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] Hurricane Fifi

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk, User:Cyclonebiskit

I am nominating this for featured article because after collaborating with User:Cyclonebiskit on what's likely among the top-5 most important Atlantic tropical cyclones, I think it's ready to be put to the test. The credit for most of the research goes to CB, and I did a bunch of copyediting to ensure the prose is good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments No dead externals or alt bugs here, but two dabs. Month Day, Year throughout. --an odd name 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the disambig links Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Bret (1999)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria. With help from Cool3 (talk · contribs), I was able to get many newspaper articles that were published at the time of the storm and fill in gaps that on-line sources left for Mexico. All images already have alt-text and should check out as public domain as they're all from NOAA or the US Navy. All thoughts and comments are welcome, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical stuff

• External link 3 is dead. All others check out.
• There are dab links; both are Mexican place names.

• Properly linked one, de-linked the other. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox has good alt text, but it's not showing up in the Altviewer or in the page's resulting HTML source. Someone should check the box template or its parameters to make it show. Otherwise, the alts look fine.
• Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.

--an odd name 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pied Currawong

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is thoroughly comprehensive and is fully referenced with inlined sources. It has had a lookover by several other editors. Any tweaks that may come up can be readily and quickly fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Mate I reckon she's ready to go. But someone dunno the diffrence between a pine tree and a peppercorn tree! Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a native plant snob..they all be furriners ta me. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment minor thing, "Higgins" doesn't have a first name for the second entry under references. Mm40 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Do the infobox images intentionally lack alt text because (as the subject and the range of the subject) they are explained in the article? (The other images have good alts.)
• No dab links or dead external links—good, good.
• Mmm, picnic time!

--an odd name 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Although mentioned as a relative, the omission of the Grey Currawong from the section on similar species seems nothing short of glaring. The race melanoptera of the Grey is, at least from my guidebook, very difficult to tell from the Pied.
• The female Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) parasitizes Pied Currawong nests, - I don't think you need female.

Will have a more in depth look later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SMS Lützow

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This article passed GA in August and a MILHIST A-class review in September. It's somewhat short, but the ship was sunk after having been in commission for less than a year. I look forward to any and all suggestions from reviewers. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments No dab links, no external links (I made the "training" link an InterWiki), the four images have alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article are consistent Day Month Year. Yay. --an odd name 01:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those. And your enthusiasm is quite refreshing :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo DSi

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because......any legitimate issues brought up in the first nom were fixed in September. This article has been copyedited, researched, and otherwise nitpicked by some editors and its sources and prose have been run through the gauntlet. « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that one instance of Kotaku cannot be replaced for now. When it comes to retail DSi-exclusive games, nobody else seems to care enough about the subject to do their own research, so they just source Kotaku instead. « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the peer review closed? (I noticed it with the assessment gadget.)
• I changed the alt text a bit; see "Verifiability" in the guideline.
• No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
• I think the main author name format in citations is Firstname Surname, but there remain a few Surname, Firstname. Pick one format, or yell for help. :) (added on 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The PR is now closed. Most citations have a Firstname Surname format with the exception of interview citations since I see no author parameter available. :/ « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Used "lastn" for the full names. On a side note I saw Yui Ehara and thought of Yuri Ebihara...LOL. --an odd name 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rebbie Jackson

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to present this article on one of the lesser known members of the Jackson family: Rebbie. Sadly, the life of Rebbie, a talented singer in her own right, is not as well documented as those of her more famous siblings such as La Toya, Janet and Michael. Nevertheless, I feel that this article is comprehensive and meets all of the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments The technical aspects look good: no dab links or dead external links, the one image has alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article and refs are consistent Month Day, Year. --an odd name 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Teardrop

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on a major anti-submarine battle of World War II has been peer reviewed and passed a Military History Wikproject A-class review on 21 October and I now think that it meets the FA criteria. Any comments, suggestions and edits would, of course, be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A quick read-through reveals no major issues. Nicely illustrated, well-written and seems comprehensive; all in all, seems to adhere well to the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support 1c / 2c. Comment Dates are consistent. Morrison is incorrectly cited, its a named volume in a larger work, "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Vol. 10". 1c seems good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've just tweaked that reference. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ta! Just notice Polman, Siegal and Y'Blood don't have the publisher's locations listed, but your other bibliography items do, could you? (Especially where something's a Naval Institute, even though the nationality is obvious, its nice to make clear). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well spotted - I just added those missing locations. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Bågenholm

Nominator(s): Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's interesting and I think it meets the FA criteria. The article has recently gone through a peer review. Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A fascinating and very well written account. It is possibly over-cited (can there be such a thing on Wikipedia?!), the cites are breaking the flow and readability. I believe that they should be placed after punctuation marks. I note that your first language is not English, well done again, there are some phrases that need simple editing to straighten out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I understand what you mean about the over-citing. I'll try to fix that where its possible. Theleftorium 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've have removed some unnecessary footnotes now. The ones that are left need to be kept to avoid OR. Theleftorium 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent account of a remarkable experience. I raised numerous points at peer review, all of which were properly addressed, and have done some copyediting here and there. Maybe a few more tweaks advisable, but nothing obvious. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Convention of 1832

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest in my series of articles on how Texans gained independence in spite of themselves. Occasionally, just occasionally mind you, early Texans actually tried to resolve problems with words and not bullets. They weren't very good at the political posturing, and never quite managed to figure out that the law didn't even allow them to have a political gathering like this. This is a fairly short, but very comprehensive article. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yay for short articles... Image comments:
  • File:Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna 1852.jpg lists two different sources for the image, including a 1994 book, but the source field just lists "Historia de Mejico". Can we get some elaboration?
  • The other image checks out.
  • On a side note, paragraphs by technical definition need at least three sentences. And lookin' at that there first part of the lead, I don't think it's a paragraph :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the image review! I have rewritten the description to try to be more clear. It now reads This image was reprinted in Craig H. Roell's 1994 book Remember Goliad!, published by the Texas State Historical Association. According to Roell, the image came from the 1852 book Historia de Mejico by Don Lucas Alaman. and the source is listed as Roell's book, printed in 1994. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok then, images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentsSupport: Very good, and should be easy to win my support. A few things:

• I've tightened the prose slightly; please take specific note of my edit summary.
• "...seek reforms from Mexico." Would it be appropriate to change "Mexico" to something like "the Mexican government"?
• The article's currently inconsistent in its use of the Oxford comma.
• "...emboldened other Texas settlers to ostensibly fight for federalism." I'm not clear on what was "ostensible" about this fight.
• "Many known agitators, such as James Bowie and William B. Travis, were not elected." From this I infer that they were defeated. If that's the case, why not replace "not elected" with "defeated"?
• "The gathering marked the first time residents from each of the colonies had gathered to discuss common goals." I'd rather not see "gather" appear twice in the same sentence. The verb could be changed to "convened" or the noun changed to "convention", or the noun could be changed to "meeting" ("met" appears in the previous sentence, so I don't think that's a good solution).
• "...that public domain lands be sold to raise money for bilingual schools." Property law wasn't my best course; does this mean something distinct from "public lands"?
• "The committees were asked to keep in close contact because "united our strength and resources are more than adequate to our defense in any possible event. Disunited, we may become an easy prey, even to a handful of cowardly invaders."" Changing this to the active voice would have the added advantage of clarifying who was speaking.
• "the political chief, or head, of the Department of Béxar" Is there some technical reason that one of "political chief" or "head" would not suffice? They seem essentially synonymous to me.
• "Because the colonists had not followed this process, Músquiz annulled their resolutions." Is "annulled" the right verb here? It seems to me that since the colonists didn't have any formal authority, there wouldn't be much to annul. "Rejected"?
• "Laws of April 6, 1830" is sometimes treated as a proper noun and sometimes not.
• "...some Texas residents continued to campaign for independent states." Plural? Steve Smith (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, I like the changes you made. I've addressed all of the issues you've raised except for the following:

• emboldened ... to ostensibly fight.... The settlers used the Mexican civil war as an excuse to kick out soldiers who were enforcing policies the settlers didn't like (customs, etc). I don't want to go into too much detail about that in this article, so I've reworded the sentence to emboldened other Texas settlers to take arms against garrisons throughout eastern Texas
• My source doesn't make it clear exactly where the "united...." quote comes from. I assume it is either from the official order or from one of the men on the committee (likely Stephen F. Austin), but without further detail I can't say one way or the other.
• political chief and head are synonymous in this context, but I wasn't sure if everyone would understand what a political chief was. I don't have a strong feeling about this one way or the other.
• "Anulled" is the word used by the sources - they are saying that the convention was illegal so the document essentially couldn't exist. "Rejected" implies that the document was valid and just needed approval.
• "independent states" is technically accurate (because both Coahuila and Texas would become independent states rather than a merged one), but I changed to "statehood" so as not to confuse. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good, and I've switched to support. My continued preference would be to use only "political chief", but it's no big deal either way. Steve Smith (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Isn't it anachronistic to speak of economic stimulus (as you do when you write "Several of the resolutions were designed to stimulate the local economy.") in the context of 1832? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• The term was used long before the recent US push for "economic stimulus checks". For example, here is a 1933 article that uses the phrase "stimulate the economy" [1]. I am, however, open to other suggestions for phrasing. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am well aware that the term was used before the 2000s; what I find difficult to believe is that it was used pre-Keynes, or pre-Great Depression. I would prefer "economic improvement" or "economic reform", as I believe the former is the phrase used in the early 19C for what we would call "economic stimulus", and the latter for sundry economizing reforms which do not attempt to change AD. They speak to the intellectual worldview of the period better than do the Keynesian undertones of "stimulate the local economy". If you can give me contemporary use of "economic stimulus", though, I would be very happy. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The OED quotes Harriet Martineau from 1833: The turn of exchange had given such a stimulus to importation. As here, the Texans may not have thought of their economy as a whole, but of stimuli to commerce, to manufactures, and so forth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you, PMA. Objection revoked, or whatever. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• The exact list of reforms would probably be more helpful; are there minutes of the Convention, which should contain the arguments actually made? (It would be interesting, in the year of the Nullification Crisis, to see which arguments were made.)
• It may be worth pointing out that, by the traditional laws of Spain, the existence of a Mexican Republic was itself illegal (I believe Spain still denied its legitimacy); it was the product of at least two revolutions, including the revolution of 1824. Did the convention appeal to a natural right of freedom of assembly? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions. I found digital images of an 1898 book that contains the minutes of the convention and the full text of the petitions. This is now linked in an External links section. All of the resolutions/petitions are mentioned in the article. I can't include the text of the resolutions because they were not short by any means - the independent statehood proposal was 5 or 6 pages long. Is there a better way that I can structure this to make it easier to figure out what they were asking for?
  • It appears that most of the debate took place in subcommittees, and there don't appear to be records of those proceedings. I've also included a bit more detail in the article from this book (it's quoted by lots of scholars, so can be considered reliable despite its age).
  • I've made it a bit more clear in the article that the delegates were operating under their interpretation of the Mexican constitution. Once they were told this interpretation was wrong (must go through appropriate channels instead), there was little public argument that I can find.
  • I don't think we really need to point out that Spain didn't recognize Mexico at the time (it's already in the article that the convention was against Spanish tradition as well). Mexico was recognized by many other countries, including the US. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry. To phrase the point more precisely: Spanish tradition was not necessarily binding on Mexico, because the existence of Mexico as a sovereign state was contrary to Spanish tradition; it may be that somebody pointed this out at the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean now, thanks for the clarification. I can't find any documentation of a strong pushback to the annulment of the resolutions (although I'm sure there was plenty of grumbling, and the call for a new convention was a pretty big sign that people were ticked. unfortunately, the minutes of the 1833 convention don't appear to have survived.). The point I was trying to make was that Texas residents had never had the authority to host these types of political conventions, regardless of ruler. Any ideas on how I might better present that? Karanacs (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

        I think the sentence you just wrote is a good start; had never had evades arguments of natural right and the question of what parts of Spanish law were still binding on a non-Spanish republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Smile (Lily Allen song)

Nominator(s): 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after working on it for three months (give or take), it is ready for this recognition, I hope. 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox at the top right of the FAC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The site says it will return in a few days, hopefully before the end of this nomination. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a replacement which is also a reliable source.

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please audit throughout for sentence and paragraph length. For example, the sentences "While John Murphy of musicOHM...", "Rob Sheffield from Rolling Stone Magazine..." (and why mention him in the lead?) are huge. The first paragraph of 'Music video' too. —indopug (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned him in the lead because he is a reliable and famous reviewer; if you want, I can remove him. I reworded some sentences that seemed too long. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural (season 1)

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA standards. There was no apparent opposition to the previous nomination, but it was not promoted because nobody gave a final decision. Ophois (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Have all of the sourcing and image questions raised in the last FAC been addressed and have you gotten clearance from those editors? If not, this nomination should be withdrawn until they have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything was addressed during the previous nomination. I'm not sure what you mean by "clearance", but I already notified the editors that reviewed the previous nomination. Ophois (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Issues taken care of in previous FAC. The Flash ^{talk} 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

• The quote boxes use a dark red background that doesn't contrast well enough with the black text, so they are hard to read. I would just remove the custom color (to use the default). If you must use it, try a lighter red back or white text. --an odd name 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not dark red. It's a very light shade of red. You find it hard to read? Ophois (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice Bignole lightened them. Very slightly less than the "500" difference suggested by http://www.accesskeys.org/tools/color-contrast.html, but good enough for me. :) --an odd name 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, those non-free rationales. Would've taken too long to explain so I fixed them, but see the edit summaries. Let the new ones guide you in the future. --an odd name 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Ωphois 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing to note

I would like to add the Region 4 DVD info back in, as I can source it to EzyDVD, which I feel is a reliable source. It is a large retailer in Australia, and even has many retail stores. As well, it has precedence as a RS in other featured articles. Ophois (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this confirms EzyDVD's reliability, that sounds fine with me. The Flash ^{talk} 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Thanks for the link. That will be very useful for future season articles. Ophois (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, why does "Season One" not count as a title? It's the title of the season. Ophois (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the title of the season. It's just the numerical placement of the season within the series. The title of the season would be something like what Heroes does (e.g., "Genesis", "Villains", etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, the companion doesn't say what show. However, Supernatural wiki claims that it was the set of Bordertown. This makes sense, although not RS. Ωphois 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Denton, Texas

Nominator(s): Mahanga^Talk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I started working on this article over a month ago. With the help of other editors, the prose and flow has improved significantly. I think it has reached FA quality. Mahanga^Talk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have been given the go-ahead by SandyGeorgia to renominate this article.[2]

• Query Why do you use the current video, File:Denton, Texas sightseeing low quality.ogv instead of the higher quality File:Denton, Texas sightseeing.ogv? Mm40 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the high quality version is 30 megabytes. The lower quality is a more reasonable 7mb. Per Commons:Video, videos should be kept small to allow low-bandwidth users to be able to stream it smoothly. A link to the higher quality version is provided for high-speed Internet users. Mahanga^Talk 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Lewis (politician)

Nominator(s): Abebenjoe (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after nearly two years as a GA, it has received numerous copy-edits, with minor content changes in that time, that I feel now bring it up to FA status. Abebenjoe (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsOppose (see below): Prose needs a lot of work. It's quite bloated—I think two or three hundred words could probably be shed without losing meaning—and there are stylistic and some grammatical errors. An example of the former is the article's frequent referral to its subject as "David", which should only be done in cases where he's being distinguished from somebody else with the same last name. An example of the latter is the frequent misuse of colons (when being used as part of a sentence, the portion of the sentence preceding the colon must be an independent clause). I'll do what I can to help with this, but I'm not sure I'll be able to manage a full copyedit during the article's time at FAC, and am not sure that my copyediting would be sufficient in any event. Steve Smith (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess if we both have at it we could sort that out. Never say die. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, I didn't say "oppose"... Steve Smith (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • ... and neither did I. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the more closely I look at the article, the clearer it becomes that it's not ready for FAC. Besides the prose issues, which extend well beyond the examples I cited, the tone is frequently POV and there are major gaps in the coverage (for example, until my last edit, the body of the article didn't actually say anything about Lewis being a Rhodes Scholar; the reader was left to infer that from a section heading and a category). I really hate to do this, because I love seeing articles about Canadian political history promoted and it's obvious that a great deal of good work has gone into this, but it's just not close enough to justify reviewers' time. I'd be happy to work with the article's authors outside of FAC to help get it up to snuff, if they'd like me to. Steve Smith (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. And please remove the two little flags; see WP:FLAGBIO. Eubulides (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment 2c. Variety of 2c consistency issues, please see this FAC's talk page for details.

  1c grade citation issue: a number of references to Newspapers lack authors, article titles, and page references, please correct this urgently, see your final citation, "Ward, Bruce (1981-05-24). "David Lewis' principles guided political career". The Toronto Star (Toronto: Torstar): pp. A4." as an example of newspaper reference formatting.

  In relation to 1c, can you explain the reliance on Smith 1989? Why are there no references to histories of the NDP? How have you exhausted the scholarly literature? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are not that many histories of the NDP, and the few that are, are listed in the bibliography. Most are memoirs, like Donald C. MacDonald's book. I could have used more of Gad Horowitz's book, but it was covered in Smith 1989. Smith 1989 is the only book the fully chronicles the Lewis' involvement with the party, with far more detail than other books that are devoted to T.C. Douglas, or M.J. Coldwell (the Stewart books).Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles are from either the Toronto Star, or the Globe and Mail newspapers, both based in Toronto, Canada. In many cases, the author is not determined except that it may be given as the wire-service Canadian Press (CP). Some of the older Isis articles from the 1930s didn't appear to have explicit authorship, as they were from editorials, if my memory serves me well.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: I'll get back to the prose in a bit, but there are some image issues:

• File:Claire Gillis, David Lewis, M.J.Coldwell c007253.jpg (and the cropped version in the infobox) is tagged as being in the public domain because it's a Canadian photograph taken before January 1, 1949, but the description suggests that it's actually a British photograph.
• By what reason is File:David Lewis.jpg in the public domain in the United States? Steve Smith (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In Canada, any photograph taken before 1949 is in the public domain. This photo is in Canada's national archives, and deals with a Canadian subject: leaders from the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation political party, attending a conference in London, England in 1944. By Canadian standards, this is a public domain photograph, as no copyright exists. The David Lewis 1944 jpeg is a cropped version of this photograph.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian photos taken pre-1949 are indeed in the public domain. That the photograph is of Canadian subjects does not make it a Canadian photograph, however. Do you know where/when this photograph was first published? That would be important in determining in what jurisdictions, if any, it's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it was printed in late fall 1944 in the CCF's The New Commonwealth Abebenjoe (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It may have also been published in an October 1944 issue of the CCF-friendly Glace Bay Gazette. In the 1970s, I remember seeing this photo when I was a child in one of these papers, as they were at my Uncle and Aunt's home in Cape Breton. I immediately recognized the photo when I saw it on the LAC website. The newspapers are likely buried somewhere in the Beaton Institute at Cape Breton University. So I'm not exactly sure which paper published it first, but it was definitely in Canada, in the fall of 1944.Abebenjoe (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm comfortable saying that that was first published in Canada and therefore entered the public domain here January 1, 1945, soon enough to slip in under the copyright renewal date of January 1, 1996. So no problem with these images. Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the photo that Steve Smith was mentioning. Yes, that image with M.J. Coldwell and David Lewis is also in the public domain, as stated for the same reasons as the previous photos: pre-1949 photographs have expired copyright, therefore public domain. That wasn't one of the photos I added to the article, but I'll look into the province of Ontario's archives, and see if there are any other notices on it. I do know by looking at the authorship of the photo, Gilbert and Milne, that their photos are generally in the public domain at the archives, but as I said earlier, I'll check if there are any special exemptions.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That image is indeed in the public domain in Canada. However, because the United States does not use the rule of the shorter term, that doesn't make it in the public domain in the U.S. Canadian photographs dating from before 1946 are in the public domain in the U.S. (by reason of being in the public domain in the source country as at 1996), but that's not true of this photograph. Steve Smith (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the Archives Ontario page. Although the copyright has expired, Wikipedia may have to ask permission to use their copy. Here's a link to their copyright and usage page if you want to make a decision, one way or the other http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/archival-records/csg_108_copyright.aspx If you decide that we need permission, then it will take about two weeks, but shouldn't be much of a problem, as there is no further copyright claims on the photo, it would merely be permission to use their copy. What I find confusing on their copyright page is the criteria for photographic material. It seems to be omitted, as it appears that they are only mentioning the copyright for written materials, which states that the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author, which isn't the case with pre-1949 photographs, to my limited legal understanding, as I'm obviously not a lawyer.Abebenjoe (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those terms aren't an issue, as the photograph is in the public domain in Canada. The problem is that to be used as free on Wikipedia, it must be in the public domain in the United States, and I don't see evidence that this image is. Steve Smith (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is in the public domain in Canada, and both Lewis and Coldwell are dead, Coldwell in 1974, and Lewis in 1981, is there a fair-use tag that can be used to satisfy USA copyright?Abebenjoe (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think so. You'd have a fair use claim on a single low resolution image of Lewis if there were no free ones available, but there are (see above). I don't think this image is critical enough to the article to clear criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I think it may be one or the only picture we have of M.J. Coldwell. Haven't checked his article in a while, but I know this image was used in at least one iteration of that article.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for using"David", his first name, it is to avoid confusion with his son Stephen Lewis. The only other time I used his first name was when his father was mentioned in the same section. Can't call them both by their last name.Abebenjoe (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case with the fourth and fifth paragraphs of "Early life in Canada", the first paragraph of "Labour club", or the second paragraph of "Leader of the NDP". Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but usually either Stephen or Moishe was in the same paragraph or section.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed some of the first name issues. Added cite news template to the The Isis articles.Abebenjoe (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Steve, if you are willing to spend some time on the article, outside FAC, then please, by all means, see what you can do with it. I'll see if I can get some photo clearances from the Douglas--Coldwell Institute Foundation in the meantime, as I believe they hold copyright on many of the photos of Lewis from the 1950s to his death.Abebenjoe (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, four contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this.
  • All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion, and everything that could be found is in the article. You may believe that it is not "balanced", but the fact is that the cited opinions of the films do reflect opinions from the release of the films. Jerry Beck wrote the reviews of these films when they were released, and they appeared in various animation journals. The reviews in his book, I would assume, more or less, reflect the same opinions. I believe that the overall presentation is balanced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
    • "All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion": this is patently false. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it is not false. It is 100% true. It is completely lazy to not look at the article and make an opinion based on the fact that I'm saying it. If fifty people tell you that I am correct, are they wrong? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
        • Contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic are quoted from Newsweek, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times. Contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted from Playboy, The New York Times, Variety, and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted from Newsday, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and New York. It is patently false to claim that not even one of these publications, nor any of the hundreds of other newspapers and general-interest magazines around the country reviewed Wizards, or American Pop, or Fire and Ice. Talk about lazy. DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
          • There are no reviews of Fire and Ice on Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews presented for that film are the best I could find. I added a couple of additional reviews for Wizards and American Pop. Fire and Ice had an extremely limited release. The Beck commentary was the best I could find. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
• The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question?
  • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
    • Please explain via a detailed description of your sources, why you chose to "clip" Bakshi's quote--"We were trying something different [...] but a series didn't make sense. It just didn't work"--rather than, say, "clip" the claim that the Wildmon controversy led the project to be "abandoned", or continue to provide both statements while explaining how they were either equal factors or how the explanation for the abandonment is unresolved.
    • Also, despite your "clip", this passage remains confusing and unclear. The change in title from Junktown to Christmas in Tattertown is introduced as if it was an unremarkable decision; then, two paragraphs later, after reading about the Wildmon controversy, we encounter the claim that the controversy led to the renaming. This is very poor structure. Please consolidate the discussion of Christmas in Tattertown into one paragraph or rewrite the section to be much clearer about the chronology. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Rewrote. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
        • And yet, confusion remains. The first passage now reads: "The same year, he began production on a series pilot loosely adapted from his Junktown comic strips. According to Bakshi, 'Tattertown was going to be a revitalization of cartoon style from the '20s and '30s. It was gonna have Duke Ellington and Fats Waller jazzing up the soundtrack.' Nickelodeon was initially willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown." Do you see the problem? What was the title of the planned Nickelodeon series intended to be--Junktown or Tattertown? Also, you have yet to explain your rationale for deleting Bakshi's comment that the series concept "just didn't work". DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I was still working on the text as you were reading the older revision. The current revision is much clearer than that. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

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

• In addition, it seems clear that virtually nothing has been done to address the overreliance on one source, Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, that Steve addressed--again, repeatedly--in the last FAC. As Steve took the lead on that issue before, I hope he'll return here and give us his sense of whether there's been any progress or not. DocKino (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfiltered is used largely in sourcing biographical information which cannot be better sourced elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with the book. It's the only biography to focus entirely on Bakshi's work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
    • As Steve, Ottava Rima, and mattisse detailed in the last FAC, this is not a standard biography and is perhaps better described as a tribute volume. Steve also noted that a review of the book in the Los Angles Times, described it as "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia". The L.A. Times reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Despite all this, none of us argued that the book should not be used as a reference, simply that a greater effort needs to be made to access additional sources to ensure that a balanced view of Bakshi's career has been provided. There is little evidence that any such effort has been undertaken. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • As I previously stated, the book is used primarily to source biographical information, not to state an opinion of Bakshi's works. Anyone who took a look at the article could tell that the book is being used in a neutral manner. Additionally, the book is, in fact, a standard biography, not a tribute volume, and Solomon is incorrect in describing the book as vanity or apologia. Many sources are used within the article to create the overall body. It's not a repeat of information stated in Unfiltered. And it's not "sloppily written". Don't take a California writer's opinion of a book about a New Yorker. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

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

• Clearly, there are no further issues that need to be addressed. DocKino is clearly nitpicking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Clearly. DocKino (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Being the editor who originally raised the issue of too many references coming from the primary source,[3] that is Unfiltered co edited by Ralph Bakshi, I still count something like 110 references to Unfiltered in the footnotes section. I personally think that is too many. But it is up to you all. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The footnotes are presented this way in order to clarify which sections of the book are being cited, because it's a large book with many sections of art, and reviewers have found it difficult to find the pages cited based on the previous order. Again, the book is used primarily to cite biographical information. As the only book to cover Bakshi's life and work, it's necessary for it to play so heavily in researching a biography of Ralph Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

• You mention above that Fire and Ice had an "extremely limited release", but this is not made clear in the article. Please add what you can about the circumstances of the film's release.

• I just read through the entire article and feel that it's in quite strong shape. The reliance on Unfiltered gives it at times a somewhat more personal tone than we might expect if sources more distant from Bakshi were referenced, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. I don't feel the article reads like a hagiography--the inclusion of negative reviews of the films where appropriate certainly contributes to an overall sense of balance. Mattisse has weighed in, above. I'll contact Steve and Ottava Rima to see if they're interested in returning for another look. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks–Baxter War

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

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

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

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

1c

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

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

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

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

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

Ucucha comments

This seems to be a mostly good article that'll probably eventually make it to FA, but the prose is, I am afraid, not of very high quality. I tried to improve it a little, but it would be best if someone else also had a good look at it.

Other specific issues I encountered:

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article now, I think. It devotes only a few sentences to the actual war, and does not note the back-and-forth governorships of Brooks and Baxter.

Actually it does in the 3rd paragraph, but I have added a little more. The "war" so to speak involves most of the Arkansas reconstruction history. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually added much of that myself. :-) But your further expansion makes it even better.

• "and two thirds were in favor of the constitution" (rephrased by me) - I think an actual percentage would be preferable. Is that possible?

Not with available sources. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can't do much about that. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "brief but long-remembered "Militia War"" - Is this a notable topic? If so, a wikilink should be in order.

Perhaps another article should be written on it some day but for now there isn't much more to say that isn't already in the article. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but remember that red links are not prohibited in FAs. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "paper script" - What?

Fiat currency, basically Arkansas dollars backed by nothing. This is before the federal reserve greenbacks that are common now, and the Gold Standard was still in effect, so money typically could be traded for an equivalent amount of gold. They were basically issuing worthless money that had no gold backing, which made the states credit even worse. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That should be in the article, or in a linked article on paper script. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• The impeachment of Johnson - When he had done nothing wrong, in what way did the Minstrels argue for his impeachment (i.e., what arguments did they use to say that his actions were worthy of impeachment)?

I've studied the court documents and they had no argument, in my opinion it was tactic meant to waste time. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "contested Louisiana gubernatorial election" - Link?

There isn't much about it on Wikipedia other than "President Grant ensured that William P. Kellogg", he ensured it with federal troops, and didn't want to have to do that again in Arkansas. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links are not forbidden. I believe that elections are automatically considered notable, and when the Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1872, was contentious enough that federal troops needed to intervene, the topic surely deserved to be linked. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• You mention two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Bennett and Earle, but these are not on the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Are they, in fact, SCOTUS justices, or something else?

They were supreme court justices, just federal justices. I've made the correction. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on writing this article and good luck on further improving it! Ucucha 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

130.184.211.7 is me, sorry forgot to log in. --The_stuart (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. No secondary sources since 1943, and one since 1922 (I exclude one tertiary source, and one source on a governor in a different century); no wonder it reads as if it were a production of the Dunning School. The historiography of Reconstruction has changed markedly in the last eighty years; our articles should reflect that. Go and read modern printed books; and do remember that neo-Confederatism is not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cologne War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Man or woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ucucha comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great, that makes sense. Ucucha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, I'm striking now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try to move the box, but it will show up where it wants, depending on how much else is cluttered around it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited it myself to the version I like best. Of course, the version I like best shouldn't necessarily be the version that should be in the article, but I think this version does a good job in (a) giving a clear, but concise explanation in the box that explains the difference between the Declaratia and cuius regio and (b) explaining the Declaratio in more detail in the text. Please edit or revert it if you feel that's necessary. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed.:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What is the curia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed

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

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

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

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

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

Ucucha 22:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Thirty Years' War is spelled that way in one instance, relating to the name of an article; Geoffrey Parker also refers to Thirty Years Wars, not War, while other refer to them as Thirty Years War (no s). I prefer the phrase Thirty Years Wars, because it seems like several conflicts, not one.
• fixed by removing references to 80 Years War. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. You still need to establish whether or not you place a comma before "Truchsess", though; usage varies in the article for Karl, Gebhard and William(,) Truchsess von Waldburg. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• placed the comma. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• For each person you mention, you should give the full name and possible further data at the first occurrence and a consistent short name after that. For example, you now have: (1st occurrence) "Karl, Truchsess von Waldburg", (2nd) "Karl", (3rd) "Karl Truchsess von Waldburg (1548–1593)", and there may be others.

• these should be okay now. I've created stubs for most of them also. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are no inconsistencies in the references (ending each reference with a period, spaces after (German), using pp. for multiple pages). That's all minor things, but we want it to be consistent in an FA.

• these should all be done now. I've gone through the citations several times, and it looks like they are consistent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I caught a couple more, but I think it's all good now. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• thank! Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book is: *Bruce, John (ed.): Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during his Government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 Camden Society 1844 [4]. The page is 15 (where she commands him to help Gebhard). I assume that Mabel Tenison simply forgot to mention the year, or else Gebhard could have written to Leicester to in England, before L. went over, but then he would not have been E.'s "emissary" yet. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1941 Atlantic hurricane season

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

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

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

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

How's that? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support on 2c grounds. Decline 2c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Review by Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bale Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses:

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

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

Noted location for The Daily Telegraph.

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

[edit] Fourth Test, 1948 Ashes series

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] USS Congress (1799)

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

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

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

Consistency, citations ending with fullstops or not.

Please explain this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Its probably worth including; can you add the sail plan? Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Well, maybe check it out from your local library. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• ...which lead me to Canney's Sailing Warships of the US Navy page 45 - 46, with the ship sail plan on page 46. Original armament was 28 18-pdrs and 12 9-pdrs (ugh); by 1812 the armament was 24 18-pdr and 20(!) 32-pdr carronades, as all the surviving frigates were turned into '44's. See page 41, which claims it was a 38, not a 36; I think the rating by crew makes a heck of a lot more sense. Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I like it, thanks! I have one question regarding the 38 gun rating (footnote #4) - does that source actually have a footnote which explains why it was re-rated? (The sentence "...re-rated as 38s while under construction" on page 128?). Never mind, Chapelle didn't cite his sources...how annoying. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Summary

• Re: 1c, I have requested a copy edit.
• Re: 3, There are two generic frigate photos that could be used for this article: File:Frigate (PSF).png or File:Frigate J-644 (PSF).png. I believe either one of these would be just as effective as uploading something else generic. --Brad (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment I checked some congressional documents via Lexis-nexus congressional, and they always refer to the three smaller frigates in text and tables rated at 36-guns. I think what happened here is either the builders (or Chapelle!) equated them to the 38-gun frigates of the Royal Navy, but officially, the US Navy had three ratings of frigates during this time period: 44 (United States), 36 (Constellation), 32 (Essex). I'll add a note and write up this with some of the sources that describes some of this in detail. I think as long as the rating is consistent for Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake in the info boxes/prose and has a footnote to Chapelle that's fine with me. Kirk (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] York Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I still think "Structures and facilities" deserves to be above "Events". The article is about the building and those events taking place (as cool as they might be) should take a back seat.

• I agree, had it like that but was requested to be changed.

• I think the "Gunns Stand during Hawthorn vs Brisbane AFL match in 2009" image could use a clear tag to force the subsection header ("Other uses") below it.

• How do you do this? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like 3 column reference lists

• I'll leave this. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I peer-reviewed this on 3 November, and was a bit surprised to find it here at FAC a day later, before I had had a chance to look at the responses to the points I raised at peer review. Not all the points I raised have been addressed. For example, in the lead: "Between 2003 to 2006" should be "and", not "to". This is marked "done" in the review, but clearly is not done. I asked for some explanation of "John Orchard", who appears in the History section. If the source doesn't specify who he was, he should be introduced as "a contemporary observer, named as John Orchard...", not just as "John Orchard". There is also a superfluous comma after his name. The sentence beginning "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the ones will be put on display..." still doesn't specify "the ones". I've also noticed things I didn't note at the peer review; Hawthorn and Richmond Football Clubs should be linked at first mention, not second. These things, and there may well be others, make me feel that the nomination here was rushed. I don't think the article meets criterion 1(a) at the moment, and recommend that a non-involved editor gives it a full read-through and copyedit before it is considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Reviewed a good chunk of this at the last FAC. I'll be leading off this review in Events, where I left off last time.

• "with a record sttendance of 20,971 for the match between Hawthorn and Richmond". Typo.
• "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the old ones will be put on display at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery." I see that the source is from last year. Is there any indication that this has already happened?
• Other uses: "The Crusty Demons performed at the stadium during 2006 and March 2008." Can we get a more precise date for their 2006 performance(s)?
• Structures and facilities: "an extension in 2005 to 5,700. The 5,700 capacity stand...". The capacity figure doesn't need to be repeated two words after it was originally given.
• "because it is regarded as the home of Australian Rules Football in Tasmania." If Rules and Football are not proper nouns (not sure whether they are or not), they should be de-capitalized.
• Record crowds: Link Challenge Cup, assuming there isn't a previous link that I missed.
• References from printed publications should have the publisher in italics, which are needed for several refs from The Age. If the Launceston Times is a newspaper, use italics for that as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ode on a Grecian Urn

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

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

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

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

• Support: 1c 2c: As of 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) the article's bibliography looks like a Humanities bibliography should for the criticism of a major work. In particular, there is an expected density of Introductions to scholarly editions, Journal articles, Papers collected in Edited Collections, and Major Monographs. All works are cited in full, so they can be referenced. Short citation style is consistent. Bibliography style is consistent except for a few spacing and punctuation problems I'm going to solve myself. Amazing article quality turn around. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Decline

[Previous comments were removed for article clarity] Previous comments, and the comments below in reply to mine, were in relation to This diff, the article state as nominated. Major changes have occurred in the quality of the article, and I have snipped these, to clarify current debate.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An image of Keats would be great.

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

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

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

• Have these been taken care of? (Your note above just says you will, not that you have...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I have fixed the major sourcing issues. I have 9 other sources that I might slip into the critical response section as this is one of the most famous short poems in the English language and a lot of critics have opined on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they have; I applogogize, I don't usually comment on things before they have been changed to avoid this very situation. But I am fairly certain all suggestions have been covered at this point. Mrathel (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your reading, it is truly appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) Imaginary or not, there is more that should be said on the Greek vase that is here yet. In this useful article there is a bibliography on this aspect of the poem, of which only the Motion biography is referenced here. Ian Jack's book sounds most useful.
• 2) The prose needs a good deal of work. There are far too many missing words (like the ones corrected here), US spellings ("meter"), and awkward phrasings:

• "Part of Keats's inspiration for the poem comes from his visit to the exhibition of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum" - they were on permanent display.
• "Keats attained his idea of using Greek art as his metaphor, after reading Benjamin Haydon's Examiner articles of 2 May and 9 May 1819" - no comma needed, "attained" is certainly the wrong word.
• "Moses's A Collection of Antique Vases, Altars, Paterae was used to base Keats's sketch of the Sosibios Vase" - is this use of "base" ok in US English? Not in UK English anyway.
• "Keats's may have recalled his viewing experience of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum" -why "Keat's"? No "viewing experiences" please!
• "Additionally, Keats was exposed to the Townley, Borghese, and Holland House vases, and he was exposed to the classical treatment of subjects in Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy. Many of these works shared Keats's view that Greek art was both idealistic and captured Greek virtues." - Great to hear the vases shared Keat's view! Apart from that, it should be clarified around here that most of the time what Keats seems to be thinking of (per Hill & her sources) is big sculptured marble vases (actually Roman not Greek, by the usual period classification), not the earlier painted Ancient Greek pottery vases. So do we mean the Townley Vase, which Keats would no doubt have seen in the British Museum, and the Borghese Vase, which he can not have seen in the original, as is was already in the Louvre? The Holland House Urn is or was evidently a popular choice for influence on Keats, even if only through prints by Piranesi. But what is meant should be clarified, and expanded. The William Hamilton (diplomat) collection of Greek (pottery) vases, by then in the BM, is often mentioned, & probably should be here. I think the usual term "vase", not "urn", should be consistently used for any real vases, but of course not the poem's urn.

• Apart from the first, all of these examples come from two short paragraphs. Also from these are the following pretty bathetic sentences: "The odes, especially "Ode on a Nightingale", were Keats's attempt at discussing the relationship between the soul, eternity, nature, and art, which he was busy contemplating throughout 1819.", "Keats's view that Greek art was both idealistic and captured Greek virtues.", "Keats was influenced to pursue the subject of classical art in discussion of his ideas,..." The whole thing needs tightening up.

Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying and expanding about the vases would put undue weight on things that were minor influences at best and do not have any sources that say that they were anything more than things he knew of. I am going off the major critical works. They all minimalize any discussion of actual urns and vases because there is no direct relationship. Of your results, the only ones that do discuss the urn as being real are pre-modern criticism. You even received anti-hits: "There is no need, in any case, to invoke the Holland House urn" in Keats and the mirror of art‎

Well it was already "invoked", so don't blame me! If you think I am suggesting the urn should be regarded as "real" you are very wide of the mark. What the current text fails to do, and the removed quotes from Haydon did rather evocatively if elliptically, is give any sense of why Keats chose Greek art as a metaphor, and what it meant to him. There are only very vague phrases like "the classical treatment of subjects", and the (now cut) "captured Greek virtues". Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"is give any sense of why Keats chose Greek art as a metaphor" 1. we don't know why Keats did it, it is only speculation 2. Keats was showing an attachment to Greek art that predates his time with the Elgin marbles. 3. the sheer bulk of the amount of possible sources show how indefinite it is that any single source can be weighted or have merit. There is already a statement about the general background of what the general concept means, and there are enough sources mentioned to show that Keats had a wide range of exposure. Bate gives almost nothing to these sources. Vendler nothing. Evert and Bloom give nothing. Gittin discusses about a page worth of contemporary issues, but his emphasis is not on the poem but on Keats's and Haydon's relationship. His strongest statement on the matter is: "Haydon, both by his articles and his print-books, had an immediate effect, but he had only revived in Keats a train of thoughts that ran through all his life." (p. 319). If you would like, you can start a section on the article talk page and see if consensus disagrees with me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"they were on permanent display" - exhibition means "exhibit". All collections at museums are exhibits regardless if they are permanent or temporary.

No, especially in UK English. An "exhibition" is a temporary show, an "exhibit" strictly an individual object. Just cut "exhibition of the", Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If "base" is not appropriate, I know that "pattern" is.

Changes. Will get to the others just added soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would need an example of what you would prefer about the recent quotes that you have listed as you have only expressed that they were "bathetic", and that does not really suggest how to fix what you see as wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see from the history that many of these problems have arrived with expansions in the last 10 days; too many cooks, maybe? I think the quotes from Haydon in the these paragraphs at October 31st should certainly be restored. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"John Keats was one of those who saw them privately exhibited in London, hence his two sonnets about the marbles." Elgin Marbles. Also, all of my sources verify the use of exhibition and exhibit. The quotes were cut because they were off topic and do not do anything to show specifics about the urn. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reading of the poem. I have to concur with Ottava on the point that the urn, in terms of the poem, is an imaginary object and that any discussion of the background and possible influences should be limited to objects Keats and major critics specifically mention in regards to the poem. This is a subject we have dealt with since we started this project, but speculation, unless by a major critic or Keats himself, only detracts from the actual subject of the work. It is, after all, titled "Ode on a Grecian Urn", not "Ode on the Sosibios Urn","Ode on the Elgin Marbles", etc. I have no problem with bringing back the Haydon discussion, but keeping this section on topic is quite necessary. Mrathel (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - 1. dropped "exhibition" and "British Museum", as sources only say he was exposed to them, but few say where, when, or act as if it matters. 2. I was the one that originally added in the quotes from Haydon and I removed them after reconsidering how to balance the page (I added in references to other art works and then the statement that not one source represents the urn as it was an "ideal" instead of a solid object. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Augustus O. Stanley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Reywas92^Talk

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

• Removed.

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

• I'll work on this.
• OK, I finally got a chance to provide additional details here. Does this make it clearer?

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

• Fixed.

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

• Done.

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

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

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

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

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

• Done.

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

Support Very nice job! Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

        Done.

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

           Done, although Powell had a location before.

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

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

           Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, I'll leave it up to your best judgment.

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

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

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

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

• I took a stab at a reword; see what you think.

• Works for me.

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

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

• Well, if that's a limitation of the sources, there's not much to be done.

• I just reviewed the Burckel article, which is by far the most complete record of Stanley's record in the House. Of this career between his admission to the bar and his election to the House, it says "Moving then to Henderson in western Kentucky, he entered Democratic politics and served as a presidential elector for William Jennings Bryan in 1900. Two years later, Stanley won election to the 58th Congress, representing the largely rural tobacco-growing Second District." The only hope I'd see for filling in the gaps is to acquire a copy of Thomas Ramage's PhD. dissertation "Augustus Owsley Stanley: Early Twentieth-Century Kentucky Democrat" from the University of Kentucky, but I'm three hours from that library, and it isn't available online.

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

• My impression is that it was about the whole idea of ATC having a monopoly, but I'll look at the source again. I need to do that for Reywas92's comment above anyway.
• The hearings were indeed about the American Tobacco Company's actions as a whole, not just the tax. I've done a quick re-word, but it's not necessarily beyond improvement.

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

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

• Okay, I agree that staying focussed is a concern, and that this probably isn't appropriate for an article on Stanley.

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

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

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

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

• Any chance you could find out?

• I'll do some checking, yes.
• Looks like it's what is more commonly called a "utility company". I've added an appropriate wikilink for clarity.

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

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

• I've changed to "its" partly because it sounds far better to me but mostly because the state is treated as neuter elsewhere in the article.

• Suits me.

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

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

• If there's additional context available, it would be good. Otherwise, no big deal.

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

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

• Pity, but nothing to be done, apparently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, WP:TCREEP specifically advises against including both, though that's just an essay (albeit one that I think is widely accepted). I'd prefer to see it go, but it's up to you.

• If it's widely accepted, I suppose we should leave them, but for the record, I still agree with you that the infobox is the more elegant solution.

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

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

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

I've responded to most of your concerns above. I'll do some more checking on the rest. I don't feel stalked at all; I'm just glad someone is reading my work, and further, that they've found it enjoyable. The weekend vacation was great. Wikipedia will have more images from Rupp Arena and the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team as soon as I have time to do a little Photoshopping. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to support. I still think action on my points that remain unstruck would be beneficial, but it's certainly not necessary for featured status. Well done. Steve Smith (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weight Gain 4000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It flows well now. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"However, when Internet buzz began to generate about "The Spirit of Christmas"" sounds funny.

"created completely using computers.[4] The episode was created" repetitive.

"episode" is used 14 times in the production section.

"The episode was created over the course of a little over a month" unneeded words?

"which would be used for many other subsequent episodes." -> "used in subsequent"?

"South Park episodes would be created within a week of the its broadcast and require about 40 animators." - c/e

I'll stop there for now. The writing is better in the production section that in the plot section, but I have a feeling you may want to look for little grammar problems and repetitive words going on down from my last comment. If you do a copy edit, give me a diff so I can see what you've done. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Image review - File:Popemobile passes the White House.jpg - Please fix the source link for this image, so we can verify the license. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right, it looks like the link is dead now. To fix it, I went to the Internet Archive and replaced it with an archived link to the site as it appeared in 2008. Does that address it? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lundomys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comments I'll begin a lookover and make any straightforward changes (feel free to revert if I change the meaning!). Looks good but the clear challenge here is the balance between plain English and exactness of meaning. If we can reduce technical words and make it more accessible then this is desirable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

...recognized five synapomorphies for the group --> "recognized five (common) features unique to the group" I was thinking that "synapomorphies" is a pretty esoteric word to the non-taxonomist. However, it is important not to change or lose meaning.

..in the morphology of the first lower molar --> "in the shape of the first lower molar" (any meaning lost by this use of a plainer word?)

Any plainer English conversions of anatomical bits in the Description section would be a bonus :)

Overall good work, and should pass this FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! With the synapomorphies, we have the problem that they are not unique to oryzomyines: there is some homoplasy, with Reithrodon also lacking the suspensory process and various akodontines and others also lacking the gall bladder. I could replace "synapomorphies" with "shared derived features", but I'm not sure whether someone who doesn't know what a synapomorphy is is any more likely to know what "derived" means in this context.

I've attempted several other changes to make the text less jargon-ridden. I didn't say "shape", because that to me refers to the actual outline of the molar (whether it's broad at the front or narrow, for example), but did get rid of the "morphology". Ucucha 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Lundomys distribution.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it good now? If not, what specifically is the problem with the sourcing? Ucucha 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, an image of the skin does in fact exist, thanks to the Smithsonian. I uploaded it as a fair use image and it's in the article now. Ucucha 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Giro d'Italia

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

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

Comments by AnOddName

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by SandyGeorgia

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

• I am so used to "General Classification" that I was thinking of arguments to keep it like that, but it looks like there is no real argument. Therefore, I changed most of the section headings, but I kept a few: "Trofeo Fast Team" and "Trofeo Super Team", because I don't know for sure if these are names or not, and "World Rankings points", because this refers to the UCI World Ranking, which is capitalized.
  • Are we sure the Giro uses "King of the mountains" at all? "Demystified" doesn't use it, and Gazzetta dello Sport just uses "GPM", which my limited Italian can't really decipher. It also shows that "TV," "Trofeo Fast Team," "Trofeo Super Team," and "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo" all are capitalized, but also that "Classifiche Generali" is as well. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Got it - Gran Premio della Montagna (Mountains grand prize). So just "Mountains classification" would probably be best here. The Tour obviously uses King of the Mountains and I'm pretty sure I've seen rey de la montaña for the Vuelta, but it doesn't seem to be in use for the Giro. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • ...and this change has already been made. Awesome. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The World Rankings table sorts awkwardly - it is alphabetical by first name. The top ten after the Giro table does likewise, and it also sorts previous rankings as 1 then 127 then 2 then 27. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• The bold text in the World Rankings points tables has been removed. I also improved the table in other ways that I think MOS requires.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The italic text: I removed most, and kept some as foreign terms according to the MOS. I removed the references to the jersey in the classification leadership table, because I don't think they serve a goal. The jersey icons are already there, and the Italian name for that jersey is not really important. I don't know what to do with the "no award" in that table; the italic makes clear that it is not the name of a cyclist, is that allowed by the MoS, with function emphasis?? Not clear to me. I left the "Traguardo Volante" italic. The classification is named that way, so the name should be kept, but I don't know what the correct English translation is. (Traguardo might be a sponsor?) Same goes for "Trofeo Fuga Cervelo": it is the name of the classification, but should an english translation be given here? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Traguardo Volante would roughly mean flying sprint, a name used in other cycling events. Traguardo itself literally means "aim," "purpose," "goal," or (perhaps most appropriately) "finish line." [6] Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Observations by Kevin McE

Several small, mainly semantic, issues:

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

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

• stage 3 to, not in, Valdobbiadene
• Will all readers know that "the Manx sprinter" refers to Cavendish? Is the word Manx a familiar one at all outside the UK?
  • I'd think so, unless we're trying to be accessible to people who don't read English very well. He's the subject of the sentence, and the only other rider named in prose to that point is Petacchi, who is described as Cavendish's rival. Seems clear to me (but, of course it does, I wrote it). And "Manx" is certainly familiar to someone outside the UK ;) Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I assume that that is the agreed, accessibility approved version of Columbia-HTC, and LPR Brakes-Farini: it looks to me more as though it is separating two concepts instead of joining them.
• The next day, he claimed the jersey, when he was second to stage winner Denis Menchov at Alpe di Siusi and an elite group of favorites emerged.: first comma definitely unnecessary, second one arguably also redundant. It would be good to make a second sentence here, to say who comprised this elite group of contenders.
• In the following para, the sentence beginning There he claimed a convincing... does not need a comma after the first word.
• nearly two minutes back of him : is that English? nearly two minutes behind him" seems infinitely preferable to me.
• King of the mountains points are won at passes that are not stage finishes: that is not the impression given by the sentence about Garzelli's win. Very few roads, and therefore few races, go to the summit of a mountain.
  • Probably a revision would help, but points are won on summit stage finishes. Garzelli was second to Blockhaus, and got 10 mountains points for it - [7]. Garzelli was in the top five (points for the top five) for four of the six summit finishes. That along with the breakaway over Sestrière and having the best time at the intermediate time checks that came at the tops of the climbs in the Cinque Terre time trial is what won him the jersey. It's not as off as you're indicating. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• • • • Is it truly unclear that "summit stage finish" means "a stage finish that ends on a mountain climb" and not "the very tippy tip top of the mountain" ? If so, please revise, because I don't see it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Stage 9: a protest of...: in UK English, at least, protests are at, about or against something, but never of...
  • I'll never claim to be able to write UK English :P Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Quick Step's Seeldraeyers winning the white jersey, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone winning the green jersey, and Astana winning the Trofeo Fast Team made it eleven teams coming away with a significant prize. Several gerunds as the subject of an informally phrased verb doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopaedia: maybe With wins for Quick Step's Seeldraeyers in the youth classification, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone in the climbers' competition, and Astana in the Trofeo Fast Team ranking, eleven teams won significant prizes during the race.
  • Well taken. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Should the description of the various competitions not precede the description of their outcomes?
• Di Luca was announced to have given two positive tests: jars on UK ears: is this the correct construction in US English? Can a more version neutral phrasing be found?
  • I don't see the problem with it (but, I wouldn't, I wrote it). Do you suggest an alternative? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Can we give dates or stage numbers rather than the description of the stages on which Di Luca returned dodgy tests?
  • Dates may be suitable, but I think it's more significant to describe that the tests came before two of the Giro's hardest stages rather than just "Stage 12" and "Stage 19." Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• There were also two classifications for teams: plural.
• "The first is the Trofeo Fast Team. In this classification, the times of the best three cyclists per team on each stage are added,..."
• Surely the description of the non-jersey awards should immediately follow the statement that they exist, rather than about 5 screen-lengths farther down the page. The team awards are non-jersey awards.
  • Yeah, order of information has been a bit confounding for me the whole time I've been revising this article. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I've finally got it in a logical order, with minor classifications under the jersey table, but should references 33 and 65 be repeated like they are right now, or would one instance of both at the end of the section suffice? They are consistently used to reference the explanations of each classification and then its winner. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 05:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• IMHO, the usual bullet list is a far clearer way of listing the "reserve" jersey wearers. Even if the current prose remains, the sentence Each of the first eleven podium presentations awarded multiple jerseys to a particular rider is far from clear. Suggest appending "Such a situation occured after each of the first 11 stages." to the previous paragraph.
  • I'm more than happy to go back to it if it's preferred, but I thought bulleted lists were meant to be avoided like the plague. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence on the Trofeo Fuga Cervelo needs to be re-written in a past tense.

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

Comment by EdgeNavidad

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

Alt text comments by Eubulides

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

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

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

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
  • Done. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Two deadlinks in the link checker tool.
  • "Bertagnolli shrugs off heat" is available plenty of other places, but I only found "Giro stage turns into farce" here. Is that okay? The Google cache of Universal Sports' page is still available - is that okay? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Canada.com" edits out the relevant text I used as a reference (Pozzato's words). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Found it here. I have no clue what "stuff.co.nz" is, though. Does that take precedence or does Reuters when thinking of RS? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Reuters would be more reliable, and the google cache of Universal is fine. (Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been sick.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Stuff.co.nz is a production of Fairfax New Zealand, which I used in the citations. Should I just use the google cache from Universal Sports instead? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Newspapers/magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Ugh. I hate wading through these templates. I'll give it a shot. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.dailypeloton.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.steephill.tv/2009/giro-d-italia/previews-results/stage-16/?
  • They are independent of the race or anyone running it, and consistently provide content on the world of cycling. Steephill frequently culls other sources (such as cyclingnews, which is used in the article extensively, and velonews, which is used occasionally). Steephill is likely replaceable, particularly and will be unnecessary if we nix mentioning that 10 and 16 were both called the queen stage, as Kevin suggested. Dailypeloton is the only source I found detailing the sprinters in the Giro; I'll see if it's replaceable (if it needs to be). So these two sources are definitely highly specialized (I can't cite the New York Times every time :P ) but I think they're fair to use. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Image review

• File:Giro d Italia 2009.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page.
  • Well, it was made by User:NielsB at Commons. Do you mean something like this as a source, because I'm sure that was NielsB's source.
    • That would be a fine source. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• File:Denis Menchov 2.jpg - I can't find the license for the original image. Could you point me to it? Thanks.
  • Eep. It reportedly was put into the public domain by the Liberty Seguros team, a claim which is supported by a long-dead link to the official page of a long-defunct team. All it's used for is a glamor shot of Menchov, so I'll look for a replacement. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible replacement. Would ALT text for this image need to describe the partly-visible individual wearing a pink shirt and glasses with his right arm around Menchov? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I won't speak to the alt text, but I'm curious where at the source it releases the image under CC-by-SA 2.1 license. Can you point me to that? I don't speak Spanish, so it is a bit difficult for me to browse the site. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know the licensing terms terribly well in English, much less Spanish, but this seems pretty boilerplate. "Feel free *to copy, distribute, and publicly post our work. *to make derivative works. *to make commercial use (?) of our work on the internet" "Under the following conditions *Recognition: You must recognize and cite us as authors, and in the case of a web page, link to the original URL. *Share under the same license: If you alter or transform our work, or if you create a derivative work, you may only distribute it under a license identical to this one." "With the following particular cases 1. This license is not applicable to content published by 20minutos coming from the following third-party sources: Text, graphics, information and images that come signed by or attributed to Agencias, Reuters, Efe, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI, J.M. Nieto or Jorge París. 2. The drawings of Eneko, Humberto and Calpurnio in their 20minutos comic strips cannot be reproduced with commercial intention." Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks - the above indicates that the license does not apply to "J.M." - do you think that applies to the author the replacement photo, Javier Morales or is J.M. something else? Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I think it refers to "J.M. Nieto" actually. Per these search results, he appears to be a cartoonist. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah...I'm almost positive it refers to the author of this. So the Menchov picture should be free and clear. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – First couple of sections read pretty well to me, but I was left with one question at first. Initially I was unsure whether Di Luca's finish would hold up even after his failed drug tests, but one of the footnotes covers it. Would it be possible to briefly mention this in the body, so that other readers won't have the same confusion I did? Another thing I just saw on a quick glance is that reference 8 shouldn't have "FUJI-SERVETTO" in all caps. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do a proper review at some point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cato June

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Qwest Field

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

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

TonyTheTiger comments

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

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

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

Superior Court added. No wikilink available, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scoreboard and luxury suite added.

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

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

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

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

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

Just added one directly below.

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

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

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

All three fixed with: "Qwest Field was the first stadium in the NFL to install a FieldTurf artificial field. The product utilizes plastic fibers rooted in a mixture of ground rubber and sand.[8] The field was replaced in the spring of 2008 due to safety concerns caused by the sand and rubber becoming compressed along with the color of the field fading. A 1 inch (2.5 cm) poured rubber foundation was added to prevent this failure from occurring again."

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

"Seahawks management said it had advantages over natural grass such as easier maintenance. The potential damage to a natural grass field caused by Seattle's frequent rain also made the surface an appropriate option. The installation of an irrigation and heating system needed to keep grass robust under this heavy football use during late fall and early winter rains would have cost $1.8 million.[9]"OK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found a mention at American football field and wikilinked it.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• "While the new stadium was being constructed" should state which Seasons they were or what calendar dates we are talking about.

Done.

• "went undefeated for the second time" should be "went undefeated at home for the second time"

That is important. Done.

• "Since the opening of the stadium, the Seahawks had won 24 of their 32 regular season games." should end the paragraph

"Since the opening of the stadium, the Seahawks had won 24 of their 32 regular season games at home. The playoffs were also reached in 2006 when the Seahawks won the Wild Card playoff game at the stadium over the Dallas Cowboys by a score of 21–20." OK?

• "In 2005, Qwest Field gained national attention when the visiting New York Giants committed 11 false start penalties." should also have a citation from the game recap at ESPN.
• Individual games in the "College" subsection should have citations to ESPN game box scores.

This is tripping me up a little. I will keep on googling and see what I can do.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is another game in the Stephen Schilling article that could be mentioned here.

"On September 16, 2009, Bellevue defeated another highly regarded California school at Qwest Field in a 30–16 vicotry over Long Beach Polytechnic. USA Today had recently rated both teams highly with Long Beach third and Bellevue sixteenth in the nation.[10]"

• "one of the few professional sports stadiums in the United States" - do you have a more meaningful stat somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In May 2007, Seattle-based Jones Soda outbid Coca-Cola to sign a five year contract for pouring rights of their beverages at the stadium.[11][12] The company has released different football related flavors and the CEO has said that they want to give the fans a "really cool experience."<[13]. OK? Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Removed

• All your links need last access dates.

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

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

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

The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [14]) Current work with [[HLN (TV channel)] and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.

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

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

That is no good. Replaced with newspaper sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed

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

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

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

Fixed (one of my pet peeves!)

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

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

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

Fixed

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

Fixed

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

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

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

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

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

Your guys have a few Super Bowls, though! I adjusted it: "In 2005, Qwest Field gained national attention when the visiting New York Giants committed 11 false start penalties.^[1] Holmgren attributed the penalties to the crowd noise and enthusiasm of the fans. He dedicated the ball used to make the game-winning field goal to the them and it is now displayed at the stadium."

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

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

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

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

Oppose on criterion 3

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

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

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

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

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit. You got me scouring free resources to replace it so good looking out.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As both a member of the Sounders FC taskforce and the Pacific Northwest, I think this article's coverage of the stadium is absolutely correct. If you need more photographs, I have 142 pictures from November 8's (Seahawks v. Lions) Seahawks football game. – ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Is that you on flickr? I think we are good on Hawks images. I really want something to replace the high school one removed or something in college ball. There is a whole series of cheerleaders but they don't have the appropriate license.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox at the top right of the FAC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Nice catch. That one was from SaturdayCptnono (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Winter War

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Decline Nearly resolved: 1a, 1c, Fully resolved: 2c ; expect it will make it, it looks great. I can't see any 1d issues which is very good.
  1. 1a - remaining language stuff needs a once more over. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. We need to recruit a volunteer English First Language person to smooth some of the grammar, and weirder English tenses in writing. Done (or?). (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

     2. fn9 needs to use English format percentages 22.6 not European 22,6 Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. New 1a decline reason: Talk:Winter War#For decision: US English, UK English, Australian English, Indian English... needs to be resolved and implemented. I don't particularly care which version of English is used, but one needs to be used consistently. ise count is 3, ize count is 4. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. 1c - remaining points moving towards resolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Original Research at fn8. Done. (Thanks Illythr!) Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. fn11 lacks page references, as does fn12. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. Not convinced of the quality of scholarship from the 1950s in the last two paragraphs of the Section "Aftermath - Finnish views". More recent scholarship available?... aaah... this is meant to be a historiography / reception section. Needs a rewrite to be less "actions during the war" as content to "debate within Finland on the war" Response: Some grammar done. I have not figured out how to answer this. There is much more detailed article Aftermath of the Winter War. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. Speaking of which, convince me you've searched for post 1991 Russian scholarship of high quality (I can't transliterate fn21 rapidly enough myself) Response: I moved references inside a note. A purpose is to demonstrate, that a word "Winter War" (as well as Soviet–Finnish War 1939–1940) is also widely used in Russian histography. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. You've got a "[verification needed]" needed tag Additional sources added. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. 2c Consistency Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
     1. Inconsistent attribution of language sources published in in notes. Compare fn141 Author Title (in Finnish). fn21 (Russian) Author Title, and fn93 [no attribution of lanugage supplied]. Corrected Russian fn21 and changed fn141, fn142 and fn143. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     2. Full stops or not at the end of notes. Full stops. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     3. If you're using full citations in the format Author (YYYY). Title. [p./pp.] nnn. (ie fn4), your short cites should read Author (YYYY). [p./pp.] nnn. Currently your short cites read Author YYYY, [p./pp.] nnn [note the lack of full stop]. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     4. fn8, not an archival cite. Please supply translations (pref: Authorative Organisational Translations) for the Archive's repository, location, the originating institution, etc. Russian Government ? Archive, File 37977. Op1 ? Document 595? Leaves 57-59?. Citing archival sources for manpower totals is original research. Solved (another sources). Peltimikko (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
     5. Multiple author inconsistency between Bibliography and Notes. Pick one of Author and Author (example fn47) or Author; Author (bibliography, fn80). Author; Author Peltimikko (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
     6. fn146 spelling of Programme / Program Note: (sic!). Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Non decline related comments:
     1. 1b: Home front? Was the war too short?
     2. I would really appreciate seeing fn21 having Latin lettering as well. It would allow me a surface chance of checking fn21's 1c status.
     3. Relevant in any way? RR Reese "Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940" The Journal of Military History, 2008.
     4. Relevant in any way? Varpu Lindström "Propaganda and identity construction: media representation of Finnish and Finnish-Canadian women during the Winter War of 1939-40" in Sisters or Strangers?: Immigrant, Ethnic, and Racialized Women in Canadian History Marlene Epp (Editor), Franca Iacovetta (Editor), Frances Swyripa (Editor) University of Toronto Press: 2004. ISBN10 0802086098 (probably not, but this demonstrates how little has escaped your 1c research).
  5. Support related comments:
     1. 1c looks great. Sources not of Highest Quality are used sparingly, and to verify obvious, simple, uncontestable elements. With the exception of my complaint about using archival sources to generate a man count as OR, this is an excellent 1c work.
     2. This has been one of the easiest long articles to check 1c and 2c on as the author has already excellent citation, footnoting and bibliography habits. Big congrats on that. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Current ref 18 (Krivosheyev...) needs a page number in additon to the link. Also, this link seems to redirect to a website in Russian, needs to note that and is this a reprint of the book?

• Done (Thanks Illyth!) Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=62 a reliable source?

• Semi-reliable. Mika Kulju's book "Raatteen tie" has more reliable figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=92 a reliable source?

• Not reliable (Wikipedia as a source). Instead added Mika Kulju. Peltimikko (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Image review (Temporary Oppose)
  • File:Paasikivi october 1939 kajander hakkila.jpg's source merely redirects to the main page of the site.
    • The article in the webpage has been removed (do not know the reason, maybe some sort of renewal). However, the event is well known and Mr. Paasikivi in the picture died 1956 and Mr. Kajander in 1943.
      • Another source that you have that has the book would be fine too. NW (Talk) 04:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Meretskov Kirill.jpg needs an author to verify that it indeed can meet the criteria of PD-Russia.
    • Cannot verify, since I do not possess the book "Itsenäisyyden puolustajat" (I remember seeing it also in "Talvisodan taisteluja"). Uniforms seems to point in time, but not sure. Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Another source that you have that has the book would be fine too. NW (Talk) 04:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Talvisota Viipuri March 13 1940.PNG needs an updated PD tag.
    • March 1940, so have to wait four months till PD-Russia-2008. Suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Talvisota 8th Army 1939.PNG needs an updated PD tag.
    • Updated PD-Russia-2008; three weeks.Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Finn ski troops.jpg needs something to indicate why it would be in the Public Domain in the United States. Also, this may just be my foolishness, but I cannot figure out how to access the source, even with the instructions provided. Do you think you could explain a bit more?
    • There is a mention "Official Finnish photograph", so it should be PD-Finland50. Suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Marking it with {{PD-Finland50}} and {{PD-US-1996}} should be good.
  • File:Bt5 10.jpg needs a better source and an author.
    • Have not seen the picture. Maybe four months and PD-Russia-2008? Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Winter War OT-130 flamethrower.png needs an author or an explanation as to why it is in the Public Domain
    • 02-1940, so three months till PD-Russia-2008. Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Raate road.jpg needs a hyperlinked source or a book reference.
    • Found the right book. Updated. Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I look forward to striking this oppose as soon as all the image issues are fixed. NW (Talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize my rough answers. I am willing to replace selected pictures by your request. Peltimikko (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shojo Beat

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

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

Technical comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rhode Island Route 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That helps. ---Dough4872 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose on criterion 3

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

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

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

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

Please link to it here, so I can check it out. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:RI 4 south North Kingstown.jpg. Cheers, Rai•me 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.

• Prose - Although the prose is not awful, it still needs work, as it is often quite repetitive and does not necessarily flow well. For example, the first three sentences in the section Route description all begin "Route 4 ...".
• Comprehensiveness - I am highly suspicious of road articles that rely almost entirely on maps and state department of transportation reports, so I went searching for more information.
  • Per [15], it appears that much of the roadside in a certain area is covered by invasive plants. I suspect that with more digging you may be able to find out why that is - did the road construction or an effect of the road impact this?

Unnecessary. Marshlands are the main reason, which I have added mention of.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • This study [16] gives information about red-light running at some Route 4 intersections

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I found indications of multiple state and federal reports that were studying expanding the road in the late 1980s/early 1990s. In particular, it appears that there were related archealogical finds, which would be very interesting to see. The following list is not comprehensive [17] [18] [19] [20]. The archaelogical evidence has been discussed in newspapers as well: example [21]

You're not making anything easier for Google Books - No access - and I don't live in Rhode Island, so accessing those aren't easy unless Raime has access. I can use the abstract of the newspaper, but without access, I can't get anything else.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Used the abstract, which covers enough I think.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • There are more newspaper articles available about at least the 1980s construction [22], which may provide background or local interest information not included in a government report.

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Related to the point directly above, this article provides no justification for the road. Why was it a good idea to originally build the road? Why did it need to be expanded? (some article snippets I've seen suggest that the road could be the site of many fatal/serious car accidents?)
  • From some news article abstracts, it looks like Rhode Island resisted raising the speed limits when first allowed by the federal government. Is there any information on whether/when the speed limit was raised on Route 4, and what objections there might have been?
  <