Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2009

Simon Bolivar Buckner

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have recently expanded this article and believe it now meet the definition of an FA. I have asked that its WP:MILHIST peer review be closed so I can get at least some FA comments before I have to return Borderland Knight to the library. It's on interlibrary loan without any possible renewals. ‎Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

With such a noticeable name, shouldn't the reader be told why he was named after Simon Bolivar? I looked for it and didn't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, even after reading Borderland Knight, I still don't know why he was named that. I haven't found a single reference to it. Odd. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you scour the sources one more time? If there's no reference, there's no reference, but it's surprising that it's not mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was split from page 5 onto page 6 in Stickles. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster. Not sure how I missed that. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Went through this at its MilHist peer review and my few suggestions were quickly actioned, so happy to support here - this is detailed, balanced, and well-referenced. My only further suggestion is that it would be good to break up the text around the middle with another image; if there are no portraits available featuring the man then even something of an action he was involved in might be worthwhile - just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I just have one additional comment re-reading this. The section heading "Post-war career" following the Mexican War section seems a little misplaced to me. Obviously it describes his life after a significant war, but coming before a section on the Civil War it reads oddly to me, particularly since there's a "Post-war life" after the CW section. Wouldn't "Interbellum" or some such be more appropriate for the section between the Mexican War and the Civil War? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I hadn't noticed this before. Plus, "interbellum" is a cool word, so I've taken your suggestion. :) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do that, I'd suggest Postbellum instead of Post-War in a later heading. Postbellum is a word that has specific relevance for the ACW. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page16.html deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's a mirror of that available, here. --darolew (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Darolew. I didn't add that link and didn't know anything about it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image check: All images seem OK. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I have made a few minor tweaks (hopefully improvements), but I believe this article meets FA standard. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SUPPRT A wonderfully done article. Very thorough examination of Bucker's interesting career. I enjoyed reading it. As far as content and focus go, this is in excellent shape, and I can support it for that element. In terms of the prose, I have a few minor quibbles that I will list below; if you could deal with some/all of them, I'd be happy to support this for FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment relating to support. I've reread the article and support it. All my concerns were addressed. I've made a couple of minor tweaks, relating mostly to passive voice or some redundancy — VERY MINOR — which I hope the primary editor does not mind. This is a very interesting, well done article. My reservations about the sources are addressed. I appreciate reading an article about a Confederate general that does not dwell on the war, but rather on his political career. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

*he famously accepted Ulysses S. Grant's demand for an "unconditional surrender" at the Battle of Fort Donelson. ... the use of the word famously here stopped me short in reading this. Perhaps, he just accepted it?

• third child and second son born to of ...
• Just before leaving the army, Buckner helped an old friend from West Point a...
• Fort Donelson section.....planned a breakout attempt, don't need the word attempt.
• At this time, however, Floyd and Pillow combined to undo the day's work by ordering the troops back to their trench positions
• was it defeatism, or was it pragmatism?

• I'm not sure actually. I didn't author that line, nor do I have access to the source it is cited to. I left it because it was properly cited. User:Hlj would be the authority here.

• At this time, however, Floyd and Pillow ...
• was Bragg just incompetent? or was there a reason he divided his troops in all directions?

• If there was a reason, I haven't found it. The sources I've seen on the subject seem to agree it was a bad decision, but hindsight is 20/20. For whatever reason, Jefferson Davis seems to have had supreme confidence in Bragg, so surely he wasn't totally incompetent.

• At Fort Donelson, Buckner had become the first Confederate general of the war to surrender an army; at New Orleans, he became the last... At FD, Buckner had been the first...at New Orleans, he was the last.... Simplified?

• I used the more complicated wording in an attempt to distinguish context. Buckner wasn't the last Confederate general to to surrender at New Orleans, he was the last Confederate general to surrender in the war. Not sure my version or yours makes that distinction sufficiently. What do you think?

• After his army surrendered, Buckner was paroled in Shreveport, Louisiana, on June 9, 1865. The terms of his parole prevented his return to Kentucky for three years, so he lived in New Orleans and worked on the staff of the Daily Crescent newspaper.[8] Further, he engaged in business with a merchant firm and served on the board of directors of a fire insurance company...The terms of Buckner's parole in Shreveport LA, on June 9, 1865, prevented his return to Kentucky for three years. He remained in New Orleans, worked on the staff of the DC, engage din a business venture, and served of the board of directors of a fire insurance company, of which he became president in 1867.
• restoration of his civil rights as was provided for under the terms of the 14th Amendment....restoration of his civil rights as stipulated by....

* On January 5, 1874, fter five years of suffering with tuberculosis, Buckner's wife died ... sentence variety.

You've used a lot of passive voice in this. He became famous for, ya da ya da. Lots of becames, was active in, has been, etc. I'm not suggesting you fix these in this article, but it's something to watch out for in the future, because it weakens your text, and make it more cumbersome to read.Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of these except where I have made comments above. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Sources are fine. They are all encyclopedic quality, or academic presses, and some well done military history. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You should consider expanding your number of sources. I think more than 75% of your citations are from a single book written in 1940. There are literally dozens of good candidates for modern secondary sources about the major Civil War battles and campaigns that Buckner participated in. Using a source other than Stickles for the Battle of Chickamauga, for instance, would've allowed you to notice that the Confederates were not "attacked but emerged victorious" (since corrected). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC) ::HJ, that is a good catch. I don't know where my head was at last night when I looked at the sources. Acdixon, the amount of research done on these various battles and campaigns since 1940 is monstrous, and this comment should be dealt with before you go much further. Even if many of your more recent sources can confirm what Stickles wrote, certain his assessment is not the so-called current state of knowledge about Buckner. If your sources disagree, this is an important element to introduce. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In that editor's defense, the Stickles work is as close to authoritative on the subject of Buckner, Sr. as anyone, author having direct access to Buckner, Jr. for commentary and assistance. I must agree with Hal and Auntieruth55 that more recent sources should be found in place many of these Stickles citations. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I largely concur with this reviewer's opinion that: "This sound work will stand as a legitimate source until a more analytical book is published." Here we are seventy years later, and Stickles, while imperfect, is the best single source about the subject. The article is well-supplied with other worthy sources, but it shouldn't surprise anyone Stickles gets the lion's share of the cites on such pagespace. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of comment I feared. My primary interest in Buckner is for his political career, and most of the sources I have used deal with that aspect of his life. I'm not a Civil War expert, and I don't play one on Wikipedia. I don't know enough about these battles, etc. to determine what constitutes "comprehensive" coverage of this aspect of Buckner's life, nor do I know enough to know what differences I should be looking for between a source written in the 1940s and a source written in the 2000s. I'd really appreciate some help here. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I could provide more CW details and cites for you, although it will add a number of Refs to the article and I would be reluctant to do that without asking; since you probably don't have them, it would be difficult for you to verify my work. Also, I use a different formatting style for Refs and you'd need to edit them to whatever style you prefer instead. Let me know if you want me to proceed under those conditions and I'll get to it in a day or so. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering you were apparently the one that did the majority of the work on this article prior to my expansion, I trust you to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. I'm not worried about number of sources or anything like that; I'm only interested in producing an FA, as determined by the Wikipedia community. I don't mind to go back and put the refs in {{cite}} format. Please proceed at your convenience and let everyone know here when you are finished. Thanks so much for your help; this is one area I don't feel qualified to address. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, friend, for getting to this so quickly. I have put the references in a consistent format using the {{cite book}} template. I hope that the article can now be promoted to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since you are in a cooperative mood, I have one final suggestion. Although Bolivar is technically "Senior" because of the presence of another article about his son Junior, his name is not known to history in that format and I would recommend renaming the article without Senior. (I think at one time it was named that and someone renamed it out of a sense of balance, I guess. However, using that as a standard we would have to rename Ulysses S. Grant to be Ulysses S. Grant I because of articles about his Roman-numeraled descendants.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just tried this, and it requires an admin to do the move because the dab page already exists. I'm not one, but I know one I can ask. Please let me know if you have other suggestions before you can support the article's promotion to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Willking1979 has taken care of this. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: concerns resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Decline due to:

Reliant (to the point of making me feel single sourced) on a 1940s source. This isn't a problem, but I suspect it should be addressed in the article if you're planning on relying on the work. If you're that reliant, then the source is notable in itself, "Stickles 1940 biography is still the only biography...". Can I ask if there are any unlocated biographies? Can you explain this so I can strike my decline reason?

Prior to BusterD's locating Beyond the Southern Storm, I was unaware of any other biographical sources. FWIW, Google Books lists it as "Fiction" but I'm betting that's a mis-categorization. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues,

"^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner"" is not an adequate citation for verification purposes. Use corporate author as author. A self-published website by a suitably authorative organisation takes the corporate authorship of the organisation in the About section. Also, in the bibliography the web citation is inadequate. Need database & retrieval method (separate to web page, as its a web interface database). ie: National Governors Association "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" In [database of past governors] Online: National Governors Association, retrieved [date].

Not sure I follow what you want here. The NGA publishes biographies of every state governor; I've cited their bio on every governor article I've done, which includes every Kentucky governor from 1792 to 1939. Most of those are GAs or FAs, and I've never had this source's reliability questioned. There is no specific author's name listed, or I'd be happy to give it. The inline citation needs only to help the reader locate the source in the bibliography, so I contend that what is extant is sufficient. As far as what is given in the bibliography, I've given every piece of data I've been able to find about the source. The source supports only two facts, that of Buckner's charge to revise the state militia laws and that of his burial location. I would think NGA would be sufficiently reliable to back these claims. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Try replacing the footnote " ^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" " with " ^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" National Governors Association." to cue the reader to which item in the Bibliography is being cited. Its unclear without an author, or publisher, or page citation, that its anything other than a stubby note. As far as the bibliographic entry, given that National Governor's Association is the corporate author, and publisher, you can avoid giving both simultaneously, but you need to give the retrieval method as well as the direct link. "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Bucker" in Governors> Past Governors [database]. National Governors Association. Retrieval date:. " The issue isn't just locating the source, but displaying if the source is authoritative. If the National Governors Association just had Bucker up as a blog page, that would be far less persuasive than Bucker being part of their comprehensive Governor's database. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the inline citation and the bibliographic one. Not sure the NGA's database has an official name, but I've provided one that should get close. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"^ a b c d e f g h i Kleber, p. 136" // Kleber, John E., ed (1992). The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Associate editors: Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James C. Klotter. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813117720. is not an adequate encyclopedic citation. Tertiary sources in history are esteemed if they are signed articles. You don't indicate the article title or the signing authority on the article.

The articles in this publication are signed. Beyond this, the editorial staff is a veritable "who's who" of Kentucky historians, including Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James Klotter. The lead editor, John Kleber, is presently the state historian. I've had to use two different articles by two different authors, so I've used the lead editor's name in the inline cites to avoid confusion, and per the WP:MILHIST peer review of this article. The bulk of the cites are to the article on Buckner, Sr., which is authored by Lowell H. Harrison, but one cite is to the article on Buckner, Jr., which is authored by Nicky Hughes. You can verify this by viewing the Google Books preview of the encyclopedia (I think these pages are available) or the online version of the encyclopedia, made available by Morehead State University. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is signed, then you need to cite the author. Author, "Title" Eds, Publication information. Make the claim in the Bibliography. its fine to have two references to the containing work. Lowell H. Harrison, "Buckner, Sr." and Nicky Hughes, "Buckner, Jr." in Eds...

Done, although I think this is a little bit of overkill. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you indicate the place of publication, sometimes you don't. Make consistent (I prefer places of publication to be listed, very strongly).

Hadn't noticed this detail. I probably won't be able to add a location for the Beito source, since it's a journal, not a book. For the others, I can probably locate the information, but I wasn't the one who added all of them. I'll try to find it via Google Books or WorldCat, but I can't make any promises. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Journals tend not to need the place of publication, unless they're a periodical with a commonly shared name.

Locations added. Thanks, WorldCat! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken link: Morris B. Belknap?

This is included per WP:REDLINK. Besides being Buckner's son-in-law, Belknap was a prominent businessman in Louisville, an early leader of the Kentucky Republican Party, and a gubernatorial candidate in 1903. I opine that an article about him could/should exist, but I haven't done the research to create it yet. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this: Simon Bolivar Buckner: Beyond the Southern Storm (2005) by Stephen Russell. I was unaware of this work, and have ordered the paperback. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have suggested the work. As you can see, my concerns are not extensive. Please prod my talk page after you've had a chance to assess the impact of Russell's Beyond the Southern Storm on the article, so I can modify the Decline to Support. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way this FAC will remain open that long. It's been open over a month already, and is near the bottom of the list of open nominations. I predict an admin will want to close it in the next few days, hardly enough time to obtain the book and review its 450+ pages. I think you will have to support or oppose based on the sources currently used. I hope you can choose the former, with the promise that BusterD will make any appropriate corrections once he's had time to peruse Beyond the Southern Storm. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with this kind of improvement drive continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(The editor below beat me to the punch of changing my position in relation to the responses I received, damn you edit conflicts, I do feel quite rightly the article should be featured, but I see Humanities and Social Sciences FACs falling into two categories: those that are receiving a pre-publication polish, and those that are returned to the editors with serious extensive issues. You can see from the fine detail of my concern, and how few concerns I had, which group this article fell into.)

Thanks for agreeing to support. I have full faith that BusterD will enlighten us if anything further emerges from reading Beyond the Southern Storm. Thanks also to BusterD. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating support I've read the comments above, and hope to offer some sense of perspective on this. I still think the article should be passed. Additional material can be added later, and I see no reason to hold up this article's status pending review of a book that may or may not be fiction, just so it can be included in the article. Although I had some reservations about relying so heavily upon Stickles, it has been for 50 years or more the authoritative work on Buckner and it is reasonable for the editors to rely upon it. I see no reason why, in encyclopedia article, we have to refer to every single source out there. The editor(s) of this article can add material later if they feel its inclusion is warranted. The electronic age has made scholarship easier and harder, and if any of my university students had handed me this article for grading, I would have been overjoyed. Enough already. SUPPORT. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate this. This is one of the more challenging articles I've done, probably since William Goebel. I also plan to tackle John J. Crittenden over Christmas break. Another 400+ page biography! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Stephen Russell, although I tried to google him, all I found a were links to Madonna's doctor and a few other people who obviously weren't the right man. Chicago Spectrum press is part of a house specializing in subsidized publishing—self-publishing, you might call it. They list the book as the South's Benedict Arnold, on one site (Evanston), and as historical Memoir on another. Just FYI/FWIW. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Columbia River

Nominator(s): Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC); Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC); Pfly (talk · contribs)

This article has been the subject of a broad and sustained collaboration by over a dozen editors since at least 2007. The river is of central importance to America's Pacific Northwest region: cultural, economic, transportation, environmental, and international political interests have intersected along the river for centuries, and it played an important role in the area's geologic evolution and native culture as well. Editors from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests have worked diligently to assure that the article's structure and content fully and adequately reflect that diversity of topics, and the central the river has played in the region.

The article has been through two in-depth Good article reviews (passing the second). About a year ago we made a push toward FA, and received an in-depth peer review; though we acted on most of its points, we did not pursue FA at the time. In the year since, we have made progress on the article, but there have been no drastic changes, which should speak to the article's stability.

We have consulted numerous sources, and talked with experts on specific topics in the region. We've done extensive work on related articles, and developed a related navigation box to more fully expose related topics to the encyclopedia's readers. We've tracked down a variety of free media from various periods of history. A professional cartographer made two maps to our specifications. We feel that the article now represents some of the best work on Wikipedia, and is ready for consideration for Featured status. We also recognize that an article on such an extensive topic can never be considered truly complete, and welcome feedback and ideas. We hope the article will soon join the ranks of many related Featured articles: Hanford Site, Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and other Portland-area watersheds, Mount St. Helens, and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

-Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text. Please see WP:ALT, and see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. You might also want to check out the "external links" button, as there are apparently some problems with dead links too. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wrote the first 14 alt texts today, and I'll do the remaining 10 tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Urk! The alt viewer doesn't seem to show the ones I've done. Not sure why. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The syntax wasn't correct, so the alt text was ignored. Please use "|alt=Alt text", with no spaces around the "alt" or the "=". I fixed the occurrences of this problem that I found. Sometimes the Altviewer hiccups and uses an old (cached) version of the page; this is being investigated/fixed and I am not observing the problem now, but you can check if this is the problem by looking at the time stamp at the bottom of the Altviewer output. The alt text already added is first class. Some comments that may help: it's OK to make it a bit shorter than what you're doing (I like it a bit longer, like it is, and am not suggesting changing what's already written, but when you're writing the rest you may want to know that others prefer shorter and there is room for editorial judgment). One minor criticism: the alt text "A map shows the locations of many river dams..." spends too much time on irrelevant visual details such as colors and circles and how the labels are arranged, and too little time on the gist of what the map actually says, e.g., dams all the way up the Columbia and Snake (please see WP:ALT#Maps). Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the helpful advice and for fixing the first batch of syntax errors. I have finished the complete set of alt texts, repaired the remaining bad syntax, and revised the map descriptions. One remaining puzzle is that the alt reader is not seeing the two alt texts in the geobox. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Niagara has kindly fixed the problem, which involved slightly different syntax errors. Finetooth (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that. I tried to fix the one remaining problem I saw, which was transcluded from Template:Columbia River; you might want to check my fix there. Eubulides (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I couldn't see that image anywhere in the article and didn't think to look in the bottom template. The alt text seems fine. I tweaked it a bit by adding the waterfall dimensions in imperial units, roughly converted. Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:

"(known as Wimahl or Big River to the Chinook-speaking natives who lived on its lowermost reaches)" is this really so important it should be the first thing?

• We've been wondering about the name issue. Your feedback is helpful. I think moving that note into the "native inhabitants" section is probably the solution. What say you? -Pete (talk)

• Move it I think. It's important, but not that important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"provided the core subsistence for natives, and in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish." wasn't the subsistence in past centuries too?

• subsistence: good point, need to fix. -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"heavily developed to serve human purposes" do we need "to serve human purposes" or is it implicit?

• Not sure. Anyone else, comments? -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"taming or harnessing of the river" of the?

• You suggesting removing the word "of?" That could work, I think... -Pete (talk)

• Yep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"The development, commonly referred to as taming or harnessing of the river, includes dredging for navigation by larger ships; the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control; nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power." This sentence sounds a little funny.

It's got two "navigation"s.

"dredging for navigation by larger ships" dredging to aid?

"the construction of dams for power generation" maybe "the construction of power generating dams"?

"nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power" can this be condensed with more broad comment on nuclear stuff.

"come into conflict with ecological conservation numerous times" sounds kinda funny, or maybe it's fine. Not sure.

• The dams serve multiple purposes, so rephrasing to "power generating dams" really doesn't work. But, I suppose it's actually locks, not dams, that aid navigation. The locks were separate from earlier canal and dredging projects, so saying it twice is not a mistake. You're right, this sentence needs some serious work. -Pete (talk)

• Pretty much. The rest of the lead reads a easier than that sentence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote both sentences, not every one of your concerns is directly addressed, but on the whole I think it reads much better. Look good? -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now. It looks like a really fine article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kinbasket Lake" would it be better to call it "Kinbasket Reservoir"? I notice most of the lakes are reservoirs. Something to think about.

• Whatever the name is, is what we should use. I'm not sure. -Pete (talk)

• What happened was, I was reading and it seemed odd to me that the river would flow through natural lakes (at this stage of development). I think all of the lake articles I looked at have "X Lake (X Reservoir)" or "X Lake (X Lake Reservoir)" to lead their articles. I'll defer to what others think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is ref 10 dead?

All dead links are now fixed or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, there's more than one "Big Bend"?

• Yep. -Pete (talk)
• Note: If needed, Egan names the Washington "Big Bend" on p. 239. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the mid-20th century backed the river up, forming Lake Roosevelt" maybe "Dam in the mid-20th century created Lake Roosevelt"? "backed the river up" sounds funny.

• Good catch, impound is the word we should use. -Pete (talk)

"Tri-Cities" is linked twice.

Is the The Gorge Amphitheatre not in the Columbia Gorge?

• Nope, different gorge. -Pete (talk)

"river ranks 23rd in length" are there lists that can be linked for this and the other statments in that paragraph? Same with Discharge para.

• I agree that the prose in general in the article is too data-heavy. Linking to lists is not a bad idea. Open to other suggestions. -Pete (talk)

Looking pretty good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought we had a ton of well made river lists, but maybe we don't. List of longest rivers in the United States by state doesn't have Oregon, for instance. List of rivers by length, List of rivers by average discharge, and List of drainage basins by area probably won't work, since they aren't US specific. Maybe skip the lists, unless you can find some good ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine. I inlined some quick replies above. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support If I have time, I'll make more comments, but this is definitely some of WP's best work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support. I didn't notice this for two days, I think because it was right-shifted a bit and lost in the page clutter. I've shifted it to the left margin to make it more visible. We certainly don't want any supports to get lost. :-) Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Detailed comments from Ealdgyth

• Comments -
• USGS or United States Geological Survey? Pick one or the other and be consistent in the references.

Good catch, will do. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I found and fixed them all, I think. There were quite a bunch. All are now spelled out. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/intro.htm deadlinked Check the OTHER dead links in the link checker tool (some even are tagged deadlink!)

Yes, this was noted and we're working on it (though I think it was on the talk page not here -- sorry not to mention it!)

-Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All dead links are now restored or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please spell out abbreviations in the references (I noted USDA but there are probably others).

I'll take a closer look at that, I think we have not reviewed for that in some time. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any others on a quick scan. I have to say, we're generally been very careful about that, so I think it's a fairly safe bet the one you found was an anomaly. Fixed that.

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/ (also, the title of the journal should be in italics)

    The OHQ has a clear editorial structure, a 100+ year history, and a commitment to quality and accuracy. On a contentious point, it would be inferior to, say, a scientific journal or a university-sponsored research project; but the two facts it's used to justify are uncontroversial points that are not likely to be challenged. The second point (the 1450 possibility on the date of the Bonneville Slide), it cites another work, which theoretically could be tracked down. Historycooperative.org simply re-publishes OHQ among other historical society publications. Italics added. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    I've removed your strike through until I've had time to evaluate... generally at FAC, the practice is to let the person making the comments strike them when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Makes perfect sense, sorry for the gaff. It's been a long time since I've worked closely on an FA nom. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some additional info about this: The historycooperative.org refs are to articles published by the Oregon Historical Society, as Pete mentioned. The Oregon Historical Society Press has published books and papers for about a century. Sadly, the OHS had to close down their press this year, but it is notable, I think, that the University of Washington Press has taken over the distribution of the OHS Press books not yet out of print. Our Columbia River article has two refs citing the OHS Quarterly via historycooperative.org. The first in the section about the Bonneville Landslide's blocking of the river and links to a paper by Jim E. O'Connor, one of the primary people researching and writing about this topic. His paper is footnoted and referenced in detail. He is a hydrologist with the USGS Portland office and a leading expert in the study of the Bonneville Slide. The second historycooperative.org ref, also an Oregon Historical Society paper, is in the section about Vancouver sending Broughton, his lieutenant, exploring up the Columbia in late 1792. The paper cited is by Jim Mockford and is footnoted and referenced in detail. Jim Mockford is a historian specializing in the maritime history of the Pacific Northwest. It seems like a RS to me, but if desired other sources can be used for the claims being made (how far Broughton got, that he saw and named Mt Hood, and that he formally claimed the river for Britain). Likewise for the O'Connor article: other sources could be used if desired. However, it seems to me that any reader wanting to learn more about the Bonneville Slide ought to be pointed to O'Connor, as he is one of the leading experts on the study of the slide. Pfly (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a RS to me - if it were just a cite to the print version, it owuld be a RS, so being on the web for easier access does not make it any less a RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-02/talk/

    May not meet WP:RS, however the fact cited is completely uncontroversial and repeated in many publications. We should probably try to replace this one. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the common-place.org citation with two others, one from Departments of Natural Resources of WA and OR, the other from the Oregon Historical Quarterly, on the basis that it is acceptable as a RS. Slight rewording was needed too. Pfly (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://peakfinder.com/peakfinder.ASP?PeakName=Snow+Dome

    Likely not WP:RS. Fact is also asserted here, but I'm not sure this is a RS either. Finetooth, you did the watershed section -- ideas? -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was Pfly who found and added the triple-divide material. That said, I found a 1921 book, on-line as a Google Book, a climber's guide, that supports the claim. I added a citation to the book but left the peakfinder citation in place because it explains that a variant name for Snow Dome is Dome, which is what the 1921 book calls it. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the non-RS peakfinder citation, leaving the book citation in place and adding a citation to an Atlas of Canada map showing the major drainage basins of Canada and generally where three of them (Mackenzie, Nelson, and Columbia) meet at a point near the Columbia headwaters. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.uwec.edu/andersrn/Triple_Divide_Pts.htm

    Not entirely sure. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This one looks reliable to me. Anderson is a Ph.D. mathematician specializing partly in topology at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. His explanation of triple-divide points, replete with illustrations, examples, and equations looks expert rather than amateur. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it more closely, and agree with Finetooth. This part of WP:RS seems relevant: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." There is no reason to think of the points Anderson makes as particularly controversial; in fact, his article provides context that helps one to interpret what little controversy there is (namely, whether Hudson Bay is properly considered an inlet to the Arctic or Atlantic ocean). For a more controversial point, the source would certainly fail WP:RS. But for this point, it has a great deal of utility for the curious reader, without much risk of misleading them. -Pete (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Further detail on that -- Andersen is published in academic journals on topology, see and . I think that explicitly satisfies the (admittedly unusual) circumstances described in WP:V under "self-published sources" section. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5332

    No, don't think that one qualifies. It seems all four of these issues could be resolved by finding a single high-quality RS on continental divides in North America. May have to head to the library for that. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pfly added two citations to support the claim that Three Waters Mountain is a triple-divide point. The non-RS peakbagger.com is one of the two, but the other one, Anderson, also supports the claim. If Anderson is expert, as his credentials suggest, we could just delete the peakbagger citation as redundant as well as non-RS. How say you all? Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I deleted the non-RS peakbagger citation since it serves no purpose unsatisifed by the Anderson citation. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look through them again. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, this page is pretty useful for divide lines in North America, though it doesn't mention Dome (or, for that matter, the divide between the Arctic and Hudson Bay). -Pete (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 82 (The eagan quote) needs a page number

I have that book around somewhere, I'll find it. Good catch. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally found it...the bugger was elusive!! -Pete (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

I have now fixed these. There were several that lacked italics. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, so much work...but you're right :) -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback! -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support with some comments, from Ruhrfisch. I passed this as a Good Article and have kept an eye on it since. While I have made a few edits here, I applaud the main group of editors who worked so hard on this - to my thinking it is one of the best examples of collaborative editing I have seen. It is also one of the best articles the encyclopedia has on a large river. Here are a few comments, which do not detract from my support. Many of these are places where references are needed, but this is already pretty copiously referenced, so I am comfortable supporting (and that my comments will be addressed).

• Since seven US states and one Canadian province are in the Columbia drainage basin, would it be worth mentioning this in some way in the lead? I would also link drainage basin there - perhaps something like ...(roughly the size of France, this includes parts of seven US States and one Canadian province).
• In the Course section explain BC after the first mention, i.e. "British Columbia (BC)"
• The size of the watershed is given four times in the article (lead, Geobox, and twice in the space of just two paragraphs in the text: last paragraph of Course and first paragraph of Discharge). I would move the sentence Its drainage basin covers 258,000 square miles (670,000 km2). from the Discharge section to the Watershed section
• In the Course section the second phrase of this sentence seems wrong (as we know the Columbia also breaches the Cascades) - would adding "others" work? No other river completely breaches the Cascades—those [others?] that flow through the range also originate in or very near the mountains.
• In the Geology section I would give a rough age for the Missoula Floods (15,000 to 13,000 years ago).

Thank you for the kind words and support. I've added an age range. Bishop suggests, via USGS geologists, a slightly wider range but in the same ballpark. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Same section The floods' periodic inundation of the lower Columbia River Plateau deposited rich sediments, establishing the fertility that supports extensive agriculture in the modern era. needs a ref

Added a ref. Bishop mentions especially the Willamette Valley. (Thank you Montana and Washington for all the topsoil.) Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the Indigenous peoples section several places need refs: ...the Cayuse War, a number of violent battles were fought between American settlers and the regions natives, establishing the United States' dominance in the region and removing much land from native control. Similar conflicts occurred in British Columbia, such as the Fraser Canyon War. is one, The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away. is another, and the whole short paragraph Natives drew fish from the Columbia at several major sites ... Kettle Falls and Priest Rapids in eastern Washington, were also major fishing and trading sites. needs a ref.

If I can just step up on a soapbox for a brief moment…I disagree that (at least some of) these are problems. WP:V states that editors "…should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" -- and I don't believe many of the items above are likely to be challenged. In this case, I think we're OK, because I can probably find sources (like ); however, I have a concern about this level of dedication for citing every fact, because on occasion, there is a fact or two that must be stated in order to preserve a good narrative flow and inform the reader, is entirely uncontroversial, and yet cannot be cited to any specific reliable source. Okay, stepping off soapbox and seeking citations now. -Pete (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I look at Wikipedia articles as a good starting place for people interested in learning more about a topic - providing a ref says to the reader "here is where this information comes from and where you can learn more about this topic, if so interested". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you can see from my editing history, I thoroughly agree with that concept...my departure is entirely theoretical, and if I'm lucky, won't have any impact on this FA, where sources are fairly easy to find if you put in the time...I just added a couple more about the events surrounding Cayuse War. :) -Pete (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake when adding the mention of the Fraser Canyon War--that was along the Fraser River not the Columbia, I think. I'll remove the statement. The claim about the "bridge" permitting increased interaction across the river is perhaps something that should be removed too? It's hard to believe anyone could know whether the claim is true. If not removed perhaps reworded to indicate the source, like "according to oral tradition..." or "anthropologist So-and-so speculates that..."? (also, I hope I'm editing the right page/section--never commented on an FA candidate before!) Pfly (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to leave in the bit about increased interaction, as it seems to be an uncontroversial bit of oral history. But I have no objection to phrasing it how you did; transparently informing the reader that oral history is the source of this information seems like a very good idea. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm down off my soapbox, recognizing that your critique spurred us to do some good research that needed doing, and has led to a much stronger section. Still looking for a good source for the land bridge/increased interaction bit; it's alluded to all over the place, and I know I've seen it in strong sources in the past, but the darn library closed yesterday before I could get to that one. -Pete (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to help in a small way - thanks for everyone's hard work on this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a ref for the claim that the Bridge of the Gods permitted increased interaction across the river, according to native oral histories. Also, I took out the bit about "until it was finally washed away" because in most or all of the stories the bridge is deliberately destroyed by a god. Pfly (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also wonder if the once sentence paragraph on modern tribal fishing rights could be combined with another paragraph here, perhaps the last one with a ref mentioned above or after the Kah-Nee-Tah resort sentence?

Looks like that's been done. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the sentence Today, the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs tribes all have treaty fishing rights along the Columbia and its tributaries.[37] but on rereading I think it is OK where it is and on its own. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I found some more related info, and moved/combined it. -Pete (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the New waves of explorers section, the sentences on British fur trader Captain John Meares need a ref.

Sourced to a National Park Service article on Cape Disappointment State Park. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Same section Northwest Passage is linked twice

I had introduced some general redundancies with a recent edit. I rewrote both parts of the text that mention the NWP, hopefully improving the general flow of the narrative, in addition to eliminating the redundant link. -Pete (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• First paragraph of Navigation needs a ref (although the Course section already had a ref that the Bar is most dangerous to navigate)

Added a ref to an Oregon Marine Board document to support claim that the Bar is still dangerous. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the Dams section, the end of the first paragraph needs a ref, as does the passage Canada agreed to build dams and provide reservoir storage, and the U.S. agreed ... the last of which was completed in 1973. as well as this passage Previously active fishing sites, most notably Celilo Falls ... Chief Joseph Dam has no fish ladders and completely blocks fish migration to the upper half of the Columbia River system.

I've added two refs, one to the treaty itself to support the claims about what the agreement said, and the second to support the claim that Canada built three dams, the last of which (Mica) was completed in 1973. Finetooth (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added two more refs to support the Celilo Falls claim and the Chief Joseph Dam claim. I believe these four new refs address the unsourced claims issues in the Dams section. Finetooth (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Added one more, which supports the 600,000-acre claim for Grand Coulee. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The last parts of the first and third paragraphs in the Fish migration section need refs.

Added two refs supporting the sturgeon claims and one ref supporting the salmon and steelhead claims. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the Pollution section, could the one sentence paragraph on the guy swimming the rvier be combined with another paragraph?

I have struggled with that one. Although I strongly prefer not to have one-sentence paragraphs, I'd note that the WP:MOS doesn't prohibit them, just discourages them. In this case, it is truly a notion of its own, not directly relating to anything else; I think combining it into another paragraph simply to satisfy a guideline would lead to a less readable section, and I believe it should stay separate. Curious what you think of that. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One possibility might be to introduce a quote from Swain, or a photo, and incorporate that sentence as a caption instead of body copy. Can't say I love the idea, as I think it'd inflate the importance of what was essentially a media stunt more than might be appropriate, but I'm just tossing the idea out. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other clean up efforts or environmental organizations focusing on the Columbia that have made the mainstream press that could be added to fill it out to a real paragraph? Kmusser (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the other clean up efforts / groups idea better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we simply archive the sentence to the talk page until we have additional information to add? In my opinion it's a detail worth mentioning, but not vital to the article. I'm not sure what additional information there might be to add, but it might take a while to do the kind of research we'd need to to dig it up. Archive to talk page in the meantime? -Pete (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is fine to keep in the article, my question was just if it could be combined somehow with another paragraph. I would rather see it in as a one sentence paragraph than removed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open for appropriate facts to add to that. Thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Picture captions - is it possible to say how long the Essayons has been dredging (since year) instead of just "currently in use"? Also the article says "The river flows past The Gorge Amphitheatre, a prominent concert venue" but the caption reads "Near the Gorge Amphitheater in George, Washington" (is the "The" capitalized or not?)

I will try on the Essayons. Basically, it's part of the current re-dredging efforts, making it this decade…just have to find a good way to state that concisely. I believe Kmusser fixed the capitalization issue (thanks!) -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the Essayons caption, and am happier in general with it. See what you think. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better , thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps and thanks for a very well done article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting caught up in details, and forgetting my manners: as Finetooth said, thank you for your compliments and support, and for all these clearly thought-out suggestions. -Pete (talk)

Glad to help improve this in some small way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All issues I raised have been addressed and/or resolved. Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can you have a look at the external link report? There's a few dead links and some strange ones too. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I repaired or replaced all of the dead links a few days ago, but another one, a link to a newspaper article, died on Sept. 5. I've converted it to an offline citation. I believe the strange ones are OK, not actionable as long as they work. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just removed two EL's -- one was info data about the mouth of the river, which might be more appropriate on the Columbia Bar article. The other was a wiki for kayakers. Not sure if this is what you meant by "strange ones." -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• 130KB is a bit long, perhaps? Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed summarizing and breaking out more articles, and I think it's a reasonable thing to consider in the future, but my view is that it's not necessary. The significance of the article's subject should be a major consideration of what length is appropriate (and I believe it is mentioned somewhere in the MOS, and the Columbia is a river of pretty major significance. The Encyclopedia Britannica has long had the "Micropedia" (with short articles) and the "Macropedia" (with long articles). In the Macropedia, article length has varied from two to 310 pages. With default settings, this article prints on about 15 pages (apart from references.) The references are an additional 9 pages – and surely we wouldn't want to reduce the amount of sourcing? I believe the length is generally appropriate, but would be interested in specific proposals for breaking off and summarizing articles from the sections. -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding Wikipedia:Article size, but if my calculation is correct the size of the article's "readable prose" is only 54 KB. I roughly cut the article down to "readable prose" and put the results here. Pfly (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This tool shows the article has about 59 KB of readable prose. I do not think it needs to be trimmed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Media review Not sure that File:Woody Guthrie, Roll On Columbia.ogg meets WP:NFCC#8. It would be significant and aid understanding of an article about the song, but in an article about the river and area, I think its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Copyright status of all other images seems fine. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  I think you're right. We should probably remove the OGG file. Do I understand correctly you have no objection to the Guthrie photo (public domain) and the quote from the song (surely a very appropriate fair use snippet, which helps the reader understand the marketing and cultural aspects of the dam development)? -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, those are fine in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - I think I accidentally introduced that in a rewrite during this FA. Whoops! Thanks, good catch! -Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing and editing the geology section. I will then be out of town for several days, so I won't be in touch, but wanted to leave a heads-up here. Awickert (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the article, for the heads-up, and for the additions to the geology section. Bishop doesn't mention the Farallon plate until later in her book, but otherwise the existing citation supports the additional claims, and perhaps the plate name doesn't need its own citation. I noticed one mistake, a kind of typo I've made myself more than once. The North American plate was moving westward, not eastward. I changed the article to say "westward". Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

I have to say that the article is very comprehensive and the post-lead sections very well written. My compliments to the authors. The article also has two superb maps; compliments to K. Musser for those. But what happened to the lead? It's as if the preface to a Dickens novel has been written by the printer's bored-to-death assistant. I have just left detailed comments on the lead on the article's talk page. A better lead would help in drawing the reader to the treasures within. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support, which are much appreciated, and for your thoughtful suggestions for improving the lead. We knew when User:UriahHeep insisted on writing the lead that we might regret it. The rest of us will try to get it right by tomorrow (Monday). Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the feedback and suggestions--all very good. Finetooth addressed a good number of your points and I just finished the rest. Leads are hard--the desire to balance relative terseness with that "drawing the reader in" thing. Then again, I think I have an over-tendency to go terse in leads. Hopefully the lead is now a little less awkward and a little more engaging. Thanks again for the feedback! Pfly (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

History of the Montreal Canadiens

Nominator(s): Resolute 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With the Montreal Canadiens' centennial anniversary fast approaching, it was my hope to bring a related article up to featured status in the hopes that it can appear on the main page on December 4. The team article has already appeared in the past, so this article became my choice. It discusses the 100 year history of the franchise, and should be complete, has plenty of images, well cited, and yes, uses alt text.  ;). It has gone through a peer review, and I'd like to thank Steve Smith and Isaac Lin for their assistance in copyediting. I look forward to all comments. Thanks, Resolute 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well researched. Will be perfect for the Main Page on December 4. Maxim_(talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Image review Image alt text and copyright status are all OK. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – My usual batch of prose nit-picks is below, but I also have a couple of possible additions that could be interesting. As a sports history buff, I must confess to knowing a few things about the Canadiens, even though my allegances lie with the New York Rangers. I am happy that you included the crucial penalties in 1979 and 1993, along with the Patrick Roy incident.

• Please define NHA in the first paragraph.
• "and is regarded as one of the first manifestations of the Quebec's Quiet Revolution." Remove second "the"?
• Founding: "The Canadiens stocked their team with stars including Newsy Lalonde, Georges Poulin and Didier Pitre. Pitre...". Try moving Pitre's name to the middle of the group to eliminate some repetition.
• Creamery Kings have two links in very short order. Perhaps chop the second.
• One of these with+-ing sentences that the FAC prose crew always jumps on: "with the winner being the team with the highest (most?) total goals."
• The Original Six: "70 people were arrested, 37 were injured, 50 stores were looted and $100,000 in property damage was reported as a result of the melee". Change the first figure to a word so a sentence doesn't start with a number.
• Could a brief mention be made of what the Original Six means? I have a feeling non-hockey fans will have trouble understanding that.
• Expansion era: "including Henri Richard. Richard...". Another sentence repetitive in structure, similar to the one above. This can just be one sentence, I believe.
• Another one a couple sentences later involving Scotty Bowman.
• One thing I remember from an article in the History of the NHL series is that Montreal received a special dispensation in the draft in the late 1960s, which allowed them to take French-Canadian players with the first selections. Is this worthy of a brief mention?
• One of my numerous sports books makes the claim (paraphrased) that Canada's military bypassed numerous Canadiens players, including Rocket Richard, for WWII service, to provide entertainment to those in the country. If this is true, and in your sources, it should definitely be placed in the article. If nothing else, it provides a great explanation for why the team turned around so quickly (their roster wasn't decimated like other teams'). Giants2008 (17–14) 00:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely not Richard -- he tried to enlist but was refused because he had previously broken an arm and it didn't properly heal. Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made changes to address these comments, except for the one on Richard, and the one on the Creamery Kings. Usually I will link the first reference in a section. I can remove the second link if it seems too close to the first one, in spite of being in a separate section. Regarding Richard, there is a third-hand reference on the CBC web site saying that the Canadiens GM made sure his players got jobs in vital war industries to avoid being drafted. I would feel more comfortable if someone could check the quoted reference. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would consider the CBC to be reliable in this case, even if the reference is third hand. Unfortunately, without knowing what book Hunter made that statement in, it is hard to tell. Jenish does say that in the summer of 1943, the Canadiens had lost only one key player (Ken Reardon) to the war, vs nine Red Wings and six Maple Leafs, but doesn't say why. MacFarlane says that the Rangers wanted to fold for the duration of the war, and that Phil Watson of the Rangers was stuck in Montreal in an essential war job, and ended up being traded to the Canadiens as a result. I will add a line or two about this. Resolute 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Or an entire paragraph, lol. Thanks for getting to Giants' other issues. Resolute 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Few more things from the rest of the article:

• "Another rookie, Brian Skrudland scored the game-winning goal...". Comma after Skrudland.
• The bit about the 1993 team being the last Canadian club to win the Stanley Cup is in the lead, but not the body. It should probably be added to the main text.
• "before retiring 2003 with more wins than any goaltender NHL history." Missing two-letter word.
• "with many of the franchise's greatest players step onto the ice." "step" is ungrammatical. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• All fixed. Thanks for the review! Resolute 04:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support – This is a great read all the way through, with good prose quality, fine sourcing, plenty of images, and everything else to be expected from our best work. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• Current ref 22 (Jerseys and Logos...) is lacking a publisher.
• http://canadiens.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=eng_his_retiredNumb deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made changes to address these comments. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, 1a. But do me a favour and don't link both elements of such doubles as "Cleveland, Ohio"? It's a "chain" link: if the reader clicks on "Cleveland", they get a link to the much more general "Ohio" at the top. Same with "industrialist Ambrose O'Brien of Renfrew, Ontario". Better: "industrialist Ambrose O'Brien of Renfrew, Ontario.
• "World War II" might be a link-target in a MilHist article. This is hockey.
• Why is the lead pic so small, with so much detail? 300px the normal max. I've enlarged it. Group pics are tiny, too, compared with the generous size given to single portraits. Bowman pic could have done with sharpening before uploading. Please, the era of squint has passed.
• "1996:–"? It would be "–present", which I believe is inferior to "Since 1996". And why does a colon force a subsequent upper-case letter in the titles? I've fixed. Tony (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good suggestions. I will check for any other occurances and keep these in mind for future articles. Thanks, Resolute 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Grace (1991)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another relatively short one, but like many of my previous noms, this has a degree of special significance. Hurricane Grace developed and dissipated uneventfully, but its remnants contributed to the formation of what was arguably the most meteorologically important storms in history—the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter, more commonly referred to as the Perfect Storm. I realize the FAC folks aren't too fond of stubby FACs, but I am confident this is the most comprehensive account of the storm currently available. Iridescent (talk · contribs) gave me a quick, yet extremely helpful, review, and while a bit of tweaking may yet be needed I think the article is ready to become featured. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note, alt text added. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - On prose.
• Reports from a nearby ship indicated that the low had become a surface feature by October 25. - cite please?
• While situated 390 mi (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cyclone attained its peak intensity with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h). - all distances need cites
• ...combined with abnormally high tides, these waves reached at least 15 ft (4.6 m). - cite? ceranthor 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. These facts are all cited to the next subsequent references, even if a couple sentences away. Is that an issue? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fine so far as the standard meteorological stuff goes, but I get the feeling that a certain dimension of comprehensiveness is lacking: the term "Perfect Storm" is bandied around, without true coverage of the cultural significance. The existence of the film, for one, is confined to the "See also" section. What do you think about expanding the information on this? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is tough, because Grace and the Perfect Storm were effectively two separate weather systems that happened to have a unique interaction. As such, I tried to avoid having too much info on the nor'easter, which is better suited in the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter page. Hope this answers your question satisfactorily. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If they had a unique interaction, wouldn't that require more coverage, not less? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more coverage on the interaction, but I think it's best to avoid giving undue weight to the nor'easter. Still, I'm open to being persuaded. Any thoughts are appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know very little about the topic area, so I doubt I'll be able to do any persuading. But if there was some kind of unique interaction, that inherently necessitates coverage. I don't think anyone will accuse you of unduly weighting it; in fact, it may alleviate the opposer's concern about length/comprehensiveness. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: No copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs One link needs disambiguating. Always check the toolbox, peeps. It's only a little click away.
• Links All fine.
• Sources All fine, but:
  • Pick a dating convention and stick to it. This has a mixture of two.
  • Consider linking some publications in the reflist to improve readership.
  • "Staff writer" as author is a bit redundant. Consider removal.

RB88 (T) 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Whether it is the most comprehensive article on Hurricane Grace or not, I don't know, but the article is simply not comprehensive enough for an FA. The sources are mostly the preliminary NOAA reports from 1991 which aren't exactly secondary sources. It is hard for me to believe that other sources aren't out there. The map is extremely poor: it has no lat/long information, no date information, no pressure information, no position relative to the Halloween Storm brewing farther north. There are no wave reports or charts. I will look for sources next, but my advice is to withdraw the article from FAC, expand it to twice its length and resubmit in a month. No point worrying about prose at this stage. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references:

• Bromirski, Peter D. (2001), "Vibrations from the 'Perfect Storm'" (PDF), Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2 (Good source for microseismic vibrations and what role Hurrican Grace played in their formation. Good map.)
• Maa, Jerome P. Y.; Wang, David W. C. (1995), "Wave Transformation Near Virginia Coast: the "Halloween" Northeaster" (PDF), Journal of Coastal Research, 11 (4): 1258–1271 (Has a nice map with lat/long, dates, and wave stations.)
• Davis, Robert E.; Dolan, Robert (1992), "The 'All Hallows' Eve' Coastal Storm: October 1991", Journal of Coastal Research, 8 (4): 978–983, JSTOR 4298051 If you don't have JSTOR access, please leave a post on my talk page and I'll email you the paper. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be Hurricane Grace and the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter. Two entirely different storms. The sources you have provided are excellent and will certainly be of use for other articles, but are all irrelevant to this page. I ask you to reconsider your oppose, since it is currently non-actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the references all have material on Hurricane Grace. Davis and Dolan have maps on the evolution of Hurricane Grace and of the low pressure system that together led to the Halloween Storm. I also found a conference talk link:

• Cordiera, Jason M.; Bosart, L. F. (2008), "Tropical-midlatitude Interactions during the "Perfect Storms" of 1991", 28th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology

This link only has an abstract, but at the bottom of the abstract, there is a link to his recorded presentation. There he talks for about five minutes on the recurvature and extra tropical transition of Hurricane Grace. He also has some nice diagrams. While the conference abstract is not RS, he might have a paper in the press. I think your best bet is to email Jason M. Cordiera at SUNY Albany and ask him for references suitable for Wikipedia. He might even give you maps and diagrams, and you'll then have a great article. He is a graduate student who received his MS last year. You simply don't have enough material. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen those journals, and the info focuses on the nor'easter while mentioning Grace. No substantial info whatsoever regarding the hurricane. "Simply doesn't have enough material" is not a valid reason to oppose unless you can point out where the info is currently lacking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mis-characterize the papers. At a minimum, you need to do the following things. (Please don't break up my post below with responses; reply at the end, if you must. This, however, is my last comment here.)

1. Remove references 4 and 6. You are synthesizing from primary sources (NOAA discussions conducted during the hurricane).
2. Minimize references to Rappaport. That is a preliminary report written less than 2 weeks after the hurricane. You can summarize some factual information (dates and times) from it, as some papers do, but not the interpretative content. It has not been peer-reviewed.
3. Replace (or improve) your map by incorporating the information in the maps in Bromirski and Maa and Wang.
4. Add a discussion of Bermuda subtropical storms, what are their characteristics and which of these are shared by Hurricane Grace. Here is another paper for that: Guishard, M. P.; Nelson, E. A.; Evans, J. L.; et al. (2007), "Bermuda subtropical storms", Meteoroloy and Atmospheric Physics, 97: 239–253. The paper discusses Hurricane Grace as an example of BSS (Quote: "The number of subtropical cyclones found in this survey are too numerous to provide complete synoptic histories in this paper. Thus, as indicated above, the synoptic evolutions of two representative storms are provided: one represents a typical named storm that had subtropical characteristics in the Cyclone Phase Space (Grace, October 1991). The other is unnamed ..." (p. 243))
5. Remove or reduce references to the USA today article; not clear if it constitutes a reliable secondary source.
6. Incorporate the information in Bromirski (first 8 pages) and say more about the wave characteristics of Hurricane Grace and how much they contributed to the big waves of the subsequent noreaster. Bromirski has maps and diagrams for Oct 27, 28 and 29 as well.
7. (It will help the article if you) Get in touch with Jason Cordeira to get the best sources.
8. Withdraw the article from FAC, work on it for a few weeks, and resubmit; otherwise, you do nothing but slow down an already slow FAC process and tax the patience of helpful reviewers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're coming across with an awful dismissive tone, and if you don't plan to respond further I see no need to continue working to alleviate your concerns. I also see no need to withdraw this just for the sake of it. I'll nonetheless reply to your points: 1) Why? The sources aren't primary—the hurricane can't write. 2) Again, this is the official report on the storm, and is arguably the most reliable source available on this topic. 3) I can't do much about the map, unfortunately; if you happen to be good with some kind of program, please be my guest. 4) That's irrelevant to this article and seems an attempt to fill it with fluff. 5) Huh? How is USA Today not a reliable source? 6) Again; the nor'easter and the hurricane were two separate storms. Once Grace dissipated, the non-tropical low took over and any subsequent effects are not suitable for documentation within this article. 6) I personally don't see a need as I've explained above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns were all previously addressed here. It's not an interesting topic, but it says all that needs to be said on the topic and there's no obvious omission or overspecialization that I can see. – iridescent 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I believe that the article is comprehensive as is. The writing seems good, and I spot-checked a couple sources to make sure they matched the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support on use of sources - everything checks out fine. Common phrases and usage is common to -all- weather related terms, and the phrasing are standard, so any similarities are not in any violation. There is quite a bit of rephrasing and use of alternatives that help achieve this. The sources are also summarized in a way that multiple sentences are condensed, which helps keep away from any problems. I did not find any concerns, and I read through all of the sources. In regards to other concerns - the prose is technical, straight forward, and accurate. I have no problems with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is nicely written, compact, and interesting. The only things I would suggest are (a) saying a little more about the loss of life, as it's tucked away at the end as an after-thought with no details, and (b) wherever possible explaining the meaning of technical terms. Just one example, "An area of clouds near Bermuda became increasingly convective in nature, and gradually became entrained into the expanding and developing circulation of the subtropical storm." If there's an easy way to explain "convective" and "entrained," and similar terms in other sentences, without bogging the writing down too much, that would be good. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all, for the supports and suggestions. I've tried to make the storm's demise a bit more prominent within the article, as searching for further info proved fruitless for the most part. I'll also work on cutting down on the jargon. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support very interesting and informative article on a storm that contributed to one of the most well-known cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support well written --Anhamirak 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Very reluctant support. Knowing nothing about the WikiProject's organisations and planning, I'm curious as to whether all of the low-hanging fruit have been picked and put to FAC, leaving only shorties like this one. If not, I wonder whether the more individual, notable, lengthy events (or groups of events?) might be emphasised in planning. I find it on the borderline in terms of the substance, the size required to fulfil a basic FA requirement, to exemplify "our very best work". It gets to a stage where I want more peripheral information to fill it out. Will the FA list eventually be dominated by short pieces on each individual storm? Will other nominators get the idea that breaking their articles into little bits can generate a bunch of bronze stars rather than a single one?

• On a positive note, your writing has really improved: it's great to see. I would be delighted if it were applied to larger pieces. The other issue is that I feel the formula that has evolved for these articles is sometimes just too easy, obscuring possibilities for providing more detail that would be of interest and relevance to the readers. I feel as though I've read some of the sentences 100 times already, with slots filled in.
• "that caused extremely high waves and resultant severe coastal damage along the U.S. East Coast." To be fussy, "caused" and "resultant" (the latter a pretty ugly English word, like "ulitize"), are rather uncomfortably parallel and repetitious. What about "that caused extremely high waves and resulted in severe coastal damage along the U.S. East Coast." It was wind as well as those high waves that caused the damage, I'm presuming. At the moment, it's unclear.
• "The origins of Grace are traced back to a mid-level area"—who's tracing? Is it regularly traced? Let's get rid of these uncomfortable possibilities: "The origins of Grace go back to a mid-level area" (plain and simple).
• If the name of the ship appears in Ref. 2, that's fine. Otherwise, it's not.
• "An area of clouds near Bermuda became increasingly convective in nature, and gradually became entrained into the expanding and developing circulation of the subtropical storm." Oh ... can "in nature" go? As a non-meteorologist, I'd love to have it explained—what does convectivity mean in this context, and what is its role in storm formation. It's a bad sign, is it? Lovely second part of sentence, but again, is this a typical phenomenon, or is it mentioned here because it's unusual?
• I haven't a clue, technically, what is going on here: "Hurricane Grace turned northeast later that day, as the rapidly approaching frontal boundary destroyed the storm's lower-level center." There's a chance to let us into some of the science of it all. Little additions here and there would make me happier about giving this a bronze star. Why did it become known as "the Perfect Storm"? More please ...
• This sentence could be more effective in reverse: "While situated 390 miles (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cyclone attained its peak intensity with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h)." -> "The cyclone attained its peak intensity 390 miles (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h)." What bristled was that old chestnut "situated", which is often redundant.
• Does "ft" (and "m") really have to be linked on first occurrence? Why? No one else does it.
• Punch us to the floor right at the end: "A ship known as the Andrea Gail was lost, along with her crew members, during the storm." Oh, how many lives were lost? Could you import just a little of the narrative from Ref. 9? Sounds like a good story. Tony (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Ghosts I–IV

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the second attempt with this article here at FAC. If I may summarize the previous FAC's comments on the article, the concerns that doomed its previous nom seemed to focus on the quality of the prose and the relative proximity of the nomination to the album's release not allowing sufficient time for proper perspective. I believe both of these problems have since been addressed; the article was copyedited shortly after the previous FAC failed and has since been re-copyedited and cleaned up by myself more recently, and the extended time has allowed for additions of some additional content that would not have been possible so closely after its release. All comments are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call, added alt text to all four images. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked the syntax to get it to work; you can check this sort of thing by clicking "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not majorly ultra-important, but I would argue it helps verify and illustrate the numbering system of the LE edition, as well as fill some empty space to the right of the list of release versions. And it's a free-use, Creative Commons image, so it's on good terms legally and all that. Drewcifer (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's like having a picture of an Elephant just ot show that they're gray, but okay. I was just thinking it takes up space, and could have been repleaced with a better image. (i was thinking an image of the Ultra-Deluxe editio)KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with KFKDM FAN. I feel having that picture is of interest to NIN fans, but isn't very enlightening to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the offending image. Sigh. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Nine-Inch-Nails,5829

• NPR has cited it (link), and they've released an album for charity, which as been covered by PopMatters link.

• I'm sure you can find a more notable music press reviewer than that. It's a notable website, but certainly not the top echelon of music reviews, especially given such a major act as this has probably been reviewed by every major music publication. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://creativecommons.org

• Not sure what to say about this one. It's Creative Commons. Besides, all of the times it's cited is about CC-type stuff, so I'd assume Creative Commons would be the expert on Creative Commons.

Well, it is a primary source, which we generally should avoid due to POV concerns. The post cited is pretty self-congratulatory. Can you find a secondary source that covers the information? Also, I'm not too keen on Amazon.com listing (this is one retailer out of many; why not list rankings for other retailers?) and feel you definitely should take out the Last.fm rankings (these are not notable in of themselves; if you can find a secondary source that covers this, then I would be more inclined to keep it). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've swapped two of the three. The last one is the one pointing out the fact that it's the only CC-licensed music to be nominated for a Grammy. That info isn't available anywhere else as far as I can tell, so there's no way around that one. Drewcifer (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=30818&pg=4

• All About Jazz was named the best Web-Site Concentrating On Jazz by the Jazz Journalist Association. It's also been cited by Examiner.com (link). And it's being used to cite an interview, not investigative reporting or anything like that, so I'm sourcing the interviewee, Adrian Belew, not All About Jazz. Drewcifer (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm generally not a fan of "Release history" sections (mainly because they are generally unnecessary and uncited) but in this case it might be a good place to move the "Release versions" section so you don't have a bulleted list smack dab in the middle of prose sections. Alternatively, you might want to convert the section into prose. Pick which of those solutions works best for you. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't use "#" signs and write out all numbers below ten. Thus "#2" should be written out as "number two". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the pound sign thing. Working on the releases. Drewcifer (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Redid the release section section a bit. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation Fixed. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's looking pretty good. I made some changes to address easy problems, but some other issues follow:
  • Lead: "licensed under a ... license" Gotta do some about this, but unsure what.
    • Reworded. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The music arose improvisationally" This statement lacks clarity. How precisely does music "arise", and what do we mean by "music"? The written music? The recorded music?
    • Reworded, hopefully better. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Viglione, who contributed percussions" ?
    • Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "National Public Radio and Rolling Stone's reviews also compared the album to Brian Eno" Requires clarity—I'm sure they didn't compare the album to Eno himself?
    • Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, in effect allowing anyone to use or rework the material for any non-profit purpose, as long as credit is provided and the resulting work is released under an identical license." You've sourced this to a press release of some kind, but we really also need a secondary source for your interpretation of this particular license type.
    • Added another source, explaining what the license means, which pretty much echo what is described in the article. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ghosts material was performed in this manner most notably during the "Lights in the Sky" tour in 2008, immediately after the album's release." Why "most notably"? Which of the two sources given backs up that statement?
    • Reworded. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "During these segments, the music was largely acoustic" When is music not acoustic? If you're trying to express that the instruments used were acoustic rather than electric, revision is needed. Also, the "among others" is kind of hanging out there, not doing much. You've already said "included", indicating there would be more.
    • Reworded. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Subsequently, on the NINJA and Wave Goodbye Tours, the Ghosts section has since been scrapped" The "subsequently" is redundant to the "since"; pick one.
    • Reworded. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "charted on ... charts"
    • Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please check for MoS issues, per WP:LQ. If I found a complete sentence quoted with the period on the outside, I moved it in. For partial quotations that seem to end in a period, you are handling it inconsistently. Either always put them inside or always put them outside.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Checked every quotation, fixed more than I care to admit. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think it is ready. I've checked several of the sources and verified that they support what they're attached to. Everything in the lead is represented and cited in the text. On an image note - I see that you have a CC-licensed promo photo, and it looks like there are others on Flickr with appropriate licenses. Is there anything else we can grab that would add anything to the article? I see there are several production photos but unfortunately they are non-commercial. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks for your help and your support. I've scoured the NIN Flickr account as well, and there's not much there that isn't non-commercial, unfortunately. And non-NIN-created content is pretty scarce too; the above image which I removed was the only one I could find that fit. So I guess it is what it is. Drewcifer (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to tackle the prose later today. I was going to do it sooner, but then my internet cut out for two days. Ahem. Anyway, hopefully when I'm done I can register a support. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support A great read. One issue though: would the artwork image not look better on the left side of the page so the images in the "Production" section went left-right-left? Is there a way to position it so it doesn't break the next line down at the top of the "Release" section? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the first part of your statement if it wasn't for the second part of your statement. It would be nice to have it go left right left, but then that would mean that the 3rd image would make the section header immediately after it float into the middle of the page. I could create a line break type thing with {{clr}}, but given the size of the artwork section, it would create alot of empty space. So I don't think it's an option unfortunately. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DIFF Drewcifer (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It looks far better as it is. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Just started reviewing the prose. Can you include something about the sound of the album in the lead? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, cut down on the sheer number of inline cites in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, you are summarizing the entire article, and shouldn't need footnotes. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Also also, I see a lot of passive voice in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I finished my basic prose review. Looks pretty good so far. However, there are some strucural issues in some spots, and there are a few items where it's not quite clear why they are important or relevant. Also, the "music" section seems piddling. It's too reliant on reviews instead of behind-the-scenes info (you should be using investigative journalism, not critical commentary for reference here), and doesn't say much about composition or musical techniques, as such a section should. If it can't be expanded, I suggest outright merging it with the "Recording" section. I will expand on my concerns later, after I take care of some off-wiki business. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing my best to address these issues, but running out of time in the real world. U-passived about 5 or 6 sentences, I'll take another sweep through soon. As for the music section: I'd be happy to merge it into a larger section, but I'm not sure there's much room for expansion. Though many other FAs have a substantially larger music section, but alot of the the more common content in those sections just doesn't apply here. Lyrics are usually discussed, but obviously that does not apply here. I've also noticed alot of FAs with a plot-summary of sorts ("Track X is like this, then track Y is kinda like this.") But in this case there are just too many tracks to cover the over all ebb and flow of the album. And I'd argue as well that since most of the album is improvisational, there's not alot of structural design beyond each track. Drewcifer (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Combined the music and recording sections into one. Removed all citations from the lead. Also did a little more tweaking about the passive voice thing. Drewcifer (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments - (Note: I did not review the sources.) In general, this article reads well and covers what I would expect for an album. However, I was wondering whether the "Music" section could be expanded. The article seemed to be a little thin on the explanation of the actual music. I look forward to supporting once this question is answered and the media issue is cleared up. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3: File:33 Ghosts IV.ogg - This clip needs a better purpose of use - what specific musical element is it demonstrating? Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The clip is demonstrating Cortini's contributions; in this track he was credited with "electronics". Does this need to be made clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you add a sentence about Cortini's contributions specifically? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed this. Didn't add a sentence, just adjusted what was already there. Drewcifer (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clearer - the fair use rationale on the clip itself needs a better description than "It is used to demonstrate musical characteristics of the album where no other source other than the music itself would adequately provide similar commentary." Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well my adjustments in-article didn't hurt any. I've redone the FUR on the audio clip's page, so check it out and let me know if you think it's satisfactory. Drewcifer (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not seeing a real purpose for this clip, unfortunately. This particular track is not discussed in the article, as far as I can tell, nor is anything said in particular about Cortini's style that would necessitate hearing it. There is no specific discussion of Cortini's electronic style, for example, in the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, I've removed the offending audio sample for now, until I figure out something better. Drewcifer (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Adelaide Anne Procter

Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Anne Procter was one of the most respected and best-selling poets of the 19th-century, though she is now all but forgotten: she was the favorite poet of Queen Victoria, and her death was described in the press as a national calamity. Material on her is scant, but I've pulled together everything I could find (many sources duplicate info from primary sources, so I've leaned on primary sources here). Though the article is short because of the lack of sources, I believe it fulfills the FA criteria and if not, I would still like to hear suggestions on how to improve the article. Many thanks to Awadewit for a very thorough GA review and to S Marshall for a helpful peer review. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support - I have a few comments.
• "She suffered from ill health due to her charity work" - This isn't supported by the text in the main body: "Dickens and others have suggested that her illness was due to her extensive charity work".

What do you suggest - perhaps "she suffered from ill health, possibly due..."? Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It might work. I tend to think that the Dickens et al. statement says more about Dickens than about Procter, with Dickens basically arguing that Procter, as a woman, was too frail to work outside the house. Something I guess was not uncommon at that time.--Harthacnut (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed say more about Dickens than Procter, but unfortunately Dickens is nearly the only primary source on Procter. As such his opinion must be included in the body of the article, and once included it must be summarized in the lead. I don't think expressing editorial doubts regarding the sources is appropriate, unless some other source does so, which is not the case here. (Also, have you ever worn a corset? Working vigorously while your kidney and liver are being shifted out of place to give you a 20-inch waist can indeed take a severe toll, and often did.) Ricardiana (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added possibly. (I'm pretty sure I would look ridiculous in a corset, being male and all....) --Harthacnut (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The few critics who have examined Procter's poetry generally find it important for the way that Procter overtly expresses conventional sentiments while covertly undermining them." - Is this supported by Armstrong? If not it needs a source.

Yes, it is supported by Armstrong. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Procter converted to Roman Catholicism" - Why?

No reason is given in any source I've found. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

--Harthacnut (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and doesn't convey enough information about what the picture tells us that Procter looked like (see WP:ALT#Portraits). Eubulides (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still getting the hang of this. I've worked on the alt text; I hope it's better now. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I needed another example for WP:ALT#Portraits so I tweaked it as best I could and copied it into WP:ALT. Hope this helps. Someone should write a treatise on how to describe hairstyles concisely. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Eubulides - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but some comments:
• Several links are repeated in both lead and body text. I wondered whether this was overdoing it in a relatively short article (the relevant ones include Charles Dickens, Household Words, feminist, lesbian, Roman Catholicism, Queen Victoria, Coventry Patmore and Alfred, Lord Tennyson).
• I also thought providing the following links was overlinking things, though this is a judgement call, not a policy or guideline issue: feminist, lesbian, Bedford Square, Harley Street. In the case of the first two, I thought these would be likely to be understood by a lay reader; in the case of the latter two, the locations are inconsequential and the links are therefore distracting.
• I take it "fulness" is a spelling in the original?

Otherwise, very well put together. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments.

• It's true, but I thought links were supposed to be given in the lead and then repeated at first appearance later on. I just looked at WP:LEAD and WP:Linking - I didn't see any firm answer. What do you suggest - saving the links for the body of the article, or linking the first appearance of a term?
• I think linking "feminist" and "lesbian" is useful because, although a lay reader will have a mental definition of those terms, they are terms that are used differently by different people. I agree about the place names, though, so I've removed those links.
• Fulness is the spelling in the original, yes.

Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, should have replied earlier. Thanks for those tweaks. I think whether to repeat links is a judgement call - hence my comment about "in a relatively short article". But unless anyone else raises this subject, leave them as they are. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem; thanks! Ricardiana (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image check: File:Adelaide Anne Procter by Emma Gaggiotti Richards.jpg is currently the subject of a dispute as to whether it is PD or not, see Commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive39#NPG_images. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• Life: "An attempt to improve her health by taking a cure at Malvern failed." I wasn't familiar with the phrase "taking a cure", so I clicked on the link to find out more, only to discover that the linked article was about a type of torture. The article intended to be linked is at Water cure (therapy).
• Reputation: "Readers valued Proctor's poems were valued for their plainness of expression". Two words need to be chopped for grammar purposes. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Giants2008 - thanks for your comments and sharp eye. I've fixed both of the problems you pointed out. Ricardiana (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Not the longest article FAC has ever seen, but seems comprehensive for the subject and says everything it has to. Prose is top-notch, as I've come to expect from the primary contributer. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support A well-written and thoroughly researched article on a poet who embodies an important Victorian sensibility. I really enjoy little articles like these that bring together all that is known about an author - thanks Ricardiana! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

As someone who in his childhood memorized Casabianca by the other neglected (almost) Victorian poet Felicia Hemans, I'm delighted that an article on Procter has made an FAC appearance. However, I'm not convinced that you've scoured the sources, indeed even your own sources. For example, you use only the life sketch in O'Gorman, but not the two introductions to "Philip and Mildred" and "A Legend of Provence," where O'Gorman talks both about affective rhetoric (or "sentimentality") and cautious boundary testing. I feel that we as readers don't get enough of a sense of what Procter's poetry felt like to read for Victorian readers. There is only one example. I feel you should have more, in order that a Wikipedia reader can better understand what the commentary means. O'Gorman, for example, has done a good job in her introductions to the two poems. Later today, when I have some time, I'll leave a list of other sources that you should be including, as well as a more detailed critique of the prose.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm delighted that such an article is here (indeed I would even suggest that Felicia Hemans be your next FAC target), but I feel that Procter needs more work to be a great article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two papers and a book. The first paper requires JSTOR subscription. If don't have it, please let me know, I'm happy to email it to you. The second paper appears in a book of critical essays. (It is accessible on amazon.com (up to a point)). The third is a book, which you'll have to look for in a library.

• Stafanie, Markovits (2005), "North and South, East and West: Elizabeth Gaskell, the Crimean War, and the Condition of England", Nineteenth-Century Literature, 59 (4): 463–493, JSTOR 4494346 On pages 472–474 Markovits talks about how during the Crimean war, Procter's poems, "Waiting" and "Lesson of War," published in Household Words might have influenced (or had thematic similarities) with Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, which was being serialized in the same journal at that time. Says Markovits, "Many of the war poems in Household Words were written by Gaskell's acquaintance (and Queen Victoria's favorite poet) Adelaide Anne Procter.27 Procter's poem "Waiting" comes before the seventh installment of North and South. A typical tale of female patience (the basic premise can be compared to that in Tennyson's "Mariana" [1830o]), the poem records a working- class woman's conversation with a "Lady" in which she explains why she dwells at the seashore instead of passing a life of "rest and ease" ... As we shall see, the dangerous temptations of ease in a time of war were registered by Gaskell as well, and would culminate in Margaret's reflections during her seaside holiday."
• Hoeckley, Cheri Larsen, "'Must Her Own Words Do All?': Domesticity, Catholicism, and Activism in Adelaide Anne Procter's Poems", in DelRosso, Jeana; Eicke, Leigh; Kothe, Ana (eds.), The Catholic Church and Unruly Women Writers: Critical Essays, Palgrave Macmillan, Pp. 272, pp. 123–138, ISBN 0230600255 Here is a quote: "Perhaps part of the cause for this occluded memory of Procter can be found in Charles Dickens's cultural biases, since his biography of Procter remained influential through the twentieth century. Until the 1990s, most work on Procter (including the Dictionary of National Biography—which might be seen as the authoritative reference for English biography) all but ignored other sources in favor of referring to—or quoting at length or simply plagiarizing—Dickens's idiosyncratic essay. From his literary pulpit, Dickens roused his readers through playing high priest for a secular religion that worshiped women as domestic angels, and of all of that religion's resulting misogyny. ..."
• Mason, Emma (2006), Women Poets of the Nineteenth Century, Horndon: Northcote House, Pp. 148 From the review in Literature and Theology 2008 22(3):376-378; doi:10.1093/litthe/frn033 Quote: "This book, in the British Council's 'Writers and their Works' series, focuses on the work of three women poets who are not well known now, though they were widely read in their own time. Felicia Hemans (1793–1835) was said to be the most widely read woman poet of the 19th century ..., the theological preoccupations of Dora Greenwell (1821–1882) were popular until the early 20th century, and Adelaide Anne Procter (1825–1863) was Queen Victoria's favourite poet...."

Sorry, I had time only for these. Will add more later on the article's talk page. I'll leave my comments on the prose on the article's talk page (or a subpage of the talk page) later as well. I think with these sources you have material for a really great article and it is worth attempting it. However, it will take time. My best advice is to take it off the FAC, work on it for a few weeks, then resubmit and knock it out of the park! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • 1. I will add a brief ref. to O'Gorman's views on the nature of Procter's poetry. (O'Gorman, by the way, is a man, not a woman.)
    2. The Markovits article mentions that Procter was Queen Victoria's favourite poet, which is already mentioned in the article. I have added some discussion of Procter's war poetry, from the article.
    3. The second source is more about Dickens than Procter, and its implication that discussions of Procter lean too heavily on Dickens is beside the point, as Dickens is in fact the primary source on Procter and there are few other primary sources to lean on, and those slight. I will add a brief mention of this text to the "Reputation" section.
    4. The final source mentions that Procter was Queen Victoria's favourite poet, which is already mentioned in the article. I'm not going to add it.

• • Thanks for your comments. Ricardiana (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"While one might expect that Dickens's familiar relationship with Procter's parents and his professional role as her editor would prompt an appreciation of the nuances of her poetry and her charitable work, he chooses instead to focus on three stock incidents in her life: her childhood education, one continental journey marked by her attendance at a peasant's wedding, and her death scene. Rather than drawing on Procter's various experiences in women's rights, philanthropy, and professional writing, he relies on his skills as a novelist and represents her as one more in his catalogue of self-sacrificing, dutiful, female heroines: Little Nell, Florence Dombey, Esther Sommerson, Agnes Wakefield. To look beyond the myopic representation of Procter as a model middle-class domestic angel that Dicken's brief biographical sketch left to literary history, one only need turn to the less-remembered memoirs published by her friends in the Langham Place circle. Procter's letters provide even richer context to reveal the pointed, and sometimes comic, irony that gives political edge to her pious images and language."

The paper then spends 15 pages examining these other representations. Dickens doesn't make an appearance. Similarly, a third of Emma Mason's book is devoted to Procter. And these are just three modern sources, and there are likely more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS For example, here is another:

• Tyler-Bennet, Deborah (1998), "Suffrage and poetry: radical women's voices", in Joannou, Maroula; Purvis, June (eds.), The Women's Suffrage Movement: New Feminist Perspectives, Manchester University Press. Pp. 227, pp. 117–125, ISBN 0719048605 References to Procter: pages 117–119, and 121. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS Anyway, this is all the time I have. I wish you good luck. Regardless of how the FAC turns out, if you need any help either in accessing the sources or in discussing them, I'd be delighted to help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to you on my talk page. Ricardiana (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look at Mason tomorrow. For the moment, here's how things stand. You have mentioned a number of sources, adding that others exist; however, if you wish the others to be added, you will have to name them, as neither I nor Awadewit nor other reviewers have found the material you say exists. As for what you have mentioned:

• Markovits - brief mention added, in keeping with the brief nature of the discussion of Procter in an article that focuses on Elizabeth Gaskell.
• Bennet's book is on Google Books; Procter's name appears only 4 times, mostly in passing in the introduction or as part of a list. One of Procter's poems is briefly discussed; I think that discussion of specific poems is appropriate for an article on said poem, rather than this one, as the discussion is a close reading and does not make generalizations about Procter, save that Bennet mentions in passing that Procter writes about women and economics, which is already in the article. I'm not, therefore, going to add this source unless someone else weighs in on the matter.
• The Hoeckley article is mostly a discussion of Dickens (as both your quotations demonstrate) and a plea to use other sources, which Hoeckley does; however, you should notice that the primary source Hoeckley uses and recommends is Bessie Raynor Parkes Belloc's book, which is already extensively used in this nom. I will add, as I said before, some mention of Hoeckley, but only a brief one.
• I have added some more references to Mr. O'Gorman, although, again, O'Gorman's headnotes on specific poems are, of course, focused mainly on those poems. I will therefore only add his generalizing statements.

I don't wish to get into an argument about this article, and I don't wish, either, to convince you to change your oppose vote. I have stated my plans; your oppose is in effect. I will only be changing my mind if a third opinion weighs in (and perhaps, of course, not then - I am not willing to kowtow for pixelstars). Ricardiana (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kowtowing? To whom? Certainly not to me, since I didn't write those books or papers. I merely noticed that they showed up in my search, then examined them, and passed them on to you. I thought we were collectively trying to make the article as comprehensive as possible .... As for your rest of your reply, your characterization of the sources' content is not one I agree with. Readers, for example, can easily check Hoeckley's content for themselves, by searching for "Procter" at the book's web site. But, in the light of what you've said, I agree that further discussion here will probablyh not constructive. I wish you the best and am now taking this page off my watchlist. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see by the edit you made to your post that I've annoyed you, and for that I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm too blunt/cranky. At any rate, below is a summary of the texts you've suggested and what I've done with them.

1. Mason. Added some refs, although many of them duplicate info already in the article (e.g., Mason discusses Procter's relationship with Hays; talks about influence of Catholicism on P's work, following (and frequently quoting) Gill Gregory. Have refs also to a few things not already in the article. I've left out the parts of Mason that give bio. background, as those sections repeat what's already here and I've used the same primary sources as M. anyway. I've also left out her readings of particular poems, e.g., A tomb in Ghent, as more appropriate for an article on said poem/s.
2. Tyler-Bennet. The 4 measly refs to P. have nothing to add, so didn't add.
3. Hoeckley. I read her chapter in entirety just now, rather than relying on snippets from Amazon. Again, mostly repeats stuff already in article. Have doubled up some refs anyway, and added the bits that weren't already in the article. Have left out H's bio stuff, for the same reason as with Mason; readings of particular poems, ditto. The rest of the article is just set-up, arguing that Procter's Catholicism hasn't been taken into account in readings of her poetry but that it should be (which isn't true, as Gregory spends plenty of time reading P's work in light of her religion - but that's neither here nor there).
4. O'Gorman. Added a few refs.
5. Markovits. Added brief para.
6. You didn't mention this, but I also added a ref or two from the Encyclopedia of British Women Writers on my own steam - although they add little and the authors mostly just hash up Gregory's chapter on P's bio (although they do manage to get Procter's age at death wrong, which I don't think Gregory did, as they can't do subtraction).

Have searched:

1. Jstor (two articles that perform close readings of spec. poems, rather than discussing Procter's life and work more generally)
2. MLA index
3. Project Muse
4. Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals + Curran supplement
5. Google; Google Scholar; Google Books
6. Library databases
7. Bibiographies of all sources

If there are any other sources out there, I haven't found them. You mentioned that there are other sources, but you haven't added to your original list except to mention Bennet, who, again, barely talks about P. at all and says nothing new. You have argued that Hoeckley should be included, and she is; ditto Mason, O'Gorman, and Markovits. I think the article is about as complete as it can be; some day it would be nice to add pages on specific poems such as "A legend of Provence," but for now I think this is complete. Ricardiana (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Invincibles Advert}} An Allrounder who played in the last three Tests of the Invincibles tour. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment You have two or more supports in your two other FACs, but isn't three running nominations a bit much? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of them's winding down and should be closed in the next two days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now, the other two were promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Whether you think the others are winding down or not, three on the go is unreasonable. It is also presumptuous. Why couldn't you just wait a few days? Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose right off, this article seems to be confused as to whether it's a biography of Sam Loxton or an article about his presence on that team. Compare infoboxes between the two articles for example. I haven't read the entire article, in part because I know nothing of cricket and get lost in the terms. However, I'm very concerned that an article such as this counts as original research, and will lead to articles such as Andy Pettitte with the New York Yankees in 2007. Ick. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The infoboxes aren't identical, check the numbers YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR, everything is cited YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – The article, along with the rest in the series, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone have any thoughts on whether that causes a 1e (stability) violation? I've never seen anything like this in any article I've wanted to review for FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to cause a temporal paradox :) I'm aware of at least on featured article that later was deleted via AfD. It's not unprecedented. Having that knowledge, I thought about whether these articles should exist in the first place. It seems patently absurd to me that we need to have an article about every player on the tour. There's no place to draw the line other than at all players at X sporting event/tour/series. We're going to end up with Vaughn Taylor at the 2007 Masters Tournament, in addition to Vaughn Taylor, and in addition to 2007 Masters Tournament. I fail to see the point. That's what caused me to go the route of AfD. A grant this particular article is at least good. That an article is good and well referenced does not automatically mean it is notable and worthy of inclusion. That's a point being lost on a great many people in the AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the content hasn't changed so it isn't unstable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support a well written article Gnangarra 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Another well written addition. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Most interesting start to an FAC I've seen in my time here. With the AfD closed, I'm ready to fully review the article. Quite a few little issues, but nothing that should be too much to handle.
• Background and early matches: There's a red link caused by a typo.
• Don't need two all rounder links in a paragraph.
• he managed only four before being trapped leg before wicket by Australian expatriate left arm orthodox spiner...". Is spelling of last word okay?
• "It was a chance for al players...". Another little typo.
• Second Test: "and Loxton and Harvey were promoted to open after the latter offered to open." The "to open" bit is a redundancy.
  • "to" was removed from here, when I would have rather seen one of the "open"s changed. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• There are a few World War II links scattered throughout. That seems like a link that wouldn't be of much value, seeing as virtually everyone knows about WWII.
• Fourth Test: Not sure about the quotation marks around Wisden. I'm thinking this was meant to be in italics but the shift button was held by accident. Happens to me more often than I care to think about.
• "Loxton began to settle inas the ball came...". Spacing.
• Sentence fragment: "Loxton not required to bat." Check to see if the punctuation at the end of the previous sentence is what was intended.
• Several of those noun and -ing sentences that I keep annoying everybody about. The two in the lead should be dealt with in particular.
• Role: However, Loxton was productive when given an chance". "an" → "a". Giants2008 (17–14) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done I htink YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FA standard, even if the subject isn't the most popular FAC has ever seen. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - The only image is File:Sam Loxton graph 1948.png, which looks good. It would be good if an image of Sam Loxton from the time period could be added to the article. Regards, NW (Talk) 17:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang says only pre-1946 images are allowed, and he started in late 1946, so no. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is this a notable subject? In other words, are there reliable sources which talk about "Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948"? If not, this article is original research. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of appearing argumentative, there was a wide ranging discussion (that you participated in) where among other things, the notability of the subject and the claim that the articles were original research were considered by the community. As it turned out, the consensus was that the articles should be kept. Your comments here substantially mirror your comments there. It is hardly fair to rerun the AfD discussion here at FAC. If you are unhappy with the result of the AfD, other avenues such as DRV would be more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes there are sources YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm afraid it is time to pull the plug on this repetitive series. I, for one, am tired of the repetition. The same set of sentences, "X was a member of Donald Bradman's famous Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948. Bradman’s men went undefeated in their 34 matches; this unprecedented feat by a visiting side earned them the sobriquet The Invincibles." seem to have become like a ritual incantation to enter the sacred realm. Not only do you have articles on each of the tests played during the 48 tour, you also have an article for each X that played in it, and in addition, articles "X and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948." All the articles have sections with the same parent pages. I'm afraid I'm not convinced that content forks are not being created and content not being duplicated. Even if this is not the case, I'm not convinced that this level of specialization is encyclopedic. I feel it is time for someone with your exceptional abilities to concentrate on other pages, for example, W.G. Grace , Victor Trumper, Ranjitsinhji, Jack Hobbs, and a host of early cricketers whose Wikipedia pages are little more than stubs. You could, of course, take the standard tack and say all this is not actionable, but in my opinion the articles have gone long beyond the point of diminishing returns, both for you and for us. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, this oppose is not actionable. These articles were debated at AfD and were kept. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

to Karanacs: Yes, I do understand that, as I say myself at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To YellowMonkey: please feel free to ignore my oppose. It is really meant to encourage you at a higher level. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Badnjak

Nominator(s): VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched regarding its subject. It went successfully through GA review, after which it was significantly expanded and extensively copy-edited. It is neutral, duly cited throughout, and illustrated. I also hope that this nomination will receive a constructive criticism, through which the article could be even more improved. Thanks, VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I copydited the article a little before Malleus got stuck into it. Buffed up nicely and fulfils prose and comprehensivness criteria. Can't think what else needs doing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Image review: The alt texts could do with being beefed up a bit. Copyright status of images is fine. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Beefed up. VVVladimir (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Refs check: the links to rastko.org.rs are dead. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have as yet no information on what has happened with the Project Rastko site. It worked normal a couple of days ago, and now none of its pages can be accessed. Still I would not call those links dead, in the sense of 'permanently unavailable'. I'm sure the problem will be soon fixed, as Project Rastko is a huge and respectable site. VVVladimir (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is fixed, and the site is working. VVVladimir (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I only reviewed the English language sources Ealdgyth - [[User talk:|Talk]] 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. In the interests of full disclosure I was asked to look at this article pre-FAC, and I subseqently did quite a bit of copyediting on it. I believe that it now meets the FA criteria and deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, is there any concern about the non-English language sources that I should address? I provided information in the trans_title fields of the book and journal templates, but I'd be glad to give any other information on the sources, as well as to respond to any question regarding the article itself (though this nomination hasn't received much attention as yet). VVVladimir (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ealdgyth is highlighting any problems with the foreign-language sources, she is just noting to the FA delegates and other reviewers that she has not checked those sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written, interesting, seems very comprehensive. One little nitpick: in the Interpretation section, the first paragraph says, "The origin of the badnjak is explained by the events surrounding the Nativity of Jesus Christ. ... By folk tradition, the shepherds brought firewood to the cave and built a fire to warm the newborn Christ ..."

  But then the next paragraph starts, "There is also a more symbolic interpretation," followed by words from a prayer about Jesus. I'm wondering how the second is more symbolic than the first. I would either remove the sentence, "There is also a more symbolic interpretation," or explain why it's more symbolic. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comment :)

Besides the commemoration of the fire built by the Bethlehem shepherds (as in the 1st paragraph), the prayer also includes the Tree of Life, the cross upon which Christ was crucified, and the warmth of the fire as a symbol or prefigurement of the salvation made possible by the crucifixion of Christ. On the other hand, that sentence is just a supplementary remark that can be removed without harm, which I did. VVVladimir (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I agree that "more symbolic" might not be the best term here. VVVladimir (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because those who have been kind enough to read or review the article have said that it's nearly there. Thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for extensive prose work above and beyond the call (any remaining infelicitations are my fault, of course), Joopercoopers for creating the fantastic plan used as the (update) a lead image, Giano for looking at the architectural details discussion, Rodw for his extensive comments on the article, Pyrotec for the GA review, Ruhrfisch for the peer review, Jonathan A Jones for visiting the college to take some requested photos and various Flickr contributors who relicensed some images for Commons when I asked. I'd like to thank my agent, my wife, my fellow actors... I've had a go at improving my earlier ALT text (and added it to {{Jesus College, Oxford}}, but that change hasn't come through in the alt text tool yet - have I done it right?) Further help on this, and anything else, is welcome. If nothing else, readers of the article will know far more than they ever realised that they didn't want to know about the physical appearance of a college that produced such distinguished alumni as Lawrence of Arabia, Harold Wilson and me (shome mistake, shurely?) Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the references is generating a "Invalid type (application/unknown) for .pdf file" error in the external links checker, but the file opens without difficulty for me.

Full disclosure - notified Giano of this FAC as he requested me to do. Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment based on quick read. Clearly a very full account of the buildings, but rather short on architectural description or comment. I found several pithy comments in: John Julius Norwich, The Architecture of Southern England, Macmillan, London, 1985, ISBN 03333220374, some of which could usefully be worked in, and no doubt there are other sources. More talk of/links to Crenellation, Dutch gables, mullions and hood moulds etc is needed. A description of how Oxbridge staircases work is needed I think, and details of how many there are, and how many sets of rooms etc are in the various parts. The only thing I could find is a brief description at Mob Quad - perhaps a section should be added at quadrangle. The first photo of the buildings comes rather late, & the photos, as opposed to the prints, generally are of sections rather than panoramas. If it was me I'd add a gallery, or a couple of 4 pic mini-galleries in the text - but then I always do that. There's room in the lead section for a nice photo before the plan, which is very useful but not the most inviting lead pic. There are several photos already on Commons which would be useful if added. Where the dates of construction &/or rebuilding are clear these should be added to photo captions. The college seems a prime example of Gothic survival (I'm fairly sure I've seen it - the chapel in particular? - mentioned as such, but who knows where), but I don't think this is linked. There's no caption on the photo of the doorway or whatever in the "principal's lodging" section. I'll give it a fuller read-through later. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Bencherlite, you cheeky blighter, I told you to tell me when this was going through. So, as revenge, please find the start (and now the end) of some comments on the talk page... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both for your comments, to which I'll respond in detail / act upon next week, after a weekend of family duties! I've ordered the JJN book from abebooks.co.uk, so should have that early next week as well. Bencherlite^Talk 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Replied to, and attempted to implement the majority of, TRM's comments on the talk page. Hoping that JJN book arrives tomorrow (a bargain £5.84 + postage), or I'll miss it for a week on my travels. I'll then try to tackle Johnbod's comments, with the caveat that I have little knowledge of architecture, and barely know the difference between a mullion and a Skullion, so may need some hand-holding on terminology. I've left another request with someone on Flickr for a wider-shot image, so fingers crossed. Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know anything you need. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• SupportIt's a great page and I will suport it, but why are the images of the buildings so tiny and lost in great blocks of text? They need to be bigger and bolder - this page is about them - so let's see them properly. I'm not sure that the lead image should be the plan (brilliant as it is) perhaps a nice pretty picture of an historic building would be more enticing to the general reader. Apart from these (probably non-actionable) comments I support the page. Giano (talk)
  • Thank you. The images are all at default sizes, apart from the plan which a reader suggested was too small at default size. My understanding is that using default sizes is the preferred method at FAC. Johnbod has already suggested having another image in the lead, as well as the plan, so I'm sure that a prettier picture will be back there soon (after I get some sleep, perhaps...) Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't have to be all default sizes, then can be as large as is relevant or necessary toi see them properly. This ridiculous small sizing of images is not mandatory nor should it be. Giano (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought the lead image should be a plan. The article seems to have so many better image candidates with which to draw the reader into the article, than that rather utilitarian plan of mine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Update:

• new additional lead image File:Second quad, Jesus College Oxford.jpg, which a kind Flickr user has just relicensed for me (a panoramic shot of the second quad). Bencherlite^Talk 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Added a short section on overall layout and staircases (haven't been able to find how many rooms in each staircase); used {{double image}} for a better comparison of the chapel interior pre- and post-refurbishment; used {{wide image}} for a panoramic shot of first quad; added dates to captions; added a bit about Gothic revival vs Gothic survival to the chapel section; added a few more architectural links. Am still awaiting JJN's book, as it didn't arrive at work before I headed off for a few days, and have ordered a couple of other books that might have snippets to use, based on snippet views at Google Books. Anything else for the moment? Bencherlite^Talk 15:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I raised a heap of concerns on the talkpage (so as not to clutter this FAC up) and Bencherlite has resolved them. It's a quality article, something which can justifiably be called Wikipedia's finest work. Really good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Further update: I have now got hold of the book recommended by Johnbod, and sprinkled John Julius Norwich's words of wisdom over the article. A few more images from Flickr have been relicensed upon my request, showing details (a staircase entrance, the chapel doorway, the shell-hood of the principal's lodgings), and I have added in some further architectural descriptions of elements of the buildings. I've asked Johnbod to pop back to update his views. In the meantime, would someone like to carry out an image review, please? (Hint: it should be easy, as most are verified Flickr photographs or snaps I took). Would anyone like to comment on the alt text? Bencherlite^Talk 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text looks good to me. Just one comment: I noticed for one image you use "A bird's-eye view of the college". Those unable to see the file don't know what the college looks like, so it would be good to describe the structure a bit (and switch "the" to "a"). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was using "the college", and not giving a further description of the buildings, on the basis of WP:ALT#Context, but on reflection, prompted by you, it's probably best to give some better description as the appearance changes over the years... Done. Bencherlite^Talk 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Second look comments.
• Generally my points above are covered & article and pictures much better now. I've edited a bit, with links etc. Please change anything you don't like.
• I think the lead has too much detail - much of para 2 should be summarized/spread around below. Para 1 is rather long?
• Pevsner on 2nd quad. "Dutch gables have ogee sides and semi-circular pediments" would be better, but what did he actually say?
• Introduce "Lascelles": "Rowley Lascelles, the 18th century antiquarian...". Also Arkell - at least give initials. I have improved Lascelles architectural vocab, maybe too much. I don't think it's a battlement unless a sentry would feel comfortable behind it, but maybe he disagreed.
• The text seems a bit congested at places. The sentence "As is often the case in Oxford colleges, the rooms in the older buildings are connected to the quadrangles by a series of staircases, rather than horizontally to each other by internal corridors." might be better as "As is often the case in Oxford colleges, the rooms in the older buildings are reached directly off a series of staircases, with no internal corridors running along the ranges." or something - just "reached from the quadranges" - it's "connected to" that jars.

That's all I can see at the moment. Nearly there, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your changes/links are fine.
• Lead - gah! There was me trying to make sure it was sufficiently long! I've trimmed paras 1 and 2 slightly, but I don't think that there's much that can be left out particularly in para 2: I wanted to mention something about each of the main components (chapel, hall, lodgings, old library, etc) at least somewhere in the lead.
• Pevsner's wording: "Inner quad is a uniform composition. [dates] Three storeys, regular fenestration by windows with round-arched lights, their hood-moulds forming a continuous frieze. Small top gablets with ogee sides and semi-circular tops (cf. University College)." I've used your wording for now, unless seeing this makes you think of making any alterations.
• Reworded the second mention of Lascelles along your lines, though called him a 19th-century antiquarian (1771–1841) on the basis that his main working life was after 1800. His wording was in fact "But how dismal are these ogee battlements. They should be cut down into the form of an embrasured parapet, of the same pattern as that which crowns the pentagonal bay window of its inner court." I'm happy with your neat paraphrase. Similarly relinked WJ Arkell on second mention.
• I like your turn of phrase re staircases, and have used that.
• Diff of my changes. Is that a light at the end of the tunnel that I can see now?! Bencherlite^Talk 07:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought both Lascelles & Arkell were first mentions, indeed I thought I'd searched to check. Maybe full names/initials but not links needed on 2nd mention. I've tweaked Lascelles to "cut down into "battlements" (crenellations)...". Lead is better, imo. I've added a sentence on what classical building there was pre-Civil War, with a comment in the ref. It's an interesting question, of some importance for college architecture. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, based on my 2 sets of comments above. I think the article looks great now, & sets a new standard for our coverage of Oxbridge college buildings compared to any I've seen. Jesus must be ready to be a featured topic now? Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lascelles and Arkell delinked on second mention. Thanks for your assistance in improving the article. It's already a featured topic, but I need to get the main article back up to GA standards now after the recent GA sweeps... Bencherlite^Talk 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: beautiful article.

• I've made a few tweaks in the lead. Will try to return soon to look at the rest.
• Image sizes: the default of 180px is now widely regarded as a mistake (far too small). Editors are quite able (indeed I would expect them) to shape image size according to detail, composition, placement, etc. We couldn't have, for example, "Staircase VI Jesus College" more generously sized, could we? The detail is important. Tony (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC) PS and the two adjacent chapel interiors: could they be "centered" and a bit larger, with no text wrapping? Yumm. Tony (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've increased the size of most of the landscape images to 300px (which helps makes the engravings / shots of building details clearer); I've centered and enlarged (350px) the side-by-side of the chapel interiors. , although can't work out why they don't quite line up at top and bottom... any solutions? How's it looking now? Bencherlite^Talk 19:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Well done. ResMar 23:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Unfortunately for me, you have a hundred thousand images in this article. :) Luckily, these images were in very nice shape; I found no copyright issues with any of them. Just a few minor issues:
  • File:Engraving Jesus College 1675.jpg - There is no real need for this, as you have a different version to source it, but is there any chance of getting the .html webpage for http://www.heatons-of-tisbury.co.uk instead of just the .jpg one?
  • File:Ralph Agas map of Oxford 1578.gif - Same as the above, but this is actually a tad more critical, because the University of Oxford claims copyright over the image. Probably another one of those things that Universities try to do, but just want to make sure.
  • For some reason, my move to commons script decided to stop working (the tab disappeared) after I moved 5 images or so. Could you please move File:Jesus College, Oxford - plan.jpg to Commons please? Thanks.
• Well, that should be it. They aren't major issues at all, so I look forward to supporting on criterion 3 after they are resolved. NW (Talk) 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All three done, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for stopping by. Bencherlite^Talk 21:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Support on criterion 3. Good work! NW (Talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

ToeJam & Earl

Nominator(s): bridies (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. Failed the first time, largely because of prose issues. The article has now had a thorough copy edit/peer review here, so I am now renominating. bridies (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - A very enjoyable article to read! I have a few minor comments though. In "Development", why is "former collaborators of Johnson's" in quotation marks? According to the reference, that's a fact and doesn't need quotation marks. Under "Legacy", when you say that ToeJam & Earl became a mascot alonside Sonic, do you mean the characters alongside the character Sonic or the game alongside the game Sonic? You might include some negative quotations from Eurogamer to balance the many positive quotations from reviewers in the section. My only real issue is that the article is only 19K. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrased "former collaborators of Johnson's". The mascot thing refers to the actual characters: I removed the italics to clarify this. bridies (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done: clarified "action adventure" to "action adventure game". bridies (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I can think of no way in which it does not meet the FA criteria. While I did work on the article as a copyeditor, I do not believe that voids my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Image review No copyright issues with the images, but the image of the box lacks alt text. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Done; thanks. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Images now have alt text. bridies (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I fixed one minor typo. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support — The flow of this article is really good. The lead is very well written. I appreciate how the reception section is chronological. I really like the legacy section. Many articles end abruptly but this section is basically serving as a conclusion which helps to brings closure. It's the follow rather than the lead. References look good, images are fair use... my only qualm is this sentence -->"Identification of presents' contents is a central gameplay mechanic." The word play in this sentence is grammatically correct but it's loaded. I had to read it a couple of times. Maybe it's just me but I think it this could somehow be stated in simpler terms. Still, this sentence alone doesn't make me change my mind about the quality of this article. Again, support. Gbern3 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written article. --Carioca (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

SMS Hindenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The last German battlecruiser ever built, Hindenburg was only in commission for little more than a year and a half before she was interned at Scapa Flow and scuttled. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review over the past two months, and is part of a Good Topic. I feel the article is close to FA criteria, and the reviews that will occur here will help me iron out the last few details. I know this article may run into some opposition because it's fairly short (only 14kb, including the infobox et al.), but remember that size is not a requirement to FAC, comprehensiveness, and this article is pretty solid in that regard. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a very good article. I reviewed it at the Good Article stage, and it has improved in the intervening weeks. There are a couple of issues that weren't worth bringing up at Good article review but should be brought up here.

First: I've been told that the nbsp syntax needs to be inserted after all "loose" numbers (numbers without something after them). If this is the case, you'll need to add it with your dates. *Second: It doesn't look like the alt text on the schematics is showing up. Is there alt text on the schematics? or is there simply not a caption of the schematics? *Third: in section advance of 23 April... you have this text: "... and made good their escape." This seems jargonish to me, or at least in the realm of colloquial wording. they escaped? or simply and escaped? In another part of the same section: "Temporary repairs were conducted that allowed the ship to steam at 4 knots, but it was decided to take the ship under tow, by the battleship Oldenburg." VERY passive. Possibly: "Although temporary repairs allowed the ship to steam at 4 knots, the Oldenburg took the ship under tow."? In the next section: " The plan consisted of two simultaneous ..." "The plan called for..." In two simultaneous attacks, the fleet would..."  ??? I wonder if "Later operations" might better be called something else. Perhaps Proposed death ride, or ...? Just idle wondering here. You realize, of course, that these are minuscule suggestions, well, perhaps the first one is part of the MOS requirements and therefore not minuscule...

• dabs no disambiguous links using the link checker checks out.
• external links these also check out using the link checker.

Another example of some fine work. Very nice. A pleasure to read, even for someone not particularly versed in the finer points of nautical warfare. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Auntieruth. I've never heard of using non-breaking spaces for dates before, so I asked here for advice. There is alt text for the schematics image, so I don't know why it isn't showing up for you. I fixed the two prose issues you pointed out in the third comment. As to the "Later operations" part, I think "Proposed death ride" is a bit dramatic :) I'd be open to other suggestions though (from anyone). Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• ah, yes, proposed death ride is a bit dramatic, but those were dramatic times. However, Later operations is a bit mundane, so I'm thinking we might come up with something more in the central--that's me, the middle of the road, with all the road kill. As to the dates, Tony posted that it was "consider" but not "required"... I was suggesting that it only go between the loose numbers and the next word (the month, usually). Someone made me do that for Unification of Germany, which was a REAL pain (that is a long article) so now I'm doing it on everything. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT Although this is a short article, it is line with the requirements of the featured articles. It is well written, interesting, informative, and represents a neutral point of view. It covers the "state-of-knowledge" as we know it about this type of warship and this particular ship. It is part of a larger series of ship articles the editor is working on, each of which also demonstrate care to quality, prose, research, authentication, and all around good scholarship. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image check: No issues. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You need convert templates on knots (mph and kph) and the 25000 tons of coal.
• Would it be better to eliminate the "Service" section making WWI a second level and change the others to third level?
• You need to complete the OCLC numbers on your reference books. Some are missing. --Brad (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I fixed the first two things you pointed out, but I don't know much about OCLCs, so I asked someone who does. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Doing... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • OCLC's have been added. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • ok support. OCLC numbers aren't difficult to find. Go to World Cat and look up your book title. Make sure you find the same edition that you used in the article; and scroll down to the detail section. The number is listed there. If you put in your zip code it will show what libraries nearest you have a copy. --Brad (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Construction
  • Formatting of "Drh.L C/1912" and "DrhLC/1913" is inconsistent. It's also presented as "DrhLC/1912" in Note 2.
    • Fixed.
  • Perhaps explain why the higher angle of inclination of the later turrets gave greater range.
    • I added a note explaining that angle of fire and range are directly proportional.
  • To save looking at the infobox, suggest you state how many of the SK L/45 guns she had rather than just "two more" than Derfflinger
    • Fixed.
  • Why was she slightly larger than the earlier ships and by how much?
    • I haven't seen anything about why the design was altered, but I have added the specific measurements for length and displacement.
  • Why was she faster than the earlier ships and by how much? Was the steaming speed, a sustained speed or a maximum, short sprint?
    • I added specific speeds for Hindenburg and Derfflinger - the steaming speed was a sustainable rate (remember, the ship could steam at 26.6 knots, which would be the "sprint")
• World War I
  • There's a degree of repetition with the previous section on dates here.
    • Fixed.
  • "albeit too late to see any major action" [my emphasis]. From the following sections it does not sound as if she saw any action.
    • I meant "action" as in any activity, not just combat. Should I change that?
      • I think most readers would think "action" to be synonymous with "combat", so it might be worth modifying - perhaps to "operation"
        • Fair enough. I've substituted that for "action"
  • "were acting as distant support for German minesweepers off the German coast when they were attacked by British battlecruisers" is ambiguous. Clarify that it was the minesweepers which were attacked. Is it known which British battlecruisers were involved?
    • Repulse, Courageous, and Glorious were the BCs involved.
  • "Six days later," suggests that this sentence and the previous one are causally linked in some way although there appears to none.
    • Fixed.
  • Could link to Moltke and Seydlitz on first use.
    • Fixed.
• Advance of 23 April 1918
  • Is this action by Hindenburg really notable at all? Apart from Moltke losing a propeller and suffering damage nothing much happened!
    • I'd say it's notable in that it was the only offensive operation in which the ship took part.
  • Do we know which British destroyers were sunk in the October action?
    • Yes, they've been added.
  • Do we know which German and British Destroyers were involved in December 1917 action?
    • Nope, Massie doesn't say.
  • "December 12" should be "12 December" for consistency.
    • Fixed.
  • Explain why the Germany navy had been waiting for this opportunity.
    • I added "numerically superior" to qualify the Grand Fleet; is that sufficient?
  • Explain dreadnought.
    • linked to dreadnought battleship
  • "kilometers" should be "kilometres" for consistency with metres in infobox.
    • The article uses American English, the infobox has been corrected.
  • "It was later discovered that the convoy had sailed the following day" seems awkward how about "It was later discovered that the convoy had left port a day later than expected by the German planning staff".
    • Fixed.
• Later operations
  • Section would be more appropriately title later planned operations.
    • Fixed.
  • "On 11 August" is presumably 11 August 1918.
    • Fixed.
  • Link to Wilhelmshaven.
    • Fixed.
  • Does not mention if there was any mutiny or sabotage on Hindenburg. Did she stay in Wilhelmshaven when the fleet was dispersed or go elsewhere.
    • Herwig's book mentions disruption on all four BCs except Hindenburg, and Massie doesn't say which ships went where.
• Fate
  • Suggest you provide a {{main article|Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow}} link
    • Missed this one last night, but I've added it now.
  • "The massive flotilla consisted of some 370 British, American, and French warships." What about the German ones? How many of those were there?
    • Fixed.
  • Link to scuttling.
    • Fixed.
  • "maneuvers" should be "manoeuvres" for consistency with other British spellings and European setting of article.
    • See above re: "kilometers/kilometres."
  • When were the raising attempts made?
    • Groner's doesn't give dates, he just states "Several unsuccessful attempts were made to raiser her, and a successful..."
  • Link Admiral Fremantle in note 5 to Sydney Fremantle.
    • Fixed.
  • Link to German Federal Navy.
• Footnotes
  • 13 and 16 reference the same page in Massie and should be combined.
    • Fixed.
• General
  • Did she actually participate in any engagements?
    • The ship saw no actual combat.
  • There seems to be a shortage of technical detail in the prose. Perhaps précis some of the more important information from the Derfflinger class battlecruiser article.
    • I added a "for further information" link at the top of the section; I don't want to duplicate too much in this article, besides what set her apart from her sisterships.
  • Were any of the officers or crew notable? Do we know who the captain was?
    • Not that I know of.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support after very minor copyedits. It may look short to the casual reader, but in my opinion it is extremely long—Hindenburg only served for two years. The only possible problem I see is in the lead; do you have/need a citation for "named in honor of Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, the victor of the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes, as well as Supreme Commander of the German armies from 1916."? —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure there are plenty of biographies of Hindenburg around, so I can track down a citation for that. It'll have to wait until tomorrow though. Thanks for copyediting the article, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, 1a. Very nice work again by Legolas. The prose is excellent, the stories engaging and the linking skilfully handled.

• First section opens: "Built ... Built." Maybe the second one could simply be removed? Or a replacement word such as "Designed" or "Conceived" or "Planned"?
  • Changed to "Designed."
• "British naval intelligence believed"—were they correct or incorrect in that belief? I guess we find out later.
  • Turns out it was due to labor shortages; I've added this to the article.
• I inserted "the standard" on a hunch; please check.
  • That's fine.
• "On 12 December, four German destroyers ambushed a second convoy consisting of five cargo vessels and two British destroyers." Unsure, but can this be "On 12 December, four German destroyers ambushed a second British convoy of five cargo vessels and two British destroyers."? (Two changes.)
  • Substituted your version.
• I guess "the fleet" and the "Grand Fleet" are clear in the reader's mind throughout.
• "roadstead": I had to look it up. Consider a Wiktionary link or a wikilink if there's an article?
  • Roadstead is linked in the "Advance of 23 April 1918" section
• Check my "strike", to avoid the close repetition of "attack".
  • Looks fine to me.
• Should this be in US English? "harbor". Just checking.
  • I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say a German warship has "strong national ties" to British English, on the basis that the ship fought the Royal Navy. For instance, should Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi use American spellings because it participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor or should it use British spellings because it took part in the raid into the Indian ocean in 1942, during which it sank several Commonwealth ships? That and trying to remember all the variations is a hassle I can do without :)
• "which was the deadline"?
  • Fixed.
• We couldn't have a larger pic of the scuttling, could we? It's widely felt that WP's thumbnail default is outrageously tiny. Please see Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Size. Tony (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm...I usually prefer to keep images at the default size. There are many editors (such as myself) who have set preference sizes, and I'd rather not force someone with a 13" monitor to see everything at 300px. The way I see it, if someone feels the image is too small, can't they just click the thumbnail to see the larger version? This isn't print, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I think you meant "Parsecboy"... Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Hermann Detzner

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article meets the requirement for Featured Article status: it is well written and well researched, meets style guides, generally and specifically covers the subject, is properly cited and documented, etc. Although it is relatively short, Hermann Detzner has not been the subject of a specific biography; rather, he is a shadowy and enigmatic figure on the edges of other peoples' biographies and research in Papua New Guinea. This article started as a translated stub from the German wiki, and I expanded it over time. After the article received "Good Article" promotion, it had a peer review from the Military History project, and then passed the A class review with few comments or changes. Thanks for reading! Also, using the tool box, I have checked alt-text (there is alt text for every image), there are no dabs, the external links all work. I am the primary editor. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks), but has a couple of problems:

• The image File:New Guinea (1884-1919).png conveys no useful info that is not already conveyed by its caption, and its alt text duplicates part of the caption, so its alt text should be replaced with "See caption." as per WP:ALT#Placeholders.

okay, I wasn't sure what to do about that. I've left in the section that says "simple outline map of the island" and added the note bout the caption.

• For File:Canibal cover.jpg the alt text says "book cover showing 'the skirted ones'" but the book cover doesn't say "the skirted ones". Please just transcribe the German text as per WP:ALT#Text.

translated title of book, and described the man better, clarified why he is the skirted one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tweaked it a bit more as per WP:ALT. That should do it. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image check:
  • File:Hermann Detzner.jpg does not have a proper source ("book cover" is a description; we need to know where the image was found).

• I posted a url on the image page.

• • File:Hotel Deutscher Hof in Herbertshoehe.jpg could use a better source (i.e. a URL)

• I posted a url on the image page. Again, Spiegel online, and it is marked as PD by the German websitge.

• • File:Relief Papua Neuguinea1918 w Sattelberg.jpg has unclear copyright status — how do we know it's GFDL?

it is a version of [File:Papua Neuguinea.jpg this] in Wikicommons.

• • File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg has questionable copyright status — it's got a free tag and a non-free rationale, and also how do we know it is pre-1923?

• first, anything that is colonial German for Papua New Guinea must be pre 1923, because the protectorate ended in 1914/1918 (de facto in 1914, officially in 1918). The url is from German post card of Papua New Guinea It is marked as PD (public domain) in the spiegel online website.

• That's all I can see for now. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that answers all the questions. I took out the relief map until that problem is cleared up. I thought it was freely available, since it was in wiki commons. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that seems fine to me. I have no further objections to the images — image check OK. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

great! thanks for helping me sort those out (or directing me to do so). I've added the relief map back in. Someone might want to make sure the alt text is okay!. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

btw, does this mean you have no objections to the article itself? so you support it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am only saying that FA criterion 3 is passed, no more and no less. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 23 (Report of the swiss official...) lacks a publisher.

What's the status on this one? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• what makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.indexmundi.com/

this was simply an index of mountain elevations. The Source is US National Imagery and Mapping Agency

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page

this document probably has no print publisher, but is in an archive, it is certainly in a digital archive (which is where I got it), so it is published digitally, and I gave the link where it is located. The Swiss Consul wrote a letter reporting on the state of the German POWs in the camp in Holdsworthy. Basically it is included because some of the Aussies who reviewed this earlier kept telling me it was HOLSWORTHY, not Holdsworthy. with the D is is an older spelling. it is an online index of transcribed documents relating to world war one, on the Brigham Young University server. It is simply a transcribed document, it is not an article, so I'm not relying on it being a decent article, just a decent transcription.

"This World War I Primary Document Archive is affiliated with the Great War Primary Document Archive, Inc. (GWPDA), relying on GWPDA for the hosting of categories VI and VII, and on the WWW Virtual Library for category VIII. However, the remaining files comprising this archive on the BYU Server are under the aegis of Brigham Young University and Richard Hacken."

"The Medical Front WWI is maintained by George Laughead Jr., manager of the United States History Index and Kansas History. Thanks to Dr.Lynn H. Nelson, Professor of History Emeritus, University of Kansas. Hosted at wwwVirtual Libraries @ www.vlib.us."

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the citation to a less (possibly?) controversial source. In the Australian national archives catalog, there is a reference to a book that identifies the prison as "HOldsworthy" and gives a brief history of it. I've added that source, and removed the other one. Again, this is simply for the Aussies who want to insist that the town is called Holsworthy, which it is, but in 1919, it was called HolDsworthy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in the same archive is this, the report of the Swiss consul in charge of German interests in Australia, a digital copy of the original document. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• You need to make sure that all references in non-English languages are so noted. I noted http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/k/Keysser.shtml is in German, but it's not noted as such, so double check them all.

done on the one you mentioned. I thought I had them all. Should I use the de icon when the citation repeats? or just the first time?

I'd do them every time you mention it, don't need to for the short Author, page number stuff though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

oksy, the icon is there for all sources the first time they are mentioned as citations and again in bib, but not on the shortened citations.

some strangeness is going on with the info box template.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I only reviewed the English language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by MisterBee1966
• Please check Praktisch der Zahnersatzkunde, (Practice of the Dental Arts,): Zahnersatz means dentures and the grammatically the German title seems wrong.

• Application of Prosthodontia thanks Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, shouldn't the German title now be something like Praktische Anwendungen der Zahnersatzkunde. Note: I have no clue what book he published but the German title doesn't make sense to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For correct German title see http://www.buchfreund.de/productListing.php?used=1&productId=41292123 and others giving Praktische Darstellung der Zahnersatzkunde. Publication dates of first and second editions would appear to have been 1885 and 1899. Google Books also mentions a 3rd edition published in 1905. JN466 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I found a different citation for it that has the full and correct name, AND is in English. :) see the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good now it makes sense to me, shouldn't it be listed in the section "Detzner's works"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• except his father wrote it, not Hermann Detzner.

• Oops :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that the reader could get more guidance on who wrote the book.

• It seems to be common practice to only list his last rank in the info box of the article. Also common practice is to put German rank names in italics. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• will do.

• Schmargendorf: Schmargendorf can be a district of Berlin or a district of Angermünde, which is also fairly close to Berlin. Which one is correct? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• the address book says Schmargendorf. The archive was in Berlin or Potsdam (depending on which part) (in the 20s). Auguste Viktoria Strasse runs straight through Schmargendorf (it did in 1908 and it does today) (near the football stadium today), and I didn't find a street by that name (today, at least) in Angermuende. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Schmargendorf of Berlin was absorbed into Berlin in 1920s. So we probably can assume that he lived in what is now part of greater Berlin MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• that seems reasonable to me. I removed "near" and wikilinked Berlin. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question: I assume the section "Family" is all we know about potential brothers, sisters, wife, children and his mother?

• I have some additional information, and it was apparently a largish family, but this is not found in any published sources, and it's probably in the category of unverifiable. I've included what is verifiable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question regarding the inaccuracies in the 1909 joint survey: where these inaccuracies favoring the British or the German claim on the land?

• favoring the German claim. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise I support this article MisterBee1966 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving a yes vote in support of article which I read twice; however, because of the busy-ness in my life right now, I cannot leave a lengthy comment. Hope this suffices, mit viel Glück, Frania W. (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Auntie Ruth, if I am voting at the wrong place, please put right link at my talk page. FW

Comments Support I have read the article, and while I cannot support yet, the problems are not so bad that I oppose. I have attached comments below for your consideration.

• "could be expected to understand the ins and outs of the previous commission" - firstly, I'm not certain which "previous commission" you are referring to, and secondly "ins and outs" is a bit colloquial. Is there a clearer way to phrase this?

• I clarified it.

• "in a setting filled with flowers, he later wrote" - I know what is meant, but this is a bit awkward, can you rephrase, preferably with a quote?

• no quote...but I paraphrased it better.

• "Detzner and his men would scurry into the mountainous Saruwaged" - scurry is a slightly odd way to put this (almost POV). Perhaps "retreat" instead?

• sure, retreat works, but the Australians said he scurried. They were not happy with him.

• "one thing he had learned on this journey was the Australians had orders to shoot him on sight" - I'd like to see a citation specifically for this sentence that isn't referenced to Detzner himself, as this sounds a bit of an exaggeration.

• It is in Robert Link's study.

• "To satisfy the curious," - an unusual turn of phrase, and a bit redundant. Can this be removed?

• yes, but I think it adds to the controversy later. In part, it appears that the insatiable public appetite (the unusual circumstances in Germany to which he refers in his resignation) encouraged him to write the book.

In that case if you wish to keep it in, can you phrase it a little more clearly?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I took it out.

• Very briefly explain who Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck was in the sentence to give the comparison context.

• done

• "many of his notebooks and journals had been destroyed by the Australians" - is this true, or was it a claim he himself made that cannot be substantiated?

• this was a claim made in Science Digest, a newsletter that described his speech in Berlin.

• Can you briefly explain in the text where this claim comes from?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• actually it's probably true. There are some suggestions, for example, in the 1919 letter to the Argus newspaper that he had been forced to jettison various articles in his flight from the Australians. I've clarified that text a little more. See if this helps.

• I don't think the Japanese "See also" adds to the article and it can probably be removed if it can't be incorporated into the text.

• not sure it will stay removed. It was added by someone working on the Japanese holdouts. I will try, however.

• Basically the way I see it is that if reliable sources have made a comparison then it can stay (although I'd prefer it in the text rather than a see also). However if they haven't then its sort of original research (and in any case the situations are quite different - the Japanese holdouts remained in hiding long after the war out of contact with the rest of the world, Detzner was in regular contact and surrendered once the war came to an end).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't think it was much of a similarity, except the guy working on the other project seemed to think so. It seems obvious, at least by implication, that Detzner was the last to surrender, since it took him until late November to find out about the end of the war, and then it took another 6 weeks or so for the communications to go back and forth. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is is possible to get translations in the list of works so non-German speakers can understand the titles?

• do you really want me to translate them? I don't think I should. I've moved the ones that are 4 Years under the Cannibals, under the original so it's clearer what they are.

• Its clearer now. I would still prefer translations (alongside the original title, not instead of it), but I leave it entirely up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've checked in other encyclopedias, and in some of the scholarly books I have, and these titles under these circumstances are not translated.

• Is there really nothing on his later life? Was he married? had children? What did he do during the Second World War?

• that is what it means, he withdrew entirely from public life. Short of doing original research, there is nothing. Germans have a very strict privacy policy. He apparently moved from Berlin to Heidelberg, probably when the archive was moved during or after the war. It is not clear if he had children, or was married. As I said, Germans have a very strict privacy policy, 70 or 80 years blackout on info. They want to make sure someone is properly dead before anything comes out about them, I guess. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• well, my notes say he was an oberstleutnant in Wehrwirtschaftstab of the OKW, 6, from 1.4.1945. Auswärtiges Amt, Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik, 1918-1945, vol. 8, p. 677. I don't really think it's particularly relevant, nor am I positive it is the right Hermann Detzner (there was a different one who was a botanist).Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Fair enough, that makes sense.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to say it was in the OKW, if it happens to be the other Hermann Detzner, so I'd prefer to leave it out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than the above, I think it is an excellent article, and I will be happy to support it once the above have been addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Although there are still one or two minor points outstanding above, you've done more than enough to satisfy my queries and I am willing to support. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• see if this addresses your issues; I think it should. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments This reads very well and is an engaging article that seems worthy of FA status. I'll list text queries here as I find them:

• "He led his party, consisting of four other European officers, and about 20 well-armed natives—a formidable jungle force—south toward the Sattelberg on the Huon peninsula, escaping Madang just ahead of an Australian patrol." Madang is a city – could we clarify its geographical relation to the mountain and peninsula mentioned? And should we say "fleeing" Madang or "escaping from" Madang rather than "escaping" Madang? JN466 00:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• done

• "This pre-war German card from New Guinea depicts the fantastic space of the German colonies": the phrase "fantastic space" doesn't work for me; could we rephrase that? Also, do we know what kind of card it was (postcard, cigarette card)? JN466 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Just noticed the body text says it was a postcard; I'll add that to the caption. --JN466 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• done

• "and was a reliable expert on Guinean dialects, and their overlap with German": what sort of overlap do we mean here? --JN466 00:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• it would be called pidgeon German, an admix of German words, and some structure, with the local dialect. Apparently it was particularly prevalent among people who grew up in the orphanages in Kokopo, but also who lived near the Lutheran missions; in order to describe something, esp. something "foreign" (i.e., European), they would use the German word, because it was the only word available to them. Their own language didn't have a word for it, so they used the missionary word. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The linguistic terminus technicus then is German-based creoles. --JN466 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• it would be the language not the people. are you telling me to change something? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A "creole" is also a shorthand for a "creole language"; it does not refer to people of mixed race here. But you're right, we should say creole language to make that clearer. I'd suggest "and was a reliable expert on Guinean dialects, and the German-based creole languages that had arisen in New Guinea." --JN466 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• "He led at least one expedition to the South Sea coast" I know it is daft, but when I read this I imagined he was heading South. In this case, he was actually at the northern coast of New Guinea; can we reword this in such a way that dunces like me aren't confused? --JN466 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• sure....will do.

• Some further information on his life post-1930s, if available, would be useful. Perhaps obituaries? (I'll be happy to help you uncipher any German sources, if you're ever flummoxed by an uncommon word or odd sentence.) --JN466 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would love an obit, but I can't get one from here. Do you have access to one? I do have his mention in the Verordnungsblatt, when he went into the service. What do you think of the above request to translate all the titles of his works...? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Where no English translation has been published, we should not make up an English title. But we could add a hint in brackets as to what topic the book is about. I'd suggest ranging the translations of Vier Jahre ... directly under the German title, indented. As for obits, drawing a blank here as well. --JN466 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I moved the translations as you've suggested. If you can think of how to get an obit, I'll add anything new to the article later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I found that later in his life he became the director of a publishing firm in Heidelberg, and have added that info (sourced to Ritter). JN466 18:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a charming, engaging and exceptionally well-written article. --JN466 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Overall, a nice article about a very interesting subject, but just a few minor niggles before I can support. Support: deserves to be promoted.

• "A practical treatise on Mechanical Dentistry, what we would today call Prosthorthodontia". I'd avoid first person if possible. Maybe "what is today called Prosthorthodontia". Perhaps link to Prosthodontics as well.

• fixed

• With Nugent, Konrad and Klink, I'm assuming you don't know their full names. Would there be any way of finding this out?

  Nugent, probably not. Konrad and Klink-I know their names are in the book, but I don't have access to it anymore. You might, because it's in a lot of libraries in Australia.

• I believe it's Hans Klink, who was transported on the SS Morinda, August 25, 1915 from Rabaul to Sydney (Source: Hans Klink, SS Morinda, August 25, 1915, Rabaul to Sydney, NSW-- New South Wales Government. Reports of vessels arrived (or Shipping reports). Series 1291, Reels 1263-1285, 2851. State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia.)

• I can have a look tommorrow (Wednesday) at the book and get back to you. My German is not great, but I'll have a shot. Do you know what page it would be on? Apterygial 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

no don't know the page number off hand. Not sure it's that important, either. What about the rest of the article? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support once my last comment (down below) is dealt with. Apterygial 02:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

done. If you get hold of the book, let me know about the names...Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the Adventures in New Guinea section: I would split this off after "on the island of New Guinea", as it seems quite long at the moment.

• fixed.

• "Eventually, Detzner found his way to the Lutheran mission (estab. 1892) on the Sattelberg, at 800 metres (2,625 ft)." What is the relevance of "(estab. 1892)"? It seems it adds little to the article. If I am wrong and it is important, let me know!

• before I wrote the articles on Keyser and Flierl, it was important. Now, with the other articles, not so much. removed.

• "one thing he had learned on this journey was the Australians had orders to shoot him on sight." Perhaps "he knew the Australians had orders to shoot him on sight." Seems a little less colloquial.

• fixed

• Flora and fauna are common enough terms and don't need to be linked.

• done

• "The German Geological Society of Berlin honored him in 1919 with the Nachtigal medal, named for the German explorer Gustav Nachtigal, and the Geographic Society of Hamburg awarded him their gold medal in 1921; the University of Bonn granted him an honorary degree; and the military awarded him the Iron Cross (1st Class)." I would punctuate this slightly differently. After "Gustav Nachtigal", I would replace the comma with a semicolon and remove the "and".

• fixed

• You should limit the link in "Iron Cross (1st Class)" to just "Iron Cross", and limit the size of the blue. (There's something somewhere in the MoS about this).

• done

• "The scenes he described brought to life the images they had seen on postcards (such as the one to left), newspapers, and in school books." Perhaps it is personal preference, but I wouldn't refer to images in text. The image is there and has its own caption, so the reference in text is probably not needed.

• I prefer to leave the reference to the image in this case.

• "Detzner was a civilian [emphasis in the original] surveyor..." Seems a little strange you would avoid a direct quote and yet retain the emphasis. Any particular reason?

• I've already directly quoted from the original, plus have an additional quote from that source later in the paragraph. I didn't want to litter the paragraph with citations, and nothing else he said in that particular sentence, except claiming that Detzner was a civilian (which he was not), was of particular note.

• "some of his notebooks and journals had been destroyed by the Australians". When they took him into custody?

• yes, and also while they were chasing him. He claimed.

• Could you add this? Apterygial 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

sure or something close to it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

done Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also made a minor change which shouldn't be controversial. But, nothing serious, and they shouldn't be too hard to fix. Cheers, Apterygial 04:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fascinating article, particularly for an Australian reviewer. Expanded significantly since I first encountered at MilHist Peer Review, while retaining all its original qualities - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support Support

I like the rhythms of your prose. However, I felt that throughout the article many names (of places and people) were unexplained, even unlinked. This makes it hard on the reader. A typical example is

"Eventually, Detzner found his way to the Lutheran mission on the Sattelberg, at 800 metres (2,625 ft). The Sattelberg mission was one of the Neuendettelsau Mission enterprise established by Johann Flierl after 1885, and included stations in Heldbach, Simbang, Tami Islands, and Simbu; these were an important evangelical presence in the Morobe Province and the missionaries had signed oaths of neutrality for the Australians."

Was the Sattelberg a mountain? The book, Klaus Neumann, Not the way it really was: constructing the Tolai past, seems to think of it as a town or station (uses "at Sattelberg"). In any case, it should be linked or clarified. Similarly, what is the Neuendettelsau Mission and who is Johann Flierl? Need to be described or removed. Even providing a link is not enough if the context is unfamiliar to most people. I have just left in Talk:Hermann_Detzner#Prose_comments_by_F.26f detailed comments on the text up to the end of the lead subsection of "Adventures in New Guinea." I will leave comments on the remaining sections soon, but, perhaps, in the meantime you clarify/link some of the lesser known names. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the Sattelberg a mountain, a town, or a mission station? yes to all. thanks for reading, I'll address your comments on the talk page. And I will clarify what the Sattelberg was.

I have now read the entire article and added more comments to the article's talk page. Please feel free to collapse them. Changing to support. Congrats! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Alice Ayres

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ayres is almost forgotten today, but was once a major news story. This is an unusual article in that it's almost entirely an "... in popular culture" section, but it's the extraordinary public reaction to her death, and the snapshot it provides of changing social attitudes in the period, that makes her noteworthy. – iridescent 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Wow, really interesting article! I was taken aback by the "unassessed article" status, but pleasantly surprised at its lack of "issues"... if you know what I mean. I ran the tools test, and one of the links has a problem. The hounslow.gov website has cookie issues. I don't know if that is going to be an issue later or not, nor do I know how you might want to address it. Just fyi. Second, I didn't fully understand this element of the alt t "Stylised black and white engraving in the style of Edward Burne-Jones." I think that if a vision impaired person were reading that, s/he might not understand what the style of Edward Burne-Jones is. Exaggerated, sentimental black and white engraving? overly sentimental? don't know. Probably it needs attention. That's all for now. I'll be interesting to see what others make of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hounslow website shouldn't really cause an issue; although it requests cookies, it's a legitimate local government website and the link certainly works. It's only used as a citation for the location of her grave, which isn't (or shouldn't be) contentious (especially given that the reference in question is immediately next to a photograph, taken less than a month ago, of a large red gravestone with "Alice Ayres" carved on it). I used the local authority because – as the responsible body (sic) for the cemetery – they're the most reliable source for who they have buried there. It's easily replaced if it causes problems.

I considered alternative wordings for the alt-text, but in the end went with "the style of Edward Burne-Jones". It's such a distinctive style, and doesn't really have an alternative name as it's so associated with him. I think it's possible for alt-text to get patronising; yes, it's useful to describe images for the benefit of the visually impaired or those using screen readers, but our blind readers are able to look up Edward Burne-Jones if they want more of an explanation. I'll wait and see what the "alt text regulars" say on the matter. – iridescent 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first reviewed this article I thought the alt text was OK and so was silent. I was just now asked to give an opinion here and so here it is. I agree that visually-impaired readers can look up Burne-Jones to interpret the alt text, and that the article should not patronize readers in alt text any more than it should patronize them in article text. On the other hand, WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid suggests to avoid details such as whether an image is a photograph, or whether it's black-and-white. In this particular image the style is striking; still, since the article focuses on the image's content rather than its style, the alt text should too, and I suggest that the alt text should lead with the content and put the stylistic issues toward the end. Eubulides (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I included that "black and white engraving" is because the accompanying text talks about a painting, but the image used is an drawing of the painting, rather than the painting itself. It can certainly be taken out if you don't think it's useful including it. – iridescent 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal and it's fine either way. But now that you've drawn my attention to the adjacent article text (which I hadn't read before) doesn't WP:ALT#Repetition apply here? The alt text need not repeat description that already appears in adjacent text. Eubulides (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point - that's an artifact of me copying the alt-text from another article which didn't give the wording in the text. Removed. – iridescent 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think it makes sense leaving it here even though it means repetition. It needs (I think) to be described in the text—I assume many readers would have no reason to recognise a 19th century British naval or London Fire Brigade uniform and thus would miss the significance were it not explained—but removing the description from the alt-text would leave a confusing "why isn't this being described?" gap to those using screen readers. – iridescent 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There nothing wrong with cookies. Checklinks only posts a message since it could confirm that the link was not dead. — Dispenser 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources, dabs, links All fine. RB88 (T) 01:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Great article; fascinating; places the subject in broader descriptive and analytical frameworks. This is impressive work. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Image review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I read this article the other day, while reviewing the related Postman's Park FA, and thought then that it was very well put together. JN466 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't anything that would keep this article from qualifying to be a FA, but I noticed that the two articles Postman's_Park and Alice_Ayres use two different pictures of the same tiles (File:AliceAyres.jpg and File:Alice_Ayres.jpg) and the picture used in the Alice Ayers article is the one of lower quality. Caleb Jon^talk 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't agree with this one at all, quite aside from "quality" being entirely subjective. The image used in this article shows the memorial tile front-on, and is used to make the text as visible as possible as it's the wording of the memorial that's being illustrated; the image used in Postman's Park is photographed from an angle, encompasses a broader swathe of the surrounding area, and is used to illustrate William De Morgan's tiling designs. – iridescent 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments (finally remembered to look at this):
  • "A secular canonisation"
    • Might want to link "mechanisation in agriculture" to threshing machine, which has a brief section on its impact, or to Swing Riots which expands on the theme.
    • Whilst some of the traditional relationships between the labouring rural poor and the Lord of the Manor might have endured up to the start of the industrial revolution, feudalism, with all its connotations of serfs, villiens and droit de seigneur, had effectively died out by the end of the Tudor period.
    • Clarify that the Albert medal was the first civilian bravery award rather than first civilian honour.
  • Depiction in literature and art
    • "Ayres was coming to be seen..." needs to have some sort of time related anchor to indicate when this was happening. The following paragraph starts "In 1890" so presumably this paragraph relates to the late 1880s.
    • "F. J. Cross's influential Beneath the Banner, who remarked..." should probably be "F. J. Cross's influential Beneath the Banner, in which he remarked..."
  • Changing attitudes and differing perceptions
    • Is it clear that the misrepresentation of her relationship to the Chandlers was deliberate? Could it have simply been that, as none of the adults survived, it was not realised at the time of her death that she was the children's aunt and some of the later retellers of her story did not know?

--DavidCane (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't link "mechanisation of agriculture" just because there are so many things to which it could be linked - everything from threshing machine to cotton gin to superphosphate. If it were linked to anything, it ought to be British Agricultural Revolution, but that article is such a mess I don't really want to direct people towards it. Frankly, if someone doesn't know what "mechanisation" or "agriculture" means, they probably haven't worked out how to turn their computer on yet.
• I'm carefully using the phrase "feudal economy", not feudalism. It can be sourced to pretty much any economic history of Europe that the British feudal economy—as opposed to the feudal society—ends with the Inclosure Acts of the 18th & 19th centuries.
• As far as I'm aware, the Albert Medal was the first British official honour open to civilians of all classes (unless you count the Sea Gallantry Medal) not just the first bravery award; earlier official honours given to civilians, such as Freedom of the City of London, were only awarded to landowners or members of particular companies or guilds which weren't open to the peasantry. The Victoria Cross was the first British honour awarded to all classes, but was explicitly for military personnel.
• Added a date for "was coming to be seen"
• Reworded.
• It's impossible to speculate on motives, unless someone were find "Note to self: must fabricate sources" in a diary. While some of those later covering the story (including Watts) were presumably relying on secondary sources and thus didn't know that Ayres and the Chandlers were related, it's stretching things beyond reasonable doubt to believe that those writing at the time weren't aware. The adults died in the fire, true, but most of the eyewitnesses to the fire would have been neighbours who would have known what Ayres's relationship to the family was; Ayres survived for two days after the fire and gave a full testimony of what happened; the award from the Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire was given to Alice's father who (one would hope) would have been aware that two of his daughters, his son-in-law and two of his grandchildren were dead and would have had no reason to hide the fact. – iridescent 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure if you've seen these as there are no references to The Times in the article:
    • The Times report of the inquest into the fire (28 April 1885 edition) records that Charles Chandler, Henry's brother and manager of the shop, made it clear that Alice was not a domestic servant but Mary's sister; so the relationship was public knowledge at the time.
    • At the inquest on Alice Ayres' death (The Times 30 April), her relationship was repeated by Frederick Ayres (described as a Butler). Her father's address is given as 33 Magdala Streeet, Isleworth. Alice's statement is reported by her father that she raised the alarm with Henry and Mary then returned to the children. An eyewitness account from a police Sergeant Hazel states that she landed head first on the "bed" rather than missing it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It was definitely known and reported from the start that she was related to the Chandlers, which is the point I was trying to make above and in the article (that history was retrospectively rewritten to hide the relationship, rather than just good-faith misreporting).
      • Hadn't seen the second Times source you mention. Local papers (the South London Press, Southwark Recorder and South London Observer) say she hit the pavement, and I'm marginally more inclined to believe those as they're more likely to have been based on eyewitness accounts. Given that the "bed" was being held up, I'd have thought that even landing on it head-first wouldn't have caused fatal spinal injuries (OR, I know). Beneath the Banner - which admittedly is a decidedly unreliable source - says "She jumped—but, to the horror of that anxious admiring throng below, her body struck against the projecting shop-sign, and rebounded, falling with terrific force on to the hard pavement below", which does seem to be the version of events given by most accounts at the time. (Assuming this drawing is accurate, and I've no reason to doubt it, that seems to make sense as well.) – iridescent 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: this should be renamed to Death of Alice Ayres – it's almost entirely about her death. Her actual life is described in one paragraph. It's not so much Alice Ayre's life, but more for her death. As you say in the nomination, the reaction to her death is what makes her notable. She was just an ordinary servant. Majorly talk 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose that. Articles on people who are only famous due to the manner of their deaths aren't particularly unusual on Wikipedia, and Johnny Micheal Spann, William George Hawtry Bankes, Rachel Corrie, 'H'. Jones, Mary Jo Kopechne etc are all at their name rather than "Death of...". Murder victims are an exception because in their case, it's been decided that the crime is what's notable; plus, in these cases the murderer is sometimes more notable than the victim, and it avoids messy problems with naming. In Ayres's case, it's her death that made her notable, but it's the very fact that so little of her life was documented that allowed movements from the suffragettes to the white supremacists, to project their own ideas that she'd led whatever they happened to consider a perfect life; that's why that long quote from Beneath the Banner ("She had tried to do her best always. Her loving tenderness to the children committed to her care and her pure gentle life were remarked by those around her before there was any thought of her dying a heroic death. So, when the great trial came, she was prepared; and what seems to us Divine unselfishness appeared to her but simple duty.") is included. I didn't want this article to become a quotefarm, and intentionally limited the art-and-literature to a representative sample illustrating the development of descriptions of her life and death, the way she fit into the whole peculiarly Victorian "die a good death" cult, and how those promoting the then-modern concept of secular heroism were appropriating the iconography of the disintegrating Church of England. Go through inspirational books and poetry collections from the late 19th century and you'll find reams of the stuff. – iridescent 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the current title works and conforms better to the principle of least surprise. --JN466 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Generally support, 1a. I say "generally" because I haven't been through the whole article. Please note User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A: not normally after -ly. The relationship between some of the clauses needed slight repairs—just something to watch in the future. Tony (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • With the exception of "present-day", "well-received" and so on (where I think the hyphens make it flow more naturally) I'm not seeing any hyphens even potentially out of place, other than in direct quotations (where I've preserved the original syntax, even though Victorian Southern English punctuation, spelling and capitalisation can look strange to modern eyes) - definitely not saying you're wrong, but can you point out the sort of thing you mean? – iridescent 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support on sourcing. I was asked to check something on the page a while ago and performed a spot source check. Iridescent is normally very good with sources and the article reflected this. I don't think the page has really changed since that time, and I didn't find any problems. In terms of the rest of the page, the story was always a strong one, so, I'm a little biased towards it. The power of the story carries over into the Wikipedia version, which is good. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), Torsodog (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because we have attempted to address the concerns of prior WP:FACs and hope to make progress toward WP:CHIFTD. Namely, Torsodog has provided a video which eliminated the need for a series of FU images. We are willing to discuss any further image removals and address other concerns that arise. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that this would be the first WP:FA for WP:GLASS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Last month both Ruhrfisch and Giants2008 reviewed this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed what you wanted. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, except that the wrong syntax was used for the lead image so its alt text didn't work. You can check this sort of thing by clicking on the image's properties with your browser after making your edits. Also, since it's the lead image for a weird-looking object, there's a special obligation to describe the visual appearance to the visually impaired, so I added more detail as I was fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I supported last time< & still think it meets FA standards. Looking at it again, the "video production" section could be made clearer as to the total time time taken per face, and what the water does when. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have revised the text based on my interpretation of conflicting information in the source, which at one point suggests that most of the video is at one-third playback and another saying that the entire 5-minute videos are alterations of an original 80-second video. If you feel I have misinterpreted the source let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about the source, & I don't necessarily see "conflicting information" there. It just isn't clear. Is 5 minutes in the section? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The source says the following things:

• And with the unique treatment Plensa was after -- vividly alive, yet slowed down to one-third normal speed
• And time had to be stretched too. "Jaume's original idea was that each person would be on the screen for 13 minutes -- thank God we were able to talk him out of it," says Manning. "It's five minutes now." So Manning devised a scheme in which his team could shoot each person for only 80 seconds, then turn that it into five minutes. Each chunk, or sequence, was synchronized to match the mechanism of the fountain, for a total of five minutes for each face. "The period leading up to the mouth opening gets stretched in order to make it last four minutes, then there's another section that gets stretched to make it last 15 seconds, and then when the mouth is actually opened that gets stretched to make it last exactly 30 seconds. And then, finally, there's a smile at the end that gets stretched to make it last 15."

Now the text says the following: The basic 80-second videos are played at one-third speed, running for a total of 4 minutes. Then there is another subsequent segment where the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a section with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a smile after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you have just added the "4 minutes" bit. But don't expect the reader to do maths; say it's a 5 minute sequence somewhere. And how does the water running down the face fit in? Is that all the time? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another quote that helps me make sense of the time totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's much clearer, & I see the "fountain" sub-section too. Move to

• Support per above (unless anything drastic comes up below). Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• All the refs to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/ deadlink on me.
  • The SkyscraperPage building database has been down for maintenance reasons since August 19, and may be down for a few more days. But to replace the links, this data of the tallest buildings in the United States and Chicago by architectural height from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (which is widely regarded as one of the most reliable skyscraper resources) could be used. Cheers, Rai•me 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest_25_Skylines_Cities.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I changed the source and removed the remaining controversially sourced material.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Gave it a partial look at the peer review, and am picking up where I left off. Found a few picky things, but the article is in fairly good shape overall.
• "The process used sand and soda ash heated to a temperaure of 2,600 F and "gathered" with large clay ball resembling a honey dipper." Should it be "a large clay ball"?
  • I believe it is correct. Are you unfamiliar with the term honey dipper?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh wait. I see you are asking about the missing "a". Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, don't know how the clay ball got in there. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The structure was a challenge. At first, they had considered switching to plastic blocks". Is "they" supposed to refer to the design team? If so, the first part of this could be changed to say so for clarity.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Operation: "A Barco show controller selects the sequence of faces one at a time and also determines a random tower lighting selection...". Redundant word that can safely be chopped.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Controversies: "The city claimed the cameras, similar to those used throughout city...". Add "the" before second "city".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Critical reception: Double-check the spelling of jumbotron. I think there are a couple of capital letters in it.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is "juxtapposed" a typo? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support pending media review. Article seems to be pretty well-written and well-sourced. There are a few non-free media files included, so I want to see a completed image review before fully supporting. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on copyedit by Unschool (talk · contribs)

Hmmm. Does this work like a regular discussion page? Am I to respond with my justifications, or am I to make corrections? I shall presume that I should reply to each point. Unschool

Typically, you would place comments for me the nominator. However, since you jumped in and edited without commentary, I am just noting contentious actions here because discussion might evolve and it should be recorded here as part of the summary of discussions for the promotion consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the detail of the specific dates that the fountain is open from the article (May 1 to approximately October 31).

I suppose the detail should not have been removed from the article. If it hasn't yet been restored, I will do so. However, I do not believe it belongs in the lead; it's simply unnecessary detail. I'll find an appropriate place for it in the body.Unschool

It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the following from the main body of the article (Crown Fountain was the most controversial of all the Millennium Park features.)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did, and I think the article is better for it. I placed the sentence in the lead, where it fit beautifully, and the paragraph whence it came is literally undamaged by the removal. That sentence was a major point of the article, and as such it belonged in the lead. Unschool 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I didn't (and still don't, really) understand the process around here. Yes, I am done with the article; I just touched it up a bit and then moved on. Didn't realize I was gumming up the works around here. Unschool 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I supposed to strike out some lines? Do I strike out everything I wrote, and/or the replies to what I wrote, or what? Unschool 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike any line that you think has been resolved. Actually, those are my comments and questions to you, so I strike.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question (if it's okay to put a question here)

• Would it be possible to get a higher resolution picture in place of the one at the top of the article? I clicked on it and was disappointed that I couldn't fill my monitor with a close up image. Does that matter in FA, or is it only about the writing? Unschool 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you prefer File:20080410 Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg as the main image?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem any higher resolution that the one now on there.Unschool

• • Also the following are available on flickr.com under appropriate licenses:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildcat_dunny/32174448/

This one is pretty good, probably gives the best image of the glass brick towers themselves. Unschool

• • http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergemelki/2713868085/

I really like the crowds around the fountain in this one; the only thing that keeps this from being my only choice is the (really picky point here) fact that the fountain isn't lined up so well with the lips. Unschool

• • http://www.flickr.com/photos/trippinlarry/3012461162/

No way. Unschool

• • http://www.flickr.com/photos/albany_tim/2826716306/

This one is pretty good, too. Unschool

I'd be okay with any of the three of which I spoke positively: wildcat dunny, sergemelki, or albany tim. Unschool 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is going to be reviewed by an image specialist. If I recall, there may be some limitations regarding the resolution of fair use images. So the one above that you ruled out for lack of resolution might need to be reconsidered for its clarity and vibrance. We might have to scale back any selection to a modest resolution to keep in line with WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tony is right. Since these images are used under fair use, we cannot use the highest resolutions available to us. If you still want to change out the image, we can, but I would not use any image higher than the "medium" setting on flickr. I personally don't have a problem with the infobox image, but if everyone agrees that another one is better, I can switch it out. --Torsodog^Talk 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I've got a lot to learn about that stuff. Thanks for trying. Unschool 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three: Comment: no criterion 3 concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 13:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG has the purpose of "visual illustration of the water spouting of the Crown Fountain" which appears superfluous in the presence of File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg, which does exactly the same thing. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why are both needed?
    • Is it O.K. to have an .ogg as the main image? If so, I am fine with the replacement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not aware of anything disallowing or dissuading an .ogg as the "main image". Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I have queries in on the talk pages of SandyGeorgia‎ (talk · contribs), Karanacs‎ (talk · contribs) and Raul654‎ (talk · contribs) on this issue. I have asked them to respond here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
          • No responses from any of the experts at FAC. I have never seen an .ogg as a main image. Have you?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Karanacs‎ declared this out of his area of expertise and said to just follow your advice. I have moved the video to the main image position. I have never seen a video as the main image before, but will go along. Waiting on Torsodog to edit it down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg - NFCC#3B requires minimal extent of use. Why are all 50 seconds of the source YouTube video being used when a clip of shorter length (e.g. the first 10 seconds) would convey the same significant meaning?
    • I will leave this to Torsodog. I would not know how to chop the video.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I have not heard back from my co-author, so I have posted a query at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clipping_a_video.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I was away all weekend and I am currently at work now. I will cut down the video to ~10 seconds when I get home from work if someone hasn't already done so. --Torsodog^Talk 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Torsodog, Should I be watching your editor contributions to see when you have done this or will it be on commons or somewhere else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • elcobbola, I am wondering if chopping a single spouting clip isn't like being restricted to half an image. Is it possible that the artistic element is considered to be the full video? Might it damage the artistic integrity of the video to clip it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
            • No. NFCC#3B: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." Эlcobbola _talk 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't know what is up with Torsodog (talk · contribs), but the help desk gave me a website with instructions. I would much rather someone who knows what they are doing do it. If worse comes to worse, I will try to do it myself on Friday or Saturday, but I hope he can do this before then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
                • I have just asked Awadewit (talk · contribs), Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) and X! (talk · contribs) if they know how to edit .ogg files.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Shoemaker's Holiday has informed me that there are multiple .ogg filetypes and we need video specialist. He recommended that I contact Seddon (talk · contribs) and Cirt (talk · contribs). I have and await further response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • Seddon has said he would take care of this over the weekend. If he does not, I will try to do so Monday (UTC).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
                      • Torsodog and Seddon have failed to deliver. I am communicating with Awadewit. Not sure if he will be able to help or if I will have to try to figure it out myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                        • If we can not get the video clipped, we can revert to images I suppose. Would you have a problem with the three images used previously to depict what the video currently depicts. I could reupload them if we do not get this clipped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                          • Given that you yourself have clipped the video and replaced it in the article 20 minutes ago, I presume at any moment you will strike your oppose, since all issues seem resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                            • Apparently, you struck your comment as I was noting that you hadn't. Thanks for the assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:20050531 Crown Fountain at night showing dualism.jpg - Why could depiction of dualism not be conveyed by an image of the towers' flanks? A vantage that does not contain the screen image would be free; NFCC#1 disallows non-free content when free content could be created. Эlcobbola _talk 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought there was value to the reader in seeing the night time view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't disagree, but night views (this one doesn't have a compatible license, but it's proof of concept) don't have to be non-free either. Even if the two purposes need to be separated into different images, two free images are better than one non-free (and required). Эlcobbola _talk 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I am confused now. You are asking us to depict dualism in a different way, I believe. However, your proof of concept depicts the back of one fountain and does not depict dualism. The only way to show dualism is to have two fountains in the image at the same time. There are two options both of which show the interior face. First, you can stand behind one with the face of the other visible. Alternatively, you can stand on the side and catch both at the extreme ends of a landscape (probably wideangle) shot with both faces visible. This option shows one face and is the minimal fair use depiction of dualism. This depiction of dualism was chosen because it also depicts the night time view without an additional image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The proof of concept was only for a night view, as your previous response indicated that was a concern. The germane issue is that a wide image of the towers' flanks will depict dualism (two towers facing one another) without showing the non-free displays. Whether such an image is taken at day or night is unimportant. If the available angles are indeed such that a display is unavoidable, use a photo with the screen off or one to which de minimus applies (e.g. this crop). Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • O.K. so you are saying that having two images which do not show the faces to depict night viewing and dualism separately is better than a single image which shows one face that depicts both elements simultaneously in terms of applying WP:NFCC. Is that correct? For a subject like this shouldn't we be allowed two or three fair use images? If not, I am willing to remove the offending image if I can get permissions for the images you suggest or if Torsodog (talk · contribs) can shoot the proper shots.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • P.S. I have sent flickrmail queries for licensing consent for both of the images that you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
              • I have obtained licensing consent for the night time view, but not for the dualism view yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
              • In the absence of a response on the dualism photo I have searched flickr to find other options. There are many better pictures. My first choice is this one. I have sent a licensing request. I will send others as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
              • If that photographer does not consent, we have several other options preferable to the dualism image you showed. They all require licensing consent. Here are the other options:

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/54736137@N00/2542957244/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooksba/2861221675/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomwilliamson/3027966205/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/anorwood/19021425/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/aquistbe/353249206/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/mister_sheep/511026135/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/carsonjgregory/541453297/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/budreauphoto/1561578182/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/evanblaser/2546949633/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyandharry/2657508602/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/millermz/2748582652/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

←I have obtained consent and have swapped out the offending image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Opposing towers that are 50 feet (15 m) tall represent Plensa's theme dualism at night facing north with water cascading|alt=Night view of the fountain shows water cascading, ground lighting and face video" This caption is a bit of a run-on. If it's a sentence, it should have a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How is that fix?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, much clearer. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment when is a FAC eligible to be included at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a beautifully done article. I enjoyed reading it, found it informative and interesting. I had a few comments on the section on video photography, mainly related to prose. It was the only part that I found confusing. I've included my suggestions in bold.

About Approximately 75 ethnic, social, and religious Chicago organizations were asked to provide candidates whose faces would be to be photographed for integration into the fountain.'[29] The subjects for the faces were chosen from local schools, churches and community groups, and filming began in 2001 at the downtown campus of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). The SAIC students filmed their subjects with a $100,000 high-definition HDW-F900 video camera, the same model as those used in the production of the three Star Wars prequels.[18][30] About 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's level course in public art for the project.[29] ...

Each face appears on the sculpture for a total of 5 minutes using various parts of 80-second videos.[18](???) A 40-second section is played at one-third speed forward and backward, running for a total of 4 minutes.[10] Then, there is a subsequent 15 second segment where in which the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a 30 second section in which the water appears to spout from the open mouth with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a 15 second smile. after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.[18] Of the original 1,051 subjects filmed, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.[10] Originally, the set of images was presumed to be the beginning of a work in progress, but now no additional videos are planned.[29 ]

In the 2nd paragraph, I don't understand the first sentence. I've suggested some other tweaks to help the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence means that the SAIC students shot each subject for 80 seconds. These 80 seconds are used to produce five minutes of video as the remainder of the paragraph details. I am not exactly sure where you are confused and where I have been unclear. I think we have the first paragraph down. Please reconsider the second paragraph given this explanation. I had trouble with the prior instructions because your wishes for the 2nd paragraph were not as clear as the first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I added some commas and a couple of words to help the clarity. See if that works for you. Plus changed "now" to as of 2009. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I made one revision to clarify that the last segment is also extended. Everything else is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, nice work! Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A non-free video is really not a good thing. I advise replacing it with a single image in the infobox. I strongly oppose promotion while the video remains. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The image reviewer just approved this by clipping this down from 50 seconds to what he/she determined to be an acceptable amount of non-free content. The understanding of this article is somewhat dependent on this two second video clip. Note that this has replaced four images (a main image and a sequence of three images) that were in the article at FAC3. Is it possible that you could talk to the very conservative image reviewer Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and come to an agreement on some sort of compromise. I am willing to put an image as the main image and move the video down to the body of the article, but am not sure what is best since the image reviewer opposed the redundancy of the image and the video and asked us to remove the image. In short your opposition is asking us to undo what has been done by and for the image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm asking you to remove the non-free video. This is a horrible slippery slope that we don't want to get ourselves involved with. Why is a single image not acceptable? A single frame from that video surely illustrates the work of art in a satisfactory way? Why do we need a video at all? J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The video replaces a sequence of exemplifying detail shown in the Crown_Fountain#Video_production and Crown_Fountain#Video_sculpture sections so that the reader could see the face, the puckering and the spouting. I am not an expert on image policy. Could you talk to Elcobbola (talk · contribs). I will do whatever the two of you agree to as a solution since I would revert to the sequence of non-free images. This is a rare video sculpture and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) thought a short video clip would help the reader. I guess the thinking was that a video of a video sculpture might be a rare exception for non-free video content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Elcobbola seems to concede on his own talk page that your request is reasonable. I have reverted to the still image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that lead image would have to be considered a derivative work, and therefore non-free. There is no freedom of panorama for works of art of this sort in the United States. A quick look at the other images makes me think that they are not derivative works, but further review of the "other fountains" may be needed. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
            • O.K. so you still have the strong oppose stated and no clear directive. I await your further comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
            • If you are deliberating on the inclusion of the other fountains. You may remove them if you feel that is necessary and then hopefully you can strike your oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
              • I said that I "strongly oppose promotion while the video remains", and the video has now been removed. So no, I no longer strongly oppose. I will take a deeper look at the images now. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                • File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG needs fixing up- it cannot be both freely licensed and non-free. In this case, it seems it is non-free, although details about the author of the photo itself is, naturally, useful. File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg has an in-image caption that needs to be cropped. I am a little concerned about the copyright of the other fountains, but I don't want to look into that right now. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • I have cropped and replaced File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Feel free to correct any misunderstanding that I have about licensing, but wrt File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG, I believe that there are two licenses. The photographer may freely release his photographic copyright of a non-free image giving rise to both a free and a non-free license.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • Yes, but for Wikipedia's purposes, this image is non-free. Mention that you are the photographer and that you release the image under (whatever), but the only tag on the image page should be the non-free one. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
                      • I have been through this debate on many modern sculptures with many image reviewers and have been told by many people that I must release my photographic copyright. I have reworded and rearranged significantly. Is this change palatable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
                        • No. Quite simply, this image is non-free. Yes, mention in the sourcing that you took the image and you are releasing it under whatever, but the free license templates should not be there. No image should be tagged as both free and non-free. They are mutually exclusive. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
                          • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
                            • Ok, I consider this issue resolved. I don't have time to give a full review right now, but I no longer oppose in any way. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch) In the interest of full disclosure, I made the map and have made some edits here (mostly during a previous FAC, plus some now). My previous concern at FAC was with the number of non-free images and that has clearly been addressed here. I have a few questions / quibbles (that do not detract from my support):

• This sentence After several dozen glass manufacuturing firms were interviewed, L. E. Smith Glass Company emerged as the company to produce 22,500 glass blocks near the upward bound for the size of press glass formed from hand poured molten glass and cast iron molds.[36] would "upper limit" or perhaps "upper boundary" make more sense than "upward bound"? Also shouldn't it be "hand-poured" (with a hyphen)?
  • Upper limit it is. Hyphen added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Confusing - I think the second "and" should be "or" and a word seems to be missing The individual grids are 5 feet (1.5 m) tall and either 16 feet (4.9 m) and [or?] 23 feet (7.0 m) [wide? - missing word] with cell capacity of an average of 250 blocks.[38]
  • Yes either goes along with or. I presume the missing word is wide. I do not have the source with me. I will put in wide for now. Next time I am at my local library, I will check.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Apparent contradiction: In the Selection of artist section it reads The installation is a video sculpture, commissioned to operate thirty years.[21] but in the Construction and engineering section it says The electronics were designed to be adaptable to the time of day, weather and season and to meet the desired century-long longevity and dependability objectives.[3] Which is it (30 years or 100)?
  • These are actually complimentary and not contradictory. As I understand it the commission means that Plensa was chosen to design something that would last 30 years. Plensa and the designers then set a 100 year design objective and the electronics were designed to meet that specification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks - could this be made clearer in the article then? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, all my questions have been answered, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Should have both English and metric units The water in the reflecting pool has a depth of about 1/3 of a centimeter.[55]
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Would this Traditional fountains such as these other Chicago fountains discourage viewer touching;... be clearer as something like These other Chicago fountains are traditional in that they discourage viewer touching;...?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to go now, may have a few more quibbles, but this is much improved and worthy of FA status. Well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am done with quibbles and have made a few more copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now Support

The article is almost there, but some deficiencies remain, and these need to be removed. There seems to be too much Wikilinking, too much jargon, and too many peacock terms than befits a featured article. I think this can be fixed in short order, a day or two max. Here are some examples:

• (Sentence 1 lead): "Crown Fountain is an interactive work of public art and video sculpture featured in Chicago's Millennium Park, which is located in the Loop community area."
  • If I, as someone who knows Chicago well, can't make sense of this, how, do you think, a reader unfamiliar with the city is going to fare? You need to keep it simple, something along the lines of, "Crown Fountain is a fountain in Chicago which features an interactive video sculpture; it is located in the new Millennium Park—the northwest corner of Grant Park—between Lake Michigan and the Loop. (We don't need to know about "community areas," "public art" and the like.)
    • I am not sure that this article should be formatted differently than the two recent prior WP:FAs in Millennium Park (BP Pedestrian Bridge and Cloud Gate), and all of my other Chicago FAs, such as Fountain of Time, Chicago Board of Trade Building, Prairie Avenue, and South Side (Chicago), which all refer to community areas. Click on the Loop, Chicago article and see if it might help the reader understand where this is located.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think as a Chicagoan, you may be too close to the term Loop and not understand how helpful the community area link is for the international reader who does not know what the Loop is. This link is commonly accepted in almost all if not all my Chicago GAs as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If I recall correctly, an earlier FAC, GAC, PR or talk page discussion shot down an intro starting with "Crown Fountain is a fountain" due to repetition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The fountain has a prominent location in Chicago and the new park: east of Michigan Avenue and across from the Chicago Landmark Historic Michigan Boulevard District; north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute of Chicago; west of the rest of the park and the lake; and south of Madison Street and the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink."
  • Again, too complicated and peacocky. All you need to say is, "The fountain is centrally located in Chicago: it is east of Michigan Avenue, north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute of Chicago; and south of Madison Street. (You've already told us how it sits in relation to Grant Park. I don't think an average reader cares about McCormick Tribune Plaza etc.) Please also remove all references to Chicago Landmarks and Historic This or That. The City slaps a landmark sign on anything that is more than 50 years old and doesn't move.
    • I have incorporated this suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Looking north from the fountain, viewers see some of the tallest buildings in the United States (Aon Center, Two Prudential Plaza, and One Prudential Plaza)."
  • Come on now. Really? The Prudential Center? It is barely one of the tallest buildings in Chicago. You make the article read like a bad City of Chicago tourist brochure.  :)
    • Please see Tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States#Tallest_buildings_by_pinnacle_height. All three are in the top 30.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You get the idea. Please simplify, remove excessive Wikilinks, jargon, and peacocky terms. I will then be delighted to support the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to repeat "fountain," that is fine, but you do need to give some sense in the lead sentence that water is an essential feature of this interactivity. As for the Loop, I doubt if a new reader is going to gain much essential knowledge by being distracted in the very first sentence and sent off on a wild goose chase for the "Loop" in the Community areas of Chicago page. The Chicago Loop page is enough; it has a map which shows where it sits in relation to the city. The reader doesn't need to be saddled with additional info that the Loop is community area number 32 etc. etc. or even that Chicago has "community areas." Perhaps, something along the lines of,

"Crown Fountain in Chicago is a work of public art that combines interactive aquatic play and video sculpture. The park is located in the city's new Millennium Park, between Lake Michigan and the Loop central business district."

In any case, since your article is almost there, and since I'm strapped for time, I'm changing my vote to a support. Although I am not entirely happy with the lead and the first subsection after that, I have to say the rest of the article is very well written and packed with a lot of details. Congrats! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Henry Wells (general)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the criteria. Biographical article on an Australian lieutenant general, who served as a senior officer in the Second World War, was the administrative head of all Commonwealth forces in the Korean War, and whose career culminated with his appointment as Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee; the professional head of the Australian Military. Article has been passed as both a Good Article and a WP:MILHIST A-Class article. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks). One thing, though: the alt text for the lead image should help the visually-impaired reader get the gist of what Wells looked like. What enormously bushy eyebrows the man had! At least that should be mentioned. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Have added a little about his short, thinning hair and large bushy eyebrows. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image check: File:Wells guard inspection Malaya.JPG appears to be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately appears to be true, the source page is http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/HOB/56/0630/MC (the template used on the image page doesn't seem to be working quite right), and the image still has copyright claimed by the AWM, and is dated after the 1955 cut-off for PD_AUS. David Underdown (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

After a quick poke around on teh AWM website, there are quite a few photogrpahs from the Korean War period which should be OK copyright-wise, and would fit equally well in the relevant section of hte article. This may take you to search results, but may be session dependent, otherwise go to http://www.awm.gov.au/database/cas.asp enter henry wells as the search terms, and pick Korean War, 1950-1953 from the dropdown - I got 22 image hits. David Underdown (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not exactly the case. Australian Government photographs (criterion E on the template) states that Government held or owned photographs, such as this one, are copyright free after 50 years; this was taken 53 years ago. Additionally, this photo was tagged as copyright free on the AWM website when I uploaded it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we verify that it is definitely a government-owned image? Stifle (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the image's listing, it was taken by an employee of the Australian Government in a capacity of his duties and is owned/held by the Australian War Memorial, meaning that it is government owned. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This excellent article easily meets the FA criteria; great work. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Nick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support: very well done in my opinion although I was disappointed that there was no mention of the street that is named after him in the residential area at Duntroon...I jest, of course, but it does exist (I used to live there). — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks for the review, mate. I'll see if I can find a ref for the street. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can confirm that here Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! I had a look around and couldn't find anything. Will add this in now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, YellowMonkey. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The Dark Side of the Moon

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The last time this was nominated, most of the discussion centred around the use of NFCC content. I'm renominating now because the other issues within that FAC have been addressed, and all that now remains is discussion of the NFCC images used (and for some users, perhaps the audio clips also). One of the NFCC cover images has since been deleted. All NFCC content is referenced and discussed within the article, and I believe its presence is more than justified in an article about one of the most famous and biggest-selling rock albums in history. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I will not be reviewing, I'd just like to see the description for the mobile fidelity CD changed to fair use. It will undoubtedly be brought up if not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be fair use, as the point of that image seems to be the copyrighted material (and perhaps the gold-plated-ness, which is a bit hard to make out there with the disc art anyway). If I knew how I'd quick-move it out of Commons and to en.wikipedia for shrinking and FUR-ing and whatever. Parrot of Doom is very much not "the copyright holder of this work", as much as this free content fan would like him to be. :) --an odd name 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on copyright or images. Can anyone help fix whatever is wrong with this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The commons image must be deleted (No fair use at commons), so I had to upload the image to wikipedia under a new name. The article has been updated to the new image. You may wish to check it out to make sure I got the information correct, as I don't own this version of the cd. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The resolution on the FUI one is just right; any smaller and the gold-ness and general design would be tough to discern. --an odd name 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Source comments: What makes these reliable?

• http://www.highfidelityreview.com/index.asp
  • Tried and tried to find a better source, couldn't, so moved the relevant entries to talk. No longer a problem, it wasn't critical info anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.thesquirrels.com/poplust/newcd.htm
  • I think we can trust the website of an artist which released a cover of DSotM. The reference doesn't do anything but demonstrate that their cover is available. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.poormanswhiskey.com/whiskeychronicles/7393826.html
  • As above Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/index.php
  • Probably the largest Pink Floyd fansite on the internet. It contains reviews with band-members, done for the site. The information contained within is, I have found, completely commensurate with the published material I have used for this article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. It cannot be included as it "Lacks a page describing how information is gathered, or is a fan or contributor site". I'm sure you can source the info you got there from reputable sources. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well in the first instance the interview was conducted by John Harris, author of one of the main sources of information for this article. This interview can only be in one other book, Blake's Comfortably Numb, but tbh I'm knackered so it'll have to wait until tomorrow night now :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem. If the book is found then great, otherwise it has to be removed. Also you have yet to reply about the first source highfidelityreview.com. RB88 (T) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Brain-damage is now an ex-ref. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
            • It's expired you might say. Well done to you on behalf of dead tree fetishists everywhere. Now just comment on the highfidelityreview link. RB88 (T) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.ytsejamrecords.com/faq/?fldauto=1
  • As per squirrels and poormanswhiskey Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dabs and links All fine. RB88 (T) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• http://www.everyhit.com is not considered reliable. Use http://www.acharts.us instead.
  • Well if I did that, I'd have to explain why acharts.us is reliable considering it isn't included in the list of review sites at WP:ALBUM. Actually though I don't mind deleting those table entries that use this reference, as they add little to the article. I've moved them to the talk page until they can be more reliably referenced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • acharts.us is reliable per WP:CHARTS. You can use it without fear. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• For refs 130-132 and for chart placings in general, use this .
  • Ditto the above really. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ultratop is the Belgian chart body. The website is the most comprehensive available for EU/AUS charts. Again see WP:CHARTS. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've also written a detailed rundown on referencing on the talk page here. RB88 (T) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've replied to that rundown on that page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've replied to your comments there. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - with regard to criteria 1a-e, 2a-c, 3 and 4. There are no facts that are likely to be contested. The nominator has bent over backwards to reach a consensus, both here and at previous nominations. This is the best article about this ground-breaking album on the internet. A few choices of prose style remain, which I would not use—such as "The Dark Side of the Moon builds upon previous experiments Pink Floyd had attempted in their live shows"—but I fully support this candidate. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support (1a). Looks well-written.

• "Mental illness" linked at the top? Which one was it? I think that link-target is dangerously general! Consider no link. Linking technique otherwise looks good, but not London, please (WP:LINKING).
  • Nobody really knows. Its impossible therefore to be specific especially as Barrett's unstable condition may or may not have been a result of his drug use. The album is similarly ambiguous, and therefore I think its best the article is also so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "It would subsequently remain on the charts for 741 weeks (fourteen years)": Oh .. my .. god. Language: please consider "It remained on the ...". And see "Comparable quantities" at MOS?
  • This wouldn't really be appropriate, since the album has dropped out of the chart on a few occasions. In fact the precise chart history of the album is difficult to fathom as the chart qualifications have changed over time. A joe-public version would be "It stayed in the charts for ages, longer than anything else, although sometimes it dropped out for a bit". Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Melody Maker was however less enthusiastic—"Musically, there were some great ideas, but the sound effects often left me wondering if I was in a bird-cage at London zoo." Perhaps a colon rather than an em dash?
  • Good point, since the quote is an entire sentence. I've changed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "upon"—consider plain English nowadays: "on".
  • I understand your point, however I am a fan of typically British words, and Pink Floyd are a very British band. Either usage is correct. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "turning point" – I think better hyphenated in that sentence. See what you think.
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "there are five tracks on each side, each one linked to reflect the various stages of human life"—not sure about "linked" ("each reflecting the various"?). Just after that, comma before "according".
  • With the exception of The Great Gig in the Sky and Money (split because of the limitations of the Vinyl format), each track segues into the other. Linked may be a poor choice of words, but they're all very much linked together. Can you suggest a better word? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It could be reworded to say that "the album is one continuous piece of music that is split into two halves (Due to the technical limitations of vinyl records). Each half is further split(divided) into 5 tracks, each of which reflects various stages of human life." It's lengthy (and knowing me, a grammatical nightmare), but you can't fit so much information into a single sentence without it reading strangely - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Image sizes: can we have them a bit bigger? Try 230px for Abbey, and especially the detail in the synthesiser significantly larger. And that great b/w pic of the concert at Earl's Court: what a waste to shrink it to almost nothing. More generous sizes? I'd boost that one to see the detail: it's superb.
  • I'm not a fan of specifying image sizes, unless there's a particular reason. My preference is to use the default size, logged-in users can change default image sizes in the options. While the images may appear small on a regular screen (say 1650px), on a laptop at anything below 1280px larger images take up a huge amount of space and lead to inconsistencies in the layout. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Torry. Torry"
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• —"I've been mad for fucking years—absolutely years". Again, please rethink the incoming dash.
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Please don't link "United States", "UK", "Australia", etc.

Haven't looked at the bottom half, but I trust it already. You might arrange a sift-through by someone else, but it would be a quick job. Tony (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As per the last FAC. Excellent work. ceranthor 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Looks good. I was watching this during the previous FAC but it was undergoing constant significant change which made it difficult to review. Seems to have settled down nicely now. Comprehensive with good prose.

• "the album built on the ideas Pink Floyd had explored in their live shows and previous recordings, but it lacks the extended instrumental excursions that characterised their work following the departure of founding member, principal composer and lyricist, Syd Barrett." Currently this allows for Barrett having departed either before or after this album; suggest making it explicit (perhaps "that had characterised their work since 1968 following the departure...").
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The Dark Side of the Moon was an immediate success, topping the Billboard 200 for one week. It would subsequently remain on the charts for 741 weeks (fourteen years)" - surely straight past tense is preferable in this case ("It subsequently remained...")
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Dates in North America followed before the band flew to London to begin recording the album, from 24 May–25 June." - is "24 May–25 June" the dates in North America or the beginning recording? (Also could do with "to" instead of dash.)
  • Its a bit of a mouthful to phrase correctly, but is this better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "And if the band you're in starts playing a diff'rent tune" - should be "playing different tunes".
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The studio was capable of sixteen track mixes which offered a greater degree of flexibility" - greater than?
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "For several years Nick Mason had become increasingly responsible for the band's sound effects" - perhaps it's just me, but did he become it for several years?
  • I think I see what you're getting at - how does this read? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The album is a continuous piece of music split into two (because of the technical limitations of vinyl)." - I'm not sure about that. Would "Great Gig In the Sky" have segued into "Money" but for vinyl? Is there a source for this?
  • The sources don't say that the album would have been continuous but for vinyl, as there was no format at the time which could have catered for the full album (except perhaps long play tape), it wouldn't even have entered discussion. The sources I have do however mention the split. Its probably stating the obvious, but its designed to reinforce the continuity of the music - it was rare at the time for tracks to be joined so, their previous album (Meddle) still splits each track, whereas DSotM sets the trend for every album they recorded thereafter. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Then I think the statement is WP:OR. (Also, I don't personally imagine "Great Gig" would have been segued with "Money", but that's my own WP:OR.) Given what you say above though, the point is that in contrast with Meddle etc, each side consists of segued tracks, so that's what should be stated rather than the (imo dubious) conjecture that it would have been continuous but for vinyl. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough for me. How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Several tracks, including "Us and Them" and "Time", are notable for demonstrating Richard Wright and David Gilmour's ability to harmonise their voices. In The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon, a 2003 DVD documentary on the production of the album, Roger Waters attributes this to the fact that along with their talent, their voices both sound extremely similar." - "ability" doesn't really convey what is notable; "along with their talent" seems superfluous.
  • I'll lose "along with their talent", but the 'ability' and 'voices sound extremely similar' are what is notable. They're just about pitch-perfect singing together. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "She declined the first offer as she was watching Chuck Berry perform at the Hammersmith Odeon, but arranged to return on the following Sunday." - a bit colloquial and perhaps inconsequential - possibly remove?
  • I don't agree - her performance is one of the most notable features of the album, I think its worth reinforcing that she didn't really think it was all that important. She didn't even like Pink Floyd much. Its a nice progression from 'don't really care about recording it' to 'sued the band for royalties' (not that I'm casting aspersions on her character!) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Point taken; it's just that the tone seems colloquial and could be made more encyclopedic. When was she watching Berry? At the time the offer was made? (Unlikely; not many mobile phones in 1972, but the person who made the offer could have been sitting next to her, interrupting the concert—no wonder she declined!) Is it significant that is was a Sunday she arranged to return? We aren't told what day of the week the original offer pertained to. Was it in fact a "return"? Who instigated the return? If it was her, was "the first offer" really "the offer"? Anyway, none of this is a show-stopper for me but if that sentence can be improved, great. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, how does this read? I like the 'Sunday night', its the early 70s remember and working on a Sunday was still frowned upon. It lends a little occasion to the session. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "In 2003 VH1 named the album's cover as their 4th-greatest album cover of all time" - should this be "the" rather than "their"?
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Founding member Syd Barrett had left the band in 1968, and the burden of lyrical composition had since then fallen mostly on Waters' shoulders" - can this reflect that we already know about Barrett and his departure.
  • Not sure what you mean, can you expand? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've made a suggested edit to show what I mean. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The Dark Side of the Moon was released first in the US on 10 March 1973, and then in the UK on 23/24 March." - does this need a footnote explaining why the date is not certain?
  • There was a discussion about this - the sources vary on the release dates, chart history seems to suggest they're wrong. I can't find which source said 23 March though, so I've stuck it at 24. If needs be we can just say "about a fortnight later". Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the article can say "later in March", explaining about (and citing examples of) the varying release dates? PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • ...except I can't find whatever it was that made me think it might have been the 23 March :) I'll leave it at 24 March for now (btw you can see the discussion on the 3rd talk archive page). Mason's book is probably the one I'd trust the most. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Unusually, "Money" was released as a single on 7 May,[73] with "Any Colour You Like" on the B-side (in some countries—notably the UK—Pink Floyd had not released a single since 1968's "Point Me at the Sky")." - consider splitting sentence into two, so that it's clear what's unusual.
  • better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "It was something of a phenomena" - if Mason really said that, it needs sic
  • Google Books has decided I've looked long enough at Povey's book, so I'm unable to check if this is a spelling mistake or not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I checked for you: the book does say that, so I'll leave it with you whether you prefer to sic up the quote or substitute [...] for those 6 words etc. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Would you be able to do that for me? It'd be better done by someone who can still read the quote. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. PL290 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "He praised the mix for other songs, particularly for "The Great Gig in the Sky"—"I tip my hat [...]" - perhaps -> particularly "The Great Gig in the Sky", saying, "I tip my hat [...]"
  • better?] Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Some of the profits were invested in the production of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The members of Pink Floyd were reportedly fans of Monty Python, to the point of interrupting recording sessions to watch Monty Python's Flying Circus." Second sentence we already know and does not need to be restated in Legacy (where it currently breaks the flow anyway).
  • Gone Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "a common comparison is one made between Pink Floyd and Radiohead, specifically their 1997 album OK Computer. Although Robert Christgau commented that the album lacked "soul", calling it "arid" and "ridiculous" and comparing it unfavourably to Pink Floyd,[108] the two albums do however share a common theme: the loss of a creative individual's ability to function in the modern world.[109] Mungolian Jetset's Knut Sævik has mentioned drawing inspiration from the album" - needs reworking to be clear which of the two albums "the album" refers to each time, and whether two groups or two albums are unfavourably compared. Also "however" is superfluous.
  • better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "In addition to its commercial success, The Dark Side of the Moon is arguably Pink Floyd's most popular album among fans and critics" - Are we looking for arguability, or WP:Verifiability? Perhaps this assertion doesn't really add value in the Lead.
  • Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Blockquote used several times for short quotes (only one, two or three lines in length) - WP:MOSQUOTE) states it is for quotes of more than four lines.
  • The MOS is however a guideline, and not policy. I quite like the quotes where they are, I think they add value and shouldn't be changed - WP:IGNORE Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not a huge deal for me personally. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The light band emanating from the prism on the album cover is actually missing one color, Indigo. A normal prism would display a band of Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet." Perhaps too much spelt out? Judicious placement of the sentence nearer the preceding wikilinked word prism might be preferable.
  • I moved the link, and corrected the US spelling. I do think its worth pointing out though, its a curious anomoly not immediately obvious. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Not convinced about the References/Notes/Footnotes/Bibliography structure. Is there a precedent for this? My thoughts are, (a) a footnote is a note at the foot of the page, and hence the Notes are footnotes too; (b) do the Notes really need separating out from the other footnotes?
  • I don't know, it isn't (IIRC) how I originally laid things out, but I do want to keep the written notes separate from the citations, if that makes sense. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure what the value of keeping them separate is, but not a huge deal for me either way. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PL290 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been met. It's good to see an engaging and comprehensive article on this album—great work. PL290 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support igordebraga ≠ 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT The two principle reasons I believe that this should be a Featured Article are that it is well written (excellent grammar, not long-winded, but concise) and that it is extremely thorough and comprehensive. After reading the article, one comes away from the article clearly understanding the inspiration for the album, how the album was made, how incredibly popular the album became. The article offers all this and more. V Schauf (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The Dark Side of the Moon is not only my favorite album of all time, but also one of my favorite Wikipedia pages to read. I cannot think of another album article that can match how much information this one gives, or how well written this one is. I learned a lot from this one, and I hope that many other albums can have articles that reach this calibur of writing. The time for it to become a featured article is long overdue. Krobertj (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - What have you done to address the non-free issues from the last FAC? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Leopold Report

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different (for me, at least): I present the Leopold Report, a highly influential work in the field of wildlife management in US National Parks. Although it's not particularly lengthy, I've scoured the reliable sources to provide the most comprehensive article possible. It was promoted to GA-status in July and recently went through a Peer Review. Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I just peer reviewed this and all of my nitpicks have already been addressed. I thought it was ready for FA when I reviewed it and the few tweaks since have only made it better. Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Arguably the most concise article I have ever read. ceranthor 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comments A very different type of article from the ones I normally read but this was really interesting. A few tweaks though: please explain who Phillip Burnham is. You've written critic but that doesn't tell a reader anything about why he is qualified to criticise the Report. Is he an ecologist? Also, why are all the images down the right-hand side of the page? Isn't it standard to alternate them, right-left-right? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, EA Swyer, thanks for the great suggestions. I've added a brief intro to Burnham's qualifications, as you're quite right that he was given very little context; the sentence now reads: "Historian and author Philip Burnham in particular stated in his 2000 book, Indian Country, God's Country: Native Americans and the National Parks, that although..." I've also alternated the images, although I tend to prefer them in a neat little row. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's not "standard to alternate images left-right"; don't know where that came from. Multiple images can be staggered left-right-left – generally to avoid having a portrait looking out of the page without stranding a lone image on the left of the page – but there's certainly no requirement to. – iridescent 20:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. Burnham bit looks good now. I didn't know it wasn't standard to alternate images; ignore the comment. Do what thou wilt with the images. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• I appreciate the "background" section is only a brief summary, but the jump between the creation of Yellowstone in 1872, and Wilson's creation of the National Park Service in 1916, seems misleading to me. It (to me) has the clear implication that national parks pre-1916 were isolated oddities, and that Wilson created the modern preservation-and-leisure driven park service. In reality, this is a major distortion; Wilson may have given the service its current name, but it was Teddy Roosevelt, years before Wilson, who de facto created the National Park Service (more federal land was set aside as national parks and nature reserves by Roosevelt than by all previous presidents combined, and prior to becoming president it was Roosevelt who pushed through the creation of Yellowstone) – they just weren't administered by a central agency.

• Brief summary is key, yes. ;) I believe that pre-NPS history is less important to the understanding of this topic than the point of your last sentence, which is currently intimated in the article: parks like Yellowstone weren't administered by a central agency until the official creation of the NPS in 1916. If there's a clearer way to say this, however, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• "An estimated 4,309 elk" may be what the source says, but it looks very odd. A number as precise as "4,309" implies precision; if the number isn't known, then "around 4,300" is probably less misleading.

• Fair enough, I evened the number. María (habla conmigo) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The controversy [...] shed a negative light upon the NPS" to me reads quite oddly; what does "shed a negative light upon" mean? There's a big difference between "brought poor or dangerous practices to notice that had previously not been recognized" and "caused some people who didn't understand the issues to think that the NPS were doing something wrong", and this wording could cover either extreme or any point in between. Since this was and is the main binary divide on the popular perception of environmental science, it's something that needs to be clarified as much as possible on an environmental article; was the Special Advisory Board on Wildlife Management convened to address what Udall (and presumably Kennedy) saw as an environmental mismanagement issue, or what he saw as a public relations issue?

• I've tried to clarify this somewhat; one source in particular notes that it was considered a "crisis in public relations", but nowhere does anyone mention that Kennedy had anything to do with the formation of the board. The controversy also obviously stems from the public outlash, which was mentioned in the previous section. María (habla conmigo) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I appreciate it's cited, but "The Leopold Report was the first concrete plan for managing park visitors and ecosystems under unified principles" seems an extremely dubious claim for something written in the 1960s. The claim surely applies to, for example, England & Wales's National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, or the USA's Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and I very strongly suspect that with some digging one could find similar proposals in the US at least as far back as Gifford Pinchot. (Consider the creation of the Grand Canyon Game Preserve in 1906, for example, or even the original creation of Yellowstone, which was explicitly pushed through by the Northern Pacific Railroad as an effort to create a tourist attraction on an under-used section of their route.)

• The source specifically states that the report "represented the first serious attempt to develop a coherent plan for management of visitors and communities of plants and animals under unified principles". Emphasis mine. So, the implication may be that while there were previous systems in place, they weren't as concrete or as "serious". Several other sources say as much, although not as succinctly. María (habla conmigo) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All minor and certainly nothing to oppose over, and I explicitly request Sandy/Karanacs/Raul not to treat this as an oppose when closing this, but there are enough "niggling nitpicks" not to support at this stage. – iridescent 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely new from me. :) I agreed to help out with the South Park featured topic drive, so here I am! I've heard tell of an article that discusses this episode in terms of Cartman's homophobia, but I haven't been able to get my hands on it or even get a solid reference for it. If anyone can get me this article, I would be most grateful. Otherwise, I think I have covered the sources and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - Nice little article (my comments are below).

The lead looks a little small. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you suggest some topics for addition? I thought it adequately summarized the article, but perhaps I was wrong. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the article for this FAC, it just jumps out at me as small compared to the size of the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, size isn't everything...:) Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL.

"developed a concept based on the town of South Park and the four children." They are mentioned in the lead, but not in the body before this. Feels a little abrupt.

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Parker and Stone brought up the idea of a Mr. Hankey episode" it mentions talking poo soon after, but I don't think someone who doesn't know SP would understand.

• Linked. Awadewit (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"which Parker said was one of the main reasons he and Stone decided to sign on with the channel." ref?

• Added. Awadewit (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I will say that I enjoy your prose. Usually at this point in a FAC, I'm commenting on words that should be changed, instead of ideas that should be explained. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"South Park was part of a reaction to the culture wars" - I don't understand this. Was it part of the wars, or did Trey and Stone decide to make it in response to the wars, or ???

• It is part of a general reaction to the culture wars - "part of a reaction to the culture wars". I'm not sure I know how to make this clearer - could you make a suggestion? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"when suddenly he is hit by a beam" - What kind of beam?

• It is not entirely clear - it is alien tech, after all. Laser beam? I'm not sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"an 80-foot satellite dish" - How do you the exact height?

• This has been in the article since I started editing it. I don't remember whether it is in the episode or not. Do you want me to rewatch the episode? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"wrote "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" themselves" - Is "themselves" needed?

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two "originally"s and an "original" close together in the last paragraph of the "Production and release" section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"a phrase he learns from Chef." - Should it be "learned"?

• This is the literary present. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"television to indulge in such humor with The Ren and Stimpy Show" - Should the "with" be an "in"?

• I think "with" is fine. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The para that begins "The episode employs what literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin" uses the same ref four times. That might be too many.

• Changed to single ref. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the info mentioned on the File:CartmanAnalProbeSinga.ogg page in the article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - last paragraph of "Style and themes". Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have that ref? I love the video, and I'd like to see it supported by as much prose as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Google Books. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend grabbing more info from that source, since we're kinda starting a precedent for non-free video. There may be more out there, and I'd like this articles use be ironclad because people will be looking to it as the only (or one of the few) FAs with NF video. With the current text, I'd have a hard time OKing the video's use, if I was doing the image check. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really see any info that can be added. The only other source that mentions this connection doesn't say anything else than the article already has. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• In that case, we'll just never speak of it again, and I'll add my support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking to support Support

I've written a sentence by sentence critique of the lead in the subpage: Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe/F&f's_rehash. Generally speaking, I'd say, you need more material about the episode itself in the lead, either of its background, or of its writing and reception. Reads well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Adopted most of your suggestions. Could you let me know what details you think are missing from the lead? I'm worried about putting too much detail in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little strapped for time this morning, but I feel that the second paragraph of the lead could easily belong to a South Park (series) article. Lead content devoted more to the first episode would do a better job of drawing the reader in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a little. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've now read the article. Very well written, especially the plot summary (which was funny). I've left two more comments (about the Background section) on the subpage. I thought the ending was slightly abrupt. Perhaps a sentence or two about Parker and Stone's response to the criticism might round it out. Changing to support. Congrats on a fine article! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've adopted your other suggestions. Parker and Stone haven't said much about the criticism. I tried to round out the article by having it end on an "up" note. Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Media review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments—

• Consider basing the infobox on the recently promoted FA Starvin' Marvin (South Park)—i.e., remove that long list of episodes, and replace by just next and previous episodes. Also remove the citations from the infobox, as that stuff is cited elsewhere in the article.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 'Jesus vs.' shorts should be in quotes rather than italics.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think more context is needed for certain items in the article. For eg: I had to click on Murphy Brown to find out what that was, and you probably should mention that Tinky Winky relates to the children's show Teletubbies. In the lead sentence, it is a little confusing as to what exactly Comedy Central is (again, compare with "Starvin' Marvin", where it is more clear).

• The source does not provide more context. If I added the context, it would be OR. I think it is clear what Comedy Central is. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is the background section even needed for this article? It doesn't directly relate to this episode, which is understandable as it is a "background" section, but most of the info is reproduced almost verbatim in the parent article, South Park (season 1).

• Since this is the first episode, I think it is particularly important to put it in some cultural context. Also, in my opinion, articles should be able to stand on their own - readers should not have to read the "Season 1" article to get a summary of that crucial info. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there scope for a "Legacy" section, ie a section where the episode is retrospectively analysed? We know that "CGAAP" was received poorly by contemporary reviewers, but how does it hold when you look back? Has anybody compared this episode's ctout animation with the CGI of subsequent episodes? And finally, what is the creators' opinions of it; I know that they are rather dismissive of the initial seasons, have they said anything the pilot in particular?

• I haven't seen anything along this line except the commentary by the creators. They talk about the huge effort they put into it and the difference between it and "Weight Gain 4000" (comments which are in the article). Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Production and release" seems odd to me; how about shifting release info to the reception section and renaming it to "Release and reception"? Looking at other television articles I believe this would be standard format.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Considering the clip seems to only be used for discussing the song, I doubt the video is required. So to necessitate its keeping, how about also using it to discuss the animation?

• Good idea! Added to the fair use rationale and the caption. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Err, the word "Jew" "challeng[es] the boundaries of appropriate language"?! I know what you are trying to say here, but having the word "Jew" alongside "dildo" and "fat ass", you are leaving the sentence open to gross misinterpretation! :P

• "'Jew' (used as an insult)" - How would you do this? It is all so awkward! Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional commentSupport: My issues were resolved at the GA review, but I've noticed almost everything in "style and themes" is about the series itself - pardon if I misinterpreted it, but are they all for South Park at the point of its pilot? If so, it would be better to not say "South Park" constantly throughout the section as it leads you off from the episode and onto the series itself in a hole. The Flash ^{talk} 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the reviews for the first episode actually reviewed the first five shows together, so the comments were about all five episodes - hence South Park. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm...thanks for clearing that up. The Flash ^{talk} 01:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Source comments:
• All links and sources are fine. Kudos on using good quality for a popcult article. No dab problems in main text. The only nitpick is The Gazette link in the reflist. Have you found the accurate source? It might be wise to search AP's archives to see if they've got it since they were the ones who published it. Or an alternative publication who also used the wire news. Preferably not a Gazzette this time. ;) RB88 (T) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Fixed link. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just dropped by and read the reception section. Nice work; a few comments though.

• You jump from past to present tense in the part where the reviewer's comments are stated. The bit about the San Fransisco Chronicle, for instance, is in present tense, while the Houston Chronicle bit is in past tense. As most of the article is written in past tense, it would be better if you'd change it to that tense.

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Link Tom Shales

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comment; wouldn't it be better to use the background section as a sub section in the production section, because the layout you use is very strange compared to other television episode FAs.

• The material isn't really suited to the production of this episode though - it makes much more sense as a general background section. Not all episode articles have to be exactly the same! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back later to review the rest of the article, in the meantime, please consider reviewing one of my FACs, "The Ex-Girlfriend" or "The Revenge". Thank you and good luck.--Music26/11 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd just like to make the observation that the body text have dates formatted mmm dd yyyy, while the references are all dd mmm yyyy. I don't think it's a serious issue as it's WP:MOSNUM compliant in that formats within those two sections are consistent. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to match. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I enlarged one image and had a tinker at the top. Looks well-written. "80-foot" needs a metric conversion. I haven't looked properly at it. Tony (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I added the conversion template, but now the grammar is broken. Before it appropriately read "80-foot" and now it reads "80 feet". Any idea how to fix this? Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I read the whole article and couldn't find any more flaws than what I found in the reception section. I still feel the background section would work better as a production sub section, but that's up to you. One more thing, ref 7 still has a dd mmm yyyy date format.--Music26/11 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Fixed the ref. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Werner Mölders

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is well researched. I am interested in anything that helps me improve the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (1a):Comment I am sorry to say that article's prose is a long way short of Featured Article standard. It looks as though a great deal of excellent research has taken place, and there is no reason why this article should not develop to the required standard. It is not there yet, however. I wonder whether, before nominating this, the nominator checked the FA criteria to see whether the article conformed to these? The following is a sample of points taken from the lead alone:-

• The explanation of the term "flying ace" is inappropriate, given that the term is explained in the immediately previous link.

  Well I don't mind changing it here, but putting in the way it stands now was the outcome of a previous review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Third sentence needs reconstruction, and splitting. I suggest: "Initially rejected by the Luftwaffe because of air-sickness, he became the leading German flying ace of the Spanish Civil War with 14 confirmed aerial victories. He later became the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
• It is a little confusing to read that two different organisations honoured him in a number of different ways, and that "the decision" was revoked in 2005. What exactly does "the decision" refer to?
• There are various problems in the second paragraph.
  • Non sequitur: "As a successor to Adolf Galland and squadron leader of the 3. Staffel (fighter squadron) of Jagdgruppe 88 (fighter group), he flew the Messerschmitt Bf 109."
  • Tortuous sentence: "During World War II he became the first pilot to claim 20 aerial victories earning him the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes), the first fighter pilot to earn the award, only to be shot down and taken prisoner of war one week later."
• Third paragraph
  • Odd phraseology. e.g. "shortly later"
  • Wrong grammar: "Flying as a passenger in a Heinkel He 111 the return flight to Berlin got into a heavy thunderstorm and one of the engines of the aircraft failed."

These are examples. Someone needs to go through the whole article to refine and polish the prose. I am frankly a little surprised that the article has apparently gone through GA, peer review and a MilHist A-class review, and yet these problems are still evident. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Later:I see that the lead section has been more or less completely rewritten, so my earlier points are superseded. However, I found quite a few prose problems with the revised lead:-

• I suggest that the first two sentences are combined, and the language tweaked, to give: "Werner Mölders (18 March 1913 – 22 November 1941) was a German Luftwaffe pilot who became the leading German fighter ace of the Spanish Civil War, and the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
• Second paragraph reads as though the Battle of Britain was part of the Spanish Civil War. Needs to say something like: "After the outbreak of the Second World War, Mölders fought in the Battle of Britain and was the first pilot to claim 40 victories." The jump in the next paragraph to 68 victories in the next sentence is confusing, so perhaps you should say he was the first pilot to claim "in excess of 40 victories."
• "Mölders and the JG 51..." You need to explain what the JG 51 was, thus: "Mölders and his unit, the JG 51,..." done
• My understanding is that Operation Barbarossa began on 22nd June, so "By 22 June 1941, he had 72 aerial victories" is a bit confusing. Does this mean; "By the end of the first day of this operation he had increased his aerial victories total to 72;"? fixed
• Is "banned" the right word to use here? It carries the connotation of punishment. Perhaps "prevented"? Also, the "although" at the beginning of the sentence is redundant and should be removed. fixed
• Suggest you say "...from flying further combat missions...", and delete "as" before Inspector General.fixed
• "He was only 28", especially as a discrete short sentence, carries a strong POV. If you want to mention his age, omit the "only", and weave it in to the previous sentence: "Prevented from flying further combat missions for propaganda reasons, at the age of 28 he was promoted to Oberst, and appointed Inspector General of Fighters." fixed, good suggestion!
• Bring the 22 November date forward, and avoid over-short sentence, thus: "On 22 November 1941, on the flight to Berlin, the Heinkel He 111 in which he was travelling as a passenger encountered a heavy thunderstorm, during which of the aircraft's engines failed. While attempting to land, the Henkel crashed at Breslau, killing Mölders and two others." fixed
• Suggest "each honoured him" fixed
• Not a prose point, but I see you have not used no-break spaces, as recommended by MOS. See WP:NBSP thanks....in progress....

I don't think I will have the time to go through the rest of the prose with the attention I have given to the lead. What a pity the article didn't come to Peer Review. However I'll do my best to check it out and suggest further improvements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking again. The article was peer reviewed please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Werner Mölders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you have fixed most of my new list of lead points. I still think the phrasing at the beginning could be improved, and it still not clear that the Battles of Britain and France were Second World War affairs. I have now read through the "Early life and education" section, and was quite disappointed to find many problems, in a section which I undertand has been subject to "stringent copy editing". Below is a list of these points. I don't like sounding negative, but I can't agree that the prose is yet up to FA standard. I believe it needs a full copyedit from an uninvolved, competent editor who can devote considerable time to getting the prose right. I'd do it myself, but I simply don't have the time.

• Early life and education section
  • The section title is inappropriate, since most of the text is concerned with his early military career. I suggest you retitle it "Childhood, education and early career". done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are numerous untranslated German terms, some linked, others not. This makes reading tedious. In the latter part of the section you start adding English translations, which is helpful. However, I think that some of the German formulations are unnecessary and should be dropped. For example, "Mölders joined the II./Infanterie-Regiment 2..." could become "Molders joined the Second Infantry Regiment..." There are many instances in the section where this could be done; this is, after all, English Wikipedia. Otherwise I sugest you show English translations/equivalents. being done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "a Leutnant of the Reserves " - Why not "A Reserve Leutnant? done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Same sentence: the formation is clumsy, with the semicolon. The sentence should begin "After his father", and the semcolon replaced with a comma. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "From 1919 to 1931, Mölders attended the Grundschule (Elementary school) and "Saldria-Gymnasium" in Brandenburg an der Havel." This reads as though he was attending two schools at the same time. Why are there quotes around "Saldria-Gymnasium"? I also think the repetition of Brandenburg an der Havel is unnecessary. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "...and expressed a desire to become an officer." Specify "an officer in tha armed forces" done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Date range (6 February 1934–31 December 1934) at end of sentence, should be incorporated into the text. It should be made clear what these dates refer to. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "...he suffered continuously from nausea and vomiting" "Continuously" means without interruption or interval. I think you probably mean "continually" ( repeated at regular intervals) done, well spotted JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Overlong, tortuous sentence: "After completing the next phase of his military pilot's training, from 1 January 1935 to 30 June 1935 at the Kampffliegerschule (combat flying school) in Tutow and at the Jagdfliegerschule (fighter pilot school) at Schleißheim near Munich, he received the newly created Pilot's Badge of the Luftwaffe on 21 May 1935." Suggest this is reorganised, and split into two shorter sentences. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Remilitarisation" does not require capitalising. The sentence would read better with the date at the start, thus: "On 7 March 1936, during the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Mölders...." done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mölders met Luise Baldauf, whom he eventually married..." In this case, it is "who", not "whom" you are mistaken: it would be "who married him", but "whom he married"; "he" is the subject, "whom" is the object JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid repetition: "...numerous promotions were handed out, including Mölders' promotion..." done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have struck the oppose, in view of the good work in response to my comments, above, and as I probably won't be able to get round to a detailed study of the rest. The article will make it eventually, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll go through the article and do a copyedit. JN466 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The timeline in the third paragraph of the Early Life section needs attention. We have him beginning training at two different schools on 6 February 1934. Could you have a look? JN466 12:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  fixed, good spot! MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: the content of this article is superb, and well documented. I agree that the English is "sluggish" but it is easily fixed. When JN is done with a copy edit, I'll do a second one, this weekend probably, and that should take care of most of the language issues. I hope we could encourage people whose native language is not English to offer their knowledge to the english encyclopedia. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Update I've completed one round of copyedits, and worked on a few minor content queries with MisterBee1966. The language should be adequate now; Auntieruth is doing further work on it to polish it further. JN466 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)