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] Ralph Bakshi

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: 2c citation consistency Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you supply a volume and issue number, if such exist. Supplying an article title, and indicating Staff author, [Staff author] (for no byline, or the byline ^ Television/radio Age. Television Editorial Corp. 1969. p. 13.

No, I cannot. Found the citation on Google Books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Does Variety not credit authors in the 1970s? ^ "Fritz the Cat". Variety. 1972. Retrieved 2009-08-13.

The Variety website does not credit any author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Date inconsistency, 3 styles used: eg, "^ Canby, Vincent (October 1, 1982). "Bakshi's 'Good Lookin'". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-13." and "^ King, Susan (April 24, 2005). "Bakshi's game of cat and mouse; He took heat when he addressed adult themes in animation, a realm thought to belong to kids. Now it's kudos.". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2009." and "^ Gibson, John M.; McDonnell, Chris (April 1, 2008). Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe. ISBN 0789316846." pick one style and stick with it throughout.

I'm not sure where there is a problem, as the style is automatically generated by the cite templates. Could you look at how the templates are formatted to see if you can fix it yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Chapters in edited collections generally also indicate the book editor, as the books are indexed under book editors, "^ a b c d Grant, John (2001). "Ralph Bakshi". Masters of Animation. Watson-Guptill. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0823030415."

In most cases, there is only one author for each of the books. In instances where multiple authors contributed to a book, I've tried to credit the editors where possible, although I was not able to find the names for every book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Where authors of chapters are also authors of the book, it is uncommon to cite chapters specifically. You seem to do it consistently, is this a style matter? see also "^ a b Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008). "Ups & Downs". Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe Publishing. pp. 210-211. ISBN 0789316846."

Cleaned up these cites. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Guardian often names its authors, did they not name an author for this work? ^ "Who flamed Roger Rabbit?". The Guardian. August 11, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.

Must have been removed by a copyeditor by mistake. I restored it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Chapter in a larger work, quotation within a title? Title quotations if on a single line generally end with a comma, not a full-stop (US English: period). ^ Beck, Jerry (2005). "Cool World". The Animated Movie Guide. Chicago Review Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781556525919.

Chapter headers are presented as they appear in the book. Please explain the exact problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Author? Staff? [Staff]? Volume, Issue, Page numbers if released on paper? ^ "Main Street Pictures Teams Up With Top Hollywood Creators". Animation World. September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-26.

Fixed citation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Oppose Nominator's claim that "the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC" is false, blatantly so. Here are two issues that were raised not just once, but multiple times during the previous FAC, which have not been addressed in any way. I can repeat my text virtually verbatim from that last FAC:

• A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, four contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this.
  • All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion, and everything that could be found is in the article. You may believe that it is not "balanced", but the fact is that the cited opinions of the films do reflect opinions from the release of the films. Jerry Beck wrote the reviews of these films when they were released, and they appeared in various animation journals. The reviews in his book, I would assume, more or less, reflect the same opinions. I believe that the overall presentation is balanced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
• The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question?
  • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Again, I raised these issues in the last FAC, I reiterated them there when they were not addressed after a week, and Steve in his reviews also indicated that they were significant concerns. In the interim, nothing has been done to address these concerns.

• In addition, it seems clear that virtually nothing has been done to address the overreliance on one source, Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, that Steve addressed--again, repeatedly--in the last FAC. As Steve took the lead on that issue before, I hope he'll return here and give us his sense of whether there's been any progress or not. DocKino (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfiltered is used largely in sourcing biographical information which cannot be better sourced elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with the book. It's the only biography to focus entirely on Bakshi's work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Ibaranoff, this article is approaching a record number of FACs. Unless you can quickly address these recurring issues, I feel obligated to archive this FAC and ask that you not re-submit it until you have gotten permission from Raul, Karanacs or me. I'll give it a few days to see how this evolves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly, there are no further issues that need to be addressed. DocKino is clearly nitpicking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Clearly. DocKino (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks–Baxter War

Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Third times a charm! I've made all the changes that other editors suggested in the previous round of FAC, if there are any other suggestions I will make those corrections as well. Please be specific. --The_stuart (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c, 2c Jargon reduced at 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) the first comment and translation are in relation to the original terse language Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2c A large number of 2c issues resolved, with one outstanding, at Talk: from 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1c

No article indicated, no indication if article written as by an expert, unsigned tertiary. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources unless they meet a stringent criteria. It must be written by academics, for an academic public, and the article in question must have the "by line" or be "signed" by an academic specialist. You don't give us enough to go on here. Name the article, and the author of the specific article.: ^ a b c d e f g h Zuczek, Richard (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era. Westport: Greenwood Press. p. 103-104. ISBN 0313330735.

OR from Primaries and speculation. You have conducted Original Research by synthesising Primary Sources here. This is the correct work of a historian; not Wikipedia. Find this in a secondary source. Your text also contains speculation, "On November 6, 1872, the day after the general election, the Gazette reported: "The election was one of the most quiet in Little Rock we ever witnessed.[14] The returns on that day were too small to report with any certainty who had won, and the newspaper reported fraud. Rumors flew about claims that registration had been cut short or extended in many counties to suit the needs of whoever controlled the polling places. The following Monday, the Gazette published incomplete tallies from the various counties showing a small majority for Baxter. They also reported more forms of attempted fraud. Some unofficial polling places had apparently been set up, but only those votes cast at the regular polls had been certified.[15]"

Use of an unsigned tertiary from the 19th century to support (Again, you've used a non reliable source encyclopedia. Its more questionable because its from the 19th century and is not academically titled (unlike your one above): On the May 19, General Newton and his troops reoccupied the State House grounds, which had just been evacuated by Brooks; forces, and on the 20th he reinstated Governor Baxter.[26] Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas. actually This Masters thesis from 1947? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cologne War

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...it has been through a stringent review process in Military History Project, and recently passed the ACR. Upon re-reading it for the Xth time and comparing it to the FA criteria, it clearly meets them. This article started life as a request for a translation of an article on the same topic in the German wiki. Since then, I've expanded it to include several "children" of this article (bios of key individuals, some of the battles--these are emerging over time). Thanks for reading, and thank you for constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but some work is needed:
  • Image:Godesburg 1583.jpg lacks alt text.
  • The coats of arms have alt text that isn't right. For example, the alt text for the image in " House of Neuenahr-Alpen" is "Coat of Arms of the House of Neuenahr-Alpen". This has two problems. First, alt text is supposed to be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and only an expert in that period of history would recognize the image as being that of the coat of arms of Neuenahr-Alpen. Second, the alt text is not supposed to repeat caption or other adjacent text (see WP:ALT#Repetition), but this alt text repeats the nearby "House of Neuenahr-Alpen". Most of the coats of arms are like this one: they are purely decorative in the technical sense that they repeat adjacent text, and so they should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. However, the coat of arms in File:D'argent croix de sable.svg is not purely decorative (no adjacent text says the same thing), so it needs alt text in the two places it appears. This alt text should be visual (e.g., "dark cross on a white background"), so that it's verifiable.
  • The alt text "Map of key cities and towns of the Cologne War" doesn't give the gist of the map, plus it repeats the caption. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice and examples.
  • Please spell out "3/4" as per WP:ALT#Text. Also, please reword the containing sentence so that it's grammatical.
  • "man in holding" isn't grammatical.
  • Phrases like "Copper plate engraving of", "copper engraving of", and "depicts" should be avoided as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
  • The following phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded and/or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: "Werl, by M. Merian (early 17th century)", "Recklinghausen", "Neuss".

Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of these issues. When you say "verified" do you mean "recognized"? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much better, and I struck the parts that have been fixed so far. By "verified" I mean verified in the sense of WP:ALT#Verifiability or the Wikipedia verifiability policy: namely, that all the claims in the alt text can be verified by someone who is looking at the image (or at citations for the claims, but alt text normally doesn't contain or need citations). Some further comments about the recent fixes:

• I see that many of the shields are marked with "|link=|alt=Some description" rather than with "|link=|alt=" (with an empty alt description). It's better to use empty alt for these images, because the alt text just gets in the way of the visually impaired reader for purely decorative images like that.
• I had suggested "dark cross on a white background" but looking more closely, shouldn't that be "Black cross on a silver background"? The two alt text entries for these two images don't agree: one claims it's a Crusaders' cross, which is surely wrong.
• The alt text for File:Cologne War 1.svg shouldn't say "Electorate", since the image itself doesn't say that it's of the Electorate. Just say "territory" or something like that. Also, the image says "Rhein River" so the alt text should use the same spelling (or better yet, the image's spelling should be changed to "Rhine" to be consistent with the article and with the usual English spelling).

don't want to change Rhein to Rhine, because the names of towns are Rheinberg and Linz am Rhein, not Rhinehill and Linz on the Rhine. I'll put the translated version in the caption, with Rhein in parens.

• The alt text for File:AgnesvonMansfeld.jpg shouldn't say "Agnes von Mansfeld Eisleben" because this is not verifiable from the image itself, and because it repeats the caption.
• Similarly, the alt text for File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg shouldn't say "Gebhard" or "the emblem of his office".

Just Man or woman

• Similarly, the alt text for File:Werl-Merian--1.png shouldn't say "Werl".
• Similarly, the alt text for File:Godesburg 1583.jpg shouldn't say "Frans Hogenberg, a Dutch engraver and artist of the 16th century, was living in the Electorate of Cologne during the war, and engraved this picture of the destruction of the Godesburg (fortress)."

Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will fix these issues. Am I correct in understanding that you want me to remove alt text from the ones that have link?Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the shields that have empty |link= should also have empty |alt=. Please see WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. The exception is File:D'argent croix de sable.svg, which is not purely decorative in the W3C sense. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

okay, I've removed it. I read that instruction WP:ALT #Purely decorative images several times when constructing that box, adding those images, etc., and couldn't figure out what it meant. I finally decided to leave in alt text, figuring it could be removed later. I'm going to leave the blackcross on white (rather than silver) because it looks white, and it's not clear to me what color it is. BTW it is a crusaders cross. But we'll just leave it as a cross. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed one stray "Electorate" and it all looks good now. I'll add a shield as an example to WP:ALT #Purely decorative images; perhaps that'll make it clearer. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha comments

I read the article and have a number of comments listed below. However, I am not at all familiar with the conventions for articles such as this and not very familiar with the background of this conflict, so please just ignore my comments when they don't make sense. This is a great article and my comments have more to do with the text and the phrasing than with serious flaws in the article content, but there are a few places where it seems that you are often trying to condense too much information into too little words, resulting in sentences that may be difficult to understand to someone who doesn't know much about the subject. Also, you should link each term or person when first mentioned and delink it on subsequent occurrences (currently, for example, Gebhard's brother Karl and Duke Frederick are linked at their second, but not first, occurrences in the articles).

• (Infobox)
• I found it surprising that you are listing houses (i.e., families) as the belligerents. Shouldn't that be states, such as Bavaria and Electoral Palatinate, as listed in the lead?

most of these "Houses" especially under the column of Gebhard's supporters, are simply that: Houses (usually Protestant). They were not states. In some cases, these houses governed a state, but when that was the case, I used the shield of the state (for example, Philip of Spain). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it more common in such cases to list "Spain" and "Bavaria", for example, as belligerents, instead of the houses and individuals which governed them? Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

well, that isn't correct either. The Duke of Bavaria did not declare war on the Archdiocese of Cologne, or the electorate, they simply provided troops. If Bavaria had declared war, then there would have been a different kind of scandal in the HRE, with one state declaring war on another. Originally, I had left out the list of belligerents, but one of the ACR commentators said I should list them. I think, though, that it is raising more questions.

Well, the US didn't declare war in the Iraq War either, and they're still listed as a belligerent. But I can see the problems you are having here, and I don't know either what the best course of action is-perhaps it would be best to have someone else have another look at this. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get someone else to take a look. The sources all refer to so and so of the House of such and such, so I'm inclined to leave the text the way it is. The military types didn't see any problem with the shields/wappen. Well into the 19th century, these generals and commanders were referred to by their house names, not their states. A goodly number of the generals in Austrian service during the Napoleonic wars were not Austrians. we're accustomed to thinking about war and nations, but the way a lot of younger sons made a living was by hiring themselves out as mercenaries. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that indeed makes sense. Striking now. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Lead)
• What is "tertiary involvement"?

indirect, as in "third party" .... England and France sent, in some cases, funds (France), or, in the case of Elizabeth, moral encouragement. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I thought as much, but I'm not sure this is a very clear phrase to use - would replacing "tertiary involvement" with "nonmilitary support" make sense? Ucucha 02:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

well, the pope was involved "tertiarily" by paying for 5000 troops. So did France, and so did Dudley. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but that is not clear from the text in the lead. Without context, "tertiary involvement" could (in my estimate) as well mean that they were neutral third parties, which they obviously were not. What is wrong with using "nonmilitary support"?

if the pope pays for 5,000 troops, he's essentially sending military support. I've "tweaked." see if that makes better sense now (and the paragraph after it). Also I've added a sentence later that goes into more detail on what exactly the pope sent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, that makes sense. Ucucha

• The translation of cuius regio, eius religio you give ("who rules, his religion") is not as literal as the one in the article on the phrase ("whose realm, his religion"). I am not sure what should be preferred--a literal translation or one that flows better (though not much better) in English. Also, shouldn't it be italicized, as a Latin phrase?

It's italicized now. I've been told, though, that if something is a common Latin phrase, it shouldn't be italicized. Or it doesn't have to be. But I think it should be. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You do it in the rest of the article, so it would make sense to also do it here. The translation is, on second thought, good enough, so I'm striking this. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you should link both "Dutch Revolt" and "Eighty Years' War" in the lead; those articles should be merged anyway as they describe the same conflict.

I agree with you on both counts here, but I am not editing the 80 Years war or the Dutch revolt. Originally this article was considered to be part of the 80 Years War, and I took that out of the conflict box. Your comment here has emboldened me to make another change:

The conflict occurred simultaneously with the Eighty Years War (also called the Dutch Revolt), 1568–1648, which encouraged participation of the rebellious Dutch provinces and the Spanish.

That is true, but I still don't see why you should link to both of the articles. When something is wrong with another set of articles, that shouldn't be reflected here. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles are not entirely satisfactory; however, the Eighty Years' War and the Dutch Revolt are not at issue here and I don't want to get involved with making a judgment about which of those articles to give precedence. One could argue that the Thirty Years Wars were also part of the 80 Years War, and therefore those articles should be combined. I'm not going to try to make that argument either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. I do think it is a disservice to this article to link to essentially the same topic twice, but I'm striking the comment as you're entitled to your own interpretation here. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks. when the people with vested interests in the Dutch Revolt and the 80 Years war make a decision on that, I will adjust this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether the lead really makes clear to someone who knows nothing about the period what the conflict was about; perhaps an additional sentence is in order to make clear exactly what the ecclesiastical reservation means. It now just says "protect", which could mean a number of things.

It should be understandable to someone who doesn't know the period. So, I've tweaked it some, and see if that paragraph makes better sense to you now, okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good now. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Background)
• The first paragraph stands on its own a little too much: how is the reader supposed to know why those Catholics and Protestants were fighting, or who Charles V is? The subsequent paragraphs do a good job in explaining those things, but I think it may be better to simply strike the first paragraph.

This was supposed to be a summary...you don't think it helps make sense of the next sections? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I am not sure whether it is helpful to a layperson, because it introduces a number of people, such as Charles V, who are not linked and whom the reader presumably doesn't know anything about yet. The rest of the "Background" section does a great job in providing necessary background, but this additional summary may not be needed. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The map should make clear that the borders of the Netherlands shown are modern and did not exist at the time of the conflict.

Actually, those are the 1583 borders. Amazing, isn't it? that some of the Dutch borders didn't change that much? That is map based on one from the early 1600s.

I seriously doubt that. Roermond was actually Spanish at the time, and my understanding has always been that the current border of Limburg was drawn after the Napoleonic Wars. This map, although somewhat later, also shows very different borders in the area. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The map description in fact says "The gray lines show modern day national borders." I would personally consider the borders during the time of the war to be more informative, but I have no strong problems with using current borders instead. The caption should make clear that these are current, not 16th-century, borders, though. Ucucha 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I went back to the correspondence with the map making guru, and he used present borders and present river courses (they have changed too). Yes, Gelre was on the northern edge, between the Niederstift and and Vest Recklinghausen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We still need the caption to make clear those are present-day borders, though. (And I believe you misplaced Gelre in your comment above, as Gelre was actually west of the area around Rheinberg, but that is not relevant to any text in the article.) Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FIXED. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "One faith in a Christian land" - what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Of course, Orthodoxy is not relevant to this article, but it may be better to say "One faith in the Holy Roman Empire" instead. fixeed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The reform theology galvanized social action in the Peasant Revolts (1524–1526), which were brutally repressed and the popular political and religious movement crushed" - sentence needs a rewrite. The grammar is shaky and it's unclear exactly what the popular political and religious movement is--apparently Lutheranism, but when it was "crushed", why were there still Lutheran princes?

Okay, it was the peasants who were crushed in 1525/26, but the Lutheran princes were worried they would be next. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I understood, but the sentences imply to me that the peasants were also Lutherans and the grammar still doesn't feel right--you really need to explain this in a few more sentences, I think. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

some of them were Lutherans. They adopted Luther's writing as a social political tract. the Peasant War article is severely lacking, and I really don't want to go into that in this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern was with the clarity of the text here. I changed "reform theology" to simply "tensions", as it doesn't seem to be clear that the Peasants' War was theological in nature, and struck the "popular peasant movement crushed" part, because it was, in my opinion, ungrammatical and redundant. Do you think that this phrasing is accurate? Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed it now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm striking now.

• The summary of the reservatum ecclesiasticum in the box (when ruler converts, subjects don't have to convert) and the article (when ruler converts, subjects don't have to convert, but ruler is expected to leave) is at odds with that in the article about the concept (when ruler converts, he forfeits his see). Which is it?

he forfeits his see, he is expected to resign, That's what the war was about. I've tweaked it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Forfeits his see" means to me that he automatically loses his see no matter what, quite different from just being expected to resign voluntarily. Anyway, the problem seems to be with the article reservatum ecclesiasticum, not this one, so I'm striking this as resolved. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both seem to be expected. First, he should resign voluntarily, if not, then he will forfeit. In this case, he didn't give it up, even after another Archbishop was elected. That was the problem, because the clause did not deal with it sufficiently. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The summary of the Declaratio Ferdinandei in the box doesn't make clear to me what it was about, but the one in the text does. It seems to be difficult to summarise it accurately in the little space available in the box, but what about "The Declaratio Ferdinandei granted certain exemptions to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio to some knights and cities"?

Yes, and like the ecclesiastical reservation, is was ambiguous. Fortunately, the knights didn't fight a war over it. Basically, Ferdinand's declaration said that cuious regio didn't apply to some of the sov. families, some of the knights, and some of the imperial cities. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what I understood, but to me the current statement in the box next to the text reads like a restatement of "cuius regio, eius religio". I think the text I proposed above (amended slightly now) is somewhat better at making the clear the meaning of the Declaratio. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we okay on this now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not completely - what do you think of the rephrasing I proposed for the Peace of Augsburg box placed next to the text? The text itself is fine. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The third principle, known as Ferdinand's Declaration, granted certain exemptions to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio to some knights, sovereign families, and imperial cities.  ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the big box to the right of the text that is titled "Peace of Augsburg". Ucucha 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the italicized terms "ad hoc" and "Declaratio Ferdinandei" right next to each other is confusing.

fixed. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, with his reign, he established the position of emperor as a chief member of alliances among princes." It's better to explain this in a few more words. Does this even belong in a section on why Ferdinand was the best choice for Holy Roman Emperor?

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "more far-reaching" - more than what?

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "the constant ebb and flow of Spanish men and provisions on the Spanish road to and from Flanders" - would this be better as "the constant ebb and flow of Spanish men and provisions from Spain to the Netherlands" or something similar? fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Any reason you're specifically naming Flanders, as that was generally not where the actual war was being fought? Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

reworked this. Okay??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Cause of the war)
• "The capital of the electorate had been Cologne (until 1288) and, thereafter, the smaller cities of Bonn, approximately 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Cologne, and Brühl, 12 kilometres (7 mi) south of Cologne, on the Rhine River, served as its capital and residence of the archbishop." - Perhaps rephrase this as "The cities of Bonn, 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Cologne, and Brühl, 12 kilometres (7 mi) south of Cologne, served as the capital of the Electorate and as the residence of the archbishop, respectively." For this article, it isn't relevant where the capital was three centuries before the war; it's odd for one distance to be "approximate" when the other is not; "on the Rhine River" isn't very relevant and contradicts the map, which shows Bruehl close to, but not on the Rhine.

well, that's not what I meant either, so I've changed it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks, but still it isn't clear what's going on with Bruehl on the Rhine--either the map or the article text is wrong. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bruehl is 4 miles from the Rhine. I'm not sure what the problem is. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the Mapmaker told me he used a pre-1650 map to make this. I'll check back with him and find out what's afoot. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that "on the Rhine" actually means "bordering it", not "being within a few miles of it", but I may be wrong there. I am striking this now as it's mostly resolved. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Johann von Fuerstenberg" - do you mean Johanna? Gay marriage probably wasn't legal yet.

Fixed.:)

• "He was a career cleric, although necessarily qualified to be an archbishop on the basis of his theological leanings, but by his family connections" - what? Please rephrase.

• will fix in the next 24 hours. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)::::Fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reference to "Allgemeine deutsche biographic' Worterbuch" - that is not even correct German. Please give some more details on this reference.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this the same as "Allgemeine deutsche Biographie", with the Wikisource link? There's still some versions of this going around in the footnotes that don't make sense in German. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

fixed. It was not that way in my original text (the one I wrote in word and copied into the section, so I'm not sure how/why it changed. Anyway, it is correct now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it. The reference is in refs. 31, 33, and 98, each of which gives a different title and different information. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Got them now. fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. You don't seem to be following your normal citation style here, though, unless I am missing something, as you normally give detailed citation information on the first occurrence of a reference only, but here you give a very detailed reference in ref. 91 and much less detailed references in refs. 32 and 34. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please be consistent on (not) capitalizing "cathedral chapter".

• will fix in the next 24 hours. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• fixed, Cathedral Chapter when it refers to Cologne specifically, cathedral chapter (or chapter) when it refers to a chapter generally. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, I fixed a couple more. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is the curia?

• the sources refer to it as we would today refer to "news from the Vatican"....I could change this to papacy, I suppose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That would be good. The current link to curia doesn't lead to the correct article. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg is coming out of nowhere here. What exactly is he bishop of?

• He was a member of the Cathedral chapter and his title was "bishop"....Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Right. Well, your rephrasing improves this sufficiently, so I'm striking this.

• (Course of the war)
• "The war had three characteristics" - do you mean "phases"?

Yes. Phixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Count Adolf von Neuenahr" - why didn't you refer to him as a "Count" earlier?

Adolf, Count von Neuenahr? I'll make that standard throughout. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Ferdinand's able command" - which Ferdinand? Not the Holy Roman Emperor, I suppose.

No, not him. Ferdinand was the brother of Ernst. Maybe I should continue to link him? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• He isn't linked before (except in the infobox), only Charles's brother is. Is the Ferdinand who was elected to the chapter ("Aftermath") yet a different one? Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

yes. Ferdinand who was elected after Ernst was Ernst's nephew. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. You refer to both these Ferdinands (brother and nephew) as just "Ferdinand of Bavaria", though, which is confusing. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I tried to fix the names on the wiki articles, but that didn't work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (See Cologne Riot.) - I have no problem with red links, but directing readers with a "see also" to an article that does not exist seems inappropriate.

Article is under construction, but I've taken it out for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck with writing it then. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The borders of the Dutch Provinces backed on the borders of the Electorate. Those that did not border one of the Dutch provinces abutted the Duchy of Cleves–Julich." I believe the Electorate did not exactly border the United Provinces, though it came close. I have no idea what the second sentence means.

The Electorate was surrounded by Gelderland, Duchy of Cleves Julich Mark, and part of the Electorate of Koblenz.Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That "Gelderland" presumably was Upper Gelre, which is outside modern Gelderland and is actually in northern Dutch Limburg (Roermond, for example). Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Should I get mapmaster to change the map? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem is rather with the text - if I am interpreting this correctly, the Electorate did not border any of the "Dutch Provinces" at all. It might have bordered Upper Gelre, but that was Habsburg, not Dutch land at the time. It may actually be best to strike these sentences and the preceding one, as the previous paragraph already says about the same. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See if this meets your approval. I've reworded. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Venlo on the Neuss River" - do you mean the Maas?

*I have to check my source on that. I think you're right and the source may be wrong. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

• "80 years of bitter fighting" - poetic though this description is, it ignores the Twelve Years' Truce.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The claim that Schenck did Gebhard more harm than good doesn't really materialize in the article now. Would it be good to say exactly in what way Schenck damaged Gebhard's cause?

• tweaked. He was an SOB. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Good enough now. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Aftermath)
• Bishoprics which were surrounded by Protestant territories - this is not true for Liege at least, as it was surrounded by the Spanish Netherlands.

• No, Liege was not in danger, nor Aachen after Parma took it over in 1581, but a lot of the others were. I'll be less specific. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

Er, what? I don't see any changes in this section. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

HMmmmmm....maybe I didn't save it. Try again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (External links)
• Do these add enough to the article to justify links to sites that are not in English?

• No, they were there when the article was a start, not sure why I never took them out. One has some pictures that are fun to look at, but they are gone now (well, INVisible now). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha 22:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a great article and most of my concerns have now been resolved (except for the Declaratio thing, which we'll also sort out). I'm willing to support, but I think you should give the article another good look to check that:

• Your spelling is consistent (Eighty Years War vs. Thirty Years' War, Counter-Reformation vs. counter-reformation, comma before "Truchsess").

• Thirty Years' War is spelled that way in one instance, relating to the name of an article; Geoffrey Parker also refers to Thirty Years Wars, not War, while other refer to them as Thirty Years War (no s). I prefer the phrase Thirty Years Wars, because it seems like several conflicts, not one.

• For each person you mention, you should give the full name and possible further data at the first occurrence and a consistent short name after that. For example, you now have: (1st occurrence) "Karl, Truchsess von Waldburg", (2nd) "Karl", (3rd) "Karl Truchsess von Waldburg (1548–1593)", and there may be others.
• There are no inconsistencies in the references (ending each reference with a period, spaces after (German), using pp. for multiple pages). That's all minor things, but we want it to be consistent in an FA.

I may do this myself when I have time over the next few days. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Buchraeumer Comments: It says in the article that William of Orange was murdered in July, and that..."Elizabeth responded in early November, directing him to talk to Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester....". Now, William was murdered in July 1584, but Leicester only departed for the Netherlands in December 1585, one and a half years later (and received his command only a little before that). I would have corrected this little chronology error myself, but I don't know which November is meant...Otherwise a very interesting topic (I must read it with more care yet); thanks for including the funny note on Agnes von Mansfeld allegedly travelling to England! Buchraeumer (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC):::You're welcome. I thought it was a great bit from Tenison. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

weeelllll....I've clarified the chronology a bit...these 19th century sources (which are the only monographs on the war) are sometimes either misleading or misinformed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead: I put the Peace of Augsburg at the beginning of the religious reservation, it was somewhat confusing in the middle of the paragraph. Hope it's o.k. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign involvement: I have removed November, no year for the moment and inserted late 1585, I hope this solves the problem by blurring; one could also leave out specific dates altogeher, to avoid confusion. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I have just looked up "Truchsess" in Leicester's Netherlands correspondence: Elizabeth instructed Leicester to help him in her general instructions to him, dated December 1585. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll add the reference re L. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• actually, I didn't find it. where did you say it was? I used the same search parameter...Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is: *Bruce, John (ed.): Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during his Government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 Camden Society 1844 [1]. The page is 15 (where she commands him to help Gebhard). I assume that Mabel Tenison simply forgot to mention the year, or else Gebhard could have written to Leicester to in England, before L. went over, but then he would not have been E.'s "emissary" yet. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1941 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's my first nomination in a while. To satisfy those who criticize tropical cyclone nominations, this is an article which encompasses an entire season of hurricanes. I believe that despite its relative brevity and short list of citations, it's well-written, accurate, and as ever, comprehensive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can you figure out how to make {{Infobox Hurricane Small}} compatible with alt? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just now added support for that; please see the documentation. Eubulides (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Cool, thanks! Should be done now. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Alt text was added for the weather maps, but not for the tracks of the storm (for example, it's missing for File:1941 Atlantic tropical storm 1 track.png). Also, the alt text for the lead image File:1941 Atlantic hurricane season map.png is only "Seasonal summary map"; this doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the essence of that map (please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice). Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm, odd. {{Infobox hurricane season}} doesn't support alt text near as I can tell... done with the tracks though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I added support for alt text to {{Infobox hurricane season}}, so you should be able to do the alt text for the lead image now. I'm afraid the alt text for the tracks doesn't convey the gist of those images to the visually impaired readers. For example, for File:1941 Atlantic tropical storm 1 track.png the alt text is currently "Map of the Gulf of Mexico depicting the track of a tropical storm", which could describe half of all the tracks on that page; much better would be "A Gulf of Mexico storm track starts about halfway between the Florida panhandle and Yucatan, heads west and a bit north, and makes landfall near the Texas–Louisiana border." Similarly for the other tracks. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support on 2c grounds. Decline 2c:

  Date formats inconsistent Month D YYYY, Month YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD. Pick one. Stick to it

  Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Respect to Velmer Smith, but her work is not RS, as its SELF published, see the file location? ~/velmer Accepted triviality argument.

  Velmer Lenora Smith is listed as a DeRidder Historian, and given the uncontroversial nature of the information cited to that source, it isn't an issue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  If an unpublished report, it shouldn't really get quotes or ital: ^ Jon Friesner (April 1993). "Hurricanes in Belize". Forest Department. Retrieved 2009-10-23.

  I'm not entirely sure what you mean. That's part of a citation template, so there isn't much I can do. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is an unpublished report. Published works are cited with Italics or "Quotation marks". Unpublished works, such as unpublished reports, don't take these. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Used Template:Cite report Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Which Forest Department? There are 200+ countries in the world. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Clarified. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• PhD (actually an ScD) thesis miscited, please cite as a Thesis: ^ Edward Morgan Brooks (1945). "An Unusual Rainfall Distribution in a Hurricane" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2009-10-23.

  Could you please explain this? I don't understand. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Theses aren't books. You're citing it as if a) Its published, b) Its a book. The citation needs to indicate that the work is a doctoral thesis, and not use published work citation formats, such as Italics or "Quotes"Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to remedy that, actually. Since I'm not particularly well-versed with citation templates, could you help me fix that? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Created and used Template:Cite thesis Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, looks great. Thank you for the help! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Got it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Review by Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

It officially began on June 16, 1941, and lasted until November 1, 1941.

June 16 seems a wierd date to start a season on - Surely it was June 15?

Well the source says it opened officially on June 16, 1941. I think it was usually on a case-by-case basis back then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The timeline having August November and Decemeber included seems wrong and redundant since those months didnt have any storms Also it might be worth shortening the names to just the numbers.

Meh, that's the only way I can get it to work. :P –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ive sorted it - you only needed to change the dates around.Jason Rees (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another major storm traversed the Caribbean, leaving 47 men dead at sea.

Which Storm?Jason Rees (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bale Out

Nominator(s): Cirt (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has been through AFD, appeared at DYK, successfully became a GA, and had a peer review. I believe it meets the criteria and I place it here for your consideration. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 2c Decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Date format inconsistent Month D, YYYY versus YYYY-MM-DD pick one, stick to it.

fn23 staff author not named / [Staff]. In general with staff, where staff is assumed you should use Square Brackets around the author to indicate assumption. Please correct where you've assumed staff authors rather than the byline indicating staff.</>

Locations please "The Daily Telegraph" is the name of a number of papers, and the one in London is not notable enough to be obvious without specification. The Times is the only newspaper with that right.

fn23 Hero Complex is an independently published magazine, not a supplement?

Comment This barely meets notability guidelines, the difference between February and May of 2009 being not particularly large in my mind as instances of multiple reportage meaning its more than a flash in the pan. But "Barely" in binary is the same as definitively. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

Date formats are now uniform throughout the article, using Month D, YYYY.

Added "staff" field, for this cite. Added square brackets around "staff", where this is assumed, as suggested, above.

Noted location for The Daily Telegraph.

fn23 Hero Complex is a blog published by the Los Angeles Times. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Test, 1948 Ashes series

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In this match, the Invincibles set the world record for the highest successful runchase in Test history. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to the two images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.< Eubulides (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Acoounted for YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USS Congress (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Self nomination. Article has passed GA and A reviews within the last two months. Information on this ship has been very difficult to find. Apparently the ship was not deemed worthy enough by historians resulting in the small size of the article. Nevertheless, throughout the GA and A reviews I was able to find further information to add which has expanded the article to some extent but there are still gaps. This article is part of my larger plan for a featured topic on the Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Decline: 2c.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, citations ending with fullstops or not.

Please explain this.

" Roosevelt 1882, Chapter II " but yet " "Essex". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History & Heritage Command. Retrieved 2 September 2009. "

I still don't understand. Only thing that comes to mind is that DANFS references are using {{cite DANFS}} --Brad (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel like an ass for not explaining adequately. At the end of your citations, some citations end with a full stop. Some citations do not end with a full stop. Perhaps all citations should end with a full-stop? "Roosevelt, (1883), Chapter II." instead of "Roosevelt, (1883), Chapter II" Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the term "full stop" I assume now that you meant adding a period (.) at the end of each reference. I have done this. --Brad (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian English :). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, commas after year (see fn15) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.

Bibliography consistency: locations for all publishers please. Peter Fenelon Collier is sufficiently obscure to me as a late 19th century publisher that I'd like a location. 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.

Provenance data: publisher and location: Roosevelt, Theodore (1882). The Naval War of 1812 or The History of the United States Navy during the Last War with Great Britain. OCLC 133902576.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Gutenberg edition of the book does not supply location or publisher. --Brad (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Give us two ticks. Gutenberg says 3rd ed 1883. let me correct it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected, correct text cites. Beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made a style decision to not bracket years in notes, but bracket them in the bibliography, consider consistency. (This is only a for consideration item).

I've added the brackets. If cite book uses them it's probably a good idea for all. --Brad (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For consideration only: citation of Roosevelt using ¶n notation form of the citation location within the text for further detail. Or ¶ beginning "On that day..." form. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This Roosevelt book is beginning to annoy me. I may go out and find a version that I can cite page numbers to which are also missing from the G'berg text. --Brad (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Gutenberg promises alot... and fails to deliver in a number of key areas. Modern editions are available 2nd hand for under USD10 online. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a google public domain book to substitute. It's the same edition as the G'berg book but supplies everything needed for good references. At all times I strive to use references on my articles that are either public domain or online; or both. --Brad (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be public domain for you... my version shows snippets only :). Its a great instinct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Support related comment 1c. Sourcing issues already adequately explained at previous reviews.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Date consistency checked. Consistently D Month YYYY or appropriate subsets (Month. D Month. Month YYYY). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by Kirk on 3, 1(a,b,c)

• Regarding the image in the lead, I'm not sure the USS Chesapeake is a 'sister ship' since it was built differently (the whole 44 to 36 to 38, plus it had slightly different dimensions) so I think the better choice here is a picture of the USS Constellation.

Just prior to this nomination for FA I removed File:USS Constellation.jpg from this article because it is of questionable origins. The original link it was downloaded from is no longer resolving therefore not allowing a verification. If you compare that file with File:USSChesapeake.jpg there is an eerie similarity between the both of them. The only file in this case that I can verify as being true and valid is the Chesapeake one. The use of "sister ship" is in regard to Congress being one of the original six. None of these ships were exactly the same as any other. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm almost positive I've seen a painting of the USS Congress (1799), but its so historically less significant than the other original frigates they probably haven't digitized it yet; have you attempted to call the Historical center to find out? I think with a little leg work you can get the actual photo of the painting.

There are plenty of photos of USS Congress (1841) because of her notoriety as being sunk at Hampton Roads by CSS Virginia. I have thoroughly searched several times for pics of the 1799 Congress and have turned up nothing. Calling the NHHC asking for pics of this ship is more than I'm willing to do. It smells of original research and I am not willing to expend any funds to cover the costs of obtaining a photo. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• You can't send an e-mail to see if you can find it in a secondary source? I'll have to check your A review for the exact issue but at this point I think no picture is probably a better choice here. Also, according to this Guide to Remarks Made on Board the United States Frigate Congress, 1817 the image is a wood cut of the USS Congress (1799) on page 274 of John Frost's The Book of the Navy, 1842. Maybe that will work?

I have seen this one before and neither source specifically states that the photo is of Congress I could certainly use the photo as it's public domain but the best caption I could use for the photo would be something like A representative illustration of an 19th century frigate. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, [American LIght and Medium Frigates 1794 - 1836. Has a picture of the Congress from 1817 on page 35, and some explanation of the rating system in the US Navy - basically, three classes 44, 36, 32 which simply meant the amount of crew on board, the number of guns actually varied in each class. Kirk (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Google is not allowing me to see page 35. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• ...which lead me to Canney's Sailing Warships of the US Navy page 45 - 46, with the ship sail plan on page 46. Original armament was 28 18-pdrs and 12 9-pdrs (ugh); by 1812 the armament was 24 18-pdr and 20(!) 32-pdr carronades, as all the surviving frigates were turned into '44's. See page 41, which claims it was a 38, not a 36; I think the rating by crew makes a heck of a lot more sense. Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that I mention the original armament in addition to the 1812 setup? What a ship was rated at is different from what amount of guns it actually carried. The author is not claiming that Congress and Constellation's ratings were changed to 44 gun ships but that they "carried" 44 or more guns. The article here on Congress clearly states in the lead and in the infobox that she was rated at 38; and mention is made that she was originally designated a 36 by the Naval Act but was re-rated to a 38. I don't see what the trouble is with that. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. I just realized that I have the armament referenced to DANFS and the DANFS article doesn't agree. I've no idea where I got those figures from but I will work on fixing this. This might have caused some misunderstandings here. My apologies. --Brad (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The armament discrepancies have been straightened out using Canney as a reference. --Brad (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Construction section is missing some important details. For example, I want more information about the transition from 36 to 38 guns - we have a sentence and as source, but I think this should be expanded to explain what ship rating meant in the US Navy at the time. I looked in some other sources and they usually discuss why carronades were used and the difference betweeen 18 and 24 pound guns. I'm curious why they didn't use 24 pound guns during the War of 1812 like the other frigates. Also, USS Constitution has a slightly different take on the construction methods you might consider researching, because a historically interesting thing about the Congress was it fell apart quickly. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know more about the change from 36 to 38 guns but have not been able to find anything further. It would be apparent and necessary to explain why the Naval Act called for 36 gun ships and later on they've all been referred to as 38s. Chapelle and Beach are the only sources to mention the rating was even changed but the only reason given is because of their size.

"Rating" may be the wrong term to use in describing the ships. Unlike the rating system of the Royal Navy the US never had one to my knowledge. "Classed" might be more of an appropriate term to use but I am not sure.

I really believe the hows and whys of what armament was used and when belongs in another article. I don't see the value in introducing the explanation to an article on a particular ship when the issue would involve all ships of the Navy during that period.

Since I brought Constitution to FA last year I can most definitely tell you that all of the extra information given in the construction section is only citable to Constitution. As a blanket statement to any sparse descriptions in this article I can answer that there just aren't any. This article was very difficult to find information for. Two years prior to Congress being scrapped, Constitution was in the same condition but funds were approved to make the repairs. Apparently there was no funds or public outcry to save Congress. --Brad (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I looked in a couple of other sources & all the original frigates were ordered to be built the same way, so you should be able to add that to the article. Toll should have something you can use. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about another article, maybe there should be a Rating System of the US Navy article, but the problem for this FAC is that this rating system stuff is not common knowledge, so a reader who finds out its rated as a 38 gun frigate in the infobox but was authorized as a 36 gun frigate is going to be confused. I can't actually check the source you cited for 38 guns, but DANFS lists 24 18-pdr., 12 12-pdr long guns (which you can see in the woodcut) & as opposed to Constellation, with 38 24-pdr long guns; Chesapeake, 30 18-pdr with 12 carronades. 12-pdr long guns would have been almost useless in the war of 1812; must have been replaced by carronades which would probably have resulted in the re-rating to 38 guns. I'll see if I can help.

• There are also some fixable prose problems with paragraphs which are too short, missing en dashes, etc. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but needs work. "A ship at sail" is too terse. I suggest mentioning the number and types of masts and/or sails and/or decks, the U.S. flag flying, and any other details that jump out at you and can easily be confirmed by a non-expert. The alt text "John Rodgers in his naval uniform" is both too terse (it says little of what Rodgers looks like) and contains the unnecessary phrase "John Rodgers" (this should be removed as being both repetitive with the caption and unverifiable by an expert looking only at the image). Please see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Portraits for advice about alt text for that portrait. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo fixed the John Rodgers alt. I'm going to wait on the infobox pic until it's decided if it should stay or not. --Brad (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] York Park

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after another peer review (From Brianboulton), the article meets the FA criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks excellent. ceranthor 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Hawthorn Football Club has played between two and five AFL matches a season since 2001, and the St Kilda Football Club played two games a year between 2003 to 2006. - bit informal to say a season, perhaps each season?

• Thanks, Fixed this. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Resolved. ceranthor 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per last time and further refinements by Brianboulton YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images were checked at the last FAC. Are there any new ones? Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, images all the same. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support The last FAC took care of most of the technical issues and that last clean up on attendance was easy enough. I switched one March into "03" in a ref. The copy editing was done and this really is a great presentation to the reader. I do have a few personal issues with the article but none of these contradict the MOS (unfortunately for my personal taste) so these are simply things to consider:

• I still think "Structures and facilities" deserves to be above "Events". The article is about the building and those events taking place (as cool as they might be) should take a back seat.
• I think the "Gunns Stand during Hawthorn vs Brisbane AFL match in 2009" image could use a clear tag to force the subsection header ("Other uses") below it.
• I don't like 3 column reference lists

As a fellow editor who likes buildings around grass where guys run around and sometimes hit each other I have to say that Aaroncrick has done a fantastic job. However, in the spirit of sport and since we have critiqued eachothers' work: We have better beer in Seattle!Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ode on a Grecian Urn

Nominator(s):user:Ottava_Rima (talk) Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it both meets the FAC criteria and has received a significant amount of attention from several editors who had added great content. I am willing to make the necessary changes to help the article pass and would love any comments on how it can be changed or made better. Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Quickly fixing some uncaught vandalism and some other damages that happened to the page. Will have this fixed by tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be updating the Structure and the Critical response sections today. I have just finished updating Background and Themes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Decline
  1. 1c:
     1. fn35 OR: Unpublished manuscript in the possession of Dr James Bettley & final paragraph unverifiable.
     2. fn25, 26, 29
     3. Melani and Brooks are SELF.
     4. High Quality sources not used: FUTON bias; lack of chapters in edited collections, lack of journal articles.
     5. fn34 is SELF ^ Rick Rylance. “The New Criticism”. pp.73-74 (rtf link)
  2. 2c:
     1. fn33 out of style, no other fullcites in notes
     2. Notes lack internal punctuation and do not match bibliography
     3. Lack of provenance information (Location, Publisher, Year)
     4. Links are cookied, not DOI or universal links, can't verify internet sources.
     5. References section is a stylistic mess, ie, spacing and punctuation, "Bush, Douglas. "Introduction" in John Keats: Selected Poems and Leters. Ed. Doublas Bush.Cambridge:Harvard UP. 1959." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The speedy close and some other problems will be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll allow the article's references to speak for themselves regarding the article's blatant FUTON:

1. SELF: Brooks, Cleanth. ’The Well Wrought Urn’. [1]
2. GoogleBooks: Carr, J. W. Myns. “The Artistic Spirit in Modern Poetry”; ed. Oswald Crawfurd, Francis Hueffer, Charles Kegan Paul. Vol. 5, p. 160.[2]. Accessed 11-25-08
3. Clickspam link and Copyvio of http://www.heldref.org/pubs/exp/about.html 's rights: Gumpert, Matthew. "Keats's 'To Haydon, With a Sonnet on Seeing the Elgin Marbles' and 'Seeing the Elgin Marbles'". Explicator Sept 22,1999." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-59037686.html
4. SELF: Melani, Lilia. "Ode on a Grecian Urn: Classification of Poem".[4] http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/urn.html
5. SELF/rtf link: Rick Rylance. “The New Criticism”. pp.73-74 http://www.ua.es/personal/jalvarez/Word/Adiciones%20de%202005/The%20New%20Criticism.rtf
6. Via an online reprint, not the original: Sheley, Erin. "Re-Imagining Olympus: Keats and the Mythology of Individual Consciousness". Harvard University. Reprinted on Romanticism on the NetNo. 45 Nov. 2007. [5]. Accessed Dec. 6, 2008.
7. interscience.wiley.com (provides a Session Cookie Error for me): Sikka, Sonia. "On The Truth of Beauty: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Keats". [6]
8. Dead JSTOR link "We're Sorry. JSTOR could not retrieve the requested item because the link does not resolve to any existing content." Swanson, Arthur. "Form and Content in Keat's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'". College English, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Jan., 1962), pp. 302-305 [7]

8/12 references Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by stating something is on JSTOR, you are contradicting your claims above that there were no articles used? I also find it troubling that you refuse to actually look at the bulk of references, which are not anything you have stated above. And saying that Cleanth Brooks is a "self published" source is absurd. Cleanth Brook's The Well Wrought Urn is one of the most famous New Criticism critical books. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

""We're Sorry. JSTOR could not retrieve the requested item because the link does not resolve to any existing content."". Until this diff Cleanth was cited as http://www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html. I'm quite happy to check back, and re-evaluate if the references are properly cited during the FAC process. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are confusing -courtesy links- with references. Furthermore, you stated above things that were inappropriate. Please look through FAC and see various reviews and how they respond. There is no "speedy decline". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This diff was the nominated article state. Do you see provenance data for Cleanth Brooks? A year? A publisher? The only material I see in the location where provenance data should be is a link to an external website. There is a level of insult in proposing an article in this state,Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) and the nominations procedure at WP:FAC urges The Cleanth Brooks citation was introduced in November 2008 and has not been modified to meet basic citation expectations until after being nominated at FAC. I'll look forward to checking back in on this article in a week when I hope I can change my opinion, but the nominator is asking for a considerable level of work, without having done basic things, like observe the publisher and year of what I have had explained to me is a piece of seminal criticism. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for BITING, and for allowing my dismay at the quality of the article's sourcing as nominated to let me feel justified in assuming bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not about harping on the past but about discussing what is needed. It currently has its publication detail so there is no point in discussing it further. By the way, why are you reviewing brand new pages while there are dozens that desperately need reviews and have sat there for weeks? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I did Brunel and a celebrity on FAR this morning, am still jubilant about the extensive footnoting issues resolved in Inner German Border, feel little competence with celebrity / pop culture FAs, have monitored the current FAC list from the SMS Derfflinger upwards, and already noted in passing that the Author's Farce looks like it should. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a level of insult in proposing an article in this state"? Fifelfoo, I have never come across you in my short days on WP, but I assure you that there was no insult and would like for you to apologize for not assuming good faith. I felt that this article, with a bit of tweaking, would be an excellent candidate for FA, and I asked Ottava to help me with the process, as he has put in so much of the information contained in the article. When I added the information from the Brooks work, I had only the text on hand and thought it would be a nice gesture to give a link to an online text that stated some of the same ideas, though through the median of a secondary source. I do now realize that this was a mistake,but nothing quoted in the text can not be found in the original source.Mrathel (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it's possible to critique the work of FAC nominees without insulting it. "a level of insult in proposing an article in this state" was, IMO, impolite at the very least. Geraldk (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. When starting to read this article I couldn't help wanting to know what the Grecian urn actually looks like. Keats's drawing is a cool lead image, but it'd be useful grounding to also have a photo in the body of the article. I suggest working File:Vase de Sosibios 01.JPG into the article somehow, as the best photo of the urn that we have in Commons. It might also help to add File:Maenad Sosibios vase Louvre Ma442.jpg and/or File:Vase de Sosibios 02.JPG as details. A portrait of Keats would also be apropos, as the article is a bit low on illustrations. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would defeat the purpose of the urn, since the urn is completely imaginary. I will find a suitable image for Keats tomorrow when I have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts were the same when I originally sought an image of the urn and ended up adding Keats's drawing. Since the urn is imaginary, I conceded the point to Ottava at the time and felt that the rendering by the poet was sufficient, but I am open to suggestion on the issue.Mrathel (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An image of Keats would be great.

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 is just a formatted link with no publisher listed or note that it's an .rtf file. It is a journal article or what?
• UP, U. P. or University Press in the references? I strongly prefer spelling it completely out for our non-scholars among the readers.
• Please don't just use a bare numbered link for the external links in the references, format the titles of the articles with the link.
• What makes http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/urn.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will make the fix to the Rylance ref; I should have done so a long time ago. It is actually out of The Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism.
• I am inclined to use UP out of habit, but I can understand if University Press would appeal to more readers
• Will rework links to incorporate text
• Absolutely nothing. I can't believe it has stayed in the article this long.:) Let me find something to replace it and I should have it gone by the end of the day Mrathel (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Minor update to the alt text - could you say the words "By John Keats" are hand-written by Keats himself?
• "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," -that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know" - forgive my ignorance but there seems to be an odd number of "'s here. Is that deliberate?
• To Autumn is mentioned in the lead but never thereafter; isn't it unusual to discuss things in the lead without expansion in the main text?
• "Romantic Poetry . " remove space before .
• Does Poetry need capitalisation here?
• "lines 1-2" et seq, I believe you should be using an en-dash to separate the line numbers.
• "the urn" or "the Urn", be consistent.
• "expresses[15]" punctuation missing?
• "tongue.(lines 28-30) " space after .
• Who is "Claud"?
• "In earlier poems, he relied on depictions of natural music, and works such as "Ode to a Nightingale" appeal auditory sensations while ignoring the visual" it may be me, I've re-read this sentence a couple of times, doesn't seem quite right...
• Should "two fold" be hyphenated?
• You link paradox on its fifth use, not its first.
• "Another paradox rises " arises?
• "analyzed " shouldn't we be using BritEng for this article?
• "sung." vs "Truth". - I'm never sure but consistency in full stop placement is needed.
• Notes 13, 21, 35 need an en-dash.
• Melani's url shouldn't be a bare link like that.
• Rylance's ref needs an en-dash.
• Retrieved or Accessed?
• Dates in refs should be consistent, either ISO or human-readable, but not a combination.
• As above, U. P. or UP?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a notice at the top (the nomination) that this page is under revision. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Was that "thanks for a review"? Not to worry, these were just suggestions and of course you can disregard any or all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was a thanks for the review, at least it is from me, and I am sure Ottava meant as much. Will take all points into consideration and will work to fix.

• Is there any consensus on UP vs. University Press anyway? I have absolutely no affection for either, so I will just make it a uniform University Press at present until otherwise instructed.
• switched "Retrieved" to "Accessed" to keep consistent.
• I think "the urn" is probably a better way to go about the punctuation; the urn isn't a diety,though it contains them, but they are pagan ones which get a lowercase "g". Sometimes I hate grammar:)
• I will look at the auditory/visual statement to see if we can't clarify.
• Removed Melani source; I believe it was used in the original construction of the section but no longer seems necessary due to better sources providing the current material. Mrathel (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The rest I will leave to Ottava, as endashes and BritEng make my head spin. Mrathel (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is it really necessary to have two links to the full text; one in EL to Bartleby and another to Wikisource? I'd argue that the Wikisource renders makes the external link redundant. Seegoon (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I am concerned about several aspects of this article:-
  • The lead says this poem is one of Keats's "Five Great Odes of 1819". In the Background section it is referred to as part of a group of four, as in "All four poems display..." etc. These different statements need to be reconciled.
  • The Background section seems quite weakly written. Several of the sentences have nothing to do with the background to the writing of these verses (for example "All four poems display a unity in stanza forms and themes"). Other sentences are very difficult to figure out, such as "The precise order of composition is uncertain, but the four poems form a sequence within their structures although the actual order within the sequence is unnecessary." Unnecessary for what? Or do you mean "irrelevant"?
  • First sentence of the Structure section is not grammatical as written. There are other examples of similar carelessness in the article.
  • The commentary on the verses in the Poem seems more appropriate to a literary seminar than an encyclopedic article. This is not an argument for dumbing down, but an effort has to be made for the text to be comprehensible to a broad readership, not just literature graduates.
  • Critical reception: can someone sort out the final paragraph, the last part of which makes no sense at the moment?

I would much rather support this article than oppose it, but at the moment it is a long way short of meeting FA criteria 1(a). I understand that further work is taking place, and I hope that my points will be taken into account during this process. Brianboulton (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reading, it is truly appreciated.

• • • The "Five Greeat Odes" in 1819 include "To Autumn", which was composed later in the year than the other four. If you read the sentence in the Background section, you will see that it is talking about the poems written around May of 1819, thus saying "four".
    • I agree that the background section should be reworded in places, especially the lines on the sequence order.
    • I understand what you mean about the poem section; there is a fine line to walk here because most material that discusses a poem through close reading tends to be very technical, but on the other hand glossing over the text runs the risk of inserting original research even though the intent is to appeal to a broader audience. I'll work on it.

I believe I have addressed most of the concerns listed here; the poem analysis is still very intense in critical terms, but but is probably able to be followed by the average reader. I am having a hard time making a decision on the background section; I understand the need to focus on the specific poem, but since it was created as a series of poems that share thematic and structural unity, it is difficult to discuss its composition without mentioning its relationship to the others, which directly explains why there is not a definite composition date. I am going to ask for a careful reading by one of the other editors who worked on the article, as she is better at catching grammar mistakes and typo's than my poor ADHD-laden self. Let me know if there are any other concerns. Mrathel (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Query: Mrathel, do you feel you can handle this nom without Ottava, or would you rather it be archived and brought back later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Response I think with Kathryn's imput and Ottava's ability to speak beyond the grave into my email, I can handle it. I am not as prolific as he, but then again only one other editor has been this past year:). Plus, its pretty well covered at this point. Mrathel (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The "Background" section ends: "Keats's inspiration for "Grecian Urn" was not limited to Haydon or the Elgin Marbles, but embraced many contemporary sources." What were these other sources? This needs to be elaborated. I suggest the Background section concentrate solely on real world information about Keats and his situation at the time of the poem's composition, and another section focus on sources, influences, and inspirations such as Haydon's articles and the Elgin Marbles. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Source sections can only provide sources for material within the specific work, such as a poem. The "sources" in the Background section are works that talk about art, but none of them provide any of the content that is found within the poem. An "influence" section would be far off topic. The background section as of right now only has "real world information" and has only what amounts to what Keats was doing at the time of the poem's composition. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Augustus O. Stanley

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article recently passed a GA review with no suggestions for improvement. It is well-sourced, and, I believe, comprehensive. I welcome any comments that may improve the article, and hope to see it promoted to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: File:AOStanley.jpg needs some evidence of pre-1923 publication. Other image is fine. Steve Smith (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't notice this. That's the wrong claim, anyway. It should be public domain because it's his congressional portrait, which is automatically PD as a product of the federal government. This image is hosted at Commons, and I never work over there. Can someone advise me on how to make this change? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've corrected the tag. Is there any information about the date or author of the image? As well, the image page should probably have a description. Steve Smith (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Also, are you sure that's his congressional portrait? That bit in the bottom right looks suspiciously like a copyright notice, though I can't make quite make it out at this resolution. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the tag should be {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. I'm basing my claim on the fact that it's posted on his page in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which I'm pretty sure is all public domain. If it isn't I think I've found another picture at the Library of Congress that is PD, but this is a better image, I think. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• In light of this ("Not all images are in the public domain") and in light of what really does look like a copyright notice, I don't think that we have enough evidence to conclude that that's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• How about this one from the Library of Congress, then? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to consider images that the LoC labels as "no known restrictions on publications" as public domain provided it seems likely that they would be, so I'd say that one's fine. Some other editors are more stringent than me on this, though, and demand affirmative evidence that it's in the public domain. So I'd pass the image review with that image, but I can't guarantee that somebody else won't come along and make an issue of it. If you want to be on the safe side, I'd suggest uploading your preferred image to Wikipedia and claiming fair use, since the subject's deceased, it's the only picture of him you use in the article, and there are no certain-to-be public domain photos of which we're aware. Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The image of J.C.W. Beckham also used in the article comes from the Harris and Ewing Collection, the same one as the above-referenced image of Stanley. In the Beckham image description, there is a template from Commons that says the entire collection's copyright has expired under terms of its gift to the LOC. I'm willing to trust that it's PD. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92^Talk

• You don't need both the hatnote for Owsley Stanley as well as a sentence about him in the first paragraph. I also don't think that's relevant enough for the very first paragraph.

• Removed.

• Why would the American Tobacco Company support a tax? It needs to be clearer sooner that it had a monopoly.

• I'll work on this.

• "failed by a vote of 20—14...95—17" Use an endash, not emdash.

• Fixed.

• "His opponent, Republican Frederic M. Sackett, secured" > His Republican opponent Frederic M. Sackett secured"

• Done.

• Is there anything else about his later life? Is there anything noteworthy in his legacy, things named after him, etc?

• Nothing is mentioned in any of the sources I've consulted, although it's tough to prove a negative. I'm not aware of anything that was named for him.

• Websites in the bibliography not directly cited in the notes can go in external links, namely the Biographical Directoy of US Congress link.

• This website was directly cited. Should be clearer after I took Fifelfoo's suggestion below.

• External Links should be the last section of the page.

• Done.

Thanks for your comments. I'll work on the ATC monopoly issue soon. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support 1c 2c Decline (minor) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. 2c
     1. "^ "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley"" replace with ""Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association." to indicate corporate authorship / publisher authorship and keep stylistic unity, indicate its a citation rather than an annotation.

        Done.

     2. To meet your own style the following citations require location information:
        1. Johnson, E. Polk (1912). A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Lewis Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
        2. Klotter, James C. (1996). Kentucky: Portraits in Paradox, 1900–1950. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0916968243. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
        3. Powell, Robert A. (1976). Kentucky Governors. Danville, Kentucky: Bluegrass Printing Company. OCLC 2690774.

           Done, although Powell had a location before.

           Sorry, I'll try to use my efficient eyeballs in future!

     3. Due to Penguin's notorious multiple publication locations, the following citation requires a publication location
        1. Jackson, Blair (2000). Garcia: An American Life. Penguin Press. ISBN 0140291997. Retrieved 2009-08-18.

           Done.

     4. You may wish to indicate this is an online source more explicitly? Happy with that. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        1. "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association. Retrieved 2007-08-23.
           1. I think the fact that the link and access date are provided in full bibliography is sufficient.
  2. Non decline related Comment: its beautiful to see short citations like, "^ Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 214" which indicates clearly that its a work in a collection.
     1. Actually, A New History of Kentucky is not a collection, but there are two sources with Harrison as the primary author, so I have to specify.
        1. Hmm, its not a common form of shortcite. Try Harrison, A New History of Kentucky, p. 214 instead to clear up the confusion? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support related comment: 1c appears complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Thanks for your comments; I think I've addressed them all. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. is partly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image (in the infobox) and the signature. Please see Template:Infobox officeholder for how to add them. The signature alt can be just "A. O. Stanley", but the lead image alt text should have enough detail to give the reader a feeling what Stanley looked like, as this is the first image they'll encounter; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Corrected. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I made one small format tweak. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments—Another strong Kentucky politician article from Acdixon; nice work. Specific points:

Thanks for noticing my work. I'm still working on more Kentucky politicians, so I hope no one is tired of them yet!

• I've done some copyediting; I took a fairly free hand, so please do revert and/or ask me if there's anything you don't like.

• Nothing too onerous. I made a couple of changes.

• I really don't see the point of that disambiguation hatnote. Is there any real possibility that somebody trying to make it to Owsley's page would make it to Augustus's instead?

• I have seen a couple of places in the sources that refer to Augustus as "A.O." or "Owsley". I'm honestly not sure what was most common, since I wasn't born yet! I didn't actually add the hatnote, but I did leave it in place. I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, but I think one should remain on the Owsley Stanley page because of possible ambiguity.

• Maybe mention his party affiliation earlier in the lead, to provide context to his rivalry with Beckham (i.e. that they're in the same party)?

• I've made a change that should address this.

• "Concurrent with his ventures in academe..." I'm not sure how I feel about this turn of phrase. Would object to seeing it boringfied?

• Not really. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.

• Some of the early history seems a little thin - how did he get to be the Democratic nominee for Congress? Was his legal career one of particular distinction? It just seems like "academic administrator -> lawyer -> failed county attorney candidate -> CONGRESSMAN!"

• The sources seem pretty light on that subject, too, although it's been a while since I looked at them in-depth. My guess is rural county + support for tobacco farmers + good public speaker = Congressman. Remember, everything he did before that was in central and eastern Kentucky. Once he came to Henderson County (western Kentucky, and a far different area culturally and economically) he was elected to Congress. I suspect he made a bit of a name as a lawyer first, but there aren't any specific examples of how, that I'm aware of.

• "public hearings on the tobacco situation" Did this situation extend beyond the tax? If so, how? If not, why not just say that the hearings were on the tax?

• My impression is that it was about the whole idea of ATC having a monopoly, but I'll look at the source again. I need to do that for Reywas92's comment above anyway.

• "McCreary was never a serious challenger..." Is elaboration on this possible? I'd have thought that a sitting governor would automatically be a credible candidate.

• I can elaborate some, but I don't want to go too far off-topic. Best I recall, he had a reputation for flip-flopping on the issues (his nickname was "Oily Jeems" for that reason). Also, I believe he'd have been about 76 years old by then, so I doubt he was still a spry campaigner. Plus, Stanley and Beckham were already factional leaders in the party, so it was only natural that the campaign centered on them.

• Is the anecdote about the puking and subsequent rejoinder ironclad? I ask because it sounds suspiciously like a story that circulates up here about renowned alcoholic John A. Macdonald, and I know that these things sometimes get assigned to different people in different places.

• The anecdote is mentioned, with very slight variations, in at least three different sources that I recall. Each one acknowledges that it's an anecdote more than something reported in newspapers, etc., but the sources that do mention it are written by respected Kentucky historians and don't seem to discount its veracity; they just vary on the details, which is to be expected.

• "...forbade public service corporations from contributing to any campaign." What's a public service corporation? Is that a widespread term in the U.S.?

• Just quoting the source here. I don't know what it is either.

• "...many of her peers..." Is it standard to refer to states in the feminine, rather than the neuter? It kind of makes me cringe, but my sensibilities probably shouldn't have any privileged position on these questions.

• I think so, kinda like ships and things. I'm not overly opposed to making it gender-neutral, though.

• "...the General Assembly approved funding increases in nearly every part of state government, including higher education." If increases were approved across the board, what makes higher education particularly noteworthy?

• I'll need to look back at the sources to see if there were specific projects mentioned, but increasing funding to education was one of those things most Kentucky politicians tried to do during this era, so it usually got a special mention.

• What was the voters' verdict on the 1918 prohibition amendment?

• I tried to find this, but never could. Best I recall, the sources seem to imply that it passed, but I never could nail that down. According to the wiki article on the Eighteenth Amendment, Kentucky approved the national prohibition amendment in January 1918, so its tough to tell if the state amendment went into effect or was superceded by the national one.

• Are specific election results available, perhaps to be presented in a table? The margins provided are somewhat less meaningful without context.

• I can probably find the vote totals. Sometimes I give totals, other times just margins.

• We hear nothing about his family until he dies. Could something be worked into "Early life" (assuming that's when he got married and had kids)?

• There isn't much about them except that he married and had kids, then one of his grandkids became a drug icon. I originally had the marriage and number of kids in the Early life section, but it made for an awfully short paragraph and made it even tougher to work in the bit about his grandson later. I don't even have a name for his third son (the one who died) nor any details about how and when he died.

• I brought this up with Thomas R. Marshall as well: is there a reason that the article includes both an infobox and succession boxes? My understanding that the advent of the former deprecated the latter, though if American political figures are working to a consistent standard that includes both, I have no objection.

• I didn't add the succession boxes; I never do, but if they are there, I usually leave them. Personally, I think they're kind of unsightly, so if there has somewhere been a discussion with consensus to remove them, I'll happily abide by it.

All in all, an excellent article that I will soon be pleased to support. The Canadian connection is just a bonus. Steve Smith (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, and its connection to Canada. (Incidentally, the librarian who helps me find most of these sources is also originally from Canada. Alberta, I think.) I'll await your reaction to my responses above, and also try to address the ones I've left open sometime next week. My wife and I are planning a short little weekender vacation this weekend. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alberta's the best part of Canada, as it happens. In fact, I've always sort of considered that your Wikipedia career is to Kentucky as mine is to Alberta (in case you feel stalked, I should point out that our paths previously crossed at FAC back when I was Sarcasticidealist). Anyway, I'll try to have some responses to your points waiting for you when you get back from vacation; enjoy it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weight Gain 4000

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article as part of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. It has already passed as a GA. An additional peer review has been archived since then, and I've incorporated the suggestions there. I think it's ready for FA now. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Another excellent article from the SP WikiProject. Some comments:
  • Link to consumerism in the caption, please.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You should mention that Mr. Hand is a hand puppet.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "After South Park pilot episode "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" drew poor test audience results[...]" -> I believe you mean the pilot episode.
    • Right you are. Fixed that. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "[...]celebratory event, and Mr. Garrison[...]" -> "event and Mr. Garrison"
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you need to entitled the official website as the url in ref 2? The whole "www" thing just seems over much, as pointed out in Home Movies. ;)
    • I change it to "South Park Studios (Official)", which is actually consistent with other refs in the article. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "[...]distinctive voices, and Parker and Stone[...]" -> "voices and Parker"
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "[...]characters featured, and Parker and Stone[...]" -> "featured and Parker"
    • I broke this one into two different sentences. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you move the image in "Cultural references and impact" to the top of the section - or the middle - since it's hanging into the reception section.
    • I agree it looks weird at the bottom, but since that was the paragraph where the Popemobile was mentioned, I thought it belonged there. I also didn't think simply moving that paragraph up was the answer because it messed up the flow of the section. For now I've moved the image up; let me know if you think that works. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that works - not sure if the alignment fits with WP:MOS#IMAGES, but not a big deal. The Flash ^{talk} 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Walden is already wikilinked in the plot, so remove from "Cultural..." section
    • Dropped that wikilink as well as Henry David Thoreau, which was also linked in the Plot section. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• That's all. Awesome work, again. The Flash ^{talk} 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: All my issues have been taken care of and I believe this article graciously passes any and all FAC criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead looks pretty good. The Plot section is very choppy and doesn't flow, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also repetitive. Two "plots", "meanwhiles", and "arives". Probably some others, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take another crack at it either tonight or tomorrow... Alright, I've tried rewriting it a bit to improve the flow. Is that better? If not, any specific feedback I could get on future improvements would be appreciated... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's still kind of choppy. I realized I don't know what causes choppiness, so I looked it up here. It turns out it's a lack of variety in sentence structure (who knew?, not I). Anyways, I made a small c/e, but before that, the first paragraph's sentences started: "Mr. Garrison announces...", "The rest of the town becomes...", "Mayor McDaniels plans...", "Chef, who is asked to sing...", "Mr. Garrison directs...", "Mayor McDaniels is horrified...". Not enough variety. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since your comment wasn't stricken, I wasn't sure if you were satisfied with the plot summary now that you've copy edited it. So just in case, I made another CE attempt to break up some of the short sentences and hopefully dispel the choppiness. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, the Pope mobile portion of File:South park weight gain 4000 popemobile comparison.jpg licensing information is incorrect. Guest9999 (talk)

• Which part? I used licensing from other Wikipedia images as the model for this, so it's possible I had an error in there... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The image of the popemobile is in the public domain, it is not a fair use image as it states on the image description page - also the link to commons seems to be broken. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've made changes accordingly. Is that better? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Problem seems fixed. Some users might question whether a non-free image is justified considering it illustrates a relatively minor part of the episode, you might want to be prepared to justify it - although it's perfectly possible no one will have any issue with it. Guest9999 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lundomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has recently gone through peer review and I feel that it is now ready for featured status. To the best of my knowledge, this article includes all encyclopedically relevant information on the animal that has been published. Yesterday, I renamed the article to the name under which it is most commonly known, Lundomys, as explained at length here.

Thanks go to Finetooth, Aranae, Ruhrfisch, Rlendog, and 6th Happiness for constructive comments at the peer review and elsewhere. Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but its contents need some work. Alt text should be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), but the existing alt text contains mostly info that a typical Wikipedia reader won't know from the image. For the map, please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline and examples. For the lead image, please imagine that you're describing the image to a non-expert over the telephone. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. How do you like the current text? Ucucha 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The alt text for the mandibles is good; thanks. For the map, though, "Map of South America marked by red and blue colors." doesn't tell the visually impaired reader what a sighted reader can see at a glance, for example, that the current range is roughly coterminous with Uruguay. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Revised the map alt again to say where the red and blue is. Is that sufficient? Thanks, Ucucha 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, that looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• reeds is a DAB page.
  • First of all, thanks for your comments. On the "reed" link: My source only talks about "reed", not about the specific kind of reed. I could link to reed bed, but that is not completely appropriate as the link does not refer to the habitat, but to the individual plants. I would think that most people know what "reed" is, so I deleted the link.
• The only(!) ext link is dead, you probably need to update the link
  • Wow, IUCN apparently changed all their link locations overnight. I fixed this one; we'll probably need a bot to do that across all the many articles which also link to the Red List. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• still didn't work. you need to be careful to link to the full details page with iucn, now done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it does work, but so does the link you edited in, so that doesn't matter. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• in Frietas ref, the families should not be italicised
  • I know it is wrong, but it is what the title of the article is. I already placed a "sic" in hidden text to indicate that. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please indicate the languages of the non-English refs
  • Done. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Any reason why the publication names are not italicised?
  • I see that as unnecessary formatting. It's in keeping with the house style of journals like American Museum Novitates. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that was the case, just checking it wasn't an oversight. The only requirement is for consistency, so no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are a number of red-linked technical terms, eg lophodont. You need to either write something for the link to go to, or explain the terms in the text, or remove the redlink if its already explained. Conversely, why do common words like "fur" need a link, or even worse, a redlink (tufts of hair)
  • Lophodont is now explained. I believe all other technical terms that need it also have an explanation. "Tufts of hair" links to the specific anatomical term for these tufts, "ungual tuft", which will one day get an article and, I think, merit a link. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• posterolateral palatal pits? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It now says "the palate ... is perforated near the third molars by conspicuous posterolateral palatal pits." Doesn't that make it clear enough what those pits are? In a couple of other articles, I used something like "PPPs, perforations of the palate near the third molar", but I think the sentence flows better like this. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The karyotype is 2n = 52, FN = 58 and consists mostly of acrocentric or telocentric autosomes I shouldn't have to read another article to make sense of this. Are we talking about the number of chromosome pairs? What's FN? What's an autosome (no link) what's metacentric (no link)?
  • I rewrote that paragraph now. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• It builds nests up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) above the water, similar to those of Holochilus Strangely, I don't know what a Holochilus nest looks like (must have missed that lesson), please describe.
  • The intention of that was not actually to enable people to understand what the nest of the either of the two looks like, but only to provide the notable fact that these two animals build nests which are similar in many respects. I clarified that now by taking the similarity part out to the next sentence. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Having said that, do we know what the nest looks like? It's supported by reeds, so is it above the ground? Is it open or enclosed? Is it made from reeds, twigs or what? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is a long quote in Spanish about this in Voss and Carleton (p. 34), but I couldn't make too much sense of it. I'll see what I can do. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, it would be good to have a bit more about lifestyle, and nests are usually easier than obscure mating behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added a little more. There's no information, unfortunately, on what it actually does in these nests. I don't think a lot of them would fit in. Ucucha 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Pardinas 1995, at least, has on-line text. Can you please check if any other papaers can be linked
  • Almost all do. I provided links now. It's funny that this article is now actually the top search result in Google for a number of the article titles of the references. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - all the new links checked with the linkchecker tool except iucn, although it does actually work. Can you add to the Steppan ref that it requires a subscription please?Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Did so, and same for the other ones which are not open access. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from the minor issues outstanding above, I have no other specific issues. I'm not far off supporting, but I still have some nagging doubts about the accessibility to someone lacking a scientific background. I'll wait a couple of days and have another read through, and see if there are any comments in the meantime. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I've tried as I could to avoid making the article too inaccessible for non-specialists, but I'm open to any suggestions for further improvement. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Carleton and Olson describe the nest on p52 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. They're describing both Holochilus and Lundomys nests together, which are similar but may not be identical. They mention nests 2 to 3 m above the ground, for example, but the quote in Voss and Carleton (1993, p. 34) says 1.5 m, and I am more inclined to believe the original source. I'll see what I can make of it later today. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Further comment. One danger of using the wildly inaccurate convert template is that you can end up with nonsense like 9 to 11 centimetres (4 to 4 in). Please recalculate by hand or replace with 3.5 to 4.3

• Changed to "about 4 in". Ucucha 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources look good but you need to italicise your journal titles and put article titles in quotation marks.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for having a look at the links. As far as I am aware, I do not need to use any particular style of citation as long as the style is consistent within the article. As I mentioned above, the style I use is consistent with what journals in the field do. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is an image available of a living animal? Its preservation status in the infobox indicates that it is not rare, endangered or extinct. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, there is not, and actually it is fairly exceptional that we could get as much as an image of the skull. Ucucha 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I read that it is rarely encountered (the reason for no images perhaps?), could that be added to the first line of the lead ... 'a rarely encountered rodent species ...'? I think that 'taxonomic' could be wikilinked, this would explain the section header of 'Taxonomy' as I (as a person who knows very little about biology) did not know what it meant, I looked it up using the search box. The only other suggestion I can think of is the use of sub-headers in the text for readability if that could be achieved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Some of the reasons both for the lack of photos and for its apparent rarity may be that it is active at night, has a limited distribution, doesn't live in a very accessible habitat, and is probably fairly difficult to distinguish from Holochilus brasiliensis in a photograph. I would prefer not to put the "rarely encountered" bit in the lead, because its apparent rarity may actually only be the result of insufficient effort to locate it, as the text explains. I think it would be misleading to say that it is rare without this bit of context.
• I wikilinked "taxonomy" in the lead.
• The article is not that long, so I don't think section headers are that important. Also, I can see few other ways to divide the long sections (Taxonomy and Description) than by creating a separate subsection for each paragraph, which I don't think is appropriate. Ucucha 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, it is your call. I tried some headers in my sandbox [2] to see how it would look, not technically correct headings perhaps (and one latin name spelt incorrectly I notice, apologies!) but I did manage to divide some related paragraphs. This section of an article recently passed FAC with many paragraph sub-headers, although it could be said that the need for them was greater there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also tried something like that (didn't save it, though), but the problems I see with it are that "Reclassification" is not a completely accurate summary of what happened (it was discovered again independently, not reclassified, by Hershkovitz) and that, to me at least, your organization of the "Description" section suggests that the first paragraph is a summary of the following three subsections, which it is not.
• I think a comparison to the Rolls-Royce FA you mention reinforces my point: it only has one-paragraph sections where information relevant to the article is relatively limited ("Derby" there, "Natural history" and "Conservation status" in Lundomys), but still uses long sections where appropriate (the "Supercharger" sub-subsection, which is about as long as the "Taxonomy" section in Lundomys). Ucucha 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, as I said the headings I used just to illustrate the principle would not necessarily be technically correct or summarise the paragraphs accurately using one word. Each editor is bound to have a different interpretation of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2b and Help:Section, it's a style comment only. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my comments illustrate the problems every attempt to insert subsections into this article. When there is consensus that subsections are needed here, I will insert them; but I feel that they are not needed and hard to insert in an accurate way. Ucucha 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Giro d'Italia

Nominator(s): Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured status because I believe it comes as close to satisfying the criteria as (essentially) one editor can get it. I've been editing this article like crazy since May, and I believe that if it does not, as I type this, satisfy the FA criteria, it will once I have addressed concerns of persons more experienced in vetting FA's than I am. I am nominating this article because it seems to be the only step left. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by AnOddName

• No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
• The larger images, and some of the smaller ones, have decent alt text. The smaller "stage" icons in the "Route and stages" table already have text next to them, so you can use "|link=" in the image tag to exempt them from alt text.

Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citation dates are consistent ISO style.
• User Kov 93 appears to be the primary article contributor (you're a close second). If Kov 93 doesn't know about the nomination, remember to notify them soon.

--an odd name 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kov 93 hasn't edited the article since July, but still should have been notifed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kov 93 is not the primary contributor to the article. He edited the article in a handful of bursts of 30 or 40 consecutive edits within a couple of hours (I have also made numerous consecutive edits, but they've been over days at a time), most of which were wholly rolled back and needn't have at all been made in that way. Further, he does not have a very good command over the English language, so I doubt how helpful he could be here. I'm trying not to sound like a complete jerk here, but he really did not contribute much. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

S'pose that's not entirely fair...most of Kov's editing was updating the standings as the race went on. Not really in improving the quality of the article. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by SandyGeorgia

There is some WP:MOS cleanup needed. The section headings include incorrect uppercase (see WP:MSH); there is unnecessary bolding in the "World Rankings points" section (see WP:MOSBOLD); there is unnecessary use of WP:ITALICS in several places (example, ... and so shared leadership of the Fair play classification and throughout at least the "Other classifications" section); there are WP:MOSNUM cleanup needs (example, ... and 2 for twentieth going to Lars Bak); and punctuation of image captions needs review per WP:MOS#Captions (sentence fragments vs. full sentences). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am so used to "General Classification" that I was thinking of arguments to keep it like that, but it looks like there is no real argument. Therefore, I changed most of the section headings, but I kept a few: "Trofeo Fast Team" and "Trofeo Super Team", because I don't know for sure if these are names or not, and "World Rankings points", because this refers to the UCI World Ranking, which is capitalized.
  • Are we sure the Giro uses "King of the mountains" at all? "Demystified" doesn't use it, and Gazzetta dello Sport just uses "GPM", which my limited Italian can't really decipher. It also shows that "TV," "Trofeo Fast Team," "Trofeo Super Team," and "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo" all are capitalized, but also that "Classifiche Generali" is as well. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Got it - Gran Premio della Montagna (Mountains grand prize). So just "Mountains classification" would probably be best here. The Tour obviously uses King of the Mountains and I'm pretty sure I've seen rey de la montaña for the Vuelta, but it doesn't seem to be in use for the Giro. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • ...and this change has already been made. Awesome. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The World Rankings table sorts awkwardly - it is alphabetical by first name. The top ten after the Giro table does likewise, and it also sorts previous rankings as 1 then 127 then 2 then 27. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• The bold text in the World Rankings points tables has been removed. I also improved the table in other ways that I think MOS requires.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The italic text: I removed most, and kept some as foreign terms according to the MOS. I removed the references to the jersey in the classification leadership table, because I don't think they serve a goal. The jersey icons are already there, and the Italian name for that jersey is not really important. I don't know what to do with the "no award" in that table; the italic makes clear that it is not the name of a cyclist, is that allowed by the MoS, with function emphasis?? Not clear to me. I left the "Traguardo Volante" italic. The classification is named that way, so the name should be kept, but I don't know what the correct English translation is. (Traguardo might be a sponsor?) Same goes for "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo": it is the name of the classification, but should an english translation be given here? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Traguardo Volante would roughly mean flying sprint, a name used in other cycling events. Traguardo itself literally means "aim," "purpose," "goal," or (perhaps most appropriately) "finish line." [3] Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Observations by Kevin McE

Several small, mainly semantic, issues:

• We have already discussed on the talk page the mathematically unsound nature of trying to give a total race distance to the nearest 100m. If a footnote is needed to explain why the total for the race is not the total of the stages, let's have a footnote.
  • The number is sourced. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the definition of queen stage, two stages cannot claim the status. If there is not unanimous sourced allocation of the epiphet, drop it. Totalling two non-consecutive stage times seems a very odd piece of data.
  • I disagree. It is verifiable that both stages were called the queen stage (Blockhaus was also referred to as "one of three stages vying for the status as queen stage," but I only found that in one article). The times I thought was interesting in that most stages in a stage race are completed in 3-4 hours, but I'm not too attached to it.
• Di Luca did not "come in" second, 41 seconds behind the winner: he "came in" over the last finishing line a couple of minutes before Menchov. Suggest "Second place overall went to Di Luca, who also won ..."
• I don't think we should have rolled over so easily to one person who wanted CERA spelled out in full. Like Alex, I think the normal English usage rule should apply, and that this aids readability.
  • Wasn't one person. Both GA reviewers and the FL reviewers for the teams/cyclists list wanted it spelled out. I disagree, but I believe in consensus. I look forward to reading about the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing in other articles. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Can I suggest categories, classifications, or even types of stage, rather than 'brandings, and eliminated rather than taken out to explain the consequence of finishing after the cut-off?
• To say that stages are meant to end in a bunch sprint suggests intention on the part of the organisers. While this might be true, it would be unverifiable, and I would suggest predicted to instead. Premier doesn't seem an appropriate adjective for the top sprinters.
• Did you mean to say that Milan is a traditional city? The city in which the city traditionally finishes, or in which the race has finished each year since 1989. Either way, that stage being showy and prestigious seems unencyclopaedic as a description.
• What did Columbia do to upset the winners of the team time trial, and who were they anyway? Yes, I know what the article is meant to mean, but in UK English at least, this is the question raised by wound up. Keep the formal tone: were/finished as/became/ended the day as/etc etc.
  • Changed, but I have to ask, are WP:CYC articles meant to be written in British English? I'm actually not terribly opposed to that, but it would mean a lot of coming after me to clean up my "kilometer"s and "November 2"s and surely countless other phrases of which I'm not even aware. As I think I can safely say I'm the most prodigious prose writer in our Project, what I write will often "grate on" your sensibilities just as what you would write might grate on mine. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, nobody has said that cycling articles should be in UK English, but wp:Engvar suggests version neutral language wherever possible. Of course users of one dialect will not always be aware of the effect of their words on the users of another: that is why we seek to work together. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• stage 3 to, not in, Valdobbiadene
• Will all readers know that "the Manx sprinter" refers to Cavendish? Is the word Manx a familiar one at all outside the UK?
  • I'd think so, unless we're trying to be accessible to people who don't read English very well. He's the subject of the sentence, and the only other rider named in prose to that point is Petacchi, who is described as Cavendish's rival. Seems clear to me (but, of course it does, I wrote it). And "Manx" is certainly familiar to someone outside the UK ;) Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I assume that that is the agreed, accessibility approved version of Columbia-HTC, and LPR Brakes-Farini: it looks to me more as though it is separating two concepts instead of joining them.
• The next day, he claimed the jersey, when he was second to stage winner Denis Menchov at Alpe di Siusi and an elite group of favorites emerged.: first comma definitely unnecessary, second one arguably also redundant. It would be good to make a second sentence here, to say who comprised this elite group of contenders.
• In the following para, the sentence beginning There he claimed a convincing... does not need a comma after the first word.
• nearly two minutes back of him : is that English? nearly two minutes behind him" seems infinitely preferable to me.
• King of the mountains points are won at passes that are not stage finishes: that is not the impression given by the sentence about Garzelli's win. Very few roads, and therefore few races, go to the summit of a mountain.
  • Probably a revision would help, but points are won on summit stage finishes. Garzelli was second to Blockhaus, and got 10 mountains points for it - [4]. Garzelli was in the top five (points for the top five) for four of the six summit finishes. That along with the breakaway over Sestrière and having the best time at the intermediate time checks that came at the tops of the climbs in the Cinque Terre time trial is what won him the jersey. It's not as off as you're indicating. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, points are not won on mountain summits, because civil engineers build roads that follow the easiest route, which means they go through cols and passes, not over peaks. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Is it truly unclear that "summit stage finish" means "a stage finish that ends on a mountain climb" and not "the very tippy tip top of the mountain" ? If so, please revise, because I don't see it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Stage 9: a protest of...: in UK English, at least, protests are at, about or against something, but never of...
  • I'll never claim to be able to write UK English :P Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Quick Step's Seeldraeyers winning the white jersey, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone winning the green jersey, and Astana winning the Trofeo Fast Team made it eleven teams coming away with a significant prize. Several gerunds as the subject of an informally phrased verb doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopaedia: maybe With wins for Quick Step's Seeldraeyers in the youth classification, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone in the climbers' competition, and Astana in the Trofeo Fast Team ranking, eleven teams won significant prizes during the race.
  • Well taken. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Should the description of the various competitions not precede the description of their outcomes?
• Di Luca was announced to have given two positive tests: jars on UK ears: is this the correct construction in US English? Can a more version neutral phrasing be found?
  • I don't see the problem with it (but, I wouldn't, I wrote it). Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Can we give dates or stage numbers rather than the description of the stages on which Di Luca returned dodgy tests?
  • Dates may be suitable, but I think it's more significant to describe that the tests came before two of the Giro's hardest stages rather than just "Stage 12" and "Stage 19." Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• There were also two classifications for teams: plural.
• "The first is the Trofeo Fast Team. In this classification, the times of the best three cyclists per team on each stage are added,..."
• Surely the description of the non-jersey awards should immediately follow the statement that they exist, rather than about 5 screen-lengths farther down the page. The team awards are non-jersey awards.
  • Yeah, order of information has been a bit confounding for me the whole time I've been revising this article. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• IMHO, the usual bullet list is a far clearer way of listing the "reserve" jersey wearers. Even if the current prose remains, the sentence Each of the first eleven podium presentations awarded multiple jerseys to a particular rider is far from clear. Suggest appending "Such a situation occured after each of the first 11 stages." to the previous paragraph.
  • I'm more than happy to go back to it if it's preferred, but I thought bulleted lists were meant to be avoided like the plague. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence on the Trofeo Fuga Cervelo needs to be re-written in a past tense.

I don't know if anyone else shares these views. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by EdgeNavidad

• In the "Final standings" tables, the winner's row is boldfaced. Although I have seen this in many tables in Wikipedia, I have not seen it in a FA-article, nor can I find justification for this in the MoS. What about this?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text comments by Eubulides

Alt text is done; thanks. Images have alt text (thanks) but the alt text needs some work.

• A couple of the phrases are not verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be removed or moved to caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These phrases are "various cycling teams in the race be publicly presented", and the word "team" in "preparation to start a team race",
  • I had a really hard time doing alt text for that image. Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • For File:TeamsPresentationsGiro2009Venice.jpg, how about replacing "the various cycling teams in the race be" with "a cycling team be"? A non-expert can tell from the image that one cycling team is being presented, not that multiple teams are being presented; also, a non-expert can't tell from the image that the team is in the race. For File:Venice, lido, stage-1, giro, italy 050.jpg, how about replacing "a team race" with "a race"? A non-expert can't tell from the image that it's a team race as opposed to being an individual race. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Done, though I don't know how nine riders together in the start house could be seen as for an individual race. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. (As a certified non-expert in bicycling, I can testify that I didn't know that the image had to be that of a team race....) Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• The lead map's alt text doesn't describe the gist of the map well. It shouldn't contain irrelevant detail like the color used in the map legend; instead, it should briefly say where the path goes (out of Italy, for example; or down past Naples) and should say that the path is interrupted. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline on this.
  • I'm having trouble with this one, too. How much knowledge of Italian geography should the alt text assume? Map of a boot-shaped country... obviously seems absurd, but Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and through Austria and Switzerland to finish in Rome seems to be assuming an awful lot. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The goal is to help the visually impaired reader, who can be assumed to have a bit of knowledge of Italy (and if you say, "across the border into Switzerland" can be assumed to be intelligent enough to deduce that Italy borders Switzerland, even if they didn't know it already). The alt text you substituted is OK, though I wish it'd mention that the path has gaps (non-experts won't know this) and that it goes as far south as Naples before ending in Rome. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Map of Italy showing the path of the race, going counter-clockwise from Venice and crossing the border to pass through Austria and Switzerland, reaching Naples in the south of Italy before finishing in Rome ? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that looks great. Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• The image File:Jersey pink.svg has the alt text "Menchov was awarded the final pink jersey as general classification winner", but that alt text doesn't describe the image (which is of a pink jersey). There are ten instances of this sort of thing. Each should have a textual description as well as the jersey, e.g., "[[Image:Jersey pink.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] pink jersey" → " pink jersey", or alt text that simply describes the image, e.g., "[[Image:Jersey pink.svg|20px|alt=Pink jersey]]" → "".
  • Done, but I'll raise why this was done in the first place. In our own discussions of setting up style guidelines for various types of pages (which, by the way, we need to get back to someday), it came up that just putting the jersey icon there doesn't explain what it's for. That's why the alt text came in. Do you think this is still a concern, or should those icons maybe just be eliminated altogether (I'm starting to feel that way). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added a legend, which I made during the WP:FL upgrade of List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia, which should solve the problem for this article. Since we first now fully understand the concept of "alt text", we should maybe consider implementing the legend I made last year (shown in the bottom of this discussion) to the stage articles? lil2mas (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The legend is an improvement (thanks) and I think it's good enough. There may be ways to further improve it but that's beyond the scope of this article review. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• The alt text tool (at upper right of this review page) reports three usages of File:History.gif that have the alt text "image page". Please fix these images to use empty "|link=|alt=" instead, as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You may have to track down which template is generating that.
  • Done...I think. I have to admit being a little confused by this. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It confused me too! I had no idea where which template that image was coming from. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
  • Done. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Two deadlinks in the link checker tool.
  • "Bertagnolli shrugs off heat" is available plenty of other places, but I only found "Giro stage turns into farce" here. Is that okay? The Google cache of Universal Sports' page is still available - is that okay? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Canada.com" edits out the relevant text I used as a reference (Pozzato's words). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Found it here. I have no clue what "stuff.co.nz" is, though. Does that take precedence or does Reuters when thinking of RS? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Newspapers/magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Ugh. I hate wading through these templates. I'll give it a shot. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.dailypeloton.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.steephill.tv/2009/giro-d-italia/previews-results/stage-16/?
  • They are independent of the race or anyone running it, and consistently provide content on the world of cycling. Steephill frequently culls other sources (such as cyclingnews, which is used in the article extensively, and velonews, which is used occasionally). Steephill is likely replaceable, particularly and will be unnecessary if we nix mentioning that 10 and 16 were both called the queen stage, as Kevin suggested. Dailypeloton is the only source I found detailing the sprinters in the Giro; I'll see if it's replaceable (if it needs to be). So these two sources are definitely highly specialized (I can't cite the New York Times every time :P ) but I think they're fair to use. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit afraid of this failing because of inactivity (nobody's said anything here for three days). Is there more that needs to be done, or is the article just hopeless? Please let me know what more I can do. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Giro d Italia 2009.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page.
  • Well, it was made by User:NielsB at Commons. Do you mean something like this as a source, because I'm sure that was NielsB's source.
• File:Denis Menchov 2.jpg - I can't find the license for the original image. Could you point me to it? Thanks.
  • Eep. It reportedly was put into the public domain by the Liberty Seguros team, a claim which is supported by a long-dead link to the official page of a long-defunct team. All it's used for is a glamor shot of Menchov, so I'll look for a replacement. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible replacement. Would ALT text for this image need to describe the partly-visible individual wearing a pink shirt and glasses with his right arm around Menchov? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

These are small issues, easily resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cato June

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because. This is a very complete and detailed biographical account and it is worthy of consideration for FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links, and all images have alt text with no obvious errors.
• Cite date formats are consistent ISO-style.
• The external links appear fine, except:
  • Ref 22 comes up as a not-found page and I couldn't find an archive after checking archive.org, WebCite, and several search engines. :(
    • If I remove the ref, it becomes a fact without a citation. Must I remove this fact if I can not find a citation or is it believable enough in context that it can slip by in this extremely well-cited article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I would've just left it as is, with a {{dead link}} tag right before or right after the {{cite ___}} or {{citation}} tag. Something good is bound to happen—in New Cutie Honey, lots of links suddenly went "dead" for me, only to be found somewhere else on their site or to have just been "asleep" for a time. --an odd name 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought a {{dead link}} disqualified a WP:FAC. I know it is not asleep because the university has moved all that content to a new host server. I think only current player bios got moved and old bios got tossed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll let others resolve the issue then. :) --an odd name 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there a way to provide a reference using the google results of the following search term: site:mgoblue.com "Cato June" "triple jump"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All of the newsbank links (and there's a lot) appear green or blue at the link checker (probably because they're subscription or whatever). They seem fine from a random glance, but review them if you want to be sure.

--an odd name 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I have read through the article as the GA reviewer, and have also read through most of the references to make sure that they matched up with the text of the article. There is great detail, needless to say, in the article, and I do think this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wizardman 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few small formatting tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Quite a few little prose issues that I picked up on in the early part of the article. The lead looks okay, but the body could use a fresh pair of eyes. If I can ever find some time, maybe I could provide them. Can't promise anything, though.
• Not sure about the two Super Bowl XLI links in the lead.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Dropping to the references for a second, I see a red link in ref 148. I discovered that there is a Key West Citizen article here; just drop "The" from the publisher title or pipe the link, and the red will be gone.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Early years: found a long, winding sentence that verges on a run-on: "As a sophomore, on Thanksgiving Day in the District of Columbia Interscholastic Athletic Association championship game, known as the Turkey Bowl... (keeps going for a while after this)."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• That season he earned a selection to by The Washington Post's...".
  • Good catch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comma after "June fumbled on the 1-yard-line in the fourth quarter".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "the football team would deal with the adversity of D.C. school crisis". Should it be "a D.C. school crisis"?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "During the championship game, June scored the touchdown that gave Anacostia its only lead at 8–6. However, in the championship game". Honestly, I feel the last four words can be dropped. It's already clear this is about the title game, and the language is only repeating itself.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "He visited Florida in Mid-January 1998." De-capitalize Mid.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "He was part of a recruiting class for the Heisman Trophy-winning Charles Woodson-led undefeated national champion Wolverines that was ranked as the best in the nation." The opening part strikes me as convoluted, especially considering that Woodson had left for the NFL by the time of June's redshirt freshman season.
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comma after Drew Henson.
  • Not sure about this one, but I will go with your advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• College career: "June played college football at the University of Michigan, where switched from cornerback...". Missing word after the comma.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• De-capitalize Winner later in the same sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 8 November 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)

Technical comments

• The disambig links checker finds one (to Seattle Sounders), but I can't find it so it might already be fixed.
• The title given in ref 27 is "2002 NFL Preview - Recap:Indianapolis Colts 20, Seahawks 10" but the article is titled "2002 NFL Preview - Recap: Indianapolis Colts 20, 28, Seattle Seahawks 10". Check that you cited the intended one.
• Refs 22 and 70 (both to soundersfc.com) are dead—find archived or cached versions.
• All images have alt text with no obvious errors.
• Dates throughout article and citations are consistent Month Day, Year.

--an odd name 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think I fixed the disambig link. It was included in Template:Seattle Sounders FC by an IP editor as list of historic Sounders clubs. I removed it, replacing it with links to the actual teams in the template itself.
• Fixed the second issue. The article text was correct, and it was citing the correct source, it was just mistyped in the citation template.
• Fixed the two links cited in refs 22 & 70. ← George ^talk 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm a member of the Seattle Sounders FC task force (which includes this article within its scope), and I think this article is of very high quality, so I support it become a featured article. ← George ^talk 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger comments

• Oppose-the article needs work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The stadium plan was approved by about 50 percent of the voters, with a difference of 36,700 votes out of 1.6 million cast. It was later unsuccessfully challenged in court." is confusing on many levels
  • Tell me the number of votes for and against.
  • What court was it challenged in?
• Surely the vote had a date as did the court challenge. Add them.

I believe all three issues are addressed in this new paragraph: "In May 1997, a lawsuit was filed by a Seattle man arguing against the legislature's authority to call for an election that would be paid for by a private party who would gain from the result. The lawsuit was delayed until after the vote.[6] The referendum was pitched to voters as the stadium being a home for the Seahawks. The proposal also called for the venue to be utilized for top-level soccer.[7] On June 17, 1997, The stadium plan was approved by 51.1%.[6] Of the votes cast, 82,0364 were in favor while 78,3584 were against.[8] Deciding that the legislature acted properly and in the public's interest, a Thurston County judge dismissed the lawsuit in October.[6]"

Could you give the formal name of the court. Thurston County judge could be augmented as Thurston County Court judge, Thurston County Superior Court judge, Washington Circuit Court Judge in Thurston County or what have you. Many major courts have links. A link to a court would trump a link to the county if we have one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Superior Court added. No wikilink available, though.

Modified (should still be OK). This was in months ago but removed due to no source. Found one: "Following the failure of a 1995 county bond issue to both build a new stadium for the Seattle Mariners and to rehabilitate the Kingdome for football, Seahawks' owner Ken Behring consequently threatened to sell or move the franchise. Paul Allen pledged to acquire the team if a new stadium could be built. He entered into an arrangement with the state legislature that allowed him to pay the $4 million cost of a special election. In May 1997, a lawsuit was filed by a Seattle man arguing against the legislature's authority to call for an election that would be paid for by a private party who would gain from the result. The lawsuit was delayed until after the vote. The referendum was pitched to voters as both a new home for the Seahawks and a venue for top-level soccer. On June 17, 1997, The stadium plan was approved by 51.1% with 82,0364 in favor and 78,3584 against. The stadium measure was approved by 60% in Seattle's suburbs but was unpopular farther away in Eastern Washington. Deciding that the legislature acted properly and in the public's interest, a Thurston County Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit that October and the Washington Supreme Court upheld the decision that December." Made sure to Wikilink Eastern Washington and Washington Supreme Court.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "However, when the bonds used to build the stadium are completely paid for in 2021, the tax on admission will increase to 10% for maintenance purposes." is not explained very well.
  • What is the current admission tax?

This rate fluctuates. The original source was a pdf from the Ways and Means committee that kind of explained it. It dead linked. I have removed the complete line since it is a minor part of the total funding done in the legislature and not part of the lease. However the committee can be linked I would rework the text to include such a link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Ways and Means committee. If it is a federal one, it has a link. If it is a state one at least that legislative branch may have a link.

Washington State's. I will continue o search for it. However, I shouldn't have even replaced the source with the one I did. It is a presentation

What is important is to mention which legislative body this Ways and Means Committee is affiliated with and link that term. State committees do not have articles in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The source I found was not the Ways and Means one from earlier. The vote to approve the funding package was approved by the legislature and presented to voters. Voters said OK and now the Public Stadium Authority oversees the public's interest. The current source is a presentation to a joint task force whose focus is on local financing of projects in King County. It is minor and does not have a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. The important parties at work is the legislature (wikilinkedx2), the voters (discussed), the Stadium Authority (wikilinkedx2), and First & Goal Inc. (external linked since there is not an article).

Reworked it slightly "The state legislature approved the holding of a special election with a referendum asking the voters if they wanted to approve financing for a new stadium."Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Once funds are not being used to pay for the bonds, it would seem like the tax should go down. Why is it the opposite?

I would think so, too. :) I assume it was a handshake between parties involved but have 0 sources so keeping it in only adds to the confusion and possible speculation. Wikipedia not investigative journalism, right?

IMO, WP is always a work in progress. If you add half a story, hopefully someone will add another half. There are a lot of people who are experts on government and finance who read articles about sports. I would leave it in if it is properly referenced and we can work on it a bit figure out what we do know about the situation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. It is actually pretty interesting from a funding point of view "The taxes on admissions and parking are also set at 2% to pay off the project's tax exempt bonds. Those taxes are currently below the authorized 10% to preserve tax exempt status and will be increased to the full amount when the bonds are completely paid in 2021. At that time, they will become a dedicated funding sources for maintenance and modernization of the facilities."

• "the company is responsible for maintenance and repair costs." - this information should be earlier in the paragraph so that we know whatthe lease is for. I.E., you should say that they signed a lease to provide X services in exchange for a portion of the revenues.

I reworked the paragraph to make it clearer and provide more details. It is now an all encompassing mini "Lease" section: "In September 1998, First & Goal Inc. signed a lease that runs 30 years and includes options to extend for another 20.[10] Per the agreement, the Public Stadium Authority receives $850,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) and First & Goal keeps all revenue from the stadium and parking garage. The company also receives 80% of the revenue from the exhibition center while the other 20% is allotted to a state education fund. First & Goal is also responsible for all operating and maintenance costs, expected to be $6 million a year, and must keep the facility in "first-class" condition. Other details include allotment of affordable seats, coordination with Safeco Field to prevent gridlock, a provision allowing for naming rights, commissioning of an art project, and a giveaway of a luxury suite for each Seahawks game.[10]"

• I think the article is underlinked, but I tend to overlink. Is there a link for cantilevered? scoreboard? luxury suite (maybe luxury box)?

This is funny because I went through and added some and then the editor below asked to remove some. I think the balance is right. Added cantilever, bond(finance), Washington State Legislature, artificial turf, luxury box, and a couple of others.

Scoreboard and luxury suite added.

• "small site for an NFL stadium" - give the reader some facts like of the 32 stadiums this has the xth lowest capacity or the average capacity is X.

I reread the source and reworked changed it to "The site is the smallest of those developed for new NFL stadiums.[15]... For total capacity, Qwest Field currently ranks 21st out of the 31 stadiums in the NFL."

You need a citation for 21st.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I went off Wikipeida. Removing since I can't find RS.Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• There must be pictures of this vertical scoreboard. Does it serve as a roof for the bleacher seat?

Just added one directly below.

• What is a club seat?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked added for club seating.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Write this article as if you want it to appear on the main page in the WP:TFA section. That means do not assume sports fans are reading it or Seattle locals are reading it.
• Artificial surface should be explained to a reader or linked when first mentioned (not later without actually relating the terms artificial surface and artificial turf). What you mean is Link x brand of artificial turf instead of Link x artificial surface. The reader will figure out what artificial surface means in the context of the stadium if you just link a term. You can pipe artificial turf with artificial surface or just use the term.
• What is infill? Few readers will know what this is.
• Use {{convert}} to add metric conversion for english unit of measure (one inch).

All three fixed with: "Qwest Field was the first stadium in the NFL to install a FieldTurf artificial field. The product utilizes plastic fibers rooted in a mixture of ground rubber and sand.[5] The field was replaced in the spring of 2008 due to safety concerns caused by the sand and rubber becoming compressed along with the color of the field fading. A 1 inch (2.5 cm) poured rubber foundation was added to prevent this failure from occurring again."

• "The amount of precipitation typically seen in Seattle during the later part of the year"- What amount? Do you have a daily precipitation average for 4th quarter or a percentage of days with precipitation by month? You must have some stat. Mention it and cite it.

"Seahawks management said it had advantages over natural grass such as easier maintenance. The potential damage to a natural grass field caused by Seattle's frequent rain also made the surface an appropriate option. The installation of an irrigation and heating system needed to keep grass robust under this heavy football use during late fall and early winter rains would have cost $1.8 million.[6]"OK?

• Why does Washington State Public Stadium Authority link to this article?

It was a poor article that looked like a good merge and redirect candidate. Should it be spun off?

If it is WP:N it should be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Brought it back and wikilinked. That article meets GNG but needs sources. It could also go into details on the board and any informaiton that is deemed as too much here. Different project, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• events beyond football is poor grammar. How about events other than football?

Done. "...that the new stadium was indented for soccer as well as football."

• Find the landscaping term for Sloping field and link it.

added "(called the "crown")". I could not find this mentioned at Association football pitch, various landscaping articles, or the disambiguation page for Crown.

Leave a query at the proper talk pages seeking help on this one. I think there should be a link somewhere. If not by leaving a query someone who is expert on the matter might create an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.eckclassic.com/eckc/ deadlinks

Removed

• All your links need last access dates.

Access dates are included but invisible to the reader: <!--accessed: date--> per WP:CITE#HOW. I can change this if this is not common practice.

Follow up: Added all ACCESS DATES for links and added PUBLISHER for all cite webs

• 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 [7]) 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.

• Current ref 45 (Washington State Game..) lacks a publisher, and what makes this a reliable source?

That is no good. Replaced with newspaper sources

• Current ref 53 (Griffin..) lacks a publisher and seems to lack any content. http://www.stateoffootball.com/ardisplay.aspx?ID=73&SecID=112

That is a shame since it was worded as a big claim. The source isn't even responding in different browsers so I am removing and dumming down the language.

• Current ref 56 (Ulmer...) lacks a publisher, and what makes this a reliable source?

That is the online presence for the The Oregonian. Mike Wilson's name is in the byline. He is the assistant sports editor. Jerry Ulmer's name is the bottom. Looks like he is staff writer. Updating ref with names and The Oregonian.

• What makes http://away.com/features/top-ten-football-stadiums-1.html a reliable source?

No good. Removed. Added new source (newspaper instead of random site). Cleaned up wording to match. Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments – These comments probably cover slightly under half the article. I'm a little concerned because I'm seeing some basic problems in the writing that a top-to-bottom copy-edit would find. Hopefully these help.

• "Paul Allen pledged to acquire the team if a new stadium could be built..". Double punctuation at the end.

D'oh. A couple of these were me screwing up last night while making adjustments. Some of them are just silliness. Of course it helps. Thanks for the sharp eyes.

• "He entered into an arraignment with the state legislature...". "arraignment" → "arrangement".

Fixed

• "The lawsuit was delayed until after the vote. It was pitched to voters as being a home for the Seahawks and to be utilized for top-level soccer." I know "It" refers to the stadium, but the sentence makes it sound like the object is either the suit or the vote. Consider changing the beginning of the second sentence to "The stadium" or similar. The prose in the second sentence also feels dodgy to me. Maybe it's the "being" – "to be" contrast.

Reworked "The referendum was pitched to voters as the stadium being the new home for the Seahawks. The proposal also called for the venue to be utilized for top-level soccer."

• Watch carefully for overlinking of common words, as many of my fellow reviewers monitor for that. Already I've seen lawsuit and pier linked; these are simple concepts that don't require links, at least in my mind.

Underlinking was mentioned by Tony for a couple things. I'll delink these and see if that hits the right balance.

• Construction and layout: "5,000 seats can be added for special events." If possible, try not to start a sentence with a number like this.

"The total capacity can be increased to 72,000 for special events by adding 5,000 seats." OK?

• "For total capacity, the stadium currently ranks 21 out of 31 in the NFL." Should be "21st out of 31st", I'd imagine.

Fixed

• "Surface: "Seahawks management said it had advantages over natural grass including easier maintenance and more appropriate for the amount of precipatation typically seen in the later part of the year." "being" should be added after "and" because the sentence doesn't seem grammatical now.

"Seahawks management said it had advantages over natural grass such as easier maintenance. The amount of precipitation typically seen in Seattle during the later part of the year also made the surface an appropriate option." OK?

• "during their loss during the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup." To avoid repetition, change the second use of "during" to "at".

Fixed (one of my pet peeves!)

• For the next sentence, we do have an article on Sunil Gulati, which may be worth a wikilink.

Fixed (there are two wikilinks for him but they are separated by a good deal of text)

• There's a typo in the author name in reference 25. His last name is Goff, not Gofd.

Fixed

• Football: "The teams performances improved in the 2003 season". "teams" → "team's".

Fixed

• Home field advantage: "Origins of the term are not clear, but it has been a tradition for the several sports teams for decades." Remove second "the".

Fixed and changed "Origins of the term are not clear, but its use has been a decades-long tradition for several sports teams."Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 (17–14) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have done another copy edit also.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at the rest if/when I get time, but for now I just found one problematic sentence in terms of content: "Qwest Field gained national attention during a game against the New York Giants in 2005 when the Giants missed three field goals; allowing a Seahawk game-winning field goal in overtime." The sentence reads like the stadium gained recognition because the Giants missed a bunch of field goals. As you may have guessed by my signature, I'm a Giants fan, and I remember this particular game (not that I want to). The real reason that the stadium received attention was because the Giants committed false start penalty after false start penalty (11 in all, almost half the 2005 total mentioned in the article), which was widely attributed to the crowd noise. I really think this part should be recast. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Based on WP:LEADCITE if there's nothing controversial in the lead section (and I don't think there is here), it's good to remove redundant references for things that are also mentioned in the body of the article. Can we eliminate the reference from the lead section by either moving them to the appropriate place in the body, or (if they're already somewhere in the body) just remove them from the lead?

It also feels like there is no representation of the information from "Construction and layout", "Surface", "Other Events", "Facility Contracts", or "Transportation" sections in the lead. I'm not saying that something from each section must be in the lead, but was it considered previously at all? It just feels like the lead section could stand to grow a bit more with some bits from a few of these "unmentioned" sections. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added some info including freeways and mass transit, Seahawks Stadium, abbreviation work, FieldTurf, completion, this year's MLS Cup (less than 3 weeks away!), "modern facility with open views", and Qwest naming rights. Does it look good? Is there anything that needs to be added or changed?Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - the article is well referenced, and the the article lead is now an excellent summary of the entire article. Well done. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Stateoffootballart.JPG - The copyright for this photo is partially owned by the artist who designed this artwork. To use this photo, you would either need to obtain permission from the artist or claim fair use and therefore include a fair use rationale.

Removed. That art is shown all over newspaper articles for Qwest Field but we are better than that. The artist has not given us permission to show his work at the stadium so I have removed it from this article. (I loved it but that was a great catch!)

• File:The All-American Rejects in Seattle.jpg - Please add a more detailed description of this image in the "description" field at the image page.

Fixed. I added the description. Oddly enough I was looking for Neurosis, Dio, or Slayer images and I found this one.Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 8 November 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)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
• Citation dates are consistent Day Month Year after a minor edit.
• All images have alt text. The Joseph Stalin navbox had default "Joseph Stalin.jpg" alt text, so I changed that. Some of the earlier alt text has text not obvious from seeing only the image—there may be more such problems:
  • For the first one, perhaps just "A group of soldiers are wearing snowsuits and aiming a heavy machine gun."? (The caption already says they are Finnish, which is not entirely obvious from the image.)
  • For the "Background" map, specify the Baltic countries.
  • Instead of "The signature ceremony in a small office in Helsinki.", maybe "Two men sign papers at opposite sides of a table in a small office"?
  • Instead of "Several people surround walking Paasikivi. The picture is taken at the front.", try to describe the group of men wearing hats to the left, the woman to the right, and the crowd behind.

--an odd name 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Peltimikko (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this excellent article easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support A very good article, in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is present (thanks!), but it has some problems:
  • It has several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and needs to be removed or moved to the caption (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), or is a duplicate of the caption and can be removed (see WP:ALT#Repetition). These phrases include "in November 1939", "Commander Meretskov", "Soviet" (multiple times), "to Finland", "Finnish" in "Group of Finnish soldier" (that should be "soldiers", by the way) and in "Finnish soldiers", "Soviet" in "A Soviet khaki tank", "History Department of the United states Military Academy", "Vyborg Castle". It is OK to say "Soviet" and "Finnish" in maps, where the map legend says who's who, but it's not OK to say it for photos of soldiers, where a non-expert can't tell the difference.
  • There are problems of grammar in "The group of men wearing hats to the left, the woman to the right, and the crowd behind." Also, that alt text should focus more on the three men, who are clearly the focus of the picture.
  • There is typically no need for phrases such as "on the left", "on the right", "in the middle", etc., unless these phrases are crucial to the understanding of the image. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There are also problems of grammar in "A cannon wearing white blanket on the snow and two men are posing side of it." For alt text like this, it's shorter and simpler to use present tense, e.g., "... cannon wears ... two men pose ...".
  • More grammar problems with "Frozen body at the front and", "men with snowsuits are point", "The picture is taking from ground, distant below.", "White, frozen sea where dock at the front", "large of part Karelia", and "many island of". Please review the alt text with the same care you take with normal text.
  • In a couple of places, tanks are described as "khaki" but this color cannot be verified from a monochrome photograph. Please remove the "khaki". Also, what is a "white-wear tank"?
  • Misspelling: "wehicles". You might want to spell-check all the article (including alt text). Done. Peltimikko (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I improved ALTs as much as I could. Unfortunately, I am not very good at english grammar, so extra hands are appreciated. Peltimikko (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I can try my luck with the grammar if you want me to.--Coldplay Expert 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please do that? I've struck the problems that were fixed, but many remain, and many more were introduced since I last reviewed the alt text. Some of the new problems are relatively subtle, e.g., "A group of three men wearing hats in the middle" sounds like the men are wearing hats in their middles. Some are more obvious, e.g., "An officer on the left showing map on the table", with a missing "a" before "map". Generally speaking, by the way, it's better to use present tense, e.g., "A group of three men wears hats" and "An officer shows a map". Eubulides (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will see what I can do.--Coldplay Expert 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline 1a, 1c, 2c ; expect it will make it, it looks great. I can't see any 1d issues which is very good.
  1. 1a
     1. We need to recruit a volunteer English First Language person to smooth some of the grammar, and weirder English tenses in writing. Done (or?). (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

        Because of Finnish mates, I'm doing a second-look-over myself. Happy with the strike. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

     2. fn9 needs to use English format percentages 22.6 not European 22,6 Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. New 1c decline reason: Talk:Winter War#For decision: US English, UK English, Australian English, Indian English... needs to be resolved and implemented. I don't particularly care which version of English is used, but one needs to be used consistently. ise count is 3, ize count is 4. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. 1c
     1. Original Research at fn8. Done. (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. fn11 lacks page references, as does fn12. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. Not convinced of the quality of scholarship from the 1950s in the last two paragraphs of the Section "Aftermath - Finnish views". More recent scholarship available?... aaah... this is meant to be a historiography / reception section. Needs a rewrite to be less "actions during the war" as content to "debate within Finland on the war" Response: Some grammar done. I have not figured out how to answer this. There is much more detailed article Aftermath of the Winter War. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. Speaking of which, convince me you've searched for post 1991 Russian scholarship of high quality (I can't transliterate fn21 rapidly enough myself) Response: I moved references inside a note. A purpose is to demonstrate, that a word "Winter War" (as well as Soviet–Finnish War 1939–1940) is also widely used in Russian histography. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. You've got a "[verification needed]" needed tag Additional sources added. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. 2c Consistency
     1. Inconsistent attribution of language sources published in in notes. Compare fn141 Author Title (in Finnish). fn21 (Russian) Author Title, and fn93 [no attribution of lanugage supplied]. Corrected Russian fn21 and changed fn141, fn142 and fn143. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. Full stops or not at the end of notes. Full stops. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. If you're using full citations in the format Author (YYYY). Title. [p./pp.] nnn. (ie fn4), your short cites should read Author (YYYY). [p./pp.] nnn. Currently your short cites read Author YYYY, [p./pp.] nnn [note the lack of full stop]. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. fn8, not an archival cite. Please supply translations (pref: Authorative Organisational Translations) for the Archive's repository, location, the originating institution, etc. Russian Government ? Archive, File 37977. Op1 ? Document 595? Leaves 57-59?. Citing archival sources for manpower totals is original research. Solved (another sources). Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. Multiple author inconsistency between Bibliography and Notes. Pick one of Author and Author (example fn47) or Author; Author (bibliography, fn80). Author; Author Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     6. fn146 spelling of Programme / Program Note: (sic!). Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Non decline related comments:
     1. 1b: Home front? Was the war too short?
     2. I would really appreciate seeing fn21 having Latin lettering as well. It would allow me a surface chance of checking fn21's 1c status.
     3. Relevant in any way? RR Reese "Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940" The Journal of Military History, 2008.
     4. Relevant in any way? Varpu Lindström "Propaganda and identity construction: media representation of Finnish and Finnish-Canadian women during the Winter War of 1939-40" in Sisters or Strangers?: Immigrant, Ethnic, and Racialized Women in Canadian History Marlene Epp (Editor), Franca Iacovetta (Editor), Frances Swyripa (Editor) University of Toronto Press: 2004. ISBN10 0802086098 (probably not, but this demonstrates how little has escaped your 1c research).
  5. Support related comments:
     1. 1c looks great. Sources not of Highest Quality are used sparingly, and to verify obvious, simple, uncontestable elements. With the exception of my complaint about using archival sources to generate a man count as OR, this is an excellent 1c work.
     2. This has been one of the easiest long articles to check 1c and 2c on as the author has already excellent citation, footnoting and bibliography habits. Big congrats on that. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are there Wikipedia documents concerning the citation matter (multiple authors in a book)? Currently the template "cite book" is used, and it does not give citations as requested. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Template:cite book has a number of bugs. Looking at the article. Your shortcites are manual: [[#JowettSnodgrass2006|Jowett and Snodgrass 2006]], pp. 10–11 => [[#JowettSnodgrass2006|Jowett; Snodgrass (2006)]]. pp. 10-11.. The choice of citation style is up to you. If you want to keep using cite book for your bibliography, then change your manner of short citation in the footnotes to match it (like I just recommended and exampled :). Feature Article reviewers can only demand consistency in citation style. Its up to you to determine how to get there. I can give advice about how if you've chosen a way forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed citations. Hopefully the citation style passes the review. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well you got the citations down but do you still need help with the grammar. Engilsh is my first language.--Coldplay Expert 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Extra hands are always needed. Would you? Peltimikko (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure I was already an extra hand for this article I uploaded a map of Finland that showed the soviet offensives in the winter of 39-40. In the next few days Ill read the whole article and see what I need to fix. At first glance however you seem to have done a good job at spelling as well as the grammar. Even if English isn't your first language. Good job!--Coldplay Expert 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• Current ref 18 (Krivosheyev...) needs a page number in additon to the link. Also, this link seems to redirect to a website in Russian, needs to note that and is this a reprint of the book? Done (Thanks Illyth!) Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=62 a reliable source? Semi-reliable. Mika Kulju's book "Raatteen tie" has more reliable figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=92 a reliable source? Not reliable (Wikipedia as a source). Instead added Mika Kulju. Peltimikko (talk) 16:47, 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)

[edit] John Lloyd Waddy

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominating this article on one of the RAAF's top-scoring fighter aces, who went on to become a New South Wales parliamentarian, because I think it fits the criteria. Currently GA, and A-Class on two Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links, which is good.
• Two dead external links, both in ref 15 and both from nla.gov.au (no response at all); all others work.
• All images have alt text. You could probably mention the three other men near the craft in the South West Pacific pic's alt, but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary. Otherwise, I think the alts are perfect.
  • Tweaked said picture's alt text per suggestion, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Citation dates are all Day Month Year.

--an odd name 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment the newspapers.nla.gov.au url is still being advertised from the main page of the NLA website http://www.nla.gov.au so this is probably just a temporary glitch. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right David - I checked just after OddName's post and the whole site was not responding; it's now working fine as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The nla links are working now. :) --an odd name 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I think that this article is close to the FA criteria, but needs a little bit more work:
  • The statement that his half-share in a kill on 9 December 1941 was his 'first confirmed victory' is a bit imprecise - were there any unconfirmed victories before this? (if not, 'confirmed' could be left out to avoid confusion).
    • Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we know what 'Falkiner, Caldwell Pty Ltd' sold?
    • Been described as an import-export business so will go with that unless I find any additional info in the library this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Was it unusual for ex-NSW ministers to continue to use 'Honourable' as their title? I thought that this is a standard courtesy Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Same here but apparently not; my official source Parliamentary Record 1824–1999 makes a point of listing all retired MPs so entitled so 'twould appear it's not automatic... Cheers,
• Support comments above addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Decline 1c 2c
  1. 2c 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Location nitpick, we all know Oxford for Osprey is Oxford, UK. Please specify due to US locations. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     2. Date formatting inconsistent. Author (Year) Title Provenance. or Author Title Provenance Year. Footnotes and bibliography conflict. Pick one. Accepting response below, the origin of the problem is the templates being ickypoo. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Sorry, I must've missed where I've used year in the footnotes - can you be more specific? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        fn 11 16 25 31 43 45 46. Compare ^ "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. 19 October 1956. Retrieved on 25 September 2009. to ^ (19 October 1956) "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. which is the style consistent with the references Draper, W.S. (ed.) (1980). Who's Who in Australia 1980. Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        (Some one probably needs to produce Template:cite turabian with an autoshort option to avoid this style error produced by use of cite book in articles where it probably is a lesser option) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        This is the conflict between consistently using the citation templates provided vs. enforcing a consistent style by manual formatting. I don't think it's something that should hold up promotion of an individual article. From memory (don't have time to experiment right now), cite journal renders Last, First (Date). Title etc... (like cite book) when Last and First are present but Title. Work. Date etc... if not. Frankly I prefer the latter to (Date). Title etc... even if it's not consistent with cite book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     3. Multiple Author inconsistency. In bibliography: Last, First; Last2, First2. In notes, Last & Last2. Easiest solution, change notes to Last; Last2, format. Pick a solution. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        While it may appear more consistent, I'm not sure it's really an improvement, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Another reason for someone to write cite turabian Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     4. fn16 requires a full citation (Staff, "R.A.A.F. Pilot's Greetings," The Canberra Times," 2 April 1943, p. 2. at Australian Newspapers. Retrieved.)Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Fair enough, a case of not tidying up early draft shorthand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     5. fn32 and fn45 require full cites, ala fn16. Year, issue, page, etc...Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     6. Recheck spacing throughout, see fn30. versus fn25. Are you going to non-space or space page numbers?

        Ho-hum, the London Gazette template puts spaces in, I tend not to, I guess the template wins... ;-)

        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

     7. Recheck punctuation throughout, see fn1 versus fn2. Ending with fullstops or not? cheers Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

        Applying a similar rule to image captions, i.e. if it's all one phrase like fn2, no full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  2. Non decline related Comment: Footnote raiding from Alexander 2004, you don't use Garrisson, Air Commodore A D: Australian Fighter Aces 1914-1953. Air Power Studies Centre Fairbairn ACT and Australian War Memorial Canberra ACT 1999. . Why?

     See next point re. Garrison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  3. Support related comment: 1c mostly met, would like to hear why more detailed footnote raiding from sources wasn't done. Did you exhaust them rapidly, or are sources like Garrison1999Australian redundant given Thomas2002Tomahawk? Also would like to hear if Sabretache is a Highest Quality source, and about the publishers Aerospace (ACT) which moved suburbs 1995/6 and might be a backyard press, Also Kangaroo, Kenthurst NSW, and National Frenchs Forest NSW. This isn't a problem in 1c, the other sources meet the Highest Quality requirements, would like to know. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     • Just to jump in, Sabretache is the journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia (see [8]) and is very reliable. The author of the article in question, Kristen Alexander, is currently one of Australia's leading air historians, and has had two well-regarded biographies of RAAF figures published by a major firm in the last few years. Aerospace Publications is a small firm, but what they publish is reliable and works put out by them are held in the collection of university libraries such as the Australian Defence Force Academy. At the time the book in question was published they were the publisher of Australian Aviation magazine, which claims to have been Australia's largest selling aviation magazine at the time (see: [9]), though it's now owned by a different company). Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     • Thanks Nick. As far as the other comments go, Garrison is rendered redundant not so much by Thomas (though partly) but more by Newton's similarly-titled/themed Australian Air Aces. The general advantage Newton has is that for a number of the subjects (though not Waddy) he produces claim-by-claim analyses which Garrison does not. As far as Kangaroo and National go, have to admit I probably couldn't tell you anything about them you wouldn't find yourself on the web, but if the question relates to the reliability of the works I'd tend to look at the authors' pedigrees and their sourcing. As well as being a writer at Australian Aviation for at least 6 years, Newton's also been published by the Australian War Memorial, and his Australian Air Aces and Clash of Eagles rely on combat reports, unit histories and other official records from the RAAF Historical Section and the AWM. Odgers is one of Australia's official historians of World War II, and Air Force Australia is a book that was updated and republished four times in the 1980s and 90s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of making a few reference tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

Lead

He then commanded... or he later commanded

Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

:Family etc. Second sentence/second paragraph about brothers is long and complicated. Can you break it up?

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WWII

:Kittyhawks aren't linked?

The link for Kittyhawks and Tomahawks is the same, to Curtiss P-40; I've hopefully equated the two by removing Tomahawk from the piped link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The RAAF's top-scoring ace, Clive "Killer" Caldwell, befriended and mentored him, and later became godfather to Waddy's daughter.

Waddy's first operational sortie was as Caldwell's wingman; he found the ensuing dogfight so fast and confusing that he had no idea what was happening and afterwards had to ask the more experienced pilot how things had gone In his first operational sortie, as Caldwell's wingman, he found the ensuing dogfight fast and confusing. Having no idea what had happened, afterwards he asked a more experienced pilot how things had gone....?

Tend to prefer the wording as I have it because I think it flows better that way, but still open to suggestions; "the more experienced pilot" refers to Caldwell without repeating his name in the same sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just that passive or almost passive voice. It's an awkward sentence. In his first operational sortie, he found the dogfight fast and confusing; when it was over, he asked Caldwell how things had gone...? (Caldwell's lucky he didn't get his wing shot off, I suppose). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On 9 December, however, he registered his first victory—in a Tomahawk that had previously been Caldwell's personal mount...

Felt the "however" aided the flow, implying that while he was confused in his early combat, by December he'd matured to the stage where he'd made his first kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By 9 December, he had become more accustomed to the dog-fighting pace, and made his first "kill" flying Caldwell's old Tomahawk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

gazetted links to London Gazette...is this really what you mean?

Yep, this is a fairly standard expression/link in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't realize it linked to the gazette. We need an article, or stub or something that explains it better. Comes from the old times when officers usually purchased their commissions, instead of being gazetted (announced) based on their merit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gazetted (unpiped) redirects to Gazette, which does also explain the use as a verb, but then so does London Gazette in the "Tradition" section. If you know what the use of Gazetted means in this context, you don't need to follow the link, if you don't you get taken to a highly relevant article, so I don't quite see the problem here. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe it could link to the traditions section....? That would make more sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:American air medal....US air medal? American could mean a lot of places (including Canada, although probably then you'd say Canadian).

No, you're right - altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Post War Career

:known as the Citizen Air Force (CAF)... known informally? also called .... colloquially known as....

Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

:close polling booths at 6 PM rather than 8 PM so as to expedite the reporting of results, and to change the term "Christian name" to "given name" on candidate nominations, in order to reflect changing community attitudes close polling booths at ... to expedite... The provisions also changed the term "Christian name" to "Given name" on candidate nominations, to reflect changing community attitudes....?

Again I felt it flowed in one sentence but have trimmed a few unnecessary words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

: Link on Augean? (and capitalized, as it is in article title in Bibliography?)

Not sure about linking Augean, since the reference work is linked and the writer describes the meaning there. Have capitalised for consistency though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Neat article! I like it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

Remaining quibbles are trivial, and editor can adjust or not depending on his whims. This is a very well done article, good sources (reliable), and well cited. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

General - I realise that while responding to everyone's points I haven't actually thanked people for taking the time to review, which I usually like to do whether they're supportive or not, because that time and effort is not something to be taken for granted - so a general thank-you to all for your input thus far... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Good article, well referenced and good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Very well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly, the title of the article is wrong: Wikipedia:Use common names. Secondly, the article is incomplete: you've got three paragraphs about his being one of the most senior politicians in his state of his era, compared to two about his comparatively non-notable business career. What's there is fantastic, but it really needs more on his political career to be reasonably weighted - another couple of paragraphs would make it grand. Rebecca (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rebecca. On the naming, we needed disambiguation due to more than one person called John Waddy having a WP article. I made a judgement call that including his middle name was an appropriate way to achieve that, and I'd prefer to hear additional opinions before changing as so far yours is the only objection. As to the weighting, unfortunately the information I've included on his political career is as much as I've been able to discover through a good deal of searching libraries and the web, short of mining further the parliamentary record, and I'm loathe to utilise such primary sources more than I've already done in order to give some examples of bills he sponsored. If you're aware of likely sources I've missed please point them out to me. Further, the two paragraphs that you suggest focussed on his "comparatively non-notable business career" in fact also discuss his leadership of the RAAF Reserve and his involvement in veterans' groups, so I believe the space allocated to his parliamentary career shows quite reasonable balance. In any case, while his political career is important, it must be remembered that his status as a fighter ace in North Africa alone would make him notable enough for a WP article, and I've in fact probably given less space to that period of his career than the political phase. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like John Waddy (politician) may be a more appropriate means of disambiguation; I really dislike seeing middle names where the person wasn't actually known by their full name. I don't think there's any need to use primary sources for his political career; I find it hard to believe there isn't a single book on the relatively-influential Askin government, and in any case, there's bound to be a ton of newspaper articles from the era that could shed further light. Rebecca (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I considered "(politician)" but, as I've said, he was just as notable for his air force career so one could also argue for John Waddy (RAAF officer), hence my plumping for the more neutral name we have now. As far as the Askin government goes, I've combed a number of general NSW political books with only those you see cited mentioning Waddy, though if I can get hold of The Prince & the Premier I'll double-check that I haven't missed anything useful there. I already searched unsuccessfully in the Mitchell Library and NAA online for the sort of biographical cuttings held for some public figures before I commenced the article in earnest. Coming back to your earlier point, however, I'm still not sure about your interpretation of the relative weight given to various phases of his career as they appear in the article at present, because the political part occupies a significant portion of it, certainly compared to other aspects of his post-war life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ian, this looks good. I'll try to go through it in the next few days, but my RL work is heavy at the moment. Linking comments from the top:
  • "As a [[Fighter aircraft|fighter]] pilot during [[World War II]]. The "Fighter aircraft" article has a WWII section; you may or may not wish to section link (unless your point is to distinguish from "bomber" definitionally at the top of that link-target. Please note there's a separate article Fighter pilot, which may or may not be relevant. WWII—Isn't there an article on Australia in WWII, or even the Australian airforce in WWII? Please make the links as focused as possible.
    • Thanks for your review so far, Tony. Didn't know the fighter pilot article, that will be the preferable link. Re. WWII, I've always just linked the general world war articles in the past but I think you're right to suggest a more precise link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Infobox pipe to Minister for Health lost info; I forgot to check for the other Minister bits.
    • The other ministerial positions will need "NSW" in there to be consistent with Health, which I'll do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably "referendum" and "daylight saving" are too common to require linking. Focus them on your valuable links, of which there are so many.
    • I'm not too fussed either way, but I tend not to assume too much of the potential reader's age or knowledge... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the linking is very good.
• Is the Tomahawk image specific to the Africa section? If not, text sandwiching could be avoided by placing it directly above the Morotai pic in the SW Pacific section.
  • Specific to N. Africa, and I did want an image for that section as it was where he scored all his victories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a MoS bore: import–export. Space before and after ... Tony (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I've always seen it the way I wrote it so I'd find spaces around the dash a bit odd; would you settle for "import and export" or "import-and-export"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shojo Beat

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured article because all issues from its previous FAC have been fixed and the article meets all of the FA criteria. Currently a GA and was peer reviewed before first FAC. It has not changed substantially since that FAC as there is little new information to add. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• The one image has alt text, which is good. However, "the character Nana Komatsu" should be replaced with a brief description of the character's appearance, as it would not be obvious from seeing only the cover that her name is Nana Komatsu. (She is not fully named, or even called a character from Nana, on the cover; big text on a magazine cover is not always related to the picture behind it, either.)
• No dab links or dead external links, and citation date formats are consistent Month Day, Year—good job.

--an odd name 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I adjusted the alt. How is that? I think alts are now the hardest thing to do :-) Thanks for catching that one date...can't believe I hadn't noticed it! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The alt is perfect now, thanks. No problem on the date—remember, Wikipedia's a group work! --an odd name 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I went through most or all of the article on the last FAC, and it was good enough. I might not have checked the last couple of sections, so someone may want to look at them a little more closely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review completed at previous FAC. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• A few things, but I otherwise support. Arsonal (talk)

• Uncertain, but would it be better to categorize the magazine in the infobox as shōjo manga?
• The final sentence in the lead could be broken up a bit to clarify the ones that supported continuation of the imprints. Fans and/or industry experts?
• Second to last sentence in the article: "Other participants praised the magazines fashion articles…" → "Other participants praised the magazine's fashion articles…"

• Thanks and those three now all fixed :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Control (Janet Jackson album)

Nominator(s): The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I spent a great deal of time preparing the article for GA, which passed with relative ease. I believe the article is both comprehensive and well written. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The one linked image (the album cover) lacks alternate text for readers who can't see the image. (The star ratings are fine.)
• Speaking of images, try to find any other relevant ones (ideally free ones of people involved in the recording, of critics, etc.). Surely there could be one more to illustrate the article body?
• No dab links or dead external links, which is very good considering the size and number of web citations.
• Citation date formats are consistent ISO-style. (added on 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text added. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • ...and after a minor edit, great. --an odd name 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Free images, btw, from that time period are non-existent, and its equally difficult to find non-free images that would actually benefit the article rather than violating WP:FUR. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well. --an odd name 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-comments I sorted out the infobox a bit, but the reviews need to be referenced like all the other citations. See Remain in Light. RB88 (T) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks really, really good. ceranthor 11:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Control is the third studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson, released on February 6, 1986 by A&M Records, and is widely regarded as the breakthrough album of her career. - run on. Better as ... by A&M records. It is...
• Her collaboration - Her collaborations

Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support with some nitpicks Sources fine. All-round excellence. Welcome to the high-quality album article club. If only I had a Green Jacket to give out.

• Go through the citations: If a singular page is cited, then it only needs "p." and not "pp."
• Try and find another review to complete the 10-review limit in the infobox. (User:Andrzejbanas has the Spin guide which may have reviewed it.)
• The Personnel section needs a citation, usually the album liner notes.
• Sort the Accolades by year, a couple are out of sync.

RB88 (T) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the kind words! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - Both images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Very well written. My only quibble is the use of "African American" in the "Release and Promotion" section. It's not a term used outside the US and in a paragraph with copious usage of the word "black" to describe black women, it looks odd. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) first certified Control gold on April 18, 1986, denoting 500,000 units shipped within the United States. Two months later, on June 13, 1986, the album was RIAA certified platinum, denoting 1,000,000 units shipped. The following year [1987, right?], Control was RIAA certified 5x [fivefold] platinum on October 26, 1989." [1989 came after 1986, is not 1987?]--Cannibaloki 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Pine Bottom State Park

Nominator(s): Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Colton Point State Park, and Cherry Springs State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Brianboulton and Niagara). This follows the MOS here, specifically In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalization should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ...title case for common names of species throughout (see WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history.

Although there is not much there today beyond picnic tables, a parking lot, and a lovely trout stream, it has an interesting history. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments No dab links, all external links check out, and there's no obvious errors in alt text after minor fixes. (A red flag does show up at the alt checker for the little expand icon under the panorama, but that's a minor template bug, not one with the actual article.) --an odd name 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these and for the copyedits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Very nice article, but can we get a better lead image than a picnic table? Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. All of the images are on Commons, so do you have any suggestions? My rationale for the lead image is that the park today is essentially a picnic area and parking lot and a trout stream and it shows two of those (table and stream). There's nothing else man-made there now except for a few signs and the reinforced stream banks. I personally think that File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 1.jpg is the prettiest image, but it is a bit dark and fits better in the Ecology section (I think). I am open to suggestions though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

PS There is also a funny story about the lead image - maybe I'll relate it on the article talk page someday, but it makes it a special pic for me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but a picnic table is awfully generic. It doesn't have to be man-made. I think File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 3.jpg would work fine, or else the table can swap positions with File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Sign.jpg; the run in it is difficult to notice anyway.

I do like the sign pic. But I will leave this up to Ruhrfisch. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have swapped the images per your suggestion - thanks for the idea. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• "traces its existence back to the early 1920s" > "traces its existence to the early 1920s"

• changed this, thanks. Dincher (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "one of the smallest state park" > "one of the smallest state parks"

• fixed Dincher (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "large predators such as Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, Bobcats and foxes" Lowercase, as with next sentence.

• you'll find this note here and at the top of the other Pennsylvania state park FAs. -- Note - the convention used for this article is that species names are capitalized, but other plant and animals are not: so "Cooper's Hawk", but just "hawks". -- Dincher (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "recreational opportunities witihin" sp. Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• fixed this too, Dincher (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to Reywas92 for catching these and Dincher for the fixes Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Great job! Pictures look good. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), except that it's missing for File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park.JPG; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it is fixed now. It got messed up when I moved the image down into the body of the article from the lead. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: My detailed comments were made at peer review, where all my concerns were satisfactorily addressed. I like the new lead image. I'm sure that further minor fixes will arise from this review, since every article is capable of further improvement, but in my view the featured article criteria are satisfied here. The detail is thorough, the images are awesome. A worthy addition to the Parks series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your supprt, thorough peer review, and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for your support! Dincher (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking those Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)\

• Oppose until Pennsylvania Route 44 is written. Erm, I mean support. Another great job for Pennsylvania's great state parks. :D - Do some of the ones out my way (Promised Land, etc.) - You could have a Penn State Parks Featured Topic at your rate.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there 120 Pennsylvania State Parks, so we'd need 40 FAs and 80 GAs (eek). The are 21 parks in the "20 must see parks" list (they count two as one) so that might be a better potential FT. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, as of May 2010, 60 - 60. :( - But you can also divide them by region if you must. (PennDOT supplies 11 regions if you need splitting for the topics.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support (by Finetooth) and comments. I made a few minor c/e changes; please revert any you don't find suitable.

• In the last sentence of "Native Americans", I believe "natives" should be lowercase.

• changed, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lumber and turnpike

• This sentence is missing a word or words: "A post office was established in nearby Waterville in 1849; other early business establishments there were two stores, and a hotel which still stands." Maybe "... other early businesses included two stores and a hotel, which still stands."

• Brianboulton suggested we change the last comma to its current location in the PR, my guess is it is an AE vs. BE issue. Anyway, changed now to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832, with land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships." - Maybe "Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832 from land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships."

• Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The boom was a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs and led to an expansion of the lumber industry, with Williamsport becoming the "Lumber Capital of the World". - Maybe "The boom, a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs, led to an expansion of the lumber industry and to Williamsport's nickname, "Lumber Capital of the World".

Also changed to your version, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Nothing was left except the dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard." - For readers who know nothing about logging, should something be added to explain that the tree tops were discards littering the floor of the former forest?

• Added "discarded" so it now reads Nothing was left except the discarded, dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard, so much of the land burned and was left barren. Tried to add that they were on the ground, but it didn't read well. Also tried adding "and stumps" after tree tops, but it also seemed awkward. How is the current version? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

State forest and park

• Conservationists like Dr. Joseph Rothrock became concerned that the forests would not regrow if they were not managed properly." - Delete "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL. You could add, "a physician" after his name, but his medical degree doesn't seem directly related to his forest expertise.

• Good catch, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Although the roof of a structure was still visible in the park in a 1959 aerial photo, as of 2009 there are no pavilions or other structures in the park." - Maybe "buildings" instead of "structures" since picnic tables and signs might be considered structures?

• Changed, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Geology and climate

• When Pine Creek flowed northeast, where was the mouth? Maybe this is unknown, but I can't help wondering.

• I did not add this to the article as it seems too off topic, but Dillon's book (which I happened to have at hand) says that Pine Creek followed what is now Marsh Creek northeast from where Ansonia is now (the northern end of the gorge, where US 6 crosses Pine Creek). My recollection from Owlett's book is that the proto-Pine Creek is believed to have followed the rough course of Crooked Creek after that, which flows into the Tioga River, which in turn flows north into New York state and the Chemung River and that eventually flows into the Susquehanna River. You can see follow most of this on the PennDOT Tioga County map here (follow US 6 NE out of Ansonia, then PA 287 to the NY line). Probably more detail than you wanted. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to say approximately when the land around what is now the park was part of a shallow sea? I'm thinking of readers who might wrongly conclude that the "20,000 years ago" in the first paragraph applied also or almost to the shallow sea.

An excellent job overall. I love reading about these parks. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support, copyedits, helpful comments, and kind words. Will start responding individually to the comments next, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suppport and copy edit. We enjoy working on the park articles! Dincher (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking all. Everything I mentioned has been resolved. Thanks for the Pine Creek flow details; I thought maybe proto-Allegheny, but proto-North Branch Susquehanna is an interesting answer. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Note I have taken a few more photos of the park, which are shown at Talk:Upper Pine Bottom State Park, and added one to the article (with alt text). Any comments on the new image(s) are welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg - As the copyright claim for this photo rests on the claim that it was published before 1923, please list pre-1923 publication information for it. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the images. I scanned and uploaded the photo originally and included all available information in Owlett's book (my source). Later when I saw the same image in Taber's book, I added all of the information Taber's book contained about it. I have three ideas:

1. I will email the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum next and ask if they have any publication information on the image.
2. Owlett's book (the source) identifies this as on Pine Creek and says that the last log drive on Pine Creek was in 1905. Is there any sort of "over 100 years old" license?

   If you knew the author's name, there would be "life of the author + 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks, I do not know any more about the author / photographer. I have emailed the Lumber Museum - will wait and see what they say. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

3. If all else fails, I plan to upload a low res version here for Fair Use and request deletion on Commons. Does that seem reasonable? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - I emailed the Lumber Museum before they opened Thursday. It has been two business days and I have heard nothing yet. How long should I wait? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess wait until Tues., then upload low res. Dincher (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will wait until the end of the business day Tuesday (which will be four business days). I have already made a low res version of the image just in case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rhode Island Route 4

Nominator(s): Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)

We am nominating this for featured article because after months of work, this dual research project of a Rhode Island freeway is probably ready for Featured Article status. The route went under a partially-excruiating A-class review, solving the AltText in the process. And for once the prose isn't mine, but theco-nominator, User:Raime's. We are open to all comments Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• Support 2c. Decline: 2c. resolved and checked at Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Inconsistent Author ordering (Some corporate authors before title, some corporate authors after title, individuals before). Inconsistent date formatting YYYY-MM-DD; Month D, YYYY. Inconsistent date positioning: Author (Year), Author ... Year. Lack of Provenance information. Italics indicates published material, if the reports are published, they were published by an Authority, unclear if Institution is Author and Publisher, or just Author. Any consistent resolution is fine for these problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ones published by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (or its predecessor, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works) are in correct form, as no author is cited. Also, a lot of these depend on the citation template used, which I have little control on.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The date order within citation issue comes from the fact that the works aren't authored, this is controlled by if you've entered an author field. The date style (YYYY-MM-DD, Month D, YYYY) is entirely controlled by the editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite report, which is in the same style / formatting system package as Template:Cite book correctly formats your reports with the data you currently have. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I got the date consistency solved. Also, I changed the books to reports per that. Help me fix them, because I actually have never used the template.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments No dabs or dead links (per the link checker tool), and the given alt text has no obvious problems, which is good. I'm a stickler for consistent date formats, so I thank Fifelfoo for checking those. Featured articles have consistent citation formats (see criterion 2c) and I think date formats are integral to that. --an odd name 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I have reviewed this article twice and at this point only have a few concerns before I can support the article:

1. As discussed above, the references should use consistent date formats.
2. In References 5-9 and 13, "report" should not be wikilinked.
   • Template error, corrected at Template. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
3. It may help if some non-map sources can be added to the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1. 2 the template does that. #3, RIDOT produces nothing.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are probably other non-map sources that are not RIDOT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough4872 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - I will support the article the way it is now, but it would still help if more non-map sources can be added. ---Dough4872 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• 1a comments—as a lifelong Rhode Islander, I just have to offer my two cents. At quick glance, it looks like a great article. I'm getting ready for class, so I'll make this quick for now:
  • In the second para of the lead, shouldn't "long-range" be "long-term"?

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you could change "slightly more than" to "approximately"? Pretty much means the same thing in this context, and it flows a bit better.

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "Makes a curve" can be shortened to "curves".

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • You use the phrase "a partial cloverleaf interchange" twice in the same paragraph and in the same manner. I know it's hard to spice up such sections, but you could change "a partial" to "another partial" to give the reader a bit of fresh air.

Fixed, but it was in 2 paragraphs, not one.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the proceeding paragraph, but I see what you did now. — Deckiller 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "After exit 7, Route 4 continues due north as a six-lane expressway" Considering your use of accurate directionals (I.E. northeast, northwest), "due" is somewhat redundant.

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "Route 4 has an overpass at Middle Road..." "Has" seems bland.

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "...the Rhode Island Department of Public Works (RIDPW) proposed a relocation of Route 2 which," Comma before "which".

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "During the time of the study," can be shortened to "during the study".

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "in 1972. In 1972," I recommend restructuring one of these sentences to avoid such repetition.

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has laid out long-term plans for changes to both the southern and northern termini of Route 4." Sentence can be tightened. Perhaps something like "The.....RIDOT has long-term plans to change both the southern and northern termini of Route 4."

Changed to something else. Your suggestion would suggest a different occurrance.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • You should probably drop "long" after stating the lengths of the roads. I know many copy-editors suggest this.
• That's all for now. — Deckiller 22:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The last one is not correct, as then you could mean 9 miles high as well. All done otherwise.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support.— Deckiller 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Rhode Island Route 401 Street Sign.JPG - Please verify that the author and uploader of this image are the same. You can do this by having the uploader add such a statement to the image description page.

Wouldn't happen. Not one contribution since June.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the image will have to be removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - removed image in question and added another one of the freeway section. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:RI-4 map.svg - Please add a source for the information contained in this map to the image description page.

Fixed.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikita Khrushchev

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This article has been an astonishing amount of work, btw, it had to be completely rewritten. It is still in the course of an A class review at MilHist, but as comments had ceased I felt it was ready to go here. That got rid of a lot of image issues! I think you'll find it a good read of a guy often remembered for the wrong things (shoe banging).Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - having read this for about the third time (once per request, another during the milhist ACR, and a final time just now), I am convinced that it is ready for the star. Great job Wehwalt. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment There appears to be a free version of ref 30, the NYTimes article, as an On This Day feature! Verify, if you wish, that it matches the pay version you used. --an odd name 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the same; it is used as an EL. I will note in the ref that it is "available free at" but think it best to keep the link to the pay version as well, there are pictures in that version.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I pretty much glanced the References and not the ELs...*headdesk* --an odd name 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I modified ref 30 anyway so readers can view the article. No great harm in giving readers two routes to his free obit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

With that aside, there's no dab links (no easy task in a big article like this). An external link comes up "404" in the link checker, and even has "Page not found" in the window title, but works for me otherwise. A few images lack alt text—I assume those were intentional omissions—and the rest have alt text with no obvious problems. --an odd name 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the dead link. Oddly, that was just added to the article by someone else. I need to look at the alts, I had to add several images because several were found to have copyright problems. I have to go out now but will report back in the morning, either with alt text added or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a dead link (it does have text of a Khrushchev speech), it just appears as such to the link checker and to the site's own database (per the page's own window title). --an odd name 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text is complete now. I didn't bring back the EL, because given Khrushchev's prominence and the number of EL's we already have, a link to the text of what seems a fairly random speech isn't needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Decline 1c, 2cFifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC). See reasons below. SameSome of the same reasons for Decline at Military History assessment.

  Comment: 2c checked and fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  To the closer, please note that extensive debate exists below in relation to my decline for 1c reasons Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Decline reasons not addressed at Military history assessment

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikita Khrushchev transclusion:

  2c: One news article is in the bibliography

  NIB (Not in bibliography): ^ Schwartz, Harry (1971-09-12), "We know now that he was a giant among men", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)

  NIB: ^ Shabad, Theodore (1970-11-24), "Izvestia likens 'memoirs' to forgeries", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)

  NIB: ^ "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)

  NIB: ^ "Vast Riddle", The New York Times, 1953-03-10, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)

  NIB: ^ a b c Birch, Douglas (2008-08-02), "Khrushchev kin allege family honor slurred", USAToday, retrieved 2009-08-14

  (These four may be a style debate, but I hold fairly strongly to the disciplinary expectation from History for full bibliographies).

  Otherwise 2c is acceptable, consistent.

  1c: Sourcing shows a US source bias.

  1c: Where are the scholarly journal articles?

  1c: Where are the scholarly edited collections?

  WP:MILMOS#SOURCES not met. Wouldn't meet Featured Article 1c as it lacks a full survey of the highest quality sources available (no scholarly journal article search conducted).

  New Criticism related to Decline not from Military assessment Expansion of 1c concerns

  FUTON via Scholar: Lenoe, Matthew, "Khrushchev Era Politics and the Investigation of the Kirov Murder", 1956-1957, Acta Slavica Iaponica 24 2007: 47-74.

  FUTON via Scholar: P Jones "Iurii...ISBN 5733103299." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 8, 3 (Summer 2007): 695–704.. Review article of Thaw Scholarship. (Note, not a book review, this is a RS Journal article).

  FUTON via Scholar: John Rettie "How Khrushchev Leaked his Secret Speech to the World" History Workshop Journal 2006 62(1):187-193; doi:10.1093/hwj/dbl018

  FUTON via Scholar: Another Review Article: David Wedgwood Benn "Review: On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review Article" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Jun., 2004), pp. 615-621

  FUTON via Scholar: Mie Nakachi, "N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet Family Law: Politics, Reproduction, and Language" East European Politics & Societies, Vol. 20, No. 1, 40-68 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0888325405284313

  Citation from Scholar: @article{loewenstein2006re, title={Re-emergence of public opinion in the Soviet Union: Khrushchev and responses to the secret speech}, author={LOEWENSTEIN, K.E.}, journal={Europe-Asia Studies}, volume={58}, number={8}, pages={1329--1345}, year={2006}, publisher={Routledge}}

  FUTON via Scholar: V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79

  FUTON via Scholar: Paul Du Quenoy "The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964" The International History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 334-356

  I am seriously not convinced of 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I think some journal articles as you have cited would be very helpful for the article, and I'll see if I can find some access to some of them. I note that 1c says "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I think some of those articles could well be useful for points like the Secret Speecch and Khrushchev's overthrow, some of them look too specialized to be helpful in a survey which necessarily has to keep to the high points and is long even so (but not long when compared to articles on US Presidents at FA, and Khrushchev led his country for longer than any US pres except FDR. Certainly most of the biographical details and much of the description of what he did do not need to be sourced to scholarly journals. As for US bias, while the newspapers are all US, they are used for only a small part of the article. Taubman was American, I'm still searching for Tompson's, but the other authors are non-American.

The bibilography, I'll change that this weekend.

Anyhoo, I'll see about trying to get ahold of some of these journals. I'd appreciate the URL of the page where you ran that search, I had no luck with the search through Wilson that you proposed at MilHist.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've raised concerns about the applicability of this oppose at WT:FAC and will be guided by the ensuing discussion there, if any. While I want the best possible article, I don't want to throw in a couple of scholarly articles only to be told that that's not enough, or only for the sake of doing it. Therefore, I've requested some community input so we are all on the same page as to the standard to be applied regarding 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All images now have alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, getting back to Fifelfoo's concern re sourcing, based on the discussions on the changes to 1c, the non-adopted proposals to enact a 1f and the discussion at WT:FAC, I am inclined to think that unless there is a showing that there is something missing or seriously wrong with the article, I do not believe that Fifelfoo's sourcing objection is completely applicable. It was plainly not the intent of those who voted for the present form of 1c to require the "highest" (even if scholarly articles are, and I would question that) sourcing, but merely insist on a high level of sourcing, which the sources in this article meet easily. Taubman won the Pulitzer Prize for his bio of Khrushchev, for example. No trivial or kid's works are used in this article. This is a bio of a figure in history about whom there is a large amount written. It is written in summary style, meaning that we don't get into intricacies. Scholarly articles generally do not replow the cornfields; they look for the intricacies. Here, the article is extensively, and I mean extensively sourced to well regarded books on Khrushchev and his era. The bibliographies for those books list many scholarly articles and collections. There may be articles which require the use of such scholarly articles. This is not one of them. It is comprehensive, verifiable, and uses solid works on the subject, most of recent publication (2009, 2008, 2006, 2003, 2001, 1996, plus Khrushchev's annotated memoirs published 2002-05 and used very cautiously). I will address Fifelfoo's 2c concern, that is placing all news articles used into the biblio, this weekend, as I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The citations above are complete academic citations in a common historical style. Some have DOIs. 1c is "1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." Review articles, and recent specialist scholarship on aspects of biography or major political contributions (such as family law) should be addressed to be a "thorough and representative survey". V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79 is, in particular, a biographical article. For the article to meet 1c, it needs to account for the scholarship in journals. It doesn't not need to exhaustively reference every journal article; but I would be very surprised if Zhuravlev wasn't relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I do not believe the article needs to discuss a family law passed ten years before Khrushchev attained power. Summary style is the name of the game here; this is a long article and I see little likelihood such a journal article will have anything which is worth adding to this article. To a certain extent, I feel as if the goalposts are on wheels here. I have no objection to obtaining, if reasonably possible, a small number of specific articles if it will satisfy your 1c concerns, or else explaining why I think they are not needed for the article as I did with the family law one. I should add that I have ordered a scholarly collection of articles edited by Taubman in 2000, though I don't know if it will come and be absorbed and inserted into the article during the course of the FAC, and the fact that they are from 2000 means that they were certainly used for Taubman's subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Khrushchev. But if you are going to require obtaining large numbers of articles "on spec", well, in that case, I will stand on the fact that no other FA reviewer has agreed with your objection, most have repudiated it, and I'll leave it to the good graces of the FA delegate. The fact that you think 1c should be interpreted in the way you do is interesting but does not govern. I am aware you have a 2c objection, but I will move the articles into the biblio. I should note that you have not yet addressed my similar question at WT:FAC. where I asked you if the article was cited in books which are cited, whether you felt that was sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have adequately expressed myself at length in relation to this FAC's process, and will review it periodically in relation to my reasons for declining. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, as I have indicated that I don't fully understand your reasoning or what you would like to see. Since you decline my request for clarification, I consider your oppose unactionable for that reason as well as the fact that multiple reviewers disagree and multiple commentors at WT:FAC state that your view of 1c is not valid. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history, in relation to 1c a thorough literature survey has not been conducted, in particular you have not used general or specific relevant journal articles, a key form of historical literature, please correct this. There is no time limit. If you don't have access to material, seek editors who do to collaborate with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you avoid the personal invective. No one who brings a seriously considered FA candidate here has "literacy problems". Please note WP:NPA ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") If you wish to state your requirements with specificity, I'm available to listen. Otherwise, I am content with the judgment of the FAC community, which has come down against you and is fully aware of whether I have "literacy problems", as it has passed 13 FA's in which I was a major contributor before the FAC. Including a number in the field of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#SOURCES Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, let me quote, yet again, "1 It is - (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." You are resistant to acquiring and using the variety of literature in edited collections and journals. The article is not thorough, and is not representative, as it fails to take account of two major publishing modes of academic history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting to Milmos for a sec, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." Which this is. However, recent books, or monographs, as you put it, by respected historians which rely on the field of published works, are superior for encyclopedia purposes because of the fact that they are in a better position to judge weight than we. The article contains up to date sources by respected scholars (Carlson, the most recent book, is not a scholar on Soviet matters, but his book generally covers Khrushchev's two US visits and is used for that purpose). I'm going to leave it at this, because long pieces turn off reviewers, and we can continue this at WT:FAC if you want, but you are for sure prizing form over substance. That being said, I admire your having the courage of your convictions, though I don't agree with you and don't think your opinion should override that of the FAC community. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this article and WEIGHTing in relation to 1c, you've neglected the Review Article mode of publication in journals which is the premier manner in which academic historians evaluate secondary source weighting. WT:FAC would be the more general issues, which can probably proceed there. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not academic historians, and a Wikipedia article is not a master's thesis. I appreciate the effort to upgrade WP's standards, but doing it by unilateral opposes based on what you think our standards should be is not the way to go. WP works by consensus, and while there are times that one person has to drag consensus with him, this isn't one of those times! Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons stated here by many editors, it is clear that Fifelfoo's concerns do not reflect a consensus view of WP:WIAFA, since his comments there have not attracted support, whereas the opposite views have. Accordingly, I consider them unactionable for purposes of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support on 1c concerns - the article relies on seven academically published works across four academic publishers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support on 1c per Ottava and discussion here. I'll try to conduct a thorough review of some other criteria later. Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments leaning to support (support now unconditional, see below): First, I entirely agree with the above declarations that 1(c) is satisfied in this article. The "decliner" would need show specific instances of material omitted or inadequately covered, to justify an insistence on further sources. This is my first reading of the article (I missed the peer review); it is rather long so it may take me a few days to complete my comments. In general the article looks meaty and impressive - my comments on the first quarter are below. They are mostly nitpicks, an art at which I excel. To help differentiate I have put my slightly more substantial concerns into italics.

• Early years
  • I can't sort out who is who here: "According to Khrushchev in his memoirs, Shevchenko was a freethinker who upset the villagers by not attending church, and when her brother visited, he gave him books which had been banned by the Imperial Government." Exactly who gave books, to whom?
  • Just a thought: "Employed by a workshop which serviced ten mines..." This is "ten", not "tin", is it?
  • "With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, the government in St. Petersburg..." Presumably this means the Menshevik government, should say so.
  • The last sentence of the fifth paragraph (re his appointment as a commissar) really belongs to the following paragraph.
  • We need more information in the text to indicate when WWI ended (so far as the Russians were concerned) when the civil was began and who the combatants were in that civil war. OK, anyone reasonably well-read in 20thC history will know these things, but assumptions shouldn't be made about foreknowledge.
    • As now written, you have the Germans "invading" the Donbas after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Shouldn't this be "occupied" rather than invaded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...loyal to his Bolshevik principles" - the article has not clarified when Khruschev actually became a Bolshevik by conviction. A word or two should explain what Bolshevik principles would be offended by setting foot in a church.
    • Better yet, I just piped to Opium of the People. The others I all did. And yes, it was ten, not tin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Donbas years
  • There is no reference to "Donbas" in the section, so the title is somewhat cryptic.
  • This section is dateless until the third paragraph. When did he go to Rutchenkovo? When was he offered the Pastukhov post? When did he join the CP and when was he appointed a party secretary?
  • "Bailiwick" should preferably be linked, though the link article is unsatisfactory since it doesn't give the secondary meaning. Maybe consider an alternative term?
• Kaganovich protege
  • "Rightists" may be too vague a term to use in this context. Is it possible to extend this description?

Tompson says the Moscow organization was a "bastion of support for the right opposition", that is, to Stalin, and that after the First Five-Year Plan, there was a resurgence of rightism. After that, he calls them "rightists". I will add they to some extent opposed the government. I doubt they lived long, under the circumstances that would shortly arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Third paragraph, first line: "he" needs definition
• Early relationship with Stalin; involvement in purges
  • This is an unwieldy section heading. I'm not sure a semicolon is a good idea (it should probably be a colon anyway). The section is basically about Khruschev's role in the purges, so perhaps that should be the main focus within the title.
  • Clumsy sentence: "Khrushchev expressed his support for these trials as the trials proceeded in 1936:" Perhaps "In 1936, as the trials proceeded, Khruschev expressed his support:" (though "expressed his support" is a bit of a euphemism, considering what he actually said!)
  • "Party leaders were given numerical quotas of "enemies" to be turned in and arrested." I would like to see a specific citation for this statement.
  • "...Kiev, which was again the Ukrainian capital.." Unexplained unnecessary detail. Suggest delete "which was again"
  • Dodgy sentence construction: "Since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, his biographer, William Taubman, suggests that he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering." I suggest "Biographer William Taubman suggests that, since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering."

Done all this. On the Kiev as capital, though, I think we have to leave something about that in there, as Kharkov is mentioned as the Ukrainian capital, so a reader might see that as a factual error. I shortened it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Brian: Thanks for the review, I agree it is a long article. I will implement them today if I possibly can. I will only leave comments if I do not accept a change or there is some comment I need to have made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All of Brian's concerns have been addressed, so far as I can tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am continuing to read and comment on the article, but to avoid this review becoming impossibly lengthy I will post routine comments/queries to the talk page. I will only bring issues here if I consider them significant. Please bear with me if this process takes a little while, but I want to do the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take your time, Brian. This is a long article, the longest I've done (though Neville Chamberlain is going to be longer) and everyone has been focused on the 1c issue. Someone has to go in and check for dust on top of the furniture, and you are an excellent person to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are some points of concern, all fairly minor, picked up on reading through to the "Education" section. A much longer list of nitpicks awaits your attention on the talkpage. Unless something untoward happens (collapse of civilization as we know it etc.) I should finish the review tomorrow (ominous news re Chamberlain, though):-

• A brief explanation of what Operation Uranus was, might be better than relying on the link. (Great Patriotic War)
• Likewise with the fabricated Leningrad case. (Stalin's final years and Struggle for power)
• "In September, Khrushchev was elected as First Secretary of the Party." Who "elected" him? (Struggle for control)
• Last paragraph of the "Struggle for power" section needs to indicate the direct role played by Khruschev in the demotion of Malenkov, otherwise the final sentence is difficult to understand.
• "During Khrushchev's rule, forced hospitalization for the "socially dangerous" was introduced." (Political reform) I would like to see a small amplification of this rather sinister-sounding statement.
  • The source leaves it at that. I'll see what I can find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• "One adviser to Khrushchev was agricultural charlatan Trofim Lysenko,..." Not an encyclopedic, or neutral, introduction to this man, even if the description appears warranted.
  • Fine. I'll alter it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Education: the final paragraph of this subsection is perhaps a little dismissive of the progress made in the Soviet school education system in the Khruschev era. I believe there were some positive reforms. I know the article isn't about that, but perhaps a sentence could be found that recognises that there were some achievements in the education field?
  • (later)Additional thought: back in the eighties I did a study of post-war Russian education in an option module on Comparative Education as part of an MA course. I don't have those books or notes any more, but I seem to remember that while Khruschev's "polytechnical" educational reforms (broadly what you describe) were deemed a failure, there were significant advances in nursery education and in the develpoment of elite academies. Maybe a source could confirm this?
    • I've come up with a couple of google books sources on this, I will compose a paragraph in the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite these quibbles, the article is generally very absorbing, and instructional for those of us for whom Khruschev is a remote, near forgotten figure. Odd to realise that he was once, and relatively recently, the most powerful individual in the world. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Everything except as noted is taken care of or will be in the next few minutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. How the mighty have fallen. I will probably need two or three days to address your various points. It all looks reasonable though. Thanks, looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I have completed my prose review. As before, minor points are listed on the talkpage, but I thouht it worth bringing the following here:-

• Space program and US visit, last sentence: Why did De Gaulle have this veto on the summit date?
  • He apparently just said he wasn't available. Plus, he was designated to host as K had just been to the US and had gone to London in 1956. I guess they could have moved it and done without him but then the West would have looked disunited, and it would not have been possible to seriously discuss Berlin. Fairly typical of de Gaulle.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• U2 and Berlin crisis: "Emboldened by hints from American officials that East Germany had every right to close its borders,..." Can we have a little more information? What American officials, and when and to whom would such hints have been made?
  • Bohlen and Fulbright, I've fleshed it out a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Life in retirement: It would be useful to have some indication as to what 500 rubles per month represented, as an income in the USSR in 1964. Is it possible, by way of a footnote perhaps, to compare this with the average wages of a 1964 USSR manual worker, or white-collar worker, or professional?

That's pretty difficult, because we don't know exactly what he had to pay for. He did not have to pay rent, I'm pretty sure of that, he had a chauffeur and state car (low grade official grade), plus some other labor was apparently provided for him. Of course, they were KGB, but even so. The only reference I can find is an initial concern by Khrushchev that Nina Petrovna might have trouble making ends meet, but there's no further talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a truly monumental article, whch I found interesting from start to finish, to the extent that I scarcely noticed its formidable length. I am sure others will find likewise. I intend to leave it for a day, then re-read it when, presumably, my points will have been absorbed (or refuted). I will then update my declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've done everything or left comments, excepting the education bit, which I will work on in a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's done too subject to the note I put on your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I have spent considerable time on this article and have seen it improve in the process, from a fairly high base I might add. My various points have been suitably addressed. I have posted one final quibble concerning the WW1 period, but it is very minor, and I look forward to seeing the article's future promotion. A terrific achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I've addressed Fifelfoo's 2c objections (I don't consider 1c actionable) and have asked him to withdraw his 2c objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think this article's sources are fine, as long as there isn't anything missing, or a theory that is neglected YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comment. I notice that many of the images have been culled from the article for justifiable copyright concerns (important). But, I have a problem in understanding how freedom of panorama laws apply, for example to this photograph, which I admit is mine (and would love to see put back in the article so perhpas I have a conflict of interest).
  

  
  The "law" did not apply at the time I took this photograph, and his grave looks completely different today. Also, freedom of panorama is surely only a concern wrt images from the Commons, not those on a local server. I am not convinced that the deletion of the more recent photographs of his grave that were taken by both me and the nominator, at different times, is justified. I think a photograph of his grave would gracefully conclude this now excellent contribution. This aside, well done indeed for bringing one of my favourite articles up to FA standard. I could not have done this. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  I had removed it from the article as I put my own photo of Khrushchev's grave in, which fell to the axe of the A class image review under the freedom of panorama. I had thought only one photo of K's grave needed. I would ask that whoever is doing the image review also review the image GrahamColm has provided (if he misses it, I'll leave a note on his talk page), and if it passes muster I will gladly put it in. Also, if we can get by the freedom of panorama problem on the photos of the monument (perhaps the image reviewer would comment on that too), I'd happily put either mine or GrahamColm's image of the well known grave monument into the article. The image I put in the legacy section of the khrushcheby being destroyed is for sure inferior to the grave image. Thank you for the support and the praise (you sell yourself short, by the way). Khrushchev is quite a character. I have a sneaking admiration for him, sitting staring at the screen next to Stalin, wondering if he would ever have the chance to be #1 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We now have five supports, one oppose which I've commented on why it should not be deemed a barrier to promotion. We still need the image check, and I know it's been requested. Maybe we'll get lucky and have a vodka celebration this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg - Should be {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}} (the Commons versions, of course).
  • File:Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, 1936.jpg - Who is the author and when did s/he die? This information needs to be known to use the PD-Russia-2008 template.
  • File:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg - Purpose of "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the subject of the photo is the subject of the article" is not specific (NFCC#10C) or detailed (WP:FURG vis-a-vis NFCC#10C) and is untrue (this is the Khruschev article, not the May Day or Политбюро article); if it were true, would it not then fail NFCC#1? (The subject, Khrushchev, has a free image.)
  • Regarding the grave image, I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is. Freedom of panorama is a limitation of a copyright holder's excluive rights to works that are on permanent public display (here, a photograph of Khrushchev). The degree of such limitations, or even their existance in the first place, differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It does not exist in the United States (save an exemption for buildings). The Russian Federation does not limit preclusion of commercial use (i.e. commercial use is disallowed), so Graham's derivative photograph isn't free enough for our purposes. Depending on the degree the grave has changed ("looks completely different today")--i.e. whether the Khrushchev photo has been removed--it might not even be expected to meet the requirement of "permanence". The image of Khruschchev may indeed not have been protected by copyright at the time the photo was taken, however the copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) set forth a term of 50 years p.m.a. that has been determined to be retroactive to previously unprotected works. Эlcobbola _talk 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • File:Khrushgrave.jpg This shows the grave today; I took it myself in August. It is now entirely different (it is not unusual in that cemetery to have a temporary marker while an artistic permeanent grave monument is being prepared). I have removed the two problematical images and added the pd ineligible tag to the sig image. I won't add Graham's image back into the article without someone's OK, but I think we are now fine on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I forgot to mention one thing: File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. From what source was it traced? Otherwise images look fine. Unfortunately, the current grave image has the same issue as the 1973 version (i.e. as a derivative, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be considered). Эlcobbola _talk 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I struck the image. Signatures are pure decoration, in my view. OK, image check done, links and dab check done, 5 supports, 1 oppose which does not reflect the consensus on 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since I participated more in the discussion of 1c at WT:FAC, I'm going to leave this to Karanacs (also because she edits in the area of History). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Conversion needed here? "sold the USSR 5,000 tons of seed " Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Template inserted. @Sandy, thanks then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are a few more needed: "the harvest of 107.5 million tons of grain was down from a peak of 134.7 million tons in 1958." Check throughout the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William of Tyre

Nominator(s): Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for over six years, and in the past year I've been expanding it and referencing it to bring it up to Featured Article standards. Yes, he's another medieval bishop, but amazingly I am not in collusion with Ealdgyth! His bishopness is only incidental to his importance as a chronicler. I haven't been involved in the FAC process recently, but based on reading other nominations, I'm sure I will enjoy the process - I should have the proper knowledge and resources to answer any questions or make any improvements. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment There's no dabs or broken links, and all images have alt text (I like the map by the way), so it looks good so far. That said, I made two edits to the lead text; give it and the article another skim to make sure there aren't any remaining errors or if you think I fail at error correction. :) --an odd name 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with the map is the incongruous use of Sans-Serif and Pseudo-Miniscule, and the different layout of the sans that makes it look like two sans fonts have been used. The map obviously drew my attention immediately, even before I went to look at your footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured someone would comment on the fonts. If there's any doubt about them, it's certainly safer to just use plain old sans-serif (like WP does in text by default, I think) all around. Easier to read, if slightly more boring, that way. --an odd name 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that I don't know how to fix. I was just using the map from the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a deal breaker, it just might be worth improving if you can rustle up support. If I get to keep whinging, Konya is too closely spaced, Euphrates too loosely spaced. Even within the Sans Serif the variations in display are too great. I would humbly suggest that if a Miniscule has to be used, that one with high legibility and visual appeal be used, the one currently in use is of low legibility due to thin sections of characters. (You'll also get a free 1c / 2c review out of me later with a statement on the article's progression) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well, I left a message with User:MapMaker, its creator. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your note, Adam, on my talk page. See you there, MapMaster (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A new map has been swapped in, specially designed for the article. I have changed all the characters to a sans serif font, and moved, upon Adam's suggestion, the timeframe to 1165. I added a few places mentioned in the article to the map and removed a less relevant ones. Hope this works for you, MapMaster (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments, to start with, this is a very well done article. Mostly minor things that cropped up during my read-through, although some may just be questions that I had because of my lack of familiarity with the history:

• The prose is exceptional, but I would do a quick read-through to see if it's possible to break up some of the longer sentences into chunks that are more manageable for the reader. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts, "The chronicle was translated into French..."
• Given the importance of religion in his life story, I would wikilink Christianity early
• "however, he could not have been German as he had little knowledge of that country" I think this conclusion bears a little (and I do mean a little) more explanation, if it's possible based on your sources. Plenty of people have an ancestry they have little knowledge of.
• why quote 'apparently well-to-do' instead of converting it into prose?
• "The scholaster, or school-master, John the Pisan taught" maybe a better copy-editor can weigh in, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'John the Pisan'?
• "married Maria Comnena grand-niece", missing comma?
• "was elected archbishop of Tyre to replace Archbishop of Frederick" is the latter a title or a name? should it just be Archbishop Frederick?
• is it the Third Council of the Lateran, or the Third Lateran Council - you write it both ways in the article
• The sentence that starts, "Peter Edbury and John Rowe" is convoluted and a little unclear
• "the final book is unfinished, but it may have been completed and the pages may be lost" - it's incongruent to claim that it may have been completed, but state definitely that it is unfinished
• The sentence that starts "William's history can be seen as an apologia," is convoluted as well
• "His account of the foundation of the Templars is the earliest description" of?
• "are also a typical topos" explain 'topos'
• "R. B. C. Huygens notes that..."the French needs translation to English
• the last section as a whole strings together a lot of quotes, some of which could perhaps be folded into a regular prose summation

As I said, exceptional work. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of those are just missing commas or have leftover words from when I rewrote a sentence (I seem to have done that a lot based on the other comments...). Some of the quotes are there just because I liked them; there is something about the way Huygens says "apparently well-to-do" that amuses me. It is assumed that he wasn't German because whenever there are German crusaders around, he doesn't know anything about them, so he presumably didn't speak German and had no contacts in Germany. The "earliest description" is of the foundation of the Templars...what I mean is, even though people wrote about them before, he is the earliest author to mention their actual foundation, although he wrote it fifty years later. I guess the sentence is backwards currently. I'll clarify all this, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about that last paragraph. While you've managed to collect a lot of great quotes, it's disconcerting for me as a reader to dig through a long series of them. I would pick one or two to keep as quotes and maybe paraphrase or summarize the rest. Geraldk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've split up the sentence about the chronicle being an apologia, but could you be more specific? What else is convoluted about it? (Is talking about an apologia too jargon-y?) I'll see what I can do about the last paragraph; what does everyone else think? Too many quotes? (I like them, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, we can wait until another reviewer weighs in on that, I don't feel that strongly about it. So I'm set for now, but will wait to support until source and image checks are complete. Geraldk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support now that source review issues seem to be resolved. Geraldk (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work.

• Much of it repeats the captions, but alt text should discuss only the part of the the visual appearance of the image that the caption omits; please see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, alt text normally should not contain any details that cannot be verified by a nonexpert who is looking only at the images; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases that should be removed or moved to the caption, on repetition or verifiability grounds, include "from an Old French manuscript", "William of Tyre's chronicle", "showing William", "his history", "the future Baldwin IV", "not being hurt", "a sign of leprosy", "Saladin", "end of chapter heading", "text of chapter", "Godfrey of Bouillon in the Hofkirche of Innsbruck. It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade."
• The alt text for the map doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader what the gist of the map is, namely the geographical locations and relationships among those regions. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance here.
• Please try to pretend that you're briefly describing the image over the telephone to a non-expert.

Eubulides (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I completely misunderstood the point of alt text, sorry. (I didn't even know there was such a concept until the Peer Review!) Is it better now? Would it help if I cropped that image of Saladin burning the town? The text in the image is irrelevant (the others would have it too but they have been cropped differently). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's great now; thanks! There's no need to crop the text from that image from an alt text point of view; if you do crop it for other reasons, please adjust the alt text accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline 1c, 2c. (detailed line by line list available later) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. 1c: Inadequate indication of when commentary chapters are being used from definitive translations versus when the translation is being quoted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. 2c: Inconsistent. p / pp style versus pg style. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Multiple works in single footnotes which contain the first citation of unbibliographied works. Inadequate bibliography for a historical article (all works go in). The multiple citation styles make me want to go plagiarism hunting, btw. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And I am not impressed that a history article was brought forward with multiple citation styles in the document, 2c as a criterion is pretty clear. Extensive footnotes which should either be incorporated into the article, or culled. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit that my citation style is never perfect (this is a problem in real life as well, actually), but what would you suggest? How should I indicate "commentary chapters"? The Babcock and Krey translation has their own introduction (which I have noted, at least sometimes - I added one that I missed when I was editing just now), and then William's prologue. The Huygens edition also has his own introduction. How can I distinguish these more clearly? I did not think I was using "multiple styles", but perhaps this comes from other editors. Also, I've tolerated a good load of bullshit on Wikipedia over the years, but accusations of plagiarism are a little much. It will help, I'm sure, if you actually tell me which notes you have problems with. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Introductions should be cited as such, Author author (year) Introduction to William Tyre Work Provenance data, in the current style you're using. Works themselves should be cited William Tyre Work trans. Foo and foo. If the manuscript and translation have different titles, the published title should be used. When the article switches, seemlessly, between Foo Work pg. 40 and Foo Work p. 40 it becomes rather obvious two authors have been involved, and that the citations haven't been checked before the FAC. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it now? I've tried to make it more clear. I don't see the problem with the way I cited things, to be honest. I've also cleaned up the references, so everything I cited in the text is now included. Would you prefer a "notes" section for what you have called "extended footnotes", where I have explained something that I didn't think fit into the text? I don't think it would be useful to cull that information. For "p." vs. "pg.", as far as I can tell there are no instances of "p." so I don't know what you're referring to. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rechecked, you're consistently using pg. for singles... its not a style I've seen, but you're consistent, and that's all that's demanded. Your chapter citations are still out, see "Dictionary of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer; article "William of Tyre" by Susan M. Babbitt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1989), vol. 12, pg. 643)" which is actually "Susan M. Babbitt, "William of Tyre," Dictionary of the Middle Ages ed. Joseph Strayer New York: Charles Scribners's Sons, 1989, vol. 12, pg. 643." (Compare to your citations of articles, or R. C. Schwinges in Tolerance and Intolerance.

Okay, should be fixed now, but you may still have a problem with more than one work being cited in the same footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noted where I am referring to the introduction of Babcock/Krey and Huygens, rather than William's text. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

2c I discovered I was too hasty declaring your page numbering indicators to be consistent. resolved Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Latin, or English? You use a mix of pg. for singular, and pp. for plural. pp. is the plural of p. not of pg. The plural of pg. is pgs. (See OED 2 P, (n) 10a.). Pick one of:
  1. pg. for singular pgs. for plural.
  2. p. for singular pp. for plural. (Wikipedia's templates follow this style).
  3. no page prefix indicator. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. For some reason in high school I learned to use "pg." and I have stubbornly stuck with it ever since, even after learning the plural "pp." later. I've changed it to "p." Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support. Good article. My specific concerns have been addressed. But there are still a lot of over-long sentences, and a few poorly-constructed ones.:* William is praised by current scholars in the section "modern Assesssment" as "one of the greatest medieval writers", "the greatest crusade historian" and "one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages". Isn't this a key element of his notability? And shouldn't mention of this therefore be prominent in the Lead?

• "known as William II to distinguish him from William of Malines, the first Archbishop of Tyre by that name" - Shouldn't this be "of that name"?
• "He grew up in Jerusalem at the height of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was established in 1099 after the First Crusade, and spent twenty years studying the liberal arts and canon law in the universities of Europe." - Did the Kingdom of Jerusalem study liberal arts and canon law? Sentence should be broken after "Crusade", and then continue with "Then he spent..."
• "In 1179 William led the eastern delegation to the Third Council of the Lateran, but as he was involved in the dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, his importance waned when a rival faction gained control of royal affairs." - The causality between the first and second parts of this sentence is not very clear. Why not break it after "lateran"? Then the next sentence could be reframed: "However his importance waned after he became involved in a dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, and a rival faction gained control of royal affairs."
• "Baldwin II, expanded and secured the kingdom's borders so that the kingdom was roughly contiguous with modern Israel and Lebanon." - It wasn't Baldwin's intention to emulate the borders of modern day Israel and Lebanon. Why not replace "so that" with "until" or something similar?
• "During the first few decades of the kingdom's existence, the population swelled with pilgrims who could now safely visit the holiest sites of Christendom, and with merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France who were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east" - "was swelled by" would be better than "swelled with". Again can you cut the sentence in two after "Christendom"? Then the next sentence could be: "Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France were also eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east."
• "He was born in Jerusalem around 1130, to parents who were probably among the French or Italian merchants who had settled in the kingdom and who were "apparently well-to-do", although it is unknown whether they participated in the First Crusade or arrived later. " - Suggest a sentence split after "1130". Then start "His parents..."
• "He studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans for about ten years, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée; he also spent time studying under Robert of Melun and Adam de Parvo Ponte, among others. He also studied the classics with Hilary of Orleans, and mathematics ("especially Euclid") with William of Soissons. For six years, he studied theology with Peter Lombard and Maurice de Sully. Afterwards, he studied civil law and canon law in Bologna, with the "Four Doctors", Hugolinus de Porta Ravennate, Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, and Jacob de Boraigne." - Very long, confusing list. Could be improved by starting: "For about ten years he studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée." Then a new sentence.
• "William's list "gives us almost a 'Who's Who' of the grammarians, philosophers, theologians and law teachers of the so-called Twelfth-Century Renaissance", and shows that he was as well-educated as any European cleric, such as his contemporary John of Salisbury, who had many of the same teachers." - Not grammatical. Sentence could be split after "European cleric." Then "His contemporary, John of Salisbury, had many of the s