Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Encyclopædia Britannica

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

The family of Britannica articles has expanded significantly since its last FAC, as may be seen from the new category Category:Encyclopædia Britannica. New pages have been created on the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Propædia, Macropædia, Micropædia, Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Bicentennial of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Dobson's Encyclopædia as well as biographical articles for all major people in its history. The present article is stable, a good article, and has been through a recent peer review. Willow 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Why is Encarta italicized and Wikipedia not? Both are similar types of publications. Italicize both. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no slight intended, merely a difference in bibliographic custom. As I understand it, the italicized names are used for materials that have been published in a fixed form, whether paper or CD/DVD-ROM version. Wikipedia, as a whole, has not yet been published in that way, so I'd be inclined to keep its name in the Roman font. Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, regardless of its typeface. :) Willow 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the way I had understood it was that any substantial collection of documents, whether in online or offline form, was italicized. I don't know... it may be the way I learned it, and I don't have an MLA Style Manual with me right now. (But either way, that won't be an excuse next week, as WP:V0.5 is going to be released. Heh...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a website. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) there is no mention of websites. The talk page has a question from someone about it but not clear answer. IMO websites are not normally italicized - one solution is using the logic of exclusion: since websites are not listed in things to be italicized, it should not be. -- Stbalbach 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly-written and comprehensive. TimVickers 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments :*"a 20-volume set with excellent, but primarily Scottish, contributors." I can't see why being Scottish is seen as a modifier of excellence. This could be better-phrased!

You're right, perhaps that's redundant. ;) The goal was to show that the EB grew from being a Scottish enterprise to having international scope; I'll work on the phrasing.
  • At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless Scot, I don't think the "My Wife Knows Everything!" joke adds much to the article.
At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless feminist, I was a little offended, too. But the article definitely needs a pithy anecdote illustrating the EB's popular reputation; that story is the "punchline" anecdote of Kogan's encyclopedic history, as told by one of the EB's longest editors-in-chief, Walter Yust. I'll try to find a better story, and would welcome suggestions from other readers.

:*"Dr. Sutton is exceptional in another way; traditionally, less than 10% of the Britannica's contributors are female." Is this really a tradition?

Perhaps "historically" would be better worded?

:*"Other cost-cutting measures have included mandates to use free photos." Was this a mandate or an instruction? "Mandate" has multiple meanings, another word might be better.

Great catch, thanks! (later) "Mandates" is the wording of the original source, which is indeed ambiguous; to me, it could mean "permission to use free photos" or "instructions to use free photos".
Well, if that's the source, you're stuck with somebody else's poor writing.

:*Reference 17 needs formatting.

  • Some other web refs need access dates. (Refs 18, 27, 29 and 34)

:*Further reading needs ISBN numbers

More great catches; I'm on it. Thanks very much for your comments! Willow 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tim, I may have addressed your concerns; please let me know if other suggestions occur to you. Thanks again! Willow 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. i feel silly saying this, but after the second paragraph i notice a huge amount of commas throughout the prose. after that i couldn't help but notice like 1 to 4 in every sentence. i think at that point some should either be removed to sentences should be broken up into multiple sentences (see User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Sentences). also most any time "However, ____" is used, you can do away with the However part. That is used several times in the article. Same with "over the years", used a few times. Theres a some other similar stuff too, check out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy for more around that. JoeSmack Talk 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also many many of the sentences of this article start with 'The'. If you can remove any of these like here, it would help make the flow seem less repetitive. JoeSmack Talk 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good suggestions, Joe! We definitely want the writing to be as good as it can be. I've fixed all the redundant instances of "however" and "over the years" (I think), and I'm beginning to work on the most awkward sentences. I have to admit, though, that I prefer a longer, 19th-century style, and would have real difficulties writing without dependent clauses; Ernest Hemingway, I'm not. ;) Willow 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sentences with no definite articles sound too telegraphic to my ears and, well, ungrammatical. Is there a guideline somewhere that says we should do that? Preferring Eliot to the more pithy Mr. Jingle, Willow 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a lot of the 'thes' are taken care of and a lot of the 'however's (although imho there are a couple more that could go, i might swipe at em later. I'm not sure i agree about the longer sentences though. There isn't a policy against it that i know of, but heaven sakes, just hit 'find' in firefox and then 'highlight all', and lordy lord are they a huge number in the lot of text. compare it to other FAs and tell me what you think - maybe you'll remain undeterred, maybe not but it feels very hard to commit to me to a sentence that never seems to stop. JoeSmack Talk 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope you got to work OK; I've got to go soon myself. ;) I'll try to find ways to shorten and simplify the sentences, but please be patient with me. Thanks! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still seemed to be a lot of commas to me (and I generally love commas!). Awadewit 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very good; some comments on tightening the presentation (being picky, for obvious reasons ;)
This is a great critique; every FAC should be so lucky! :) Willow 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is very long. Nothing presents itself as an obvious candidate for removal, but it might be summarized further: eg, if it were on the main page, a summary of the summary would have to be created.
I've been bold and condensed the lead a bit, but couldn't deal with the citation needed tags since I'm not familiar with the topic. TimVickers 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not immediately clear why the thistle logo is related to the Scottish Enlightenment.
Tim should probably answer this, but I believe that the thistle is a symbol of Scotland itself, particularly the flower part that is the EB logo. Did this I'll try to track down when it became the "official" EB symbol. Having trouble; apparently not trademarked? see Talk page
  • Even with a citation, I don't know about 'dubious scholarship'; at minimum, it should read 'considered dubious'. The citation seems to be to Collier's Encyclopedia, with a text mention of the 'dubious' description, but I'm not sure another (competitor) encyclopedia is a good source for that characterization.
Collier's Encyclopedia expresses the idea most pithily, but several sources question the scholarship of the EB's early editions. There are several examples where the early EB editors either invented facts or rejected established science in favor of crackpot theories, e.g., Smellie's assertion that tobacco smoking will shrivel the brain to a dry husk, or Dr. Gleig's rejection of Newton's law of gravity (then well established) in favor of the theory that Heracleitian fire causes gravity?
Although this is an oversimplification, I wouldn't cite product A to support the claim that competing product B was once of low quality. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to trust an encyclopedia, especially if corroborated by other sources. But perhaps you're right, it might have the appearance of impropriety.
(later) fixed this; eliminated "dubious scholarship" altogether
  • In the history of editions, the eminence of the 11th isn't mentioned?
OK, did that.
  • 'The unfamiliar organization and the absence of an Index' - we run into the absence of an Index before learning that previous editions did have one (though it is mentioned in the lead). Also, no description of the differences, if any, between a Britannica Index and an ordinary index with a lower-case i.
There's no difference; it was for me a compromise between treating it like a noun (index) and treating like a fourth part of the EB (Index). I'll go with the former. The history of the EB index is a little complicated; it came into general use around (IIRC) the 7th ed. but, in even the 2nd ed., individual long articles had their own index. I'll try and clarify it all; thanks! OK, clarified this (I hope).
  • I'm the last to be playing footnote police, but 'universal critical condemnation' really should have a citation of some sort.
OK, Kister will do, since he provides all sorts of quotes. "Universal" is too strong, though. Did this
  • Why is the Sherlock Holmes mention so exceptionally notable that it alone merits inclusion in the article? Does the Britannica play a central role in the story? Sorry, I ought to know more than I do about Sherlock Holmes stories.
It's the key mechanism by which the mark, Jabez Wilson, is duped; to keep him out of his office, he's mysteriously hired by an eccentric American to copy out the EB longhand for a healthy salary. Holmes mocks his stupidity, but notes that he'll at least be better educated on subjects early in the alphabet. No change?
You might mention Britannica's central role in the plot, otherwise it sounds rather arbitrarily selected. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although it'd be better to assemble a larger collection of cool literature references. We need to give this section more weight, anyway.
OK, did that. Filled in the "popular reputation" section significantly. The details of the Holmes' story are maybe not pertinent, though? Interested readers can always follow the link. Willow 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of the Micropedia articles could focus more on what they're meant to do (give a very brief intro to a topic, I assume, and point to appropriate Macropedia articles for more information) rather than what they don't do.
OK, did that.
  • Do they have an official standard on their 'hybrid' English spelling? Do they justify these choices anywhere?
I'll look for that. Having trouble; maybe there's no set policy?
  • 'the online version...is updated daily' - what's updated? The daily news-type features? This phrasing implies that some fraction of the core encyclopedic content is updated daily, which seems unlikely.
I need to check up on this as well. They do accept corrections at any time, I believe.
  • Along the same lines, I think more could be made of how radical a change the continuous revision policy was. I think most people today would read 'check twice every ten years' and think that was a ridiculously low rate.
OK. The prior policy was to not change the encyclopedia at all until the next edition was released, usually ~20-30 years later. Even then, many articles were carried over intact from the earlier edition, e.g., from the 7th to the 8th. Did this
  • Systemic bias section seems biased. One could make the plausible counterargument that the Britannica's main audience is Western, so it's unsurprising that it covers Western topics, which are more likely to interest its readers, in more detail. Particularly the article lists seem crufty to me (and, depending on how fast those revisions happen, might get out of date ;). Does Kister (the cited reference) explicitly make this argument that Britannica's coverage favors Western topics, but less so than competitors?
Kister states it more positively; he notes explicitly that it's not as biased as its competitors. I'll give a quote later today so that you can understand the context. included the following quote
  • Similar question with the '10% are female' statistic: I assume this is in the cited source (was it this article that at one point counted the number of female-sounding names, or am I thinking of something else?), but do they describe how they arrived at this figure? A much more useful comparison would be the percentage of female contributors in the 15th edition; obviously the percentage will sound low if you calculate it over the entire 300+ years of its existence.
The historical figures that are published are those of the 10th-11th editions, in which women represented 2% of the credited authors. According to the cited Gillian Thomas book, there were many parts written uncredited by the EB's largely female "secretarial" staff. No women were credited prior to the 10th edition. A calculation based on the published list of contributors, under the most generous assumptions (all androgynous names are female), yields a present-day figure of 9%. I realize that that can't be cited as WP:NOR, but it also seemed unfair to cite the 2% figure.
I'm loath to remove the sentence, but maybe it's better without it. Removed sentence
  • In the staff section, there should again be a note or reference of some sort for the statement that the editorial staff writes the Micropedia articles, particularly if you're giving such a very specific example. Mentioning again that these are anonymous is pertinent, but whether or not they provide references is irrelevant here.
The actual article says "Eds." at the bottom, which stands for the editorial staff. I can reference it. Did this
  • The large number of statistics on the ages and deaths of the editorial advisors does not seem relevant - there never seems to be a point made about them. I assume the idea is that they may be out of date and/or out of tune with their younger consumers, but that's never stated and probably shouldn't be unless there's a source for it.
The idea is that many readers may be people researching a paper or newspaper article. When writing about Wikipedia, such researchers often note the relative youth of its typical contributors, and I thought they might appreciate some data on the age of their EB counterparts.
The death dates are a measure of the time since some contributions have been updated in the EB.
OK, though I'm a bit resistant to including information in a particular article simply because people often mention the corresponding Wikipedia-related factoid. It's not clear reading this article in isolation why we need this list of facts - eg, a percentage of dead 'editorial advisors' doesn't have any implication for whether the content they oversaw has been updated or not, does it? (Unless the percentage is 100%, I suppose.) Also, if the Propedia contributor list has just been accreting new names over time, then there will be dead people on the list, but it would have been updated by the newcomers. (I'm not sure if it works this way, but it seems likely.) Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so fond of this, too; it seems relatively unimportant. I may just remove it or reword it. OK, fixed that.
  • Starting the corporate structure section with their registered trademarks seems odd; ideally move it down.
OK, did that.
  • 'Magisterial' is an odd adjective for an encyclopedia.
I was reaching for an adjective that sounded grand and authoritative, something that says, "this purports to be the definitive reference work", non plus ultra. Removed "magisterial" clause
  • I admit a bias here; corporate drone-speak makes me gag. But I don't see the relevance of this 'Porter 5 forces' stuff - what one particular business model suggests about Britannica seems quite tangential - and the application seems to be... well, maybe too trivial to be OR, but certainly 'novel synthesis' on some level.
Need to brood on this for a little while; maybe you're right. The conclusion seems pretty obvious, though, even without appealing the 5-forces analysis, so I wouldn't call it a novel synthesis. The only reason for citing the 5-forces analysis is to place the argument in the framework of accepted economic theory. (Ooops, is that drone-speak? Sorry, I'm too good of a parrot. ;)
(later) Removed references to Porter 5-forces analysis. did this
  • 'Dr. Kister' doesn't need an honorific.
Good catch, thanks! Did this
  • Whether Wikipedia is bigger than an ancient Chinese encyclopedia is also irrelevant in an article about neither. (I assume that's 'Yong-le', but I always want to read it 'Yon-gle'.)
OK, I can delete this. Did this
  • 'oriented towards omissions' - needs rewording - doesn't really make sense to be 'oriented' toward an omission.
I agree. Did this
  • Unless we get a link to information about Crotona/e, we have no way of evaluating that example. I think it's better to just say 'minor spelling variations' or somesuch.
OK. Did this
  • I'm not sold on comparing web traffic to Wikipedia vs Britannica: it's pretty obvious that most for-pay sites will get lower traffic on average than free ones, and some of the discrepancy is surely explained by the fact that people do think of Wikipedia when they want to know what movie this actor was in or what season of Futurama has the episode where Leela discovers that she's a mutant. (Hmm, guess what's on TV right now?) It's sort of like saying 'Google Scholar gets more web traffic than PubMed' - well, yes, but one is much more specialized. (Also, high probability that Wikipedia users are more likely to have the Alexa tool installed than Britannica users, who likely are concentrated in schools.) In short, there's enough caveats to the comparison that I'm not sure that stating it in an unqualified way is helpful.
I agree with your conclusion although, speaking for myself, I think that Futurama is just as valid a subject for curiosity as Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. I believe that the function of an encyclopedia is to inform on any subject of interest to its readers, not to pass judgment on the worthiness of those subjects. I love Homer and can recite hundreds of lines of his poetry, but to me, that shouldn't be more exalted than a fanboy reciting every line in Star Wars; both of us are equally in love. :) I remember Jorge Luis Borges saying that tango lyrics would someday be more highly esteemed and remembered in his native Argentina than all the then-current high-brow poetry; and he was right.
If we agree on that, then I think the 450-fold difference in web traffic does reflect a greater perceived value of Wikipedia over the Britannica, both for its content and for its accessibility. People are voting with their feet — or mice?
No change?
No, I'm not comfortable with that conclusion; it would only work if the two sites' content coverage were roughly the same, or there were some way of quantifying Wikipedia's traffic for content that overlaps with Britannica's coverage. People come to Wikipedia for a much broader scope of information - last time I looked, the 100 most-viewed articles were over-enriched in anime characters and body parts - so it's formally possible given this data that more people use Britannica for traditional encyclopedic topics, but Wikipedia gets more traffic from other coverage. I don't believe that's true at all, but it can't be excluded. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might understand the discrepancy; please let me know if I'm right! I'm assessing relative value by the question, "Does encyclopedia X or Y better provide what I want to know?" whereas I think you're assessing it with the question, "Given subject A covered by both encyclopedia X and Y, which encyclopedia would I prefer?" Your way separates the quality from the quantity, which seems good; but doesn't it add value to have something rather than nothing on a subject of curiosity?
Added proviso; OK?
  • I don't know if this is covered in the sources, but what's the rationale behind the edition numbering system? I saw the volumes column in the table jumping around from 28 to 3 and back, and wondered what happened, only to realize that the separately numbered '12th edition' is just a supplement to the 11th... and yet the addition of an index to the 15th didn't trigger a new number, and they've been on the same edition since the 70s. Given the continuous revision policy, what demarcates the recent editions? Marketing/corporate whim? Opabinia regalis 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no rationale except the marketing idea of the new American owners. The basic idea is that encyclopedias gradually get outdated and need new material; however, the cost of a whole new edition is exorbitant. The earlier additions to the 3rd and 5th editions were called "supplements". However, Messrs. Hooper et al. recognized the sales potential of adding a few volumes to the 9th and calling it the 10th; more than a few people in the early 20th century were outraged to discover that they had bought a 10th edition that was mostly composed of the 9th. They applied the same strategy to the 11th, adding three volumes to get the 12th and a different set of 3 to get the 13th.
You're always a gem, and I'd appreciate any more comments or sugggestions that you have. Thanks! Willow 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version of the criticism section has a lot of unnecessary adjectives that add up to a slanted feel. James Joyce wasn't just omitted, but slighted, the editors weren't just wrong or out of date, but promoted charlatanry, its claims aren't just factually false, but intemperate, etc. The quote is a good one for illustrating the problem (what, people who don't know their own limits producing sub-par articles? A truly foreign thing for Wikipedia!), but it's just kind of stuck into the text with no explanatory transition (eg, it was evidently written after the American buyout, but we don't know when this was written without clicking the footnote). It also seems deeply peculiar to be citing Britannica articles in support of statements that contradict Britannica's own promotional claims. Lastly, the racism and sexism paragraph is troublesome, as it seems to be judging a 1911 work by modern standards, and cites examples that might have been just ordinary shoddy work. (eg, paraphrasing the KKK's description of itself is not necessarily the endorsement of these views, as the article's text implies.)
Huh, I'm keenly conscious of my own limits, and I still produce sub-par articles. ;) Great to have you back! :D
I agree with making it more neutral; Joyce is already gone, and others can be eliminated. However, there are genuine occasions when the Britannica is not merely limited by its era, but is actually behind the time. Mr. Fleming is not quoting others, but expressing his own "expert" opinion when he blithely explains how the KKK restored much-needed order to the post-Civil War South by terrorizing "superstitious" blacks and their supporters; to me at least, that seems pretty racist, even for 1911. I have to admit, I was offended by the "frequent rape" assertions as well. The sexism is perhaps the product of its time, even perhaps the suppression of the women typesetters, but one might expect better from a putatively civilized institution.
It seemed deeply appropriate to refute the EB promotional claims with quotes from its own materials. I guess that the claims were written by some non-expert advertising person and not really checked over, so they could well be removed or modified soon. I can't imagine why else they would make bogus claims of priority.
  • There is also one odd citation in the reputation section, reading '(source: interview in The New Yorker, March 3, 1938)' but without the footnote format the rest of the text uses, and without identifying the article. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one caught my eye as well; I still haven't tracked it down. Willow 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed that; it was in the 1934 New Yorker, not the 1938. Willow 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -- Stbalbach 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the article is very good but to reach featured I think some issues of POV balance need to be discussed. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little critical discussion of EB. For example in Wikipedia, we have an entire article on Reliability of Wikipedia, and an entire article on Criticism of Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia attracts that type of attention, but the criticisms of EB are currently few and spread out in the article with qualifiers. The "Reputation" section is very rosy saying "the Britannica has enjoyed a reputation for general excellence." Maybe a "popular" reputation, but the 1911 edition had many criticism's published at the time, including a 200+ page book by Willard Huntington Wright called Misinforming a Nation (1917) - the 15th edition also had many criticisms. Given the more recent attention of WP vs EB, it has also attracted criticism. The Bias section could be expanded, some of the problems discussed in Wright's book are still around today. It also seems to downplay things by saying "albeit less so than several older encyclopedias" and following up the bias section with an "Awards" section.
More criticism should perhaps be included. I'll try to do that; the Ken Kister and Gillian Thomas references have some nice discussions, not to mention the fine book by Einbinder. However, the Misinforming a Nation book was discredited (even in its own time) as a mere polemic, not a fair critique. I'm willing to discuss it, but we should bear its negative example in mind in our writing here. OK, did that; what do you think of the new section?
I believe wholeheartedly in a fair and scrupulously complete presentation; but in cases of doubt, I believe we should treat the EB with gracious generosity and fellow feeling. We both share a common good purpose, to enlighten those who wish enlightenment and to transmit the hard-won culture and knowledge of previous eras to the next. It's easy to scorn them for their failings, but we have our share of those as well; and I think we do better to help them, to improve them gadfly-like, rather than to try to drag them into the mud. Indeed, I foresee that our article on them will improve their reputation and business, rather than detract from them; I couldn't be more delighted in the success of a noble pursuit. History teaches that making an encyclopedia is a labor of love, not of lucre; there are much easier ways of making a buck.
I think you did a good job on the criticisms section. there are much easier ways of making a buck.. lol, well, for most of us no bucks involved, it is a labor of love of knowledge, and with Wikipedia, democratic knowledge (if such a thing exists). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EB is a general purpose encyclopedia, compared to other more specialized encyclopedia's, it is not nearly as good. For example, just about any topic on the Middle Ages is going to be more reliable in Dictionary of the Middle Ages - the same could be said for Medical, regional, and other types of encyclopedias. There are thousands of dictionaries/encyclopedias today. The article doesn't really place EB into context, it speaks about Encyclopedia's as a whole, when it's really a sub-genre of Encyclopedia, the general purpose encyclopedia.
Agreed, I'll try to add that. Did this
Looks good. Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:LEAD section discusses a lot about the latest edition and its lower price point, but misses large parts of the rest of the article. The Lead section is a balanced summary of the article content, it should not say anything "new" that is not already said in more detail in the article body. It should be a mini stand-alone version of the article in summary format. See WP:LEAD for more.
You're right, I'll try to cover the rest without causing the lead to balloon uncontrollably. did this
OK, I tried to shorten the lead, but add in other parts covered in the main article. How does that look? Thanks for your other really nice comments, BTW! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online should be made at least a stub, it's pretty bad right now. The Online Britannica is more than just a digital version of the paper edition, it contains a lot of unique material.
Would you be willing to tackle that? You're right, it's shamefully bad right now, almost an advertisement. However, that's another article and somewhat ancillary to this one's FAC. Thanks, Willow 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will keep it in mind as I find sources about it. One important thing to note in that article, for Wikipedia readers, is that EB articles are fully and freely available when linked to from outside sources (such as WP), no subscription needed. I've often seen editors delete external links to EBO because they think it is a pay-site (which it is, but not when linked to from Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure of sections. Currently there are 4 main sections: History, Status 2007, Contributors/Staff, Competition. Would it make sense to have a 5th section called "Reception" into which these sub-sections be moved: Reputation, Criticisms, Awards, with a lead paragraph giving summary highlights from those three sections. I realize this puts the "criticisms" and "awards" right next to each other, but it makes logical sense. If not awards could be kept in the Status 2007 section. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, and very apt. Did this. Do you like the current wording of the section title? There's no lead-in blurb, but maybe it's not needed? Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport—1a. Dense occurrence of problems in the lead; this indicates that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing. Please don't just fix these examples; search for other WPs to help. Here are examples of problems in the prose.
  • "continuously-published"—No hyphen after "-ly".
Fixed this
  • Inconsistent use of en dashes and hyphens for ranges (should all be en dashes).
Fixed this throughout article
  • Talk of attracting the North American market before announcing that it was a British innovation.
Not sure if I understand this? The beginning of the previous paragraph says that it was first published in Edinburgh in 1768, making it a Scottish innovation? If it would help, I could write "in Edinburgh, Scotland".
  • "The current 15th edition"—Comma is mandatory, unless you mean that there's a previous 15th edition.
Fixed this
There was a previous version of the 15th edition (1974–1985), as described in the article, but it too had a three-part structure.
  • "less than 750 words"—"fewer".
Fixed this
  • "2-310 pages" is a bit hard to read, and needs an en dash anyway. Try "from two to 310 pages".
Fixed this
  • "readers are advised to study the Propædia outline to understand a subject's context and find other, more detailed articles"—I think "to" is required before "find".
Fixed this
  • "over the last 70 years"—the last in 70 years in the century is OK, but here we need "past".
Fixed this
  • "with ca. 40 million words on ca. half a million topics"—No, spell out "about".
Fixed this
  • "the rise of electronic encyclopedias such as Encarta"—You might also mention Wikipedia.
I would, but I dread the edit-wars to follow. Not everyone is convinced that Wikipedia poses a notable challenge to the Britannica.
  • ";[8] To"?
Fixed this
  • "Certain earlier editions of the Britannica have been criticized at times for inaccuracies, biases and lack of authority"—Can we do without "Certain" (unsure, but would be nicer)? Remove "at times". Better singular: inaccuracy, bias and ...
Fixed this

Tony 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sharp eye for grammar and punctuation. Please let me know whether all of your concerns have been addressed. Thanks! Willow 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote: "this indicates that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing. Please don't just fix these examples". You've just fixed the examples. Tony 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I made changes throughout the text, such as converting the hyphens to en dashes. Am I correct in understanding that you want only copy editing, not wholesale changes in the exposition? It would be helpful if you could describe the types of errors that are repeated throughout the article. Willow 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from copy-editing. You need to say when Hugh Chisholm made that sexist remark, it would be notable in 1980, but normal in 1910. I guessed this was also in the 1910 edition. Correct this if it is wrong. Perhaps add a fair-use image of Christine Sutton, to counter in part the "Old-dead-white-male" impression of the section on contributors? TimVickers 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I added a cheery picture of Dr. Sutton to the Contributors section. I'll track down the Chisholm reference later today. Thanks for all your help; the article is much better for your copy-editing! :) Willow 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced the Chisholm quote to its source, an article in The Daily Telegraph (14 December 1910), but upon further reflection, I decided to delete it. His remarks are not actually part of the Britannica itself, whatever they may tell of its then chief editor, so they're not pertinent. Thanks again for your help! :) Willow 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to work on this article quite a lot and since I first found it, it has been greatly improved. I'm glad to see that others have continued to work this article, and think it is worthy of being a featured article. NauticaShades 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full Support- Yeah. I don't see why not, its certainly well written and has had a lot of work put into it. Retiono Virginian 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have issues with 1: Over abundance of primary sources (we don't accept that many anywhere else) and 2: side claims such as Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever assembled are fully unreferenced. Sorry, but primary vs secondary sources is deemed a very significant issue at other articles. Having said that - my first review is it's quite a fine article, and I don't know enough about the FA process to comment further.Garrie 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Garrie, I removed the "largest", clause which is indeed verifiable but unnecessary for the article, as you point out. To my knowledge, the main reliable secondary sources for the Britannica have all been included; not many people devote their lives to researching encyclopedias! The primary sources here are mainly reference to facts, such as "the EB is dedicated to President Bush and Queen Elizabeth II.", "Lord Inglefield called attention to this Shelock Holmes story." or "The EB gave a 20-page rebuttal to the study by Nature." They're generally not used to support claims, although there are a few, such as it being the "oldest English-language encyclopedia still in print". My own feeling is that, for such claims as were cited, the EB is a reliable (tertiary) source. However, I could replace them with a secondary source, if there's enough doubt of the Britannica being a reliable source. Willow 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The policy states that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." (WP:RS) the use of primary sources to reference simple facts about the Britannica is entirely acceptable. TimVickers 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- This has turned into a lovely article, and as someone noted it's on a subject (encyclopedias) that is near and dear to us :) It's well-written and well-referenced (I can confirm that there's not a whole lot that's been published about encyclopedias, compared to some other subjects); certainly worth of being a FAC. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone pointed out, this article will come under particular scrutiny (especially from Britannica), so let's be doubly sure that it is very thoroughly copy edited before calling it a Featured Article. I just took a very quick look and saw that the corporate name, "Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.", was missing the comma everywhere. I also have seen several instances of commas preceding the words "but" or "and" where the word begins a dependent clause, and those should be removed, since commas should only be placed before a conjunction that begins an independent clause or a parenthetical clause. I also see that you (Willow) are adding more semicolons, combining two sentences together. I think you should be more judicious in your use of semicolons, of which there are, IMO, too many in the article. Shorter sentences are easier to read, and, except for William Faulkner, writers should prefer simplicity. Nevertheless, it is a fine article, and these nits and picks are merely intended to assist you in making it even better. Over the weekend I'll try to take a closer look and help out. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ssilvers, for your kind attention to the article and also for your kind advice. I appreciate your time and effort and I'll make a greater effort to rein my rampant runaways. ;) For me, it's hard to keep two clauses separate if they're connected in thought.
For proofreaders, there's also a small matter that I should call your (plural) attention to. I tend to punctuate certain sentences thus
<Independent clause 1> <conjunction such as "and" or "but">, <parenthetical clause>, <independent clause 2>
as in "Her words were fair but, owing to his past experiences, he doubted her sincerity."
whereas other people insert an extra comma
<Independent clause 1>, <conjunction such as "and" or "but">, <parenthetical clause>, <independent clause 2>
as in "Her words were fair, but, owing to his past experiences, he doubted her sincerity."
Naturally, I like my way better, being more flowing and just as correct. However, I recognize that some may prefer the other or yet another formulation; I'll defer to the consensus in any case. Thanks again, Willow 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with "Her words were fair but owing to his past experiences he doubted her sincerity." - the but doing the job of the comma or semi-colon. I'm no English brain though. JoeSmack Talk 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disagree, but you do need the comma before a conjunction that is followed by an independent clause creating a compound sentence, thus: "Her words were fair, but he doubted her sincerity." Then, when you add the parenthetical in, you may (optionally) add the two extra commas. It looks like a lot of commas, but if you don't want so many commas, you can go with "Her words were fair, but owing to his past experiences he doubted her sincerity." But you may not omit the comma before the independent clause. Another way to do it (although I agree that, in this case, it is not warranted because the sentence is pretty short) is: "Her words were fair. Owing to his past experiences, however, he doubted her sincerity." This does illustrate, though, that even though I have broken the sentence in two, it is crystal clear from the second sentence that they are related. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, never be sorry to disagree! I like your 'don't want so many commas' version the best. JoeSmack Talk 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overall an excellent article. However, I do have a question about the contributors section at Encyclopædia_Britannica#Contributors where it states "The 2007 print version of the Britannica boasts 4,411 contributors, many of whom are eminent in their fields such as Milton Friedman, Michael DeBakey and Carl Sagan." Of these three people, Friedman and Sagan are dead, with Sagan having been dead for over 10 years, while DeBakey is 99 years old. How can they be noted contributors to the 2007 edition. More likely, they contributed to earlier edition of the Encyclopedia. We should clarify this, perhaps by listing some living notable contributors. And yes, I realize that the rest of the subsection describes how up to a quarter of contributors are deceased, but the way the section reads it sounds like they contributed to the current edition. Please clarify.--Alabamaboy 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Support, Alabamaboy! I'll try to answer your question as best I can. As I understand it, even deceased people count as contributors to the 2007 version because their articles are still being used in that version, even though they were written some years ago. That's fair, I guess, because those articles are contributing to the quality of the Britannica, no? Presumably, some fields don't change quickly, and so an article written in 1987 (or 1947) can still be considered au courant. But perhaps we shouldn't say that they are eminent contributors?
The cheery picture of Christine Sutton was included to show a prolific living contributor, and (per Tim's suggestion above) to counter the perception that the Britannica's contributors are mostly dead, white males. I can track down a few more notable living people, though. Please let me know what you think, Willow 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until copyedit is done, and other minor points.
    • I found a faulty instance of WP:DASH; pls check throughout.
    • I didn't find any other examples, but others should proofread it as well.
    • I'm finding a *lot* of WP:MSH problems and fixing them as I go; pls review. But I can't fix this one: the section "Contributors, staff, and management" is followed by sub-sections of "Contributors" and "Staff", repeating headings. Can the main heading be changed to something like Personnel or something more generic?
    • Changed to "Personnel and management" to capture the business aspects.
    • "Summary table of the editions" isn't a good heading; can it be changed to something like "Edition summary"?
    • Took your suggestion — thanks! :)
    • Do Commons images belong in See also or External links (I don't know—anyone)?
        • They should probably go under "External links", as {{commons}} would. Fvasconcellos 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added tag for Commons materials; there are a lot of images there!
Images were still in See also; I moved them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Encyclopædia Britannica article about itself does not belong in Further reading, it's an External link—see WP:GTL.
    • Perfectly right, and it's been moved.
    • External link farm, needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT.
    • Pruned to a nice set, eliminated redundancies.
    • External jumps need to be eliminated by either adding them to external links, converting to a reference, or linking to their own article (Wikipedia receives roughly 450 times more traffic than does the online version of the Britannica (britannica.com), ... ) britannica.com here is an external jump. Another external jump which can be converted to a ref or it's own article, (Similar to the Britannica, Encarta is also available online by subscription, although some content may be accessed for free.) Another external jump (A somewhat more credible critic, Joseph McCabe, claimed that the Britannica was susceptible to editorial pressure from the Roman Catholic Church in his book, Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britannica.) Another (The Britannica has also been criticized unfairly. A well-known example is Willard Huntington Wright's book, Misinforming a Nation, ). Wiki is not a blog of links to external sites. Do we not have an article on Wright's book? Then it should be a red link, not an external jump.
    • Changed these external links to refs; I must've been being lazy not to make as proper reference.

Haven't look at sourcing yet; will do that next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your careful attention to detail! :) Willow 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • I changed a couple instances of cite journal to cite news, so they would return a correct ref.
Great, I followed your lead on the references that I added subsequently. Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand these refs; they list EB as the publisher, but are on 1991encyclopedia.org—is the ref written correctly?
  • ^ Lang, Andrew. (1911). "Poltergeist". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  • ^ Fleming, Walter Lynwood. (1911). "Lynch Law". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  • ^ Fleming, Walter Lynwood. (1911). "Ku Klux Klan". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
The ref is correct, since those articles were published by the Britannica in its 11th edition. The url links to 1991encyclopedia.org are included merely for convenience, so that readers don't have to buy their own copy of the 11th, which is in the public domain.
  • Blue link ref, needs to be expanded, needs last access date: Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Shop - (SVOL_REF) 2003 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
  • I listed the publisher on that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica Selects AskMeNow to Launch Mobile Encylopedia (February 21, 2007). Retrieved on March 25, 2007.
Thanks, Fvasconcellos! :) Willow 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this seem to list publisher twice? "Biochemical Components of Organisms". Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. 14: 1007–1030. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. (double punc at end)
I fixed the double period; that's a foible of the template itself. In the apparent double listing, the first is to the encyclopedia itself, whereas the second is to the company that produces it. Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this? The NPD Group/NPD Techworld, January 2000 – February 2006. Can't sort out title, author, publisher.
Gave slightly improved reference; I'm not sure whether it's a publicly available report, or whether you have to pay for it. Willow 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of that information, I've clarified this a bit further. After all, these are footnotes ;) Fvasconcellos 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, Buzzle.com ? Is this a reliable source? (note the author, please: Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. No. Better do some homework there on and off Wiki. This MUST be fixed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can write for buzzle.com—that sentence should be better sourced. http://www.buzzle.com/authors/become-author.asp SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, most of those links were not added by me; admittedly, I hadn't checked them carefully. I'll look them over, although I'm getting sleepy tonight; no rest for the wicked! ;) Willow 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the dubious buzzle reference, and the attached sentence, which was pretty subjective, anyway. Willow 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willow, thanks for addressing all of my concerns so quickly. I'm traveling, on a very slow connection, haven't viewed the article anew, but will re-check the article as soon as I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose, since these issues have been addressed. I need to thoroughly review again before I can support. For example, this kind of error can get us into trouble: [1] The way the article title was reported appeared to introduce bias; please go through and check *every* reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi Willow. I feel like playing devil's advocate tonight.
Does that make me the advocata angelarum? ;) I'll answer your critiques first, since they seem a little easier. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The history of the Britannica can be divided into five main eras." I just bet that a strict reading of our original research policy would say that this is an original synthesis, unless it's attributed. I'm not asking you to change it, by any means, because I think that would be an example of putting policy before common sense.
I would be hard-pressed to find a source that states it verbatim, but that organization is present in most recountings of the EB's history. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Did Willow write the preceding?) (I think so. O)[reply]
Umm, she did, but she was so sleepy that she forgot to sign — twice! Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, what if you say "is" instead of "can be" and drop a footnote to a source that does it that way? --Ssilvers 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My novel interpretation is this: you have organized your paragraphs by certain divisions of time. You have provided a topic sentence that prepares the reader for this organization. If paragraph organization is original research, we're in trubble. Case closed. –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, Outriggr! Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say the same for "Under the influence of Mortimer J. Adler, the Britannica sought not only to be a good reference work and educational tool, but also to systematize all of human knowledge, striving to fulfill the dream of the Elizabethan philosopher, Francis Bacon." Is the italicized portion attributable, or is it a nice aside of the type that aren't strictly allowed?
I think that I did read that somewhere, but I'm uncertain where; it would've been a few months ago, when I started researching the EB. The aside is not necessary, though, and we may appreciate it more than most; perhaps it should be deleted? Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for deleting it as sorta tangential. Hey, wait! I've decided to fulfill another dream of Bacon at breakfast tomorrow.  :-) -- Ssilvers 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's not disturbing Bacon. –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yum! :9 Willow 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Removed Bacon bits. ;) Willow 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work on the article. I'll be back to weigh in later. –Outriggr § 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You're very fair-spoken, for a demon. ;) Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's opposite day down below! –Outriggr § 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other comment I forgot involved the paragraph about American businessmen. When reading it I feel that there is a slight shift in point of view. In Europe the Britannica was managed by "publishing firms"; in the US it's managed by "American businessmen who introduced aggressive marketing". The difference is perhaps legitimate, but the paragraph also indicates that the 11th edition, overseen by Horace Hooper in the US, is highly praised. The topic sentence for the "now in the US" era could be more neutral, I think. –Outriggr § 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 11th has a rather tortuous history. The EB was bought by a partnership of four Americans, two of whom bailed early; the remaining two, Hooper and Jackson, quarreled vigorously and publicly. As I understand it, Hooper wanted to take the high road with the 11th, making it as perfect as possible, whereas Jackson didn't want to invest the time and effort. Both of them used nasty corporate shenanigans to oust the other, which were recounted with manifest gusto by the tabloids of the day. Eventually, Jackson lost and sought revenge by starting his own encyclopedia, the Book of Knowledge, which one still sees in used book stores. That's why it's hard for me to describe Hooper and Jackson as a united "firm"; by contrast, the brothers Adam and Charles Black seemed a model professional company.
Also, there's no denying that there was a mighty sea-change in marketing when the Americans took over the Britannica. There was much criticism of the EB's "popularization" and tidal-wave advertising, but it also seems likely that the new tactics saved the EB from bankruptcy as much as Hooper's devotion to producing a first-rate encyclopedia. Willow 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support I have two nitpicks, which echo two of SandyGeorgia's comments:
    • Two external jumps under "Criticism", which could easily be turned into footnotes; I'd do it myself, but I don't want to step on any toes during FAC :)
    • I'd like to see a different heading for "Contributors, staff and management"; at present, it's redundant to the subsections. Also, "Digital encyclopedias on CD/DVD-ROM" could be changed to "Digital encyclopedias on optical media" or something of the sort, to avoid the slash.
    • In my humble opinion, this article is well-written and, perhaps most importantly, "fiercely" neutral; once the two very minor issues I mentioned above are addressed, I'll Support. Not that it has influenced my opinion, but I'd also love to see this on the Main Page :) Fvasconcellos 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your kind review! :) I think I've dealt with the two problems you mentioned, although personally I don't mind the slash; is it OK if we keep CD/DVD-ROM? "Optical media" seems not as direct, not as immediately recogizable, for the readers? I'll change it, though, if you insist. Thanks again, Willow 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. WP:MSH discourages the use of special characters; I'm unsure as to whether slashes are OK, but I see your point on "optical media" not being as instantly recognizable. Fvasconcellos 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fvasconcellos, you shouldn't worry about stepping on my toes. :) I'm sure that your taste is just as refined as mine, if not more so; Alison thinks you're amazing, and many of us share her opinion. :) Besides, I have cloven hooves. 3:) Willow 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not clear what "Editors" in the edition table means. The listed persons are obviously not the editors-in-chief. Benton was publisher, not much of an editor I think. Seems like an incoherent selection of persons prominently involved with the respective editions. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that, Bramlet, and for all your other improvements to the article. I've fixed the table so that that column includes only the chief editors of the various editions, and I've changed the column heading as well to clarify that. Willow 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Well written and well referenced. I don't see any issues that needs to be fixed, so I'll support. Actually, Image:Encarta visual browser.jpg, a copyrighted image used under fair use, has no fair use rationale. That needs to be fixed. CloudNine 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cloud, for that critical catch! I've added a fair-use justification to the Image page itself; is that the right place for it? I hope it's OK; I've never written a fair-use justification before. Willow 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive would be one way to put it, it took me 25+ minutes to read and I'm no slouch. Well written, and an improvement from the last FA nominated article. I worked on that one some and I can say this is FA material.
  • Is there a better way to present the 2nd sentence? It seems weird to me, but I can't figure out a better way to put it.
Maybe it's a little better now?
  • Which article is 310 pages in the macropedia?
That on the United States; they merged all the individual state articles and got a monster article.
  • "One young writer", Smellie, is said to be the writer of the 1st EB, but elsewhere (in WP and on britannica) he is called "editor" and "compiler". Did he actually do all the writing?
He did indeed do at least some of the writing, although it's been generally acknowledged that he plagiarized many writers of his time. (For example, see the bicentennial toasts.) The other two, Bell and Macfarquhar, didn't contribute to the writing, as far as anyone knows. In his later years, Smellie boasted of composing the Britannica with scissors and a pastepot. My kind of charming rogue :D
  • "Various editions from the 3rd to the 9th were pirated for sale in the United States,[4] beginning with Dobson's Encyclopædia.[19] " - Wouldn't "extensively plagiarized" be a better term than pirated? It sounds more like the material was copied and modified.
They were indeed pirated. Dobson's was slightly modified, but, by the 9th edition, others pioneered early Xerox technology (shipping photographs of the galley proofs) and employed spies in the printing shops to send them galleys by the swiftest means. Amazingly efficient, the pirates published their copies almost simultaneously with the official sets. The official sellers sold tens of thousands of sets in North America, whereas the pirates sold hundreds of thousands of sets. The protectionist U. S. copyright laws didn't help, either; court-throat competition! ;) That's one factor that helped Horace Everett Hooper (associated with one of the pirates) to take over the Britannica in 1901. But once there, he was one of its best benefactors, raising it to perhaps its highest height, the 11th.
  • Mention that editions before 11th are now public domain? (when will the 12th become?)
Being published in 1922, the three volumes of the 12th edition are already in the public domain. I'm not sure about the 13th, though, all of its authors would need to be dead for 75 years, I think. I'm not an expert, though.
  • Good luck keeping the article covered in EB but not in WP link red :)
I started helping to write it myself, but it's been stalled for a while now, I think. "Arts of Native American peoples" is the other Macropædia article that's missing. Of course, several others are stubs; check out Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles for a worklist.
  • Here are my copy edits, revert as you feel fit. [2]
Thanks very much! :)
  • Finally, I hope you get a full EB set for getting this to FA :)
By complete serendipity, I picked up a facsimile version of the 1st edition for a song at a used book store. That's how I was able to upload its Preface to Wikisource. It's a real pleasure to read, and I respect Smellie all the more for his wonderful flair for writing and his remarkable erudition. It must be a Scots thing. Quid distat inter sottum et Scotum? Mensa! ;)

-Ravedave 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Dave! Hoping that Greta is doing well, Willow 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. She is doing wonderfully, and this is all gone.
Yeay! :)
"the Britannica moved from being a three-volume set written by one young editor" So should this be changed to compiler since he didn't write the whole thing?
It's a little delicate, since I'd like to keep it both short and accurate. Maybe "compiled" is OK, although I'd like to also give him credit for his writing, which has a highly personal and enjoyable style.
Is this ok? "The 2007 Macropædia has 699 in-depth articles, ranging in length from 2 pages (many) to 310 pages (United States) and having references and named contributors. "
There aren't that many articles with only two pages, although there are several with fewer than five. I'll try to re-word appropriately.
Thanks for re-adding Scotland to Edinburgh, just to make it clear.
So skip the mention that volumes before 12 are public domain?
Not sure where you mean? Thanks again for the help and support! :) Willow 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Repeating this at the bottom so it won't get overlooked. This kind of error can get us into trouble: [3] The way the article title was reported appeared to introduce bias; please go through and check *every* reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do; I'm on it, chief. :) Willow 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They look OK to my eyes; I filled in those last two references from 1911 and 1912. Others should probably take a look, however. Willow 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it odd that this article does not mention the first and most famous of encyclopedias, Diderot's Encyclopédie - this encyclopedia is, in many ways, the one that started it all. It should be mentioned in the history. I will read the rest of the article later. Awadewit 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wonderfully infamous Encyclopédie is covered in the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article, along with many of the encyclopedias that preceded it. I can include a sentence about it here, but I'm worried about fact-creep, that is, the article gradually becoming over-burdened with tangential facts. I've added the sentence; please let me know whether it addresses your concerns — thanks! :) Willow 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem, but since the Encyclopédie was really the driving force behind all later encyclopedias, it seemed disingenuous to only mention the Scottish Enlightenment as the intellectual context for the Britannica's production. I think that the sentence you have added is just fine. Awadewit 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promised comments This is a good article. I have a few small issues that can be addressed and then I will support.
  • Earlier editions of the Britannica have been criticized for inaccuracy, bias and lack of authority - what does "lack of authority" mean here?
The contributors were criticized as lacking authority to write the articles they wrote. For example, the referenced quote about Mr. Philips states that he is not qualified to make sweeping statements about all of European history, as he did in the 11th edition. Clarified this.
"editors of dubious credibility"? Just a thought (I initially thought "unauthoritative" wasn't a word - but it is in the unabridged Merriam-Webster). Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dubious credibility" seems over-stated; it's not as though he was a charlatan or had written bad checks! ;) It's just that he was like many Wikipedians, reading up eagerly and distilling his reading into good prose. The reviewer faults him not for being wrong per se, but for having inadequate direct experience as a historian to make his pronouncements authoritative. If it's OK with you, I'd like to keep "unauthoritative", which has the advantage of precision. Willow 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Britannica has been issued in 15 official editions, with several supplements and re-organizations. - is a "re-organization" a thing that can be issued? I was confused by this.
This could be dropped. The whole 15th edition edition was drastically reorganized in 1985: large-scale mergers of articles, additions and (I assume) deletions. Dropped "re-organizations".
I get that. I was trying to point out that the phrasing and grammar don't quite work. How about "The Britannica has been reissued in 15 official editions, some of which have involved a substantial re-organization of the encyclopedia; supplements have also periodically been published." - or something like that Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two paragraphs and explained more fully. Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • who oversaw the production of the famous 9th edition - why was the 9th edition famous?
It is widely famed for its scholarship; it is considered by many to be the most scholarly of all editions. Explained this more fully.
  • Powell aggressively developed new educational products that leveraged the Britannica's reputation. - this is an uncommon use of "leveraged" - you might consider changing it (I'm not insisting on it - just thinking of the average reader)
I'll think about it, but it's a technical term, I believe. One alternative, "exploited", sounds too crass to my ears. Chose "built upon" as a better alternative.
Or you could just link "leveraged" to wiktionary. I did this with "commensurate" in an article I edited. I should have suggested this before - sorry. We shouldn't dumb down too much, should we? (I don't like "exploit" either.) Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is a little obscure for me; how do you link directly to subentries? Anyway, I think it's be better to be more direct on such a minor point; is "built on" OK for now? Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. For future reference, here's how: leveraged.
  • In 1968, near the end of this era, the Britannica celebrated its bicentennial. - This sentence is oddly placed and does not add much to the paragraph.
I agree, but it helps to give a sense of the passage of time, and to direct the reader to another page describing the bicentennial celebration.
  • I wonder if in the "History" section you might say what defined each "era." Right now it is only implicit. I think this could be done simply by changing some language.
The eras are organized by the major sea-changes in its history, either changes in its ownership/management or organization.
Yes, I get that, but I meant to say was that your language doesn't necessarily convey that. For example, you write "During the second era (7th–9th editions, 1827–1901), the Britannica was managed by the Edinburgh publishing firm, A & C Black." - it is not necessarily clear that that sentence is supposed to mean "the second era was defined by the ownership of A & C Black" - it could be just a prelude to what defined the second era and you are telling us that during the second era, Britannica was owned by A & C Black. In fact, that is just how I read it the first time. All of the "era" sections begin in this manner. That is why I suggested you change the language to make it clear what is defining them. By the way, I noticed the point about original research above. If these eras are so obvious, someone must have done this division somewhere (not to insult your work!) - what prompted you to divide the eras like this? Even if it was someone else's chapter divisions in a book, I would cite that. Then you are not doing original research. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Britannica has a popular reputation for containing the sum of human culture. - "sum of human knowledge," perhaps?
OK! :) Changed this.
  • When Fath Ali became the Shah of Persia in 1797, he was given a complete set of the Britannica's 3rd edition, which he read completely; after this feat of scholarship - is this really a feat of scholarship? Scholarship usually involves original research and writing. How about just "feat"?
Sure! Changed this.
  • In the "Reputation" section, why not list the people who read the entire encyclopedia chronologically?
Made more chronological. Changed this.
I like this better. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Awards" section seems silly if you are only going to mention recent awards and digital awards.
I listed what I was able to find easily. It'd be great if you could find more. :) One might argue that, being current, they're more meaningful than an award given fifty years ago.
I get that, but it looks like have only won dinky little awards in the last few years. Why don't you email Britannica's PR people for a list of awards they have won? I'm sure they would gladly send it to you so that they would be fairly represented. You can then verify the awards with those groups. I won't hold out on this, but I would suggest trying to locate some more prominent awards. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SIIA might not enjoy having their awards called "dinky". ;) I'll see what I can drum up. Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps now, but Britannica is really known for their print encyclopedia. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • editorial mistakes were also criticized - what does this mean? typos?
Improper and inconsistent sorting of Japanese names, for example. Specified this.
Eek. I would definitely include that example. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK? Willow 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be ok? If you have a source, I would definitely include it. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reviewers keep harping on me about this, so I thought I should mention it here. In the "Criticisms" section, there are a lot of sentences with this structure: Britannica has been criticized for a bourgeois and old-fashioned approach to art, literature and social sciences. - who is criticizing?
Moved reference up for clarity.
What I meant was actually including in the text the names of people and groups who have criticized Britannica. You have a lot of passive constructions in this section "has been criticized." Apparently this is frowned upon; we are supposed to say who is criticizing what exactly. You have said what is being criticized, but you have not said who is criticizing. Is there a way to characterize the criticizers easily, such as "reviewers," "scholars," "historians," "librarians" or some combination of those groups? or would that be too restrictive? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. I've cited specific scholarly sources for each type of criticism, so the identities of the critics are given. Do you maybe mean that I should state what Gillian Thomas' and the others' professions are?
In a way, yes. Can you generalize where these criticisms are coming from? "Historians such as..." or "Scholars such as..."? Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A well-known example is the chief editor of the 3rd edition, George Gleig, who rejected the established scientific theory of Newtonian gravity and wrote that gravity was caused by the classical element of fire. - it might be good to mention the date on this
I don't have the exact date of its publication handy (since the 3rd edition of the Britannica was issued in parts) but it would've been in the years 1788-1797. Added edition dates; perhaps too awkward, though?
What about simply "late eighteeenth century"? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the wording is OK as it is now? Willow 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past editions of the Britannica have been marred by racism and sexism - why is this the last criticism listed? it seems more important than that
It's also potentially the most inflammatory; it's now placed to give it a more scholarly context, where its content can be appreciated more impartially.
I'm not sure how last is more scholarly. I also don't think it is inflammatory if it is, in fact, true. I still think it should be moved up. I often think "what is most important for readers to know" and the later something is in article, the less likely they are to get to it. Again, I'm not going to refuse to support over this. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, race and gender can provoke strong emotions, no? I fear that placing this paragraph earlier would cause it to overshadow the more scholarly criticisms, such as being out-of-date or flubbing the sorting of articles. Hence it comes last, just as the envelopes that everyone waits for arrive at the end of the Oscars ceremony.
That's fine, but I don't think that criticism based on race or gender are "less scholarly" since there are whole fields of literary studies and history dedicated to just that sort of scholarship - it's sometimes called "identity politics" and consists of race studies, gender studies, queer studies, etc. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that the reference to a modern critical work (Thomas, 1992) and the direct links to articles in the 11th edition will convince you that the criticism is at least defensible. Truth is a little beyond our powers, since we can't read the feelings of the dead, only their words. My own impression is that the chief editor, Hugh Chisholm, was slightly ahead of his time on gender (thanks perhaps to his amazing sister, Grace) but slightly behind on race, kind of Kipling-esque. By contrast, the cited 11th edition author Fleming seems to me — benighted. Willow 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the criticism is defensible, by the way. I only wonder about your categorizing it as "behind" and "ahead." According to what? :) Just being difficult. Awadewit 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it also played a key role in denying women the right to better-paying work as typesetters for the 11th edition - could you explain a bit more, please?
It's very good that you suggested this, since the old version gave the wrong impression. Here's the story, and please let me know if the present text should be better worded or even eliminated.
The 11th edition was a huge boon for the printing houses in Edinburgh, but they faced stiff competition from printers in London, who had already largely changed over from hand-set type to machine-set type (Monotype). Therefore, the Edinburgh printers were under competitive pressure to use the machines. For an unexplained reason, women had learned to use the Monotype machines whereas men had not; according to the reference, there was only one man in Edinburgh who had learned it. Up to 1910, women had a good track record (>40 years) as typesetters, and were also cheaper; women and men were paid 14s and 32s, respectively, for the same work. Taken together, these factors gave a huge incentive for the Edinburgh printers to favor women typesetters over men. However, the male trade union called a strike and demanded
Despite appeals for fairness from the women, the men prevailed; no new women could be taken on and "the trade of compositor became a male monopoly until the Equal Opportunities legislation of the 1970s" (p.86 of S. Reynolds' book) Hence, women were barred from typesetting for over sixty years.
As you see, however, the Britannica itself played no significant role, except as the match that started the fire. I'd be fine with dropping the reference, if that's the consensus; it's a compelling story, but ultimately tangential.Removed female compositor story.
I agree that this is a compelling story, but I wonder if isn't more appropriate to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. article, since so much detail has to go into telling it? Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the scathing critique of Britannica's "English" bias, but doesn't it have a Western bias? Are there any sources on that?
In my opinion, it does, but that possibly inflammatory issue is rarely addressed in the published reviews. Many potential buyers may want a Western bias, being more interested in learning about Western topics; they might well wish more of the Britannica's limited space to be devoted to Christopher Columbus than, say, Avicenna or Du Fu.
That is sad. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Related printed material" section, it would probably be best to identify age ranges for the children rather than schools, since children attend schools at different ages in different English-speaking countries and some children are home-schooled and...
OK, I'll try to track these numbers down. Changed this.
  • "On-line subscription" - Australia? South Africa? New Zealand? Are subscriptions available there? Perhaps of instead of listing the price for every English-speaking country, you should average them all together or take the median.
Eliminated pricing for subscriptions: too complex and too easy to become dated. Changed this.
  • "Coverage of topics" - some of this information should go into the description of the encyclopedia itself and some should go into the criticism section, I think. It is oddly placed as it is. We have gone through CDs and mobile phones and NOW we get coverage? Also, I wish there were more on this topic - it is a very important one.
OK, maybe a re-ordering is in order. ;) Changed this.
  • however, there are 64 contributors of three articles, 23 contributors of four articles, 10 contributors of five articles, and 8 contributors of more than five articles - awkwardly worded
Speaking just for myself, I find the wording fine. What would you (or others) suggest instead?
maybe something like "64 contributors who wrote three articles, 23 contributors who wrote four articles..." Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! That's a much better wording; changed as you see.
  • I found the "staff" and "editorial advisers" paragraphs difficult to read - would these be better as lists? I know lists are frowned upon, but it was hard to see all the names and dates.
I would likewise frown on lists. Maybe I can liven that section up a bit, though.
I would say the biggest problem is that it is hard to extract the information, particularly in "editorial advisers." With all of the links, it is nearly unreadable. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated some superfluous links and arranged in a bullet-point list; it is easier to read this way. Willow 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get the author's first names in the "further reading"? and where is Oryx Press located?
OK, sure. Changed this. As stated in reference #1, Oryx Press was located in Phoenix, Arizona.
But now we are starting over in a bibliography, essentially. Everything must be restated. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; sorry, I missed that!
  • I wonder what you think of moving the "competition" section up? It has more "meaty" information in it and seems more important than the lists of names that come before it. Awadewit 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's safer where it is. We should be wary of people saying that we're just trying to attack the EB, instead of merely describe it. Besides, a meaty conclusion is good, no? Better than "ending with a whimper". ;) Willow 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what if readers get bored in the "Staff" section and never get here? I would seriously consider moving this up. I understand the rhetorical choice you are making, but that makes more sense in an essay, I think, than in a wikipedia article. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sense of the move, although I still dread unscholarly accusations. Moved up. Willow 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful review, Awadewit! This is how FA's should be made. Willow 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm so close to supporting. See my responses above. Awadewit 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comments. I support the article, and you may take these comments for what they're worth. :)
    • On earlier review I found that the article suffers somewhat from "example-itis", which is a really bad neologism. There are 13 instances of "example", and that's after I edited a number of them out. Many are valid; maybe some aren't. (Tony1 reminds us, in battling redundancy, that "everything is an example". No, I can't source that.) This also relates to my previously unexpressed agreement that the sentences about articles that Wikipedia has but EB doesn't, and vice versa, are not necessary (cf. talk page).
I'll see whether some examples might be trimmed, although I like illustrations, as you see. :) Removed/re-worded a peck of "examples"; the rest seem OK?
    • The phrase "The Britannica" refers to the publication, but is used in contexts where a business name would be more appropriate. Isn't the actor in the following sentence the company, not the publication, so italics are not needed? "The Britannica rebuttal went on to mention that some of the articles..." How about "Britannica's rebuttal went on to mention that some of the articles..." (If you change this, others will see inconsistency in italics, so you can't win.) I'm still not sure about "The Britannica", as it sounds like a ship to me. :)
Wouldn't that need an "H.M.S." in front, as in "Pinafore"? ;)
I agree, that thought was also lurking in my brain, that I was mistakenly conflating the encyclopedia with the company that managed it. While that might've been OK in the first era, it's clearly not true in the era of "Encyclopædia Britannica Holding Company SA". I'll try to fix the confusion throughout. Fixed a few instances.
    • Congrats on developing this article into an FA! –Outriggr § 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Outriggr, for this support and others.  :) Willow 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments: i'm going through and adding some [citation needed] tags. There are quite a few places where it needs it. Most are easy to find refs, but are still important none the less. JoeSmack Talk 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provided citations as needed; thank you for catching those!
  • In this sentence "Since 1936, the Britannica has been revised on a regular schedule, with at least 10% of its articles considered for revision each year." you might mention like you did above that the 15th edition took far longer than the regular '10 year' run of things. Upon further examination of this sentence too, it is kind of ambiguous - do you mean articles are regularly considered for revisions or do new editions come out regularly or what? I'm a bit confused here. JoeSmack Talk 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified meaning of sentence; another good catch!
  • Could you expand just a little on the 'Mobile encyclopedia' section? Maybe a touch about its reception, or mention others that do similar things? JoeSmack Talk 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still in the planning stages; do you know of something else that should go there?
The press release ref attached to it waxes on for a while, I was thinking just a sentence or so more about what the service provides. maybe the quote from Dan Smith the senior VP of EB - "People today want answers and information when they're on the go -- on the train, in a restaurant or just walking down the street talking to a friend". JoeSmack Talk 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this sentence grammatical? 'Each of these encyclopedias has qualities that make it outstanding, such as exceptionally clear writing or superb illustrations.' - i'm mostly wondering about the has/have it/them agreements. i'm not an English expert, but that sentence mixes me up! JoeSmack Talk 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "each" is singular, no? Willow 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure still, anyone know for sure out there? JoeSmack Talk 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This:...... 'The Internet has developed into a common source of information for many people, facilitated by the development of search engines. Online access to reliable original sources, information, and instruction has accelerated in recent years, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine. In general, the Internet tends to provide broader and more current coverage than does the Britannica, due to the ease with which material on the Internet can be updated.'....... smecks of a lot of OR. I'd step to the individual subjects' articles and get some better wording with references from there. Also try and date it or make it not temporal - in 5 years is this still going to be true? JoeSmack Talk 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't think this needs a reference.
Its the 'Online access to reliable original sources, information, and instruction has accelerated in recent years, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine.' is what irks me mostly. In 5 years it may not have been 'accelerated in recent years' due to Google Books/MIT/PubMed. Half of it is that, the temporally fuzzy aspect, and the other is the OR attributing it in part to specific sources like those three. Why did you choose those? What did you base that choice on? JoeSmack Talk 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref and reworded the second sentence to "In general, the Internet tends to provide more current coverage than print media, due to the ease with which material on the Internet can be updated." TimVickers 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh oh! Ref that one with a ref saying how awesomely Wikipedia updated current events like Katrina or Saddam's discovery execution or something like that! Not as a laud for Wikipedia (it wouldn't be mentioned in the sentence) but as a good example of this that should be out there reliable source wise. JoeSmack Talk 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you put in a ref. Durn. This could be a second one if you'd like though. JoeSmack Talk 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I chose those examples off the top of my head, from what I'd heard in the news or from my more clever friends. It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, nor did I mean to imply that those were the most significant initiatives for making reliable sources available. Although they do seem pretty important, at least from an outsider's perspective. Willow 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arg! Thats definitely OR then. We can't include off-of-the-top-of-the-head knowledge/smart friend talk, its not verifiable or reliable. If it was in the news does it have a source? JoeSmack Talk 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 refs and reworded this sentence to the innocuous "The internet provides easy access to reliable original sources and expert opinions, thanks in part to initiatives such as Google Books, MIT's release of its educational materials and the open PubMed Central library of the National Library of Medicine." TimVickers 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've replaced the reference to Category:Wikipedians with academic publications with a ref to a subsection of the Nature article which identifies Wikipedians with expertise in their fields, as this appeared to be a minor point of contention. Let's avoid references to ourselves (i.e. not do it)—unnecessarily begging for a challenge. Fvasconcellos 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This:..... 'The economic viability of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. in the Internet era rests on its brand equity and product differentiation—that is, the public perception that the Britannica is simply the best encyclopedia available at any price.' ..... is also OR. Do you have an authoritative reliable source speaking to this? I think it would have to be from an economist to demonstrate it. JoeSmack Talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
  • 'Comparisons of the Encyclopædia Britannica with other print encyclopedias have been published.' sounds awkward, can you flip around the wording (i would do it but i want to make sure the clauses aree with each other and im not positive what you mean: comparisons of other print E's to britanica have been published and/or published by those other E's)? Also this sentence could use some refs - the next bit of info of this section dives into a well-known comparison, but you said comparisons, so throw some in as refs and leave the well-known one as a spelled out example. JoeSmack Talk 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call! reworded into active voice and provided references.
OK, I'll check it out; thanks! Willow 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final thoughts: Holy heeby jeebies! Sorry about all those ref tags, but we got to get all OR out of there. I'm also a stickler since AIDS went FA, and the 'oh crap that needs a ref' feeling didn't ever go away. ;) I can't believe the lengths you've been going for this FAC, this has got to be one of the most thorough run downs i've ever seen. This article is fantastic, indepth, and wonderfully laid out. After these OR issues/fact tags are fixed, you have my full support for FA status. JoeSmack Talk 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very kindly for your careful attention to such details! :) I miss a lot — as you see above — and I'm really grateful whenever anyone opens my eyes to whole new aspects of the article. I'll try to satisfy everyone as best as possible, but I think I will benefit the most. :) Thanks for your very kind words, Willow 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a deep tranquility coming over me; is that it? Have we reached parinirvana? Maybe it's just a hypoglycemic hallucination; yarn is so soft...zzzzz 3) Seriously, thank you everyone for all your help on my Wiki-birthday; I'm one year old today! :) Willow 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Encyclopædia_Britannica/archive2&oldid=1144179432"