Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Toolbox Checklinks Dablinks

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the prior FAC issues have been resolved.

The prior FAC concluded with the following unresolved isssues:

• http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/spas-gyms/27760/spa-at-trump was questioned as a WP:RS because Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) believed it to be a "free" tourist publication designed to sell ads.
  • I have found that it is not a free publication. See This TOLondon and this TONY
• http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/q1-tower-worlds-tallest-residential-building.html was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
  • I have swapped it out for another ref.
• http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
  • Raime (talk · contribs) has verified that this source is WP:RS because it is backed up by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, according to archived conversation.
• The infobox map (File:Map of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) location along the Chicago River.png) was questioned as the only issue in the image review by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) because OpenStreetMap is a wiki.
  • I have presented Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps as justification of wikipedia's endorsement of this map source.
    • The only respondent on this issue was Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) who supported it's inclusion.

I look forward to addressing new concerns as they arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article has undergone these changes since the last FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not a lot of changes. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There was not much unresolved with the last FAC. Half of the problem with the last FAC was responses awaited on the issues above. The FAC essentially timed out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Post Oak Mall

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. It is well written, as comprehensive as possible from available, high-quality reliable sources, very well researched, neutral, and stable. It follows all applicable style guides, and uses a proper, consistent citation style. Currently a good article, it has been through a second peer review since its GAN passed and all issues from it have been addressed and it is appropriately illustrated with free and public domain works. All of the images have the appropriate ALT text (though it should be noted that the shopping infobox in use does not support it, so while it is in the article, it is not working). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No dab links or dead external links, and dates are Month Day, Year throughout. (postoakmall.com is listed green twice in the link checker, but works for me.) Also put in a edit request for the box. --an odd name 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/8895.html a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.secinfo.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

SEC Info is a database of the SEC's EDGAR database that has been operated by Finnegan O'Malley & Company since 1997. Its a recognized repository for public access to that database of all SEC filings that are generally only available through a very limited subscriber system.[1] I removed the CinemaTour one. It was only added because a local editor was insistent that there was never a movie theater at the mall, despite the much more reliable source saying there was and those with better memories remembering it as well :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you use EDGAR itself as the source? These filings are there and SEC filings are publicly accessible. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh...never realized that. *blush* Updated the article to use the original SEC filing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support It appears as though the peer reviews have done their job. I could not find any pressing issues with the wording that would require immediate changes, and the article is thorough, stable, and well-sourced. I have to admit that reading an article on a mall is not my cup of tea, but there seem to be no issues that keep it from meeting FA criteria. Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment regarding File:Post Oak Mall - Aerial View.jpg: The Texas Public Information Act addresses the ability of the public to access information compiled, assembled, etc. by the government in the course of official business. It does appear to address the issue of copyright; indeed, that word (copyright) is mentioned only once (Sec.A552.228(b)(3)) and is used in a way that implies its retention. Making a work accessible does not, in and of itself, release its rights (think of a book in a public library; anyone can access it, but that doesn't mean the copyright is released). What is the basis for claiming this to be PD? The source site's Conditions and Use Policy says " Information and/or images which may not be copied without permission include ... third party applications". The image summary credits the author as "Land Info Worldwide Mapping"; wouldn't that be a third party? The page also carries the general disclaimer "© 2009 City of College Station. All Rights Reserved." This would not be expected to appear on a Texas government site if the Public Information Act actually released government copyright, no? Эlcobbola _talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can only guess when I added it that I thought its being released under the PIA and its being freely accessible information would make it public domain. Plus, the site contradicts itself on its disclaimer[2] "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of College Station website is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of College Station's permission. We request only that the City of College Station be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of College Station, as appropriate. " while having a copyright notice at the bottom of every page. *head smack* If this is incorrect, I can remove it or add the appropriate FUR if it would fall under fair use? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a building still in existence, it would not pass NFCC#1, as a free equivalent could be created (e.g. a federal satellite could image it, a Wikipedian with a plane could photograph it, etc.) - so fair use is out. The contradiction is indeed bizarre, but the image should not be used without clear license information. To retain the image (possibly), my suggestion would be to contact the city to inquire about the status and then, if it is indeed PD, file the city's response with OTRS. Absent an OTRS tag, however, it should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There be many things I do for Wikipedia, but leaning out a plane is not one of them ;-) For now, I've removed and I'll contact the city to find out for sure. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's actually currently an article at FAC using an image taken by a Wikipedian with a plane. What is it they say, though; I prefer terra firma, the firma the better? If the city responds positively, let me know and I can process the OTRS permission. Otherwise, the removal resolves the concern. Эlcobbola _talk 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is hardly comprehensive. The history section does not make mention of anything between 1985 and 2004, there is virtually no information on the financial and economic performance of the mall over the years, impact on the community is largely ignored after information on the initial opening of the mall, there is no information on any executives that operated the mall over the years, no information on how mall initiatives made good econmic times better or attempted to cope with more difficult economic times. I really do not see how an article on a shopping mall could ever be made comprehensive without actually researching the corporate records of the institution itself and digging deep into the paper/microfilm archives of the surrounding communities as opposed to just using what articles and resources are available on the Internet. This is an esoteric subject, so this kind of deep research is necessary to overcome a lack of information in the secondary literature. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, I spent WEEKS at our local libraries going through the microfiche files for our local paper and digging through every local historical book that mentioned the mall. There IS no other actual relevant information to state. The bulk of the news stories between 85 and 2004 were event announcements, sales, etc. There were no other reports found discussing anything major, not even most of the store closings/openings were considered news worthy and this is the only mall of that size in this county. Every scrap of reliably sourcable financial and economic information that was available has been incorporated. Only 16 of its references are online ones, and of those, several are just online copies of the offline resources used. What executives, the manager? If you can find such records, please do so. Claiming it is not comprehensive without providing actual proof that something is lacking is rather insulting. This is not a huge mall that has a ton of information about "initiatives" (not that they have done many), "executives" etc. What difficult economic times? You mean right now? The problems affecting many parts of the country have really not hit this area that much, which has yet to see any real estate depression, major economical downturn, etc. Corporate records that are not publicly available are also not usable as sources and if you can produce some, go ahead. This is not an esoteric subject nor is Wikipedia the platform for publishing personal research. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was an overly indignant respose, and all it did was prove my salient points. If not enough sources exist to create a comprehensive article on a subject, then maybe it is not yet deserving of being featured. I am under no burden to provide sources; that is your job. If You cannot fill in the major gaps in the history and financial performance of the mall over the past several decades that is not on me. The comprehensiveness requirement is not waived just because there are not enough sources. I do appreciate the work you appear to have put into this, but there is no call to get huffy when I call you out on only using online sources when they represent all but four of the references listed in the article. I believe you that you did a lot of digging in local archives as well, but I could only comment based on what was in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 10 non-online sources, so I don't get where your count is. A major gap in history indicates that there was something noteworthy that actually happened. You are presuming there was, which would indicate you have knowledge there is so it is to you to actually demonstrate this knowledge, not claim the article is not worthy of being featured because of a mythical belief that there "must" be something more. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Count for yourself how many of the sources have hyperlinks to web sources. I am sure you came across the newspaper articles in the original print as well, which is why you consider the count different, but an observer of the article who has no idea what your research methodologies were is naturally going to assume you did nearly all your research online. As for the historical gap, your claim that lack of newspaper coverage is prima facie evidence that nothing important happened is not particularly compelling. All this proves is that interest in what occurred at the mall was low in the community, and that implies this shopping mall may not even deserve an article in the first place. Now, I am not going that far in my own arguments, but no one who comes to this article expecting it to be among wikipedia's best if it were promoted to FA is going to believe that nothing important happened in those fifteen years, and you will not be there to tell each and every one of them that you went through the entire local newspaper archive and found no information. That is a disconnect in comprehensiveness I feel we cannot allow. Things happened at that mall in fifteen years, maybe even things of great import for the future direction of the facility, but just because this information is apparently locked in unavailable corporate records does not waive the FA requirement. As for my other point, a mall's entire purpose is to promote commerce, so if we are missing information on the financial impact of the mall on the community (you have some good material here, just not comprehensive) and/or the financial information on the mall itself, then we are missing vital information for understanding the insitution. Indrian (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying I should remove the links to the Eagle just because it, like almost any other worthy newspaper, actually puts its articles online? That is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such a presumption, that's not my problem, nor do I care. There are, in fact, FAs that do have all online sources, but it is neither here nor there. You are welcome to come to the BCS area and look at the three decades worth of newspaper articles yourself to see if anything important happened. Our library has every last issue archived and offers free printing (a godsend!). I've already done so and nothing did. Claiming it should not be featured because there is no information is also not in line with FAC. The FAC does not say "must cover every detail even if it doesn't exist". You can't just make up stuff to fluff out an article. If it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Yes, lots happened at the mall, but nothing of importance enough to actually note anywhere. It was robbed a few times, but that's not relevant content. What information is missing on its economical impact per you? How should it be more comprehensive? You are only offering vague, unsupported complaints that would be impossible for anyone to every meet and that are far above and beyond any of the criteria for being featured. The mall's financial impact IS detailed, it is there, per Wikipedia guidelines. There are no corporate records to refer to. You can't presume that there "must" and claim therefore the article is not comprehensive. WP:V works both ways. If you are going to claim that more information is available, prove it. Otherwise, this seems like a rather unhelpful and pointy oppose based on your idea of what featured articles should be versus the actual criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you insist on taking my statements out of the context of our entire conversation I am going to make one honest attempt to set the record straight. If you don't understand after this, I wash my hands of it. When I first opposed the article, I indicated that deep archive research was necessary and appeared not to have been done. This assumption was based on the fact that only four sources did not have hyperlinks indicated a reliance on the Internet. You got rather irritated by this assumption and got rather snarky about the fact that you did not lots and lots of archival research. I indicated that I appreciated the work and explained my initial confusion. You got slightly huffy again through indicating my count of Internet sources was wrong. I expalined where an observer would draw the same conclusion I did. Never did I question the inclusion of hyperlinks nor the quality of the sources presented and I long before acknowledged that my original assumption about an overreliance on the Internet was wrong. I am quite shocked we are still discussing that particular point.

Now to the actual point at hand, namely a lack of comprehensiveness. I cannot tell you what happened at the mall between 1985 and 2004 because I am not an expert in this topic nor have I researched it. I wish I could tell you exactly what facts were missing from that period to help you fix this flaw, but I can only point out the deficiency. I can tell you that only by researching the corporate archives of the mall or the developer and/or interviewing people involved with the mall can this deficiency be cured. If an examination of those records showed that nothing of interest happened in fifteen years (unheard of in ANY subject I have ever researched myself), then I would agree nothing more could be done. If you are unable to acquire this material or if you believe it would constitute original research on wikipedia that really does not matter for the FA requirement that a topic be covered comprehensively. You are assuming nothing happened without consulting relevant sources, which is not a good research technique. I do think you have done a remarkable job finding information on this topic and have obviously put in a lot of hard work and do not consider this lack of information a slight on you personally at all. Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Bay

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on a fairly rare British horse breed has gone through GA and PR, as well as being looked over by other equine editors and having a prose review by Malleus. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria, and I look forward to any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WIkiProject Equine members reviewed this article and support its FA nimonation. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Minor stuff, probably not even for you to worry about.

• No dabs or dead externals, and dates look nice and consistent.
• Images all have alt text that looks good. Does the navbox image really need an alt? (It seems purely decorative.)

• I'm not sure about the navbox image - I didn't write the alt text for it, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between decorative and non. If the alt text should be removed, please let me know and I will do this.

• The infobox isn't bad, except it's repetitive in the last third: can't we just link the organization names instead of saying "Breed standards" thrice? It also uses colons after attribute names ("Distinguishing features:", "Country of origin:", ...), which seem redundant.

• This has never come up before in FACs, and I'm not really sure how to change the breed standards part. IMO, the colons aren't redundant, but they can be removed if other reviewers agree (and again, this hasn't come up before).

• It's part of the standard horse infobox, Dana is stuck with it until we come up with a more elegant solution across the infobox in general (for all 350 horse breed articles, :-P) , part of the problem is multiple nations have different breed standards, the other part is that the horse infobox was derived from the dog breeds one, which operates a bit differently... Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are the book titles in the "Notes" section all necessary or WikiProject standard? Dent, for example, seems to unambiguously be the Cleveland Bay Horses book in "References".

• This is my prefered referencing style, and has been considered OK for other horse breed FAs. It is the referencing style generally used in the Equine WP, although not a written guideline.

• Agreed, it's universal format in the horse breed FAs. Note in particular Thoroughbred. Once we get huge articles with massive numbers of footnotes and sources, it becomes a necessity. The need isn't as strong in shorter articles like this one, but in theory they could get there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replies interspersed above, thanks for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I'm a WikiProject Equine member, but I haven't done any serious work on this article (I may have done some small edits in the past, I can't remember.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xenogears Original Soundtrack

Nominator(s): Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the criteria. It covers all aspects of the soundtrack's creation and also touches on broad subjects ranging from the original game to Bulgarian choirs and comparisons with Celine Dion. Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Oppose on 1c by an odd name—various points.

• Images need alt text.
  • The Mitsuda alt could probably be expanded further (see WP:ALT#Portraits), but good alt text otherwise. --an odd name 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• The music4games link is dead (gives a short error message); otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
  • I didn't say you had to change all the dates to Month Day, Year, but that works as well. (It also blends nicely with the article's Month Day, Year style.) Dates throughout look good. --an odd name 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• 1c issues (verifiability etc.):
  • What makes Square Enix Music Online a high-quality reliable source? The site's "About Us" page doesn't convince me much—the "We're Hiring!" page actually un-convinces me ("Experience isn't required, but passion is essential!")—and it's being used for interviews with living people like Yasunori Mitsuda.
    • Per PresN at the wikiproject discussion, the submissions guidelines cover reliability for SEMO for me. I'm not sure if SEMO is high-quality for this article—I wish I saw some book or magazine references either way—but I'll let others decide that level. --an odd name 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Same question with ref 1 and its source site "Noisycroak". They both need to be HQ reliable. Never heard of either one until now, and (except for a list of editors on the former) I see nothing to go by. I am *clears throat* glad to see Bayonetta on their front page, but that doesn't excuse 1c for me, no no. (added on 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
• From the second image's page: "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is."—I loathe seeing text like this on non-free use rationales, because it is irrelevant to whether the image can be used on the English WP. Usage by many places doesn't excuse copyright violation, but it does make the lawyers look for more targets. I've removed it there. (I'm not saying the image itself is a copyvio.)
• "the first ending song to ever appear in a game developed by Square"—as in the first ending theme in a Square game with sung lyrics? (There's been numerous ending themes in Square games before then, so I'm guessing that.)
• For the next time you submit an article (this or any other), consider peer review or an A-class assessment from the WikiProject to make sure you're close to the criteria before nomination, even if you think so. Good Article doesn't mean much here—its criteria are lower and the reviewers fewer (and stretched thin), so both fundamental and FA-level problems slip past. (added on 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed all these points. For the sources, I have opened a discussion at the relevant wikiproject's talk page to see what the experts think: link. Note that there has been precedents of Square Enix Music Online being accepted in featured lists -- see List of Kingdom Hearts media and List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. Kariteh (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added a bit from Chris Kohler's Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life to the article to have a book reference. As for Original Sound Version, it's a direct translation of the Noisycroak interview but I guess the link could be replaced with the original source. Noisycroak is a sound design company headed by Hideki Sakamoto, a video game composer who worked on critically-acclaimed titles. The clients of the company are well-known video game companies.[3][4] Kariteh (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough for me. I've struck the oppose-lean; as with SEMO, I'll let others decide if Noisy and OSV are "high-quality" enough. --an odd name 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Drinker Cope

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Imagine, if you will, a time when white men with lots of money and facial hair traveled the country and ruined their health, all for the love of some old rocks? Such was the life of Edward Drinker Cope, a brilliant and occasionally arrogant man of science who discovered literally thousands of new species. His personal feud with one Othniel Charles Marsh resulted in the greatest expansion of American paleontology ever: the entire United States wasn't big enough for the two of them. Read on, chaps. The article recently went through a pretty thorough peer review, and I believe it meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links, and ref dates look consistent. Cool.
• Alt text looks good. Given the length of some of them, I think the text of the handwriting with the whale could be added to its alt (see WP:ALT#Text).

--an odd name 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I've added to the alt text of the handwriting with the actual words per WP:ALT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment regarding File:Joda canidae cope1884.jpg: copyright term of p.m.a. +70 is for unpublished works. As this is a published work, it should be using a publication-based license tag (e.g. {{PD-US}}). Эlcobbola _talk 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed, sorry, can't believe I missed that one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ts ts. Von Dir bin ich so enttäuscht, Herr Fuchs. :) Эlcobbola _talk 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support I've made a handful of changes to the prose to make it a bit more readable; they should probably be checked to ensure I haven't changed any meanings or misunderstood anything. All in all it's an interesting article, but it needs some work on the prose, the structure, and in some places perhaps a little more detail. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Cope's financial fortunes soured after failed mining ventures in the 1880s, and was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection": awkward phrasing, it sounds like Cope sold his fossils because he was doing well financially.

• The sentence still reads strangely, I think the problem is with the word "soared". How about something like "In the 1880s Cope invested in mining to support his work. Though initially profitable, the mines stopped producing in 1886 and Cope was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection"? It's a bit clunkier, but I think clearer. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The word in question is "soured", not "soared". Is the issue just a misread, mayhaps? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I could have sworn that said "soared" last time I looked. Long day. Oh well it's not the first time I've made a fool of myself and won't be the last :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• On the second occurrence of "Society of Friends" it is mentioned in parenthesis that it is associated with the Quakers; this should be done on the first occurrence.
• It might be worth using Template:Inflation for the monetary figures to give the reader a rough idea of how much it would be today.
• "but in letters to his father later on in the war": what war? This comes out of nowhere.
• "Edward considered working in the South to assist freed African-Americans" is this the American south or south Europe? It's not clear especially given that the title of the section is European travels
• When letters are burned, the implication is that they no longer exist so "Many of Edward's journals and letters from the time period do not exist, for he burned them upon his return from his European" could be simplified to "Edward burned many of his journals and letters from the time period upon his return from his European". Also what does "the time period" refer to? Just his travels through Europe? Would it make more sense to put this sentence at the end of the section as a way of rounding it off rather than at the start of the second paragraph? As it is, the narrative jumps around a bit. The same is true for much of the section as after Cole burns his journals at the end of his travels we are told of the possible reasons he left.
• "Though Marsh had two university degrees in comparison to Edward's lack of formal schooling past sixteen, Edward at the age of twenty-three had published 37 scientific papers in comparison to Marsh's two published works" a bit long-winded and there's some repetition.
• When it is mentioned that Marsh and Cope initially seemed to be friends, it might be worth reminding the reader that they would later become rivals.
• I think the reader is left wondering for too long how the "feud" originated, especially since it is mentioned that Marsh tried to damage Cope's reputation before their disagreement is mentioned or even explained. The implication of mentioning Cope's prolific output (especially when comparing it to that of Marsh) is that it was professional jealousy, and I was surprised to learn that it was because Marsh rubbished Cope.

• It is a tricky situation to deal with, perhaps a line could be added explaining that the rivalry stemmed from Marsh showing Cope up one time, but I'll defer to your judgement.

• When Marsh is mentioned I think it would be helpful to explain why his friendship with Cope is important. What was he studying at university, would he later become a prominent palaeontologist?
• It feels like in places there are details missing, for example why did Cole stop his cave visits? Was it because he no longer had time or did something in particular put Cope off?</ref> Oh well, if it’s not explained nothing more can be said about it. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Could you explain what he was looking for when "In the autumn of 1871 Cope headed farther west to the fossil fields of Kansas", or was it simply any fossils he could find?
• "he maintained this pattern from 1871-1879": including the break downs from exhaustion? This could do with a little more explanation (even just something along the lines of "he ventured into the desert every summer and wrote up his findings in the winter from 1871 to 1879").
• A note about why Thomas Henry Huxley is significant would be useful; it could be as little as saying "…little impact on anyone save palaeontologist Thomas Henry Huxley" so readers know he was relevant.
• "Cope's relations with Marsh turned into a competition for bones between the two, known today as the Bone Wars": repetition of "bone", would "fossil" suffice on the first occurrence? Of course, fossils doesn't refer exclusively to bones, so I don't object too much to this repetition.
• "While Lakes sent Marsh some 1,500 pounds of bone, he also sent Cope some of his found specimens": "some of his found specimens" is awkward.
• "one of the most recognizable dinosaur recreations of the time period": awkward phrasing again, is "period" necessary?
• The last sentence of the Bone Wars section seems tagged on as an afterthought, can it be linked back to Marsh's position as chief palaeontologist?
• "[Marsh's] position at Yale meant he had guaranteed access…": what position at Yale? This is the first time it is mentioned.
• Unless it was proven, I'd recommend adding "alleged" before misallocation to the following: "No congressional hearing was created to investigate the misallocation of funds".
• Was Marsh removed from his position with the Survey as a result of Cope's actions or for some other reason?
• "[Cope's] wife cared for him when she herself was not ill": did she return to be with Cope or did he go to here? Was she often ill? Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed most of your points above, adding bits to clarify and whatnot. I've rearranged the European travels section to two paragraphs, hopefully the flow is more logical and clear now. I've also tried to elaborate on some of the questions you had; as to why he never went cave-trekking again, Osborn only mentions it and doesn't give any clues; I suspect it's simply because Cope's attentions wavered, but there's no elaboration either way. As to the mentions of Marsh... they really can't be crammed in elsewhere, but I think it's still important to have them outside the Bone Wars section (because the Bone Wars really focuses on 1877-1892, although the wider feud lasted until the death of Cope.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, it looks like you got everything. The only outstanding issue is the first point, but it's pretty minor so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Oct/msg00196.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I've replaced with citation to original AP story. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because I believe it covers its subject fully and meets the standard required to be included amongst the set of featured. It is a companion to the featured articles City and South London Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway. DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments 1b/c: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the status of Capital Transport as a vanity publisher, due to their website, their lack of an editorial or submissions policy, and Rose being acknowledged in World Cat as the publisher for "Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4." The impact of sourcing an article so significantly from sources published by a vanity publisher would be to undermine its status in terms of 1b/c.

Although most of the books in the references list are published by Capital Transport, the company is not a vanity publisher, but a small specialist publisher on transport subjects - particularly those in London. A number of the books used for the article are published in association with the London Transport Museum (Horne's The Bakerloo Line - An Illustrated History, Day and Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Connor's London's Disused Underground Stations) and they are all sold by the museum's shop and in larger bookshops with specialist transport sections (for example, Waterstone's in Piccadilly). I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the museum and Waterstone's would only be selling these titles if they were considered to be good quality works.--DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about a source reliance stemming from Capital Transport publications separate to the status of the publisher. What other monographs of the tube system exist? Journal Articles from history of technology and science / engineering?

I don't think the fact that they have the same publisher has any particular relevance to the coverage of the subject matter within the books themselves. There have been many books published on the London Underground - Wolmar lists nearly fifty which he used as source materials for his book which covers the whole system, including a couple of the others used directly here. The books used are all recent editions and are effectively a distillation of the primary and secondary sources available to the authors. With regards to technological/engineering issues, I have tried to avoid including much on these matters except in the construction section and have provided wiki-links to relevant articles on tunnelling shields, caissons, etc. which cover these subjects in more detail. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that the extensive use of the London Gazette indicates that a High Quality Reliable Source may not have been used to establish the narrative / weighting of the article; and subsequently sections of the Gazette have been cherry picked to establish a historical narrative that may be substantially Original Research, ie "With the extension to Paddington still under construction, the LER published a bill in November 1911 for the continuation to Queen's Park.[80] => [80] ^ London Gazette: no. 28552, pp. 8615–8620, 21 November 1911. Retrieved on 2009-11-07." Some of these uses are clear, but in some the passing of an act is being used to imply that substantive things happened in the real world.

In most cases the London Gazette references are used to provide a direct primary source link to the actual bill that Badsey Ellis has referred to in his book as he has generally referred to the actual primary documents themselves and describes the planned route and station locations in his narrative. In the specific example above, ref [80] is not provided to support the introductory "With the extension to Paddington still under construction," bit, just the date of the bill's introduction. The fact that the extension to Paddington was under construction at the time is covered by ref [76] and ref [55] in the last paragraph of the previous section which states that construction began in August 1911 and was completed with the opening of the station in December 1913. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could satisfy these concerns are groundless, it would be wonderful. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

• No dab links or dead external links. Double-check that the five galegroup Times links work (they require registration so I can't).
  • Access to the Times links on infotrac is often available via membership of local public libraries in the UK.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text: The large images all have some, but the bottom navbox and the images that make up the diagram in section "Opening" don't have it. The diagram's images need alts because they aren't purely decorative and give more info on the represented stops.
  • Not sure this is going to be possible without a complete rewrite of the BSicon templates which is unlikely to happen easily or soon. The diagram is a visual representation of what's in the text anyway and I am not sure that it would be very useful to an unsighted reader as I expect that a screen reader will read left to right across a row rather than up down. I will see if there is a way to make a screen reader skip this diagram. --DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Technically possible, but in reality impractical. The map is created by WP:ROUTE which uses many icon images to comprise the whole map. Forcing alt description text into the diagram means that you need to input each desciption for each icon, in the case of Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, you'll have to repeat the same text >50 times. Ultimately the ineffectiveness to display a proper alt text from WP:ROUTE diagram shouldn't challenge the qualificaition of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, adding alt text is both possible and practical, and I've demonstrated this for the diagram in question; please see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template #Alt text in route diagrams. This shouldn't require any change to Baker Street and Waterloo Railway or to {{BS&WR route map}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've dug into the navbox to add alt text for the image there --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Use a consistent style for ref dates. Compare e.g. refs 81 and 88. Consider using one format for all dates in citations.
  • I think 88 and 89 were different because they were copied over from one of the companion articles. Changed all retrieved dates to full UK style date.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have fixed many of the alt text issues noted in the previous comment by editing and adding alt text to {{Bakerloo line navbox}} and by adding alt text to {{Rail-interchange}}. However, the diagram at the start of the Opening section still generates dozens of images that lack alt text. This diagram is generated by {{BS&WR route map}}, which uses {{BS3}}, which in turn uses {{BS-overlap}} to generate the problematic images. {{BS-overlap}} uses {{Superimpose}} to generate the image, but neglects to pass the |base_alt= parameter to {{Superimpose}} so the images are displayed without alt text. Can you please fix this? {{BS-overlap}} is undocumented, and {{BS3}}'s documentation is quite cryptic, so I'm reluctant to charge in and fix this stuff myself. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like the diagram's alt text will be fixed at the template level; see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template #Alt text in route diagrams. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• This ref http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html ... is it out of copyright? In other words, are we linking to a copyright violation here?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead page for the site here states that the images are used with permission of the London Transport Museum.
• As the map was produced for the London Transport Executive, which was in public ownership as part of the nationalised British Transport Commission, it is arguable that the image would be covered by Crown Copyright much as an Ordnance Survey Map would be. For a map published in 1949, this would have expired in 1999.--DavidCane (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Winter War

Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?

• Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?

• A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment—Overall a fine article on an obscure (for most of the world) conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Qwest Field

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is one of the best stadium articles I have seen. Specifically, I like how the balance between construction and different types of events has turned out. I am also happy with the images. With so many edits, I am of course biased and would love any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be blaming any mistakes on people working on the page before me ;). This is great: Seeing even more things getting fixed is awesome! (13 edits from three different editors in only a couple of hours. Thanks and nice work.) Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Retart, previous nom, images and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.soundersfc.com/media-library/Videos/Features/2009/03-March/090312-Public-Stadium-Authority.aspx a reliable source?

The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [5]) Current work with HLN (TV channel) and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.

I'll leave this one in for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment very close to supporting per my comments on the previous nom. However, while the reference mentioned above is perfectly suitable for uses a and b (non-controversial, relevant and unlikely to be covered by third-party sources), a secondary source should be used for the claim that Qwest Field was the first stadium to use LED signage. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I can't find info on the "crown" anywhere else (too boring?). I removed the LED line since it is trivial and a claim not supported by other sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note, citations need cleanup, see my sample edits. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS and incorrect names on publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• How did they move (once) in two different years, and not play there until the year later?

The Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium during the new stadium's construction in 2000 and 2001. Their first game at the new facility was a 28–10 preseason loss to the Indianapolis Colts on August 11, 2002.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2001 season ended on January 6, 2002. They didn't take the field again until the '02 preseason. I'll add "seasons" to '00 and '01. They moved from the Kingdome so I changed it to "played at".Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• A great article. Read the article, and liked what I read. Didn't go over the minutiae of it, but if others who do find that here all is well, then I support the promotion of this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Supported this before the restart, but I'm concerned about Tony's repeated comments that a third-party copy-edit was needed. Has copy-editing been done yet? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not "independent" as he mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is fairly complete. The article is well referenced, suited with several images, sections, etc. Well covered. BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eubulides' alt text clearance moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links (after a quick edit) or dead external links, and (after another quick edit) ref dates are consistent ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial). Cool. --an odd name 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Review here. Great article, nice going :) ResMar 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Nice to see you back at FAC after a really long break (since Mt Garibaldi). I'll review this article later; I'm putting it on my watchlist. ceranthor 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent article. Seems to meet FA criteria. Himalayan 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: significant 2c errors leading to non-verifiability. Works not cited (cite web used incorrectly, conference titles and journal titles not indicated, volumes, issues not indicated, chapters not cited as chapters books not indicated; consistent misattribution of publishers to university departments). Titles misspelt. Fundamental consistency errors: Mixture of bracket and footnote citation eg from body text: [Ben Edwards and James Russell (2000; Geological Society of America Bulletin)] Minor 2c errors: Author ordering unusual and inconsistent (C.R., Bacon? Initialism last name?); ISSNs missing; Cambridge, UK given as Cambridge, England; missing locations. I fixed the first few but then started to run into more and more mis-use of templates.

These kind of error indicates that a broad Full Text on Net search has been conducted, but that some scholarly resources that should have been used may not have been located. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - need verifiable sources per WP:IUP (these are both derivatives of File:Northwest-relief.jpg, whose source - USGS data - is inadequate).
  • File:Tuya Butte.jpg is a derivative of File:Laketuya.jpg, for which Mark C. Beere is indicated as the author. File:Tuya Butte.jpg should not be crediting "Randymaws" as the author, as s/he merely created a derivative. This may be a moot point, however, as the source of the original (here - note that the original image has a deadlink) says nothing about this image being in the public domain. What is the basis for that claim? The source's parent page explicitly claims that all rights are reserved.
  • File:NCVP map.png, File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - what is the source of activity/size/location/etc. data? Эlcobbola _talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of these images are based on existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references. BT (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Tusk, Elcobbola knows his image copyrights. I suggest you just deal with his concerns. I'm willing to help if you need more images. — Ceranthor , — (continues after insertion below.)

I've struck the centre bullet, as the (copyvio) images have been deleted. Please add the necessary data source information ("existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references") to the image summaries. Эlcobbola _talk 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright good enough. BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added sources to all three images. BT (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The source issue for File:Northwest-relief.jpg still needs to be sorted out, as File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png are derivatives thereof. Эlcobbola _talk 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I let User:Qyd know about this issue because he is the one that uploaded the image. I'll look around to see if I can find the image in any online USGS data. BT (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose review on the way, from reading the lead,

• At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province, including Hoodoo Mountain in the Boundary Ranges, the Mount Edziza volcanic complex on the Tahltan Highland, and the Level Mountain Range on the Nahlin Plateau. - any active? ceranthor 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That is mentioned further in the article..... BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (USGS isn't going to be known by most folks even in the US)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. BT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Qayen earthquake

Nominator(s): ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fully comprehensive and equally engaging account of this earthquake. Since it passed GA in February, I've been steadily improving it. Malleus and Ottava both looked over the prose and made some comments, so I feel that the article is now ready to become an FA. ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text, images, dabs clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.wfn.org/1997/05/msg00099.html

    Worldwide Faith News has been around since 1986. Professional journalists contribute to it. See this.

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219182609.htm

    See this?

  • http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0705/S00192.htm

    That's a copy of UN press release. I couldn't find it anywhere else reliable.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded to comments. ceranthor 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally you show reliablity by outside use of the site by reliable sources, so the links to information from the site itself is not as good as having a reliable news site/etc. use it. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry for the delay, I"ve been sick) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceranthor, when citing to a press release, it helps to discuss the text cited and explain why it's the best source for the text, or why another source can't be found, or how that source is used and whether it's biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have time to do anything else today, but ScienceDaily is highly reliable. I think this provides enough support. I will try to finish these concerns tomorrow. ceranthor 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, see the results just for the opening of WFN.

The UN story is actually supported by a UN source - wow. I feel incredibly stupid. I think these have all been resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left these two others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Firm Oppose This article really has no business being here. This is my fourth review of the article. It seems that whatever specific examples I provide, are corrected, but the authors don't bother to even eyeball the rest of the article for similar errors! Here are just two (symptomatic) issues in paragraph 1, Section 1:

• (Grammar issue:) "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979, magnitudes of 7.3 M_w, 7.2 M_s, and 7.7 M_e were recorded, and a Mercalli scale intensity of X, or disastrous, was assigned to the worst-hit area.^[1]
  • After first appositive, "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979," the reader expects, "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 M_w, 7.2 M_s, and 7.7 M_e ..." instead you go into passive voice and the reader is no longer sure of the (grammatical) subject.
• "(the epicenter is) close to the sparsely populated mountainous border with Afghanistan."
  • (Clarity issue) Since you are talking about a sparsely populated border, you likely mean "border region." However, a border region is only vaguely defined, so what does "close to a border region" mean? How close? Why is it not in the border region? In such situations, it is better to simply say "close to the border" (i.e. without the "sparsely populated") or "in the sparsely populated border region." Or if the border region is a province, you could say "close to the XYZ border province."
  • (Coherence issue) Besides, why do we need "sparsely populated?" In other words, don't introduce something ("sparsely populated") before it is really needed in the text; it throws the reader off.

As the examples suggest, the problem is not one of grammar alone; there are outstanding clarity and coherence issues. The reader is nonplussed at many turns. There are redlinks for technical jargon; how do those help if you don't also give us accompanying explanations, or at least some hints. Copyediting alone is not going to cut it. You need to have the article peer-reviewed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Fowler, I think you're nitpicking here. I am completely willing to resolve your concerns, but I don't think they're worth opposing over. Karanacs, the co-director of FAC, said "she believed the prose now met the criteria". I really think you're here to help, but are starting to just nitpick here. ceranthor 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult my reviewing by describing it as nitpicking. "Nitpick" (especially in its nominalized version, though you haven't employed it) is the latest weapon in the armament of the less than prepared nominators. When I have time later in the day, I will go through the article one more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I've been preparing the article steadily since it passed GA in February. I don't think it's ill prepared. It also had 7 supports the last time around, if you count hamiltonstone's. ceranthor 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - reposting support. I don't see any changes that have done enough to merit not supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Meets the criteria by and large. No major issues that I can see. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Criterion 1a. I found found the article engaging and well-written. I think the Science Daily source is reliable; they say the article was "adapted from materials provided by the University of Colorado" and I see no reason not to believe this. Thanks for an interesting contribution. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you. ceranthor 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Only reviewed criteria 1a. A comment such as "This article really has no business being here," is really uncalled for Fowler. Especially considering the amount of supports the article has received. If you are still under the impression that the article is so poor then why not go ahead and give a copy-edit? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ceranthor 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to see if you can obtain some free images. Shame we have none of the earthquake. Have you checked out USAID for possible photos and more information on relief efforts? Himalayan 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit - I've looked around and haven't found anything, unfortunately. Good to see you again, btw. If you find anything, I'll put it in asap, just ping me. Perhaps you have better connections than I do. ceranthor 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (at present). I had given contingent support earlier. Prompted by Fowler & Fowler's remark, I went back and read more carefully. I have found a number of prose and content issues that I should have seen before, which i think mean the article does not meet FA criteria. However, give me a couple of days, and I hope I can address most of these issues. They include:

• Material in Background and geology that belongs in later sections
• Reference to a Japanese geological team's work, but not to the important part - their conclusions

There is one matter i would ask a nominating editor to address:

• The article has this at one point: "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 M_w, 7.2 M_s, and 7.7 M_e and a Mercalli scale intensity...". Later, it has this: "Up to 155 aftershocks, some of which reached a magnitude of 5.5 on the Richter scale,..." The mix of technical measurements, and lack of explanations in most cases (Mercalli scale is an exception), presents the reader with a comprehension problem. Moment magnitude scale and Surface wave magnitude are at least wikilinked, but the lay reader won't know what they are, nor why they differ. M_e lacks any link or explanation at all. In my part of the world at least (Australia), the measure of earthquake intensity used in everyday conversation (eg. news reports) is the Richter scale. There is no comparison offered here between Richter and other measures and, most annoyingly, we are offered a Richter measure for the aftershocks, but a completely different (and less well-understood i think) measure for the main quake. Can this be addressed? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• There is an issue with the use of a reference too. The article said this: "The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Vancouver, Canada concludes that there are a number of increasingly common issues leading to the large death tolls in Iranian earthquakes. These problems are mainly a result of poorly constructed homes, not just traditional structures."

However, in fact it was not the conference that said this - according to hte footnote it was a paper by T. Mahdi. What the paper actually says is this:

In recent years and due to the relatively high cost of traditional construction, lack of proper construction material and the lack of qualified trained people, the quality of the newly constructed traditional buildings has been deteriorated. Accordingly, most of the existing buildings that considered as “traditional” ones have not met the minimum requirements for such buildings. Unfortunately, no official regulations exist for these buildings in Iran. Furthermore, the blame for high causalities in previous Iranian earthquakes was squarely laid at the door of these buildings. On the other hand, and due to the existence of new materials and systems that have been supported by relatively good codes of practice, most of traditional buildings have been replaced by new systems such as reinforced concrete frames, steel frames, confined masonry buildings, and semi-engineered brick buildings.

The text requires tweaking both to cite this more accurately and to report it more accurately. I'll try and get to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I have now made an attempt to fix this.hamiltonstone (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't express a view about whether it should be promoted. As this diff shows (which covers edits all but two of which are my own), I have done quite a bit of work revising the article. I am surprised at some of the 'supports' this attracted as, while i'm very happy with ceranthor's efforts and would like to see the article promoted, it had a lot of issues. Looking back, i have no idea why i supported it the first time, and had it not been for F&F's intervention, i may not have gone back over the piece. I hope editors will also check and respond to Karanacs, and then maybe it can get promoted. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been exceptionally busy. I will do my best to get to this today or tomorrow.

I've made a few small edits, and I'm now ready to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose by Karanacs. I think there are still some comprehensiveness issues.

• I was glad to see a discussion of the types of houses that fell, but I think this would likely be more appropriate in the damage section rather than the background section.
• There is still no discussion of previous earthquakes in the area or mention that this was the third(?) earthquake to hit Iran in a very short amount of time. (Have you been able to get the other source I had linked?)
• I think there is information in "Preliminary Report of The Damage Due To The Qayen Earthquake of 1997, Northeast Iran" which would be very useful to this article.

Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to get that source. I'll keep looking though. ceranthor 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you fetch it form here? Ruslik_Zero 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Kinks

Nominator(s): I.M.S., MadHatter

I am nominating this for featured article because I have substantially expanded the article over the past few weeks, slowly adding references and text. I have looked over the FA criteria, and it looks to me that this article meets them. I hope that whatever problems reviewers find here are small and fixable ones; please state your concern and I will attempt to address them as soon as possible. Many thanks for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Primary contributor knows about nom, no dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I'm part-way through my first pass of the article, and my first impression is that it looks good. I've made a couple of minor edits, and I'm starting some comments here.
  • "Before signing to the label, drummer Willet left the band" - needs recasting or possibly combining with an earlier sentence since it was the band, not Willet, that signed to the label.
  • "They also performed and toured relentlessly, headlining package tours with the likes of The Yardbirds and Mickey Finn, which caused tension within the band." - please clarify whether the tension was caused by the relentless touring or the company of those latter acts.
  • "Some legendary on-stage fights erupted during this time as well. The most notorious incident was at The Capitol Theatre" - suggest "legendary" is not really encyclopedic here, and "most notorious" needs a cite or needs to go.
  • "Solo work" section - I don't think this really belongs in the band article. It's only a few paragraphs anyway; suggest removal.
  • General - per wp:Mos#Em_dashes, em dashes should not be spaced.

That's all for now... time permitting, I will continue to add comments as I read more. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all the issues... thank you for taking the time to review it! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lead needs further work. See WP:LEAD for guidance. Consider its structure, and the role of each paragraph. Currently the last paragraph simply takes up the history again and drifts to something of an anticlimax. An effective and commonly used approach is to keep the history summary to the middle paragraph and devote the final paragraph to the material about awards and recognition. Also the lead seems unable to make its mind up whether the band is a thing of the present or the past. The infobox assures us they remain active, but although "The Kinks are an English rock group", we're told that "Their music spanned a wide range of genres" and "Ray and Dave Davies remained the two permanent members of The Kinks throughout it's run" (also watch the possessive there).

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is definitely taking shape. It still needs a bit more work! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an example, the two statements, "The Kinks continued throughout the 1970s and found little success" and "Due to a lack of success ... the group split in 1996" both need to acknowledge the wider context, i.e., the band was indeed successful in the 1960s. To make the point, "but found little further success" would make all the difference for the first one. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How about:

The Kinks continued recording throughout the 1970s, creating theatrical concept albums, but found little further success. The band eventually experienced a revival...

And:

Due to the commercial failures of the band's past few albums as well as creative tension between the Davies brothers, The Kinks split in 1996.

What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think those would be much better. "Due to" can probably be bettered, to make it more of a description of events than an explanation. PL290 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "In May 1967, The Kinks returned with "Waterloo Sunset", an emotional single with the melancholic observer spying two lovers meeting ..." - I could be wrong but it strikes me a single can't really be "emotional", or have a melancholic observer, per se; to become encyclopedic it may need spelling out more (perhaps "an emotional song written from the point of view of a melancholic observer ...")

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Too hasty perhaps: "an emotional song with about an observer spying" doesn't quite make sense! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this sound (I'll add it to the article if you like):

• The tune describes two lovers passing over a bridge, with a melancholic observer reflecting on the couple, the Thames, and Waterloo Station.

preceding unsigned comment is hereby signed by PL290 'bot': I.M.S. (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• A vast improvement! Except for tune. (The band would find it hard to convey such detailed information in a tune alone!) Song. PL290 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks for the suggestions! I appreciate it. I'll get to work on the choppy paragraphs in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The song went on to become one of their most popular and best-known, with pop music

journalist Robert Christgau calling it ... " - rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mix of UK, U.K., US and U.S. throughout - per WP:ABBR please use UK and US.

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Golden age" section contains several two-line paragraphs which don't really make for engaging prose. Such "stubby" paragraphs often draw complaints from reviewers. Try to focus the essential material into decent-sized paragraphs crafted to hold the reader's attention.

Done. Combined - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still some remain (in that section and also elsewhere in the article). These short, choppy paragraphs interrupt the flow and should be rethought and combined. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've rewritten/replaced/removed all of the inessential ones - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Having said which, the Village Green paragraph is too long and rambling. As this album was something of a breakthrough, dwelling on it to some extent is justified, but it needs to be shorter, more focussed and make the point of the breakthrough more immediately.

Done. Removed some clutter. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PL290 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. My favorite British Invasion band. Needs a serious copyedit--does not meet 1a standard at this point. Queries on lead:

:*It is customary to name the most important members of the group in the lead. In the case of The Kinks, I would say that's the four founding members plus Dalton, though other positions are defensible.

• "In the remainder of the decade Ray Davies' writing skills slowly evolved". Did they suddenly stop evolving at the turn of the decade (i.e., before Lola and Muswell Hillbillies?) Are we sure that it's appropriate to characterize the evolution as "slow"?
• "Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, Muswell Hillbillies". If we're giving Lola's full title, than all the titles need to be separated by semicolons, else Part One is plausibly read as a stand-alone title.
• "During the New Wave era, groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs and Britpop acts such as Blur, Oasis and Supergrass have cited them as a major influences". In the same sentence, we have one list with the serial comma and one list without. Please choose one style or the other and apply consistently throughout the article.
• "The Kinks' influence has carried on until today". Not idiomatic.
• "The Kinks are mentioned as one of the early bands that can be traced with a heavy metal sound". Improperly phrased and unclear. Do you mean to say that they have been identified as one of the earliest bands to play with a heavy metal sound (i.e., one of the first heavy metal bands), or that they are one of the seminal bands to which the later heavy metal sound can be traced (i.e., one of the most influential proto-metal bands).
• "The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame". The group has had many members; I'm sure not all were inducted. Please make clear who was.
• "As self-professed Kinks fan Pete Townshend said for The History of Rock 'n' Roll: 'The Kinks were much more quintessentially English'". Awkward use of quote. Much more quintessentially English than whom? Than The Who? But the lead of an article on The Kinks is not the place to bring in The Who (or whomever). Suggest eliding "much more": "The Kinks were ... quintessentially English".

• That's just the lead, which tends to be the most carefully composed element of most articles. The services of a copyeditor need to be retained for a thorough working-over of the whole piece. I would be happy to volunteer, but I'm devoting what time I have to Tender Mercies, further along in FAC. I'll return in a week to see what progress has been made. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on it... will post back here when completed. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed these issues. Please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please strike these issues - I believe I've addressed them. Again, please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved "Comment to AnOddName" to my section above to keep shit together. :) --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Good start, but needs work to become the standard of FAs like The Beatles or Joy Division:

• List out the studio albums in the discography section (see the two example articles for correct format).

Mad Hatter went ahead and did this. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Remove members' birth info, that can be found on their individual articles.

Will do. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of info is potentially more suitable for Ray Davies article. In particular, I'm thinking that big blockquote about his depression.

Will do. I've already removed the blockquote. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody should be doing a more thorough sources/references review soon, but I find many problems from just a cursory glance:

• Sure Allmusic is a good, reliable site, but using its one page biography as a source >30 times is inappropriate. I'm sure there are many books on the group, they should be used more frequently to cite stuff.

Will find other RSs. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced a few of the Allmusic refs and added another book I have as a source. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Don't link to potentially copy-vio article reprints on fan-sites. (Kindakinks)

Will remove. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Removed and replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Kindakinks a reliable source? I highly doubt that it is actually, I suggest using Billboard or Allmusic for the chart info instead.

Will replace. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Refs replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please copy-edit throughout for WP:MOS errors. Also, plenty of incomplete references.—indopug (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just now gone through the article and done my best to copyedit it. If you notice some specific problems, please tell me and I'll try my best to address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, these issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interim report: Serial comma crisis! In the lead section alone:

• "Their music was influenced by a wide range of genres, including R&B, British Music hall, folk and country." No serial comma.
• "The group's original lineup consisted of Ray Davies (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Dave Davies (vocals, lead guitar), Pete Quaife (bass guitar), and Mick Avory (drums and percussion)." Serial comma.
• "They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of bassists, keyboardists and backup singers." No serial comma.
• "Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Muswell Hillbillies and their accompanying singles". No serial comma.
• "groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs". Serial comma.

Again, please choose one style or the other and apply throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead says the band was formed in 1964. The infobox says they became active in 1963. May we have these items agree, please? DocKino (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed. I've recently been expanding and rearranging the lead section - at the moment, it is a work in progress (please see the discussion above with PL290). The rest of the article should uniformly feature serial commas. If you see any instances of this not being true, please tell me and I will address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done about the lists of "Members"/"Former members" in the infobox. There are various ways of handling this that are appropriate; not among them is the current presentation, in which the listed "Members" are the group as it existed between 1979 and 1984. Kwite Kinky! We can debate the best way to handle this, or simply follow the standard arrangement for defunct bands, which is to list everyone as "Former members", in the order by which they first became members of the group. DocKino (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the lead, DocKino! The "Members"/"Former members" box is something left over from when the article stated that the group was "active 2008 - present". I'll go ahead and combine it under "former members", like you suggested. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Combined. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Head's up: While the nominator's efforts to copyedit the article are appreciated, it appears I did not make my initial point clearly enough. This article requires the dedicated attention of an experienced, independent copyeditor. There are 1a problems throughout, far too many to list. I provided an extensive list of problems in the lead as an example, and while a sincere and productive attempt was made to address them, I still had to follow up with relatively heavy copyediting just to bring that brief element up to standard.

I would dearly love to see a Featured Article on The Kinks, but I believe this article was brought here well before it was ready. The odds of it rising to FA standard during this initial candidacy strike me as slim, but if it is to have any chance at all, the services of a skillful copyeditor ready to devote considerable time to it should be retained now. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find one? By the time someone got around to a request at the Guild of Copyeditors it would be too late. I must admit, as thorough as I try to be, I am not the best when it comes to searching for one version of an character throughout a page several hundred times. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers--copyeditors at the bottom. The article never went through a peer review, did it? I think it would really benefit from that process, as well. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I'll ask one to informally go through the article and copyedit it. = I.M.S. (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am taking care of this request. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Tisdale

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt it has the quality of a Featured Article, after eight months of hard working. It's well-written and well-sourced, as well comprehensive. The article has also a good image and also an informative infobox. To conclude, it has been improved a lot since the last FA nomination, back in July 2009. Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• No dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name (help honey) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Could you please expand the alt text for the lead image File:Emmazcamera187-2 crop.jpg, somewhat? "A brunette female in a black dress" doesn't do the image justice. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for examples. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I was the one who called it "good alt text", so I'll try. It shows her head, shoulders, and chest area, but I don'wanna sound weird talking about her chest. :) I'll get back to you. --an odd name 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this alt more like it? --an odd name 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks, that's good, though I'd add "low cut" before "dress". Eubulides (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Noted and done. --an odd name 07:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I ran a script to correct faulty WP:ENDASHes and WP:FN footnote placement; a MOS review is needed. Citations are incomplete (some publishers missing), and WP:ITALICS are not correct in all citations (journals, periodicals, newspapers are italicized, websites are not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I think all references are good now. Any other issues? Decodet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - No issues. NW (Talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• In a quick read of the WP:LEAD, I found the claim "first female artist to debut two songs simultaneously on the Billboard Hot 100" to be literally incredible at first. I had to reread it three times to understand it well enough to believe it. I think it would be instantly believable if you added the specific week that they debuted to the sentence (probably the end of the sentence), but recall the lead should include no more detail than the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I added the specific week with a reference in the lead but shouldn't it be in the main body instead of the lead? Decodet (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow (missile)

Nominator(s): Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the last step of promoting this article and I hope it meets the criteria. Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Do you hope it meets the criteria, or have you ensured so? If only the former, withdraw—there's a lot of articles that need review. ("Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.")
• Check the alt text:
  • "Image of Arrow missile battery notional model" simply repeats the text above it, which is useless to those who can't see the image. If it's all explained in later text, just tell them to see the adjacent text.
  • Alt text should be obvious from seeing the image alone. Is it really obvious from just seeing the first image that the rocket is an Arrow 2? (Most images here have that issue.)
• No dab links or dead external links, and ref dates are consistent ISO style (good).

--an odd name (help honey) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Prose needs some work: in the lead: "funded and produced by Israel and the United States, development of the system began in 1986 and has continued since, drawing some contested criticism.", later "Once again a missile malfunction resulted in the abortion of the experiment." - these are just examples. "hermetic defense" if a standard term needs explaining. Virtually all the sourcing seems to be from Israeli sources or US government ones. It seems unlikely the system has not been discussed elsewhere. Has the programme been discussed in Congress? Frankly mostly pretty boring to read, but seems comprehensive on the technical side. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The ISBN for the "World of Chronos Guidebook" is incorrect according to World Cat. Why are you using a Role playing game guidebook to source the weight of the warhead?
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.policyalmanac.org/
  • http://www.nti.org/index.php
  • http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
  • http://www.cdi.org/
  • http://www.jcpa.org/index.htm
  • http://www.isracast.com/index.aspx
  • http://www.jinsa.org/
  • http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html (Looks like an online site for an Israeli newspaper?)
  • http://www.spacewar.com/
  • http://www.deagel.com/

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xa Loi Pagoda raids

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the synchronised attacks by the govt of Ngo Dinh Diem on Buddhist temples across S Vietnam on Aug 21 1963, leaving maybe hundreds dead. As a result of this, the US decided to support a coup against Diem, which came in NOvember. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments One dab link; no dead external links. I fixed the infobox alt to actually show, and proofread other alts. --an odd name (help honey) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Polished off the dab YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2c is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Saw this one lingering for a few days without review and decided to offer a few cleanup suggestions.

• Remove hyphen from "early-May" in second paragraph of lead?
• Background: "In a country where the Buddhist majorityt was estimated to comprise between 70 and 90 percent of the population in 1963, President Ngo Dinh Diem's pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists." Remove "that".
• "The application of the law caused indignation among Buddhist on the eve of the most important religious festival of the year". Make Buddhist plural.
• Another little typo: "government-sposnored".
• Don't like the multiple Vietcong links in this section. I imagine that's not unknown to too many people.
• Xa Loi Pagoda: "The attendance had approximately three times higher than that at the previous Sunday's rally." Replace "had" with "was", I believe.

Done all those listed above YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• One from the references quickly: Remove all caps from ref 28. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Political Cesspool

Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets all the criteria and is a worthy addition to FA.

This article was given GA status in early October. I have greatly improved, expanded, and streamlined it since then, however, and I now think it has improved enough to "move up" to FA. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

• Add alt text to the large images. File:Feed-icon.svg should be treated as a decorative image.

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 21's link appears dead.

Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No dead external links. --an odd name (help honey) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dates are in Month Day, Year format throughout—good.
• See if you can expand the lead's paragraphs a bit further. (added on 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name (help honey) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanded. Is there anything particular you would like me to add to the lead? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, looks good to me now. I rearranged it to emphasize the guests and make it two big paragraphs. --an odd name (help honey) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The Jared Taylor image being used in the article needs permission sent through OTRS and be tagged as such.--Rockfang (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the questionable image and replaced it with a non-deletable picture of Pat Buchanan, who has also been featured on the show and whose writings were a formative influence on the show's primary host, James Edwards. Hope that clears everything up. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Never say never (though if it ever reaches that point we'll probably just plunder the pictures, yarr). --an odd name 00:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately they have had a huge number of guests on their show, so I doubt there'll be a shortage of usable images any time soon. If the Buchanan image gets axed, we can always go to Chuck Baldwin, and if that image gets deleted, there's always Ted Nugent, and if his picture gets taken down, there's always Larry Pratt (and so on ad nauseum, or ad Nazium in the case of Lynx and Lamb Gaede, who have also appeared on the show...) Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 12 (Why the Buchanan...) lacks a publisher.
• Current ref 16 (The Crew..) lacks a publisher

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Boletus edulis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and Sasata

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel this is as comprehensive as can possibly be without getting into absolute minutiae (though the spores are pretty tiny..), lots of folks have looked at it and offered suggestions on how to improve it, it conforms to guidelines and we can't think of how else to improve it (and thus any suggestions offered here we feel we can deal with promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (and Sasata) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1b

• No dab links or dead external links.
• Alt text looks great, but see my comment at the Lactarius indigo FAC about {{fungiportal}}.
• Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).

I think it easily passes 1b. There's lots to learn about its name, ecology, nutritional value, and such—very informative. --an odd name (help honey) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical comment despite comment above, Seneca is a dab Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab now fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review The images are all self-made by uploaders with appropriate licensing, out of copyright, or from the Mushroom Observer site, which has a compatible licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• a tweak Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment A whole bunch of 2c fiddle work at the FAC talk page. I was holding off posting this but I noticed someone on the article talk said they were up for reference fiddle. So here it is. (By the way, I love the article.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have gathered these mushrooms with friends in north Russia, where they are also treasured and are oddly called "Белый гриб" (White mushroom). Some of them are huge and they are delicious, but you do have to watch out for those maggots. This is a very-well written and engaging contribution, which I found fascinating from beginning to end. I have four comments:

This in the Lead, ".. by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots" is much clearer in the Body where it is written, "The fungal hyphae form a sheath of tissue around.."

The body now says: "The fungus forms a sheath of tissue around terminal, nutrient-absorbing rootlets of the host, forming so-called "ectomycorrhizae"; the fungal hyphae emanate throughout the soil, effectively increasing the surface area for nutrient absorption, and the fungus penetrates between cells of the cortex to facilitate nutrient exchange." Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we be consistent with "fruit body"? I would prefer "fruiting body", which is used in the sub-heading under Ecology. No big deal mind.

Both terms are used interchangeably in the mycological literature. I deliberated on this usage a while ago and decided to use fruit body, as it is the term used in the "fungus bible" (Dictionary of the Fungi). I have made usage consistent in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the protein content mentioned in the Lead?

Oversight. It's there now. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, early in the Description, it says, "it is convex in shape". I think the "in shape" is redundant.

Fair enough, removed. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources look solid (yes I do look at them) although 118 is a bit dated now. I think it is most unlikely that any major issues will be raised and so I am happy to add my full support to this candidate. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support with CoI I did the GA review, so a conflict of interest there, but I've not edited the article prior to that, nor am I a mushroom project contributor. I thought this was pretty good at GA, and an amazing amount of work has been done in the interim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto/thanks Graham and Jim, been busy with RL issues unexpectedly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 4 (Smith, AH) needs a page number (it's 428 pages according to World Cat)
• Current ref 36 (Volkt...) needs a publisher)
• Current refs 40 and 41 (MykoWeb) ... decide whether it's going to italicised or not and be consistent.
• I just want to point out that I'm a little scared that I'm becoming an expert on the reliablity of fungus websites. I don't even LIKE mushrooms!!!

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes made. Don't be scared of the fungi... they are gentle. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gateway Protection Programme

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured article because I believe that it provides a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The topic receives little attention in the media and promoting the article to featured article status would increase the visibility of this interesting and important scheme. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

• I fixed a link that redirected to a dab page. It was spelled wrong in the text anyway.
• Refs 5 and 11 link to completely blank (0-byte) pages.
• Add alt text to the images.
• Add a bit more text to the lead.
• Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
• File:Home logo.gif may actually be outside of copyright, because it just uses simple shapes, colors, and text. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, Threshold of originality and Template:PD-textlogo. Would anyone else like to confirm this? (added on 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name (help honey) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the URLs for references 5 and 11 and expanded the lead section somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text added, although it's the first time that I've done this so perhaps someone could check it for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Alts look good. --an odd name 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is still too much about this program and the public's reaction to it that isn't known, per the discussion during the GA review at Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1. While in the end I didn't think these matters were severe enough to keep the article from attaining GA status, the bar is higher for FA. Not only is there is too little known about this program, but the program is very recent and its long term wisdom and efficacy is still an open question. So I think granting FA status is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wasted Time, on which featured article criterion are you basing your oppose? This isn't a loaded question by the way; I'm just unsure whether you're saying information is still forthcoming (unstable; 1e) or it doesn't reflect "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (non-comprehensive; 1b). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm basing on 1b, not 1e, but in this case the 1b problem is exacerbated by 'the future not having happened yet' for this very recent program. I also am of the school that says a good job on 1c (well-researched) doesn't mitigate 1b; just because someone has found everything that's online about a subject doesn't mean that the subject has been comprehensively treated. In fact the nom seems a backwards admission of this: hoping that making the article FA will cause the media to write more about the program, thus causing more sources to become available. A nice if unrealistic notion (the journalism world doesn't give a hoot about WP FAs), but not a justification for FA in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I just want to respond to the point about the visibility of the topic. The point I was trying to make in the nomination wasn't that I was trying to attract media attention to the topic, but rather that I think that the topic should be more prominent on Wikipedia. I'm suggesting that the topic receives very little mainstream media coverage despite its importance, and that Wikipedia can fill this gap in public knowledge (which I think should be a guiding principle of Wikipedia - to inform its audience), not that it should attempt to shape the media agenda (which is unlikely anyway, as you suggest). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 2c, it looks very good. You might want to check some of the government series for volumes and issues. You may want to consider Template:Cite report for unpublished reports rather than cite web. The essence of the media is that they're reports, the media they're transmitted in just happens to be web based. (Also, for article longevity, you may want to get an internet archive to back these up for you for courtesy links, governments and organisations are somewhat notorious for removing access to reports). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UNHCR.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoryzomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another South American rodent, related to Lundomys, which has just become an FA. It has had a complex history and is interesting morphologically, but its natural history is very poorly known. It is a current GA; thanks go to Casliber for a GA review that markedly improved the article. Unfortunately, there seem to be no free images other than the old picture of the skull that is now in the article. Ucucha 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it hard to get a (decent) photo of the rodent given that its status is of 'least concern'? - DSachan (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That really doesn't say much about photo availability, I believe. Besides, it's apparently rare, or at least hard to find. Ucucha 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Works are misdated. (Percequillo etal 2008/2009)

Citations lack page / paragraph references. (Percequillo, Pardiñas, others)

Dates within citations are consistent.

Citations style is consistent (I think ugly, but some fields don't like quotes or italics) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the 2008/2009 thing. Percequillo et al., 2008, is an online source which doesn't have page numbers. I sometimes omit references to page numbers where the reference is to the whole paper; for example, Pardiñas et al., 2004, is all about the distribution in Argentina. That said, there may be a few where specific page number can be inserted; I'll have a look at that. Ucucha 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I inserted specific page numbers for all but a few now. Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical checks No dabs, images have alt text , but can't get mammals of Northern Columbia link to work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Image check Images OK, sources fully described and appropriately licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your checks! The link (Hershkovitz 1960) is working for me now; perhaps the site was down for a while? Ucucha 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Confirm mammals of Northern Columbia link live for me too now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs work:
  • Taxonomy section is too detailed and too much focused on past classifications rather than current ones. Probably not so long that it should be a separate article, but suggest reorganizing to more clearly highlight what is currently believed/known about relationships.
  • Likewise, the morphology material is kind of monotonous.
  • Ideally, there would be much more on ecology. The paragraphs we have are good, and if this is all that is known, perhaps that is all that can be done.

In terms of the criteria, I'm mostly talking about 1a (especially whether the prose is engaging) and 1b (placing subject in context). We also need a few more images (criterion 3). If we can't find images of the animal, we should be able to find images of the habitat and predators, or images which illustrate some of the anatomical points in related species. Kingdon (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'd even go for a photo of one of the scientists who worked on it... Kingdon (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, even if there are plenty of images available, as with some of the bird FAs I've done, adding habitat, predators, image of original description etc adds variety and interest to the page, and is relatively effortless Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The "taxonomy" section places the subject in context by providing a historic overview of how our current understanding of the creature's taxonomy has developed. Two of the four paragraphs (the last two) are largely about the current classification, and I added a few sentences explaining its placement in the subfamily Sigmodontinae and family Cricetidae.

The description is comprehensive, and I attempted to lighten it up by interspersing notes about the significance of particular characters. Note that criterion 1a says that the prose should be engaging, not the content; I don't believe that there is a problem with the prose of the "description" section.

Well, here's an attempt to tweak the taxonomy section a bit. I reverted myself because (a) without reading the source, and/or spending more time, I wasn't sure I had preserved accuracy (particularly about the Holochilus/Lundomys/Pseudoryzomys clade versus clade D), and (b) I was unsatisfied with the amount of repetition between the lead of the article and the text I was putting at the start of the Taxonomy section. Perhaps some of what I wrote is worth bringing back, or gets the creative juices flowing for someone. Kingdon (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite like that, because the information you provided largely duplicates the lead (and a little more so now, since I expanded the lead by mentioning Sigmodontinae and Cricetidae). I now introduced subsections per Sasata's suggestions below; what do you think of that? Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is really surprisingly little known about ecology. I don't think there are any more relevant things to say than what is already there.

I added photographs of a superficially similar species (the Marsh Rice Rat), its Gran Chaco habitat, and a predator (the Barn Owl). I believe all are adequately sourced, but could someone do a check on that? Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice photos and captions. I would alternate left and right (with the taxobox counting as a "right") and move them all down the page a bit (to put them closer to the text they go with, and avoid a big dead space with no images). Kingdon (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

They are alternating now. The rice rat is next to the paragraph about external morphology, which is where it should be, because it is supposed to be similar to Pseudoryzomys in appearance. The owl and the chaco should ideally both go to the "Distribution..." section, but there is not enough space for them there, so I kept the chaco where it is, providing some visual relief in the long description. I moved the owl up a bit to prevent it from extending it to the footnotes section, which doesn't look good. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to check that. Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments, questions and suggestions: Sasata (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. You caught a lot of things I should have found myself, producing some real improvement in readability. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• 50 g needs a conversion to imperial. There should also be a non-breaking space between the number and the unit (which will be placed automatically if you use a convert template). Also, shorthand g in used in the lead, but spelled out in full in the description section.
  • Done.
• Similarly, there should be a non-breaking space between all occurrences of the shorthand genus and species name (P. simplex); this prevents unsightly line wraps in the middle.
  • Done.
• "...with a gray–brown fur, ..." remove the "a"?
  • Yes, that's better. Done.
• "It is the only species in the genus Pseudoryzomys, which among living species is most closely related to the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys, which are semiaquatic, spending much of their time in the water." Reword to remove repetitive "which"
  • I had noticed that too, but couldn't think of a better wording. I rephrased it now.
• suggest wlinking genus in the lead (since the article is about a genus)
  • Done.
• "...and by a reduction in the complexity of the dentition..." Since it's the lead, I'd suggest rephrasing to use the more common "teeth" in there somewhere
  • Done. I used "molars", as the incisors don't have much to with it. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• millimetres in British English vs. "color"
  • That's {{convert}} doing nasty things. I fixed it to US spelling and abbreviated "mm" and "g" on subsequent occurrences.

Taxonomy

• "It was first described in 1887 by Danish zoologist Herluf Winge," how about adding a citation to the original publication?
  • Sure, done
• "Like most other species Winge proposed, H. simplex was mostly ignored in the systematic literature for a long time," sounds like there's an interesting story behind this... is it relevant enough to elaborate here?
  • There is, see Oryzomys anoblepas and Lundomys for some other parts of the story. I think it's not relevant to this article to elaborate on that, but I introduced a red link to Lund's mammals of Lagoa Santa, where I'll write an article on the lot someday.
• phyllotine is linked in consecutive paragraphs
  • Fixed.
• wlink specific name
  • Done.
• deermice leads to a redlink... is it the same as deer mice (Peromyscus)?
  • Created a redirect, and bypassed it.
• wlink molecular phylogenetic, morphology
  • Done.
• "Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D")..." I can't see how mentioning the arbitrary clade name will help the reader's understanding here...
  • I see your point, but I intend to someday introduce discussions of these clades into the Oryzomyini article, and I think it's helpful to have them mentioned in the genus articles.
• "Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D"), which contains tens of other species, including several that, like Pseudoryzomys and its relatives, display some adaptations to life in the water, being partially aquatic." This sentence has lots of parts connected by commas and doesn't seem to flow well.
  • Rephrased.
• In general, this section is long and tough reading, I suggest splitting into a subsection or two to help give the reader a mental break.
  • Done. I also added cladograms to clarify the relationships found by Weksler (and had to tweak the template to make the layout work). Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Description

• wlink buff
  • Done.
• lots of talk about toes, but no mention of how many toes there are (do rat feet have 5 toes? I really don't know)
  • They do. I added it to the page.
• suggest abbreviating convert template output to mm, then you don't have to also specify Brit/Am spelling; also, should adjust the output so that there's an equal number of sig figs in the numbers before and after conversion
  • Did the first part, except for the first occurrence, and tweaked one output. The one for head-body length now technically has one significant figure too much for the minimum figure, but I think that is preferable here.
• "The female has four pairs of teats, including one on the chest," where are the other pairs?
  • Added.
• "Pseudoryzomys has 19 or 20 thoraic (chest)" should be thoracic?
  • Yes.
• The last three subsections of the description section are a tough read. You've done a pretty good job of explaining unfamiliar terms, but there's a few missing (e.g., entepicondylar foramen, hernal arches). Ideally, all of those redlinks would have nice descriptions.... I'll come back for a reread later when I'm more awake :)
  • I added something about the foramen. I think the hemal arches are already adequately explained as small bones between the second and third vertebrae. The ones I see that may require some explanation are "centromere" and "cartilaginous", but these should be known to someone with at least a rudimentary background in biology and are also bluelinked.

Distribution

• wlink pelage
  • Changed to "fur" instead.
• "A fragmentary subfossil lower jaw" what is a subfossil? (i.e., how does it differ from regular fossil?)
  • See subfossil. I just deleted the word as it didn't add much to the sentence.

Comments... continued: Sasata (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the above fixes so quickly, consider them all stricken.
• Several of the journal article sources should have DOI's
  • Should they? They are not in the similar, recently promoted FA Lundomys and in my view add superfluous text; we'll be able to deal with linkrot.
    • I think they're added for the same reason ISBNs are added to books, to make it easier for interested readers to find the source. I've usually been asked to supply them when possible at GAN and FAC. Maybe someone who's more sure than me could comment? Sasata (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I do think it's different, though. I give the ISBN for the books, but no other way to find it. For the journal articles, there either is an online version, in which case I link to it directly, or there is not, in which case there is no DOI either. So I don't see what the DOI really adds to that. Ucucha 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Literature search moved to talk since Sasata is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay you've convinced me on 1b and 1c. I'm leaning towards support, but still think the description section needs some tweaking to make it more reader-friendly. I'll come back later after others have had a chance to comment. Sasata (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Povenmire

Nominator(s): The Flash ^{talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:

• http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html is a press site for news related to Alabama.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 are internet talk shows hosted by internet personality Piper Reese.
• http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue/Articles/Story.cfm?StoryID=1020 is a news website which is associated with Variety magazine.
• http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=1 , http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=2 , and http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=3 are e-zine versions of the popular animation website Animation News Network, which is referenced in countless books.
• http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html is a website dedicated to alumni of University of Southern California and funds USC's official magazine, Daily Trojan.
• http://www.badmouth.net/comic-strip-war/ is a website co-published by award-winning writer John Marcotte and also features, as you can see from the article, Povenmire's official drawings.

Thanks in advance, The Flash ^{talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline: 1c/2c. I've walked through all the bloody citations. They are now what they claim to be. Two of them don't meet WP:RS/N, which I've noted. I'm 1c on that basis. Also a dead link needs removing. Resolved at Talk. Some other sources aren't HQRS, even if they're RS... but I don't know if HQRS have been exhausted for this. To other editors, the citations now accurately represent the sources used, good luck determining if they meet 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) citation style is consistent. 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The archive for Bond, Paul. (2009-06-07). "Q&A: Dan Povenmire". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. is down. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Archive fixed. Also, please just mention supposed unreliable sources here at the FAC in stead of just tagging it as unreliable in the page, like you did with the Toon Zone ref. It's totally reliable and has been cited in several books. Same thing with the Hop Studios thing, just put it here so we can discuss it in stead of tagging, it makes it much easier and doesn't make the page look bad as it does now. The Flash ^{talk} 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scratch the first bit (wrong archive). It's not messed up, the website just requires log-in to read it. The Flash ^{talk} 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 comments and SUPPORT (see below) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17

24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are several good things about this article. This is comprehensive, and reasonably well written, not brilliant, but sturdy (1a, 1b). It is neutral (1d), and seemingly stable (1e) (given the number of people telling him to change this and that, it's stable). The structure is good, lead is sufficiently "summary" style, and individual sections cover what they purport to cover (2a, 2b). The info on "personal life could probably be integrated into the rest of the material, since it is so short, but based on WP:BLPNAME, which is the Biography projects' policy on including names/info of minors and spouses, this is reasonable. Images seem to be okay now, but that is not my bailiwick, and I'm not assessing those; it is sufficient for me to see a few images, and they are distributed to break up the text, and offer me an image to illustrate some point or other. Although I would prefer an image of Phineas, for example, I suspect that falls outside "fair use." The length is good, focused on the subject, no discursiveness (crit. 4).

• I could add this if you'd like, but, like you said, it's fairuse. The Flash ^{talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• The remaining problems seem to be with reliability of the sources and citation styles (1c and 2c), which is a contention. It seems to me that the sources are reliable within the realm of current popular culture, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a great deal of scholarly discussion of Sponge Bob Square Pants and Phineas and Ferb. One hundred years from now, possibly. But in 2009? Not so much. I've looked at the sources Flash has used. As a scholar and historian I'm not happy with them, but as a reasonable and practical person I must admit they are not only what is available, they seem to be the best of what is available. Is it reasonable to continue demanding specific kinds of sources that are not available for this topic? Flash isn't writing about Milton or Rembrandt, for whom millions of trees have been destroyed, and gallons of ink expended. So in fairness to Flash, I have to say he's met reliability requirements. He did not cite gossip columns, and in most cases, he has two or three citations for the same assertion. Although I find this particular cite style extremely difficult to follow (a b c d etc.) this is not an actionable objection, just a personal preference; others find my cites equally objectionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks you; I too believe all the sources I'm using fall as RS through some standard. Thanks for the support! :) The Flash ^{talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash ^{talk} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I supported last time, I don't have the time right now but was asked to comment. As I'm writing an essay at the moment, I'll have to get back to this some other time. ceranthor 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable:

** http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html the fact that it's a news site for alabama related news is not enough to show reliablitiy

• • Once again, same as last time, look here [6] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash ^{talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash ^{talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm okay with al.com and mobile press-register sites for an article like this and for the kind of material Flash cites from it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can the comment be struck then? The Flash ^{talk} 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know Flash, but I just struck it. It uses the same material that goes on the Mobile Press Reg website, just reformatted for "only" Alabama news. So it seems to me that it is a legitimate source, as good as the newspaper. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks then. :) The Flash ^{talk} 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=8691491442 You need to show that Classmates.com does fact checking on the entries.

    It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash ^{talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash ^{talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    No problem. Removed the source; it was only used to support a very brief, non-important thing, didn't really defend it that strongly. The Flash ^{talk} 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html Again, you need to show that it's not just affiliated with, but that it actually fact checks.

    It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash ^{talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash ^{talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash ^{talk} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

    He also actually teaches online courses at USC itself. You can read it all on the website. The Flash ^{talk} 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Personal life section is two lines. Could it be expanded, or merged elsewhere? It seems a bit short on its own. Majorly talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• The other info that was there can be seen here, but it was removed after a suggestion from the copyeditor showed how they really didn't meet WP:NOTABLE. I could add them back if you like. The only other thing I can do is merge it with early life, renaming the section "Personal life." Which one works for you? The Flash ^{talk} 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge it in with early life and rename is the best idea. It's just two short to stand on its own. Majorly talk 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. The Flash ^{talk} 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not add them back. They do not meet notability requirements in and of themselves, and the bio project's policy on this is very clear. See WP:BLPNAME. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Last time i edited this artical i said something and iam saying it again Supporrt --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, involved reviewers should indicate so in their declarations; Pedro J. passed the GA on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a note for the reviewer to go back and add it into their support or just for future reference? The Flash ^{talk} 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Supporters need to specifically and explicitly discuss the text cited to the questioned sources above, and explain why they think the sources are reliable for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can see, supporters who mention the sources and source it give their reasons specifically why they think it works. See Auntieruth's comments/supports above. The Flash ^{talk} 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Malleus and I have given this thing the copy-edit going over quite a few times now. It has been reviewed quite thoroughly by User:Hamiltonstone. Owing to to the topic's obscurity, it was a bit difficult to illustrate, so thanks especially to User:Notuncurious, who has made some very helpful images and helped alleviate that problem! The article's definitely there or thereabouts in terms of content and referencing, and already was at the last nom when it got sidetracked with RM matters ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• technical checks No dabs, no deadlinks, could subscription only links be indicated in ref? Images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll try to find a way of indicating subscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?

Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"

Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.

Images:

The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only. Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Fifelfoo.

Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?

That's one note with two references. There should have been a semicolon there ... inserted one.[7]

Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"

I'm not certain I understand the query ... but taking a guess, you think this work is an edited collection of articles? If so, this work is an edited book of charters, rather than an essay collection. The section referenced, pp. 68–94, is the 3rd chapter of the intro, entitled "Analysis of the Acts of William I".

Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.

I'll double check for missing semi-colons.

The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. You mean the image has too much info in it, or there are too many images in its area of the article?

With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only. Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative?

There should be no original research in the article. References to primary sources included in the wikipedia article should also be in the secondary sources referenced with or next to the primary source refs. Also, many of the references that look to be for primary sources can also be taken to refer to the editorial commentary. In all instances, primary source referencing should be entirely for the convenience of the reader (allowing the more advanced reader to verify the assertions of the wikipedia article AND the secondary source).

Without wanting to misunderstand what you mean, there shouldn't be much of a meaningful narrative for the whole article. There are narratives in sections, and this will be derived from the secondary sources referenced. For instance, the narrative (and its weighting) in the #The_Anglo-French_world section is based [largely] on Barrow Anglo-Norman Era. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. File:Donnchadh of Carrick and his descendants.jpg is completely unreadable and is a poor quality image anyway: please remove it, or replace it with a textual diagram. For more, please see Avoid entering textual information as images. I noticed this because I was reviewing the alt text, which is all good except for this image: but since this image should be removed there's little point to improving its alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  Is it a case that you can't read it, even when you click on it, or that it's just ugly? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  My objection is based on readability, not beauty. Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  You can't read that image? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't read that image (shown at right, using the same size as in the article). I can (barely) make out the header and the word "DONNCHADH", but I can't read anything else, so the image is essentially useless in the article. It's a low-quality image anyway, so I don't suggest making it larger, or anything like that. Just turn it into text. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me ... when I made it I didn't have any intention that it would be fully visible in the article. You click on it to make it visible. There's too much info for it to be visible otherwise, surely? A single click seems not too much to ask, but I don't know community sentiment on the matter. I hope I'm understanding right? It can be removed, sure, but there's important info there. It can be in the article too, sure, but usually in textbooks such info is in such illustrations. If it's purely a matter of ugliness then I apologize,. I'm no master at such things. Usually even nominating an FA leads to someone more pro at such things redesigning them. I suppose I could actively recruit someone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the image is not meant to be useful in the article, then I suggest simply linking to the image from text in the article, e.g., "Family tree of descendants of Donnchadh". Or (better yet), replace the image with an invocation of {{family tree}} or a similar template.
• There's a similar problem with File:Family of Donnchadh of Carrick.jpg.

Eubulides (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to be a sticking point, then I'll volunteer to produce SVG versions of both family trees. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images, Eubulides (and, yeah, I was kinda curious why you only mentioned one of these). :) @ Malleus, don't worry, not that fussed. It's just that I honestly don't see what is gained by depriving readers of such a reference ... was trying to get at why they need to be disappeared (I really still don't understand, but I'll go with it). I guess if I wanna restore them I'll look into the tl| thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably do the SVG versions anyway, as, like you, I think the images add useful information, and it would be a shame to lose them on an FAC technicality. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SVG is an excellent idea; thanks for volunteering. The info is definitely worth presenting; it's just that a featured article must present info well. Please see File:Coenwulf family tree.svg and its use in Coenwulf of Mercia #Family and succession for an example. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are gifs pasted into an SVG file, but they're still gifs; Inkscape can't convert gifs to SVG. Try rescaling those images if you don't believe me. Those are not good examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Compare them to File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg in the Wilfrid article, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg is a better example. Its text is small but is still readable in the article. (A quibble: I would have made the text somewhat larger; partly it depends on whether the image is intended to be displayed at smaller or at larger sizes.) Eubulides (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaning support - I read this before and on a read through now, found some small quibbles (and at least one place to tweak Deacon's nose).

ONce these quibbles are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. Tell me if there's anything more that you see. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved all struck comments to talk. See here All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Xmas Everybody

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. "He is wearing something on his head that is unclear in this image." could probably be rewritten to remove the ref to an image (which alt users can't see), but it all looks good otherwise.
• Audit for grammar errors: I already removed an extra comma and "are".
• Can you explain the ref "Black Vinyl, White Powder, Simon Napier-Bell 2001" further? It's apparently a 390-page book; page number and publisher, if so? (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

• I don't have a copy of that, unfortunately. It was added in by an IP in 2007. Majorly talk 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've put in a different ref. Majorly talk 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dates throughout are all Day Month Year. (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rather short. Tony (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did say this in the opening statement. Is the prose ok? Majorly talk 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c, 1c. No 1c problems, additionally believe that 1c sources have been exhausted. 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please supply the title of the work containing this item, or change the title format to italics to indicate that the Discography is the primary work? ""The Mission Discography". The Mission. Retrieved 15 November 2009."

I don't understand your concern here. It's the title of the page used as the reference... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Works in collections are cited as such "Work in collection" in Collection. Sole works are cited as such Sole work.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I've referenced as I have done for dozens of other articles. There is no problem here. Majorly talk 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a book, LP, video disc citation Book. Notice the italics? This is a citation for a work contained in another work, like a newspaper article, journal, track. "Track" Albumn "Newspaper article" Newspaper "Chapter" Book. There is a problem here. You're citing works as if they're contained in another work, but without indicating the work they're contained in. Please fix by supplying the work they're contained in, or by naming the work as a stand alone work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a web citation, that lists the songs on the track. Citing it as a web citation (title, publisher) is perfectly acceptable. Once again, there is no problem. Majorly talk 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarified publisher to make clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com is not a publisher. Please supply correct bibliographic details. They're listed on the Amazon pages (Anagram Records and Polydor Ltd.)

Amazon published the page used as the reference. I'm not citing the album itself... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a 1c issue to do with quality of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sourcing information on Amazon, I am merely using it as proof the album exists. Amazon is a reputable music dealer who don't list items that don't exist. There is nothing wrong with doing this. Majorly talk 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon repeatedly lists items that don't exist. Their status as a reliable bibliographer is nil. Source bibliographic proof of existence from an appropriate sound archive or national copyright collections library: ie a High Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have such access to archives, so such a request is clearly impossible. I assume you want me to take your word for it on the quality of Amazon. It's rather difficult to cite a rather obscure album released in 1990, when you don't have the resources. It's mentioned all over the web, just not anywhere useful. Majorly talk 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, all Amazon references are gone. Majorly talk 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Very enjoyable; brings back some old memories. A couple of questions:

• I can't find an exact release date for Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day, so I can't be sure whether that single predates this one, but since they were the same year I'm not sure it's a great idea to say it was the first Christmas rock single. You also mention a Lennon single that predates it; was that not rock?

• I would disagree that Happy Xmas (War Is Over) is rock, but I'm no expert. However, it's not really about Christmas per se. As for the Wizzard song, according to Guinness British Hit Singles, it entered the charts on 8 December. This is apparently a week earlier than this song. I'll change it to indicate that it's one of the first. Majorly talk 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• You say that many began to associate Slade only with Christmas and that this contributed to their decline in popularity. The first point is more than plausible to anyone who was around at the time, and though a citation wouldn't hurt I don't think it's necessary. However, to say that this is the cause of their subsequent decline really does need a citation, and it appears not to have one -- the nearest following cite in the body just covers the song reaching the charts in 2006.

• Added one (it was there, just not right next to it). Majorly talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cover versions of popular songs can be quite numerous, and I don't think all need to be listed. Can you say what makes these particular covers notable and worthy of mention in the article -- the fame of the band, the unusualness of the cover version, the success of that version's release?

• I've removed three. It was not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think the notability of the six left is self-explanatory. Majorly talk 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• "On 15 December it became the third song by Slade to enter the charts at number one (the sixth during their career)": the parenthesis seems to say they had six songs enter the charts at number one; I had a go at rewriting this but couldn't easily find an improvement. I think this should be rephrased.

• Is that better? Majorly talk 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is going to be difficult to find, but is there any chance of getting contemporary opinions of the song? There isn't really a reception section at the moment; the release paragraph talks about the sales, and the legacy section gives the perspective from today, but there isn't much that says whether it was well-regarded critically at the time. I'm sure there are Melody Maker and NME reviews, though I don't know if they'd be usable. Back then rock and pop wasn't really reviewed in the mainstream media so there might not be enough to use, but it would be good to have.
  • I took a look in the NYT archives; there's a 21 Dec 1973 article on Christmas songs that mentions Slade but makes no assessment. Interestingly, it mentions three other Christmas songs of that year, which it describes as satirical: Elton John's "Who'll Be A Turkey For Christmas", Cheech and Chong's "Santa Claus and His Old Lady", and Martin Mull's "Santafly". Not sure there's anything you can use there -- the article argues that new Christmas songs were decling at the time, and that Christmas music was mostly recycled from previous years. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another possible source: [8]. The writer comments on how Slade changed the popular perception of Christmas. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That last one is potentially useful, for the legacy section. However, when I was looking for sources as I was writing the article, I don't believe I saw anything to do with reception on its release - though I am guessing it was popular judging by the sales. Of course, I don't have access to unfree news sources, so there may be more I couldn't access via Google News... Majorly talk 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There's nothing about the record in The Times archive, or at Newsbank. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

        I don't think I would oppose on this point, since I can't be sure any usable sources exist, but I think anything else that could be found on the reception would help the article. I would suggest using that piece from the Guardian about the influence of the single. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

        • I've added it as an additional reference, but I think the influence has been described adequately. Majorly talk 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the timeline as presented is slightly misleading. The History and Background section starts "By 1973 Slade were one of the most popular bands in Britain, having achieved two number one singles—"Cum On Feel The Noize" and "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"—in three months. The band and their record company, Polydor, decided to produce a Christmas hit." However, it's apparent from the timeline given later that the decision to produce a Christmas hit must have predated the success of 'Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"; it was a hit in July, according to the article about it, but Powell was injured ten weeks before the recording session in August -- no later than early June. The source article does appear to get this right, saying "Early in 1973".

The recording session occurred in September according to the Q article. It is correct as written. In fact, the article describes how the idea came after the two number ones. Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll strike that -- if it was recorded in September then yes, it could have been ten weeks after "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me" became a hit. I could swear I saw a reference to August, but I can't find it now. By the way, the Holder bio only lets you view some pages on Amazon, and the story of how the song was written is chopped off at the start, but it appears he might give additional details about how he wrote the song, perhaps including a specific date. Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you looked at the Noddy Holder bio, Who's Crazee Now?? Seems like it might be a useful source. There are pages viewable on Amazon and it seems to have some material about the song.

I can't view it without an account. Majorly talk 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to head off to work in a moment, but I will see if I can pull some quotes for you tonight. However, I don't think I can see all pages of the book so it would be good to check a physical copy if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also just found Peter Buckley's Rough Guide to Rock on Google describing the song as "arguably the best single ever"; this might be worth quoting in the legacy section, though I'm not sure as I know nothing about Buckley and whether he's any kind of authority. It seems to be a substantial encyclopedia that's been through multiple editions and I think it could be used.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Buckley's work bio implies that he's credible. Rough Guides publishes on a commercial basis. Its an RS. Weight's a different matter for an expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link I could use? Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote is "During their glam phase Slade also produced arguably the best Christmas single ever, "Merry Christmas Everybody" (1973), which has recharted most Christmases since." Page 948 of the 2003 edition; visible in Google Books. I don't see the ISBN at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the quote. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, struck. I am curious about the title case used; shouldn't it be "Rough Guide to Rock", not "rough guide to rock"? I thought title case was the general rule for citations of works. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be so I changed it. Majorly talk 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Looking at some of the other FAs on individual songs reinforces my feeling that there needs to be something about contemporary critical reception, beyond what can be deduced from the success of the song. I will find it hard to support without this being addressed. The Holder bio might give you something in this direction. I understand it's not easy to research this sort of thing; I am planning a visit to a central NY research library to research some other articles over the next two or three weeks, and if there's anything I might be able to find there, let me know and I'll see if I can locate it for you. Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked someone who might have access to a copy of the Holder bio. I'm not sure if there is anything in the library. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Good stuff although I think there really should be a credits/personnel section listing those involved, instruments played etc. Cavie78 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added who played what instrument, is that sufficient? Producer is already described elsewhere. Majorly talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lean support - I'm not seeing any real problems. The blockquote in "History and background" needs a citation. The end of "Composition" needs a citation. The language is rewritten enough to distance itself from the original from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating, since the block quote is now directly cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments—Looking good, writing down comments as I copy-edit:

• "beating Wizzard's "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday" into fourth place" - why is the fourth place single rather the second place one being mentioned here? I fail too see the signficance.

• Because it's a Christmas-themed song. I've clarified. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed." - oddly enough, "Merry Christmas Everybody" comes in a bit abruptly here, as you haven't yet stated that the song the duo were working on was "Merry Christmas Everybody". Also why "Christmas" and not "Xmas" in the song title here?

• Changed to "the song" again. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where are the cites for the last four sentences of Composition?

• It's rather difficult to cite - I actually used a midi file and literally described the music. The source is the song. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if the personnel is required at all (apart from the name of the guy who plays lead guitar, the section is redundant to the rest of the article).

• I tend to agree; someone mentioned they wanted it, above though. I am happy for it to be removed. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a Tracklisting section though, namely to see individual song length of both sides of the single, as well as the catalogue no of the original release.

  I'm not sure where I could find this information. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could you be more descriptive in your description of the sound sample? It is necessary to justify fair-use.

• Please clarify what you mean by "more descriptive". Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would a chart section be useful? (Generally needed when a song charted in many territories; see WP:CHARTS)

• Not too sure. I couldn't find any sources for making a section, so it could be difficult to make one. Majorly talk 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think you can incorporate more of the info found here. Namely, this: "while they were still named the N'Betweens. The melody was Holder's first ever solo composition", and "his first draft was the final one".

• Done. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• ""Merry Xmas Everybody" was the first song of its kind" - divorced from the explanatory context that comes in much later in the sentence, this opening bit seems rather bloated and pretentious. I wonder if you could make that entire sentence tighter, actually.—indopug (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence altogether, it doesn't really add anything as it happens. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CommentsOppose

• "It is Slade's last number-one single, as fans began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated." - I'm really not sure about that! Apart from the questionable assertion that "fans began to associate the group only with Christmas", their popularity did not deteriorate in a timeframe that supports that statement: following this December 1973 #1, their next three singles, entering the charts in April, July and October 1974, reached #3, #3 and #2 respectively. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really familiar with the band - you might call me one of those people who only associates it with Christmas. I'm only following what the source wrote. I have clarified to say "many people" instead of "fans", which I hope is better. But the truth is, it was their last number one (out of 6 in total), and they got some top ten hits. This was their peak, and after being at a peak, you can only go down, which they did. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I dispute the assertion that the Christmas single had any adverse effect on the band's popularity whatsoever, and would be surprised if you could show a reliable source to back it up. This was indeed their last #1 but it is pure speculation to explain that in these terms—and in any case (as noted just above), the follow-ups over the next year were #3, #3, #2—very similar to #1, since of course it depends entirely on the competition at that precise moment. Now that I've looked at your source, I can understand where this strange idea came from! An article about a "Christmas curse"? Perhaps Guardian readers were titillated by this festive feature, amused to think that once John Lennon recorded Happy Xmas (War is Over), "inexplicably and ominously ... the curse began its work" with the result that Lennon later "indulged in self-destructive drink and drug binges", "temporarily split from Yoko Ono" and "was gunned down by Mark Chapman", while the workings of this same mysterious "curse" took their toll on Wizzard after I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day: "Alas, immediately following this Christmas cracker, Wood was struck by ulcers and managerial difficulties." This is a source? "Merry Xmas Everybody" was Slade's last number one, yes. The rest of that sentence, "as many people began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated", is quite misleading on two counts and I suggest it should be removed. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• We read that when Slade were recording the song, "In an adjoining studio, John Lennon was working on his album Mind Games. The ex-Beatle had recorded his own Christmas single "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in 1971, and had contributed to seven Beatles Christmas records. He was about to use a harmonium, which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed.^[2] It took five days to finish, but the band disliked the first completed version." - This seems to jump all over the place chronologically, and mentions various different Lennon/Beatles recordings for no apparent reason and without their respective timings being clear, and we're forced to make a leap ourselves at the end to work out what took five days to finish from the fact that the band's dislike was relevant. PL290 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Removed the unnecessary detail. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is now clearer. But what is the significance of the fact that John Lennon "was about to use" a harmonium? What happened next? Did he actually use it, or did Slade usurp it? The mind boggles on this point! Can it be rephrased to avoid or illuminate this aspect. Also, the section too seems superficial: surely there's more than four sentences (one of which is about John Lennon) that can be said about this five-day-long, unsatisfying recording session? PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Composition section also seems superficial—for an example of an FA song article where this is done more justice, see Hey Jude—and the information it does provide is incomplete and largely unsourced. It is also (to my ears, from memory) incorrect on several counts. For instance, I don't think the "short solo" is in Bb (although it certainly contains Bb chords), and the Bb chord appears far more often in the song than you say: it occurs twice in every chorus, for a start. This section needs expanding and sourcing. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

*Going to sort out the above issues tomorrow afternoon. Majorly talk 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder Plot

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the Gunpowder Plot is an important part of English religious and political history. Every child knows the name of Guy Fawkes, not so many know that he was only a part of the story. Religious persecution, political backstabbing, conspiracy, murder, torture, gruesome executions, explosions—what more could you ask for? Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are citation needed tags in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Gone - one is probably not citable, the other will be sorted in due course (I've hidden it for the moment) Parrot of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. Double-check that map alts and diagram alts, or nearby text, describe what they are trying to show, and not just their appearance.
  • How about this? Parrot of Doom 00:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Alts look good. --an odd name (help honey) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Why does the infobox use a Month Day, Year date? All other dates are consistent Day Month Year for text and ISO style for refs.
  • Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Images check out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) My CoI prohibits me from working on content related to the article, but I will check the images. There were 4 concerns. Feel free to strike through the concerns or leave a note after when they are addressed. Images: File:GunpowderPlot.jpg - check. File:Darnley stage 3.jpg - check and a FP, so, definitely has it all verified. File:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606..png - you could put it into a fancy box but all of the info is there. **File:Gunpow1.jpg - might want to add year (circa 1605) to the info and checks out. File:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg - info checks out. File:John rocque house of lords gunpowder plot cropped.jpg - info checks out. File:Capon map of parliament.jpg - info checks out. File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg - info checks out. File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg - info checks out. File:Monteagle letter.jpeg - info checks out. **File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg - needs year. File:A Torture Rack.jpg - info checks out. File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder (2).jpg - info checks out. File:Guy Fawkes confession.png - info checks out. ** File:Hindlip hall.jpg - needs year (find the original publication, link provided next). 1901 edition to verify that it is PD. File:Edward coke.jpg - iffy, has a year, but no real verifiable source of the year. NPG may have a copy of info on it? **File:Henry Garnet (1555-1606).jpg - needs year and possible author information. File:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg - info checks out. File:Bonfire4.jpg - info checks out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Replaced File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg Parrot of Doom 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Added what I could find to the Coke image Parrot of Doom 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarified the Hindlip Hall image - I'm willing to bet that the image is well out of copyright. The hall burnt down in 1820 and this may well be a derivative of an earlier image Parrot of Doom 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed the Garnet image Parrot of Doom 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comments Mostly there, but some prose needs work, which I see Malleus is on. "The new King received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[13] This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics" needs rewriting - he was the Habsburg Viceroy of 1/2 a country. Link Dutch Revolt or Eighty Years War. Since there is so much background, the wider context of religious assassinations of political leaders should be mentioned: in France Gaspard de Coligny, (1572), Henri III, (1589), and later Henri IV, (1610); in the Netherlands William I of Orange, (1584), and in Scotland the Regent James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1570) Not to mention the more obscure Michael the Brave (1601) in Romania, on behalf of the Habsburgs. I'm not saying these Catholic assassinations, and some other attempts and successes, were connected, though many people did, but the wave of assassinations led to a great reduction in public appearances by, and access to rulers, including James, that had profound effects. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll admit my knowledge of 16th-17th-century politics is very sparse. I'd appreciate any help you have to offer on such a thing, I can only really work with the sources I have. There is already more than 60kb of prose, so care needs to be taken here. Parrot of Doom 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done Albert & the Netherlands, perhaps clumsily. I'd forgotten he had eventually been made "co-sovereign" of the Netherlands with his wife, but no kingly title. Numbering Habsburg archdukes is a silly nob-squad affectation, imo. I'll look for refs on the trend for assassinations & its effects; that may not happen this week. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not found anything to add here so far, & wouldn't withold support on this, but I do think the wider context needs mention pp 227-9 here are the sort of thing. Juan de Mariana should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that such detail would be more suited to inclusion in this article Parrot of Doom 23:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see why "detail" on the issue of assassination belongs in the more general article. Actually it's not detail, of which the article is already full, but context, missing from the current background sections. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its context that isn't really mentioned in either of the two sources I've used in the article, and it isn't mentioned in the ODNB's entry on the story and its participants. If they don't see fit to writing much (if anything) about it, I'm not inclined to think that it belongs here, in a much shorter version of the story. The context in which the Gunpowder Plot was set was basically Catholics not happy that their new ruler wasn't about to reverse the severe restrictions that Elizabeth I had imposed - and that's given a prominent position, as is the European position on the replacement of James I. Those other assassinations may be relevant to Catholics and European History, but they're not really worth mentioning here unless there is an explicit connection. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a connection in the Jesuit justification for assassination, which may go a little way to explaining the government's determination to implicate Henry Garnet, even though he likely knew very little about the plot and certainly wasn't involved in its planning or execution. I'll add a sentence or two; I think that's all it needs. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph to the early reign of James I section, explaining James's understandable nervousness about the possibility of a Catholic assassination attempt on his life. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. The phrasing of the subsequently introduced Oath of Aliegance, by which Catholics had to swear that the doctrine that the Pope could (as it were) issue fatwah's for assassination was a heresy could also be tacked on there, but there's enouugh as it stands. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support My comments above dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I was thinking about elaborating a little bit on the Oath of Allegiance anyway, so I'll do that. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• ... done. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why are "assassination" and "Catholics" linked at the stop? Possibly a more explicit pipe to the "Dutch revolt" target—"against the Dutch"? Then we know it's not one of those country links (i.e., to "the Netherlands").
• "Between 1533–1540"—Please see the first point here: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#En_dashes.2A Tony (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Both fixed, except that I think the link to "Catholics" is possibly worth keeping? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c: Original research. Use of Time Series data for the value of money calculated; rather than referenced from an appropriate secondary source. Resolved 2c at talk. 2c fixits. All 2c resolved. 1c Original Research, inappropriately grounded speculation, a few non HQ sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

This is Original Research. Value of money over time is an inordinately complex historical topic. Wikipedia is not a qualified economic historian. Find it in a secondary source. "4,000 marks (about £430,000 as of 2009)" ^ UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Measuring Worth: UK CPI.

I'm not sure I agree. The source (Haynes p47) says that 4,000 marks was about £3,000 Parrot of Doom 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Haynes as a secondary has the right to equate Marks to Pounds. Or if he chose 16xx Pounds to 20XX Pounds. We don't. Time series for money value is incredibly contested by economic historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a misunderstanding here. The conversion isn't from marks, but from Northcote Parkinson's figure of £3,000. No original reaearch involved, or reliance on wikipedia, as the CPI conversion comes from data supplied by a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No misunderstanding. It isn't a HQRS. Time series data is extremely dubious. Running it through a conversion website is simply not acceptable as I've repeatedly explained, this is an intensely debated area of economic history and your website is not a publication of the highest quality by an economic historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I ain't changing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the website used to create this data you'll see that far from being a simple 'conversion website' its a service which claims a range of contributors, in fact it makes a specific point about the thoroughness of its data and calculation methods. I feel that demonstrates reliability well enough. The figures used in the article exist to give the reader some idea of the size of the fines, else the figures are almost meaningless. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the nominators that the site is fine for a very rough idea of the value of money, we are not a academic publication here, we're only trying to give a general idea of the value, so it does not require an ironclad source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I've just finished studying this event for AS-level, and this would have been very useful. However, coming from the understanding I do have now, I have to make some comments on the content. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead:

"fled from London as they learned of the plot's discovery", and also attempted to gather support as they moved northwards. This should be briefly mentioned even if it is the lead.

Thanks, it is mentioned in the article but a mention in the lead is ok with me. Done Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Background > Religion in England:

• "several hundred years of religious turmoil in England" this is a highly sensational assessment. The situation was not comparable to France at this time, which was in turmoil (Wars of Religion), and you should provide several references in order to validate this if you think it's worth keeping. IMO, something more moderate would be better.

I'm no expert on the religious and political happenings of this time, my leanings are more towards sheer enjoyment of reading about generally how different things were back then. We'll happily take any advice you might wish to give. I don't think its a particularly sensational statement, what wording would you suggest to moderate the phrase? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd stop saying how much you're not an expert! "Several decades" would be better, as there was very little before the end of the 1520s. But tension had replaced turmoil during Elizabeth's reign anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. Apologies if I sounded patronising or sensational myself, my writing style leans towards both! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

How about this? Parrot of Doom 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some things need to be mentioned in this section which are crucial towards understanding why the plot happened: recusancy fines introduced by Elizabeth (which ruined many Catholic families), and the hope held by many Catholics that James would be more tolerant (because of his Catholic wife).

I'm concerned about focus and article size, so would the expansion of "The penalties for refusal were severe." to something like "The penalties for refusal were severe, with fines for recusants, and execution for repeat offenders" (would use better grammar obviously) be ok? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Done Parrot of Doom 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• "he was no supporter of the Church of Rome" in fact James believed that the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the true Church, of which Protestantism was also a part.

Haynes p20 - "This did not touch James, whose real attitude towards Catholicism derived from the same roots as his roots on Puritanism - a hostility that was much more political than religious.^{1 C.McIlwain, The political works of james i, introduction (1918)}" I take that to mean, generally, that he wasn't particularly fond of the Catholic Church. Do you have a source for your statement, as its addition might help the reader make more sense of James's apparent change of mind (WRT Catholics) Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's in Pauline Croft's biography of James I, simply "James I". Not sure of the page number, but I'll check whether google books has a limited preview of it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly try to find one; it was mentioned as one of the main points of the topic. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

• An important quote to put in would be from James I which is: "I shall not persecute any that shall be quiet" which obviously targetted Catholics.

I'd need a source for that. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot:

• This section goes into too greater detail about Robert Catesby; to my thinking this section should begin with "Intial planning". Perhaps it could provide a brief account of the conspirators, but it should not be entirely focused on Catesby. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We've tried to balance the amount of information given on each member of the conspiracy, with their importance to the plot. Catesby was undoubtedly the prime mover and its therefore only correct that he is explained in greater detail than, for instance, Christopher Wright (who only gets a few sentences). I agree about the structure though, it could probably stand a little fettling, let me have a think about it. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand it must be difficult to balance things perfectly; I have an incredible amount of respect for you both and others who've contributed to making the article as good as it is now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

• I've somewhat reworked that section, and eliminated some information particularly about Catesby that perhaps isn't so relevant to his role in the plot. Better? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Remember, remember the fifth of November... Excellent work with the article, prose is clear, sources cited correctly, images check out, all around meets FAC criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 146 (Marshall Peter...) who is the publisher?
  • Done Parrot of Doom 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image placement of Queen Elizabeth - should it not be on the left, as she's facing to the right? The same goes for Princess Elizabeth. Majorly talk 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've moved Queen Elizabeth to the left, as her body is slightly angled to her left, but I think Princess Elizabeth is fine as she is, as she's standing almost straight on to the viewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• What's with the different spelling of Raleigh (without an i)? Majorly talk 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Although "Raleigh" is probably more common nowadays, "Ralegh" was what the man called himself. Spelling wasn't yet standardised, and many are referred to by different spellings of their names, such as "Winter/Wintour", "Rookwood/Rokewood", etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It would surely be better to use the most common spelling. Majorly talk 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That might then create a problem with consistency - The Wintours are most often known as Winter, but they called themselves Wintour. I felt it was therefore best to assume the same stance with Ralegh. I did consider calling Robert Catesby 'Robin' as that seems to have been his favoured name, but I think it was more a nickname than anything else. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I got 'told off' for fixing the piping through a redirect in the Cosmo Lang article, and was pointed to WP:R2D. According to the guidance there should Walter Ralegh be a straight link rather than piped? Quantpole (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Sounds sensible to me, I've removed them. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• I assume the Duck and Drake is a pub? Could it be linked, or clarified in some way? Majorly talk 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be amazed if it still exists. Like a lot of inns of that era, it was probably not much more than a large timber-framed house with plenty of rooms. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added the word "inn" after Duck and Drake. There's certainly no pub with that name anywhere near the Strand today, so there's nothing to link it to. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• An interesting article, no more concerns. Majorly talk 19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  • In the lead Fawkes is not listed as one of the plotters, and it is not clear that he was involved from near the start of the plot but could imply he was just a sort of explosives expert. I realise that the intention is probably to avoid repeating his name too often, but I found that a bit confusing.
    • Good point; I've rewritten that bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I found the sentence: Nonetheless, James's easy succession[nb 3] was generally celebrated, then followed up a few lines later with: Despite several competing claims to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[nb 4] to be slightly confusing. I think it would make more sense to remove the word 'easy' and [nb 3] from the first sentence and combine it with the second sentence. I would prefer the [nb 4] to be moved to after the word throne. I presume reference 6 (Haynes p18) would be a source for the transition of power going smoothly.
    • Re-reading this I'm not sure I made myself very clear. I propose that the first sentence quoted above becomes: Nonetheless, James's succession was generally celebrated (removing the note), and the second sentence becomes: Despite several competing claims to the English throne,[nb 4] the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[6]
  • Whilst in the same section as above, I was unsure what Mary being regarded as a Catholic martyr had to do with James being an astute politician. I think the implication is that James used his mother's reputation to be more 'Catholic friendly', but that is simply my interpretation. Could the meaning o this be tightened up at all?
    • Ok its too long and boring a story to recite here but it took me a while to check this out, I think I've clarified things. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• The above really are minor things, overall I think the article is more than good enough to meet FA criteria. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your observations, I'll take a look at these hopefully tomorrow night and re-read the sources, to see if I can clarify things. Parrot of Doom 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems sound and comprehensive enough. Himalayan 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The shortness of this comment might make it seem like I've only done a half-assed review, but the truth is that after reading the article twice this week (on and off) I can't really find much wrong with it. It's nicely written, doesn't seem to omit major facts, etc. I guess if I'm going to quibble: 1) the last paragraph of "Religion in England" is, technically, missing a cite (in the article body at least); I assume it's supposed to be "Willson 1963, p. 154", but was accidentally missed out when some of the text was rolled into the annotation? 2) There's an uncited paragraph in "Bonfire Night", but this stuff is common knowledge, so it doesn't bother me much—it might others. 3) I'm a little surprised at the emphasis given to the Hammond-fronted reconstruction; has this really been the only serious attempt to figure out the likely efficacy of the plot? Are there any views that deviate from the programme's conclusions? 4) In "Trials", shouldn't "Minute ista pueris" be "Minare ista pueris"? 5) Aaaand finally, in "Aftermath", there is a seeming contradiction. The opening paragraph says that the discovery of the plot forced Parliament to implement more severe anti-Catholic legislation. However, the following "Accusations of state conspiracy" section states that "the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot". Other than that, nice work; I haven't read about the plot in any detail since school (15+ years ago, for the record) and it was nice to revisit the topic. Steve ^T • C 11:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks for looking the article over, and of course for your support.

• I've dealt with the contradiction you pointed out between Aftermath and Accusations of state conspiracy.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Minute ista pueris" is exactly what the source says. Parrot of Doom 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Then that's a problem, as "Minute" doesn't translate to "threat" or anything like it. Whereas "Minare"—"to drive" (by threats)—does. To further complicate matters (or maybe clarify), there's a scan of A true account of the Gunpowder Plot (1851) available here, which quotes "Minare" (page 26). Steve ^T • C 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think its a big problem. I know nothing about Latin but if its a simple mistake or misprint, we can just change it to the correct spelling. Is there an area of Wikipedia speakers of Latin frequent? Parrot of Doom 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually there are an abundance of sources including Caraman etc (mostly old, but at least they knew their Latin) for "Minare ista pueris" & anything else would seem to be a typo. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll change it accordingly, but will add a note to the effect that Haynes may have misspelt the word (just in case). Parrot of Doom 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Parrot of Doom 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed Parrot of Doom 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bardia

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... although it is very recent, I think that it is of high quality. The battle is a significant one which has received little attention until recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Excellent, although could you mention how hot and how cold it got in the Libyan Desert? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• All my sources are agreed on "bitterly cold". The 16th Infantry Brigade diarist provided a daily weather report but clearly had no access to a thermometer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check No dablinks, no bad external links, images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eubulides' alt text clearance moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• For maps, make sure that either the alt or the text describes what each map is trying to show (not merely their colors and appearance), and the movements that are taking place on them. See WP:ALT#Maps.
  • Done. I've never written an article where the map was so useful... added some more text to the alt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I added a bit more to the lower map. They look ok now. --an odd name (help honey) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Six Australian officers pose for a formal pictures." Should it be "formal picture"?
  • Done.
    • Changed check templates to "Done" to avoid template and image problems on the fac page; see "Supporting and opposing" above. --an odd name (help honey) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: 1c fine. 2c fine. Moved commentary to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this well written, well structured and well illustrated article easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support

"assisted by air and naval gunfire" -> "assisted by air support..."

• Done.

"This was compounded by qualitative problems with ammunition." Clumsy phrasing. That paragraph could do with a rebuild.

"But new factories were required to produce the latest equipment like 3 inch mortars, 25 pounders and motor vehicles, and War Cabinet approval was slow in coming." Please don't start start sentences with But... and take a look at that paragraph as well. For example, "The result was that when war came, the Army's equipment was largely of World War I vintage and obsolescent and its factories were capable only of producing small arms." is clumsy.

"As it moved into position around Bardia, the 6th Division was still experiencing shortages." I would like to see "As it moved into position around Bardia on [date],..."

"This, the other teams heard and followed suit.[54]" should be "This, the other teams heard, and followed suit.[54]" The idiom may be hard for non-Commonwealth readers to follow, but I love that sentence.

• Done.

Please fix typo in "The Italians defenders were cleared with grenades."

• Done

Ditto " He sent a platoon around the flank to silent cut the wire on the western side,..."

• Done

Ditto "Capturing the two posts cost one Australian was killed and seven wounded."

• Done

And "The others had been hit by shells, imobilised by mines, or had simply broken down.[80]"

• Done.

"...and the intended two company attack had to [be] carried out by just one"

• Done

"Within the 6th Division, there was were recriminations over what was seen as favouritism by Berryman towards Robertson,". What is the relevance of ", and the 19th Infantry Brigade," in that sentence? Difficult to fathom, please rewrite.

• Done

"In many ways the 6th Division was fortunate to have drawn the a "set piece" type of battle that most suited its Great War based doctrine and training" This paragraph appears internally inconsistent. They were lucky, or they weren't.

• Done

Best concluding sentence of a battle article I have read on WP.

Overall:

Great maps. It may make even better use of that resource to cut out sections of "Bardia map.jpg" to highlight aspects of the description close to the relevant text.

Meets 1a, 1d, 3 and 4. Good job. Dhatfield (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Morotai

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on a small but strategically significant battle of World War II was peer reviewed in February and passed a Military History project A class review in March. It has since been further improved by myself and a number of other editors (including, but not limited to, User:Cla68 and User:Ian Rose) and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dabs or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. Check the following, though:
  • Throughout, it uses "peninsular"—do you mean "peninsula"?
  • See the guideline on map alts (one I've had recent trouble with). For example, "Lines and symbols are superimposed over the map" doesn't tell us what sort of battle or movement File:Morotai landings 15 September 1944.jpg is trying to show. The map alts all have similar issues; the photo alts look fine, though.
• Dates throughout are Month Day, Year. I changed one per WP:MILMOS#DATERANGE, but I may be wrong. I see no date issues otherwise. (added on 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for those comments. I've re-written the alt text for the maps to describe what they depict as you suggest - does this now look OK? Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The alts are all good now. --an odd name 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice article, I believe that it meets FA criteria too. I have some minor comments, though:
  • In the opposing forces section, words are used for numbers greater than ten (in discussing the number of ships), yet in most other places numbers are used...
  • could a convert be added to the distance given in the second paragraph of the Allied landings section ("2,000 yards inland")?

Anyway, well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the second one, and that wording was the result of feedback in either the peer review or A class review which suggested that prose containing a mix of numbers and words looked odd (eg, "one LSD, 24 LCIs, 25 LSTs, 20 LCTs and eleven LCIs" was a bit awkward). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Definitely meets FA criteria. Looked at it a few times and couldn't think of any improvements. The article is especially impressive in that there are no major sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is there no casualties and losses section in the infobox? - DSachan (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In short, because there is no source which provides anything approaching a comprehensive number of casualties during the fighting between September 1944 and August 1945 (the period covered by the article). I've mentioned the casualty numbers for the periods where these are available in the article's text. I removed the casualties section from the infobox in July (leaving a note at Talk:Battle of Morotai) and no-one has either complained or provided a sourced figure. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Please supply original publication date: 31st Infantry Division (1993 (reprint)).

Done

Please supply publication location for all presses (eg Infantry Journal Press. )

Done

For non standard document identifiers please name the identification system (eg 6429367X.; ASIN B000ID3YRK.)

Converted to ISBNs

Chapter in book? Book in series? Help us out, make it more explicit (and generally, chuck [Series] behind series names which don't contain the word series]): Long, Gavin (1963). The Final Campaigns. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 1 – Army. Canberra: Australian War Memorial.

I've included the series name in the 'series' section of the appropriate citation templates. Chapters are displayed quite differently, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

1c:

Seriously concerned that Willoughby is a primary source (as its MacArthur's reports) and being used to substantiate facts (Willoughby, Charles A. (editor in chief) (1966). Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area Volume II – Part I. Reports of General MacArthur. )

The book was actually written by ex-Japanese Army officers and is pretty much the only source of information on the Japanese experiences in this battle (the 1994 introduction to the book states, correctly, that it's a "unique Japanese version of their operations in the Southwest Pacific that remains one of the few English-language descriptions of Imperial Army campaigns during World War II"). It's been used in other FAs such as Landing at Nadzab and Take Ichi convoy as well as A class articles including Admiralty Islands campaign, Battle of Kaiapit, Battle of Wau, Landing at Saidor and Landing at Nadzab. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never considered these to be primary documents. They were created from the monographs, a set of 200 odd accounts written by ex-Japanese Army officers. These are hard to find but there are microfilm copies in the National Library, War Memorial, and ADFA. Some were written from memory but others were compiled from orders and diaries and therefore are more like secondary documents. There are very few sources from the Japanese side, as so much documentation was destroyed during retreats and by Allied action, and there were few survivors of many important actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources in the Wikipedia to substantiate facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you've exhausted sources, especially contemporary ones and recent scholarship? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As Hawkeye7 notes, there is no single history which covers this battle from its inception in September 1944 until the end of the war; most sources cover either the first few weeks of the battle, the development of the Allied base or the fighting in early 1945. As a result, I've pieced the story together by consulting dozens of works (some useful, some not) in two major university libraries, including one which claims to have the best military history collection in the southern hemisphere and a focus on the Pacific War, and the National Library of Australia. There isn't really any 'recent scholarship' on this topic; Stephen R. Taafe's 1998 book was the most recent I could find that had a chapter or more on the topic (and he only covered the landing). I'm confident that I've consulted every significant work concerning on the battle and believe that the diverse references I've used in the article speak for themselves in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class Military History Article. Was not promoted on its last FA review because of a lack of feedback from any users. —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some minor stuff.

• The second link in External links merely shows a Indian Head test card and nothing else—it might be dead. Otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text where needed.

--an odd name 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. The dead link has been removed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (2c will follow later) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1a:

Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif should in SVG format. Try requesting at WP:GL. Connormah (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A request has been made. —Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is now in SVG format. —Ed!^(talk) 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 (Allen, Thomas B....) needs a page number, its 351 pages.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added page number. —Ed!^(talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• I've made a few copyedit tweaks, nothing major.
• World War I section, "the Allies signed an Armistice ending hostilities." Should Armistice be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War I section, "the 7th Division was inactivated.", per the discussion above.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "Most of the soldiers in the division were selective service soldiers,". "Soldiers" twice in the same clause, could this be reworded?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "the division formally redesignated as the 7th Motorized Division." Should this be "was formally redesignated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Eastern Mandates section, "4th Marine Division forces stuck the outlying islands". Should this be "struck"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Occupation of Japan section, "Seven thousand, five hundred members of the unit returned to the United States,". How many did this leave there? Or was this all of the soldiers? I guess I'm not really sure why the exact number of soldiers returning is spelled out...
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "The 14th Infantry Brigade reactivated". Again, should this be "was reactivated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "and inactivated at Fort Lewis, Washington." A "was" should be included, and "inactivated" per above discussion.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "On October 1, 1985 the division redesignated". Should be "was redesignated". For all of these, the division (as a concept) cannot redesignate or reactivate itself, and so it must be redesignated by people, hence "was".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "By 1994, the garrison closed the division subsequently relocated". What?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• A division in name only section, "organization of Active duty,". Should "Active" be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice article, I look forward to supporting in time. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Check the ISBN for 'McKenney, Janice (1997). Reflagging the Army. Center for Military History. ISBN ASIN B0006QRJPC.' - doesn't seem to be working. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The book is out of print, but I found its ASIN from Amazon.com here...it's the only ISBN code that I have. Is there some other number for the book that I should use? —Ed!^(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Nominator(s): —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It's rather short for an art article, but a week of library-searching leaves me confident it neglects no major information. User:Johnbod commented that the use of sources with extended discussion (as opposed to the current structure, which incorporates information from five or six primary sources interspersed with tid-bits from all over the place) would be desirable, but – as John himself noted – this is not readily available in English. I don't see it as a huge problem; tapping into a large array of sources has given me the impression that what's here is quite thorough. I look forward to criticism and will respond as quickly as I'm able. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check The links work, Dabs all fixed now but Apostle, Hellenism, Issus, National Museum of Fine Arts and Paul go to disambiguation pages. Infobox lacks alt text, format is | image_alt = Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c: High Quality Reliable Source, use of Britannica 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:

"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."

"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."

"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."

Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the commentary of others, I'm going to leave Britannica be. The sourced material is not contentious, and Britannica is respected. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "dog doesn't eat dog." —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Britannica being the world's other credible English language encyclopedia, we should produce research independent of theirs. The fact that its an unsigned Britannica article amplifies the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main, Wikipedia is not credible. Therefore, it's perfectly fitting we should source to a credible encyclopedia. Since Britannica is credible, that the article is not signed should not be a problem. Plenty of credible sources do not sign their material – half the news sources on the Internet, for example. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a fair catch to me. Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm only saying you should make the effort to incorporate foreign language sources if they will allow the article to be significantly improved and expanded. You can't justify excluding superior sources just because they're in another language. Articles are supposed to be comprehensive, not just comprehensive in terms of everything that's been published in English. If your argument is "there's nothing much more we can add to justify the effort", then that's probably reasonable, but if your argument is simply "English language sources are more convenient", then I must object. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I think his argument is basically that incorporating foreign sources would lend no additional value or comprehensiveness to the article, and personally I think that barring a reason to believe otherwise, we should trust the nominator's judgment. Can you point out any specific weaknesses in the article's coverage of the topic? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (I had written quite a bit of the article at GA stage). There does indeed seem to be a surprising shortage of material on the painting in English, to judge from Google/books/scholar and Wood's bibliography as at 1993. But I'm sure there is more tucked away somewhere. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism, Issue 9 of Studies in the fine arts, Reinhild Janzen, Publisher UMI Research Press, 1980, ISBN 083571120X, 9780835711203 must be relevant, and the Paris exhibition catalogue Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism (ISBN: 0847854108 / 0-8478-5410-8) Maurice Guillaud, Jacqueline Guillaud, Rizzoli, 1985, especially if the painting was in the exhibition. But I don't believe there is nothing more to be said - for one thing, what the Hagens have about the painting being cut down in size is not I think in yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added about the cut down, good find. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism definitely sounds relevant. I'll see what I can do to find a copy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Given that the subject of this article is an artistic work, citing facts about Alexander the Great to Britannica isn't really a big deal. None of the facts cited to the Britannica are contentious.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support "Historical Setting"
• "The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May,[8] was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but nonetheless resulted in an easy victory for Alexander." Why nonetheless? Seems clumsy.
  • Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "A core vanguard of traitorous Greek mercenaries" By definition, mercenaries fight whomever they were told to fight. Is there a good reason for this POV? Again, "renegade Greek mercenaries". In my opinion, "Greek mercenaries" will do. Their ethnic origin is relevant primarily in informing the reader that they would have been hoplites, nearly the equivalent of Alexanders heavy infantry, although the Macedonian hoplites were notably superior to their mercenary counterparts.
  • Consider how it would read without "traitorous". The layreader (who, perhaps, knows more about art than war), might be confused: "why were the Greeks fighting the Greeks?" Strictly speaking, the adjective is not needed, but it makes the text clearer. That the mercenaries were traitorous is not really disputable, but if you can think of a better term I'm happy to apply it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk
• "a counter to Nabarsanes' mounted conglomerate" A cavalry force is not normally known as a 'conglomerate'.
  • Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Other than the above, I really like the concise description of the battle. I'm not well enough informed to comment on the rest of the article, but the "Historical Setting" is FA-worthy. Relevant image, excellent map (arrows would be nice), tight prose just a little theatrical at times, as noted above. Dhatfield (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Mayall

Nominator(s): WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is in great shape, stable and complete. WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 2c. Comment, noting there are no problems with 1c but, I'm not qualified to support science biography on 1c terms. 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Citing the other Encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c: Please see Talk: 2c there are a few fiddle issues left, but its mostly resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c all problems resolved with 1c 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC):

Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am really quite unhappy about this. Dog doesn't eat dog, and your reviewers may have been correct in their time about the density of citations, but citing the Other Encyclopedia is bad form in a Featured Article. Also, its not authored by a specialist so its not HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have removed the Britannica cites. WilliamKF (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. I think the alts are excellent, except for the third one (would it be obvious from seeing the image alone that the large yellow structure is a telescope? See WP:ALT#Verifiability).

--an odd name 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)

    Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is not a purpose, but a description. A rationale should explain why the image is necessary (its purpose) and be specific and detailed (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose now reads Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included. If this is not sufficient, I would appreciate more direction, or better yet, another to edit the purpose further. The fair-use seems self evident to me. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's still not there. What you're trying to accomplish is to articulate to the reader what understanding the image is intended to convey. You say "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly", but not why that is the case ("because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included" is a non-sequitur; it discusses the article, not the image). The "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch may be helpful. Typically images depicting deceased individuals in this manner (infobox) have purposes generally summarized as "to facilitate identification of a notable individual". (i.e. Why is the image being included? So the reader can visually identify the subject.) Эlcobbola _talk 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    I've updated it again to now read: "This image depicts the appearance of Nicholas Mayall. His appearance is used in this article to facilitate identification of Mayall by the reader. Mayall is a notable deceased individual with few known photographs, none of which are known to be free sources." Please assist directly if this is not sufficient as you seem to have a clear idea of what is needed here. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    That's sufficient. I was not in a position to write the purpose as I didn't upload or insert the image and, therefore, had no knowledge of its intended purpose. I commented on the typical purpose I see for such images and what was presumably the case here, but you may well have been going for something completely different. The Iwo Jima flag example in that dispatch, for instance, demonstrates how one image can have any number of purposes. Эlcobbola _talk 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola _talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

    How is his appearance later in life relevant to the reader's understanding of the man? If seeing the telescope is important, as a device still in existence, a free alternative could be created (NFCC#1). The telescope may well have been meaningful to Mayall, but the threshold is a significant contribution to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). What understanding of either Mayall or the telescope is conveyed? (Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is identical to the above image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why would two images be needed to depict Mayall?) Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Removed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola _talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    My comment wasn't phrased well. The author field should be updated to avoid confusion. When articles are compiled (for example, hitting the "Download as PDF"), the information from this line is fetched for the credit appendix. As is, Walker will be credited only as the uploader, as the summary line does not carry over. Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Done. WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    Please ping Elcobbola for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Gregory ref in your sources lacks a last access date.
• Lindsley ref in your sources lacks a publisher.

  Done. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. For future reference, at FAC, practice is to let the person bringing up the concern strike it when they feel it is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have already seen the article when it was going through the peer review. I think it is a comprehensive and well sourced. After a copy-edit that I recommended the quality of prose also improved considerably. The only suggestion that I have now is to expand the lead. At 1.5 paragraphs it seems to be rather short. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] School Rumble

Nominator(s): 陣内_Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has undergone several external assessments and a major copyedit.陣内_Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

• Apparently Jinnai's computer died (see here) and he can only access the internet via his PSP right now. As it takes too long to type anything substantial, his participation may be very low until he can get his computer fixed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Found out what is the problem and ordered the parts. However, it may be another week before i can do much.陣内_Jinnai 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links, but refs 68 and 72 and the first external link are all dead.
  • External link corrected; 68 removed (and all infobox info on non-English publishers which have had English publications removed per template talk's consensus); 72 replaced with 3 refs.陣内_Jinnai 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • All external links work now. --an odd name 02:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• "2004=2005"—should this be 2004–2005 (with an en dash) or was this intentional (like the Lucky Star star)?
  • First assumption was right.
• Ref dates are all Month Day, Year, except for a few Day Month Year dates in "Other related media" and maybe other places.
  • Checked there and elsewhere and found them all to be MDY.
    • 125, 127, and 128 used {{cite book}} with separate month, day and year parameters. The documentation recommends simply using date if all three are present. They're fixed now. --an odd name 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• All images have alt text. The cover's alt should be obvious from viewing the image alone, though—I suggest you replace Tenma and Harima's names with descriptions of the characters, and maybe describe the text on (and appearance of) the cover as well, to meet that. Otherwise, they have no obvious errors. (added on 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Added descriptions of the characters. Check them out and see if there missing anything.陣内_Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Alts look good now. --an odd name 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

• I wonder if Kobayashi intended "School Ramble" (with an a) instead of "Rumble". It would make vastly more sense, and one source in the article is spelled "Ramble". Do any sources discuss the spelling?
  • The only other spelling I've seen (and i can note this if you want) is the shorthand Japanese pronunciation Schoolrum.
    • Nah, that one doesn't seem too important. --an odd name 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• I see sales data for the manga. Is there such data for the anime? (Inspired mainly by your review at Talk:New Cutie Honey/GA1—here I turn the tables a bit *wink*)

--an odd name 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Deal with the others when i have some more time.陣内_Jinnai 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Addressed most of the issues. For sales data, i might have a chance later to look around, but not atm.陣内_Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments for now. I will probably add more later since I'm skimming really fast. —Arsonal (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Any particular reason why the infobox image isn't using a cover image of the first Japanese manga volume?
  • See Talk:School Rumble#Reasoning for volume 13 Infoxbox image. --an odd name 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In addition, one of the main reasons for manga, to show the artstyle, fails for volume 1 as the main image is a chibi version of Tenma and an very extreme closeup of her face which does not allow to clearly see the general artstyle. 陣内_Jinnai 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Good enough reason for me. I disagree with the systemic bias assessment, but I'll leave that discussion out of here. I was just curious. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• First TV anime infobox section: extraneous closing bracket after "Revelation films", whose "f" should be capitalized.
• Media/Manga: Is it necessary to provide the Japanese name for Weekly Shōnen Magazine if it already has an article?
  • Removed it. I think it was originally added for consistency with the other publications.
• Media/Anime: In the image, "Initial D" should be italicized. "Azumanga Diaoh" is a misspelling.
• Media/Other related media: Add a comma after "July 21, 2005". Remove comma after "It was later reissued". "Famitsu" should be italicized and linked as Famitsū.
• Reception and sales/Anime: Italicize foreign words like shōnen and shōjo.
  • Those imo are common enough words that they do not need to be italicized, especially shōnen/shonen.陣内_Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It may be common in the manga and anime industry, but someone who has no knowledge about it would not immediately know. These words are not inherently English words. Project FAs Tokyo Mew Mew and the more recent Shojo Beat italicize these terms. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I could see the argument for Shojo, but given the popularity of Naruto and Dragonball Z beyond the typical anime/manga community shonen I believe has become more mainstream.陣内_Jinnai 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), mustache (A) (British: moustache), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).

Note: This comment is from User:AndyZ's peer review script. Extremepro 22:59, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Image comments
  • File:School Rumble - bike-chase.png is missing source info (is it from a website? Was it a self-made screencap?) and I don't think it really meets WP:NFCC. The rationale states it is used to show "how the series uses gags" and an example of a cultural reference. The latter reason isn't defensible, and the first one doesn't make any sense—I don't see a gag, I don't see where the text explains the gag, so obviously it's not doing a good job. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The gag is that it is a mockup of Initial D's Trueno. Intial D isn't in any way related to School Rumble, but the gag is that they still ride past him on their bikes. The riding past them is hard to show I admit with a screencap, but generally a screencap is easier to be defensable than a clip. Furthermore the cheesy 3-D graphics also show the way the anime goes along with the gag as the Initial D series is known for such graphics. This is an example of the type of gag used; one that used absurdist humor combined often with references to other anime/manga or pop-culture references.陣内_Jinnai 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • But none of that is explicitly elaborated on in the prose, as far as I see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. I still am wanting to do a short clip as I think it would illustrate the point better as its hard to see how the biks ride past the car with a screenshot, but need to find a good video splitting program.陣内_Jinnai 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Done what? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Jinnai expanded the image's "Purpose" at its page. (Nothing was added to the article itself, if that's what you ask. I guess Jinnai wanted to hold that off until a clip was made, but Nihonjoe's note above suggests that itself might be on hold.) --an odd name 20:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• 1c, 2c, comments: Also, what makes Mania.com, ICv2, Eomi Press, cdJapan, THEMAnime.org, Kodansha, Jonu Media, Digital=Sat high quality reliable sources? Some citations are inconsistently formatted, and/or missing, ex. curent ref #186. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Mania.com, ICv2, THEM Anime have been tested for reliability by WikiProject Anime and manga and have passed in previous FACs. Kodansha is the official publisher's website. Jonu Media is the publisher of Jonu Magazine based in Barcelona, Spain. CDJapan is one of the largest online retailer for Japanese products based in Tokyo. "Eomi Press" should be "ComiPress", though Jinnai will have to answer your question on its reliability. The same goes with "Digital=Sat" which should be "Digital-Sat". Arsonal (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carabane

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because all the suggestions made in the peer review have been implemented. I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links, but refs 62, 68, and 126 have dead external links. Ref 18 is also dead, but uses an archived page for the "work" param—I think you meant to make that the main url, not the "work" url, because without the archive.org stuff it is exactly the same.
• All images (and there's a lot—I expect image review to take up some time here) have alt text. For the map of The Gambia with two red dots, clarify that the dots are in the west and center of The Gambia (either in the alt or the prose). The Geography map doesn't have this problem because the dot location is effectively stated in the lead.
• Check the ref dates: most appear to be Month Day, Year but a few are ISO style and there's even French dates ("Retrieved 8 juin 2008"). Pick one style. (added on 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with all the problems presented by an odd name above except one. I have restored the "work" url for ref 18 and replaced the main url with the archived page. I have also clarified the alt for the map of The Gambia to specify the location of the two dots. The ref dates are now all formatted Month Day, Year. The only problem I'm not sure how to deal with is the three dead external links. How should I fix this problem? Neelix (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, dates look consistent Month Day, Year now. I can't find the dead links in Google cache or the Wayback. Remove them if they're just giving trivial facts; keep them and search around for another source for the cited facts if they're more important. --an odd name 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have switched ref 62 from a reference to the article online to a reference to the article in print. The external link for ref 68 has been switched to a link to an archived version of the page. The article referred to in ref 126 is also found on another website, so I switched the link. There should be no more dead external links in the article. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

All external links work now. --an odd name 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments A nice article, but some niggles on first read I'll have a more detailed read through when I can. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• There were some typos, and other infelicities, and the style of English varied between BE and AE (eg "colourful", but all units in meters, not metres. Since it's West Africa, I've tried to standardise as BE. I've made these changes, please check

Damn, you're a Canadian - I should have realised, since I went to Nova Scotia in September. I still think BE is more appropriate, but if you want to restore CE, that's not an issue. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Metric units need imperial conversions to help the poor old yanks also nautical miles to metric
• mudflats are exposed so that boats with keels can easily dock. When arriving at Carabane, the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village in 8 to 10 m of water. isn't this contradictory?
• It's stretching things a bit to call the MacDonald's birding trip an ornithological survey, but the birds are typical of the area, and in my Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, so I don't think the facts are challengeable, and I'm happy to let the ref stand Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Similarly with the French fish ref, I appreciate how difficult it is to get cast iron sources, and I would support you if the refs are challenged, since the content is clearly correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the typos, Jim! I'm quite alright with using British English in the article considering the part of the world being addressed; it was simply more natural for me to write it in Canadian English. I have converted all the remaining measurements so that both metric and imperial are displayed, including the one reference to nautical miles.

The two sentences about boats arriving at the island are not intended to state contradictory things. The first sentence states that it is easy for boats to dock on the island because their keels shift into the exposed mudflats, allowing them to dock securely (ie. there are no exposed rocks to damage the bottom of the boats). The second sentence states that the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village because the water surrounding the island is so shallow (ie. the mudflats are relatively close to the surface of the water). Boats can easily dock at the island, but not very close to the island. Do you feel the explanation of this in the article needs to be clarified? Neelix (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no sailor and I assumed mudflats would be a hindrance, not a help, so perhaps clarification would be good; any way, I'm happy to

• Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
• There is no need to mark English language sources as such. Along the same note, current ref 34 is in French? It lacks the note
• Current refs 70 and 71 are wikipedia articles, they are not reliable sources.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carabane-Ambulance.jpg is not a reliable source

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither the two references linking to Wikipedia articles nor the one linking to an image in the Commons was intended to contain citation information, just helpful links; I was not attempting to suggest that any information in the article was sourced by those references. Nonetheless, I have removed all three references. I have also removed all the "English" tags on the English source references in the article and I have added the "French" tag to ref 34. As for http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html, I don't know what to state as a publisher because the report was never published in print. It was written by Artur Degollada i Soler on July 14, 1998 with the title Lista de las aves observadas en Senegal and is presented to the English-speaking world online by Tina MacDonald. I do not believe that published ornithological studies of the island exist, so this is the most reliable information which is available about birds in Carabane. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the MacDonald reference. I have a reliable source, the standard text The Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, which establishes that the listed birds are present in the wider Casamance area, and makes it very likely that the listed source is correct in terms of content. Unless you are challenging the content, I would let the ref stand. Alternatively, I could add the book ref as well, in a supporting role. The worst case scenario, if you are adamant on this, would be to remove An ornithological study in 1998 discovered the following species on the island and replace with The following birds are typical of the Casamance area, plus the book ref. However, this seems a retrograde step, diluting the information specific to the island despite the near certainty that it is actually correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's approach this from another angle, who is Tina MacDonald? Is she an orinthologist? If so, she may qualify under WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

According to her website, Tina MacDonald is a novice birder who has done extensive research and study but has not received formal education in ornithology. Her website, which hosts a large number of unpublished ornithological surveys, is cited on the websites of the University of Richmond, the Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory, the Information Security Group, and the National Audubon Society. Intute says that MacDonald's "outstanding site offers a comprehensive guide to bird watching hotspots around the world." MacDonald does not have a degree in ornithology, however her website is considered credible by established organizations. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this then, throw up the book cite on top of the MacDonald, and we'll consider it close enough for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, supporting book reference added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I am copyediting the article as I go through, as the prose can do with some reworking. Please revert any changes which inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - I don't get this, I suspect it doesn't mean legal trials, so what is it referring to?

References come at the end of sentences or clauses (i.e. after a full stop or comma)

Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - do the previous refs ref this as well?

Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - does the previous ref (115) reference this as well?

They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - does the previous ref (117) reference this as well?

French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - is this overly dramatic? Would "preserved" be more appropriate in this sentence and the next?

Looks okay otherwise. Look forward to supporting soon. Might have another look at copyediting. Prose is now better but a few minor improvements might be out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyediting, Casliber. Here are my responses to your questions:

1. After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - The word "trials" is used to refer to the social struggles the village has been facing: the declining population, the Casamance Conflict, the sinking of the Joola, etc. Can you think of a way of making this clearer?
2. Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - Ref 113 is the source for this information.
3. Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - Yes, ref 115 is the source for this information.
4. They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - Yes, ref 117 is the source for this information
5. French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - A direct translation of the title of Thomas's article is "Is it necessary to save Carabane?" Similarly, a direct translation of Diatta's article is "Who is to save Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?" The questions they pose are dramatic, but I suppose we can tone them down. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I have read the last through a few times, and changed to one verb each. Actually I do think "save" adds something when added right at the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the citations are now located after full stops. As for your first bullet, what do you think of changing the word 'trials' to 'difficulties'? Neelix (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think 'difficulties' is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Neelix (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of Neville Chamberlain

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is a large part of the GA Neville Chamberlain. At the peer review, while the article was generally liked, it was thought to be too long. I did not think that it could be shortened by editing without losing a lot of information, so it was split, and this is part I. While the FAC is going, I'll be working on summarizing the portion of the main article covering 1869-1937 (I could not call this "Early Life of Neville Chamberlain", the customary dodge, for obvious reasons). This article covers much of the career of a man who had a lot more to him than an umbrella and a forlorn piece of paper.Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Elcobbola image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No dab links and all images have alt text. Ref dates are consistent ISO style. --an odd name 17:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this recoloured image being used in preference to the original ? In my opinion, the recolouring by a wikipedian does not serve any encyclopedic purpose, and is possibly ahistorical. Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• The trend of recoloring historical images does need review, for the reasons mentioned by Abecedare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've switched it for the black and white one. Odd how Joe Chamberlain's clothing could probably pass on the street, while either of his sons looks hopelessly old-fashioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why does the last source in References say 2010? I assuming this is a typo (also note that the Harvard references need to be fixed). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not a typo. I bought the book on September 15, too. That's what it says on the copyright page! It won't matter in a month and a half. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Relying on the Copyright date is the most common way to assign a date to a text. If the publisher wants to lie, we still work off the lie on the bibliographic information page of the work. Other ways to date books exist, but shouldn't be of large concern to FAC reviewers of 2c unless the work lacks a copyright date, or date of publication on the bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why they do what they do is not clear to me. I should not that if I switched it to 2009 (publication date at least in the UK where I bought it), five years from now people will wonder why it doesn't bear the copyright date. Copyright date seems to be the best way to go. I'm open to ideas here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to support:(See support statement at end) Chamberlain is a discredited figure in UK political history and it is rare to find a dispassionate account of his career, which was by no means all failure despite its inglorious end. This narrative looks distinctly promising, with a generally uninvolved perspective; however, there are numerous fairly minor prose issues that need attention. I'm not through yet, but here is my first list:-

• Lead
  • "long been seen" and "was seen" in same sentence - repetitious; suggest "long been regarded"
  • "chartered accountants" should have a link
  • Likewise "backbenches"
  • Likewise "National Government"
  • The chronology of Chamberlain's early ministerial career would be easier to follow if you said "briefly becoming Chancellor..." and "later spent five years as Minister of Health".
  • "guiding Britain through the Depression" sounds like a judgement. In some analyses, Chamberlain's financial policies during the Depression were divisive, with a particularly harsh impact on northern working-class areas. Rather than "guiding", I'd say something neutral like: "directing Britain's fiscal policy through the Depression years."
  • Last sentence: the parenthetical note needs to specify "who had replaced MacDonald as Prime Minister in 1935"

Response Did all these, though I modified the phrasing.

• Early life
  • "...who later became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and a Cabinet minister." As there is no connection between these offices, the phrasing would read better as "who became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and later a Cabinet minister."
  • Another rephrasing suggested: "Joseph Chamberlain's first marriage had produced two children, Beatrice and Austen." This avoids the ugly "had had".
    • Your choice to retain "had had". I still think it's ugly, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "a sister"? Presumably "his" sister?
  • "whilst at Rugby". I don't know if the old ukase against "whilst" is still in force. Either way I think the phrase is redundant.
  • Does the source use the term "apprenticed" in relation to his accountancy training? In the UK the traditional term for on-the-job training in a profession, as distinct from a trade, was "articled".
    • Stay with your source, even though in this instance I think he's used the wrong word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Response Done. On the last, Self, page 21 says "As a result, he was apprenticed in 1889 to a leading firm of Birmingham chartered accountants where he demonstrated rather greater application and within six months he was promoted to become a salaried employee." I am pretty sure Self is British, and he surely knows his stuff, he released this bio after editing and publishing Chamberlain's papers in multiple volumes. Maybe things are different in Birmingham? After this and your illustrious forebear, I've come to the conclusion it's a rather strange city.

• Business career
  • The section should have a broader title, since only the first two paragraphs cover Chamberlain's business career. Alternatively it could be split.
    • I'm not sure that "Businessman" is much broader, but I can't think of anything better. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Close repetition of "venture"; second mention could be "enterprise", or "project", or "operation" etc
  • Is there a rule about converting acres (to hectares, km² etc)?
  • After the second paragraph the chronology of this section becomes a bit confusing. In succession we have a comment he made in 1931, reference to a journey in 1904-05, undated civic activities and hospital involvement, likewise undated involvement in establishing the University of B'ham (which must predate 1914 since Joseph died that year). Then we go to the Boer War and the 1900 election, and finally to some private life details. I think the section needs a bit of tidying, even if the splitting option is rejected.

It struck me that it would be more jumbled had I tried for strict chronological order (for face it, Chamberlain led a fairly humdrum life during that time) so it was best to have paragraphs that cover topics, not times. Business career, outdoor activities, civic activities, politics, personal life (I combined the last two into one paragraph to be more compact). Open to ideas, but I think this is a decent way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not something I feel strongly about. It looks tidier as a single paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm working through my strikes, bear with me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Birmingham politician
  • First para, final sentence, looks in need of a citation. Also, the final phrase "a name by which it is still formally known" is probably unnecessary.
  • "With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Chamberlain became deeply involved in the war effort." There is no evidence of this in the rest of the section. His hard work and his activities, important though they were, don't really chime with the phrase "war effort".
  • Also, the sentence about him prospering personally from the war seems oddly placed here. Should it be put as a note somewhere in the Business career section?
    • I'm going to strike that sentence. Self makes mention of the Chamberlains having financial problems in the early 1920s. MPs got paid almost nothing then, you had to be a minister to earn a decent amount of money.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "established ... established" in close proximity. Synonyms: inaugurated, instituted, set up, etc.
    • The sentence in question is "The concerts established Birmingham as a cultural centre, and in 1919, the Orchestra was formally established." The next setence begins: "Chamberlain established..." That's rather too much use of the one word, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • All these are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Director of National Service
  • The phrase "to various extents" is too vague to be useful. Suggest drop it, and rephrase "which would have resulted in mandatory service..."
  • Did Austen really say "...for together if they were together..."?
    • Yes he did, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. No wonder his career flopped if he went around saying things like that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • These issues are taken care of. I've just said "for mandatory service". Chamberlain tried several different ways; Lloyd George and the War Cabinet basically blew him off.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Candidate and backbencher
  • "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote a biography of his cousin—the only book he ever wrote." The sentence seems laboured itself. Perhaps: "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote his biography — the only book he ever wrote." (note spaces around ndash).
  • "...tried to recruit him to serve on another committee..." - ambiguous. I think you mean "an additional committee"
  • "...five of the six Unionist leaders, including Austen Chamberlain, resigned from their government and party offices." It won't be immediately clear to those without knowledge of British political history why Austen and other leading Unionists resigned their government and party offices. It should be made clear that they opposed their party's decision to go it alone, and wanted Lloyd George's coalition to remain in place. Hence their refusal to serve under Bonar Law. (They all crept back later, though).
    • Still not completely clear to the unaware, I fear. How about inserting thus: "five of the six Unionist leaders including Austen Chamberlain, who wished the coalition to continue, resigned..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will work on this today. Was going to work on the main article, but first things first. I tend to throw in a whilst or two when writing British English as a way of showing it is British English. Always happy to defer to a competent authority, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All these comments have been addressed, except as commented, although I may have used other phrasing than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing comments (second half of article)

• Bonar Law government
  • The main thrust of this section is Chamberlain's early ministerial career. His short stint as Chancellor is covered in one sentence - there's much more about his activities in other posts. So I'd change the heading to "Bonar Law government; early ministerial appointments" or some such.
  • "Bonar Law appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, outside the Cabinet." For clarity, I suggest "Bonar Law initially appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, a ministerial post below Cabinet level." ("Initially" emphasises that this was merely NC's first appointment)
    • Suggestion not adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think "King's Speech" should be explained rather than just linked, e.g. "the King's Speech opening the new parliamentary session"
    • Probably, "setting forth the Government's programme", with the link in place, is enough without the "in opening parliament" bit. On this same point, did Chamberlain "oppose" or "refuse" the request to broadcast the speech? Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
      • He opposed it, which is logical enough. That is a fairly momentous decision, and I doubt the Postmaster General would be left to make it. No doubt Downing Street made it in consultation with the Palace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarify "offered the position" = "offered the Health ministry"
  • "Housing Act" looks too broad a term to be the subject of a single Wikipedia article (there have been many such Acts in the UK), so I'd drop the redlink
    • It's actually a pipe from Housing Act 1923. Let's hold off on this one, User:Ironholds is doing a massive project of writing articles on individual UK acts, and I've asked him to look at the redlinks in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • OK Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "whilst" he sought ???
    • • Actually, when my mom and I went to the UK in 2004, we had the giggles each time we saw the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mosley was no gentleman" No doubt true, but also rank POV. Suggest "Mosley, who was described by Baldwin as "a cad and a wrong 'un", refused to retract the allegation."
    • • That's how Macklin describes him ... but I'll rephrase. Darn. You're taking all the fun out of it. That must have been a really great campaign to witness ... Mosely vs Chamberlain. I'd pay money to see that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
        • In about 1978 when I was a student, I was walking in St James's Park when I saw Mosley, sitting all alone on a park bench. He looked very old and defeated. No one paid the slightest attention, but it was definitely him. I did not pay my respects. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Minister of Health
  • It might be worth mentioning that ten shillings corresponds to about £20 in today's values. (per MeasuringWorth.com)
    • I've added the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rambling sentence: "Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, though the two had policy differences, and the Chancellor let Chamberlain read a manuscript volume of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis, confiding to Chamberlain that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript." Try "Despite policy differences Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, who showed him the manuscript of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis. Churchill confided that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript; Chamberlain wrote to his sisters that he could have done the job in two hours—with a pair of scissors."[85]
  • "Labour MPs, however, gave as good as they got." Again, the personal voice intrudes. Suggest "Labour MPs retaliated; one referred..." etc
  • "His poor relations with the Labour Party would play a major part in his downfall as Prime Minister." Needs an "eventually" or "in due course" to maintain chrnological sense.
  • "...by seizing on provisions..." - what does this actually mean? Sounds like banditry as stated. Perhaps "commandeering"?
  • I suggest the following sentence is deleted - it tends to confuse an already fairly complex situation: "The Poor Law boards had responsibility for both the unemployed, and for the disabled and elderly; responsibility for the unemployed was given to its own set of commissions."
• Return to opposition
  • I am a bit bothered by paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section, which seem to be overdetailed in regard to the Empire Trade issue, which impacted against Baldwin rather than Chamberlain. I have prepared a condensed, single version of the incident, here, which you might consider. Note that I have used "campaign" rather than effort, and have extended Baldwin's remark on power without responsibility to the full quote he borrowed from Cousin Kipling.
    • I did my own shortening, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Your revised shorter version is fine. Should Kipling be acknowledged, in a foonote perhaps? I would still prefer "campaign ... for" rather the "effort ... for", though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not accepted idiom to say that a party "swept a number of seats. They "won" them , or "captured" them, but they didn't "sweep" them.

• Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
  • Suggest link Liberal National
  • Suggest delete "his brother" before Duke of York. It reads confusingly, otherwise.
  • "At the end of the speech, Sir Austen Chamberlain walked down and shook his brother's hand." At the beginning of the speech they were side by side...so what happened?
    • • Sir Austen was behind him. That's clear in the article. He was a backbencher. Taylor indicates that one reason Austen was given no role in the National Government was that his faculties were starting to fail. His letter to his sister that I linked above seems pretty cogent to me. I'm still trying to verify a claim that Neville used his father's despatch box for the address, but I haven't been able to confirm it so it isn't in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You're right about "behind". I read it as "beside" - sorry Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "With the Prime Minister in decline..." Best to name him.
  • Final paragraph should have a brief introduction, rather than leading in with an unexplained "new king".
  • "...dying two months earlier" → "having died two months earlier."

• Legacy and reputation
  • Much of this section seems to refer to his whole career, rather than to the part that is the subject of this article. That makes confusing reading for someone unfamiliar with the details of Chamberlain's premiership and appeasement policy; since this article is about Neville's rise, the assessment section should be confined to that. Would it not be more pertinent to retitle this section "Appraisal" or some other neutral noun ("Legacy and reputation" are post-career terms), and to use the space for an evaluation of his tenures in the main offices (Chancellor and Health Minister) which he occupied up to 1937? The other stuff should be reserved for the second article.

That is my review. I don't think there is any serious issue among the points that I've raised – they are mainly matters of minor prose and presentation. My biggest concern at the moment is the last section, for the reasons explained. If pressed I could indicate some areas where I think the level of detail is excessive—I have made one suggestion in this respect. But on the whole, the big achievement has been to make Neville Chamberlain almost interesting. What next – the love life of Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look it over. I think some mention has to be made of the appeasement issue. I think that the "slum clearance" comment can be lost, I put that in in an effort to bend over backwards on NPOV. Note that the Legacy section in this article is entirely different than in the main article, and some of the comments (for example, both of Macmillan's) really cover both Chamberlain's tenure as Chancellor and his peacetime premiership. Macklin seems to be right, it is hard to filter out the "authentic Chamberlain". I disagree with one thing, though: no one is going to read this article who does not know that Chamberlain is known for appeasement and Munich. As for Home: Did Home have a love life? He must have, he had kids. I'm giving some thought to Attlee, though, though I haven't started accumulating references. Baldwin is starting to seem more interesting to me. How can a man be at the top rank of British politics for fifteen years and spend most of his time, apparently, dreaming about retirement?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The Appraisal section is now excellent. Spoilsport note: "Iron Lady" is not a neutral term in relation to Margaret Thatcher. Initially intended as pejorative, it was adopted by her as a badge of honour. People who thus describe her are generally thought to be in admiration of her. If it was in quotes, or qualified as "the so-called Iron Lady", this would be more neutral. But (in my view) best avoided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that it is difficult to separate appeasement from rearmament, and Chamberlain's record on rearmament is certainly fair game in this article. That's why I have the two quotes from Attlee and Greenwood in there, not to mention the sniping from Churchill. While those matters came to fruition during Chamberlain's premiership, they had their roots when he was Chancellor. Anyway, I don't have much time to work on the details right now but I'll get to them within a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahead of schedule as usual. All done, except as noted. I cleaned up the legacy section, but you have some mention of appeasement for the reasons as stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I've addressed the remaining concerns in the part of the article you've double-checked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's taken me a while, but I've re-reviewed everything. Only a couple of points are still unstruck - could you look quickly at those (including the "established ... established ... established" phrasing) and briefly respond. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've caught your second pass comments and unresolved first pass issues now. I did some disestablishing, so I think you'll find that is OK. I didn't know Kipling was Baldwin's cousin. Well, live and learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: My long list of issues has been worked through patiently, and I think the article is better for it. I believe the sources are top quality and have been used effectively. I'd get the Kipling citation in, though. This highly informative article is an important contribution to 20th century British political history and has taught me lots I didn't know. Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  The Kipling cite is footnote 101, more as an explanatory note. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Singapore

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after a year of work, I feel the article is ready for this again. The main issue last time around was over the sourcing of images. I have talked to the user and gave me some ideas on what can be done. I tried to get more information from the SG government, but not much luck there. All dead URLs have been either replaced or removed and just managed to get a PDF copy of the Main 2004 rules, which I am willing to upload to the Commons once I find out legislation is public domain in Singapore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite ___}} templates. This causes inconsistency (compare refs 45 and 46), so I suggest you pick one type or manually write them. There's also a few Day Month Year dates in the refs, when most use ISO style—change them to the dominant style.
• No dab links or dead external links, which is good. (The link checker complains about two mindef.gov.sg sites—something about "Excessed redirect limit (8)"—but they work for me.)
• Some images have alt text. Now add some for the blue Straits flag and the photos.

--an odd name 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Templates fixed (not sure how to do an interview, but I gave it a shot. I did the dab link and url link check before I even came here tonight. I am fixing the alt text issues now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Alt text finished. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text clearance from Eubulides moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that fixes all the alt text problems reported. Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 4 (Foong..) needs a page number
• Current ref 16 (Noor..) lacks a last access date.
• Current refs 18 and 19 (Singapore Arms..) both lack publishers and last access dates.
  • Comment: See my comment about the citation of legislation below.
• Current ref 48 (Leong..) lacks a publisher. This is a journal article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
• What makes http://www.singsingapore.org.sg/songs-lyric.asp?sid=27 a reliable source?
  • The above site is owned by the National Arts Council, a government entity. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://flagspot.net/flags/sg~war.html#const a reliable source? Note that FAC criteria have changed to needing high quality sources, so it needs to not only fulfill WP:SPS but be a "high quality" source.
  • That page cites the law that created the flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment List of Singaporean flags is very short and mostly redundant to the main article. I suggest merging it. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Reywas92. There's not much extra there. --an odd name 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. The other flags are not included due to lack of "image sourcing" as required by FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about citation of legislation. In a comment above, Ealdgyth mentioned that footnote 19, a reference to the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.), lacked the name of its publisher and the date when it was last accessed. Zscout370 therefore changed the footnote to "'Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.' (PDF). Government of Singapore. 1985. Retrieved 2009-11-19". This is not the correct way to cite a piece of legislation. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to indicate the publisher of a piece of legislation and the date of publication for the following reasons:

• I do not see why the publisher of a statute must be indicated when a citation in the usual legal form as shown above provides all the information that is needed to locate the statute in question.
• In particular, it is unnecessary to provide a separate date of publication, at least for Singapore statutes, because a properly cited statute will already contain a reference to the date when it was passed.

In any case, I note that in past FAs such as "Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India" and "Roe v. Wade", pieces of legislation are rightly not cited in the same way as books. Finally, if it is felt that a statement regarding when the legislation was accessed should be added (e.g., "Retrieved on 19 November 2009"), I think this is acceptable. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I'll make any straightforward changes as I read through (feel free to revert any inadvertent changes in meaning I make), and post queries below. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10: