is striking, unique and very modern by today's standards, despite being published in 1894/5. Written by a sickly twenty-three year old young man who was born six years after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, its realistic portrayal of fear is captivating. The novel is one of my personal favorites, so I hope I've done it justice in completely revamping the article from scratch. It follows in the footsteps of Stephen Crane and "The Open Boat" (both FAs) as part of my one-woman campaign to improve Crane-related articles on Wiki. Red Badge was promoted to GA and recently had a PR. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I was recently involved in the peer review and all of my concerns were addressed during the PR or shortly thereafter. Well-done and fully meets the FA criteria. I note that the article has no disambuguation links and no dead external links. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Image review - the article has three images, all of which are freely licensed and properly sourced. The first two are PD-Old and the last one has an OTRS permission for its use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: A fourth image (the first edition cover) has been added to the article, and is sourced and verified. The newest addition falls under PD-1923 because it was published in 1895. María (habla conmigo) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. The new fourth image is also free (PD-US, published before 1923). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks a fairly comprehensive and readable article. The lead could be developed a little more in line with WP:Lead. There appears to be nothing from the Background section, and little from Publication history. A bit more plot would also be useful, as we learn little about that in the lead. In the lead we hear nothing about the initial criticisms of the novel, that it was a best seller, and not enough about its general importance. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment! I expanded the lead slightly, going off your suggestions. María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent adjustments. SilkTork *^YES! 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at The Red Badge of Courage#Historical accuracy and inspiration. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Why not include both authors in shortened citations?
• Note 41: formatting
• Use a consistent formatting for anthologized essays
• How are you ordering multiple books by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fixes made: citations are now consistent and correctly formatted, as far as I can see. Thanks! As for your first question, I don't believe both authors are necessary in the shorthand citations, so I chose not to include them. The same was done for "The Open Boat". María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: As today's "On this day..." feature tells us, May 6 marks the anniversary of the Confederate victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville. As the article states, it's likely that Chancellorsville was Crane's intended setting for Red Badge. Perhaps a kind editor or two can honor history and review the article? :) María (habla conmigo) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was a nice page when reviewed it for GA, and impressed with the additions since. I have few nitpicky, mostly MoS related, comments:

• Lead - I think it might flow better to begin the second para with the sentence "Although Crane was born after the war ... " It feels like a too much of a shift to go from Fleming as standard bearer to Crane, w/out a para break.

• Good idea; changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "he borrowed the private's surname" - bothers me a bit. Can a surname be borrowed? It's not really a big deal though.

• I agree it's awkward, but I couldn't think of a better way to word it at the time. Changed to "took" for now, but if anyone else has suggestions... María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Number consistency: two-hundred / 550. I think should be made consistent > 200/ 550

• Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• This coming from a person who is punctuation challenged but this "a version which was 5,000 words shorter than the original manuscript was printed" feels as though the "which was ...." part is an appositive and needs commas

• Added em dashes instead, if that's better? María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can't find it in MoS, but I thought we used "because of" instead of "due to"
• Chapter numbers need to be consistent chapter 9, chapter seven - good luck figuring this out in MoS

• Blargh! Made consistent. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• delink Great Britain? & link Norton?

• Done both. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the Binder edition questioned? Is a note necessary?

• The sentence continues to say that some feel Crane made the edits on his own accord. Is more explanation needed here? María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, not a big deal. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also something I can't find in MoS, but I thought we discouraged "amongst"
• Why is the biography problematic? Does this need a note?

• I've added a note; really, Beer just made stuff up. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Writing more than thirty years after the novel's debut, author Joseph Conrad agreed that the novel's main struggle was internal rather than external, writing that Fleming" > two instances of "writing". By the way, should that be thirty or 30?

Otherwise very nice job. I'll go off to delve through MoS to see if I'm wrong about any of the above and strike if necessary. Nice job on an important piece of American literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – regardless of the responses to the following very minor comments and queries:

• Background
  • "Crane was forced to publish the work privately" – not strictly true; nobody forced him; he resorted to doing so, no doubt, but not under compulsion
    • Changed to "chose". María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Publication history
  • "held onto it for six months" – I think (but am perfectly willing to be told I'm wrong) that this ought to be "held on to it for six months"
    • I think you're right; fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "John Berryman asserted that the story" – other people may not read it as I do, but the use of "assert" here seems to me to carry a hint that the assertion is disputed or even untrue. Would a neutral "wrote" do instead?
    • Sure, changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "two-hundred small city dailies and approximately 550" – odd mix of words and numerals for these numbers. I believe we are supposed to use numerals for numbers higher than ten. This would also apply to the chapter numbers in the same sentence.
    • Fixed the 200, but leaving the chapter numbers as is later in the paragraph; seven, ten and fifteen are much smaller, I think. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Great Britain" – if poor old Britannia needs a blue link, so does Uncle Sam in the lead. See WP:OVERLINK.
    • Agreed and removed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Plot summary
  • "Flemming" – he was "Fleming" in the lead. I am sorry to admit that I haven't read the book, and so cannot comment on which is correct.
    • That's just a stupid, no-good typo on my part. Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Deserts" – is this blue link likely to be used by any of your readers?
    • Hmm, I'm kind of inclined to keep it. It leads to desertion, which has an interesting explanation regarding military policy, etc. If you feel strongly otherwise, however, I'll remove it. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Historical accuracy and inspiration
  • "Thomas Beer wrote in his problematic 1923 biography" – in what way problematic? A brief explanation would be helpful here, even if only in a footnote.
    • See above re: Truthkeeper's point. :) I've added the note. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "where Crane's family at times resided" – the repetition of the name could be avoided in this sentence by changing this second incidence to "his"
    • Agreed, fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Themes
  • "yet is says the opposite" – "yet it", rather than "yet is"?
    • Yup, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reception
  • Really petty quibble, but what has "upon its initial publication" got that "on its initial publication" hasn't?
    • Just two extra letters; changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "a friend of the author's" – perhaps just "a friend of the author"?
    • Changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • " the reviewer for the Critic" – The New York Times gets its definite article capitalised just above, but the Critic doesn't; seems unkind.
    • Wouldn't want him to be jealous; made consistent. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "in England when it was published in early 1896" – according to the archives of The Times, it was published by Heinemann (at two shillings and sixpence) in 1895. See "Publications Today", The Times, 27 November 1895, p. 12.
    • Aha, good catch. The source referred to a later edition's impact, but no matter. Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Notes
  • I see some IMDb citations here, but I understand IMDb is not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source.
    • From what I gather, IMDb is acceptable if it's not used for critical input. Really, the links are just there to prove the films exist. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my modest collection of quibbles, none of which sways me from the view that this is a first rate article, well-balanced, clear, a pleasure to read, and impressively referenced. Loud applause. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I gratly appreciate your insightful comments, Tim -- and the applause doesn't hurt. ;) María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - Due to the overwhelming majority of book-based sources (definitely not complaining there!), spot checks are a bit difficult. I checked the three web-based sources, however, and they all look good - they cover the information without any close paraphrasing. Dead tree sources taken on good faith. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Dead tree sources rule. María (habla conmigo) 01:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have lots of WP:PUNC queries on logical punctuation-- please review and doublecheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Slow loris

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC); Sasata; Rlendog; Ucucha

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC critieria. This was a collaborative effort as part of WikiProject Mammals Collaboration. Like my previous FAC nomination, Conservation of slow lorises, this is article has been receiving a lot of traffic from due to controversial viral videos on YouTube. However, aside from reverted vandalism, the article has been stable, which in my opinion demonstrates its comprehensive and neutral nature. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Percy Grainger

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As a composer and performer, Percy Grainger was a bit of an oddity who ultimately, perhaps, delivered less than he at one time promised. He was innovative and original, yet most of his musical ideas failed to catch on; he tends to be remembered for relatively trivial works such as the eminently whistlable "Country Gardens". As to Percy's private obsessions... well, the less said the better. I've done my best to do him justice, with the help of a very thorough peer review (for which many thanks) and some early assistance from Jappalang in the sourcing and selection of images. If more needs to be done, please speak up; I look forward to your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments This article clearly deserves to be an FA, but some of the prose seems a little bit marginal to me I'm afraid:

• "... Percy Grainger, was an Australian-born composer, arranger and pianist. In the course of a long career he was an innovative performer and composer who played a prominent role in the revival of interest in British folk music. He also made many adaptations of other composers' works." That seems really awkward to me; he was a composer who was a composer? "Made many adaptations of"?

• "... who became a frequent attender at his London recitals". The proper word is probably "attendee", but why not "who frequently attended his London recitals"?

• "The visit was not a success, howver".

• "Before coming to London Grainger had composed numerous Kipling settings ...". That implies that you're writing this article in London. "Before going to London ...".

• "Grieg was greatly impressed with Granger's playing, and later wrote that the Australian was ...". How could he have written it earlier?

• "In 1905 Grainger had acquired a Danish girlfriend ...". Why "had acquired"? Acquired in any case sounds rather mechanical.

• "... with high school, summer-school and college students." Why is "summer-school" hyphenated but "high school" isn't?

Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus, for these comments. All your points have been addressed; I blush for my clumsiness. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We're none of us perfect Brian, not even me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will bear your imperfection in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Image and Media Review The article contains 13 image files and one sound file. The image files are all freely licensed, mostly by being old enough to be PD in the US or else as free recent images of places in Grainger's life. The music file is of a piece old enough to be PD, by a US military group, so both the composition and its performance are PD. I did not yet have a chance to read the article in depth. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image/sound file review. I hope you played the sound file -it's quite good fun. There's a couple more in the Exernal links. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... prominent role in the revival of interest in British folk music."

  When was this revival?

  Added into lead and briefly into text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Family background

• "He won professional recognition by designing the Princes Bridge ..."

  Should it not be "recognition for his design" or "recognition for designing"? "By designing" makes it seem that he is known just because he was the architect of the bridge (not because of any qualities that the bridge might have or serve).

Concert pianist

• "I thought I was about to die;"

  Die from ecstasy or from some other acts during their encounters? The quote is a bit too vauge to be certain what gave him this thought?

  It's clear from the sourse that Grainger was describing his first sexual climax. I have added a bit which hopefully explains this.

  It feels a bit strange he did not get some phobia of sex from this (no joy from his first orgasm), but if that is the case... Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• ... a role Grainger was not prepared to fulfil."

  Not prepared or not willing?

Emergent composer

• "Their plans were thwarted by Grieg's sudden death in September 1907, but on the basis of this relatively brief acquaintance Grainger championed Grieg's music for the rest of his life."

  I am not seeing a contradiction ("but") between the thwarting of Grieg and Grainger's plans and Grainger's championship of Grieg's work based on their acquaintance.

  Suggestion: "Their plans were thwarted by Grieg's sudden death in September 1907. Their relatively brief acquaintance left an impact on Grainger, and he championed Grieg's music for the rest of his life."

• File:GraingerandGrieg1907.jpg: I suggest uploading this to Wikipedia instead; it is quite likely a German photographer's work (Grieg's home) and if the photograph was published earlier in Germany or was published in Tapper's book without the photographer's permission (possibly Grainger let the publisher print his copy), it would be regarded as a German work (the 70-year pma comes into play).

  I have uploaded per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "He had resolved that he would to establish himself..."?

• "In 1908 he had obtained ...": seems redundant?

• "... five of Grainger's works were performed to great public acclaim,; the band of thirty guitars and mandolins for the performance of "Fathers and Daughters" creating created a particular impression.": eliminate noun plus -ing phrasing.

• "In 1905 Grainger had acquired ... ": seems redundant?

Departure for America

• "... with Thomas Beecham conducting."

  Should this not be "... under Thomas Beecham's conducting." or "under the conductorship of Thomas Beecham."?

  I've looked at this again. Although Beecham was one of the festival's conductors he may not actually have conducted the concerto, so I have reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The reason for this abrupt departure, Bird explains, was that Grainger saw his future as Australia's first noteworthy composer, and thus felt a responsibility to avoid being killed."

  Is this Bird's opinion or Grainger's explanation (in a letter or diary)? I think the source should be explicit. This thought seems a bit egoistic and I think it would certainly befit the accusation of cowardice laid down on Grainger by Legge if it was Grainger's purpose. It is also a factor in another of my concern below.

  I have added to this section, quoting Bird's exact words. He does not say where Grainger gave this explanation. So I have made it "according to Bird..."

  I also think that a brief statement about British drafts for WWI should be here (Canadian and Australian forces are part of and under the command of the British Empire). Younger (or less knowledgeable) readers might wonder why an Australian would be decried by British men for fleeing to America.

  The sources do not address this issue, though from my school history studies I know that conscription didn't begin in England until 1916, so Grainger was not in imminent danger of being drafted. I suppose the pressure on young(ish) men to volunteer might have been awkward for him, but establishing these points would surely amount to OR. I'm not sure that, on the basis of what's available, I can say much more. Brianboulton (talk)

  Yes, without a source to explain why they treated him as such would be OR. Mayhaps someone knows a source that describes the general attitude at that time (or even better a commentary on Percy's nationality to his conduct).

• "On 9 June 1917, after America's entry into the war, Grainger enlisted as a bandsman in the Coast Artillery Corps of the US Army."

  Why did he do this after running away from Britain? Could he not have joined up as a Royal Army Musician or such, or were American army musicians simply "safer"?

  "Running away" is surely interpretive. Again, no answers to your questions are provided in the sources. We can surmise that he felt some sense of duty to his adopted country, or as you suggest, that he made a "safe" choice. But it's guesswork. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The piece became instantly popular,; with sheet music sales quickly breaking broke many publishing records.": eliminate noun plus -ing phrasing.

• "On 3 June 1918 he became a naturalised American citizen."

  The US Army accepts foreigners?

  I'm sure they did; Britain was certainly happy to do so in wartime. Grainger had registered his intention to apply for US citizenship in 1915 - I've added this into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Career zenith

• "This was to be his permanent home for the remainder of his life.": Redundancies

• "She became particularly troubled by rumours that her relationship with her son was incestuous."

  I think the footnote to this should be moved into the main body. Such a controversial issue should be explained/clarified than glossed over (why there were such rumours and who).

  I have moved the explanation into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• With Rose's death, a question rose to my mind: What about George? Did he have any interactions with Percy after Rose's death? Did Percy ever meet his half-sibling in England?

  There is no information that Grainger ever met his supposed half-sibling. What is your source for supposing that this child was male and called "George"? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was actually asking about Percy's father, John, instead of "George" (Percy's original first name sort of stuck in my mind); the last we heard of John was his supplementing the mother and son's income, but nothing else. I raise the matter of Percy's half-sibling as another matter of curiosity—Percy was in England for quite some time and one wonders if he might have tried to find something about his relations there. Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Traveller

• "In Norway he stayed with Delius at the latter's Norwegian summer home.": Redundant

Innovator

• '"Love Verses from The Song of Solomon"' (also appearing in Music section): should this not be '"Love Verses" from The Song of Solomon'?

  The title of the piece is as I have written it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Postwar decline

• "... his stepdaughter Elsie Bristow in April 1951, ..."

  It is rather surprising to suddenly read he had a stepdaughter (we were not told of Ella Strom's status before her meeting with Grainger). I think the footnote should be moved into the main body (possibly where Ella is introduced).

  I have done this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... he deposited in a bank a parcel containing that contained an essay and photographs relating related to his sex life, ...": reduce the noun plus -ing structure, are both the essay and photographs related to (about) his sex life?

Last years

• "By 1957 ...; in 1957 ...": seems a bit repetitive

• "... he informed Ella Bristow ...": who?

Music

• "Despite his conservatory training ..."

  Would "Despite his education (or training) in a conservatory" be more correct here?

• "Indeed, he would reflect ..."

  This seems a bit dramatic.

Legacy

• "... did not generate disciples;"

  I think "attract" would be better than "generate"; I feel those who would follow his music do it out of their own volition, and are not produced.

• "... had been scornfully rejected ...": one of those bias terms, unless as a quote

• "... before the mid-1970s,; being it was initially regarded as evidence either of an over-large ego or of extreme eccentricity.": eliminate noun plus -ing

Assessment

• "... that included originality, and complexity as well as and beauty.": redundancies

• "... he ranked himself equal ninth ...": redundant

• "His inability to be recognised ..."

  Would "failure to be recognised" be better? "Inability" (and the way it is phrased) concludes (an outside opinion) he lacked the ability to do this; it seems third parties are not unanimous on this.

• "More recently, an increase ..."

  This is imprecise (needs a period or range; define which period there is an interest). In 1 or 2 years, would it be an increase, decrease or standstill?

• "Louis Pabst, Grainger's first piano teacher, believed that his pupil's talents as a painter equalled his pianistic abilities; Grainger himself commented that "I never had more talent for music than for painting"."

  This (his painting skills) is rather sudden (see also below) and could be confusing. It is ambiguous as to whether the teacher was praising or insulting the pupil.

  I have removed this, since we don't need to make the point twice (see below). Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Brian Allison, a former Grainger Museum curator, has speculated that had his father's influence not been removed, "Percy Aldridge Grainger may today be remembered as one of Australia's leading painters and designers, who just happened to have a latent talent as a pianist and composer"."

  We are only now told Percy had talent as a painter. Nowhere earlier had this been explored, and without support from others, Allison's speculation does not seem worthy of note.

  I have written a linking sentence into the "Childhood" section, dealing with Percy's early flowering as an artist. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Recordings

• "In 1995 Chandos Records undertook the compilation of compiled a complete recorded edition of ...": redundant

An interesting read of an interesting man so far; Brian is doing a good job as usual. Jappalang (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this detailed review. I have already acknowledged your help with images selection. I believe I have addressed all your points; where I have not commented, I have adopted your suggestions. I do have a slight problem wth the "was he/wasn't he a coward" issue, but I feel I have gone as far as the sources allow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: My remaining points above are likely minor, un-actionable, or misplaced. This is a comprehensive article on an interesting fellow indeed. Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. I will see if anything can be done with your outstanding minor concerns; at least I can incorporate the date of John Grainger's death. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review and all my (very minor) quibbles were dealt with there to my satisfaction. In my judgment (with the caveat that I am inexpert on anything to do with images and their permitted use) this article meets all the FA criteria. It is well proportioned, well balanced, impeccably researched and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for your kind comments, support and help, as always Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
• Use a consistent formatting for Grainger Museum references
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
• When using titles to disambiguate refs, be consistent in whether you include quotation marks or not
• Be consistent in using either UK or U.K. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  All above addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: I took part in the peer review and most of my queries were dealt with there. It has improved since then and I am very happy to support, although I am by no means a music expert. Re-reading just threw up a couple of points, which do not affect my support.

• "to the extent that it was thought by his tutors that art rather than music might be his future." Possibly better as "to the extent that his tutors thought his future lay in art rather than music."
• Presumably, the Hoch conservatory was one of the best, but this is never made explicit. Otherwise, his mother's choice seems a little random. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have adopted your suggested wording, slightly tweaked, re his artistic future. The Hoch was chosen on a reccomendation from the professor of piano at Melbourne Conservatory; I have included that, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I participated in the peer review, and did a prose review of the article. My concerns were addressed at that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your PR help was much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support with further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is a "society pianist"? A "pastiche"?
  • A society pianist is a pianist who performs in the private houses of the rich and fashionable. I believe this meaning is clear from the text in the "London" section. A pastiche is an imitation of another's style.
• Consistency checking needed. For example, you use both "antisemitic" and "anti-semitic", both "Princes Bridge" and "Prince's Bridge", "Granger and "Grainger", etc
  • I think the correct form is "anti-Semitic", and I have now adopted this throughout. "Prince's" and "Granger" were typos.
• Does the Conservatorium have an article?
  • No. I don't think the place exists now - possibly absorbed into the music department of Melbourne University long ago, but I don't have information on this.
• "always held the virtues of the Australian character in high regard" - what does this mean?
  • I'm not quite sure what you are asking; the meaning seems clear enough. Are you asking that I specify the virtues Grainger admired?
• "his famous orchestral rhapsody" - title/link?
  • The WP article links to Grainger's setting. There is no link to Delius's orchestral rhapsody of the same name.
• Don't wikilink things already included in hatnotes, as for Grainger Museum
  • OK
• "the Graingers made a long visit to England in 1936, during which Grainger made" - "made...made" is somewhat repetitive.
  • Reworded

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the sharp eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Myotis escalerai

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Like Myotis alcathoe, this is a European bat that was only very recently and thanks to DNA data recognized as a separate species. Very few sources have covered this species (the most substantial one is a book in Catalan), but I believe I have covered everything that is known and relevant to an encyclopedia. Ucucha 15:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Ref 6: why et al for just 3 authors?
  • Why not? It's what pretty much every scientific journal in zoology does.
• Is Amengual et al 2007 or 2008?
  • 2007.
• Ref 4: is there a range missing, or should it be "p."?
  • The latter; I've corrected it.
• For Gauthier and Hutson 2010, are those file names, or is that the actual publisher?
  • Those are the document names that EUROBATS apparently uses (there is also a bunch of them in Myotis alcathoe, and two others in this article). They also use those names to refer to these documents (see e.g. the text of Hutson 2010, p. 1).
• Check formatting for Miller 1912
  • Oops.
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Added one. Thanks for the check! Ucucha 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • "Though very similar to Myotis nattereri, it apparently differs from that species in some features of the tail membrane." What you mean by "apparently" in that sentence seems a little vague to me. How about "according to several sources" or somehting like that?
    • Just removed "apparently"; it's not really needed.
  • "type locality" links to a disambiguation page.
    • Fixed.
  • "For example, it occurs widely, though localized, in Aragón, where Myotis sp. A is known from a single locality only." Why is it important to mention Myotis sp. A here? What about all the other species in this complex?--Carabinieri (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • M. sp. A is the only other one that occurs in Aragón. I've added a clarification. Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for this article :)--

Carabinieri (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support and comments Fine article, just some minor queries. None are a big deal, just for my enlightenment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Aggregate — I wonder if "gather" is better when talking about animals?

• "Aggregate" is pretty common for bats; see for a few examples (though many are on other things).

• flexible flyer. — I'm unclear whether this refers to flight style or versatility

• The latter. Switched wording to "agile" in agreement with the body.

• Mr. Martínez de la Escalera — What is "Mr." an abbreviation of, can't be mister?

• Yes, that's what "Mr." means. The source doesn't mention a first name for him, and just saying his last name would sound odd. Ucucha 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Which source specifically gives Ibiza as a location? If it's a Catalan source, would it be better to use Eivissa?

• Why? We're writing in English, not Catalan, and the island is pretty universally called "Ibiza" in English. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a couple of quibbles, which don't detract from my support.

• Lead:
  • "...it was included in Natterer's bat (Myotis nattereri) until molecular studies..." I'm confused - if the species was first named in 1904, how can it have been part of another named species???
    • Added "from 1912"; Miller made it a synonym of nattereri in 1912. Ucucha 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Taxonomy:
  • quickie definition of "cryptic species" so we don't lose readers to the link?
    • Not quite a definition, but I've added some explanation there.
• Distribution:
  • "The range of Myotis escalerai remains poorly constrained, and it may be found to be more widespread than currently known." the construction "it may be found to be more widespread" is awkward - perhaps "... and further study may find it to be more widespread."?
    • Used a different rewording.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted part of your edits because a sentence had become rather too complex. Ucucha 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review - Single image is appropriately licensed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support -

• Why is the relationship with Myotis schaubi not discussed, although the relationship between M. escalerai and all other species in the relationship table is?
  • The sources don't really discuss it, probably because schaubi has been recognized as separate from nattereri for quite some time. Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "The range of Myotis escalerai remains poorly constrained" - "constrained" seems an odd word here; perhaps "defined" would be better?
  • Perhaps "constrained" is not the best word, but I don't like "defined" either. Its range is not something humans define, it's where it actually occurs. But we don't really know quite where it occurs, so its range is not well-constrained. Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "and are usually in caves or basements." Perhaps "are usually found in"? It may be grammatical as is; just sounds weird to me...
  • Added "located" instead. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above are minor quibbles that do not detract from my support. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Nebula Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nebula was the first Scottish science fiction magazine, and one of the best-loved features of the 1950s British science fiction scene. Despite being launched by a teenager it established itself as a significant market, and published the first sales of several well known writers including Robert Silverberg and Brian Aldiss. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Colon or no colon preceding "Part 4"? (Also, is "part" vs "volume" from the original source?)
• Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia?
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate "Volume" in Footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All done. I've left "Vol." in the references for Ashley because the book has it that way on the title page. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "21 shillings per word", "2d per word", "price was 2/-", "priced at 2/6". It's the same accessibility problem as in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1 and the same solution will work i.e. provide each instance with a conversion into current UK money values. I suggest: '21 shillings (£1.05) per word', '2d (0.8p) per word', 'price was 2/- (10p)', 'priced at 2/6 (12.5p)'

  Done. I should have remembered to do this; I am about to work on another UK sf magazine and will make sure I get this right before I bring it to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, it mentions "21 shillings per word" and goes on to say that is "the equivalent of half a cent per word". The conversion is wrong. Please confirm that the astonishingly high value of 21 shillings per word is correct. If it has a current UK money value, I don't see any need to convert into US values.

  It was a mistake on my part; the rate is actually 21 shillings per thousand words. I've corrected it. If my math is correct, the conversion would require the dollar/sterling exchange rate to have been $5 to £1 at that time; I don't know what it actually was. The comparison is made in the source (which gives the half cent figure); the reason it's relevant is that the American magazines were regarded as the main market for sf and Hamilton's ability (or lack of it) to pay rates that were competitive with the US market is part of the story. Hence I'd like to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• It says "in the fifties". I suggest that year expressions include the century whether in digit or word form.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• It has a table shown as an image. The contrast is poor and the image truncates the section separation line. We discussed this elsewhere and I didn't pay enough attention. Can somebody explain to me again what happens if text is presented as text?

  This has been discussed several times; the most recent was at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1. I created a sandbox to try out the text version: User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4. I feel there are still some significant flaws with the text version that I don't see how to fix. There's a fairly detailed list at the Science Fantasy archive of the goals for a table or image -- if we can resolve those points I have no problem with a text table. However, I also think that the accessibility issue is addressed because the information in the image is also available in the text -- the goal of the image is precisely as a visual aid for quick comprehension; this is not a goal that can be achieved for the visually impaired reader, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  However, the table-info is discussed primarily in a different section of the text. The goal appears to be a good one: a visual overview of the pattern of publication. That would be more appropriate in the "Publishing history" section, which is discussion about the irregular pattern, etc. than in the "Bibliographic details, which is discussion about the page-size and price. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've moved it -- see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Looks fine thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lightmouse (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Images - sidestepping the discussion above about the table, image copyrights are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. The text-as-image issue is cropping up in multiple articles and there must be a simple solution. I'm not an expert but village pump (technical) seems to me to be the place to ask. I'd be happy to ask there on your behalf but I think you are probably better able to express the problem. Shall I leave it to you? Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you really feel I should, I will post there, but to be honest my only concern is accessibility, and I think that moving the information to the body of the text addresses that sufficiently. I'll be happy to switch to text if it looks just as good, but I think with the info in the body the image is just a visual aid, so I don't really see a problem with leaving it as it is. If you don't mind I'll let it lie. If someone else solves the problem, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't oppose progress of this article to FA just on the basis of the image problem, but I'll ask at the Village pump and hope that somebody can find a solution. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Mike, Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Presenting_a_text_table_as_an_image_or_as_text. I hope we'll get a helpful response. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will watchlist that page and hope someone comes along with a solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments Close to support, just a couple of niggles.

• Lead:
  • "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment would otherwise have been idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic." Wordy. Try "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment was idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic."

    Um, yeah, it's wordy, but the pedant in me protests -- it wasn't actually idle, because Hamilton was using it. Are you sure the reduction in wordiness is worth the loss of precision? I guess people will read your version correctly, but it bugs me to make it inaccurate in that way. How about "could only print Nebula during gaps in the printing schedule" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    That's a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    As it turns out, I couldn't use that phrase because "schedule" was in the earlier part of the sentence, but I found another way to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No article on Hamilton?

    I thought about it but there doesn't seem to be anything written about him specifically -- he's only well-known because of the magazine. I don't think he's notable in himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Publishing:
  • "...better than the contemporary British sf magazine Authentic Science Fiction..." do we really need the qualifier "sf" here?

    No, good point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "...paying as much as 2d (0.8p) per word .." you gave the equivalent in US cents for an earlier figure - can we do so here?

    The US equivalent was given in the source; I don't know what the exchange rate was at the time so I can't be sure the source is right, but it seems to work out at about $5 to the pound. If that's right then 2d is about 4 cents per word, which is consistent with the comment "as much as the best markets in the U.S." Since I don't have an independent indication of the rate of exchange I didn't add it. I'll see if I can find a source for that and if I can I'll put it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    I just found this, which seems to be a reliable source and says that the exchange rate was about $2.80. If you agree that that's an RS, I think that warrants a footnote to the sourced half cent conversion, and then I can supply actual conversions. It's awkward because the source is very explicit that this was a competitive rate but it appears it was not that high a rate; I'll have to think about how to deal with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    I've used MW in my horse articles, and it should be reasonably accurate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "This was higher than the best U.K. markets, such as New Worlds, and as much as the best markets in the U.S. were paying at the time; as a result, Nebula was a very attractive market." too many markets!! Can we change some out?

    I cut the third one as redundant; what it says is repeated in the next sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "U.S." or "US"? I prefer the former, but I suspect that the latter is the usual in Brit English.

    I don't have a strong opinion so I switched; not sure if it's an engvar issue but I suppose it might be. My BrEng is somewhat corrupted after twenty years over here in the ex-colonies; not sure I can be trusted on this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    ONly the Brits could see us as still "ex-colonies" (gaze up) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Contents:
  • "science fiction fandom" Linky?

    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "...and in 1953 bought the first story of several writers who later became very well-known..." shouldn't this be "bought the first stories"?

    Not sure. I think I'd like to hear from a grammar maven on this one. I would say "the first person on each team to cross the line", because "the first people" could refer to more than one of the people on a given team. I don't think "the first stories" is similarly ambiguous though. I will ping Malleus on this. I also just noticed that in the intro to this FAC I said "first sales", so I am not being entirely consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Malleus agreed with you that it needs to be changed. I've recast the sentence so I could use "each", which I think now allows me to keep "story" singular. Let me know if you think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    That works. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I usually see "SF" not "sf", but really - this is an encyclopedia and we should spell it out to be more formal.

    I use "sf" rather than "SF" partly because that's what the Nicholls/Clute encyclopedia uses; that's the basic reference in the field; it's quite common to see it lower case. I don't particularly mind changing it to SF if there's a consensus to do so but I think the lower case version is less obtrusive visually. It is almost universal in the reference works to use an abbreviation; either "sf", "SF", or occasionally something odder like "stf". I think it's justifiable because one often finds sentences in which "science fiction" would naturally occur two or three times; abbreviating one or two of those instances makes for a much smoother flow. Here's a sentence from the Planet Stories article, for example: "Fiction House's first title with sf interest was Jungle Stories, which was launched in early 1939; it was not primarily a science fiction magazine, but often featured storylines with marginally science fictional themes." I think making that first "sf" into "science fiction" would sound very clunky. Having said that, this particular article doesn't have any sentences that would sound terrible if I changed it, so I am OK with changing it if you feel it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Which novel by Heinlein didn't get serialized?

    I'm away from my refs at the moment; I don't think the refs say but I hope I can tell by looking at the issues themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    It appears Hamilton did not announce this in the magazine -- the "Next issue" notes for the last two issues don't mention it. I've ordered a copy of Heinlein's Grumbles from the Grave, which might mention this; and I'll post a note at the SF WikiProject page in case someone there knows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    • I'll check my copy of GFG in a few... after I eat lunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    • NOthing I show in GFG, looking in the index for Hamilton and Nebula. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "In 1954 the back cover was given over..." is that ONLY in 1954, or FROM 1954?

    Not sure; again I will look at the issues when I get back to the house and check. (I'm in a Starbucks waiting for my fifteen-year-old oboeist to finish her orchestra practice). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    From the October 1954 issue for the remainder of the run, it turns out; I've made the change in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bibliographic:
  • "indica" Linky?

    Yes; done.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and supported - the couple of issues remaining I trust you to resolve. And boy, we're really working on Bede, aren't we? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Bede -- maybe one day. When you've done every bishop and I've done every sf magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. Tony reminded us at another nomination of Fowler's aversion to unintended repetition of words, which Fowler called jingles. Is the jingle here intended "but was not physically healthy enough for hard physical work"? Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, unintended -- it always amazes me how hard it is to spot that sort of thing in one's own prose. Fixed. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with nit-picky comments:

• "quite erratic" and "rather erratic" > maybe simply erratic would suffice

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fees paid doesn't make clear they were paid to writers. It makes sense to us (who receive even less than sf writers!) but maybe not to a lay audience.

  I wasn't sure which point in the article you were talking about, but there's an instance of this in the lead so I tweaked that. Let me know if there are other places this is a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nevermind - I've re-read it, and it seems fine. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• You mention other magazines - I'd take the opportunity to link to some of the others you've written about if they were the direct competition and the source mentions them by name

  The British competition was Authentic, New Worlds, and Science Fantasy; two of those are linked and the third isn't as relevant as it was more fantasy-oriented. Ashley and Harbottle don't mention the US magazines, so I don't think I should; in the discussion of top rates, for example, I know perfectly well that they're talking about Astounding and Galaxy, but it's something of a synthesis for me to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah you can't if the sources don't support it. Too bad. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• "As these were novel-length" > this needs to be rephrased - already mentioned that they were novels, and I'd wondered what happened to the novels when they were mentioned earlier. Perhaps try simply dropping the "As these were ... " and begin the sentence with "There was little room", or perhaps, "The long pieces left little room for ...."

  I tried a slightly different tack to fix this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much better. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• "New authors also began to appear" > might be better to write something like "to be published"

  Done, with additional changes per a comment of Malleus's below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "each sold their first story to Nebula" > end of a long sentence - might be better to add a semi-colon in front of the "each".

  I think you might be misreading the syntax here -- take another look; but I hope the tweaks for Malleus have shortened this enough. That was a hard sentence to write and I'm open to improving it if we can find a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's better now. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Organization seems a bit off in the "Contents and reception" section. Before the para about the reception there is quite a bit of information about writers/authors; then in the reception artists and cover art is described, and then back to writers. I think it might flow better if, in the reception paragraph, the writer information comes before the art information to continue from above, if that makes sense?

  Yes, it was a bit back-and-forth. I had a think about this, and what I've done is to move all the artist-related material to its own paragraph. The final paragraph is intended as a summary, included quoted recollections; so the structure is now three paras on fiction and writers, one para on art and artists, and a summary/retrospective para. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is a nice improvement. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another nicely done article on a pulp magazine! TK (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'm rather surprised that I hadn't heard of this magazine until now, but here are a few ignorant comments anyway:

• "This was higher than the best UK markets, such as New Worlds, and was close to the rates paid by the best markets in the US at that time." Markets don't pay, publishers do.

  I think the root problem here is jargon; sf writers refer to individual magazines as markets, so in that sense a market does pay. You even see things like "John Campbell [editor of Astounding] was my best market that year". However, jargon is just as bad as imprecision, so I've reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hamilton was glad to work with fans trying to make a professional sale ...". I have no idea what that means.

  Sf readers often dream of becoming writers; I suspect this is more true of sf than of other genres, though I couldn't cite that guess. What I meant was that Hamilton worked with sf fans who were subscribers and readers and part of the sf fandom subculture, but who had no writing experience. Few of them (perhaps none) became famous. It's a very minor comment and it takes too much explaining so I've cut it; it's really of interest only to other fans. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Robert Silverberg had begun submitting to Hamilton ...". You make it sound like an SM paradise.

  Hah. More jargon; thanks for spotting this. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hamilton only serialised one novel: Wisdom of the Gods, by Ken Bulmer, which appeared in four parts, starting in the July 1958 issue. Hamilton was planning to serialize a novel by Robert Heinlein ...".

  That's my damn mixed-up AmBrEng. Thanks for finding that; the article should be in BrEng so please fix anything else you spot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and also for the copyedit; I am always impressed at your ability to clean up prose I think is already clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I get caught with my own stuff as well; I see what I meant to write, or what I think I wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency-- is Ashley, Mike the same person as Ashley, Michael? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Jefferson nickel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Jefferson nickel is a fairly ubiquitous item of trade, yet it has an interesting history. If you've ever noticed Monticello on the nickel seems far more imposing than in real life, read on.Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• 1c/2c Support No real issues; Consider contracting Massachusetts in the Bibliography per your US state style. I spot checked 3 random online sources for copyright, plagiarism, paraphrase, support of claim cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "5 cents (.05 U.S. dollars)". There should be a zero before the decimal.
• It says " 5.000 g (0.1615 troy oz)". That's a remarkable precision and looks particularly dramatic when described in troy ounces. Do we know the precision? Many coin weights are expressed in grams only. The troy ounce value for recent coins (within the last 1 to 1.5 centuries?) seems to me to add little value, has this issue been discussed?

It has not been discussed, and I'd welcome hearing the views of others interested in numismatics. It might be that a distinction should be drawn between precious metal coins and base metal coins. And yes, the nickel is exactly five grams. I'll-fated decimalization efforts in 1866 and 1882, see Shield nickel and Liberty Head nickel for details.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see the views. It's an interesting issue for many coin articles. But this article can proceed through the FA process without it being resolved. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Troy weights are used to measure all metals (not just precious metals), but I agree that it is useless on most coin articles unless the coin is known for its troy weight, such as bullion coins. The infobox has a field for grains, but that is also somewhat archaic. If anyone is interested, I would be glad to add a new field for weight in standard ounces.-RHM22 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest adding weight in ounces, to do otherwise invites confusion I think, for precious metal coins especially. Thank you..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there's now a field for ounces. Just add "Mass_ounce" to the infobox and put the weight in there.-RHM22 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass_ounce? Mais oui! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It says "Early production; World War II changes (1938–1945)", "Later production (1946–2003)", and "Westward Journey nickels; redesign of obverse (2003–present)".

• I think the sections and titles could do with review. It took me a while to work out what the headings meant and I see now the semi-colons indicate that they combine two ideas. I think it would be simpler to understand with just one idea per heading.
• If the headings relate to time spans, it might be simpler to understand with the more direct format of 'Production <start date>-<end date>'.
• I have no idea what 'Westward Journey' means. It's used as a title but not explained. I recommend that any phrase in a title should be self-evident or explained.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've played with it. Is it better now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review - File:1945-P-Jefferson-War-Nickel-Reverse.JPG needs licensing info for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done that, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• 1946–2003: "A number of leftover reverse dies with S mintmark were used in Denver". Should "an" be added before S? I'm not sure if that's the intention or not.

I've written it correctly but you are right, it sounds sort of jargony. I'll toss in the "an" as requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• 2003–present: Not a big fan of the in-text external link. It seems like it would be more appropriate as a reference or external link at the bottom of the article.
• "from a journal entry by William Clark. Clark...". Another of these situations where a word repeats from the end of one sentence to the start of another. This should be simple enough to fix, maybe with "He".
• The Walter Breen book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no cites to it.
• In reference 24, should the city name be included as part of the newspaper's name and italicized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've ascertained that the name is properly The Register-Guard and so I've used the city name as a location, in parens following the name. I think I've caught all your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – My comments have all been dealt with and this looks like another nice coin article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• support, I enjoy this one didnt notice any points of concern, not even minor one like I the Bufflo nickel this is IMHO a featurable article Gnangarra 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Racepacket (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the convenience of the delegate, I've taken the liberty of bolding Gnangarra's support. By the way, Racepacket was the GA reviewer, and I thank the two of them and Giants2008 for their work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• Consistency: US vs. U.S.
• "his house, Monticello": either remove or add a comma.
• "modernistic": "modernism" is "a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression" (M-W). Was this what was meant?

Yes, Bowers specifically uses the word modernistic. It is what was meant, and what was resented by the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "animus": too strong for the context.
• "the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau": you know the drill.
• "sculptor/engraver": WP:SLASH recommends against slashes.
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Thanks for the fixes. These are my edits. I used to change "From 1971," to "From 1971 on," or "Starting in 1971," in AmEng, but I'm seeing the Britishism more and more in American prose. I still don't use it myself, but I can't say it's wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)