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] 1997 Qayen earthquake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    See this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Kinks

Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments by an odd name

• Mad Hatter appears to be the primary contributor (by edit count)—does he know you nominated the article?
• One dab link (should it be Mickey Finn (musician)?), and no dead external links.
• Infobox image lacks alt text. Use Img_alt to add some.
• Ref dates mix different formats (2009-11-11, November 17, 2009, 18 December 1969, ...). Use one for all of them.

--an odd name 07:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! As I'm rather busy right now, I'll try to attend to them in the next few hours. As to Mad Hatter; he contributed to The Kinks quite a bit a few years back. However, he has only edited this article once or twice in the past year, I believe. - I.M.S. (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to AnOddName: I believe I addressed the issue of Retrieval dates... is there still a flaw present, and if so, could you point it out? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref 41 is still ISO style. More importantly, it is a link to an apparently unauthorized YouTube video that should be removed. Just cite the program (title, channel, episode number, ... using {{cite episode}} or something similar) instead, and let others figure out where to find it. --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, 1c, at least until the three YouTube links are removed, replaced, or justified:

• What makes the first a high-quality reliable?
• The last two are copyvios; they lack publisher info in both the YouTube profile and the citation here.

All three are (understandably) missing publishers. If I were assuming bad faith (as opposed to good) I'd think you were trying to sneak in bad sources. Please fix or justify. --an odd name 02:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one of the refs and added proper formatting to the others. If you still find fault in them, I'll remove them altogether. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I left a note on Mad Hatter's talk page. Alt text done; thanks. The alt text has another problem: it contains details that can't be verified simply by looking at the images, unless you're an expert on the subject. Problematic phrases include "6 Denmark Terrace, Fortis Green, Muswell Hill, North London, birthplace of the Davies brothers", "A promotional photo of The Kinks", "young members of the Kinks", "Ray Davies", "Mick Avory", "Pete Quaife", "Dave Davies" (twice); these need to be removed and/or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Also, please replace "five (5)" with just "five" as per WP:ALT#Text, and remove the multiple instances of the phrase "In this black-and-white-photo" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - Issues addressed (hopefully). I've added alt text to the infobox and removed the faulty text from the other images. Also, all reference retrieval dates are now uniform, and I've fixed the problems AnOddName pointed out. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm honoured. It is one of my long-standing works. Thank you very much. Is there anything I could help with considering the feature article nomination or I can turn on my work on the article itself. Whatever. Thank you very much for noticing me. It's been a pleasure.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• In no way am I in this for the credit, or for the "glory" of telling everyone I've had a FA, but I'd like to bring up some points. First, I would be perfectly happy to share credit for this FA with Mad Hatter. However, does Mad Hatter having the most edits on this page make him the sole recipient of the credit? I would urge you to compare the version of the page from the last time he edited it to mine. I have put a lot of hard work into this article - I traveled to London last summer specifically to research The Kinks (the photo of their birthplace was taken by me) - and I would like to receive at least some scholarly recognition for it. Does anyone know the procedure for this? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the primary-contributor comment as a matter of credit or honor, but to make sure everything is up and ready. As says FAC, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." This makes sure (among other things) that the article is actually ready—if Mad Hatter has more to add to the article, it probably doesn't meet 1b yet. I really don't give half a damn about honors bestowed here; I just want featured articles to be cleaned up before some random editor sees them on the front page and says "this articl sucks add mor about there personal life and the citaton doesnt work". --an odd name 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked through the talk archives and have seen quite a few debates over the advantages of the unofficial "credit". - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ashley Tisdale

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Arrow (missile)

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

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

Comments

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

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

[edit] Seattle Sounders FC

Nominator(s): SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently passed a very successful (active) peer review where many improvements were suggested and made. User:Cptnono, User:George, and myself have worked diligently to take action based on all feedback given in the review as well as making many other improvements. At this point we have exhausted all known resources that could resonably be added to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and that with the help of the WP:FAC reviewers we will hopefully be able to get the article to the status of featured article. SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. Restarting because this lengthy FAC turned into a line-by-line peer review. Sources, alt text, and images cleared by Rafablu88, Eubulides and Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support As said before, "This a terrific article on my hometown team, although I would like to see (someday) the economic effect of the team on Pioneer Square's businesses, as seen in a recent Seattle Times article." – ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xa Loi Pagoda raids

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Political Cesspool

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

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

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

• Ref 21's link appears dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Boletus edulis

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

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

Support on 1b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gateway Protection Programme

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

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

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sholes and Glidden typewriter

Nominator(s): Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent discussions at WT:FAC have suggested that an interesting nomination statement may entice reviewers to engage the article. Clearly such hucksterism is unnecessary for a topic as inherently enthralling and bewitching as a 140-year-old typewriter. Nevertheless, do read on as Wisconsin printers ditch their red polyester and fermented milk to pursue a comically large contraption which will ultimately be an insulter of intelligence, emancipator of women and, to those with a sense of practicality, a haunter of dreams - all while contending with belligerent stenographers, a bullying Alexander Graham Bell and a sarcastic Mark Twain. Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• You had me at the name :P Anyhow, images are impeccably sourced and verifiably free, I would expect nothing less from Elco :P I'll try and give a real review for this one too, if only so I actually know what's up with that monstrous beast :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I went through this with considerable care at peer review, raised numerous (minor) issues all of which have been addressed in the FAC version. Truly educational: now I know how QWERTY came about, and much else beside. The images are all crap, though A great article to herald a welcome return (we hope) to action. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Elcobbola asked me to take a look through this article a few weeks ago, while it was at peer review. I thought it was very good then and I think it's even better now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support—I read this well-written and engaging article during the peer review and I am pleased to add my support. I am not expecting any problems with the (excellent) sources used or any other major obstacles. This is one of the best candidates of late. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical comment No dabs or dead links, and images have alts (and good ones). QWERTY! --an odd name (help honey) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support 2c, 1c (Concerns addressed to my satisfaction, nominator has taken decisions on the resolution of outstanding points largely stylistic and up to nominator, all outcomes including "as is" meet criteria) All resolved concerns listed at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (Note: I recently peer reviewed this article. For once, I could not find anything to improve!) This is a clearly written and comprehensively researched article. I've been telling my friends all about this article for the past few days - it's fascinating! Thanks so much for writing it! Awadewit (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. i have a couple of nitpicks and a general query on which i'd be interested to hear other editors views.

• I have undertaken a few copyedits that main editors may wish to check.

• I don't know whether you needed feedback on this point, but the tweaks seem quite valid. Эlcobbola _talk 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The Sholes and Glidden typewriter has its origin in a printing machine..." Why is this in the present tense when the S&G is no longer made?

• That introductory sentence was added by the GA reviewer (and I believe it a good addition, of course). I point that out not to fault that editor, but to suggest the reason may likely be because it added a second author (so to speak), and with it an alternative style. I've changed the tense ("has" to "had"). Эlcobbola _talk 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Do the sources comment on why this typewriter is called the S & G, given the particularly tangential role of Glidden, and that by the time Remington undertook manufacturing in 1873 neither individual was involved any longer?

• No, I'm afraid they don't (this is something I was curious about as well, and I looked all over for it). The only information regarding the name I could find was that Sholes' name preceded Glidden's in deference to Sholes' more advanced age. My supposition (i.e. OR) is that, as Soule dropped out first, Sholes and Glidden were the last of the original patent holders and the name was chosen accordingly; but why Remington chose to use both names instead of just Sholes, or even merely "Type-writer", is apparently unknown to history. Some unreliable sources (i.e. collector websites) joke that it should have been the Sholes & Densmore. Эlcobbola _talk 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• General query re all WP articles, that I may as well raise here to see what anyone has to say: in the lead is this expression: "...the typewriter evolved from a crude curiosity into a practical device whose basic form became the industry standard". i have noticed that many WP articles use who/whose to refer to objects or organisations. I would expect this to read "...the typewriter evolved from a crude curiosity into a practical device the basic form of which became the industry standard." Is there any particular reason this form isn't used, either here or elsewhere?

• I've rephrased the sentence. I don't recall the choice of whose over of which being a deliberate one (perhaps my own predisposition to the "unified" German dessen, deren, wessen), but I do think the latter indeed reads better. Эlcobbola _talk 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoryzomys

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

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

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

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

Works are misdated. (Percequillo etal 2008/2009)

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

Dates within citations are consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxonomy

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

Description

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

Distribution

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

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

• Thanks for making the above fixes so quickly, consider them all stricken.
• Several of the journal article sources should have DOI's
  • Should they? They are not in the similar, recently promoted FA Lundomys and in my view add superfluous text; we'll be able to deal with linkrot.
    • I think they're added for the same reason ISBNs are added to books, to make it easier for interested readers to find the source. I've usually been asked to supply them when possible at GAN and FAC. Maybe someone who's more sure than me could comment? Sasata (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• To assess the article quality on FAC criteria 1b and 1c I did a literature search on the topic, and the following relevant sources came up (that are not used in the article). Am wondering if these were consulted (yes, some are in Portuguese):

Actually, one is in Spanish. :-) Most seem to do little or no more than saying that it was found in the same habitat where we already know it is found; I commented on each one individually below.

D'Elia, Guillermo; Mora, Ismael; Myers, Phil, et al. (2008). New and noteworthy records of Rodentia (Erethizontidae, Sciuridae, and Cricetidae) from Paraguay. Zootaxa 1784:39-57

Thanks for reminding me to have a look at that paper. It added some small information, which I added.

Adrian Quintana, Carlos. (2007). Teeth marks of rodents in archaeological sites in the Tandilia mountains, Argentina. Archaeofauna 16:185-191

Doesn't add anything.

Bonvicino, C. R.; Lemos, B.; Weksler, M. (2005). Small mammals of Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park (Cerrado of Central Brazil): Ecologic, karyologic, and taxonomic considerations. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 65(3):395-406

Same as for the Zootaxa paper. Didn't add much.

Anonymous. (2005). Phylogenetic analyses of the tribe Oryzomyini (Muroidea: Sigmodontinae) based on morphological and molecular data.Mastozoologia Neotropical 12(1): 107-108

That's a summary of Weksler (2006).

Weksler, M. (2003). Phylogeny of Neotropical oryzomyine rodents (Muridae : Sigmodontinae) based on the nuclear IRBP exon. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 29(2): 331-349

Superseded by Weksler (2006).

Jorge, M. C. L.; Pivello, V. R.; Meirelles, S. T., et al. (2001). Species richness and the abundance of small mammals in cerrado and forest environments, in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Naturalia (Sao Paulo) 26: 287-302

Doesn't add anything to what we have already.

Lessa, Leonardo G.; Talamoni, Sonia A. (2000). New information on range and habitat characteristics of Pseudoryzomys simplex (Rodentia: Muridae) for southeastern Brazil. Bios (Belo Horizonte) 8(8): 19-23

They were quite happy to show that the range of Pseudoryzomys was associated with the cerrado. But we knew that already.

Talamoni, SA; Dias, MM. (1999). Population and community ecology of small mammals in southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 63(2): 167-181

Didn't add anything.

Steppan, Scott J. (1995). Revision of the tribe Phyllotini (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae), with a phylogenetic hypothesis for the Sigmodontinae. Fieldiana Zoology 0(80): I-VI, 1-112

Didn't cover Pseudoryzomys in any depth, only excluded it from Phyllotini, which is already adequately covered by the Voss and Myers and Voss and Carleton references.

Steppan, Scott. (1993). Phylogenetic relationships among the Phyllotini (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) using morphological characters. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 1(3): 187-213

Same (this is practically speaking an earlier version of the Steppan 1995 paper).

Langguth, Alfredo; Silva Neto, Eulampio J. (1993). Morfologia do penis em Pseudoryzomys wavrini e Wiedomys pyrrhorhinos (Rodentia - Cricetidae). Revista Nordestina de Biologia 8(1): 55-59

Penis morphology is already covered.

Contreras, J.R.; Berry, L.N. (1984). Nuevos registros Argentinos de Pseudoryzomys wavrini (Thomas, 1921) (Rodentia, Cricetidae, Phyllotiini). Historia Natural (Corrientes) 2(19): 164

Superseded by Pardinas et al., 2005, who give far more Argentinean localities and far more information.

Massoia E. (1980). The systematic status of the South American Cricetidae and comments on other congeneric taxa. Ameghiniana 17(3): 280-287

Referenced indirectly. Doesn't add anything to what Voss and Myers have to say.

Pine R H; Wetzel R M. (1975). A new subspecies of Pseudoryzomys wavrini Mammalia rodentia Muridae Cricetinae from Bolivia. Mammalia 39(4): 649-655

Doesn't add anything to what is already covered about geographic variation.

Pine, RH; Ranck, GL. (1969). Pseudoryzomys wavrini in Bolivia. Journal of Mammalogy 50(3): 618-&

No content useful to this article. Ucucha 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Dan Povenmire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Once again, same as last time, look here [1] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash ^{talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

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

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

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

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

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

2c:

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

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

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

Images:

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

1c:

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

Thanks for the input Fifelfoo.

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

That's one note with two references. There should have been a semicolon there ... inserted one.[2]

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

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

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

I'll double check for missing semi-colons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merry Xmas Everybody

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I know this is going to be difficult to find, but is there any chance of getting contemporary opinions of the song? There isn't really a reception section at the moment; the release paragraph talks about the sales, and the legacy section gives the perspective from today, but there isn't much that says whether it was well-regarded critically at the time. I'm sure there are Melody Maker and NME reviews, though I don't know if they'd be usable. Back then rock and pop wasn't really reviewed in the mainstream media so there might not be enough to use, but it would be good to have.
  • I took a look in the NYT archives; there's a 21 Dec 1973 article on Christmas songs that mentions Slade but makes no assessment. Interestingly, it mentions three other Christmas songs of that year, which it describes as satirical: Elton John's "Who'll Be A Turkey For Christmas", Cheech and Chong's "Santa Claus and His Old Lady", and Martin Mull's "Santafly". Not sure there's anything you can use there -- the article argues that new Christmas songs were decling at the time, and that Christmas music was mostly recycled from previous years. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another possible source: [3]. The writer comments on how Slade changed the popular perception of Christmas. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That last one is potentially useful, for the legacy section. However, when I was looking for sources as I was writing the article, I don't believe I saw anything to do with reception on its release - though I am guessing it was popular judging by the sales. Of course, I don't have access to unfree news sources, so there may be more I couldn't access via Google News... Majorly talk 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There's nothing about the record in The Times archive, or at Newsbank. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gunpowder Plot

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

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

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

1c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead:

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

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

Background > Religion in England:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds fine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Battle of Bardia

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A couple of phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be moved to captions or removed, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These are "Australian" (in "Australian soldiers" (twice), "Australian soldier", and "Australian officers") and "Italian" (in "Italian soldiers").
• File:WesternDesertBattle Area1941 en.svg needs alt text that conveys the gist of the map to the reader who is presumably not an expert in the area. I suggest alt text that discusses the Jebel Akhdar, the Great Sand Sea, the Qattara Depression, the Mediterannean, the coastal road, the border between Libya and Egypt, Benghazi, Tobruk, Bardia, and how all these things hang together. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. The alt text for the other map is quite good, by the way.

Eubulides (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Morotai

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2c:

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

Done

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

Done

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

Converted to ISBNs

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

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

1c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

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

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

Comments Some minor stuff.

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

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

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

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

1a:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments -

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

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

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

[edit] The Battle of Alexander at Issus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2c:

Kingfisher article not named when cited.

No longer applicable. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple authors not correctly cited in short citations.

Please name them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, "Sacks, David; Murray, Oswyn; Bunson, Margaret (1997)." is cited as "Sacks, p. 14" when it should be cited as "Sacks; Murray; Bunston, p. 14", this is true of other multiple author works in your short cites (Corvisier, André; Childs, John (1994). Hagen, Rose-Marie; Hagen, Rainer (2003). Hanawalt, Barbara; Kobialka, Michal (2000). Heckel, Waldemar; Yardley, John (2004). Janson, Horst W.; Janson, Anthony F. Romm, James S.; Mensch, Pamela (2005). ) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

All done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Nicholas Mayall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] School Rumble

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

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

Note

• Apparently Jinnai's computer died (see here) and he can only access the internet via his PSP right now. As it takes too long to type anything substantial, his participation may be very low until he can get his computer fixed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

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

Other comments

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

[edit] Carabane

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

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rise of Neville Chamberlain

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Why is this recoloured image being used in preference to the original ? In my opinion, the recolouring by a wikipedian does not serve any encyclopedic purpose, and is possibly ahistorical. Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• The trend of recoloring historical images does need review, for the reasons mentioned by Abecedare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've switched it for the black and white one. Odd how Joe Chamberlain's clothing could probably pass on the street, while either of his sons looks hopelessly old-fashioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why does the last source in References say 2010? I assuming this is a typo (also note that the Harvard references need to be fixed). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not a typo. I bought the book on September 15, too. That's what it says on the copyright page! It won't matter in a month and a half. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Relying on the Copyright date is the most common way to assign a date to a text. If the publisher wants to lie, we still work off the lie on the bibliographic information page of the work. Other ways to date books exist, but shouldn't be of large concern to FAC reviewers of 2c unless the work lacks a copyright date, or date of publication on the bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why they do what they do is not clear to me. I should not that if I switched it to 2009 (publication date at least in the UK where I bought it), five years from now people will wonder why it doesn't bear the copyright date. Copyright date seems to be the best way to go. I'm open to ideas here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to support: Chamberlain is a discredited figure in UK political history and it is rare to find a dispassionate account of his career, which was by no means all failure despite its inglorious end. This narrative looks distinctly promising, with a generally uninvolved perspective; however, there are numerous fairly minor prose issues that need attention. I'm not through yet, but here is my first list:-

• Lead
  • "long been seen" and "was seen" in same sentence - repetitious; suggest "long been regarded"
  • "chartered accountants" should have a link
  • Likewise "backbenches"
  • Likewise "National Government"
  • The chronology of Chamberlain's early ministerial career would be easier to follow if you said "briefly becoming Chancellor..." and "later spent five years as Minister of Health".
  • "guiding Britain through the Depression" sounds like a judgement. In some analyses, Chamberlain's financial policies during the Depression were divisive, with a particularly harsh impact on northern working-class areas. Rather than "guiding", I'd say something neutral like: "directing Britain's fiscal policy through the Depression years."
  • Last sentence: the parenthetical note needs to specify "who had replaced MacDonald as Prime Minister in 1935"

Response Did all these, though I modified the phrasing.

• Early life
  • "...who later became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and a Cabinet minister." As there is no connection between these offices, the phrasing would read better as "who became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and later a Cabinet minister."
  • Another rephrasing suggested: "Joseph Chamberlain's first marriage had produced two children, Beatrice and Austen." This avoids the ugly "had had".
    • Your choice to retain "had had". I still think it's ugly, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "a sister"? Presumably "his" sister?
  • "whilst at Rugby". I don't know if the old ukase against "whilst" is still in force. Either way I think the phrase is redundant.
  • Does the source use the term "apprenticed" in relation to his accountancy training? In the UK the traditional term for on-the-job training in a profession, as distinct from a trade, was "articled".
    • Stay with your source, even though in this instance I think he's used the wrong word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Response Done. On the last, Self, page 21 says "As a result, he was apprenticed in 1889 to a leading firm of Birmingham chartered accountants where he demonstrated rather greater application and within six months he was promoted to become a salaried employee." I am pretty sure Self is British, and he surely knows his stuff, he released this bio after editing and publishing Chamberlain's papers in multiple volumes. Maybe things are different in Birmingham? After this and your illustrious forebear, I've come to the conclusion it's a rather strange city.

• Business career
  • The section should have a broader title, since only the first two paragraphs cover Chamberlain's business career. Alternatively it could be split.
    • I'm not sure that "Businessman" is much broader, but I can't think of anything better. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Close repetition of "venture"; second mention could be "enterprise", or "project", or "operation" etc
  • Is there a rule about converting acres (to hectares, km² etc)?
  • After the second paragraph the chronology of this section becomes a bit confusing. In succession we have a comment he made in 1931, reference to a journey in 1904-05, undated civic activities and hospital involvement, likewise undated involvement in establishing the University of B'ham (which must predate 1914 since Joseph died that year). Then we go to the Boer War and the 1900 election, and finally to some private life details. I think the section needs a bit of tidying, even if the splitting option is rejected.

It struck me that it would be more jumbled had I tried for strict chronological order (for face it, Chamberlain led a fairly humdrum life during that time) so it was best to have paragraphs that cover topics, not times. Business career, outdoor activities, civic activities, politics, personal life (I combined the last two into one paragraph to be more compact). Open to ideas, but I think this is a decent way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not something I feel strongly about. It looks tidier as a single paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm working through my strikes, bear with me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Birmingham politician
  • First para, final sentence, looks in need of a citation. Also, the final phrase "a name by which it is still formally known" is probably unnecessary.
  • "With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Chamberlain became deeply involved in the war effort." There is no evidence of this in the rest of the section. His hard work and his activities, important though they were, don't really chime with the phrase "war effort".
  • Also, the sentence about him prospering personally from the war seems oddly placed here. Should it be put as a note somewhere in the Business career section?
    • I'm going to strike that sentence. Self makes mention of the Chamberlains having financial problems in the early 1920s. MPs got paid almost nothing then, you had to be a minister to earn a decent amount of money.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "established ... established" in close proximity. Synonyms: inaugurated, instituted, set up, etc.
    • The sentence in question is "The concerts established Birmingham as a cultural centre, and in 1919, the Orchestra was formally established." The next setence begins: "Chamberlain established..." That's rather too much use of the one word, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • All these are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Director of National Service
  • The phrase "to various extents" is too vague to be useful. Suggest drop it, and rephrase "which would have resulted in mandatory service..."
  • Did Austen really say "...for together if they were together..."?
    • Yes he did, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. No wonder his career flopped if he went around saying things like that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • These issues are taken care of. I've just said "for mandatory service". Chamberlain tried several different ways; Lloyd George and the War Cabinet basically blew him off.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Candidate and backbencher
  • "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote a biography of his cousin—the only book he ever wrote." The sentence seems laboured itself. Perhaps: "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote his biography — the only book he ever wrote." (note spaces around ndash).
  • "...tried to recruit him to serve on another committee..." - ambiguous. I think you mean "an additional committee"
  • "...five of the six Unionist leaders, including Austen Chamberlain, resigned from their government and party offices." It won't be immediately clear to those without knowledge of British political history why Austen and other leading Unionists resigned their government and party offices. It should be made clear that they opposed their party's decision to go it alone, and wanted Lloyd George's coalition to remain in place. Hence their refusal to serve under Bonar Law. (They all crept back later, though).
    • Still not completely clear to the unaware, I fear. How about inserting thus: "five of the six Unionist leaders including Austen Chamberlain, who wished the coaltion to continue, resigned..." etc

Further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will work on this today. Was going to work on the main article, but first things first. I tend to throw in a whilst or two when writing British English as a way of showing it is British English. Always happy to defer to a competent authority, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All these comments have been addressed, except as commented, although I may have used other phrasing than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing comments (second half of article)

• Bonar Law government
  • The main thrust of this section is Chamberlain's early ministerial career. His short stint as Chancellor is covered in one sentence - there's much more about his activities in other posts. So I'd change the heading to "Bonar Law government; early ministerial appointments" or some such.
  • "Bonar Law appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, outside the Cabinet." For clarity, I suggest "Bonar Law initially appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, a ministerial post below Cabinet level." ("Initially" emphasises that this was merely NC's first appointment)
  • I think "King's Speech" should be explained rather than just linked, e.g. "the King's Speech opening the new parliamentary session"
  • Clarify "offered the position" = "offered the Health ministry"
  • "Housing Act" looks too broad a term to be the subject of a single Wikipedia article (there have been many such Acts in the UK), so I'd drop the redlink
    • It's actually a pipe from Housing Act 1923. Let's hold off on this one, User:Ironholds is doing a massive project of writing articles on individual UK acts, and I've asked him to look at the redlinks in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "whilst" he sought ???
    • • Actually, when my mom and I went to the UK in 2004, we had the giggles each time we saw the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mosley was no gentleman" No doubt true, but also rank POV. Suggest "Mosley, who was described by Baldwin as "a cad and a wrong 'un", refused to retract the allegation."
    • • That's how Macklin describes him ... but I'll rephrase. Darn. You're taking all the fun out of it. That must have been a really great campaign to witness ... Mosely vs Chamberlain. I'd pay money to see that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Minister of Health
  • It might be worth mentioning that ten shillings corresponds to about £20 in today's values. (per MeasuringWorth.com)
  • Rambling sentence: "Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, though the two had policy differences, and the Chancellor let Chamberlain read a manuscript volume of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis, confiding to Chamberlain that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript." Try "Despite policy differences Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, who showed him the manuscript of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis. Churchill confided that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript; Chamberlain wrote to his sisters that he could have done the job in two hours—with a pair of scissors."[85]
  • "Labour MPs, however, gave as good as they got." Again, the personal voice intrudes. Suggest "Labour MPs retaliated; one referred..." etc
  • "His poor relations with the Labour Party would play a major part in his downfall as Prime Minister." Needs an "eventually" or "in due course" to maintain chrnological sense.
  • "...by seizing on provisions..." - what does this actually mean? Sounds like banditry as stated. Perhaps "commandeering"?
  • I suggest the following sentence is deleted - it tends to confuse an already fairly complex situation: "The Poor Law boards had responsibility for both the unemployed, and for the disabled and elderly; responsibility for the unemployed was given to its own set of commissions."
• Return to opposition
  • I am a bit bothered by paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section, which seem to be overdetailed in regard to the Empire Trade issue, which impacted against Baldwin rather than Chamberlain. I have prepared a condensed, single version of the incident, here, which you might consider. Note that I have used "campaign" rather than effort, and have extended Baldwin's remark on power without responsibility to the full quote he borrowed from Cousin Kipling.
    • I did my own shortening, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not accepted idiom to say that a party "swept a number of seats. They "won" them , or "captured" them, but they didn't "sweep" them.

• Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
  • Suggest link Liberal National
  • Suggest delete "his brother" before Duke of York. It reads confusingly, otherwise.
  • "At the end of the speech, Sir Austen Chamberlain walked down and shook his brother's hand." At the beginning of the speech they were side by side...so what happened?
    • • Sir Austen was behind him. That's clear in the article. He was a backbencher. Taylor indicates that one reason Austen was given no role in the National Government was that his faculties were starting to fail. His letter to his sister that I linked above seems pretty cogent to me. I'm still trying to verify a claim that Neville used his father's despatch box for the address, but I haven't been able to confirm it so it isn't in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "With the Prime Minister in decline..." Best to name him.
  • Final paragraph should have a brief introduction, rather than leading in with an unexplained "new king".
  • "...dying two months earlier" → "having died two months earlier."

• Legacy and reputation
  • Much of this section seems to refer to his whole career, rather than to the part that is the subject of this article. That makes confusing reading for someone unfamiliar with the details of Chamberlain's premiership and appeasement policy; since this article is about Neville's rise, the assessment section should be confined to that. Would it not be more pertinent to retitle this section "Appraisal" or some other neutral noun ("Legacy and reputation" are post-career terms), and to use the space for an evaluation of his tenures in the main offices (Chancellor and Health Minister) which he occupied up to 1937? The other stuff should be reserved for the second article.

That is my review. I don't think there is any serious issue among the points that I've raised – they are mainly matters of minor prose and presentation. My biggest concern at the moment is the last section, for the reasons explained. If pressed I could indicate some areas where I think the level of detail is excessive—I have made one suggestion in this respect. But on the whole, the big achievement has been to make Neville Chamberlain almost interesting. What next – the love life of Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look it over. I think some mention has to be made of the appeasement issue. I think that the "slum clearance" comment can be lost, I put that in in an effort to bend over backwards on NPOV. Note that the Legacy section in this article is entirely different than in the main article, and some of the comments (for example, both of Macmillan's) really cover both Chamberlain's tenure as Chancellor and his peacetime premiership. Macklin seems to be right, it is hard to filter out the "authentic Chamberlain". I disagree with one thing, though: no one is going to read this article who does not know that Chamberlain is known for appeasement and Munich. As for Home: Did Home have a love life? He must have, he had kids. I'm giving some thought to Attlee, though, though I haven't started accumulating references. Baldwin is starting to seem more interesting to me. How can a man be at the top rank of British politics for fifteen years and spend most of his time, apparently, dreaming about retirement?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that it is difficult to separate appeasement from rearmament, and Chamberlain's record on rearmament is certainly fair game in this article. That's why I have the two quotes from Attlee and Greenwood in there, not to mention the sniping from Churchill. While those matters came to fruition during Chamberlain's premiership, they had their roots when he was Chancellor. Anyway, I don't have much time to work on the details right now but I'll get to them within a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahead of schedule as usual. All done, except as noted. I cleaned up the legacy section, but you have some mention of appeasement for the reasons as stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Singapore

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after a year of work, I feel the article is ready for this again. The main issue last time around was over the sourcing of images. I have talked to the user and gave me some ideas on what can be done. I tried to get more information from the SG government, but not much luck there. All dead URLs have been either replaced or removed and just managed to get a PDF copy of the Main 2004 rules, which I am willing to upload to the Commons once I find out legislation is public domain in Singapore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite ___}} templates. This causes inconsistency (compare refs 45 and 46), so I suggest you pick one type or manually write them. There's also a few Day Month Year dates in the refs, when most use ISO style—change them to the dominant style.
• No dab links or dead external links, which is good. (The link checker complains about two mindef.gov.sg sites—something about "Excessed redirect limit (8)"—but they work for me.)
• Some images have alt text. Now add some for the blue Straits flag and the photos.

--an odd name 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Templates fixed (not sure how to do an interview, but I gave it a shot. I did the dab link and url link check before I even came here tonight. I am fixing the alt text issues now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Alt text finished. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text clearance from Eubulides moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that fixes all the alt text problems reported. Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 4 (Foong..) needs a page number
• Current ref 16 (Noor..) lacks a last access date.
• Current refs 18 and 19 (Singapore Arms..) both lack publishers and last access dates.
  • Comment: See my comment about the citation of legislation below.
• Current ref 48 (Leong..) lacks a publisher. This is a journal article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
• What makes http://www.singsingapore.org.sg/songs-lyric.asp?sid=27 a reliable source?
  • The above site is owned by the National Arts Council, a government entity. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://flagspot.net/flags/sg~war.html#const a reliable source? Note that FAC criteria have changed to needing high quality sources, so it needs to not only fulfill WP:SPS but be a "high quality" source.
  • That page cites the law that created the flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment List of Singaporean flags is very short and mostly redundant to the main article. I suggest merging it. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Reywas92. There's not much extra there. --an odd name 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. The other flags are not included due to lack of "image sourcing" as required by FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about citation of legislation. In a comment above, Ealdgyth mentioned that footnote 19, a reference to the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.), lacked the name of its publisher and the date when it was last accessed. Zscout370 therefore changed the footnote to "'Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.' (PDF). Government of Singapore. 1985. Retrieved 2009-11-19". This is not the correct way to cite a piece of legislation. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to indicate the publisher of a piece of legislation and the date of publication for the following reasons:

• I do not see why the publisher of a statute must be indicated when a citation in the usual legal form as shown above provides all the information that is needed to locate the statute in question.
• In particular, it is unnecessary to provide a separate date of publication, at least for Singapore statutes, because a properly cited statute will already contain a reference to the date when it was passed.

In any case, I note that in past FAs such as "Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India" and "Roe v. Wade", pieces of legislation are rightly not cited in the same way as books. Finally, if it is felt that a statement regarding when the legislation was accessed should be added (e.g., "Retrieved on 19 November 2009"), I think this is acceptable. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport, Iowa

Nominator(s): CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked really hard over the last 2 years to improve it. The article was not promoted at the last FAC, 366 days ago, and I have done extensive work since then to improve the article. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name (help honey)

• No dab links, but the external link for ref 40 (a davenportone.com PDF) is dead (goes to main page).
• Most images have alt text, but...
  • The infobox images are missing alts. The four big ones need it; the two small flags do not.
    • Are you saying the map of Iowa and the map of Scott County need alt text? CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think so, because they are not merely decorative—they show where the place is in relation to others. I gave it a shot; check it out. --an odd name 11:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "A large f-story red brick building with many windows"—is "f-story" a technical term, or did you mean "four-story"?
• Speaking of four, spell out small (0–9) numbers.
  • Is it possible to spell out the numbers in the {{convert}} template? It didn't work for me CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about those cases: "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer", says the guideline. I mainly meant the alt text, which still has a few (like "A row of 3 older buildings"). --an odd name 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Alright, I have fixed all of these concerns. CTJF83 chat 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed remaining numerals in alt text. No dead external links. --an odd name (help honey) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1b and 4—the article isn't too long, and deals with all the stuff I'd expect a city article to in good detail, and separates large parts to other articles. You mention food a bit in "Events and festivals"; comparing this and New York City, I suppose more could be added about cuisine, if they have some distinctive food of their own. (See also discussion on my talk page.) --an odd name (help honey) 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps your a little confused. The only mention of NYC is that a park was named after Central Park. There is no unique cuisine, I just meant like fair food at the Bix Festival. CTJF83 chat 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I just chose NYC as another featured article to gauge this article's comprehensiveness. I didn't intend to compare the two cities in any other way. --an odd name (help honey) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • OH! LOL, sorry, misunderstanding on my part. CTJF83 chat 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2c

Refdates are consistent YYYY-MM-DD

Corporate Authored Works should list their corporate author in shortcites, shortcites which shorten titles should only do so at the subtitle indicator (a colon, or semi-colon.) In relation to: Historic Preservation in Davenport, Iowa; which should read, "Plan and Zoning Commission, Historic preservation in Davenport, Iowa for inclusion in the Davenport Comprehensive Plan"

Manual short citations should end with a full-stop (en_US:period) to match fullcites in the footnotes

Please check all your newspaper articles for by-lines, and indicate the author if a by-line exists.

In general, please check your web references for authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your points that start with Corporate, and Manual, please explain more. I fixed the other two. CTJF83 chat 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. When a work is authored by a corporate entity, like a government, government department, company, etc, for example by the "Plan and Zoning Commission," it is usual to treat the corporate entity as the author of the work. So |author=Plan and Zoning Commission

Where you provide a short citation, for example, "Svendsen, p. 82" the citation does not end with a period. When you provide a long citation, for example, "Doxsie, Don (1994-07-31). "Q-C race has grown from a humble beginning into one of the nation's most spectacular events". Quad-City Times. Retrieved 2009-09-22." the citation ends with a period. Its a matter of stylistic choice if you go for "no periods" "periods only for long cites" "periods for all". (A short citation is a citation where the work is referenced in full in the bibliography, and you provide minimal identifying material, a longcite is when you provide the citation in full in the footnotes).

Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so....so I need to choose if all citations get a period, just long, or just short? For example are you saying, citation 32 should be changed to "Plan and Zoning Commission, p. 19." with changing the "author" and adding the period after 19? CTJF83 chat 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'd suggest. The full stop at the end is a style issue only, as long as you're consistent with whatever choice you make. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you also check that your webcitations aren't really other works, say, newspaper articles, with a signed author? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Just a general picky thing, but you're a bit confused about what a publisher is. It's not "Quad City Memory" but "Davenport Public Library" that publishes the work that's entitled "Quad City Memory". Same for "weather.com" which is the work, and the publisher is "Weather Channel", similarly throughout. It's not worth an oppose, but it makes it much harder to check sources for reliablity when the two things are confused.
  • For ref 67, do you want TV By the Numbers as the publisher, or Nielsen company? CTJF83 chat 20:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Which company is behind the site? If Neilsen is the company that owns the website, Neilsen, if TV by the Numbers, then TV by the Numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's TV by the numbers website, they just got the info from Neilsen, I'll use TV..as the publisher CTJF83 chat 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Need to be consistent in how you refer to entities throughout.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All concerns fixed. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly good (thanks), but there's one problem with File:Scott County Iowa Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Davenport Highlighted.svg. Its alt text focuses on the visual appearance of the map (e.g., whether it uses red to highlight); instead, it should convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map (e.g., something like "Located on the center south border of a county that is on southern side of the hump on the eastern border of Iowa."). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops. Didn't read that section and simply described the appearance. --an odd name 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that should do it. (Sorry about the length of WP:ALT; wish I could make it shorter....) Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin P. Morrow

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article recently passed a GA review with only a few minor comments. It is well-sourced, and I believe it meets the FA requirements. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

• No dab links, but the second External link is dead.

• Fixed.

• Only Morrow's signature lacks alt text. I'm not sure how signature alts should be dealt with; the guideline says nothing about them, but clearly says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative, that is, it has no function and is used only for visual formatting or decoration."

• Fixed.

• Article dates are all Month Day, Year. Ref dates are all ISO style.

• Hm. I thought the cite templates required ISO for some reason. Fixed.
  • Oh sorry, I didn't mean the dates were a problem. See MOS:DATE#Full date formatting. You can use ISO if you like for the ref dates, as long as it is for all ref dates, and then use Month Day, Year for the text dates, as long as it is for all text dates. Of course, if you want to use the same format for every single date or if you don't want ISO style, that's cool too. Consistency and standing consensus are usually more important. --an odd name 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c (See Talk: 2c checked 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review (OpposeSupport on criterion 3)
  • File:William Bradley.jpg needs a source

• Oops. I didn't upload that one and need to check on it. Since it's a photograph of Bradley, and since he died in 1914, it should be PD, but I don't know the details.

• • The other two images, ought to be categorized as well.

• Is it bad that I've never categorized an image? Don't know the category structure or anything.

• Done by the category bot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This should be easy to fix, so could you give me a note on my talk page when you do? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll ping you when I get a chance to address these. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• All issues resolved. Thanks for your good work! NW (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on prose and overall quality. I'm not certain if it's comprehensive, but it's written very well. Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Julian! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment theory

Nominator(s): Fainites, User:Jean Mercer

This article was nominated fairly recently in September. It closed after 6 weeks with one support and several reviewers with incomplete reviews. Ealdgyth had done her stuff on links and references. There was also an unstruck image issue. That image has been replaced, (the moose). Two reviewers have now completed their reviews here. I appreciate it is long but fervent copyediting has slimmed it down by about 14 kbs. I believe it now meets the criteria.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved 2c issues are now listed at the review's talk page to avoid clutter! Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - This article clearly introduces the reader to a broad topic in an organized and coherent fashion. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this Fainites! Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Good alt text is present (thanks), except that alt text is missing for Image:Child development stages.svg. Please fix this by appending "|alt=Alt text" to the second line of Template:Child development diagram. The alt text should describe the whole diagram; please see WP:ALT#Diagrams for guidance. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried adding alt text where you suggest but it doesn'y seem to show up. Is there a problem trying to add alt text to what is a navbox that is already full of ppiped links? Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your addition worked for me; I expect it was a caching problem of some sort? Anyway, thanks for doing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments will jot notes here. pending a couple of minor tweaks below. Well done.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

any benefit of "proximity" over the plainer "closeness"?

It's just that it's the word that always has been and still is used. I don't think it's too esoteric is it? I could wiktionary it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the benefit and reason for the term is it leaves out psychological closeness and is technically more specific. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good enough for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(note to self, have read down to Significance of attachment patterns - looking good but as I am familiar with jargon I might miss less accessible bits. Too tired to do this justice now. Back tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not very keen on this Around 65% of children have a secure classification in the general population, the remaining 35% divided between the insecure classifications. Do you mind if I change it again?Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

fine by me, you're welcome to tweak any prose tweaks I make which you feel change meaning inadvertently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Should specify that the AAI is primarily a research tool I think (unless this has changed in the last 10 years (?)). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It may also be used to refer to proposed new classification systems put forward by theorists in the field. - needs a ref methinks..

Done. F.

I'll tweak the AAI bit tonight.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• We resolved everything at the last FAC, lets spare my eyes and has anything in the sourcing changed? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two have been removed but no new ones have been added other than another ref to Cassidy and Shaver.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I've already commented in the FAC review of the first nomination, which I supported. This version is much improved. I will soon be adding the Wikilink for Dorothy Burlingham in the text, a page I created a while ago, which someone will do well to expand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I've begun a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - you can see extensive commenting on the talk page that i've already done, and Fainites has patiently and diligently addressed them all. This is complex subject that is quite a challenge to get up to FAC, and I think the job is well done. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image comments—

File:Moose-Imprinting-sr81-15.jpg: Is there any record that "Dr. Alexander Minaev kindly granted permissions to use the photo for any purpose including commercial, provided appropriate attribution"? Shouldn't this be on OTRS?

I've asked the uploader. F.

File:Laughing couple.jpg is no longer available under cc-by-2.0, but cc-by-nc-nd-2.0.

Do I need to change that? F.

I don't think so; just noting it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The rest look good (no pun intended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Will review the rest of the article later :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• General comments—

Lead looks good.

In "Attachment": Infants will form attachments to any consistent caregiver who is sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them....The biological mother is the usual principal attachment figure, but the role can be taken by anybody who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way over a period of time. Within attachment theory this means a set of behaviours that involves engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals and approaches.
In "Attachment patterns": Infants form attachments if there is someone to interact with, even if mistreated.
To me, these statements are at odds with each other. Surely neglect is a form of mistreatment, and mistreatment (usually) implies a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness to the child's needs/attempts at interaction?

• More to come as I copyedit. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Premiership of John Brownlee

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC has read about the John Brownlee sex scandal, now read about the premiership that it ended. This has been through GAN and PR; my thanks to User:Arsenikk and User:S Marshall at those venues.

I'd like to say a word about criterion 1c, since I expect it to come up: this article relies far more heavily on a single source than I would like it to, and far more heavily than any article I have previously brought to FAC. Given the subject, this is unavoidable: Foster is the only writer to publish extensive secondary material on Brownlee's life and career. Brownlee's premiership has been dealt with incidentally in some other works (see my use of Wardhaugh, for example), and two elements of his premiership (the sex scandal and the sterilization act) have been the subject of academic study in their own right. I've referenced the best of the works on the sex scandal (Brode), but reading the papers about the Sterilization Act did not reveal any new information suitable for an article of this generality. Finally, there are a number of books dealing with more general subjects that contain information on Brownlee's premiership, but while these books are generally secondary sources the portions of them dealing with Brownlee are almost always tertiary sources, sourced almost entirely to Foster's work. I could have sourced information found in Foster's book to some of these other sources that duplicated it, thus giving the illusion of source diversity, but I've opted instead to identify the source where I first found it.

The featured article criteria require that an FA be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I submit that, reliance on a single source notwithstanding, this is. That said, I look forward to addressing reviewers' concerns on 1c or any other criterion. Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Foster (1981) appears to be SELF. Can you supply academic peer review of Foster (1981)? Reviews in Journals of Canadian History? This is essential as Foster (1981) is published by Foster Learning Inc., which appears to be edited by Foster. The fact that on his biopage he appears to have been badly photoshopped into an image is not an indication of veracity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look for reviews of that book in particular. Here's an academic review that deals with Foster (2004), which is in most respects a condensed version of Foster (1981). Here's an academic paper that cites Foster (1981) reasonably heavily. Note also that Foster (1981) is an edited version of Foster's doctoral thesis, for which he was awarded a PhD from Queen's University, so this is not exactly typical self-published terrirory. I'll look for something more definitive, though. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief review appears to have been published in the following: "John E. Brownlee, a biography." Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Text is not available online, so I'll have a look in the library in the next few days. A longer article from the same journal ("An Alberta political revolution and Calgary's Lougheed Building." Alberta History 51.4 (Autumn 2003): p51(3).) cites it and comments favourable on it in passing ("Franklin Foster tells what followed in his well-written biography..."). It's also been written up in such non-scholarly publications as the Globe and Mail, Alberta Report, and The Beaver. Steve Smith (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know when you've checked Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I checked it last week. There's not much to report: the review ran little over a hundred words, and praised the book as filling a gap in scholarship, but said little else. Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise), and alt text looks good. --an odd name 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The first page reads like a biographical article and left me wondering why you hadn't put the man's dates in. But the article is the Premiership. It would be better reworded:

John Brownlee was Premier of Alberta, Canada, from 1925 to 1934 as ......

You don't need to say that he was a politician. It interrupts the flow between his name and the word premier. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Steve Smith (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except for the bold text. --an odd name 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Wasn't the first name of the girl he was accused of seducing Vivian, not Florence? Connormah (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's a hell of a mistake for me to let make it to FAC. Thanks! Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I find the sentence, On no issue was Brownlee's relationship with the King government more critical than it was for the control of natural resources. worded a bit strange. Something just doesn't sound right about that sentence. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. Can you specify, or make suggestions to help it read better? Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support on 1c and 2c. I am reassured that Foster (1981) has received adequate review and acceptance from the Scholarly community. The fact that Foster is a practising Historian with a relevant Doctorate from a reputable University; that Foster's work has been reviewed and cited by Canadian historians; and, that it is the expansion of a Doctoral Dissertation which was reviewed, means in this case that we can accept the fact that it is Reliable; thus clearing the 1c issues. 2c is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalera Conspiracy

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... After follow the rituals presented at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I decided to nominate this article. To reach here, this article passed for a GA review (conducted by user:Maclean25), and then a peer review, where it received a copy-edit, done by user:Finetooth. I am willing to fix [any?] possible problems that the reviewers find.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. Make sure that the text would be obvious from seeing the image alone—I think "four members of a musical ensemble", for example, should be changed (they could be from different groups or even all solo, unless we read the article!). How about "Photomontage of four male musicians. Each man appears in a separate column." for the first alt?
• Ref dates are consistent Day Month Year.

--an odd name 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text, take a look please. Is in this way?--Cannibaloki 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --an odd name 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

I haven't generally commented on articles about bands / singers etc, so this is not input from a topic expert at all. I thought this article appeared unbalanced. Entire article text is under the heading 'History'. That looks wrong, and not everything is historical material. The article needs a separate section on musical style etc. Also a section on critical reception, of which there appears to be nothing at all. The article's entire content on impact, style, lyrics, etc appears to be as follows: "...peaking at number 72 on the Billboard 200, selling more than 9,000 copies during its first week in stores.[7] The album blends elements of punk rock and hardcore punk, Sepultura's thrash metal of Arise (1991) and the groove metal of Chaos A.D. (1993),[1][6][8] with its lyrical concept taken from movies Apocalypse Now, City of God, A Clockwork Orange, and La Haine." Surely more would be needed than this for an FA on a band?

The content that has been written is generally well prepared and referenced, but I would not have seen this as close to FA at present. Happy to have a discussion here, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Please, next time give examples (ie. like article X or Y).--Cannibaloki 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Agreeing with your comment above, I expanded the article into a new section entitled Style, lyrics and reception.--Cannibaloki 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to see the style etc section introduced. That's better. More comments:

• Is the guy's name Igor or Iggor? Both spellings are used on different occasions.

• Since 2006 is Iggor. Anyway, I chose Igor for consistency.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lead needs to be more balanced - too much space taken up on formation of the band; no space devoted to critical reception.

• The space was created, now we have a place for devotion. :-) --Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think material on sales and chart performance should be udner "reception" rather than "Infiktd" subsection of the history? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me on the Inflikted section.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I need to come back another time and read through the whole thing, to see if my more general objection should be struck. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, I think there's a problem with the images. The montage includes images sourced from File:Cavalera Conspiracy 004.jpg, File:Cavalera Conspiracy 005.jpg and File:Cavalera Conspiracy 013.jpg. According to the tags on Commons, the files were taken from a Flickr account operated by Flickr user Eurockéennes de Belfort. All three images - here, here and here are clearly marked as copyrighted (as are all of the Flickr user's submissions). This looks like a Commons error, and I'll be tagging those as copyvios, but the upshot is that File:Cavalera Conspiracy.jpg is also non-free and will be tagged as well. The image is therefore, even if transferred to Wikipedia, non-free and speedy deletable as a copyvio as well as failing WP:NFCC#1 as the images of living people are replaceable. Black Kite 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the Flickr user has changed the license.--Cannibaloki 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If Flickr has a "View licensing history" feature that illustrates past license changes, this would be less of a problem. (Of course, the Flickr user should be asked to clarify or relicense.) --an odd name 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but given that the images in the Flickr collection - which is run by the Eurorockennes festival - were not taken by one person, but a collection of photographers (some professional), I would be very surprised if any of them were ever anything but copyrighted. This isn't the first time - by a long way - that Flickr images that have been marked as "checked" on Commons have turned out to be copyrighted, though. I note that the images were never checked by a human, but by a bot, which has caused issues in the past. Black Kite 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I just assumed that the licenses had changed since the check - I was unaware that there had been problems with Flickr checking on Commons. I had been relying on that for image checks. Could you please leave a detailed explanation on my talk page of the problems with Flickr checking? And thank you for bringing this up. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I will remove the images, and replace by those available on Commons.--Cannibaloki 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Everything just about fine. If you're going to include work and publisher, do it for all or none. As it stands, some are non-uniform with others. RB88 (T) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now, using only the field "work".--Cannibaloki 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HDMI

Nominator(s): GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a notable subject in the consumer electronics world since there are over 600 million HDMI devices. The article covers the history, technical specifications, and revisions of HDMI along with the relationships that it has with other devices. The article was listed as a good article over a year ago. Any comments would be appreciated. GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide alt text to images per WP:ALT.
• Several web-links are dead (click "external links" in the Toolbox on the right);
• urls are missing in refs. 92, 100
• "Overreferencing". A representative example is section "CEC" where 9 links are bundled only to support the brand names. Some of them are incomplete (see above); clicking some others leads to a page of questionable validity (promotional page).
• I am not happy with the prose. Examples are excessive capitalization (I understand there are many proper names there, but not all are such) and use of slash and brackets. I believe abbreviation "CE" is unnecessary, especially given the large number of other abbreviations.

I have added alt text to all images, I believe that all of the reference links are now correct, have tried to cut down on the number of references in CEC trade name sentence, and have changed all CE abbreviations to consumer electronics. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Have reduced the number of references in CEC trade name sentence to the minimum possible while still having all trade names referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment without judgment, about 60 out of 150 refs are from the HDMI website. Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No dab links or dead external links, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name (help honey) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2254162,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
  • http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html
  • Current ref 34 (Jeff Su) lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
  • http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/202803907
  • http://www.elitelex.com/HDMIConnectors.html
  • Current ref 55 (Ultra-smal...) lacks a publisher and last access date, and what makes this a reliable source?
  • http://www.twice.com/article/238949-Retailer_Requires_Simplay_HDMI_Testing.php
  • http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
  • http://www.cepro.com/
  • http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
  • http://www.phoronix.com/
  • http://firingsquad.com/
• Current ref 107 (World's First ..) lacks a last access date
• Current ref 112 (HDMI SPecification 1.4 FAQ - all ..) lacks a last access date
• Current ref 135 (Marsh..) lacks a last access date.
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Have added information to those references that were missing information. For the following articles I will comment on whether I consider them to be reliable:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2254162,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

Reliable, ExtremeTech is done by the same people behind PCMag.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html

Reliable, the home theater magazine launched in 1994.

Current ref 34 (Jeff Su) lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?

Removed, the author of the article works as a HDMI product development manager but it was hard to tell who was the website publisher.

http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/202803907

Reliable, website is owned by United Business Media who also owns the EETimes website.

http://www.elitelex.com/HDMIConnectors.html

Replaced, website sold HDMI products but had few articles on HDMI.

Current ref 55 (Ultra-smal...) lacks a publisher and last access date, and what makes this a reliable source?

Reliable, Nikkei is huge media company in Japan.

http://www.twice.com/article/238949-Retailer_Requires_Simplay_HDMI_Testing.php

Reliable, a business magazine.

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm

Reliable, the information in that magazine interview came from the Vice President of Marketing for HDMI Licensing.

http://www.cepro.com/

Reliable, a trade magazine that was launched back in 1994.

http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html

Reliable, a website that stores technical articles and has the best SPDIF article I could find.

http://www.phoronix.com/

Reliable, gaming website that covers issues related to Linux.

http://firingsquad.com/

Reliable, a gaming website that did the first article I know of on HDCP computer monitors. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've struck some, but on the others, still need more information to show reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked into the publisher information for those references:

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm

Reliable, the online magazine was established in 1996 and is an official Google news source.

http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html

Removed, I couldn't find information on the publisher.

http://www.phoronix.com/

Reliable, the website is owned by Phoronix Media and was started in 2004.

http://firingsquad.com/

Reliable, the website is owned by FS Media and was started in 1998. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't there anything about DRM in relation to HDMI ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a section in the article on HDCP and a link to the main HDCP article. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese Restaurant

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this meets the FA criteria. This is the third Seinfeld season two episode I'm nominating for FAC, both previous episode articles have not been promoted (yet). Mostly because nobody seems interested enough to review them. Hopefully, as this is considered a "classic episode", reviewers will come in greater numbers. Thank you.--Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links, and all images have alt text with no obvious errors.
• Ref dates are consistent Month Day, Year.

--an odd name 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - The sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why does the plot section begin with "In this landmark episode[...]" ? How is it neutral? (More comments likely to come) The Flash ^{talk} 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No idea how that got there. I've removed it.--Music26/11 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Further comments:

• I'd like to see an image for this article's infobox; something like this. With that image, you can have a rationale for "Hong's performance became one of his most famous roles in the United States" or "The plot was believed by NBC to be nonexistent and uninteresting to viewers, which the crew vehemently denied" or even "The very simple and generally nonexistent storyline for the episode was praised by critics, who believed it help define the series' "show about nothing" concept."

• The fact that you prefer an image in an article like this (a TV episode article that is) is understandable, but I believe other users will critize an image such as the one you propose. The thing is (based on experience with other FACs) most reviewers only think an image is neccesary when whatever the picture depicts can't be explained in words; for instance the image you used on your first FA, you can see in the image what is explained in the caption, in other words, you can see the design of the Electro character. The thing is, the image you propose, as well as any other image, would be considered redundant as it doesn't add anything; we don't have any info regarding the set of the episode or the clothes the characters wore or something like that. That's why I believe an image will be critized by other reviewers. Sorry for the length ;).--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't particularly agree with you here, but do understand where you're coming from and have struck the comment. The Flash ^{talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree with what I point out either. I just hate it if reviewers make a "big thing" about it.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• In Richard's quote, please decapitalize "restaurant" as it implies he's referring to the episode's title, not the plot.

• Fixed.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• As this article's references show "Inside looks" on the episode are available on the DVD, I'd suggest removing the instance that is wasn't from Seinfeld (season 2).

• I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Throughout the article, a citation used is the DVD feature "Inside Looks - The Chinese Restaurant." On the season 2 page, it is said that the feature is not available for the episode. It doesn't truly pertain to the article itself, but when viewing it one is bound to read the season page, which gives false info on one of the article's sources. Is that a bit clearer? The Flash ^{talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ohhh... I get it, sorry that's my fault. Removed.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Michael Mitz portrayed the man who is on the phone when George tries to call Tatiana, Mitz would return[...]" -> "[...]to call Tatiana; Mitz would return[...]"

• Fixed.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• "[...]he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at the beginning of the episode, he is still sitting at the same spot when Jerry, George and Elaine leave." -> "[...]the beginning of the episode and is later still[...]"

• Fixed.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's all. Excellent work with the article. The Flash ^{talk} 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: My issues have been taken care of; I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Sources fine. Great little article. Nicely researched and written. RB88 (T) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1930 FIFA World Cup

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

With the 2010 World Cup just around the corner, this is my attempt to give the very first edition of the most prestigious tournament in football (or soccer if you prefer) the article it deserves. While today the World Cup is a media extravaganza rivalled only by the Olympics, its origins were far more humble. Ignored completely by much of Europe, crowds were a mere few hundred at the start of the tournament. By the final, they had grown to 93,000, and the rest is history. The boring part: the article is a current GA, and has had two peer reviews. The images are free, and since I've taken it as far as I can, its time for the FAC microscope. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting article. Could the single "See also" link be incorporated somewhere in the prose? It also seems a little confused - if Uruguay were chosen as hosts partly because they offered to refund the expenses of the participants, why did European countries consider the trip too expensive? And then why did things change after the Uruguayan government agreed to pay travel expenses? (Or was the first offer to cover non-travel expenses, and then later it was extended to travel for European countries?) Trebor (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If I had been writing an essay or blog post, I'd have expanded on this more, but I'm wary of synthesis. Professionalism was in its infancy - the first professional league outside Britain was not formed until 1924 (in Vienna), and in 1930 professionalism in continental Europe was mainly limited to Central Europe and Spain. So in many cases the players were amateurs. Since this was the time of the Great Depression, taking a lengthy period off work would no doubt represent a big risk for players. The colonial attitudes of Old Europe played a part too. I'll try to add a little, but I shall have to be careful not to advance beyond what is explicitly stated in the sources. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• Ref 38 is broken, both in availability and formatting. Use {{cite web}} with the format parameter instead, and don't worry about the size. Otherwise, external links all work, and no dab links.
• The infobox needs alt text and may need changes to its template for that purpose.

--an odd name 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have fixed {{Infobox International Football Competition}} to support alt text; please use its new |alt= parameter to describe that (very cool) lead image. Also, the alt text for File:Red card.svg currently says "Sent off in the 54th minute", which isn't right: the visual appearance is merely that of a red card, so the alt text should say just "Red card". The rest of the alt text looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref fixed and alt text added for the lead image. I'm struggling to work out how to do so for the red card as a template is involved. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that red card template. The alt text all looks very good now; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Decide if you're going to refer to the FIFA site as "FIFA official website" "FIFA" or "FIFA.com" Also whether it's going to be italicised or not. All references to that need to be consistent.
• Current ref 13 (Lara...) is in Spanish? Needs to note that in the reference.
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted RSSSF particularly.
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – A pleasing read overall, but I am a little concerned about the third comment below. I'll probably check some more for this before any offer of support

• Origins: I see nothing in the source given (reference 2) about soccer's lack of popularity in the U.S. Also, baseball was the number one sport in the country at the time, not American football. In fact, the National Football League had a very limited fan base in 1932, though the college game was popular at the time.
• The "Not only...but" sentence structure is long and awkward in most cases, and it appears to be here. See if this can be re-worded.
• Major problem in Summary: "The USA were seeded on account of the professional soccer league in the USA at the time" is pretty much identical to what is in the source. I hope this isn't a trend elsewhere.
• Is the anecdote at the end of Group 2 covered in the following reference (26)?
• Group 3: "when Placido Galindo of Peru was dismissed against Romania. Romania...". Notice the repetition at the end? That's something to fix.
• Final: "and Uruguay thus added the title World Cup winners to their mantle of Olympic Champions." Should Champions be capitalized like this?
• Commas before and after Buenos Aires? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of football's popularity or otherwise in the US removed. I've also removed the plagiarised sentence, which didn't add much anyway. I've tracked it down to this edit, which using the edit count tool appears to be that user's only edit to the article.

I'm sure the colours anecdote is in one of my books but I can't find it at the moment. I've commented it out pending a cite. All other points addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• I'm generally in favour of images and icons that add to articles. But are the Olympic style medals in the infobox accurate? I.e. did the winners receive gold medals, the runners up silver, third place bronze and fourth place nothing? If that is the case, fair enough, but if not they should probably be removed.
• There's no need to create any of the redlinked articles. Indeed I would discourage you from doing so, unless you are motivated to take them beyond stubs. Seeing a redlink on a prominent wikipedia page was what encouraged me to join in the first place, and that article is now quite good. I digress. I'm just wondering whether Almeida Rego and Juan Scasso should be linked at all? I've got no idea what the criteria are for architects, and I can't tell whether the European referees have articles because of systemic bias, or because their involvement in the final/other competitions makes them notable. If Rego is notable, he should also be redlinked in the matches he refereed, as the other referees are bluelinked.
• Might be worth expanding upon tournament attendance, maybe in the venues section? The attendance statistics in the infobox may be technically accurate, but it's not a true reflection of the situation.

Hope those help for the time being, WFCforLife (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina class battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The North Carolina-class battleships epitomized the problem faced by 1930s designers: how to fit a maximum of firepower, armor and speed into a 35,000 long ton ship. Both ships of the class, North Carolina and Washington, served with distinction in the Second World War, with Washington sinking the Japanese battleship Kirishima in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Both ships were decommissioned soon after the war's end; North Carolina was preserved as a memorial and still exists today, while Washington was broken up for scrap. The article passed a Military history WikiProject A-class review in September. Any and all comments are welcome! Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Dates are consistent. Apart from noted below, citations are consistent. Resolved 2c at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks), but there are a couple of problems:

• Alt text is missing for File:USS North Carolina Fit out NARA 1941-04-17.jpg.
• A few of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert just from the image, and need to be reworded or merged into the caption; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "Proposed" (in "Proposed schematics"), "Design schematic, more similar to the eventual design", "16 inch" (in "two levels of magazines for the 16 inch shells"), "instructions" (in "another yells instructions"), "The explosive force", and "The King".

Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that alt text viewers were supposed to use the caption and alt text together? I.e. so information in the caption should not be repeated in the alt text? For example, in the king image, the caption starts with "King George VI of the United Kingdom ...", while the alt text has "the King". —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, @"instructions", would you rather that it say a guy is 'yelling something unknown'? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd replace "the King" with something about a man in a naval uniform of very high rank. And for the other image I'd just say that the man is yelling at the other men. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, wrong edit summary, but does this satisfy your concerns? Sorry Fifel, I assumed it was Eubulides. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above problems have been fixed (thanks) and I struck them, but there are still some phrases that can't be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability): 'Proposed design "A"' (nothing in that image says it's proposed, or is "A"), 'Proposed design "XVI"' (likewise), 'The explosive force from the torpedo' (the image doesn't establish to a non-expert that it was a torpedo, or even that it was an explosion), '—the King—' (can't tell it's a king from the image; besides, the caption already says it's the King, and alt text shouldn't repeat the caption; just remove '—the King—' to fix the problem). Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Schemes and torpedo are fixed, but I disagree on the last point... It seems like a good time to IAR. I fully understand what WP:ALT#Verifiability says, and what you are stating is within the letter of the policy, but I don't think it is in its spirit to willfully mislead a reader. Even the blind should know that he is the king, not a "high ranking naval officer" or "person decorated with ribbons" etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Even the blind should know that he is the king" But the blind will know that he is the king, because the caption will be read aloud to the blind, and the caption says he's the king. With the proposed change, the blind will find out that he's the king at the same time the sighted reader finds out. Both sets of readers will look at the picture (or listen to the alt text) and will see (or hear about) a man of high rank; and will then later read (or hear) the caption, and find out that he's the king. That's a good thing: the visually impaired will get an experience that is similar to that of the sighted. But when the alt text says "the King", the visually impaired gets a different experience than the sighted: one that repeats the caption in an undesirable way. (Thanks for fixing the other problems, by the way; I've struck that part of my comments.) Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is an "undesirable way". I'm not discriminating against the blind by ensuring they know which guy (ie the one with ribbons) is the king, am I? The caption does not—and should not IMO, because it ought to be obvious to people seeing the image—signify which one is the king. The blind do not have this advantage of seeing who is in front, hence the mention in the alt text.

Also, keep this in mind: "high rank" can equate to many different people who could be or were accompanying the King, like generals and admirals (and all of the accompanying ranks, like vice admiral or lieutenant general, etc.) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've spent way too much time on this already, but removing the identification of the king from the caption would be a clear mistake. Most readers won't know the king from a hole in the wall. (These days, most readers won't recognize any British figure from World War II, other than Churchill.) All that's clear from the image itself is that it's some high-ranking guy. It's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the guy happens to be His Majesty. And "high rank" accurately reflects his title, regardless of whether the phrase is interpreted as rank of nobility or military rank: the king was Commander-in-chief of the British armed forces. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. (a) there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is, but (b) if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king and not just say "a guy of high rank with many ribbons". "High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense because it can be interpreted in so many ways. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is" Yes, that is a problem, and as a sighted reader I at first thought that someone else was the King. But that is a problem that should be fixed in the caption (so that everybody can benefit from the fix) rather than in the alt text (where only visually impaired readers would benefit).
• "if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king" You need to inform everybody of that, not just the visually impaired. That is why that information should be in the caption. And once it's in the caption, then it should not be in the alt text, because alt text is supposed to not repeat what's in the caption. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Repetition.
• '"High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense' For alt text that's exactly what is wanted here. All that a non-expert reader can tell from the image is that the person in question is high-ranking. Alt text should describe only the visual appearance of an image: it's not supposed to explain the image (that is the job of the caption, or of other adjacent text). In this caes the alt text should accurately describe the (limited) information that can be verified by a non-expert reader who is looking only at the image. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Verifiability.

Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
- you have a point; hope I have clarified this.[4]

• I regret that I still cannot budge. Describing the king as a "man of high rank with military ribbons" willfully and deliberately misleads a visually impaired reader, regardless of what is in the caption. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done; thanks for checking. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• Some of the links in the source section and those in the external links section need to use the cite web template.

  External links done, not sure which ones you mean for the sources? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  In the "web" section, the 6th link and the last link are not within a citeweb etc template.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can you add the WW2 portal to the article

  The Military of the United States portal is probably relevant too.

  They don't really have a lot of relevance to this article... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Fair enough.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Use of abbreviations does appear not to be consistent in regards to knots; personally I think in regards to this one we should consistently use “knots” over “kn”

  Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest the below has confused me somewhat considering it has already been stated that the first few designs included 16 in guns.

  "Standley's only addition to the characteristics was that a switch from quadruple 14 in to triple 16 in turrets be possible if the 'escalator clause' in the Second London Naval Treaty was invoked. This provision allowed … to raise the 14 in limit to 16 in if Japan or Italy still refused to sign after 1 January 1937….[19][20][21]"

  You are correct. I have copyedited this.[5] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the main battery section we have started using the abbreviation “cal” but have not started further up the article that this means “calibre”. Can the abbreviation be added after the first use of the full word or be replaced.

  Done, I think.[6] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Barrel Life: AP and training rounds have been talked about; did these ships fire HE for shore bombardments? If so is there any information of there effect?

  The source, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm , doesn't say anything about HE. I'm guessing that HC replaced/superseded it? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ok thanks, nothing to worry about then.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Secondary battery, do we have a photograph or diagram to illustrate the weapons talked about?
  • Properly licensed Flickr image added. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Extremely detailed article thus far.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the review! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I currently don’t have the time to go over the rest of the article in such a nitpicky fashion (fortunately for you I guess!) however scanning over the rest of the article it all appears to be of the same high quality. So I have no problems supporting the article as I am sure you will address the one outstanding issue in regards to those two internet sources.
• Support--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ealdgyth. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my first FAC, so gentle please. :) I've put together what I think is a very thorough and complete biography of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, a jeweler and director of the Dutch West India Company who founded the only successful patroonship in New Netherland. Going a lot by the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (a translated collection of primary documents and subsequent early-20th century discussion), along with info from the New York State Museum and other various sources, I've brought this article to GA status and expanded WP's knowledge of this important colonizer. I also think it's well illustrated; considering the guy died in the 1640s, I was able to secure some great photos and have svg copies of his merchant's mark and signature made. This person is important to the history of my local area. upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: The picture that illustrates the article is claimed (in the article) to be the Kiliaen van Rensselaer of the article, painted 100years after his death. This seems unlikely to me, since there were two later Kiliaen van Rensselaers that it could be, most probably the one who was born in the 1660s.

The picture is not "100 years after his death". The costume is consistent with the last decade of the 17th century, ie about 50-60 years after his death.

If the painting remained in a particular family for a length of time, it is quite possible that they knew the name of the person, but later generations presumed it to be the first and most famous man of that name, rather than a later one.

So the question is, who said that the painting represented this particular Kiliaen van Rensselaer? and did they really know? I would think that the fact that it was so obviously painted many years after his death negates the fact that it represents him.

If, on the other hand, the family commissioned an artist to paint an imaginary picture of a deceased ancestor, it is most unlikely that they would depict him in current costume, or show him as quite so youthful. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes me think of the painting of Shakespeare that was done years after his death. The quote from the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (p. 32) states, "It would have been appropriate to add a portrait to this voluminous collection of writings of the first patroon, but unfortunately none is known to exist, that which is occasionally represented as his likeness being clearly of about a century later than the time of the patroon." The image itself, which if you go to the image page, shows the source of the image as well as the source for the preceding quote, is from the Schenectady Digital History Archive. The way I interpret the quote from the book is that the author didn't include this because it 'wasn't worth anything due to the date of its creation' or something, while I think it's still important as being an image commissioned to represent him by the family. As for his outfit, I could see the contemporary artist putting him in the elegant outfit of the artist's time or what he thought was appropriate for Kiliaen's time, no? upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply I disagree with your interpretation. The writer here is telling you quite clearly "none is known to exist" and "the one ...occassionally represented as his likeness is clearly about a century later", in other words, too late to be him. It is most unlikely to be a picture commissioned later to represent a deceased family member. It is much more likely to be the man who was alive at that time and who had the same name. This is fairly obvious. The term "represented as" means that someone has said it is him, but they are not necessarily correct.

As for the painting of Shakespeare, the Chandos portrait, probably painted about six years before his death, has been the source for later images. Because Shakespeare is 'enormously famous there are statues of him all over the world, but all based on this portrait.Amandajm (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, that's a fair interpretation. Is it kosher if I used a version of File:Replace this image male.svg, but with just the outline, then have a caption that states "no image of this person is known to exist"? Bummer. upstateNYer 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that there is any point in doing that. You have the statement that "none is known to exist". It needs to be made clear on the uploaded image that this is cannot be a portrait of the man, because of its date. Otherwise, you will invite someone who knows nothing about the history of costume and this discussion to insert it at a later date. Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have fixed the caption on the uploaded image. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• But you think the image should be removed from the article, right? upstateNYer 11:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it should be removed! It is most unlikely to be the person the article is about. It is 60 years too late, and there was another man of the same name as patroon at the time the picture was painted. Amandajm (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is hard to imagine that even a portrait intended to represent a dead ancestor would not have given him a ruff etc. If it had that it might also be a copy of a lost original - there would be nothing unusual in that. By the way, KvR is exactly the sort of person one expect to have had one or more rather good portraits painted, but it/they or its identification has evidently been lost. Having this image can only mislead. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I'm not sure how I missed this, but the source that I have on the image page (under source, not description) does claim it's this Kiliaen and even points out who owned the painting in 1903 (Howard Van Rensselaer). Is there anything about this painting (maybe the style, or the clothes or something) that leads you to think that it is European (and not early European American), because this was the only patroon named Kiliaen that lived in Holland; the rest lived in New York. upstateNYer 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; confirmed by a curator at the Albany Institute of History and Art that the portrait is in their collection and is not the Dutch KVR. Bummer again. upstateNYer 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Welcome to FAC! I'll try to be gentle!
• Okay, first thing... a large number of your references (including the first 8) lack a publisher and last access date. Everything needs publisher and last access dates. I'll come back and review after all the websites have that. Right now, you've got a large number of your citations that have outside links, so I assume they are to websites. SOme, though, appear to be to online scans of printed works, which would mean that you treat them as printed works and would italicise them and given the conventions you're using, use the last name of the author to refer to them, not the title unitalicised.
  • I find the best way to cite (since WP doesn't offer an option for ibid. or anything like that) is to use the References sections for footnotes, usually using the author's last name as the source, along with a link to the document, which usually comes from Google Books, as this one does. That means the link goes straight to the page you want. Then the bibliography section gives all the additional information, such as publisher, year, etc. So all my references should have the information stored globally in the Bib section, not the Ref section. And does a citation to a book at Google Books really require an accessdate? Technically, I could be looking at a hard copy on my end and offer a link out of convenience, that which I never actually access. Seems excessive. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • We ask at FAC that the citation system be consistent. Either use the last name for the author ALL the time or the title of the work ALL the time. Right now, you've got some with last name and some with title, and that's not consistent.
• I took the liberty of running the dash script over the article for you.
  • Sounds good. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Also, what makes the 1888 Family genealogy book reliable? Most late Victorian family histories are ... iffy sources at best. Even if it's not fabricated (and a LARGE number were) it's quite likely to have been superceded by more recent works.
• The same concerns on outdated sources for the Van Laer work from 1908.
• And the same for the Spooner ref from 1907.
  • Hmm, well to be honest, I feel that the closer you are to the source, the more likely you are to have the primary sources to make verifiable claims. Many of the documents used in the general research of these works could very well have been destroyed in the 100 years since. The Van Laer work, which is known universally as the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts is the single best source for information on this person, being cited by almost any following work on the Van Rensselaer family. This is because it is a compilation of primary sources translated from old Dutch to English by an employee of the New York State Museum as a celebration of 300 years since Hudson discovered New York (1609). This is the closest anybody can (and most likely will) come to really knowing this man, since much of the document is made up of his correspondences, bills, receipts, etc. It also contains commentary which I think is probably coming from the historian that knew Kiliaen the best. I would claim that these sources are far from outdated since most of them are cited in future documents. Pretty much everything that is known about Kiliaen comes from two of the three sources you list, including the book The Van Rensselaers in Holland and in America (1956) which is currently out of print (and not worth $210). upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• In fact, the only thing in your references that is recent is the History of New York State. Historiography has advanced quite a bit in the last 100 years, so I'd expect to see more recent works consulted. Here is a google scholar search that should help you get started.
  • Will take a look; in all honesty, I trust the older works more than those from current historians. Unless they're basing their work on primary sources, I don't see them as "more reliable" just because they're more recent. The NYSM has vast amounts of info on the history of Rensselaerswyck, but nobody to go through it; apparently they're busy elsewhere, which is reasonable. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, also, since there have been no fewer that 6 other Kiliaen van Rensselaers in the family, simple name searches don't produce much, especially since one of the Kiliaens (which evolved into Killian) was a Congressman. I'll definitely have a look at the google scholar results, but I don't expect to find much on the correct man. It's sometimes very difficult to keep a pair of Kiliaens that were cousins (grandsons or great-grandsons of the first Kiliaen, I believe) straight, which is why this article in particular has been difficult to research. upstateNYer 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I noted that at least two of the articles were covering events in the correct lifespan for the subject of this article. I did not check much further than the first page. The second page has a couple of things that might be interesting and that are in the correct time frame also. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
•  : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems:

Alt text discussion moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - The copyright of all of the images is fine. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Nl-Kiliaen van Rensselaer.ogg - You might want to add this sound file to the article. It is of a native Dutch speaker pronouncing the subject's name. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Awesome! I made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics for an IPA version of the name to be put in, because I'm not good with the IPA system. Though if anyone here is good with it, I'd appreciate the addition. upstateNYer 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • DONE upstateNYer 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I changed your done templates to little bolded dones, see the FAC instructions, templates are discouraged at FAC because too many templates on the page can cause the page to break. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. upstateNYer 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than the lead image, which is being discussed above, I believe I've fixed all the issue brought up. What's next? upstateNYer 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline 1c (Original Research), 2c (Misrepresentation of items actually cited as another work: the work contained in). Nominator refuses to action actionable points. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I wish I could be more tender with you on this point, but archival research and production of material from primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to length material has been moved to talk. 2c issues are primarily resolved, though Fifelfoo would prefer that VRBM chapters be indicated due to the mixed primary / secondary nature of the text. 1c issues with what Fifelfoo describes as primaries are unresolved, with Fifelfoo and the nominator presenting arguments on both sides which are fully explained at talk. (the nominator is free to amend this characterisation of the talk contents). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tender Mercies

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping the third time is a charm. During my first FAC nomination for this entry, there were frankly a lot of issues that needed addressing, including the removal of unnecessary detail and problems with images. During my second nomination, I got a lot of very positive feedback, but the article was said to be lacking a comprehensive "Themes" section and analysis from scholarship journals. I believe the article now has that missing element. (Actually, I would have renominated it months ago, but it took me a surprisingly long amount of time to get my hands on one particular journal article.) I think it's finally ready, but I am more than willing to make any further necessary changes. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article is well researched, well structured, well focused, and comprehensive. It is in need of a rigorous copyedit, which I'm beginning to undertake. Here are two problems in the "Writing" section I'm unable to resolve.

• "Foote was initially in writing a film based on the nephew and his young colleagues trying to form a band of their own, an experience from which Foote drew a parallel to his own attempts to find work as an actor in his youth." Clearly a word or two is missing from this ungrammatical sentence, but it's not self-evident how to correct it.
  • Should have been "initially interested in", not "initially in". Also broke it into two sentences to be clearer. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application.'" Is that an inadvertent quote at the end of the sentence, or is there a missing open quote that needs to be included somewhere along?
  • The quotation mark is just an error. I erased it. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there's also a problem I raised some months ago on the article's Talk page that remains unresolved. Here's the issue I raised (this is in the "Distribution" section):

• The following is problematic: "Universal had released Scarface, a far more expensive and anticipated film, that same year and the studio was spending most of its advertising revenue on that film, which left little remaining to publicize Tender Mercies". First, the past tense is simply incorrect--Scarface wasn't released until December 1983, nine months after Tender Mercies. Second, that's a long time in industry terms--and, I believe, a brand-new fiscal year. It's rather difficult to believe that Scarface had much to do with the scrimping on the Tender Mercies publicity budget. Then we check the source: it's Tess Harper. I can't say that an actor who was making their film debut at the time is a great source for accurate reportage of studio financial machinations. If corroboration for this claim can't be found, I'd cut it, or relegate it entirely to a footnote, clearly identifying its source.

I'll state more firmly now that an actor's comments in a "making of" documentary simply do not qualify as a reliable source for flatly reporting a studio's publicity budget decisions. (I note also that the documentary was made 19 years after Tender Mercies came out. That makes it all the more likely and understandable that Harper would misremember and misreport things with which she wasn't directly involved.) Hunter, you said in Talk that you found "it hard to believe that they would have included it in the film if it flat-out weren't true", but it's clear they didn't fact-check her statement--they included her assertion that Scarface "had" been released, when in fact it was not released for another nine months. In addition, in the very lead of the article, you provide much more plausible explanations for Universal's weak promotional effort: "poor test screening results" and "the studio's lack of understanding of country music."

Scarface is a well documented film. If its release had a negative affect on Universal's publicity campaigns for its other films as far as nine months ahead of time, it should be possible to verify that. If Harper's claim can not be corroborated by a published source it should, again, be cut, or at least relegated to a footnote and explicitly attributed. DocKino (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• You are probably right about the Scarface reference. Let me ask, would it address the problem to add Tess Harper to the prose text? Like "Tess Harper felt the studio spent most of its advertising revenue on Scarface and little to publicize Tender Mercies." Or something like that? Then the reader could judge the source and the statement for themselves? Let me know what you think. If you feel this isn't sufficient, I'll cut it out altogether. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the claim was uncorroborated but plausible, I think that would be exactly the way to handle it. But it's not like Tender Mercies came out within a few months of Scarface. It came out nine months before, rendering her claim implausible. In the absence of any corroboration for it--and faced with completely plausible explanations for the weak publicity effort--I believe it shouldn't appear in the primary text. DocKino (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. It's chopped. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 08:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First sentence, second paragraph, state that Texas is in the United States and link it. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • No. Texas is named and linked in the first paragraph. As the first sentence of the article states that Tender Mercies is an American film, there is no need to clarify--even for those few English speakers who have never heard of Texas--that it is set in America. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are writing an encyclopedia here, not a magazine article, and not exclusively for Americans from the US. Regardless of whether you think it is too obvious, or quite redundant, or that the whole world knows that Texas is in America and that America means the United States (unless otherwidse stated), there is simply no escape from the fact that locating subject matter accurately in time and place is a basic necessity. Can't you think of a tidy way of doing it?

Mmm. How about mentioning, in the first paragraph, that it's an American film set in Texas and linking Texas for the benefit of those few English-speaking encyclopedia readers who have both (a) never heard of Texas and (b) are incapable of deducing that it's in America? You know, I think that might work. DocKino (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Steve ^T • C This is a strong article, an improvement over the version from the last nomination, which I felt was a little light on content in some areas; I'm glad to see that Hunter even waited a few months just so he had one last journal article from which to draw. A few prose bumps aside, there's little I can find fault with:
  • After recent expansions, especially to the "Themes and interpretations" section, the lead no longer summarises the body. Given the length of the article, I think an extra 100 words—give or take—wouldn't be uncalled for, but any length is OK as long as it covers the major sections and points.
    • I've expanded the lead a bit, particularly with info on the "Themes and interpretations" section, but also a bit about the challenges in securing the financing and finding a director. Let me know if there's anything missing or if the wording needs some tweaks. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It is better; it still feels a little slim, though there isn't anything major unsummarised from what I can see. I'll take another look, and if I've got a suggestion I'll let you know. Otherwise, consider this concern resolved. Steve ^T • C 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Duvall ... provided his own vocals"—ha, I rather hope he didn't expect to be dubbed in post-production by Glenn Close. Obviously you're referring to the singing, but the way it reads makes one think of general dialogue too.
    • lool, Whoops. I changed it to "who sang his own songs". — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's usual to include the full release date in the lead text, but your mileage may vary.
    • Added. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that the actors are already linked in the lead section immediately above, and in the infobox, I'm not sure it's necessary to link them all again in the plot section, or use anything other than their surnames.
    • I agree, and in fact, they hadn't been linked before in the plot summary, but [an anonymous reader readded the wikilinks a few days ago]. I've removed them again... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any harm in reinserting Harper's claim about the marketing as long as it's not in the primary text (i.e. it's in a footnote), and is unambiguously attributed to her.
    • Well, given that this has been an issue not only in this FAC but beforehand as well, and after having come so far in trying to bring this up to FA standards, I'm sort of hesitant to bring it back in if it's going to lead to objections here. That being said, I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by having it as a footnote rather than the primary text. Could you explain it a bit or, if it's not too much trouble, maybe make your suggested change in the article and then we could discuss it from there? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure, this is the sort of thing I meant. I've reverted for now. Whether it's included or not, I can't see anyone using it as an oppose concern, so it's entirely up to you. Steve ^T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I've always felt that putting it in a footnote was a fine way to handle it. Steve's proposed solution works great. DocKino (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok then, I've restored Steve's addition just as it originally was! Thanks for your help with that one! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't the time to look at every one, but a random check of half a dozen of the sources reveals no issues with too-close paraphrasing or original research.
    • Thanks! lol — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you had a look to see if there any free pictures of Waxahachie or Palmer available that might get across to the reader the "barren" look of the unnamed town in the film? Alternatively (or in addition to), free, time period-appropriate images of Duvall, Harper or Hubbard could be useful too. As it stands, the article is composed of several large chunks of text, unbroken by visual decoration. If there are definitely no images available, is there anything you discarded that could fit into a quote box?
    • Unfortunately, I've not found any of those pictures; a few months ago I even asked over at Wikiproject Texas whether anyone could snap shots for me, but to no avail. I added this geographic photo just to illustrate exactly where Waxahachie is in Texas; let me know what you think. (And for Harper, Duvall and Hubbard, doesn't the photo in casting serve that purpose?) As far as quote boxes, I'll take a look through my sources to see if I can find some... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Gah. I read that section a couple of times and didn't even notice the pic. Weird blind spot. Anyway, it's a pity about the lack of free location photos, but there's definite merit in DocKino's suggestion below. Steve ^T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've now added two new quote boxes, in addition to the location image at DocKino's suggestion. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Much better; the use of the map is one I'll have to remember for other film articles where images are at a premium. Steve ^T • C 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• As I say, other than a few prose bumps (which I'll tackle separately) I can't see anything else to pick at. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure how to correct this: "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application." First off, "tenets" are principles or doctrines--that is, rather explicit things, certainly more explicit than "undertones". Which term better describes this aspect of the film? Second, do you mean that he felt it was important that the religious beliefs expressed in the film be seen to be practically applied, for better or worse? Or that he felt it was important to balance the religious message of the film with a focus on the purely practical challenges of everyday life? DocKino (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The latter. I've changed the wording to reflect that a bit better (and borrowed some of your own wording in doing so, if that's OK. ;) ). I also replaced tenets with the more simple "elements", but let me know if that's insufficient... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Good work but it has some minor errors. I think this article still needs a "Cast" (not "Casting") section with short introductions for each of main characters. The "references" section should be divided in "Notes" for citation and "Bibliography" for books that you used in this article. Could you find more illustrations for article like images of actors or location which appeared in film? Because with only one (fair-use) image, this article looks somewhat monotonous for reading. And in my opinion, the intro section of this article is a little bit short (and a little bit fragmentary too) in comparison with the rest. Hope you don't find me too "prissy" :). Grenouille vert (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not at all! :) The lead has been expanded as per some of the above comments, so let me know if that works for you. As for images, I added this one and would love your thoughts on it. As indicated above, the selection of photos for this article are pretty limited, but I am in the process of looking through my sources for quote boxes to help illustrate the entry a bit. As far as the lack of a "Cast" section, this was done in response to feedback during the first FAC review; the feedback was that when there was a "Cast" section, the cast was mentioned in the infobox, in the lead, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section, and that it was "overkill". The solution was to drop the "Cast" section, and identify the actors in parentheses after their characters are named in the "Plot" section; this approach is identified in WP:MOSFILM, which itself specifically cites the use of the approach in the FA Tenebrae (film). I truly feel this compromise was best approach, and that readding a "Cast" section would only be redundant because it would rehash character and cast info that is already included elsewhere in the article. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The lead looks fine now. The fact that I'm too familiar with featured/GA articles about films with a distinct cast section so Tender Mercies makes me feel a little bit confused. I've read your argument for removing it but Tenebrae (film) is not a good example, it was promoted a long time ago, you can consult Tropic Thunder, which has been just reviewed this month. And how about my idea of dividing "references" in "notes" and "bibliography"? It will make the article look clearer and easier to consult (because you used many books as reference). About the "reviews" section (will "reception" be a better name?), it is well-written now but I think you could still add Rotten Tomatoes's score or even IMDb's score (not recommended by Wiki but I still think it's a good channel for audience's opinion), and Roger Ebert has just added this film to his list of Great movies which is a very high appreciation from the respected critic, that information may be useful for this article. That's all I can comment now. Grenouille vert (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't see notice your suggestion about Notes/Bibliography. I've tried adding it, but I also still need citation tags for all my book references, so please let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks also for the Ebert citation, I had no idea about that! I've run out of time now, so I will add that one tonight, and take a look at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. (I also changed "Reviews" to "Reception" as per your suggestion.) As far as the cast thing, I'm still reluctant to add something that was specifically objected to in a previous FAC review. (For the record, I only used Tenebrae (film) as an example because WP:MOSFILM uses it when addressing this type of cast approach.) Is this such a major point that it would hold up your support of the entry? Also, I'd encourage you to look back on various points (here and here) and I'd suggest they don't add anything that aren't already in the current entry at some point... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • There's only one weak oppose (mine) about the "cast" section so you can take it easy, if you don't want to change structure of the article now, then so be it :). I helped you a little bit with the reference by using {{Harvnb}}, overall I think the article's good, hope it will be promoted soon. Grenouille vert (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
          • On the use of IMDb—by long-standing consensus user ratings from the IMDb are considered unreliable, as they are subject to vote-stacking and demographic skew (I can dig out the multiple discussions we've had on this over the years if you want me to, but it would have to wait until tomorrow). Polls of the public should only be included if they're carried out in accredited manner, as those from CinemaScore are (unfortunately not around when Tender Mercies was released). On Rotten Tomatoes—it's usually fine to include the score; however, for films released before the site became active it's not a good idea as the site is often wrong about film's reception at the time it was released (due to a bunch of factors too boring to go into here—again, this is something that has been thrashed out in the past). For example, reading the site, one might think that Fight Club achieved immediate critical acclaim, when in fact it pretty much polarised critics. (Oh, and as a side note: examples of recent film articles that have passed FA without a cast list include: Changeling and Fight Club.) Steve ^T • C 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Thank you, great answer! No need to cite me the discussion about IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes because I knew their disadvantages too, I just want to add IMDb rating because it still has value about viewer's opinion, but per consensus first, of course. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I've added the Roger Ebert quote (thanks again for that!), and I see the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes questions have been addressed. Considering the Changeling and Fight Club examples above, do you think you'd be willing to support this entry now with the cast section as is? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure how to correct this: Beresford "contacted EMI Films and asked for permission to visit Texas for one month to familiarize himself with the state before committing to direct the film, to which the company agreed." Obviously, Beresford didn't need "permission" to travel to Texas. I assume you mean that he asked EMI for time--to not pick another director for a month. Did he also ask them for money--to pay for the research trip? DocKino (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You are correct, that's what I meant, and I changed the sentence a bit. But as far as whether he asked for hi