This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth
This looks like an interesting, well-written article. A few things I noticed:
"Hellcreek" in the lead becomes "Hell Creek" later.
Some terms are glossed, others are not. You could consider glossing entheses, coracoid, centra.
Fixed entheses, the others are a bit more tricky, will try. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now, but these features are almost impossible to describe in few words. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The feet of Ankylosaurus are incompletely known, but the hindfeet probably had three toes, like in related animals." - this sentence is awkwardly expressed.
"... coossified (fused) to them" - why not just say "fused".
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These horns may have originally been osteoderms (amor plates) that fused to the skull, though the scale pattern on the skull surface was instead the result of remodelling of the skull." - This sentence is a bit complex and could be split.
"a diamond shaped scale (internarial scale) was present at the font of the snout, the two squamosal osteoderms above the orbit, and a ridge of scales was present at the back of the skull." - This is also awkward and confusing.
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The mandible of Ankylosaurus was proportionally low to its length compared to other ankylosaurs" - this could be better expressed.
Better now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the "compared to other ankylosaurs" at the beginning of the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... ranging from one margin to the other on the midline of its osteoderms." - Perhaps "stretching" would be better.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of "Armor" contains a great many repetitions of "may have been" and "may have".
Now has more variation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the "History" section, it is useful if you introduce each scientist as you first mention them, in the same way as you have done for Barnum Brown. The first time you mention Carpenter, you don't even give his first name.
Carpenter is first mentioned and linked already under description, but made some more presentation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus are sometimes thought to be sister taxa, but have also been found in different positions." - This is awkwardly expressed.
Simplified and updated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" The researchers also supported the loops acting as a resonance chamber" - did they find the loops very heavy?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Carpenter has rejected this idea, as tail club shape is highly variable among ankylosaurids of the same genera." - I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "even those in the same genus"?
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of new text about feeding has been added since you read the article, Cwmhiraeth, from a paper published just two days ago. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the alterations made. The subject of the article is outside my area of expertise and the prose is necessarily heavy going. As far as I can see, the article covers the subject comprehensively and the prose is of good quality so I am prepared to support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Ankylosaurus_scale.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this diagram?
File:Ankylosaurus_magniventris_reconstruction.png: what image or model is this based on? Same with File:Ankylosaurus_dinosaur.png
All of the above are at least partially based on Carpenter 2004[2][3], want it added to the file descriptions? The last one is maybe based on a restoration by Gregory S: Paul, I'll ping artists Ferahgo the Assassin and Dinoguy2 just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added Carpenter 2004 to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is William Diller Matthew's date of death?
1930, will add to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hell_Creek_dinosaurs_and_pterosaurs_by_durbed.jpg: given the source, how do we know this is an accurate representation? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We (at the Dinosaur Project) have sources we cross check with to see if usermade images match, but we can of course not know exactly which sources a specific artist has used. That particular artist's images were discussed here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Cas Liber
Making my way up the FAC ladder...here now...reading....
Ankylosaurus (/ˌæŋkɨlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ki-lo-sawr-əs or /æŋˌkaɪlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ky-lo-sawr-əs, meaning "fused lizard") is a genus of ankylosaurid dinosaur. - damn I wish there was another way to say this as it sounds circular but isn't. sigh....(maybe if you described it as a genus of armoured dinosaur? (Thyreophora)
I think it's pretty important to note it's an ankylosaurid/ankylosaur in the intro though, no? Just too bad the word is derived form the genus name, heh... Thinking about it, I'm not sure though, as other articles simply say "x is a sauropod dinosaur", "x is a theropod dinosaur", etc... Pretty broad groups. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to thyreophoran anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why I mentioned thyreophoran is that it is synonymous with what laypeople would call "armoured dinosaur and hence is a common reference point - a bit like why we call a sparrow a bird and not a vertebrate or something....I'd use th eterm "armoured dinosaur" and pipe it to the article as a synonym..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it seems Carpenter uses "armored dinosaur" as a synonym of Ankylosauria, since I wouldn't say Ankylosaurus is more famous than Stegosaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this by chance: Peter Galton (in "The complete dinosaur", first edition) notes that "Armoured dinosaur" historically refers to both Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs, because Ankylosaurs where treated as a subgroup of the Stegosauria. The modern meaning however is different. He writes: "The term armored dinosaur now refers to a member of the Ankylosauria" (p. 295). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah ok. Alright, the term is nebulous enough to undermine its usefulness as a plain English term. Oh well....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first para has alot of "ankylosaur-" words in it...if you could even cull one I think it would help make it sound less repetitive.
Changed a bit, is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of taphonomy and individual variation. - umm, surely you mean something like, "The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of individual variation and degradation." - taphonomy itself doesn't make the skulls different..?
Well, taphonomy is anything that happens with the animal on its way to fossilisation, so would include distortion and breakage. Carpenter says "There is considerable difference among the three skulls, which for the present, is best explained as taphonomic and (or) individual variation." Perhaps if we say in parenthesis (changes happening during fossilisation of the remains)? It may seem vague, but Carpenter doesn't specify exactly what he thinks would have happened, and taphonomy does not only cover decay. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but taphonomy is the study of these events, not the process. Agree my wording is too narrow. I think you have to use as an adjective - "taphonomic process" or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
within the clade Thyreophora, consisting of armored dinosaurs --> "within the clade Thyreophora, commonly known as armored dinosaurs" - indicates the relationship better
Added, but kind of leaves a problem of inconsistency. Carpenter seems to use armored dinosaur as a synonym of ankylosaur, not thyreophoran, which this article has kind of followed. Do we have a source that states armored dinosaur is a synonym of Thyreophora today? I may have circumvented the problem by saying "Ankylosaurus is often considered the archetypal member of its group" instead of armored dinosaur now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the last fix is a good one - interesting question about what the lay term "armoured dinosaur" is equivalent to. Hadn't seen what Carpenter says but clouds the issue definitely. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may have something to do with his use of the term "Ankylosauromorpha" (which includes Scelidosaurus), which is apparently not recognised by newer research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ankylosauromorpha is considered invalid. There seems to be a bit of info on the group here. Mainly, ankylosauromorpha was defined twice by Carpenter (2001), one of which makes it a synonym of Scelidosauridae and the other a paraphyletic group. IJReiddiscuss 04:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have more suggestions, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Jens Lallensack
Excellent work. I'm not sure if I am allowed to vote as I already have contributed quite a bit, but I wish to provide some additional feedback:
Thanks, and Jens, there are two issues you may be able to help with: Does "armored dinosaur" refer to Ankylosauria or Thyreophora? Carpenter seems to indicate the former (perhaps due to his use of Ankylosauromorpha?), while the latter maybe seems more widespread. And what does "ankylosaur" refer to, members of Ankylosauria, Ankylosauridae, Ankylosaurus, or all of these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, the first question is tricky, you are right. I think the term "amored dinosaur" in most cases refers to Ankylosauria. For example, Paul Sereno writes in his "The evolution of bird-hipped dinosaurs (Ornithischia)": "Ornithischian dinosaurs comprise an extraordinary radiation of land-dwelling herbivores that include such familiar forms as the stegosaurs (plated dinosaurs), ankylosaurs (armored dinosaurs), hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs), pachycephalosaurs (thick-headed dinosaurs), and ceratopsids (horned dinosaurs)." However, for example in the book "The Armored Dinosaurs" (edited by Carpenter) the term refers to the Thyreophora. I'm not sure, but I see no problem if we use the term consequently and make clear what exactly we mean with it. For the second question: Ankylosaur refers to Ankylosauria. Ankylosaurid refers to Ankylosauridae, and Ankylosaurine to Ankylosaurinae. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made a few changes accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[The] coracoid (which connects the shoulder and arms) – I think this formulation might cause misunderstandings. The coracoid is not the sole link between shoulder and arms, as the arm (the humerus) is connected to the shoulder blade (scapula) as well. Both the scapula, coracoid, and humerus contribute to the glenoid.
Better if I say "which connects the shoulder blade and arms"? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its better. I still have concerns about the word "connects", so I just changed it to an alternative formulation. Its a very minor issue (if any), so please revert if you are not happy with it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "description", some bones are described in detail, including the scapula, humerus, and femur, including length measurements. During my first read I wondered why these bones were described while other bones were not mentioned at all. I guess that is because the other bones simply are not known. Maybe you could, before starting with the description, add a little bit more about the fragmentarity of the remains, and shortly state what is known and what is not?
The scarcity of remains is mentioned under history, but I should maybe move it up to description? I have now, and it looks ok. FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the complex sinuses of ankylosaurs may have lightened the weight of the skull, housed a nasal gland, or acted as a chamber for vocal resonance. – This formulation might be confusing; I think that the "vocal resonance" theory was suggested not for the maxillary or premaxillary sinuses, but only for the looped nasal passage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carpenter says "The function of the sinuses in ankylosaur skulls is problematic. Maryanska (1977, p. 117) suggested the function was to reduce skull weight, house a nasal gland, or act as a resonating chamber." So he does not mention the nasal passage in the sentence, but is he perhaps unintentionally misquoting? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I can't find it in Maryanska (1977) though (might be my fault, its a long paper and I did not read everything). She mentiones the pneumatisation of the palatinum, and that the chambers inside this bone might have been resonance boxes. She also compares the nasal cavity of ankylosaurs with hadrosaurs, and mentions that the interpretation of the hadrosaurian crest as resonance devices is "probable, but only as additional and secondary function of that passage". I do not want to say that Carpenter did a mistake (its a bit to complex for me to be sure), so perhaps we should just leave it as it is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, Carpenter cited p. 117. Than it is definitely a mistake, as page 117 is about the pneumatisation in the palatine (which has nothing to do with the nasal cavity/sinuses). We should cite Maryanska (1977) directly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maryanska is cited, so I hope the two are not contradictory... FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Jens Lallensack, I think it is alright for you to vote on this FAC, since your additions were only made well after the nomination. Would probably have been different if you had added material before. Reviewers often do some editing of articles during review. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support, Jens, I've removed the few occurrences of "armored dinosaurs", just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new paper[5] which has some extra information about Ankylosaurus has just been published, and the new info will be added within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info from the new paper has now been added, and the new text can be seen here:[6] Pinging reviewers Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, and Jens Lallensack, in case they have suggestions for the new text. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
Looking over the sourcing, no issues leapt out re. formatting or reliability. Also no dab/duplinks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, part of our Scottish mythology series, tells of the centaur-like nuckelavee of Orkney, the most horrible of all Scottish demons with its immense head, lack of skin, and breath that could destroy crops. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Cas Liber
Some queries.....
The late 19th century saw the onset of an interest in transcribing folklore, - dunno if "onset" is a good fit here (reminds me of "onset of symptoms" but then again as I am a doctor that might be job-related) - I'd maybe substitute for "kindling" or "birth" or some other more poetic synonym which escapes me....
NB: that sentence is a tad on the long side, so you might consider splitting it...
but to an extent "romanticised and systematised" certain elements - hmmm, be nice to use some unquoted non-paraphrased words...though none come to mind. If one could be found for "systematised" I reckon we could get away with leaving quotes off "romanticised.
The rest all looks fine - minor quibbles only..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading through Cas Liber. EricCorbett 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
I've changed "onset of an interest" to "upsurge of interest".
I've slightly shortened that sentence, but I don't think it's particularly difficult to read as it stands?
Changed to "romanticised and systematically altered", which I think makes it a bit clearer what "systematised" means anyway.
yeah - all good. It wasn't hugely long that sentence, just came across a tad so, so I didn't feel it was a deal-breaker in anyway, but I do think it's better slightly shorter. Anyway, all good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Nikkimaria. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FunkMonk
Commenting on kelpie was a rather mixed experience, but I really appreciate someone is tackling these subjects, so here I am. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"which in turn seems to be related to the Icelandic nykur." I see that's what the source (which doesn't seem particularly authorative) says, but instead of being related to the specific Icelandic version of the word, it is more likely to be related to the general Norse term (as it would have arrived with Norsemen from Scandinavia rather than iceland). Nykur is the Icelandic word for Neck (water spirit).
I've removed it.
"Writer and folklorist Ernest Marwick considered it very similar to the Norwegian nøkk" Likewise, nøkk and nykur are the same thing, so a bit odd that they are discussed separately. Neck (water spirit) should probably be wikilinked already under etymology, when nykur is mentioned.
I've linked neck (water spirit) here because of the removal above.
"in the 16th-century Latin manuscripts of Jo Ben" If available, could occupation and nationality for this person be mentioned? Hard to figure out the context of his writings otherwise.
I've added a note as it's a bit of a complicated explanation to incorporate into the text.
"Dennison transcribed much of the information available about traditional tales told on Orkney" When?
I've included the dates of his publications as a note as that's the only indicator I can find ...
"An islander, Tammas, survived a confrontation with the beast and, after much cajoling from Dennison, reluctantly gave his description of the monster, the only known first-hand account." When?
Nothing is specified that I can find.
Equine should probably be linked at first occurrence, it is not certain most readers would know this term.
Done.
"after he inadvertently splashed it with water from the loch he was alongside" Likewise, most people may not know what a loch is.
Done.
"Originating in Northern folklore" Northern seems too generic, Northern what? Why not just say Nordic?
I've changed it to Norse as Nordic re-directs to that.
The word Satan is used in the intro, yet Devil is used in the article. Any reason for this inconsistency? Though it obviously refers to the same entity, the intro should not use different words than the article.
I've changed it to Devil.
"despite its being predominantly a sea-dweller." Is this correct? Or should be "despite it"?
I think "its" is correct.
Anything about its cultural significance today?
Not that I can find.
That's about it from me, should be ready to support once these are addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this, FunkMonk. I've tried to make a start on addressing your comments and will continue to go over them again tomorrow (UK time). Re: the Orkneyjar.com (Sigurd Towrie) source - as I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include refs etc on the FAC template, I'll instead ask if you would please have a look at the bottom of this review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FunkMonk, much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Nothing from me, this is utterly flawless as I imagined it would be from these two fine nominators. CassiantoTalk 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cassianto - very much appreciated by me and Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks in very good shape, can't imagine there being a mass of material to write about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dr. Blofeld - from me and Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kiyoweap
This article has numerous issues. Reviewers who are spotting no problems probably need to be frank about being a drive-by "general-purpose FA reviewer" rather than a "WP:Mythology participant level" reviewer, because they are obviously not putting in the due diligence effort of checking what is stated in the article versus what occurs in the cited sources.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Under Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp I describe various issues relating to nuckelavee and seaweed-burning to make kelp (soda ash). One has to do with botanical identification. Another concerns conflicting information from differing sources (not mine, but exiting citations already in the article). I can't determine if this is a misread of one of the sources, or if the dissenting opinions need to be presented in fair proportion as per WP:Neutrality. But some solution is required.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to centre around kelp. I highly doubt anyone has an emotional interest in the specifics of which seaweed is used, so we can have a look on the talk page and discuss. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing this up as if undiscussed on the talk page? The issue is the meaning of the word 'kelp' (not helped by the sources!), which makes more sense if used for the product and generic "seaweed" used for what they burnt. The problem is partly the source. In any case I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp per se. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My notice was perfectly legit. It was timed when issues were unresolved (after Eric had reverted my edit without explanation, but before editors "fixed" the issue). Only in the aftermath does this notice seem redundant.
If such notices wish to be avoided, I contend that the editors should be the ones to refrain from knee-jerk reverting my edit as "not an improvement", only to subsequently restore my content piecemeal signed under their own name.
Cas Liber marginalizes my input saying "I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp", without bothering to google and read up on the material. As he is usually a stickler for such taxonomic detail, this comment is quite unbecoming.
In a nutshell, I am highlighting the fact that "kelp" in common parlance excludes Fucus spp. (or "wracks"), but various sources on 19th century kelp for glass-making say Fucus was (mainly) used, and also, in Orc. and Shet. folklore certain sea-horse spirits as sea trow and the tangie (akin/equatable to Nuckelavee) are known or opined to be covered by Fucus. (More precise discussion with citations I'll add at Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp) --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, show us the sources on that page then. Nothing you've shown me excludes Fucus so please show me one. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. That "Troicis" or "Trowis" in Jo Ben's manuscript is reference to a (sea) trow seems backable by multiple sources (paper, book, thesis), so NPOV treatment would be to move the bulk of this material to trow (folklore).
→This issue has been further elaborated below. last sentence added --21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
3. The article might then say "One view is that the trow mentioned in Jo Ben's medieval ms. was a nuckelavee," but this seems to be the webauthor's opinion at Orkneyjar.com, and its info can't be considered WP:RS if not backable by other published sources. I already pointed out in Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback that the Storðar-gandr etymology given by Orkneyjar.com is questionable.
4. The citation given for Jo Ben is "Bruford 1997 p.117", but there is nothing on that page that matches, so there must have been some other piece of information intended to be elicited from this essay, from some other page(??). I would have to guess that it has something to do with Orkney having more Celtic heritage and not so nearly purely Norse.
That citation isn't needed anyway, so I've removed it. EricCorbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. The reason I guess this (#4.↑) is that the lede claim of "composite of a water horse from Celtic mythology and Nokk is very tenuously sourced: under #Origins the authority is once again the heavily used Orkeyjar.com site. The hyperlink should probably be corrected to a different page "nokk.htm" entitled "The Nuggle", and there is a marginal musing there, quote: ".. has led me to wonder whether the dread Nuckelavee was a... amalgamation of ..pre-Norse Celtic water-horse and [Norse monster]", but this seems tantamount to a blog source.
Your guesswork has no place here. EricCorbett 13:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Dennison.. romanticized" is an assessment in the context of the Finfolk, citing Jennings's article entitled the "The Finnfolk". It is hardly kosher practice to transfer an opinion in the context of other creatures/beings to this one, and it should be removed from here and placed in Finfolk.
I don't agree. We're making a general point about Dennison's approach to collecting these stories. EricCorbett 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. "The late 19th century saw an upsurge of interest.." (under #Etymology) is a cookie-cutter reuse of a statement found in Eric's kelpie article (#Folk belief). This is sourced to Monaghan's Celtic Mythology book. In kelpie, there was at least a Celtic (Scottish Gaelic) derivation theory, though a very much disputed one, so there was some reason for sourcing this. But for nuckelavee, I don't see any Gaelic etymological derivation given or forthcoming, so the reuse of this sentence is inappropriate. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's appropriate because we're still talking about the upsurge of interest in collecting Scottish folklore. EricCorbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a spot-check is in order then, I (and perhaps other reviewers) do not necessarily cross-check with the sources when reviewing an article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
What makes Orkneyjar.com a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking a look at this. FunkMonk did query it above and if I may point to the same link of a GA review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed at the bottom. That also further links to a number of articles that already use it, some of which are included as GAs and Featured Lists within the Featured topic Islands of Scotland. I will ping Ben MacDui, a respected and very experienced editor within the Scottish Islands topic, but unfortunately he is now in semi-retirement; he has, however, commented on the use of this reference previously, as can be seen by following the first link I gave. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of issue has been a recurring one in my now dwindling attempts to improve articles about the island fringes of Scotland. How should we treat evidently intelligent and knowledgable local sources that lack academic credentials - especially if there are few or none that have the latter? I don't believe it's a matter of black and white. Having spent time in academia myself I think it's fair to say that there are no few opinionated and ill-informed individuals in that world who seem to think that as they have a PhD in a vaguely-related subject this means that their opinions should be treated as gospel, whether it is properly evidenced or not. On the other hand we clearly should not be quoting couthy local yokels as authorities just because there is nothing better. Here then is my opinion in regard to Orkneyjar. It may not be perfect but I don't recall ever coming across information on it that was demonstrably false or misleading. I think it's fair to say that no Wikipedian has, to date, written more about the geography and history of Orkney than myself, and Mr Towrie knows ten times what I know. I therefore use this source with confidence whenever the occasion arises (and of course ideally there will be a second ref to back it up, usually in a book that no other Wikipedian will have access to). Whether or not this also applies to Towrie's views on the myhology of Orkney I cannot be as certain and I leave that for others to judge, but generally speaking I consider him a trusted source - and no I have never met him or had any dealings with him in person. Happy editing to you all. BenMacDui 08:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, "a hub for world class research, teaching, and professional consultancy" has a twitter account - @UHIArchaeology. I see that today they state that "Ness of Brodgar dig diary entries will be posted daily at Orkneyjar..." BenMacDui 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orkneyjar is certainly "high-quality" in the sense that nearly all of its mythology contents are as found on RS sources. However, the site also presents a number of its own opinions and interpretations. And in order for the website's opinions (or a statement of fact only attestable to the website) to be considered "high quality RS", it must be shown that the creator is among "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" (under WP:RS).
When Orkneyjar offers an etymology (of Stoor worm) radically different from the that given in the SND (Scottish National Dictionary), the "high quality RS" of this opinion comes into question. Mr. Towrie not being a linguist, this off-mainstream etymology is subject to the clause "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight" (under WP:FRINGE guideline).
(To be fair, without that DSL search engine now at our disposal, it would have been much more difficult to discrover the etymology, which is filed under "sture" in the SND, and Orkneyjar gave its opinion a decade or more ago)
Turning now to Nuckelavee, its etymology is filed under "neugle" in the SND, and Orkeyjar opined that nuckelavee is a corruption of knoggelvi, which differs in nuance from the SND which only states these are two attested forms. I am arguing we should stick to the more conservative statement of the latter, barring other RS attributions being found.
Furthermore, under etymology section, Orkney's assumption (my 3. above) is used via WP:SYNTH type argument to justify use of Hibbert as source. This is more painstaking to explain in detail, and would involve more substantial amounts of editing to rectify. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly the Hibbert archive link is timing out for me at present. Am trying to get my head around your last paragraph. Need to read all these (again) to clarify the claims of synthesis and weighting. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah ok. The SND lists all terms as related with nuckelavee and knoggelvi as derivatives. Question is, is it an extraordinary claim? My thinking is that Orkneyjar is likely familiar with words and how they change locally, so maybe it's not an extraordinary claim and that SND being a dictionary will be by nature brief. Let me think some more...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect anyone familiar with how words are anglicised from older words would be able to tell that nuckelavee is anglicised/derived from knoggelvi, so I think I am happy with how this is worded. I can't see the Marwick source but if it says "mukkelevi = trow" in it, then I can't see a synth problem as mukkelevi is so obviously etymologically intertwined with the other two. i.e there is no emphasis on trow that needs to ne moved to a trow article. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas. Yes, Marwick categorically states "mukkelevi = trow"; Marwick also asserts Nuckelavee -> knoggelvi. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hibbert never says explicitly he is talking about "nuckelavee", so in order to argue he is, you have to impose Orkeyjar's conjecture that Jo Ben's MS. possibly refers specifically to the nuckelavee, and that is SYNTH.
Also note that Hibbert considers his being a parallel of the deity that holds command over both fresh and sea water, contradictory to Dennison's account that the nuckelavee can be eluded by fleeing into fresh water.
Hibbert engages in circumlocution saying something like <the equivalent that the Orcadians have a different name for>. He's probably thinking of the term troicus (given in Latin), but I'm unable to rule out "tangie" (which derives from Orcadian "tang", which is "fuci" that Hibbert mentions here). So assuming Hibbert is definitiely referring to nuckelavee is a rocky proposition.
Actually, as I rethink this, I do think Hibbert is useable as source, insofar as the SND says nuckelavee is a derived form of "neugle", which Hibbert certainly talks about, as well as its connection to "Old Nick" = devil. You just can't represent him as talking about nuckelavee, that is to say, source him as saying the folklore of nuckelavee is a deformation or derivation from the folklore of neck (water spirit).--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also your "=trow" isn't sound argument at all, because it's actually "⊂ trow". Had you looked up trow under SND, or if you had browsed Alan Bruford's piece Adam Grydehøj's 2013 paper that was removed from the source, you would've realized "trow" is a very general term like "fairy". A tangie is a trow according to some other sources.
Now, if you are redefining the perimeters of this article to include all creatures that might fall under the fold of "sea trow" or "water trow", that is one possible solution. This will also allow Jo Ben's article to be discussed under those terms. However, then there is obviously a considerable rewrite before it can be seen as "complete". The Talk:Nuckelavee/GA1 review remark that "I doubt we'll see the mythological demarcation disputes" may have been a bit premature.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC) factual author info error corrected --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified by your preoccupation with "trow". Nowhere does the article claim that the nuckelavee is a trow, it simply reports what Marwick (2000) says, which is that the similarly named mukkelevi was considered a sea trow by Shetland islanders, a fact that is incontrovertible; not that it was a sea trow. You may disagree, but I believe that Marwick's commentary carries somewhat more weight than your own.
Your claim about Hibbert is equally puzzling, and appears to be based on your own opinions and original research. EricCorbett 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretending that the Marwick statement is the only reference to trow your article makes. But as preluded at my point #2 above, at the very fore of your "Description" section you insist on using Jo Ben's 16c. Latin manuscript, and this document is an explicit reference to "Trowis" (archaic form of "trow"), according to the view expressed in published scholarship. See Adam Grydehøj's 2009 Ph.D. paper (pdf) for a clearer description.
As it turns out, the same author (Grydehøj) says as much in another piece (2013 paper), which you had recourse to access, but chose to remove in your Revision as of 13:59, 26 June 2014. I gather you never properly read it and promptly forgot, leading to an unwittingly committing act of censorship, but the end result is, that revision constitutes WP:CHERRYPICKING by favoring a web source over an academic folklorist.
As noted, "trow" is a general term exactly like "fairy" ("A trow [is the] equivalent of the mainland British fairy, with all of the imprecision that the latter word implies", Grydehøj 2013). If Marwick says Shetlanders consider the mukkelevi a (type of) "sea fairy", that is perfectly consistent with what I or Grydehøj hold in this regard, and you are mistaken when you say I "disagree" with Marwick on this point. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like me extrapolating from Hibbert's fuci (fucus = wrack = tang) comment to infer he might be talking about "tangie", and see this as too original reasearch-y, see Jamieson' etymological dictionary which says this: "Tangie, a sea-spirit, which, according to the popular belief in Orkney, sometimes assumes the appearance of a small horse, at other times that of an old man. Tangie, I am informed, is the same with the Sea- Trow". --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We will not be responding to any more of your disruptive obsession with trows. EricCorbett 22:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- after having plenty of time to look this over, I see no other reviewer taking up the cause for the allegedly questionable use of one word in the entire article, so I'm going to close the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an American evangelical organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has undergone a successful good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
lukeisback.com links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have repaired the link rot; all of the lukeisback.com links are working now. Neelix (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D
This is certainly an unusual organisation - nice work in developing the article on it.
I have the following specific comments:
"When JC's Girls was first founded, pornographic film director James DiGiorgio took glamour photographs of three JC's Girls members for the organization's original website without asking for payment. DiGiorgio was not a Christian, but said that he was helping JC's Girls because the sex industry is "always trying to preach freedom of speech [so] anyone in this industry who has a problem with [JC's Girls'] message is a fucking hypocrite." - is this important enough to be in the lead?
"JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who aren't judging them and are willing to accept them." - this repeats what's in the previous para (but is a good summary - you might want to move the material around and trim a bit)
"Within a year of founding JC's Girls, Veitch had lost 25 pounds and become more physically fit to show that the organization's message is not motivated by jealousy" - this is a bit confusing, and is it relevant?
Comment from the GA Reviewer: This point is notable and interesting; Veitch was preemptively addressing a possible future criticism of her organization, and rightfully so. As the wording is apparently confusing, it could be made clearer, perhaps by moving Veitch's motivation closer to the beginning of the sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Theresa Scher, a former stripper and call girl, was looking for a way out of the sex industry" - if she was a " former stripper and call girl", why did she still need a way out of the industry?
"These guidelines were established because some women who had quickly gone from working in the sex industry to evangelizing with JC's Girls soon left the organization and returned to the sex industry" - whoa - these people try to exclude women who might not permanently transition out of the sex industry after a fairly short intervention which doesn't include any support to improve their skills, financial resources or any health and drug issues? Talk about self defeating. The wording around this seems unduly positive.
From a quick Google Scholar search, this journal article appears to include some coverage of this organisation.
I also have the following general comments:
The article presents this organisation as essentially operating in a vacuum aside from its interactions with various churches. Does it work with other religious or secular organisations to provide holistic support to the women who approach it for assistance? If not, why not? (this goes to my second-to-last point above: there's reams of evidence that interventions like this need to be multifaceted to be effective).
The article also presents the organisation as being novel when, as I understand it, it's not. There are lots of support organisations which are based around taking a generally non-judgemental approach, not to mention social workers and welfare services which provide assistance to women in the sex industry.
Have their been responses to this organisation from feminist commentators and organisations, social workers, or sex worker organisations? Some aspects of it seem likely to attract criticism (the glamour photos and use of sex appeal to preach to men, the underlying implicit assumption that the women in the sex industry need saving through religion, what appears to be a fairly amateur and ad-hoc approach to providing assistance to vulnerable women, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the GA Reviewer: All three good points; if the sources exist it could very well be true that this article needs to be broader in scope in order to qualify as a Featured article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Nick-D! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. I have replaced the information about DiGiorgio in the lead with the quotation by Barone. I have restructured and trimmed the "Ideology" section to avoid repetition and to improve flow. I removed the word "former" from the sentence introducing Scher. I have added the Liturgy source you indicated; thank you for finding it! I think that the statement about Veitch losing weight and becoming more physically fit is relevant to the article, so I have combined it with the quotation in a way that I hope makes it less confusing.
I'm not sure what to make of the second-last of your specific comments. The goal of JC's Girls is to communicate to sex workers that there are Christians who are willing to accept them; their goal is not to get women out of the sex industry, nor is it to turn sex workers into evangelists, and official evangelism is the only activity that JC's Girls excludes people from on the basis of their likelihood to return to the sex industry. The article makes clear that JC's Girls is very willing to include sex workers at their churches even if the women never leave the sex industry at all. Is there a way that you feel this can be made clearer in the article? I hope this explanation addresses the first of your general comments as well. As far as I know the only organizations with which JC's Girls has collaborated are Hookers for Jesus and the churches mentioned in the article.
This change in the organisation's rules looks like a change towards a quite different goal for the organisation - it can't be non-judgemental if its setting conditions for the women its working with to behave in a certain way (what message does this send to women who want to preach but are excluded?). This isn't really covered, and the wording is very positive. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your definition of judgement doesn't match JC's Girls' definition. Either way, there don't seem to be any sources that make the claim that you are making. Could you give an example of the kind of positive-to-neutral wording you would like to see? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to the problem of a lack of unrelated perspectives I've noted below. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your second general comment, I think the novelty of this organization lies in its humble ambitions; it simply seeks to connect sex workers with churches that will love them. The organization does not attempt to get the women to leave the sex industry, which is, as far as I know, a novel idea among Christian organizations involved with the sex industry. As for your third general comment, I have added all of the sources I have been able to find that relate in any way to JC's Girls, and I would be glad to add any more that you know of. I agree that the organization seems like one that would be likely to attract criticism, although I have searched through multiple journal databases as well as Google, and I have not found any more criticism than is already present in the article.
But lots of other organisations have similar ambitions, and this organisation presumably mirrored itself on them (consciously or unconsciously). Not many modern non-government social worker/counsellor type organisations try to force changes to people's behaviour, and this organisation fits into that model. I guess this and my comment on the criticism raises the issue of whether there are sufficient sources to support a FA-level article? This is certainly a fine article which makes good use of the sources which you've found, but it's unfortunately rather unreflective at present. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I have been able to ascertain, this article already makes use of all of the existing reliable secondary sources that discuss JC's Girls. In what sense to you feel that the article is unreflective? Do you see this point as being an actionable item? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a barrier to FA status to be honest. The article is largely written from the perspective of this organisation, with most of the other perspectives being from similar or also religious organisations or commentators. I think that is problematic as it means that the subject isn't firmly placed in context or critically assessed. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your assertion surprising. Of the 26 sources used in this article, 16 come from secular media with only 10 coming from religious media; most of the sources used in this article are from secular media, including five of the six sources that are most-cited in this article. More than three quarters of the individual citations in this article draw from the 16 secular sources. The bulk of the commentary on the organization comes from secular media, as does at least half of the critical assessment in the "Reception" section, which is a standard-sized section for this length of an article. Might you be willing to revisit your assessment of the sources? Neelix (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all of the sources are, unfortunately, fairly lightweight profiles of this organisation and its organisers/leaders which appear to be written by generalist journalists. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my alterations of the article and my responses here have addressed your concerns. If they have not, please let me know, and I would be glad to engage with them further. Thank you again for your comments. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I agree with Cliftonian's comments below: the article has improved further during this FA from a strong base and I suspect that it's the best thing that anyone has ever written about this group, but unfortunately it lacks the kinds of details on the group's outcomes and ideology which are needed for FA standard IMO. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cliftonian
I had a look on JSTOR to see if I could find some more sources to back this up. Turned up nothing (though perhaps it may be good if someone else had a look as well, as I am not very familiar with the search interface there).
Ideology
We say "these women have been spiritually abused by Christians trying to frighten them out of the sex industry with warnings of damnation". This is stated as if it is fact but it is actually someone's opinion
"JC's Girls emphasizes that God loves these women" ditto
"does not try to persuade them to leave the sex industry; the organization recognizes that is often not financially viable for these women to immediately leave the industry" repetitive, usage of "industry" at end of each clause
"non-judgmental churches" who decides which churches are "non-judgmental"?
"Its volunteers tend to dress attractively" who decides what's "attractive" dress?
"does not mean becoming less attractive" perhaps "does not mean repressing themselves" or similar
History
"By 2005, Veitch was working as a hairdresser" Where? California?
Why "Matthew's House"? A reference to the evangelist of that name? Why not Mark, Luke or John?
Why have the past chapters of the organisation fallen away? Do any of the sources give any indication?
Unfortunately, they don't; I have no idea why the other chapters no longer exist. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"On Good Friday in March 2005, Veitch, Albee and six other women went to a strip club" Where? Riverside, CA?
Presumably the choice of Good Friday was deliberate? Why Good Friday specifically (as opposed to Maundy Thursday, Easter Sunday etc)?
Unfortunately, the sources are silent on this point. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Albee would later say that talking with women at the strip club changed her life" On this occasion specifically, or in general? (we make reference to more activities along these lines)
"Within six months of its founding, the organization's members had persuaded several strippers to start attending a church" out of how many evangelised (roughly)?
The sources don't seem to say. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and were only once asked to stop" by whom? what was the ministry's reaction?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"By December 2005, Veitch, Albee, and teacher Tanya Huerter had become the organization's leaders" how? were they elected leaders or what?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Huerter, who also had no experience with the sex industry, said, "I have a heart for these girls ..." when did she say this?
"approximately 90 churches responded with interest" according to whom did about 90 respond with interest? out of how many contacted? how many actually helped?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"additional media coverage from other newspapers, television programs, and radio stations" in Britain, or elsewhere?
"She said that working with JC's Girls helped keep her mind off of her husband's brain cancer" when did she say this? is it really relevant enough to merit keeping in the article?
"Veitch eventually moved to Las Vegas" when? why?
Were they as successful at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in years after 2006? Why/Why not?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on Veitch's work with Celebrate Community Church, JC's Girls started a program called "One Church for One Girl", which encourages churches to help women to leave the sex industry once the women have expressed an interest in doing so." This seems to be a repetition of something already stated in the ideology section.
"In July 2011, Veitch resigned from JC's Girls so she could spend more time with her family." What happened between 2008 and 2011? seems to be a bit of a gap here.
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"an overwhelming passion to reach out to these precious women in love and without condemnation." quote needs in-line citation
"She had been sexually abused when she was a child" perhaps "She has described being sexually abused as a child" for something this evocative and contentious; could be a BLP issue (unless there was a trial and conviction here)
"Twice each month, members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls visit strip clubs." This is sourced to an article from four years ago. Do we have evidence that they still do this?
"a prayer team prays for them" bit repetitive. perhaps "other members pray for them" or similar
"while they are out" wording makes it sound like all the church's members live together in some kind of compound
Prejean does not have a background in sex work, correct? Perhaps this should be made clear as some readers may get the wrong end of the stick.
I have no reason to believe that Prejean has a background in sex work, but the sources don't explicitly say that she doesn't. I have attempted to reword so that the implication is less likely to be made without making an explicit statement against. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they give "lip gloss, necklaces, and lotions" to the strippers they were trying to evangelise? Seems to me an odd use of the organisation's money.
We make reference to a "peace treaty" in Warsaw, OH. Did the opposing parties actually sit down, write up a document and sign it? Or did they just agree not to fight each other anymore?
As far as I know, it's the latter. The sources use the word "accord" rather than "treaty", so I have switched to that. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the aforementioned "peace treaty" break down? The wording seems to imply the church members broke the truce by going back to picketing. Is this the case? Were these pickets organised by the church's leadership or by church members independently?
"several of the strippers JC's Girls members had spoken with in San Diego had begun attending a Bible study hosted by the organization and the chapter had helped one stripper become a Christian" at what stage does the organisation consider the strippers to have "become Christians"? Confession of faith, baptism, or what?
"That July, Veitch left the organization" This is repeated from further up. I would recommend removing the earlier mention and moving the information here so it is all together.
"Sher gave up her co-leadership of the organization to focus on her family" when?
"The woman must consistently attend a Bible study for four months" why is Bible study linked here and not at the first mention?
they must "read Francine Rivers' book Redeeming Love"? Why? It seems very strange to me that a Christian organisation would require its members to read anything non-scriptural. Encourage, perhaps, but not require. As Nick says above, this seems to me to go very much against its previous stated goal of not judging the women.
I don't think there is any reason for us to debate this point; it is sufficient to say that there are no sources that comment on whether or not this policy is judgmental. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown left JC's Girls in April 2014 and Laura Bonde took over leadership of the organization" Why did Brown leave? Who's Laura Bonde? What happened between 2011 and 2014? Are we to understand that JC's Girls was not successful during this time?
I think we are to understand that news agencies were no longer interested in covering the activities of JC's Girls during this time, not that the organization hasn't been successful. The majority of the sources are news sources, and an organization is not considered newsworthy if it is simply doing the same thing it did last year, whether it continues to be successful or not. The other questions you ask here are not answered by the sources. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the "Original website" section as a third-level section between the Riverside and Las Vegas sections. Seems more logical to me chronologically.
How many hits does the website get today? Are they on other social media—facebook etc?
I have added a link to their official Facebook page. The current hits are difficult to determine. Their current website is simply an extension of the Rock Church website, and Alexa doesn't distinguish between the Rock Church hits and the JC's Girls hits. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see three official websites listed under the external links header, but no explanation in the body as to why there are different websites.
I don't have any sources to explain the different websites. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did James DiGiorgio help them? Just because he was Veitch's friend? Presumably they knew each other from when she was in porn?
Reception
"When JC's Girls first started receiving funds from Sandals Church" it may be worthwhile to say again what year this was
"some of the church's members were displeased that their tithes and offerings were going towards lap dances" but the activists were not actually receiving the dances—the issue is that the money was still going to the strip clubs, yes?
"Brown said that funding the activities of JC's Girls was worthwhile" when?
The image of Heinlein doesn't seem relevant enough to me to include.
"At the end of 2005, Veitch said that she had expected that someone would have shouted at JC's Girls members or ejected them from a strip club at some point, but no one had." dubious notability
Is it really notable that a photograph of the volunteers at the 2006 expo was in a book in 2007?
I think it is worth retaining this statement. It is an interesting point that an image of JC's Girls was featured in an otherwise pornographic book, especially one that was significant enough to spawn a film. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pat Sherman of Pacific San Diego Magazine said that the members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls "have the looks to land jobs working the pole." Doesn't seem notable to me
Documentary filmmaker Bill Daly said that JC's Girls are like Charlie's Angels, but in real life. He said that members of the organization are "fighting false glamour with real spiritual beauty." The second part of this passage is good. The first part not so much; I would trim.
"In his book Evangelicals and the Arts in Fiction, John Weaver writes" when? who is John Weaver? What evidence or reasoning did Heinlein provide for his prediction that evangelical Christians would undergo a "sexual revolution"?
"A journalist for The Observer compared JC's Girls to XXXchurch.com" when? The assertion "both of 'these ministries are in some way reforming the church as well as their would-be followers'" seems to me somewhat dubious considering the statement is from 9 years ago and JC's Girls seems to be well past its heyday.
This is a good piece of work with the resources available but I agree with Nick's assertion above that the article seems unreflective and uncritical, and that this is a problem where FA status is concerned. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources but unfortunately where reliable sources are lacking our treatment of the subject can only ever go so far. I'm sorry not to be more supportive and I hope the notes above help the article to develop. If there is more I can do to help please let me know and I'll do my best to help. Cheers and well done for all your work on this so far. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do very thorough reviews, John! Thank you very much. I have attempted to address all of your points above. Anything I have not explicitly responded to, I believe I have addressed by altering the article according to your suggestion. Please let me know if I am wrong on either of these points. You ask a lot of questions for which there don't seem to be any answers in the sources. I did find one source that answers a few of your questions: a documentary film that I have added to the bibliography. I have always held that any article that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be eligible for featured status if it employs all the existing sources, but I understand that not all Wikipedians agree on this matter, and I respect your position. Whether or not you ultimately decide to support this FAC, I would like to address all of your actionable concerns to the best of my abilities. Thank you again for the review and your thoughts. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved since the last time I looked at it and is a solid GA but I'm afraid for FA there would need to be more commentary on the group's actions, how its ideology matches up to scripture, Christian doctrine etc (for example their liberal attitude regarding modesty and clothing seems to me to contradict 1 Peter 3, but I suppose they would say that's me being judgmental, and maybe they're right). It's a shame because this is an interesting organisation it would be good to have more information on. In addition to the unresolved queries above I would be interested to know, for example, if any of the members had ever been observant Christians before or if all of them were becoming Christians for the first time. I'm not sure if I asked before how Veitch herself became a Christian—how exactly did she come up with this ideology for the organisation? Indeed was it Veitch who came up with this ideology, or was it a collaboration with others? How has it evolved over time? Is it still the same now as when the group started? — Cliftonian (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your continued engagement with the article, John; the citation work you did was particularly helpful. Apart from the criticism of the glamour photographs on the original website, I haven't managed to find any sources that discuss Christian responses to JC's Girls' clothing choices. In Day's documentary, Brown states that the #1 complaint that he gets about JC's Girls is about how Veitch looks, although no scriptural or doctrinal justification is provided for these complaints - would it help for this quotation by Brown to be included in the article? I did manage to find one reference to scripture in opposition to the fact that JC's Girls is run by women, and I have added this information to the end of the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. My understanding is that Veitch and Brown worked out the ideology of the organization together; are there particulars on this point that you would be interested to know? The documentary does go into some detail on the origins of the organization, although I didn't find anything else I thought sufficiently important to add to the article. Veitch became a Christian initially out of fear regarding the Year 2000 problem; I have added this information to the article. Do you have any other recommendations about how to improve the article? Neelix (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation by Brown would be good. If the people complaining don't provide any scriptural support for this it just shows how little they know their Bible (in my judgmental opinion)—critics could quote 1 Peter 3 as I said above, or the similar 1 Timothy 2, which I see you have added. Did JC's Girls counter with scriptural passages advocating a more egalitarian attitude and/or a more prominent role for women (eg Galatians 3:28, parts in Acts and Romans that I recall mention prominent women among the early Christians)?
Regarding the wording that Veitch "converted to Christianity"—what was she converting from? Wasn't she nominally Christian already (as opposed to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist)? If she became born-again because she thought the end of days and the final judgement were coming in 2000, presumably she had left the sex industry by the end of 1999? How did the nature of her faith change when the world didn't end at the millennium? — Cliftonian (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had presumed until now that all of the women in the infobox image were from JC's Girls, but having opened the description up I see only the three comparatively covered-up brunettes behind the booth are JC's Girls and the scantily-clad blonde at the front is an unidentified "model". This seems to me to imply that the latter is not part of the organisation. I'd recommend clarifying this, and if the blonde is not part of JC's Girls either using a different image or cropping her out—readers may get a rather misleading image of just how far the organisation goes with its openness regarding dress. — Cliftonian (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found the golden source! There is a Christianity Today article in which Veitch says that Christians often criticize JC's Girls for dressing like sex workers, and I have added this information to the article. I have also added a few other sources that I came across as I was scraping the bottom of the Google barrel that provide a bit more context. I have also added the quotation from Brown. Do these provide the kind of critical assessment that you are looking for? I think it reasonable to assume that Veitch was not practicing any other religions before becoming a Christian. Do you feel that the word "converting" is inappropriate as a result? I have added more information from the Los Angeles Times article to clarify that Veitch left the sex industry before the end of 1999. I haven't managed to find any sources that suggest that the world not ending had any particular effect on Veitch; she simply continued to attend church. I have cropped the image in the infobox as you recommend; I can understand the potential confusion, now that you mention it. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "converting" is not the right word for this context; it seems to me to imply that she was actually actively something else before, but it seems to me that she was previously irreligious. I'd prefer the simpler "became a Christian" with variants depending on tense or something like that (I think the noun form "conversion" is okay). The new information is an improvement (though I'm not sure I understand the logic of the "when in Vegas" comment). A thought I have had from looking through the sources is that we seem to be rather unfair on Reverend Ray Turner of the Temple Missionary Baptist Church. We have him sound like a patriarchal fuddy-duddy who of course thinks the Jesus girls are terrible and misguided just because. While he does criticise JC's Girls in the source, we don't clarify that he's referring to scripture (Matthew 6, God and Mammon), and we don't mention that he also said he "commend[s] her for her zeal and desire to reach the lost for Christ." We also don't mention where his "Temple Missionary Baptist Church" is. The name of the church by itself isn't particularly helpful; this could be anywhere. It would be clearer and more helpful to refer to a "Baptist minister from San Bernardino, California" or something like that.
"In its first year, JC's Girls was criticized for asking DiGiorgio to take glamour photographs" by whom? Also, we just say they "asked him" to do it, not that he actually did it.
Why don't we mention the "If you are a CHRISTIAN ... See us in ACTION" quote from the website?
A lot is made of Veitch's "Do we ask gluttons to stop eating too much before they come to church?" comment in response to the Rev Ray Turner's criticism. However the source does not say this was specifically in response to Turner.
When was the Raëlian response to JC's Girls formed/operational?
Sher or Scher?
Do we really need the picture of DiGiorgio here? I mean, is it really relevant to show what he looks like? (showing what the JC's Girls look like is relevant as it is a key part of what makes them distinctive). It seems to me like this image is just here to highlight the "fucking hypocrite" quote already in the prose.
We refer to attempts to help those seeking to overcome pornography addiction, but don't actually explain what these entail.
Hope this helps. — Cliftonian (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from GA Reviewer of this article: I had not noticed the blonde woman many not be affiliated with the organization; that's a good observation. Regarding the cropping of her, my personal thought is: "Darn!" Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can still see her here, Prhartcom. — Cliftonian (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, much obliged, Cliftonian. I believe I could have located the "View history" tab, though. The article is looking good, gentlemen, I remain supportive of this article (even if the quality did undeniably drop ever so slightly with this edit). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are certainly helpful, John. I have gone through another series of edits to the article, and I believe that I have addressed all of your most recently mentioned concerns except one: the explanation of how JC's Girls attempts to help people in overcoming pornography addiction. The only thing I have been able to find out through the sources on this point is already in the article: namely, that they have distributed a DVD containing a sermon by Brown on the subject. Do you have any other concerns that I might address? Neelix (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I think of anything more I'll let you know. Thank you David for taking all of my comments in your stride and handling them with alacrity and and general good humour. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sitush
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews etc that, while nominally independent, are clearly extremely reliant for their facts on the very same "missionaries" who are the subject of the article. It quite possibly shouldn't even be GA because far too much of it is very closely associated with the organisation. Just as one very trivial example, the 40,000 hits figure for the website is not something that can be derived independently.
I've no idea how it could be made more neutral, bearing in mind some of the comments above re: searching JSTOR etc, but we don't need and shouldn't have proselytisation here. It reads like someone's hobby-horse. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you apologized for that statement. You are welcome to your opinion of course. This article meets the general notability guideline spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability, has the proper citations as named in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, meets every one of the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria and is clearly showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria. It is written by a scholar who has a good reputation here on Wikipedia. It is bound to attract the ire of some, but that is to be expected. If you wish to respond to my reply you are very welcome, either here or on my Talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion that the article is "showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria", Prhartcom; only Nick and I have given full reviews so far and neither of us is supporting as things stand. Both Nick and I have already above expressed views similar to those expressed by Sitush regarding the lack of reference material and the nature of that we have, the lack of serious critical commentary regarding its actions, ideology and results, the need for more proper perspective than what reliable sources seem to be able to provide, etc. I agree with Nick's comment above that this is probably the best outline anyone has ever drawn up regarding this organisation, but this frankly says about as much about the lack of supporting coverage as it does about the work Neelix has put into it. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I remember noticing the reliable sources were good but not great during the GA review and decided that Neelix did the best he could, so I agree with your assessment of this situation, Cliftonian. I notice that he has found more helpful sources, so I will continue to hope for the best for Neelix's sake.
As for Sitush's comment above, that is an overly sensitive, obviously biased statement. It reminds me of the first GA reviewer, who loved the article but felt disinclined to pass it solely because his wife was uncomfortable with the article's images. As editors we must not let our personal feelings get in the way of our quality assessment of articles. We only judge an article by the written criteria. To use myself as an example, during my review of this article I felt a duty to put aside any personal feelings I may have about religion. As I set about checking to see if the article met the necessary criteria, I realized the article's topic is interesting and unusual. It is worth being seen and read by others. Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Sitush's comment was strongly worded, but I really do understand his concerns regarding the sourcing. I'd like to clarify that I always do my utmost to put my personal feelings aside and look at things neutrally, not just when reviewing but also when writing and in my day-to-day real life. The comments I have given here are no exception. — Cliftonian (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jaguar
I realise I have come to this late and my comments will most likely not be as extensive as the others, but I'll read through the whole article and will bring up any prose concerns I can find. JAGUAR 15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The group does not focus upon conversion but on communicating its message that Christians exist" - I would put an adverb in her to make it clearer: The group does not focus upon conversion but rather on communicating its message that Christians exist
"In January 2006, JC's Girls went to Las Vegas to operate a booth at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo that received much traffic and news coverage" - what about any views/opinions from media coverage? If you want to keep the lead compact and summarised then don't worry about this
"JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" - I think this sentence is a run-on, is the part where it says "that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" the message they're trying to communicate? Or is it two different things?
"The organization also diversified to support people with pornography addiction" - might sound silly but by 'people' is it referring to men too? My understanding is that this is a organisation for women?
"Its volunteers often wear eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts and backcomb their hair" - too many conjunctions in this sentence. May sound better as Its volunteers often style themselves with backcombed hair, eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts?
"...public discussion about the Year 2000 problem and the end of the world caused her to think that she might experience divine judgment for her lifestyle, so she became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon, started and completed a course in cosmetology, left the sex industry, and became a hairdresser all by September 1999" - this is all a very long sentence and would flow better if it were split in half. Also, the typo "judgement" needs to be corrected. I'd recommend splitting it in half where I highlighted the comma so it reads: for her lifestyle. She then became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon...
"In the past, JC's Girls chapters have been based in" - sounds quite ambiguous, can it be more accurate? This organisation is only ten years old!
"One of these women was fired from a strip club because she started attending Sandals Church, but she continued attending the church" - this makes no sense, did she continue attending Sandals Church when she got fired?
"The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" - sounds informal
"distributed more than 200 Bibles wrapped in T-shirts" - T-shirts is not capitalised in an earlier mention
That's all the prose issues I could find on my initial read-through of the article. In some places there were a few minor errors and I also spotted a few mistakes, but overall it read fine. I know this review is short in comparison to the others, but I don't feel qualified enough to verify all the references! If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. I'll be watching this JAGUAR 17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns except two. 1) I retained the spelling of "judgment" because this is the American spelling. 2) I'm not fully clear about your concern with respect to the phrase "The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" being informal; what would you like to see change about this phrase?
Might you be willing to weigh in on the issue of whether or not an article about JC's Girls should be eligible for for featured status? The editors above have suggested that the organization has received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify an article on Wikipedia, and that the article makes good use of these sources and is about as well-written as it can be, but that the available sources do not contain enough critical commentary or contextualization of the organization to allow for a featured article on the subject. I respect the editors who have made this argument. I have always held that articles that are on sufficiently notable subjects to justify inclusion on Wikipedia should also be eligible for featured status, provided that the article is sufficiently well-written and makes full use of the available sources. Whatever your opinion on this subject, I would be glad to know it. I hope that this FAC will be successful, but if it is not, then my future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly depending on whether or not the Wikipedia community believes the article to be on a subject that is ineligible for featured status. If a FAC is unsuccessful because the article is poorly researched or because it is poorly written, then the nominator can research it better or work on the writing and then nominate the article for a second FAC. If, however, a FAC is unsuccessful because the community is unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject, then the nominator would have no reason to renominate the article for a FAC in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, judging from the above post you seem to think I am not supporting this article's promotion because I think "the subject ... ineligible for featured status" or because I am "unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject". I'm disappointed that this is the impression I seem to have given you. My concern—shared by Nick and Sitush, if I have understood them correctly—is about what you mention in the first part of your post regarding commentary, etc. Your comment could be taken as an allegation of bias and/or bad faith on my part and so I hope this was just a case of ambiguous phrasing. I have in fact invested a great deal of time and effort in trying to help you develop this article and bring it up to FA standard.
I'm somewhat concerned by your statement that your "future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly" depending on whether or not FA status looks feasible. In my humble opinion researching, developing and improving the article should be its own reward, not a mere means to the end of successfully nominating at FAC. You have done a fine job on this article considering the material you had to work with, and I commend you for that, but I'm afraid I do not agree that my acknowledgement of your hard work and effort must take the form of a support for FA status—effectively re-purposing the support from an endorsement of the article to a "reward" for the nominator. If JC's Girls receives more in-depth critical coverage in time to allow the development of an article really meeting the FA criteria, I would as always be delighted to try to lend a hand if you wish, but I'm afraid my help must be restricted to reviewing and improving the article as opposed to rationalising on other reviewers' motives. Cheers, I hope that you are well and having a pleasant weekend. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, I am very sorry for having written in such a way that my comments could be interpreted as alleging bias and/or bad faith on your part; that was not at all what I intended. I have always greatly appreciated your reviews and comments and I have no reason to believe that your comments here or elsewhere have involved bias or bad faith. In fact, I have much reason to believe that you have acted neutrally and in good faith. You and I happen to disagree about whether or not a subject can have received enough coverage to have a valid Wikipedia article written about it while not having received enough coverage to have a featured Wikipedia article written about it; I think of these two levels of coverage as being the same level, while, if I understand your position correctly, you think of there being a gap between these two levels. That we disagree on this particular point does not impinge upon my high opinion of you, of your work in writing Wikipedia articles, of your willingness to perform thorough reviews, or of anything else about you. I had no intention of implying that your acknowledgement of my work on this article needs to be accompanied by a support for featured status; I do not consider featured article promotions as simply rewards for nominators. If I can further clarify my statements, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this David. — Cliftonian (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been caught up in a lot of things! I will support this transition from GA to FA now as I'm happy with the prose. The article appears comprehensive and balanced as well as well referenced. I can see this as a Featured Article. JAGUAR 11:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Tim riley
Info-box
We really oughtn't to say "10 years ago" for the founding: that's WP:DATED with a vengeance.
Ideology
"willing to non-judgmentally accept them" – creaks a bit: how about "willing to accept them non-judgmentally"?
Second para – "these women" five times in this para, three of them in the first two sentences.
"volunteers tell these women about the gospel but does not try" – a lurch from plural verb to singular verb in this sentence
History
"As of 2014, the San Diego chapter is the sole chapter" – still true as of 2015?
Riverside chapter
"when UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article" – You have references (ref 6 a –l) to the text of this Telegraph article several times elsewhere in the article, but – strangely, it seems to me – not here.
"Terminally ill" – is a blue link really helpful here? I think everyone knows what "terminally ill" means. (And I'm not convinced that "Christian", "alcoholism" and "freedom of speech" really need linking elsewhere in the text, but I do not press the point.)
Reception
"A journalist for The Observer" – is it worth mentioning that this is another non-US paper? The international dimension, you know.
References
We are inconsistent about whether or not to put full stops (periods) in people's initials: S.D. Liddick but KJ Mullins
We are also inconsistent with name order: it's mostly Firstname Secondname, but then Johnson, Todd E., and Greenberg, Brad pop up with surnames before forenames.
That's all from me. I don't feel competent to pronounce on the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, or the reliability of some of the sources, although I have no reason to doubt them. I should be happy to see the article promoted, but I refrain from formally supporting. – Tim riley talk 08:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later: on reflection, and in view of Neelix's pretty impressive record, I am prepared to take the balance, comprehensiveness and sourcing on trust, and to support this article. Tim riley talk 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and your support, Tim! I have altered the article according to most of your recommendations. The statement of "10 years ago" is inherent within the relevant template and is updated automatically; if there is an issue here, please let me know. I retained the wording of the "willing to non-judgmentally accept them" statement because I am concerned that moving the word "non-judgmentally" to the end of the sentence will render the sentence ambiguous, suggesting that it is the communication of the message by JC's Girls that is non-judgmental rather than the acceptance by the Christians, although there may be an alternative wording that would prevent the creakiness you mention. I apologize for taking a few days to respond to your message; I have had a very busy weekend outside of Wikipedia. I greatly appreciate your faith in my editing. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
Leaning heavily towards supporting, but just one point to consider first:
Background
"In 2003,[10]": what is this supporting? That the year 2003 existed is all I can see! I presume that you have one source (ref 11) that deals with all the details of "Veitch discovered that a friend of hers who was working as a stripper had died as a result of alcoholism", and one source (ref 10) that may deal with some of it, but contain the additional 2003 information. If that's right, stick both refs at the end of the sentence.
I've also tweaked the Grecco image slightly (made smaller and added a {{clear}} to the notes section) as on wider screens the image was moving into the refs listings and leaving a large white space. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, but it's worth leaving there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, SchroCat! I hadn't realized that the Grecco image spilled into the references on wide screens. I appreciate you addressing that issue. With respect to the citations you mention, you are correct; one source includes all the information except the year while the other includes all the information except the cause of death. I have moved the first citation to after the word "died" in order to address the concern you raise while also preventing the potential implication that both sources contain all the information in the sentence. Does this solution work for you? Neelix (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sitush ("I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews") and Cliftomian ("the article seems unreflective and uncritical. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources").
I lived in BKK for more than a decade and heard often about an organization called Empower. Check it out. You'll find plenty of info on JSTOR and Google scholar. Google books also throws up a few hits. If you want to write an academic article about the sex industry, Empower would make a very interesting subject.
IMO, this JC Girls organization warrants no more than half a dozen paragraphs at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talk • contribs)
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I disagree with Sitush's comments, and believe that the sources are appropriate and that the article is encyclopedically written. I also do not think that the article's length should be reduced, and I do not believe that there is consensus for such a reduction. Neelix (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
Has anyone conducted a source review of formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'll pick up on the sources in the next day or two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Locations needed for the various news sources (particularly as there is an international flavour to these.
Ditto for the book sources - locations needed there too
- SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review, Gavin! I have added locations to all of the book citations and all of the news sources, except those for which the location is part of the name of the newspaper. Please let me know if there are any other source-related issues needing to be addressed. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen—both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at, as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern magazine, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement—with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. A strong cast showed up for an extremely constructive and useful PR, which has tightened this up immensely. I welcome all comments and thoughts once again. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Blockquotes shouldn't include quotation marks
Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
Kentucky is typically abbreviated KY not KT. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done - many thanks NM! - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support– I was a latecomer to the PR, by when there was very little I could add. The article sets out a complicated story with great clarity, is well balanced, highly readable, thoroughly referenced, and illustrated as well as one could imagine. Clearly meets the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! You may have been a latecomer, but your influence was extremely important to the article's development. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I've had a quick skim through and see that all my points were addressed at the peer review. Furthermore, the comments given by others have improved this article even more. Based on that, I believe that this article meets every bit of the FA criteria. CassiantoTalk 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comment here, but also for your important contribution at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very much enjoyed by me, but in need of one more run-through to pick up assorted nitpicks, as listed. I imagine that you will dispose of these with due speed, and I will be revisiting shortly.
Lead: "At the press conference to announce the news...." I'd say "to announce the forthcoming publication", as "the news" is a bit vague.
Lead: "One of the companies involved was The Sunday Times..." A point of rather petty detail, but I think the company involved was Times Newspapers Ltd, not the ST itself. You could get round this by saying "One of the publications involved was The Sunday Times..."
Seraglio: "near what would become the border with Czechoslovakia." Hmm, I think that it was properly the border, despite the 1938 annexation, so I'd say "near the Czechoslovakian border".
Kujau: "Among the items smuggled out of East Germany were weapons, and Kujau would occasionally wear a pistol, sometimes firing it in a nearby field, or shooting empty bottles in his local bar." Does this info have any real bearing on our story? I'd scrap it myself, but if you keep it, can you clarify if it was Kujau that was smuggling weapons out of E. Germany?
Kujau: "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset, which he used to create letterheads" → "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset to create letterheads"
Kujau: "Hitler, who had genuinely been an amateur artist as a young man" Delete "genuinely"
Kujau: "manuscripts" needn't be in quotes. They were, after all, manuscripts.
Heidemann: "the couple began to have an affair" → "the couple began an affair". And follow this with "Through this relationship..."?
Heidemann: "Heidemann experienced financial problems caused by the purchase of the yacht..." → "The purchase of the yacht caused Heidemann financial problems..."
Producing etc: "...the forger refused to do so for nearly a year" – does this mean that for nearly a year the forger kept on refusing to meet , or that he said somrthing like "I'll meet you in nearly a year"?
Producing etc: "made the connection" or "made a connection"?
Producing etc: "most of which was still in East Germany" – "was" → "were"
Producing etc: "two million marks": note "3 million" (numeric) previously in your text. Also, shouldn't it be DM rather than marks?
Acquisition: " the additional lure" → "an additional lure"?
Acquisition: "1 million marks" – again the DM question> Important, because East Germany had a different currency.
Acquisition: "Heidemann visited Maser in June 1981 and came to a deal that enabled him and Stern, for a payment of 20,000 marks..." Need to clarify "him" – as written it could be Maser
Initial testing etc: Should Bundesarchiv be italicised? It's the name of a German institution rather than an ordinary German word. I'm not clear about the standard WP practice, but I see for example that the articles for Deutsche Bundesbank and Bundestag don't italicise.
Initial testing etc: "verifying the authenticity of the diaries": "authenticating the diaries" would be neater?
Initial testing etc: "They did not mention the existence of the diaries" → "They did not specifically mention the diaries..."
Initial testing etc: I would delete the words "but he was lied to in the briefing" and write: "...he became less doubtful; he was falsely informed that the paper had been chemically tested..." etc
Initial testing etc: "an additional $750,000 for Britain and the Commonwealth" → ""an additional $750,000 for British and Commonwealth rights"
Two semicolons in the sentence beginning "After lengthy negotiation Broyle..."
Released to the news: – can something be "released to the news"? Surely what's released is the news? Perhaps "Released to news media2?
Released to the news: "He went on to say..." – which of the two is "he"?
Forensic analysis: "copied across" → "copied"
Forensic analysis: "By the time the Bundesarchiv had passed the news to Stern, the archive had already passed it to the government" Suggest rewrite: "Before passing the news to Stern, the Bundesarchiv had already informed the government".
Arrest and trial: "he was bitter that the journalist was still at liberty, and had withheld so much money from Stern" – wasn't his bitterness more that Heidemann had withheld Stern's money from Kujau?
Arrest and trial: In your brief trial account, you refer both to a "judge" and a "magistrate". Were these the same person? If so, perhaps the same term should be used. Otherwise, the presidency of the course might be indicated by an extra word or two.
Tweaked slightly. For court cases of a possible 3-7 years imprisonment, a judge is assisted by 2 or 3 lay judges or magistrates. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arrest and trial: I wouldn't say "subsequent" trial when you are reporting after the event.
Aftermath: I think "according to" should always precede the relevant quotation rather than appearing at the tail end of the sentence (n.b. Nesser and Hartung, Davenport-Hines)
Aftermath: "with his satirical German-language film..." → "in his satirical German-language film..."
Many thanks Brian, both here and at the PR. I've adopted all your suggestions above. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns have all been adequately addressed. Sorry I forgot to sign off! Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always I am hugely in your debt for the work you've put in here and at FAC. Many, many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally (not for action), don't you think that Gerhard Weinberg looks suspiciously like the elderly P.G. Wodehouse? See this. Perhaps the old prankster was behind it all – I think Riley should hear of this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I'm not sure even PGW's brilliance in producing contrived plots could have cooked up this one - he'd have rejected it fr being too far fetched! - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With a touch of Archbishop Carey thrown in, methinks. Tim riley talk 12:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I had been intending to get to this subject myself eventually, but I am very pleased to see SchroCat has got here before me and made an excellent job of it. I had my say at the peer review and have also made some copy-edits since then. In my view the article is an excellent, well-sourced account and meets the FA criteria. I have no qualms about supporting. Thanks for your work on this, SchroCat. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Cliftonian. Your copy edits and thoughts have been extremely welcome throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
"A photograph of a black and white grey-haired and spectacled man" (alt text) - I think you mean it's a black-and-white photo?
File:Sterncover.jpg: would be worth filling in the n.a parameters
File:FH_AH_Hitlers_Diaries_01.svg: suggest using {{PD-font}} for this, as I'm not sure on what grounds the uploader could claim copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One done, one waiting for the block on Commons to lift after a trigger-happy admin objected to me asking one of his chums not to bludgeon comments. I'll swap it over in two days. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All now done. Many thanks NM - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was hoping to leave some comments, but after reading through the article I find it very comprehensive and the prose is well written. This article definitely meets the FA criteria. Well done on all the work put into this - it was an interesting read. JAGUAR 23:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jaguar - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support' entertaining read and no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only minor quibbles are non-deal-breakers such as:
which were so amateurish that Kujau later asserted that - "conceded" might capture the essence better here.
Many thanks Casliber; much appreciated, and I've adopted your above suggestion. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The Hitler Diaries affair may be my favourite historical and journalistic train wreck, and this article is in excellent shape - thank you for developing it. I have the following comments:
"to the Alpine Redoubt" - no such "redoubt" existed (its existence was a German wartime deception operation). In reality, the senior Nazis cleared out to southern Germany as it was unoccupied, but only lightly defended. I'd suggest not using this term.
"a replacement command centre near Berchtesgaden in southern Germany" - note that this was the location of Hitler's residence
"In January 1973 Heidemann was photographing the Carin II" - the tense and context is unclear here (did he spend the month photographing the ship? Why?). Should this be "In January 1973 Heidemann photographed the Carin II.."
" Researching into the history of the yacht" - this wording is a bit awkward
"In mid-December 1982 the author and Holocaust denier David Irving was also involved in tracking the existence of diaries written by Hitler" - you could note that Irving had considerable experience in dealing with Nazi memorabilia and document collectors and sellers. His status at the time should also be noted so that the references to him in the "Released to the news media; the Stern press conference" section make sense - he was generally considered a mildly disreputable expert on Nazi history with expertise in assessing obscure documents. His reputation didn't collapse until later.
"Jäckel stated that he was "extremely sceptical" about the diaries, while his fellow historian, Karl Dietrich Bracher of the University of Bonn also thought their legitimacy unlikely" - did they voice these views publicly at the time, or where they their personal reflections? The context here is unclear.
Unfortunately it's not made clear in the sources either. I suspect it was to the press, but that's just my guesswork. – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the genuineness and importance of the discovery" - could this be replaced with something like "the authenticity of the documents and importance of their discovery"? "genuineness" is a bit awkward.
"By this stage the historian had growing doubts over the diary" - please state why this was the case
Not given. In the source, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and questioned the reporter closely for over an hour.[106] Heidemann accused the historian of acting "exactly like an officer of the British army" in 1945" - it probably should be noted in the body of the article (rather than the notes) that that Trevor-Roper had been a very high performing British Army intelligence officer in 1945, and interrogated Germans to determine the events which led to Hitler's death in the weeks after the war. Part of the reason his views carried so much weight was that he was seen as more than just an academic historian.
More material on Weinberg would be useful - he gets left out with his views not discussed, despite being accorded a photo
I'd suggest also adding that one of the reasons Weinberg was willing to believe that the "diaries" were genuine was because of Trevor-Roper's endorsement of them; this emphasises that Trevor-Roper was the key expert consulted by the people who made the decision to publish. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was the key person for the British papers, certainly: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"That day, when The Daily Express rang Irving for a further comment on the diaries, he informed them that he now believed the diaries to be genuine" - you could note Harris' reasons for why Irving changed his mind (from memory, that the "diaries" tended to support his Holocaust denialist views)
That's not what Harris says. He guesses, but doesn't know for certain, that it's because Irving preferred being an infant terrible, and found himself "on the side of conventional opinion", which he didn't like. Harris doesn't make any connection between the change of heart and the Holocaust. – SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On page 339 he appears to be referring directly to an explanation Irving gave him, which includes Irving's view that (to quote Harris) "the diaries did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust", with this helping to bolster the claims Irving had made in his book Hitler's War. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I didn't read that far on. I am troubled by Harris's explanation of Irving's reasons though, as I think most of this is guesswork: no other source makes the connection and others relate only Irving's published and public explanation: that it was connected to the known medical records of Hitler. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard J. Evans endorsed Harris' views in his detailed investigation of Irving's claims to be a "historian", and went a little bit further. See paras 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 of his expert report to the Irving vs Lipstadt defamation trial here (this also appeared in the book he developed from the report, Telling Lies About Hitler). Lipstadt also noted Harris' assessment in her book on the trial, so the key sources discussing Irving's work as a "historian" do make the connection. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That shows nothing beyond the fact that Evans uncritically accepted and quoted what Harris wrote on this specific point. To clarify, I will add something suitable on this point shortly, but I am still troubled by Harris's guesswork reported as fact here. – SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather uncharitable to Evans, who conducted a broad ranging assessment of Irving's work and appears to have concluded that Harris was correct given the similar problems Evans uncovered (to quote Evans, "If an obvious forgery like the 'Hitler diaries' gives credence to his views, he will use it"); Evans found that Irving had used dubious or clearly misrepresented sources to further his views on Nazi Germany on a number of occasions. The material added to the article looks good though. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"he met Kenneth W. Rendell, a handwriting expert in the studios of CBS. Rendell's first impression was that the diaries were forged. He later reported that "everything looked wrong", including new-looking ink, poor quality paper and signatures that were "terrible renditions" of Hitler's" - how did Rendell get copies of the diaries?
"In April 2012, during the Leveson Inquiry, Murdoch acknowledged his role in publishing the diaries, and took the blame for making the decision, saying "It was a massive mistake I made and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."" - from memory, Harris states that Murdoch regarded the affair as worthwhile after the diaries were found to be a hoax as he made a profit on the deal. I'd suggest also including this. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nick-D. I've still got one point to cover—on Weinberg—and I'll get round to that shortly. Thanks very much for your comments – they are very useful and I've adopted them all, except where commented on otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Weinberg info, and Irving's reason now added. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments are now addressed. Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nick - your comments are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – Maky« talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a little-understood genus of nocturnal lemur form Madagascar. This is my second attempt at FAC with this nomination, after the first one was suspended due to insufficient feedback. Hopefully more people will take interest this time. – Maky« talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My comments during the last nomination were solved, so I have little to add, but I will contribute with an image review below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
All photos appear to be selfmade by Wikimedia or Flickr users, and have appropriate licenses. The two illustrations are also appropriately sourced and licensed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review! Btw, I added one more photo if you want to check it off. With the announcement of a study showing M. zaza has the largest relative testicle size of any primate, I contacted the researchers and they uploaded photos for our use. Everything should still be good since she uploaded and released the photos herself. – Maky« talk » 15:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, sourcing looks fine, but I'm wondering if the caption should perhaps mention what's being done to the animal? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had put it in the alt, but I will try to rework it. – Maky« talk » 16:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aa77zz
This is a well prepared article by an experienced editor and I can't find much to criticize. I do not have access to the two heavily cited books and thus cannot check the content. I've made a few edits to the article - please check that you agree.
Thanks for the review and help on finding all those typos! I really appreciate it. – Maky« talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"further to the north in the Sambirano and Sahamalaza regions." I don't think you should use the word region - for administrative purposes Madagascar is divided into 22 regions and these don't include Sambirano and Sahamalaza.
Hmmm... That's what the sources call them. The sources may be referring ecological regions or botanical regions. I've done my best to fix it. – Maky« talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and around Ambato in northern Madagascar,[8][15] part of the Sambirano region.[8]" I cannot find this Ambato. There is a district of fr:Ambato-Boeny more to the south. Is it near the town of Ambanja on the Sambirano River?
All I know for certain (per one of the sources) is that it's in northwestern Madagascar. (I fixed the article from saying "northern".) Sometimes finding towns in Madagascar is like trying to find Springfield in the United States... but without online or comprehensive print sources. – Maky« talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it here. Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried finding towns in Madagascar using online maps, and it is very difficult to find anything with absolute certainty. I did a search and found a few maps that pinpointed regions in the northwest, but "Ambato" was not named on the map. Other maps point to an Ambato near the Antananarivo, near the center of the island. It seems like there's also one or more Ambato rivers, so it might be referring to the region around one of those. It's hard to say. – Maky« talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The southern limit of its range is the Maeverano River and extends to the Mahavavy River in the north." sounds odd to me. Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. – Maky« talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are these articles useful?
Roos, Christian; Kappeler, Peter (2006). "Distribution and conservation status of two newly described cheirogaleid species, Mirza zaza and Microcebus lehilahytsara". Primate Conservation. 21: 51–53. doi:10.1896/0898-6207.21.1.51.
This source appears to reiterate everything already noted in other sources and this article. – Maky« talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rode, E.J.; Nekaris, K.A-I.; Markolf, M.; Schliehe-Diecks, S.; Seiler, M.; Radespiel, U.; Schwitzer, C. (2013). "Social organisation of the northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza in Sahamalaza, north western Madagascar, inferred from nest group composition and genetic relatedness". Contributions to Zoology. 82 (2): 71–83. Aa77zz
This article goes into slightly finer details about the social structure of the northern giant mouse lemur. However, because this is a genus-level article, I think it should be saved for the species article. – Maky« talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those articles, though! – Maky« talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the article satisfies the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another article that has just been published:
Rode-Margono, Eva Johanna; Nekaris, K. Anne-Isola; Kappeler, Peter M.; Schwitzer, Christoph (2015). "The largest relative testis size among primates and aseasonal reproduction in a nocturnal lemur, Mirza zaza". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22773. See also undated BBC article here. Aa77zz (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw that yesterday. I'll add the information after work. – Maky« talk » 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material has been added. Please let me know how it looks. – Maky« talk » 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Cas Liber
read through this the other day, was on a smartphone and forgot to log in and comment...returning now.....looking good....
Giant mouse lemurs are relatively small cheirogaleids,[9] though they are more than three times larger than the smallest members of the family, the mouse lemurs - I think the "Though" works better at the front of the first clause rather than the second.
Fixed. – Maky« talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their tail is bushy and long, measuring around 300 mm (12 in), which is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in) - the two "which"s are a little disconcerting, could be reworded to something like, "At around around 300 mm (12 in), their bushy and long tail is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in)"
Great catch and excellent suggestion. – Maky« talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The northern giant mouse lemur also has a shorter tail, shorter canine teeth, and is generally larger. - you'd generally say it was larger first (the most obvious attribute) and then the other traits.
Fixed. – Maky« talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are just quibbles though and easy to fix. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate your helpful comments. – Maky« talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems comprehensive and well written. Apart from making a trivial correction, I had to read a third of the way through the article before I could find anything to quibble about!
"Like other cheirogaleids, the dental formula for giant mouse lemurs is 2.1.3.32.1.3.3 × 2 = 36; on each side of the mouth, top and bottom, there are two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars—a total of 36 teeth." - This sentence seems to state the same thing twice.
Yes, I agree. However, this stems from a long-standing debate where scientific lingo is seen as too technical, so it supposedly needs to be explained. (Wiki links aren't enough, apparently.) I was asked to add this at some point... probably in another recent lemur FAC. Personally, I'd like to remove it, too. Maybe some other reviewers can comment to help establish some consensus on this matter. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to include the new population reported by the WWF in 2010 on the distribution map?
I would, but I'm not 100% sure where Ranobe is, and I don't trust web searches since many villages of the same name exist all over Madagascar, and often within 100km of each other. I just don't have any map to work off of. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention where the "Duke Lemur Center" is located.
Done. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Although vocalizations are a primary form of social communication." - Perhaps this should be "the" rather than "a".
Done. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Females start reproducing after ten months, while males develop functional testicles by their second mating season" - It might be better to state these time durations in a more comparable way, "second mating season" being rather imprecise.
The source isn't more specific. It may be safe to say 21 months of age (two years minus the 3 month gestation), but I feel uncomfortable stating it that precisely given the differences between the two species. I also have to consider that the source used for this statement was written at a time when the genus was considered to have only one species. Your thoughts? – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"insect excretions" - Do you mean excretions or secretions? They are not the same thing.
The insects produce excess sugar water as waste (out the back end), so I'm pretty sure excretion is correct. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"cochineal insects" - Cochineal insects live on cacti in Central America as far as I know.
Hmmm... That's what the sources say. They don't give scientific names. However, cacti have been introduced in Madagascar and are invasive, particularly in the southern part of the island. Looking around, it looks like Dactylopius coccus was introduced to the island in the 1920s to control the cactus populations. If we can find a reliable source, it might make for a good addition to the Cochineal FA. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in connection with the captive breeding program at DLC? Were individuals released into the wild?
The sources don't say, but from my own personal knowledge, I can say that Mirza is a classic example of the potential short-sightedness of captive breeding programs. It was initially successful, but at the time giant mouse lemurs weren't considered endangered. Since they risked flooding available space at breeding facilities, and since other species were considered more critical, their captive breeding program was probably shelved. Now that they're facing extinction, it's simply too late. Most of the population died off from old age. It's one of several of the DLC's failed breeding programs, though this one was due to poor planning and mangement, versus simpona breeding (large-bodied sifakas like the diademed sifaka and the golden-crowned sifaka), which failed because the species are too specialized to live in captivity. Needless to say, the DLC does not publish anything about these issues. In fact, they have threatened me in the past over simply discussing their breeding programs on Wikipedia, despite using reliable sources, including their own website. – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! – Maky« talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your full responses. The unresolved points I raised above are unimportant and I have no hesitation in supporting this nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spot check
A'coming along....
references all formatted consistently
offline book sources accepted in good faith
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 2 (all 6 cites)
Thanks for taking this on. I'll be watching for any issues you find. – Maky« talk » 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Forgot about this...ok now where was I......
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 16 (all 4 cites)
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 33 (2 cites)
Right, spot checking of three online refs (and 12 items) looks good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment
I'll promote this but pls note there are quite a few duplinks -- pls check with this script and decide which if any are really needed. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I fixed most of the dup links, but a few link multiple anatomical words to just one or two articles, so they're kind of needed. I also treat the cladograms like illustrations and link independently of the body text (in case people ignore one or the other). I hope that's okay. – Maky« talk » 18:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Yunshui雲水 12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Chinese historical figure, a painter, caligrapher and publisher who lived at the tail end of the Ming Dynasty. It's been a GA for a while, but I think it would only need slight tweaking to pull it up to FA status. Yunshui雲水 12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod
Comment The idea is that you do the tweaking, then nominate it here when you think it is fully ready - reviewers usually disagree on some points of course. At a quick look there seem to be some obvious links missing, and several aspects of the unfamiliar context of his life need more explaining, whether it is the colour printing (one of those missed links, I think) or the political context. But an interesting figure. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've tweaked - but from previous experience, reviewers tend to throw up things I've not even thought of; the response to those points was the tweaking I was referring to. For example, I wouldn't have deemed it necessary to fill in the political background, but that's because, to me, that information is just a given (Oriental history being one of my areas of interest). I'll see what I can do to provide a little more context. If you could provide additional links that you think are needed, I'd be happy to sort those out as well. Much obliged for the comment. Yunshui雲水 14:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
more:
The lead is too short; it is supposed to summarize the whole article, and doesn't.
The section on the printing -his main claim to fame - also seems short.
Thanks Johnbod. I've made a start on the lead (more to do) but I'm confused about your comment on the Rawson reference; the title appears to be correct (although I've modified the template to show him as editor rather than author). Please can you clarify? Yunshui雲水 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's her - Jessica Rawson. I see you just copied the BM's mistake, giving: Rawson, J., ed. (1992). The British Museum book of Chi. London: The British Museum Press. ISBN978-0-7141-2446-9. Actually it's (in the current edition): Rawson, Jessica (ed). The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, 2007 (2nd edn), British Museum Press, ISBN9780714124469. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. I'll sort out the reference in the article accordingly. Yunshui雲水 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(That makes a lot more sense now; I'd been assuming that the book title referred to one of the several Tang era states called Qi, and couldn't work out why it would contain information about a guy who lived more tha 500 years later... Yunshui雲水 12:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support The article has improved considerably since nomination, and is looking good. I'm happy to support. There's room at the bottom to promote at least one image from the gallery. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Curly Turkey
I had to double-check the source when I read about Ten Bamboo Studio and ukiyo-e—I'm not quite sure the wording is supported by the Michener source. It says the work was reprinted in Japan, but it says the influence on Harunobu was rather Mustard Seed Garden. Ten Bamboo Studio certainly anticipates nishiki-e, but the source doesn't actually say it "la[id] the foundations" for it. Also, I'd link to nishiki-e—ukiyo-e was already a century old before Harunobu introduced full-colour printing (and obviously Chinese printing would have had a negligible influence on ukiyo-e painting, which makes up a significant portion of ukiyo-e works). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense; I've changed the article accordingly. Yunshui雲水 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope there'd be more images in an article about an artist—perhaps even galleries. The whole second half of the article is unillustrated. Goolging around, I can see decent images like these: [12][13][14] (the Harvard Art Museum returns 137 hits for Hu Zhengyan). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now prettified the article with a gallery. Yunshui雲水 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
He was best known for his manual: best known at the time, or is this what he is now best remembered for?
Changed it to "is best known" to clarify the timeframe.
The history is a bit hard to follow—we're told that Nanjing was "at the time" the capital, and later we're presented with the fall of Beijing. Reading up a bit, it looks like Beijing was the capital at the time of its fall, and that's what makes the event significant, right? I think it would be easier to follow if the events were given in chronological order, and perhaps with a tad more context.
I've taken out the line "(which was at the time China's capital)" - it wasn't the capital at the time of Hu's birth, and was only ever the capital of the Southern Ming after 1644.
He died in comparative poverty: compared to what?
Well, compared to the comparative affluence of his earlier life - but you're right, the word isn't really necessary; I've nixed it.
a noted exponent of seal-caving: does "exponent" imply there was indifference or opposition to seal-carving?
You're right, "exponent" probably isn't the best word to use here... changed it to read "a noted seal-carver" (and fixed the accidental reference to pot-holing that I'd missed at the same time!)
Huh? Curly, there's nothing wrong with exponent here! Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An "exponent" is "a promoter of an idea or theory". If that is in fact what he did, then it will have to be expanded on, but the context leads me to believe it was merely a poor choice of words. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 23:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it was poor wording on my part. Yunshui雲水 07:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"promoter" etc is meaning 1. Meaning 2 is "Practitioner, adept, expert, master, specialist.... " (Chambers Thesaurus). Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if it can be misconstrued - as seems to have been the case here - then it's not the best wording. I'm happy to have it taken out if it makes things clearer. Yunshui雲水 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he followed the Huizhou (Xingyuang) school: what is "Xingyuang"? Clicking through to the Huizhou article doesn't tell me. Also, Huizhou links to a city rather than a school of seal-carving as I expected.
Not a clue, sorry. No idea where I got that from now. Whilst trying to find out I've also noted that the Huizhou style isn't named after the city, so I've taken out that wikilink; by rights it should link to He Zhen but since he's mentioned in the same senetence I figure it's preferable to leave it unlinked.
founded by He Zhen: it appears He was a contemporary? Probably want to make that clear
He died when Hu was 22, but there's certainly an overlap in their lives, and adding "contemporary" make it clear that for Hu, this was a modern school. I've made the addition.
is balanced and carefully structured: could be considered NPOV. Perhaps "is considered balanced and carefully structured"?
Well, the opinion is that of a professor of art history who speicalises in Chinese art; I think it's fair to say her statements go beyond the subjective. My own phrasing is a bit biased, though; I've changed it to "Hu's calligraphy, although balanced and with a clear compositional structure, is somewhat more angular and rigid than the classical models he followed", which is a closer reflection of the original source.
It would be nice to have an image in this section. Perhaps even a comparison of a Hu seal to others of the Huizhou school to show the differences the text talks about?
I'll see what I can do...
Zhou Lianggong stated that Hu: again, it would be best to make clear that Zhou was a contemporary
Clarified who Zhou was.
Despite Hu's withdrawal from society after 1646, the studio continued to publish well into the Qing Dynasty, for the most part focussing on seal impression catalogues showcasing Hu's carving work.: this is uncited
That's from Wright; I've moved the ref to the end of that paragraph.
developing embossed printed designs: is this meant to imply he developed the technique, or merely produced examples?
Edited for clarity.
a technique known as dou ban yin shua: you produce the Chinese script elsewhere—any reason not to here?
I don't know the characters - they aren't in the source. Well, "ban" is 板 (block), but as for the rest, I've no clue.
I followed a Google "Did you mean ... ?" for 豆瓣印刷, but then got nothing but porn hits. I kept at it, though, and I think the characters are 饾板印刷—I do have to emphasize that I have no Chinese language ability, though. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 21:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, the "印刷" just means printing, and appears to be attached to taoban as well (套版印刷). You should eaither add a yinshua to taoban, or drop it for both. If it were me, I'd go with "douban printing" and "taoban printing". But again, I don't speak Chinese. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant - thank you! I've added the characters to the text based on the reading in the footnote at [15]. Yunshui雲水 07:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he was able to produce some of China's first printed publications in colour: it says "some"—does that mean someone beat him to it?
The volume used a form of multiple block printing called taoban: I'd probably move these to the previous paragraph. Also, were there other multiple-block printing techniques at the time other than taoban? Is it worth redlinking? And providing the script for it? If taoban was the only technique he used, I'd mention it in the previous section rather than here.
I've moved this up, in a way that makes clear that this was not the only prointing method availble. Again, no idea what the Chinese characters would be.
which made use of his gong hua stamped embossing technique: I'd menion the name of the technique in the previous section, where his development of embossing is introduced.
I've done so, plus a found anew source to provide a brief definition.
Do you know of any images that clearly show the embossing?
I've not found any that clearly show the embossing in use; there's an image in the source I've added but it's small and very dim.
Any examples of the Imperial seal he created?
That would be nice, but I can't find anything that I can definitively state is the correct seal.
It's nice to have a gallery, but best not to get carried away. You probably want a couple of key examples in the body of the article, too.
Still thinking about his. I like the organisation of having everything in a gallery, but I'll have a look and see if there are any pictures which particularly illustrate certain elements of the text.
Okay, I've now added a painting which is a good example of the colour gradation in his printing, and also a double image comparing two prints of the same painting.
You should create a Hu Zhengyan category (and a Shizhuzhai shuhua pu subcategory?) at Commons and add a {{Commons category}} to the article.
Apologies for interjecting my replies into your comments, it seemed like it would be easier to follow that way. Thanks ever so much for such a thorough review. Yunshui雲水 10:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer replies to be interspersed like that, and I've never understood why certain editors object.
Somehow I didn't notice that you'd made edits to the article in response to the above comments. The article's prose seems fine to me now. I'll leave it up to you, but if I were the editor I'd (a) cut back on the number of images in the gallery; and (b) leave out most of the non-English in the lead (Shizhuzhai, Shizhuzhai Shuhuapu)—it's there in th ebody for those who want it (along with the Chinese script), and I think many will find it just distracting at the lead level. Not something I feel strongly enough to withhold the support I now bestow upon this article. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 10:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt: I don't really agree re the gallery images, but I would move one up to the biography section. At the moment the first 2 are seals, which leave Western readers cold. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too like having a reasonably substantive gallery - I don't feel that ten images are excessive. @Johnbod: I have to disagree regarding the seals, though; speaking as a Western reader I find well-produced seal script absolutely captivating. It's a shame there are no images of Hu himself out there; I went with his personal seal as an infobox image since such seals seem to be the only graphical "representations" of the man that are available. I will have a look around and see if there's anything that might fit into the bio section, though.
I've also expanded the lead and the information on his printing somewhat, would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Yunshui雲水 08:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've added "He employed several members of his family in this enterprise." to the lead, but I don't see anything about that in the body (which means no source, either). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 08:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Biography section, second paragraph: where he employed ten artisans including his two brothers Zhengxin (Wusuo) and Zhengxing (Zizhu) and his sons Qipu and Qiyi (Zhigua), sourced to Wright. Many thanks for the support vote, by the way! Yunshui雲水 08:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering the image below for inclusion in the Biography section, per User:Johnbod's suggestion; any thoughts? Yunshui雲水 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A model of the city of Nanjing at the time Hu lived there
That one doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, to be honest (otherwise I'd just have stuck it in the article) but I'm struggling to come up with a suitable free image that illustrates his biography. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Yunshui雲水 08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:Cobblet has come up with a much better image (in the article now); what do you think? Yunshui雲水 08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff! Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Hu_Zhengyans_seal.JPG: should include licensing status of original work as well
File:Hu_Zhengyan_Seal2.PNG should use life+100. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Is there a specific template for including the licence of the original image? I don't know of one, and haven't been able to find anything appropriate. Or do I just need to add the {{PD-Art}} template (with appropriate parameters)? Thanks, Yunshui雲水 07:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second one is fixed. Yunshui雲水 08:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is essentially a derivative work - the derivative is claimed to be under CC, but the work it's derived from is life+100. Here is one possible way to address that, though there are others. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks; I thought there might be some template for derivative works to display both licences. Both files now updated, much obliged for your review. Yunshui雲水 12:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
I would mention (or at least link) that Hu was an exponent of Chinese woodblock printing, not European style printing.
I've redirected the link in the lead to go directly to Color_printing#China - good idea.
His place of birth appears to be referenced to Wen Huilin's book, which is stated to be unreliable. The information should be described as dubious or referenced to a reliable source.
Good point; that info actually comes from Wright (cited at the end of the paragraph). I've added an extra reference after the sentence about his birthplace to make it clear what is being cited from which source.
Nothing on parents, wife, number of children. If this is unknown, you should say so. Some details are clearly available as you mention brothers and sons.
There's very little, at least in English. Once source makes a passing mention that his wife was called Wu (now added in the biography section) and Wright mentions his brothers and (very briefly) the two sons.
Presumably the Ten Bamboo Studio was in Nanjing, but you should say so.
Fair point; I've done so.
"his sons Qipu and Qiyi (Zhigua). You say his family name was Hu. What is the significance of Zhigua?
That's Hu Qiyi's courtesy name. I can't find a record of Qipu's, assuming he had one.
Is it known where he lived after he retired.
None of the sources say; the consensus is that he "retired from public life", but whether he remained at the Ten Bamboo Studio or left to live somewhere else is not made clear in any English source.
" producing personal seals for numerous contemporary dignitaries" I think the word "contemporary" is superfluous.
@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for taking the time to review. As with Curly Turkey's review above, I've interspersed my comments with your own; please let me know if you've prefer my reply to be reformatted. Yunshui雲水 08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first mrate article. You do not need to comment on interspersing your replies - I would say that is the usual and best way of doing it. Just one other point. I would have the first courtesy name as Zhengxin (courtesy name Wusuo) to explain the meaning of the names in brackets. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea; I will do so. Thank you very much for your review and support! Yunshui雲水 09:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so that explains the irritating failure of some nominators to explain their responses to comments! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cobblet
A much welcome article on one of the highlights of Chinese art.
I added a picture of his former residence in Xiuning to the Biography section.
Thank you so much, that's perfect!
What's the source for his birthplace being "the town of Xinan"? I'm guessing this might be referring to 新安郡 which was a former commandery straddling the border between Anhui and Zhejiang (and did not seem to contain Xiuning in its borders), and I didn't find anything suggesting it was still in existence during the Ming dynasty.
Honestly, I don't know where I got that from now. It doesn't seem to be in the source. I've removed the specific town, since the most the source says is that he hailed from Xiuning.
His courtesy name Yuecong (曰从) needs to be given clearly. We could also really use Chinese names of his family members (e.g. his elder brother was 胡正心, his sons were 胡其朴 and 胡其毅 (courtesy name 致果, Zhiguo not Zhigua).
Thank you again - locating copiable Chinese characters for these had stumped me, which is why they weren't in the text. If you can locate the characters for Zhengxing (Zizhu) and Wusuo (I know what they look like, but can't type them) I'd be very grateful. The additions above have now been made.
Gonghua should be 拱花, not 空花. Ditto for gongban (拱板 not 空板).
Looks like you're right - fixed.
The lead needs to explicitly mention the fact he pioneered new techniques in Chinese printmaking. Right now there's little sign of how important his role was in the development of the art form. We are speaking after all of "one of the world's masterpieces of color printing" [16], that showed "for the first time in Chinese art a systematic approach to the study of painting." [17]
Added an extra line to emphasise this.
Can we get a more extensive list of his publications?
I think so, I will work on that today.
I found an extensive article on Ten Bamboo studio in Chinese that sheds light on some important biographical details, such as Hu's background as a physician.
Excellent - but unfortunately I can't read (or, as we've established above, write) Chinese, and Google Translate is not particularly helpful (sample of translated text: "family background chopsticks book, not shoulder basket plow"). I'll try and tease out some useable information, but would you mind if I ran the edits past you first, to check that the source actually says what my interpretation of Google's gibberish thinks it does?
@Cobblet: Many thanks for these extremely helpful suggestions and additions. Yunshui雲水 07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: I've expanded the Major works section to include some of his other major publications (outside the sphere of art and printing). However, I could really use a bit of help here; I'd like to add the Chinese characters for these books but really don't know where to begin. If you could lend a hand with the translation, it would be greatly appreciated.
On a related note, I really can't glean anything useful from the Zhuoke Arts website; in Google translate it's just nonsensical for the most part. Could I ask you the enormous favour of looking through it and suggesting any tidbits of information that would be appropriate for the article, so that I can work them in?
Much obliged, Yunshui雲水 08:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: You, sir, are a marvel. One of the best things about making occasional forays into FA territory is that one meets some exemplorary helpful editors; this is proving to be no exception. Thank you very much indeed - if I may make one final imposition, can you offer a sensible translation of "牌統浮玉"? Yunshui雲水 14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a cool topic I can't help myself :) Fuyu (浮玉) means "abode of the immortals"; the term's being used metaphorically – think along the lines of Gradus ad Parnassum – and I don't know how one would translate it idiomatically. I'll work on adding biographical details from the Chinese article tonight or tomorrow. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: So perhaps: "Tile System (or Domino System) of the Abode of the Immortals"? Yunshui雲水 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to leave it untranslated if we can't find a source for a translation. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to furnish readers with a translation, I think - currently it's the only untranslated title in the article (and at the moment it looks as though 牌統浮玉 means "Chinese dominoes"; I'll fix that). Translations aren't considered original research, but I'd prefer to use yours to mine since you actually speak the language!
As far as I can tell - and I've looked pretty hard - there's no English translation of the book's title out there; if we do translate it, it'll have to be our own work. Yunshui雲水 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't speak Classical Chinese and I had to do some googling to find out what fuyu means (it's literally "floating jade"; "domino system floating jade" – hmm) and I couldn't find a good enough explanation for me to be absolutely sure this is its correct meaning. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Cobblet
What's the source for the name "Ku Yueh-Tsung"? Yueh-Tsung is the Wade–Giles romanization of Yuecong but I'm not sure where "Ku" would've come from – is it just a typo? Also Hu's Chinese name should be in the infobox.
Sources is here - might be a typo in the original, I don't know. Romanisation of Chinese is a bit of a 'mare, as I'm sure you know! Added a native_name parameter to the infobox.
On further consideration, perhaps we ought to remove "Ku Yueh-Tsung". It looks to be an erroneous form of the Wade-Giles romanisation "Hu Yueh-Tsung", which is already covered in the text. I've not found any other examples, nor does there seem to be any precendent for rendering 胡 as "Ku" in any romanisation system. Any thoughts?
The age range in the infobox contradicts the text in the article, and it seems generally accepted he was at least 90 when he died (I've seen 91 in some Chinese sources). Perhaps the uncertainty in the dates as discussed by Wright should be briefly noted in the biography. (fixed myself)
Thanks.
Given that Digutang was definitely still publishing in the 1650s, 1619–1646 cannot be correct for the "years active" field of the infobox. I don't think we know with certainty when he began and ended his publishing career.
It seems implied in Wright and a couple of other sources that he gave up publishing after the death of Zhou Yousong (with the studio continuing under the direction of his brothers), but since no date is stated I'll take it out.
Noted the improvements to the lead, although I think we could still go further. I understand the WP:SUBJECTIVE concerns but when an artist's work receives as much strongly worded acclaim from experts as Hu's I think the lead should reflect this in some way. At least it should be pointed out that Chinese woodblock printing reached its highest standards in the late Ming and Hu's work exemplifies it.
I'll have a think about how best to word something around this.
Perhaps this source might be helpful – it notes colour printing as possibly Ming xylography's most important achievement, and also makes a favourable direct comparison between Hu Zhengyan's work and the Manual of the Mustard Seed Garden. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note Wright says "by 1619", not "around 1619". The Chinese source I'll be working on conjectures the move to Nanjing happened around 1615-1616. (fixed myself)
Again, thanks.
After the most recently added publications the heading "Major works" no longer seems appropriate. Also you may want to continue providing dates for these works where they're available.
I've put in a subheading; will look into dates when I have a bit more time.
Dates now added for those I can be certain of.
The publication names in the Biography section use sentence-case capitalization but those in the rest of the article use title case. IIRC the MOS calls for the latter.
Been meaning to fix that for ages - now done.
The article could still use attention from a MOS guru (for instance right now the article consistently uses only traditional Chinese characters except for his (courtesy) name where I gave both; what's the policy on this for historical Chinese articles?) but it's looking pretty good to me now. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some scouring of the MOS and see what I can come up with. Thank you so much for your additions to the Bio section; it looks much better now. Yunshui雲水 10:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: It looks fairly MOS compliant - now that Huizhou is (correctly!) wikilinked, the MOS indicates the removal of the Chinese text (done) but that was the only glaring error. It also requires a pinyin version with tonal marks in the initial {{zh}} template, which I've added. There doesn't seem to be any preference for simplified or traditional, though it's suggested that authors consider using simplified as well as traditional if there's a difference (which in the case of his full name, there isn't, I don't think). Yunshui雲水 09:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You assume correctly. I think it's best we remove the "Ku Yueh-Tsung" spelling – I can't find evidence of any variety of Chinese pronouncing 胡 as Ku.
I just realized I didn't actually change his age at death as given in the infobox. It seems generally accepted that he was at least 90 years old when he died (Lü Liuliang recorded Hu's age as 90 at the time of his visit); maybe it's a better idea to just use the death-date template rather than the one that gives the age as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the "Ku Yueh-Tsung" spelling. The docs for the infobox and subtemplates recommend using {{death year and age}} in uncertain cases to give an approximate ages, so I reckon that the current infobox is okay (there isn't a {{death year}} template, and {{death-date}} requires day and month parameters). Either that or we should go with "unknown", but a couple of sources do try to pin down his year of death - I think what we have now is probably the best compromise. Yunshui雲水 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{BirthDeathAge}}? Looks like it can just take the year of death and not specify an age. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: Never seen that one before - but yep, it seems to work! Yunshui雲水 07:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd like to see Hu's notability established a bit more clearly in the lead, I think the article as it stands meets the featured article criteria and I support its promotion. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Let's see. Given that the most important thing is his work, having the building be the largest image is strange at the least.
100px wide is way too small for [[:File:Hu Zhengyan Seal Comp.jpg].
File:Zou Zhilin, letter on decorative paper.PNG may be misleading: I'm not convinced that isn't a black and white copy of a potentially colour original. Also too small, but that's not the major problem.
I'm not clear what the pair of images labelled "Two prints of the same painting, Bamboo in Snow..." is meant to show.
Almost images are rather badly gotten from their sources. For example, compare http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/18721524?width=3000&height=3000 - fully zoomed in with the magnifying glass, then right-clicked and chose "view image" - to File:Persimmon_and_Three_Yellow_Tangerines.PNG - why the drop in size?
I think you get the idea. I'm happy to re-review, even help out if you need it, but this isn't quite good enough as yet. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, thanks for the review. It's nice to have an image reviewer on board too. Before I make your suggested changes, can I just get you to expand a bit on a couple of things, so that I don't just make things worse (images are not my strong point!).
Regarding the picture of the building, would you suggest making that image smaller or the others in the article larger?
Regarding the picture of the seals, can you suggest a preferable size?
I'm fairly certain File:Zou Zhilin, letter on decorative paper.PNGis a black-and-white copy of a colour original (which I've not been able to locate anywhere); is this an issue? I wasn't aware that the IUP had anything to say on the matter, though I'm happy to be corrected. (I have, however, converted it to an upright image, which should hopefully resolve the size issue for you).
The two images of "Bamboo in snow" were meant to show the differences from separate print runs, but to be honest, you're right; it isn't clear that they're meant to do that and it's hard to see any differences at that size anyway. I think I may take that image out.
And as for the quality - yes, that's my fault; my snip tool is old and sucky. If you're able to derive higher-quality uploads from the sources, you'd have my undying gratitude.
Much obliged for the review and the offer of assistance; thanks for pitching in. Yunshui雲水 12:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick ping to flag this on your radar again @Adam Cuerden:. Yunshui雲水 08:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took a bit. It's... not been a good week. Will do what I can. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I'm sorry to hear that. Any assistance is appreciated. I've adjusted the house and seal images to 150px each, so if your happy with that yuou can ignore my first two questions above. Yunshui雲水 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can afford to promote this now and leave further discussion to the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
Has anyone here conducted a source review for formatting/reliability? If not, a request can be posted at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; review requested. Yunshui雲水 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
No deadlinks, so that's good.
Foreign language sources are fine, of course, but it's traditional to use the language= tag to indicate that they're non-English.
Footnote 16 has an access date, but the site actually has a copyright date, too, which should be added.
Footnote 21 has the beginning of a page range, but not the end.
Footnote 28, the title should be capitalized.
Everything else looks fine, text has the appropriate level of citation throughout. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you Coemgenus. I've now fixed the issues raised above, if you want to do another quick check. Yunshui雲水 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks fine. No other issues remain that I can see. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – iridescent 15:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gray's The Bard is one of the seminal works of English literature. The direct ancestor of works as varied as The Lord of the Rings, The Last of the Mohicans and Twilight, it's a deeply bleak work which examined not just the taboo topic of the Anglo-Norman eradication of the indigenous cultures of the British Isles, but also the corrosive and ultimately self-destructive effect that conquest had on the conquerors. With its evocative descriptions of armies marching through the rugged landscapes of north Wales, and of the excesses of the alien Norman elite and their ultimate destruction at the hands of the indigenous Celtic population at Bosworth Field, it was an ideal work for painting, and was tackled by artists as varied as William Blake and J. M. W. Turner.
Those of you familiar with William Etty's unique approach to illustrating great works of literature will probably not be shocked to learn that for his take on The Bard, he chose to depict a boatload of naked teenagers. Unlike most of Etty's paintings, which were either derided at the time but later came to be respected, or were greatly admired at the time but then slipped into obscurity, Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm has been controversial since Etty exhibited a preliminary sketch of it in 1822 which was promptly condemned as "offensive and indecent" by The Times. A technically astonishing work (a reasonable case can be made that until the invention of photography, no other artist ever painted such realistic nudes), it also represents the absolute nadir of 19th-century kitsch until Bubbles 50 years later, and there was a general feeling that Etty had spectacularly misunderstood just what The Bard was actually about. Unlike most Etty works, this one has spent most of existence on display in the big London galleries rather than in private hands or in smaller northern galleries, so it's arguably his best known work. Thanks to User:Lingzhi in particular for a lot of minor tweaking on this one. – iridescent 15:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cant say I would be drawn to the painting, but it does have attractions, and the article and writing are great. My ce adjustments were trivial. Refs and biblo correctly formatted and all from reliabile sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for letting me know, Iridescent! Until now, I had been operating under the understanding that the two-week rule was mandatory after all FACs. I'm glad I was mistaken. Neelix (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. You've linked Tate Britain twice in the summary.
Thanks, fixed – iridescent 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. The first two images in the main body's left column are The Dawn of Love and William Blake's 1798 painting. When viewed on a high resolution screen (my screen is set to a width of 1920px), the second image appears immediately below the first. This creates an unusual problem: the text floats neatly around the first image and then shifts in a bit as it floats around the second. You can resolve this issue by giving both images the same width.
One is landscape and one is portrait—I'm a little reluctant to have them at the same width since it will make the latter appear much larger. As far as I'm aware, the WMF are aiming one day to impose a maximum line length on MediaWiki (they already do on Flow pages—see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire for example) which will render it moot. If it's causing problems, I can replace Dawn of Love with something else from the period in portrait format, since it's serving as a representative Etty history painting from the early 1830s and doesn't need to be this particular picture. – iridescent
Changed my mind, and have put Blake up to full width even though it technically violates MOS. It's a detailed enough image that there are legitimate reasons for it to be at a larger than expected size, and this solves the text-alignment issue. – iridescent 09:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it looks better. Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source is public domain and can be viewed on archive.org: Life of William Etty, R. A. This link confirms Etty's apprenticeship in Hull, but is volume 1. Why have you written volume 2? And why not include this link in the bibliography?
Yes, you're right; that was a legacy of me cutting-and-pasting bibliography entries from articles on later works. In this case, I've jettisoned Gilchrist altogether—although it's not really an issue on a non-contentious issue like where he lived, there's no reason to be directing readers to a book known to be unreliable when genuinely reliable sources exist for the same thing. – iridescent 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- so you've dropped a source "known to be unreliable". Fair enough. Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Known to be unreliable" is maybe a bit strong; "known to be biased" is probably more accurate. Gilchrist doesn't lie, and would be perfectly suitable for citing a fact as basic as where someone lives, but is explicitly writing a hagiography and leaves out anything critical towards his subject. – iridescent 13:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. RE: "The correspondent additionally commented that" -> "The reviewer added" / "The journalist added".
Changed to "reviewer" – iridescent 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've now got "The reviewer additionally commented that ...". All you need is "The reviewer added ...". Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree—I think in one of the early drafts I already had an "added" and was trying to avoid repetition. Changed. – iridescent 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've now got "added that". The "that" is superfluous. Am I annoying you! Singora (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. You write "in 1949 the painting was transferred from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery, where as of 2015 it remains". Your source is an article from the Tate website, dated 2007. Do you not have a more recent source? (This is obviously a very minor point.)
I'm not sure what you mean by this—if the Tate ever for some reason remove it from their collection it will be removed from the website, so its continued existence on the site implies that it's still there. (Short of a major catastrophe or complete financial meltdown, that won't change; to the best of my knowledge the Tate have never sold a painting.) The last time it would have had significant coverage in a print source was the 2011–12 Art and Controversy exhibition—I can source easily enough that it was on loan from the Tate then, but there doesn't seem to be anything to be gained doing it this way. – iridescent 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, this is only a very minor point. Ignore it. Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. On the BBC website I found this painting by Alfred Morgan. It looks like a straight copy (apart from the colors). It's part of the V&A collection.
WP articles on artworks generally don't cover copies by other artists unless there's a specific reason to do so (e.g. the copy helped to popularise the original, or the act of making the copy had a significant impact on the artist who made it), as there are just too many copies around for it to be practical. Copying paintings was part of the standard course of every art student in 19th century Europe, and Youth and Pleasure was in public galleries in central London for its entire existence so would have been easily accessible. (With major Etty paintings, one can assume that at the very least his acolytes William Edward Frost and James Mathews Leigh would have made copies.) – iridescent 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I thought it might be worth noting since the copy is part of the V&A collection. Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
V&A collection doesn't mean much; their visual arts collection is the de facto national library of reproductions. When it comes to paintings, anything in the V&A that doesn't say either "Ionides bequest" or "Sheepshanks bequest" can generally be disregarded—almost everything significant other than those two bequests was transferred to other collections . – iridescent 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Singora (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Why do you discuss critical reception for the 1822 version in the Composition section rather than the Reception section which succeeds it? Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Versions" should be a standalone section, rather than a subsection of "Composition" – changed. I think it would be too confusing to discuss the reception given to an 1822 preliminary draft in the section about the reception for the 1832 completed version. – iridescent 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Singora (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. In the Versions sub-section you write "In 1822 he had exhibited an early version ... in this early version the group of figures on the prow is reversed". The following sentence notes "Another rough version of the painting also survives, similar to the 1832 version but with the figures on the prow reversed". The first sentence repeats "early version". I think you need an "also" in the following sentence. Singora (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following you here (although I've removed a superfluous "early"). I think you're saying that it needs to made clear the figures are reversed in both the 1822 and "1848" versions, in which case that should do it. – iridescent 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is much better. You've added a new section (Versions), stripped out the repetition and put in the word "again". Singora (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Singora (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this![reply]
Many thanks! – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC) note; I've moved the bolding markers on your above post—no words changed—as it was confusing the bot which counts supports and opposes – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
A few minor comments:
Plantagenet, not Plantaganet (in lead and main text)
Fixed, don't know how that slipped in. – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Art historian Sarah Burnage" – a pity to use the American/tabloidese false title in an English article.
I don't really see the issue here—I've never considered false title a legitimate concern except when people capitalise inappropriately. I don't see how changing it to "The art historian Sarah Burnage" would be an improvement, since it gives the impression she's the only or pre-eminent one, while "Sarah Burnage, art historian" sounds very pompous to me. – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically that link in the final sentence is an overlink, but it's far removed in distance from the initial link. As this is the point where readers are most likely to have an interest in York Art Gallery ("I'd like to know more about that exhibition"), I feel it makes sense to keep a link here as well. – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article, focused, clear, balanced and of course beautifully illustrated. Plainly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! – iridescent 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comprehensive and well-referenced, etc. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 02:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pile on at this point and sorry for taking so long to get here. This is an interesting read; I have to agree with the reviewers that Etty got Gray wrong (I know the poem) and can't make up my mind whether I hate Etty or like him (in case you were interested in my opinion!) I made a few very minor tweaks. Nicely done, again. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and no rush, given how lax I've been at reviewing anything lately. Long reply at your talkpage to avoid going off at a tangent here. – iridescent 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have to move quickly to catch these. The usual excellent quality, though as quibbles I have to say I agree with Tim re "false titles", and might have included the copy myself. Do we have a record of when it was and was not displayed by the NG? Perhaps not. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, every painting in the Vernon bequest was on display while in the NG's ownership; initially at Marlborough House, then at South Ken, and post-1876 in the expanded Trafalgar Square building; I don't believe it was off display during its time at the NG. In the early 20th century the Vernon bequest (other than the portraits) was transferred to the Tate; because of their fast-rotation policy it's not going to be practical (or probably even possible) to list when it was and wasn't on display after that. I'd be reluctant to go down the road of including copies by other artists unless they're of particular significance. ("The King of Spain liked the painting so much he commissioned this copy", "This copy became more popular than the original".) Because the curricula of the 19th century art academies were so heavily based on the theory of learning-by-copying, and because before the introduction of photolithographic reproduction there was a steady market for hand-painted copies, almost any painting which was on public display in London, Paris, Munich, Copenhagen, Edinburgh etc will have had lots of copies made, of various quality. Regarding 'False title', per my reply to Tim I don't consider them a problem but have no objection if anyone wants to rephrase it. – iridescent 11:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely leave this potential finetuning to post-FAC, so will promote this shortly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the biggest baddest star (system) within 10,000 light-years. It's had input from astronomer Mike Peel who got some other professional astronomers to look at it as well, and Hamiltonstone to see it from a layperson's point of view to make it as accessible as possible. We reckon we're pretty close to FA status and promise to fix stuff as quickly as possible. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Belated query, Cas, but is this a WikiCup entry for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Studying the reference information, I find these issues, that should be easy to fix: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Wilson, Ralph Elmer (1953). "General catalogue of stellar radial velocities". has a stray "0" - is that a month or something?
Reference " Mehner, A.; Ishibashi, K.; Whitelock, P.; Nagayama, T.; Feast, M.; Van Wyk, F.; De Wit, W.-J. (2014). "VizieR Online Data Catalog: Near-infrared photometry of {eta} Carinae" says its from "2014A&A...564A..14M" but this is obviously an abbreviation for another publication [20] which says doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201322729 title="Near-infrared evidence for a sudden temperature increase in Eta Carinae" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is correct. Despite the different titles, one is the online catalogue for the other. Apparently at least some VizieR catalogs come with their own bibcodes. I could just use the journal paper for both, but that is just hiding the relevant facts behind another layer.Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The White, S. M.; Duncan, R. A.; Chapman, J. M.; Koribalski, B. (2005). "The Radio Cycle of Eta Carinae" reference is missing some info, like the name of the series, publisher, or conference name, and page number looks inconsistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "2" should be subscript, the Eta should be η, Feii looks like it should be "Fe II" but perhaps the II needs to be in small caps. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah got this now. They don't look like small caps on bibcode page so left them normal size. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D. John Hillier; K. Davidson; K. Ishibashi; T. Gull (June 2001). "On the Nature of the Central Source in η Carinae". has an abbreviated journal title ApJ - what is that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section should not be needed in a FA. The terms should be linked from somewhere in the article if they are relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article says " to magnitude 4.6 as of 2012", but can we get an update for 2015? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. The secular rate of increase is less than 0.1 magnitudes per decade, with more rapid changes of at least that scale superimposed on the trend. The apparent magnitude just doesn't get officially reported very often, and only a statistically analysed number consistent with previous data could really be used in Wikipedia. The brightness actually took a bit of a blip up in mid-2014 during the periastron passage, but then dropped back. The online monitoring web page could perhaps be used to support a more recent magnitude claim. Click through on the green chart to see individual V observations up to Aug 30th 2014, clearly showing the blip up. AAVSO estimates suggest the brightness very quickly dropped back to 4.5 or 4.6 and has stayed there. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence could already include an exciting fact about the star, that it once was the second brightest star. (not sure about this) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged like this to list its prodigious luminosity and the brightness in the 1840s in the first few sentencesCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infrared has no hyphen. (5× that way) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reference "VizieR Online Data Catalog: General Catalogue of Variable Stars (Samus+ 2007-2013)" has CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (these three errors put the article into hidden maintenance categories)
Interestingly, the author list in the reference itself has "et al." for the 3rd author. I'm not sure how to go about changing this here, since I'm not seeing a clear way of discovering who the other authors are.StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the lua module for this, and there is no easy work around as I thought there might be. If more authors can be found then diusplay-authors=2 could be used to make et al appear. But it always complains if you input that text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a somewhat clunky workaround, but it seems to now be displaying correctly with no CS1 error, even if the wikitext is a little messy.StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your work around! It works fine, and won't even mess up metadata. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the sentence on Eta Carinids belong under Visibility? Some may think these meteors come from the star. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; it doesn't really seem to fit there. However, I loath to have a one-sentence level 2 section about meteor showers, since nothing else really fits with it. I see you wanted the "see also" section removed, but I think it may be the ideal choice in this situation.StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some clarifying text; does this work better?StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That text works for me. If there was a section on the location in the sky, that would be the logical place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The light curve generator cuts off the date, and I haven't found a way to fix it. The current image is up to date bar a few weeks. I'll update the captions to reflect the correct dates.Lithopsian (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just tried to create an image without the truncated X-axis, but it appears to be a bug in the software itself, which cuts off the last date.StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we may have to download the image, expand the canvas and edit in the missing numbers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both light curve images updated to fix x-axis formatting problems.Lithopsian (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a possible updated historical light curve. It goes back to the earliest observations, and I changed the aspect ratio so the interesting bits aren't completely lost. Is it better than what we have now?Lithopsian (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly better when zoomed, but as a thumbnail it won't add much understanding. I am happy with the images in the article now. They do lead to another question about the intensive observations that are happening now. Are these keen amateurs? Is this worth a a mention in the article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. 99% of observations of bright variable stars are made by amateurs. I don't know quite what we do with that factoid though, if anything.Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: it's a very nice article on well-studied object. However, there are a few areas that I think are in need of refinement:
I have concerns with the use of astronomical notation without explanation, which may make parts of the article inaccessible to lay readers.
In the 'Visual spectrum', several instances of ion notation occur without explanation.
Note added with explanation.StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I moved the note up to the first use of the notation. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Ultraviolet section, the ionization notation changes to Fe+.
I've linked a couple of terms, although it may not be obvious that they are to explain the notation rather than being specific to the chemical element or the actual ion. The differing notation is used when referring to an actual ion rather than the originator of a spectral line. Both are correct and could possibly be used in either case, but this seems to be how the pros use them.Lithopsian (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lyα (Lyman alpha), M☉ (solar mass), 4" (arc seconds), 10,000 AU, and L☉ (solar luminosity) are used without explanation.
I only see about half of them have been addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess how I replied could be considered ambiguous; I only meant the last bullet point was addressed.StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Homunculus Nebula is mentioned before it is explained, and is not linked at its first occurrence.
this is hard, I tried defining it at first mention, like this but tricky when discussed in detail not at first mention...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'core hydrogen burning', 'bolometric luminosity', 'hydrogen shell burning', 'nitrogen sequence', and 'core collapse supernovae' are unlinked
linked bolometric to wikt definition as succinct and figured a repeat link to luminosity too wordy. bolometer not helpful either. hydrogen core and hydrogen shell burning tricky - just trying to figure best target. others linked both linked by Lithopsian now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Eta Carinae is the brightest IR source outside the solar system': anywhere? Or in terms of apparent brightness?
Seems to have been reworded by someone else.StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence completely. It is now discussed, and worded, better elsewhere.Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'temperature of a 60 R☉ hydrostatic "core"': what does this mean? It is unclear from the context.
I've heavily rewritten the Temperature section to try and clarify (or confuse!) the issue of the temperature of the primary star. I've added a little explanation of what a hydrostatic core might be.Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"complete loss of the Earth's ozone layer is a plausible consequence of a nearby supernova": does 'nearby' mean a distance closer or further than Eta Car?
Alot closer - it talks about "50 light-years" for much of the paper and so appears to use this to define "nearby". I've rejigged this a little having just now read both papers.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Samus, N. N.; Durlevich, O. V. et al. (2009)": the two other instances of 'et al' have much longer author lists.
Problem is, in this case, the source itself doesn't give any more authors, but rather lists the rest after Durlevich as "et al".StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through this word by word in alphabetical order, and I have fixed many minor issues. But I have found these that I would like ideas on:
Inconsistent use of m⊙ versus m☉ — they look the same but are not, what is correct? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most are formatted by a solar mass tag, so we're stuck with that. The two different ones are within journal titles, which tend to be ascii-fied. I've changed those two to match the Wikipedia template formatting.Lithopsian (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "color" however the rest of the article looks like British English, should we change this to colour? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good. Since it is largely British spelling now, should we add a British Spelling tag to try and keep it consistent in the future?Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to editnotice.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
imposter and impostor both appear for the same kind of thing. We should use only one spelling, but what? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several refs use impostor, the article is supernova impostor, and I tend to feel impostor is more correct. Several sources state that both are correct but impostor is more common. I have a feeling that at some point my spellchecker baulked at impostor and I have been adding imposter, but I've now changed all instances to impostor.Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neither is wrong - impostor apparently slightly more correct. They are all that now anyway..it'll do..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use of ≈, would this be better to replace with "about"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbering shortcuts, should we allow it - eg "927-32". I prefer "927-932". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always abbreviate to two digits, but some other editors don't. I did think there was an MOS discussion on it but haven't seen it for ages and maybe am imagining it...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange initial abbreviations of J.-M. and J.-C. Perhaps this is a French style as the publishers also use this "-". But should we use it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen hyphenated names (often chinese names as well as french) done this way so does not strike me as odd at all, sorryCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three uses of "our" for our galaxy, and "our own Sun". Should this just be "the Milky Way" and "the Sun"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see, I like "our" here but nobody else seems to :(....I think it makes the prose more engaging personallyCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Some of the images could stand to be larger - particularly those with annotations or text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some of the images a little larger; I don't want to make them too much larger, as making the text not appears squished is important, since many screens (including my own) are only 13 inches.StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMGSIZE, if you use the 'upright' option rather than a fixed size, the images should scale based on your user settings. Praemonitus (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a play with upright. I just read WP:PIC and understand how it works now.Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. RE: "Eta Carinae is too far south to be part of the mansion-based traditional Chinese astronomy, but it was mapped when ...". Do you not think the word "it" may be redundant?
Okay, I agree with you and would remove the second "it", however most reviewers much prefer the second "it" to remain (I've had sentences like these tweaked many times at FAC!). It is a style thing...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. RE: "Observations at the Cape of Good Hope indicated it peaked in brightness, surpassing Canopus, over March 11 to 14 1843 before beginning to fade, then brightening to between the brightness of Alpha Centauri and Canopus between March 24 and 28 before fading once again". Should "brightening" be "brightened"?
Yes - good catch, and tweakedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. RE: "The peaks in 1827, 1838, and 1843". Is the second comma needed??
This is the Serial comma issue. I generally didn't use them, but they are very useful if you have to slot a reference for something in a list. Many people here use them. Again a style thing..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as the Oxford comma. I know some people don't like them, but they are occasionally important for clarity, so I use them except in the very rare cases where they would be confusing.Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Lithopsian here; I usually prefer the comma since leaving it out can sometimes cause ambiguity.StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. RE: "The size of Eta Carinae A is not even well defined". I can't see why you've used the word "even".
We don't know how big either star is because of the dust and gas in the way, but we do know Eta Carinae B is likely to be a star with a clear-cut surface (like most stars), however Eta Carinae A seems to be disrupted and chaotic, so that it may not even have a clear-cut surface, which is unusual..does that make sense?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went to change this as it seemed like a bit of a weasel word, but it does appear to be there for a reason. The opening paragraph of the section says that the size isn't well known. Then, the second paragraph says that, in addition, the size of the primary isn't even well-defined. The word "even" could come out but I think the prose would lose some meaning.Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. RE: "In some scenarios, the secondary can accrue significant mass, accelerating its evolution, and in turn being stripped by the now compact Wolf–Rayet primary". The grammar here is puzzling.
Yes - well-spotted, tweaked now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from SingoraSingora (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I SUPPORT this article. To be frank, it strikes me as excellent. However:
1. On a random check, refs 35, 43, 48, 50, 54, 65, 73, 87, 114 and 115 point to a Harvard University website. Do you think these links should be archived? It's very easy to archive links, btw. If you're not sure how to do this, please let me know.
thanks for the support, those links aren't via a url parameter but from the bibcode parameter. Not sure how to do it with that. The harvard website is a pretty massive one with fulltexts of a huge number of astronomy papers - I can't imagine it going down or moving...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bibcodes are like PMID or DOI numbers and they are handled by the cite template. At the moment they happen to point to absabs.harvard.edu and the template creates the full URL automatically. Bibcodes will probably stay there for the conceivable future, but if they ever moved then the template would create a url to the new location.Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This website is the Astrophysics Data System: it's the main repository of astronomy papers, and it's been running since 1992 so it (hopefully) shouldn't need archiving any time soon! If it does, there are mirrors (e.g., http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/) that the template call can be updated to point to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim
Fascinating article, which I'm happy to support. One comment: In 1827 Burchell specifically noted its unusual brightness at 1st magnitude. Surely the first sentence of a new section should mention its subject? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
duly tweaked - thx for supportingCas Liber (talk·contribs) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed 3 CS1 errors and added some alt= text for most images. Can someone please check my alt text? Otherwise the rest of the article is ready to go so I will add support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx for supporting and tweaking (alt texts look ok) - much appreciatedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Discovery and naming has Pieter Keyser 1595-96 observation. Frew 2004, p. 42 mentions an earlier observation by "Hues". Shouldn't this be mentioned? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is explained on bottom of page 14 and onto page 15. Hues described the bright stars and did not appear to notice Eta Carinae, leading to the assumption that it was not bright enough to stand out at the time. Hues description is pretty vague though.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same section, most of the first para is referenced to Frew 2004. However, the statement "when he recorded the star simply as Sequens" does not seem to be supported by the text - a search for the word "Sequens" turned up no results in the PDF. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what's happened here. I think things have been shuffled about...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that. A suitable reference would be Catalogus stellarum australium itself. You should be able to see a copy online. Lithopsian (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added this as a reference nowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1751 Nicolas Louis de Lacaille mapped the stars of Argo Navis and Robur Carolinum and divided them into separate smaller constellations. The star was placed within the keel portion of the ship named as the new constellation Carina, gaining the name Eta Carinae. - the only bits of this in the given source are "1751" and "Lacaille". Simon Burchell (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is talked about in a wordy way bottom page 20 and page 21, but the term "Charles Tree" and "Oak" are used for Robur Carolinum. Regarding the names, the article is really focussed on the brightness variations so is not fussing about when it was called Eta Argus, Eta Navis or Eta Carinae but refers to it by its modern name and older names when in quotes without comment assuming readers are familiar with the name changes without the need to explain them. I can see this needs a more explicit ref and will find something to clarify Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Found something and learnt something in the process. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new reference to this rearrangement of constellations.Lithopsian (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences Eta Carinae has the names Tseen She (from the Chinese 天社 [Mandarin: tiānshè] "Heaven's altar") and Foramen. It is also known as 海山二 (Hǎi Shān èr, English: the Second Star of Sea and Mountain)" are also problematic. The source is entirely in Chinese, and I see no mention of "Foramen". However, that may simply be because it is transcribed in Chinese. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The names are referenced in the starbox. I can repeat the references in the text if you think it is necessary, but tend not to in most cases, to avoid citation overload.Lithopsian (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final paragraph seems OK; however the page no. 6 given for ref 2 (Frew 2004) does not apply to all the instances where that ref is cited. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weird, that's the issue I think - the pages go from 1 to 76...ref adjusted nowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great Eruption - all sourcing seems OK in this section. Checked 2, 11, 24, 25. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser Eruption Ref 27, page numbering is inaccurate. Also, the section gives 1887-1895, but p. 1127 gives 1887-1894. I couldn't find the 7.5 figure in the article, otherwise it looks generally OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some astronomy papers just give the first page rather than page range. tweaked now. year changed. I've seen both years used but have aligned with source. back laterCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have described the timeline in more detail, following Frew, and added the reference. The Humphreys reference was mostly for the absolute magnitude stuff in the second half of that paragraph.Lithopsian (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've spot-checked a number of further references, and all seems in order. I'm happy with the changes made to address my previous concerns, which seem largely limited to one section. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few duplinks you might be able to lose (I assume someone would have Ucucha's checker installed).
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last bit of Discovery and naming now cited. Please let me add support too. (Duplinks don't worry me). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most duplicate links removed. I kept a few that I felt were useful to have around the area they were in, but got rid of most.StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): — Cliftonian (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Hugh Beadle, PC, CMG, OBE, Chief Justice of Rhodesia at the time of UDI in 1965, is today chiefly remembered for making the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson quite angry. Beadle was very much an Establishment figure, thought the Rhodesian Front government under Ian Smith a motley collection of amateurs and, according to one biographer, would be "remembered as a Commonwealth chief justice who upheld individual liberty" had there been no UDI. Perhaps unfortunately, Beadle's life is now defined by UDI and his reactions to it. He initially stood by the British Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs and continued his efforts started before UDI to find a compromise. The failure of the 1966 Wilson–Smith Tiger conference seems to have affected Beadle deeply and by 1968 we find him first ruling Smith's post-UDI order to be the de facto authority in Rhodesia, then declaring it fully de jure. How to explain such a volte-face? Was Beadle an "evil genius" who furtively supported UDI all along, or one who "did his best for his country in a time of difficult choices"? We will probably never know for sure.
This article passed a GA review in January and has just undergone a very productive peer review. I think it comes at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it; all comments welcome. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the GA reviewer I was already family familiar with this article. After a thorough read I am satisfied it now meets FA standards, though I have a couple suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think beyond the pale should be linked as per WP:IDIOM. Maybe it needs no explanation in other parts of the world, but like I said in the GA review I had to google it
OK, I've removed it. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"After Leonie's death in 1953" - Since you gave the cause of death for his second wife i'm guessing you couldn't find any information on Leonie's cause of death? If that's the case it's certainly understandable, otherwise more information on the matter would be nice.
Can't find it in the sources. Will add if I do.
Thank you for the helpful comments, here and at the GA stage, Freikorp, and for your support here. Very much appreciated. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was one of the peer reviewers. I found the article to be well-written and comprehensive. After reviewing again, I see many improvements have subsequently been made. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help along the way and your support, FunkyCanute. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I reviewed this article at PR and was impressed (not to say abashed) at how much I learned about what was headline news when I was a fourth-former. This judicious and well balanced article meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and the help at PR, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and found it informative. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent and fascinating read, meets the criteria as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extremely kind words and the support, SchroCat. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nicely balanced, well written and very complete. I don't think that all of the small prose changes suggested in the long review, above below, are improvements, although some are. Personally I think that "dissociate" is a better verb than "distance", in the context given; it is stronger, and closer I believe to what Wilson and Co. wished. And I don't much like the mdash introduced into the sentence "This proved decisive for Beadle—to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." In any event, the opening "This" needs clarifying. I suggest: "This decision proved decisive for Beadle as, to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won the election, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." I will leave it entirely up to you whether you implement these. A great contribution to the encyclopædia. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and for all your help along the way Brian. I have gone back to "dissociate", which I agree after looking at the new version for a few days is better. I have also adopted your suggestion on the "decisive" sentence. Thanks and I hope you are well. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. This one I've fixed, cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Federation_rhodesia_nyasaland.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this map?
Don't know what the original author used, but I've added a source that confirms it (map on inside cover of Richard Wood's history of the Federation).
File:Dodwilson.JPG: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, so it is. Not sure what to do about this one. It was uploaded to Commons in 2007 with only the url for the image itself, so the Wayback machine isn't finding it. All Tineye's showing me is the same image on other Wikimedia sites. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: what course of action do you propose here? — Cliftonian (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest using this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Cliftonian (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Singora
Singora starts productively but ends with attempted character assassination of fellow reviewers and declaration that he is "not a part of" this "fucking bullshit". Have granted his wish by capping his comments and closing the conversation. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments from Singora (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent. I remember thinking the prose in your last article (Mutiny on the Bounty) was stuffy, turgid and forced, but this is much better. My observations:
1. RE: Summary. "Born and raised in the Rhodesian capital Salisbury, Beadle read law in South Africa and England". Isn't this a non-seqitur?
I'm sorry, but I don't think it is. We're saying where he was born and grew up, then where he was educated. This seems to me a logical progression. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. RE: Summary. "he added the Education and Health portfolios two years later". Did he add them or were they added?
Good catch. They were added. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. RE: Summary. "As independence talks ... descended towards stalemate". Why do you feel this was a descent? I would use a neutral term such as gravitated or edged.
Well, I would say either side would consider it a "descent", as they would both prefer to see an outcome favourable to them. But I like "gravitated", and have adopted. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. RE: Summary (talks). "These failed". I know what you mean, but think "The talks failed" might be better.
I've changed to "The summit failed" (to avoid repetition of "talks"). — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. RE: Summary. "Beadle's de jure recognition ... made him anathema to the Wilson administration". Did you consider "made him deeply unpopular with" or "provoked hostility from"?
I've adopted the latter. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. RE: Early life. "and was soon after called to the English bar" -> "and soon after was called"
Thank you for this, an improvement. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. RE: Political career. "he joined the United Party, formed to contest the 1934 general election out of the former Rhodesia Party and the conservative faction of the Reform Party". I would discuss the formation first and then add the raison d'etre. For example, "he joined the United Party, formed from the former Rhodesia Party and conservative faction of the Reform Party to contest the 1934 general election". Mmmm. Not sure about this. The term "out of" strikes me as a bit iffy, though.
Have gone with "he joined the United Party, created from the former Rhodesia Party and the conservative faction of the Reform Party to contest the 1934 general election." — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8.RE: Political career. You have "Seconded to the Gold Coast Regiment with the rank of temporary captain following the outbreak of the Second World War, Beadle was released from military service at the request of the Southern Rhodesian government to serve as Huggins's Parliamentary Private Secretary". This is awkward. Consider "Beadle was seconded ... following the outbreak of WWII, but was released ...".
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. RE: Political career. "He was thereupon appointed ...". You've already used a "thereafter" in your summary. Words like this (thereafter, thereupon, therein) sound stuffy and tedious. Nice, simple words are often better.
I have trimmed this one. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. RE: Political career. "Two years later, after retaining his seat in the 1948 election with a large majority, he added two more portfolios, those of Education and Health". Back to my earlier question. Why not use a colon and drop "those of".
I have gone with "he was assigned two more portfolios, those of Education and Health." I prefer the the "those of" construction in this case to substituting a colon or emdash, though I appreciate the suggestion. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. RE: Political career. "and put much work into attempting to create a Southern Rhodesian system". I'm pretty sure this is grammatically wrong. I think "much" is one of those words used primarily in negatives and questions. For example, "I've got a lot of free time tomorrow" versus "I don't have much free time tomorrow".
Have substituted "considerable". — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. RE: Political career. "Beadle would explain later that he had left politics". This is past perfect. Why not just use past simple?
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. RE: Chief justice. You have: meaning "the thing was bound to crash."[4] Shouldn't the period come after the quotation mark? Compare this sentence with the one referred to in point 9.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. RE: Chief justice. "He later said that he was repeatedly asked ...but that he". Drop the second that.
OK; also dropped the last "he". — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That'a all for now. It's 22H30 here in Singapore and time to watch a movie. I'll finish this off tomorrow.
Thanks for this Singora; very kind words and helpful comments. I'm glad you like the article. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More from Singora (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Just noticed the summary has "He became Chief Justice in 1961, the same year he was knighted, and three years later became president of the High Court's new Appellate Division and a member of the British Privy Council." The word HE starts the preceding sentence. Did you consider:
15a. "In 1961 he was knighted and appointed Chief Justice; three years later he became ........."
15b. "In 1961 he was knighted and appointed Chief Justice, and three years later became ........."
Have gone with 15a—an improvement. Thanks for this. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. RE: MP and Cabinet minister. You say "The criteria were applied equally to all regardless of race, but since most black citizens did not meet the set standards". Do you mean BLACK or NON-WHITE? I ask this question because I used to have Indian friends in England who fled Uganda (RE: Idi Amin) in the early 1970s.
I mean black. The interior ministry in Southern Rhodesia considered the country to have four "racial groups": black (or African), white (or European), coloured (mixed race), and Asian (sometimes "Indian"). The latter two were tiny minorities and largely integrated into the white community so far as voting went. Indeed the 1969 republican constitution went so far as have black/African and white/European categories only, folding all the coloureds and Asians into the latter section. (Some of the RF's strongest supporters were actually non-whites. A fairly good barometer regarding the Rhodesian population's support for Smith's post-UDI government is the 1972 Pearce Commission on the terms Douglas-Home had made with Smith. Pearce's commissioners worked on the basis of four racial groups and found a large majority of blacks to be opposed, but the rest strongly in favour: whites 98%, coloureds 97% and Asians 96%. [22]) — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Singora (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. RE: Chief Justice. You have "In August 1959, amid rising black nationalism". Should black nationalism be linked? Is there a link?
Have linked to black nationalism, but the article there seems to talk mostly about the US. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- this is not really what you want. The link detracts rather than adds. I think you need to remove it. Singora (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the link to go to African nationalism, which I think is better. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. RE: UDI. You've written "After talks in London in early October 1965 were unsuccessful, Wilson, desperate to avert UDI, travelled to Salisbury later that month to continue negotiations". What talks? Why were they unsuccessful? Consider:
18a. "A compromise was sought in London in early October 1965, but after talks failed Wilson ..."
18b. "After efforts to forge a compromise in London in early October 1965 failed (were unsuccessful / collapsed), wilson... "
Have gone with 18b. They failed basically for the same reason as before—neither side considered the other to be giving enough ground and each considered the other to be basically deliberately intransigent and malevolent. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19.RE: UDI. "Beadle continued to frantically seek a compromise". Split infinitive. Beadle continued frantically, etc.
Have just removed the adverb. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. RE: Madzimbamuto case and Tiger talks. You have "During the immediate post-UDI period the Chief Justice occupied a unique position as he could speak directly with all of the main players—Gibbs, Smith and Wilson. He became the main intermediary between them, and received a dormant commission from the UK government to replace Gibbs as Governor in case of necessity". I think you need to have something like "Beadle, in his role as ..." We (your target audience) need to know we're reading about Beadle.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. RE Madzimbamuto case and Tiger talks. You've written "On 5 December 1966, when Beadle heard at Government House that Smith's ministers had rejected the terms, he stood 'as though pole-axed', Gibbs's Private Secretary Sir John Pestell recalled, and appeared close to collapse". I would omit the "Gibbs's Private Secretary Sir John Pestell recalled" in the interests of flow and readability.
Since this is a direct quote from Pestell I think we should attribute it; not attributing it might lead the reader to think this is quoted from the cited source (Facchini), Beadle himself, or someone else. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More tomorrow.
Thanks for this Singora. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More from Singora (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Let's jump forward to your Notes and References section. You have:
Pratt, R Cranford (1960). "Partnership and Consent: The Monckton Report Examined". International Journal. 16 (1). Toronto: Canadian International Council: 37–49. doi:10.1177/002070206101600103. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
23. What's my point RE: the above?
I see the doi was wrong. Fixed, should work now. Good spot. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
24. Are your References really References or should they be Citations? I've only written one FA (I'm working on two more on my computer, though) and I too originally had References. But then some guy changed it to Citations. I checked this out and figured he was right. I'm very rusty in the area, however.
I don't really mind either way; I usually write "references" but I have no problem putting "citations" instead. This isn't a big issue for me. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. RE: "In May 1973 Beadle chaired the High Court appeal hearing for Peter Niesewand, a freelance reporter for the overseas press who had been convicted of espionage under the Official Secrets Act, prompting outcry abroad". Your source "The Press is the enemy to Rhodesia" doesn't appear to support this. I see no mention of Beadle, for example.
That Beadle was there, etc is supported by the next citation ("Ousted Rhodesian Newsman Got Off Easy") and the Time source. Have added an instance of each here. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26. RE: "Niesewand had written three articles in November 1972 claiming to describe the Rhodesian military's plans for combating communist-backed black nationalist guerrillas, and had been sentenced by a magistrate to two years' hard labour, one year suspended". Your source "Ousted Rhodesian Newsman Got Off Easy" works well for this sentence and the one that follows.
See my answer to 25 — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ref number 60 (TIME) is also good.
See my answer to 25 — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28. RE: "Were it not so it would mean this court condoned the illegal abduction of Botswana nationals". In your source the word Court is capitalized.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29. RE: "Hugh Beadle Primary School in Bulawayo retains its name in the 21st century". The source here is fine.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. RE: Professor J.R.T. Wood. This is a long article on the guy's personal website. Is the article taken from a published source? I'm not quite sure how any of this supports "RF proponents downplayed black nationalist grievances regarding land ownership and segregation, and argued that despite the racial imbalance in domestic politics—whites made up 5% of the population, but over 90% of registered voters—the electoral system was not racist as the franchise was based on financial and educational qualifications rather than ethnicity". Where am I supposed to be looking?
Sorry, my mistake; this passage is cited not to the article on the website but to his 2005 book So Far and No Further. I copied the citation from another article but forgot to put the book in the bibliography. This is the book in question. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More later.
Thanks Singora. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More. Singora (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. RE: De jure decision. You have "while rejecting the appeals of 32 black nationalists who had been a month earlier convicted of terrorist offences and sentenced to death". Try:
31a. "who a month earlier had been convicted".
31b. "who one month earlier had been convicted".
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. RE: De jure decision. You have "UDI, the associated 1965 constitution and the government were thereafter considered ...". Not sure why you've added the word "associated". Would terms such as "recently drafted" be better?
The 1965 constitution was the UDI constitution, and the term "associated" is included to gently note that. It was indeed recently drafted, but most of the world didn't consider it Rhodesia's constitution at all. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have another THEREAFTER: "and thereafter excluded him from the diplomatic dialogue". Perhaps SUBSEQUENTLY would be better.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. In "but the Rhodesian delegation now demurred on a new British proposal" the word NOW is probably not needed.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. Should "This would involve elected black Rhodesians controlling" be past perfect (would have involved)?
I think it's okay as it is, personally. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
36. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. And yet another THEREAFTER ... "and thereafter having the right to appeal passed bills to the Privy Council in London".
This one should stay in my opinion. The point was that if for some reason the blocking quarter failed to block some piece of contentious legislation, there could then be an appeal to the Privy Council. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You've written "Smith's team accepted the principle of the blocking quarter but agreement could not be reached on the technicalities of it". Why not:
37a. "agreement could not be reached on its technicalities"
37b. "agreement could not be reached on the technicalities"
Have gone with 37b — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "steps towards removing Beadle from the Privy Council if the Chief Justice did not resign or dissociate himself from the republic". The word DISSOCIATE is ugly and (perhaps) scientific. Did you consider DISTANCE? Perhaps "sever ties with" would be more accurate.
OK, have gone with distance. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. This doesn't read too well "Beadle's absence prompted speculation in British quarters". I know what you mean, but you may wish to describe the nature of the speculation.
The speculation is described in footnote 5. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
40. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "Stewart wrote to Wilson on 6 May 1970 that he thought they should formally advise the Queen to remove Beadle from the Privy Council". This can be improved. Did you consider:
40a. "On May 6 1970 Stewart suggested to Wilson that they should formally advise the Queen ..."
40b. "On May 6 1970 Stewart expressed his concerns (misgivings) to Wilson in a written memo, suggesting that they ought to formally advise the Queen ... "
Have gone with 40a. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "This proved decisive for Beadle; to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won". I would use a colon; a semi-colon seems wrong.
Have gone with an emdash. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish this off during the week.
Thanks Singora. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments from Singora (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see little Brian Boulton and his clique of sad-faced fanboys have arrived on the scene. No way am I part of this shit. The "Supports" that these clowns give are not supports. What you have here is a straightforward clique of insecure runts handing out tit-for-tat supports. It's fucking bullshit. And I'm not part of it. Singora (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: I think Singora's final comments completely sum up this contributor's character – boorish, attention-seeking, obscene, juvenile. And of course cowardly – how brave to shout his playground insults from behind his anonymous username. Fortunately, no one will take this arrogant little boy at all seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad to see that sort of nastiness infecting this page. People of goodwill must just rise above it. Tim riley talk 20:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing surprises me from this creature. CassiantoTalk 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Singora's account for one month. This must be the most deplorable personal attack I have seen on Wikipedia. Clearly, Singora's comments will not be taken into account by the FAC coordinators. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they won't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, co-ordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A wonderful article which I have enjoyed reading immensely over the last couple of hours. Nice work Cliftonian! CassiantoTalk 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Cassianto! I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
Probably best to go with consistency on linking the publishers in the bibliography: you have some not others.
OK, lost the links — Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that Annual Report of the Under Secretary to the Federal Ministry of Works doesn't appear in Worldcat with an OCLC? No probs is you've already looked and found nothing.
Found it — Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the only other point I messed before is the date range in the IB: as far as I'm aware, his 'in office' datespan should be 1961–77.
OK — Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me: all good otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat. — Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy is a subseries within the Final Fantasy franchise, primarily produced and published by Square Enix. It features games from multiple genres developed by different teams within the company and set in multiple separate settings, but they are all tied together by the use of a single mythos. This makes the series something of an oddity for both Square Enix and video game series in general. Aside from that, there are very few commonalities, so gameplay images would be redundant. All the references have been archived to the best of my ability. The article was made a GA in May 2014. It has undergone a peer review, and undergone copyediting based on both suggestions from that review and my own judgement concerning the article. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--
Comments by SnowFire
Nice work as usual, ProtoDrake.
Year of inception 2006
I see you started a Wikiproject talk section on this topic, but I'm not sure if this makes sense to be in the infobox, or is correctly named if so. Isn't this really "year of announcement?" For all we know it was conceived in 1998 as a twinkle in Nomura's eye. And since when does this even matter that much? Do we care what year exactly Richard Garriot started thinking about ideas that would become the Ultima series?
Of the six announced titles in the series, XV is the only one yet to be released.
Seems kind of a backward phrasing. "As of 2015, five titles have been released in the series, and a 6th title, Final Fantasy XV, is in production" perhaps?
The settings, continuities and plots of the games are unrelated to each other
Nitpicking: I'd think that FF13 / FF13-2 / FF13-3 would be somewhat related to each other? For all that talking about "continuity" is a bit of a mess with FF13-2's time travel nonsense and how it totally ignores the Pulse plotline of FF13.
Nomura stated that he wanted something that the majority of people would note and appreciate
...the source says the reverse, though. ("people all around the world won’t be able to understand") Typo?
it was decided to build upon the idea of multiple games connected by a single theme... Whereas the common link in the Compilation was VII, the team chose to focus on "the tale of new crystals", with the themes and mythos connecting the games rather than an overarching narrative.
Not sure if this is one of those "lost in translation" things or the creators are just flakes, but... wat. What does "focusing" on the title even mean here? New Crystals might be mythos to a degree, but it sure isn't a theme. Was the source material this incoherent and we're just reflecting that?
Nomura created a real-world setting in XV, referring far less to the mythos' terminology
"real-world setting" could use some clarification or rewording - checking the FF15 article, I get the impression that this means "modern, contemporary technology" in the setting, but Lucis & Tenebrae sure don't sound like real world countries, nor do countries in the real world have a giant crystal and near-death experiences don't grant magical powers.
In a 2007 interview, Hashimoto compared the planning of the Fabula Nova Crystallis series to film franchises such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.[75]
Good for him. I would describe my own work as a cross between "Citizen Kane" and "Vertigo" myself, with a touch of "Blade Runner." Do we seriously want to let the producers do the comparisons for us? This seems like the kind of comment that's only appropriate from a neutral third party reviewer. I mean, it's one thing to say "we were inspired by series X" but this is just bragging about how epic this is gonna be.
The title change also resulted in the "XIII" numeral being dropped from the series title due to lack of continued relevance.
Not sure if "relevance" is the right word here. "lack of accuracy" perhaps?
all three XIII games would receive digital-only PC ports.[5]
Is "digital-only" even needed? Nobody except Blizzard sells hard-copies these days in the PC market. Everything is on Steam / b.net / Origin / GOG / etc. I guess it's a harmless extra 2 words, but just seems it might imply something unusual when it isn't anymore.
As early as 2007, Square Enix considered re-branding Versus XIII as the next numbered entry
Mega-nitpick: "a numbered entry in the main series" perhaps? "Next" is weird since FF14 would be the next entry.
was eventually announced for a western released as a high-definition port to the same platforms as XV with the idea of boosting console sales prior to the latter's release.
I see this is in the source, so I guess it's fine. But, there wouldn't happen to be a source pointing out that this is crazypants megalomania talk? If not, oh well. (In the uncitable opinion of this Wikipedia editor, good luck with that, Tabata, if you think a PSP port is going to sell PS4s, but I suppose I'm not a source. I guess the article does say later that Type-0 HD sold poorly, which might suffice.).
For these games, Japanese developer tri-Ace was brought in to help with the games' design and graphics.
Is it worth pointing out that tri-Ace went bust afterward somewhere?
Lightning Returns had lower first-week sales than its predecessors, but still topped the sales charts in Japan, selling over 277,000 units in its first week and over 404,000 copies by the end of 2013.
I was under the impression that Lightning Returns had hugely disappointing sales compared to its budget and the expectations set for it, with Square going on a mea culpa tour after both FFX HD & Bravley Default outsold LR. (Which also led to tri-Ace disbanding.) Is that correct? There some way to say "LR sold well compared to most games, but failed to meet the high expectations for a big budget, highly-promoted game?" SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire:, I've addressed most to all of the issues you raised (Particular thing I feel I want to mentioned: the Hashimoto quote about the series' planning was about how several titles were planned in advance around a large overall concept, which has been better defined). Just one thing I want to mention: a; nothing was ever said about what caused tri-Ace to fall on hard times, or about anything concerning SEQX "going on a mea culpa tour" about them. Besides This is a general series article, after all, so verifiable fine detail belongs on an individual subject's article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the changes looked good to me in your edit, thanks.
Yeah, I do agree it's difficult to balance just how specific to get. Anyway, it's already linked in the article as a source ("FFXIII beginnings"), but http://www.usgamer.net/articles/where-final-fantasy-went-wrong-and-how-square-enix-is-righting-it explicitly talks about Bravely Default outselling FF13LR and how Kitase was asking for input on what worked in LR, what didn't, etc. You already mention the "much ado about nothing" quote on FNC from it, but the sales issue seems relevant too. This might be the article misleading me, but I got the impression that it wasn't just Parrish (the author) ragging on FNC, but also Kitase? Not sure. (If Kitase agreed, it would make it something of a "mea culpa..." usual disclaimer that we shouldn't take 1 article's claims as gospel, of course.) Another source on LR's sales compared to other FF games is at http://gearnuke.com/final-fantasy-xx-2-hd-outsells-lightning-returns-life-date-sales-japan-just-two-weeks/ . Not 100% sure this is the best source, but http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/28/bravely-defaults-1m-copies-sold-reveals-why-it-has-square-enix-is-reconsidering-its-final-fantasy-strategy/ has Matsuda's comments to a Japanese newspaper. It seems Matsuda doesn't refer to LR directly, but merely vaguely talks about neglecting their core audience with it merely implied that it was LR (/Hitman Absolution?) being referred to. To be clear I don't want to make the article a hit piece on LR or anything, just as it happens we do have sources on how FNC/LR underperformed a bit compared to expectations, so if there's going to be a sales section, it seems reasonable to mention it, even briefly.
If there aren't any sources tying tri-Ace's sale to FNC, then that's fine of course. Merely something I wondered about, I'll assume you know more about the topic.
Support. (Although I'd still like some more details/explanation on LR's sales per above, ideally.) SnowFire (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Once again, it's amazing how much detail you are able to find on these video game topics, over 150 references from reliable sources, and very nicely structured. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PresN
The sentence in the lead starting "A subseries stemming" is pretty long and rambling- try splitting it in two.
"their respective teams used ideas and concepts from development to create additional games" - "concepts from development" seems to be missing "their" or something
"Those released in Japan and the west have generally received a positive reception and high sales" - given that none of the games have been released not in Japan or the west, I think this sentence isn't saying what you want it to. Only the games released in NA have high reception? They all do? The sentence also implies that the three XIII games aren't included in that first "positive reception" statement, but they too were released in Japan/the west.
"as a PlayStation 3 exclusive on December 17, 2009, while it was released" - while implies a contemporaneous relationship, but in this case the second half of this statement happened 3 months later.
"It was released as a digital download" - ambiguous: is "it" FF13? or FF13International?
"was released worldwide across March 2015" - across? Just "in" would work better
"features a real-time action RPG" - features, or "is a"? Either way, you use "feature" twice within a few words of each other
"mini-games and other similar features" - the other features aren't "similar" to what you've listed, so maybe "traditional features" would work better
The thought strikes me that, since all these games have their own articles, maybe you could drop the exact dates? Just have, say, the month/year that the games were released in each region? It may reduce some of the listy-ness of the Games section; the tons of dates makes it feel a little overwhelming. Same goes for the Related Media section.
"magazine titled Final Fantasy XIII Reminiscence: tracer of memories, was released" - no comma
"All the stories were later released online" -ambiguous; just the 3-part novella? Or all the stories mentioned in this whole paragraph?
"It became publication in the November 2011"
You mention the Type-0 l'Cie being branded, but not that XIII l'Cie get a brand as well?
"as Latin was no longer a widely spoken language and had gained a sense of mystery because of this." - bit odd to end the sentence with the prepositional phrase; maybe "and had therefore gained a sense of mystery."?
Stopping there for now; will get to the second half of the article soon. --PresN 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Wondering where to go after the completion of Final Fantasy XII, it was decided" - who was wondering? also, cut out the passive "it was decided" - Square Enix/whoever "decided".
"Whereas the common link in the Compilation was VII, the team chose to use "the tale of new crystals", with the mythos connecting the games rather than an overarching narrative" - what team, and you dropped an implied "the new series" from the sentence that the team chose to use "the tale" for.
"Another key idea behind the mythos was to ease the production of future Final Fantasy games by providing an established mythos" - double mythos
It took Nojima a year to write the mythos; do you know when that year was? 2003? Even if you don't, might be useful back at the start of "Creation" to mention that "while Final Fantasy X-2 and the original Kingdom Hearts were being completed" is 2002/03 or so, so we have an explicit frame of reference for what time period we're talking about.
Oh, I see, you say the mythos finished up by the start of 04 in the next section. Yeah, try to mention that a bit earlier so readers aren't wondering for a couple paragraphs.
"The original titles were XIII and Versus XIII" - jarred me a bit; maybe "The original titles in the series were XIII and Versus XIII
"with Agito XIII being a mobile phone title" - "being" is such a milquetoast, awkward verb construction, and you use it twice in this sentence. Just say "with Agito XIII described as a mobile phone title"
"with each supporting and future game being a "facet" of XIII" - totally misread this when I first hit it, as I thought "each" referred back to XIII/Versus, so the "and" threw me. Maybe "with future games each being a "facet" of XIII"
"as it "would have been an issue."" - period outside the quote, as it's not a full sentence being quoted
"there was speculation that the subseries would end with Lightning Returns" - as in, the XIII subseries? If so, "room for further titles beyond the XIII universe" doesn't make sense, since they would need to be in the XIII universe to be in that subseries.
"into multiple games "probably worked out just as well."[80]" - period outside the quote
"The layout of the mythos and its terms received mixed reactions" - layout is an odd word choice, though I can't think offhand what would be better
"are handled in much more interesting ways."[129]" - period outside quote
"Other aspects that came in for criticism, such as uneven aspects" - the sentence never makes it to a verb- drop the "that"
"Parish felt that the initial backlash" - remind readers who he is, it's been 4 paragraphs since you last mentioned that reviewer
"Type-0 sold 472,253 units" - this is the only sales number in this section to get this level of arbitrary precision; cut to "over 472,000 units" or something.
" its debut week, selling 93,000, though" - 93,000 copies/units
You say Type-0 HD ultimately did poorly, then the next sentence say it sold over a million units worldwide- did you mean that it did poorly in Japan?
That's all! I may swing back and give you a source review later, if you don't get one from someone else- right now the idea of parsing through 180 references fills me with dread. --PresN 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Done everything there. Thanks hugely. If there's anything else, let me know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - made a further minor tweak, but I'm fine with the article prose now. Good job on getting to all those so quickly; good luck with the rest of the nomination! --PresN 20:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
A single image is used, which is a fair use image with a proper template. It has no problems, though some could argue it is slightly too large. It is on the verge, but I don't think it's a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Source Review: Passed.
Ref formatting
It looks like your not supplying publishers, even for magazine-based websites, unless the source itself is a magazine issue. If this is not true, then you need to add publishers to the magazine-based website sources, like Famitsu online and Edge online.
Ref 6 - title has a lowercase And, should be italicized as CVG is a magazine.
Ref 19,30,37,56,65,68,75,179,180- (in Japanese)
Ref 35 not archived, and if DualShockers is reliable (which it appears to be), please consider getting it flagged as such at WP:VG/RS
Ref 67- is PSPHyper an RS? Never heard of it (though I don't have a PSP)
Ref 71- wired in italics
Ref 72- similar issues to refs 53,58
Ref 73- issue? issn? publisher?
Ref 84- no staff, no italics
Ref 100- no .com
Ref 130- this is from Dengeki, not ASCII, yeah?
Ref 167- caps, source (Geimin)
Ref 170- ALLCAPS
Publisher thing was a deliberate design choice as I have not had problems with that in previous FA reviews, and all other issues I think addressed. And as for Ref 73, I can't find any other details about that issue and there's not much said about the magazine from the research I've done, which is why I included the link to the translation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Forthcoming. --PresN 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked 12 different sources throughout the article (all usages of each); all came back clean. --PresN 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Maky
I'm actually playing FFXIII for the first time in my non-existent spare time, so what the heck...
"...is a series of games developed and published by Square Enix. Fabula Nova Crystallis is a series of games..." – A bit redundant
"The mythos can be freely interpreted by the teams developing the games." – I didn't catch the meaning and/or significance upon my initial read. It's later explained in the body, but in the lead, it needs a bit more for clarification.
2nd paragraph in lead, "conceived" used as the verb in two consecutive sentences ... just sounds redundant
"It is set for a western release in April 2015..." – Any update on this?
"XIII was worked on by team members who had also worked on..." – Maybe change one "worked on" to "developed"?
"Type-0 HD 's development was handled by Japanese studio HexaDrive." – This feels like it was just slopped onto the end of the paragraph. Why not work it into the second sentence?
Everything else looks good to me. Just fix the readability issues, and you'll have my support. – Maky« talk » 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I attended to everything. Thanks for the comments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes looked good except for the one about the western release in 2015. Without changing sources, you changed the tense to say that it was released. Do you have a source that confirms the release? – Maky« talk » 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I just rechecked the source given, and it says a July release. So sorry. I can't think what I was thinking when I put that in. This is the source in question if you wish to clarify. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good thing we caught that. As long as all other points made by other reviewers are covered and it has passed its source and image review, it looks good to me. – Maky« talk » 18:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Darkwarriorblake
Reading the article and the preceding comments I don't have a lot to add but I'll add my two cents:
As someone not really familiar with the Final Fantasy series of games, I get the impression that these are games in the Final Fantasy series but more explicitly related or tied together? If so, the Final Fantasy series and these games being a part of it does not seem to be mentioned at all in the lead. As stated I have a loose knowledge of the series, but the article seems to move into naming individual titles and their returning creators, but for someone with even less knowledge about the games than I, I think a link to the franchise would be useful here as well as an explanation that it is a subset of that series.
I've put a mention in the lead, and added a little something in the production section.
Have the games won any accolades that require mentioning?
None that stand out. XIII is the only one that was awarded anything, and one game's awards seems too insignificant within the scope of a series to add to the lead.
Only a personal preference and wouldn't affect promotion, but is there a good image(s) of the creative minds behind the games that could be added? One would suffice in the production section, but again this isn't a necessity, only do it if you feel like it.
I don't think it's really necessary to add it. There are images of Kitase and Toriyama availabe, but they don't seem to have had such an effect on the mythos as a whole as Hashimoto or Nojima.
@Darkwarriorblake: I've used your comments to do some edits. Thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perfect, it's a small change but I think it really helps understanding of your non-expert (i.e. me), I only really could tell it was about that series because of later game mentions and I recognize the art work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The Maya civilization was one of the great civilizations of world history, with the earliest cities developing in the 8th century BC. The civilization developed a complex society, with major cities, a fully developed writing system, and a warrior aristocracy. It underwent a number of major changes through its history, and the Maya area was never unified into a "Maya Empire", rather existing as a large number of competing polities entwined in a complex network of alliances, vassalage, and enmities. I did a lot of work on this for the Core Contest, and it recently passed GA. It's well polished, and it would be a shame not to take it that final step after so much work. I look forward to any feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now moved to Support: Comments by Johnbod Seems a magnificent piece of work! It's great to see a really BIG topic at FAC, & a vindication of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. It will take some time to work through - I went to "art" first & have fiddled a bit there. More comments later.
Were the Maya much involved in the complicated improvement of cultivated maize, or was that essentially complete before their time? The same for other plants I suppose.
According to The Mysterious Origin of Maize by Mary W. Eubanks, maize domestication took place outside of the Maya area, in central Mexico, and in Oaxaca. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More later, Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link some things at "The set of traits shared by Mesoamerican cultures also included astronomical knowledge, blood and human sacrifice, and a cosmovision that viewed the world as divided into four divisions aligned with the cardinal directions, each with different attributes, and a three-way division of the world into the celestial realm, the earth, and the underworld"? There are various possibilities, all linked below I'm sure, but a long way down. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general some paras should be split - I realize the alleged 4 para lead limit is one issue. The one beginning "Chiapas occupies the extreme southeast of Mexico;..." is 279 words long.
I've split that one - let me know if any others need splitting, since they look OK on my laptop screen. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
on the other hand "but all regions of Mesoamerica cultivated the base crops of maize, beans, and squashes" were linked in the lead, a little way above. They turn up again lower down.
I've run through with AWB and cleaned out all repeated wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" after c. 1000 AD copper, silver and gold were worked. " not linked anywhere.
"There is evidence that the Maya population exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment; contributing factors included exhaustion of agricultural potential, deforestation, and overhunting of megafauna. Shifts in climate appear to have simultaneously resulted in a 200-year long drought." rather chewy to read - the bolded bits create slight confusion. Don't we have a better link, and indeed phrase, for "exhaustion of agricultural potential"?
That's it for now. More later, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming:
" with the ruler's freedom of action being limited by traditional responses." reads oddly - "responses" in particular. "cultural patterns" or something?
How about changing it to "with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses."? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"single rule was replaced by a ruling council" - there's a word for this - monarchy. Or some other phrase, but "single rule" is unusual and grammatically dubious I think.
I've reworded it as "individual rule". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" large swathes of the central Maya area were all but abandoned" - are we sure this applied to the countryside (not the right term no doubt)? Or just the cities?
Yes, entirely abandoned in many cases, with very low levels of occupation thereafter, and fields reverting to jungle. Large areas were never repopulated at all. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that any of the many mentions of Chichen Itza have links! I'd give it 4 : lead, 2 pic captions, Postclassic period.
Looks like I was a little over-zealous in stripping out links with AWB! Anyway, I've linked as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kaminaljuyu, linked in lead, but not in caption, or when covered in detail.
I've linked from the caption, and from the Preclassic section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Valley of Guatemala" (x2 at least) normally capitalized? Few valleys are.
Valley of Guatemala is usually capitalised as a geographical feature, while "Guatemala valley" would not be. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly afterwards, the Spanish were invited as allies into Iximche, the capital city of the Kaqchikel Maya.[137] Good relations did not last and the city was abandoned a few months later." - a couple of words on why?
Excessive Spanish demands for gold - clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something on the survival of literacy in the late period might be worked in here - this isn't too clear in the writing section either. Both books and stelae.
Ok, enough in the writing section. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally captions are link-starved. Eg Catherwood. Normally captions should be fully linked.
I've fully linked captions throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The end of "investigation ..." section might add a phrase on the collapse of the "peace-loving" meme too.
I've added a brief summary. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Rather, throughout its history, the Maya area contained a varying mix of states and chiefdoms" - who are these chiefs? Subordinate kings? Did subordinate cities have their own kings? A bit confusing as is.
The point I'm trying to explain (unsuccessfully!) is that there was no fixed model - the reference to chiefdom vs state is to complexity in political development. These would sometimes be independent, and sometimes allied, or subordinate to, other polities. I've attempted to clarify this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Chiefdom says, I think reasonably, "A chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'." Do we know if Maya rulers were regarded as the kin of their commoners, even in the remote sense of say modern Scottish clan chiefs and their Canadian clan members? Or were they like say Norman barons, foreign nobility who turned up one day with some henchmen? I think introducing this concept, when we already have talk of king, ruler, warrior elite, nobility, aristocracy & probably other ideas, is a bit confusing when nothing more is said of it. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large literature about the development of Maya kingship, and the transition from chiefdoms to complex states took place in the formative period - i.e. at the very beginning of the Maya civilization. In the classic period vestiges of chiefdoms existed only in the small rural outskirts that were generally incorporated politically into a state. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I think unless something like this is explained another word would be better.Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that by the Postclassic period, states and chiefdoms coexisted - for example, Nojpetén, Q'umarkaj, Mayapan, and Chichen Itza were regionally dominant states, while in some areas there was no unified political organisation, such as with the Manche Ch'ol and the Kejache, where towns and villages were ruled by local chiefs without any pledges of allegiance elsewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dout very much that those were chiefdoms in the anthropological sense of a society with an incipient degree of social stratification. Not every society led by a "chief" is a chiefdom in the technical sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources describing these as chiefdoms come from anthropological journals. The sources seem clear that both chiefdoms and states coexisted throughout Maya history, up to the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about the land ownership system?
Based on land-ownership systems at the time of conquest, and continuing to the modern day in traditional Maya communities, land was communally held by noble houses (clans). I've added a couple of sentences in the society section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Maya art tends to be stylistically regional", reads oddly. "Maya art has many regional styles" perhaps. Style (visual arts) could linked. Then "Maya art ... and is unique in the ancient Americas in bearing narrative text" does it actually have narratives, speaking strictly?
Rephrased as suggested. Maya art does contain narrative text - just one example among many, at Quirigua, text on monumental scultpure describes the capture of the ruler's overlord, and sacrifice, with names, dates, actions and places. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It is estimated that a large elite residence at Copán required an estimated 445 man-days to build,..." Is that right? It doesn't sound a lot, when you include quarrying the stone etc. Only 11% = 42-man-days odd for "principal construction" as builders call it. 6 men for a full week. We could do with builders like that where I live! Then you say " it is estimated that two to three months were required for the construction of the residence for this single noble at Copán, using between 80 and 130 full-time labourers." Is a figure missing?
I've double checked, and all the figures are correct as per the source. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there is clearly a big problem! At the minimum, 80 men for 2 months (say 60 days - I assume we're not on the Maya calendar here, or taking weekends off) = 4,800 man days. 80 men use 445 man-days in 5.56 days. On the other hand they use 4450 man-days in 55.6 working days. If you can't get to the primary source, I suggest you rephrase dropping the 445 figures & just using the later ones. Typos are not unknown in proper publishing. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - problem found. 10,686 work days in the original study, became 10,686 work hours in the book I used (which I represented as 445 days). Well spotted! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, that is more like builders round here! (Just kidding, guys) Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Limestone is relatively soft when freshly cut, but hardens with exposure" - i believe this is true of some limestones, like Caen stone, but not others.
That being the case, I've clarified to "the local limestone". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"served as a support for monumental art" - "support" reads oddly, though museums use it as a term for what a painting is on top of: surface, base, matrix?
In this case, support seems the right word - since it would be a masonry core, literally supporting the sculpture added to it, almost like a stone scaffold. Matrix would certainly not be right, nor surface, since it is a whole construction. I've reworded as "foundation for". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E-Groups: Since these come as sets of 4, better explain at the start that they are not so called because they resemble an "E" shape (as Elizabethan "E-houses" do).
"Regional architectural styles" sub-section starting bit - short & somewhat repetitive. Can it be phrased more compactly?
I've trimmed it a little. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"amatl, was typically bound as a single continuous sheet that was folded into pages of equal width, concertina-style, to produce a codex" - I found this confusing, mainly because of "bound", which arguably they are not, they're just folded (On a side point, the anomalous but universal use of "codex" for Meso-A texts is also confusing for those more used to Western bindings. Really, they aren't codices. But it's too late to change that usage.). "was typically in the form of a single continuous sheet ...." maybe?
"studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail that does not significantly alter the basic understanding of the text itself." reads a bit confusingly. Maybe "studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail where only minor aspects of the meaning remain unsettled" or something?
Done, as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, or phonetic sign... nouns, verbs, verbal suffixes, prepositions, pronouns." Links? I dunno.
"Commoners were illiterate; scribes were drawn from the elite. It is not known if all members of the aristocracy could read and write, although at least some women could, since there are representations of female scribes in Maya art" and the rest of the section. Just saying, it is typically the case in societies that many more people can read than can write. In the West they were taught separately, reading first, then writing, until relatively recently, with many dropping out after learning to read. Do the sources distinguish in this way?
Not that I recall having seen, I'll check some sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Spinden Correlation also accords with the documentary evidence, and is better suited to the archaeology of the Yucatán Peninsula, but presents problems with the rest of the Maya region. The Spinden Correlation would shift the Long Count dates back by 260 years." Reverse the order of these 2 sentences?
"so Maya astronomy is more accurately termed astrology" seems a little sweeping. "so Maya astronomy was essentially for astrological purposes" perhaps. Western astronomy ran together with astrology for rather a long time, as did that of other cultures. Merely the predicting of eclipses takes Mayan A beyond astrology if you ask me.
"Maya sites" - a couple of lines on the best museums?
I've added a new section with the major collections covered in the literature. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it (finally). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, supporting above. The "chief" point may be still in play, but I'll leave SB & Maunus to settle that. Fantastic work! Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a thorough review, and for the support! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Maunus
Considering the vast improvements taking place during the review, for an article that was already of extremely high quality, I am now happy to support this article's candidacy. I particularly think that the length concerns have been very well handled so that it cannot be considered a problem any longer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and the support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great piece of work definitely, and the topic will be an immensely important addition to the FA collection. Given the scarcity of Native American related topics at that level I think it is worth it for the article to be sure that we set the best possible precedent. Particularly I think we need to give some serious thought to the question of representation. I will list some concerns that I have about this below. I realize that addressing these concerns will be a bit of work, requiring some reorganization and rewriting. I am not adamant that all of this has to be addressed in a specific way, but I think for me to be able to support we will at least have to have the discussion about how to approach this and how best to address the basic concerns.
The article focuses on the "ancient" Maya civilization. I think it risks doing so at the expense of severing the historical Maya culture from contemporary Maya culture and in doing so reinforcing a myth that I think the article should in fact debunk - namely the myth that "the Maya disappeared". I think the way to address this would be to make sure that the myth is explicitly debunked, and that the continuity between ancient and contemporary Maya culture is part of the framing of all parts of the article. There are for example no illustrations of living Maya people. A section towards the end on "Maya culture today", might be one way to address this problem, but it would also motivate some reframing thoughout the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to distinguish between Maya culture and the Maya civilization - which effectively ended with the incorporation of the Maya region into the extended Old World economic and technological order, and were no longer free to develop, build, worship, fight, etc. according to their own indigenous interests. The point is well made that they did not disappear, however, and a section near the end on the continuance of Maya culture would be worthwhile. When writing the Spanish conquest of the Maya articles, I believe I wrote something along these lines that I could incorporate into the article. When working on this article for the Core Contest, I was acutely aware of how lengthy the article was getting - the problem was never what to write, rather what to leave out. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a distinction is both highly problematic (both because of the hierarchic implications of distinguishing between culture and civilization, and because there is no way to objectively define a point in time when a civilizaiton ends and becomes a culture, and also because it arbitrarily sever modern Maya from their past). And even if it is possible I dont think it can be done without describing the way that the civilization relates to the culture. I understand the length problems, but I would never personally prefer a short article to a comprehensive one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not for me to define cultures and civilizations, and the relationship between the two; however, once the area was incorporated into the Spanish Empire, many of the definining elements of the Maya civilization either disappeared altogether, went underground, or were merged with European cultural elements. I don't think there will be many sources at all that refer to the Maya civilization continuing after the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can be pretty sure that many Maya would disagree and state that Maya civilization is what they live and breathe every day. When I said "how the civilization relates to the culture" I didnt mean that you should try to elaborate on the differences between those two concepts, but describe which cultural aspects of the civilization live on in contemporary Maya culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will put together a section - it shouldn't be too difficult. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that though the distinction between a culture and a civilization may always be rather "problematic", that does not mean it should not be made. In fact it is probably easier to do so with the Maya than almost any other large culture, because the collapse(s) was/were apparently very dramatic, and also because our sources about the long immediately succeeding periods are so very slim in comparison. The article title is "Maya civilization" and I think it should mainly stick to what it says on the tin. It would be highly undesirable to largely skip nearly 1,000 years and have a lot on the post-conquest culture that we know a lot about, as though that were the same subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I disagree. It would not have to "skip 1000 years" for one - it would of course include the 500 years from the conquest to now - and suggesting that the sources about the intermediate period is slim is simply wrong. These are exactly the misconceptions that the article should dispell if it wants to convey a contemporary understanding of the Maya and their civilization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't think you would agree. It's strange how this sort of approach, so popular in the 19th century regarding Europe, and so totally discredited now, seems to persist in anthropology when it comes to the Global South. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont even understand what you mean by that. You have it backward it seems, and in general seem not to have much idea about anthropology. The idea of "civilization" is a 19th century concept that Europeans have used to hierarchically order peoples in the global south as being on a lower stage of development. That is why anthropologists tend not to use it. Just like Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Moden greeks from Greek civilization - today then obviously the millions of contmeporary Maya can claim cultural continuity from their pre-conquest ancestors. To arbitrarily set a cut off point where the "civilization" suddenly becomes a culture is a 19th century silly idea, that has no backing in contemporary scholarship whether in anthropology or in any other discipline. It is your misconception about long hiatus periods that is counterfactual and which the article needs to clearly debunk because it is the most common misconception about the Maya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Modern greeks from Greek civilization" are two excellent examples of the discredited approach I referred to, with the Anglo-Saxons and modern Britain a third. It was the Nazis who really put the stake in the heart of that sort of stuff. By the way, don't tell a Dane he is descended from Vikings - they may get very upset. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to try not to lecture Danes about what Danes think. Danes like me are generally proud of the Danish Viking past, and it is integrated in almost all aspects of Danish national identity. The same for Greeks. So yes, it is discredited as an expression of historical fact, largely thanks to anthropologists who have repeatedly questioned is correspondence with historical reality. And it is of course anthropologists who have played the major role in exposing the fallacies of nationalist ideologies in general. But the fact of historical continuation and the claim of it are two different things. And just as English people happily claim Alfred the Great as their nations founder, so do every body else with their National symbols - regardless of whether that relation is historically factual. Denying the ability to politically claim their history only to colonized peoples is hypocritical and contrary to how anyone writes history of the peoples of the global south today, and hence contrary to how we should write history today on wikipedia. You will not find a book about the Maya written since 1980s that do not emphasize the continuity with contemporary Maya and the fact that Maya civilization never dissappeared. Contemporary Mayas are the stewards and proprietors of the Maya civilization, just as the Greek Nation are of the Greek Civilization, The Egyptian Nation of the Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Maya happened to be conquered at one point in history and have spent the last 500 years as part of colonial states changes nothing of this.[this response has been edited after editconflict with response below, main meaning has not been changed]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Actually, and rightly or wrongly, very few British people would "claim Alfred the great as their nations founder", happily or not, and many would not have heard of him at all. But I don't think there is much to be gained by continuing this. It would be nice if you or others could join in restoring "Viking" to WP's articles, after the attempted mass-removal of the word, which the admins have completely failed to do anything about. Of course that was actually by a Swede. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right it leads nowhere. I dont really understand why you have taken up a habit of taking swings against me and anthropology as a discipline whenever our paths cross on wiki lately. It is not very productive. s for Vikings, I may descend from one, but I dont generally edit Nordic history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important that the article remain focused on the pre-Columbian Maya - the modern Maya is a theme for another article, such as Maya peoples or Maya society (which currently contains ancient Maya society, and should probably be moved). However, I will put in a short section stressing the continuity of Maya culture. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree of course that the focus should be on the pre-columbian tradition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Short section added. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Maya are the only precolumbian people for whom we have access to written historical sources, and correspondingly we have actual historical knowledge about Maya rulers as individuals, and about political relations in their own words. Could we imagine writing about Roman civilization without mentioning specific rulers by name and describing their political achievements? In the history section here, the only named individual in the running text is David Stuart. The only mentioned Maya individual in the history section is K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat (no mention of his period of rulership, which would serve to give him life as a historical figure), in a picture caption. No Pacal, No Siyaj K'ak, No Spearthrower Owl, or Yax k'uk Mo, no Lady Xok etc. The representation of history is anonymized and described as a process without actors (the cities themselves are given agency), which I think reinforces antiquated stereotypes of the Maya as an anonymous "lost civilization" with no "real" history. (Jasaw Chan Kawiil is mentioned twice, but not in the history section, and Taj Chan Ahjk is mentioned in the writing section). I also think some examples of how Maya texts record historical events, such as conquests would be needed in the history section, where illustrations are focused only on temple structures and archeological non-textual remains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct of course - Siyaj K'ak, Y'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat, Uaxackajun Ub'aah Kawiil, Yax Nuun Ayiin etc. can certainly be worked into the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some names and dated events, more to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Maya civilization is described in a vacuum, with little description of the wider Mesoamerican context, their predecessors and contemporaries with whom they shared cultural patterns and trade and political relations. I think this can be addressed simultaneously with my first point, for example by making a "Cultural background" section - where the ethno-linguistic, cultural and historical makeup of Mesoamerica is presented and the Maya are situated within that larger framework. That would also be a place where the cultivation of Maize, as suggested by Johnbod, could be addressed, and where the continuity between ancient and contemporary cultures can be emphasized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section briefly summarising Mesoamerica. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a little too short (and that the geography section is correspondingly too long and detailed). I think this would be a good section in which to point out that Maya civilization = civilization of Maya peoples, and that Maya peoples = people who speak Mayan languages. And if I were you I would integrate the short "language" section into the "Mesoamerica" section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will expand it some, but this is an article about the Maya; I don't think it should branch out too much - full detail should be available in the Mesoamerica article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I think that it should not so much be about "Mesoamerica" in general, but about "Mesoamerica and the Maya", i.e. drawing out the specific relations between the Mesoamerican culture area and the Maya civilization. For example speakers of Mayan languages are assumed to have participated in the Mesoamerican culture area since its beginning, not necessarily being the first to cultivate maize or build a pyramid - but they definitely participated in the networks of knowledge and trade through which those innovations spread in the earliest period. And they have continuously been receiving and sending goods and ideas from other areas of Mesoamerica - so mentioning some of the elements the maya share with the rest of Mesoamerica (ball courts, vigesimal numerals, calendar, sacrifice, political organization etc.) as well as the areas where they stand out, might be a good thing to have in that section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "rediscovery" section is both weirdly placed, and, I think, badly named. It suggests again, that Maya civilization was lost untill white people came and "rediscovered" it. Maya civilization of course was alive and well at the conquest, with thriving cities. And the ruins, though some were admittedly forgotten, played an active part in the way that Maya understood, and continue to understand their past. I think this section should be refocused to be not about "rediscovery" but about scientific study. And it probaly also should be moved up to right after the history section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I probably inherited this section title and position from the pre-existing article. I'll see what I can do with it. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved and renamed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the writing section is good, but I think it should give a basic idea of how the script works particularly focusing on the fact that it records Mayan languages that we can actually read. In contrast I think it focuses a bit too much on the mechanics of writing, which could be shortened. At least one example of a glyphic texts with its transliteration and translation I think is necessary. Other places where glyphic text might be good illustrations is where you mention the Maya words Kalomte, k'uhul Ajaw - which are of course extremely frequently occuring glyphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section describing reading order etc. I'll add an inscription and translation, as soon as I can find a decent photo on Commons corresponding to a sourced block-by-block transcription. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that an analytical line drawing would be better than a photo of an actual inscription. To my great surprise there isn't even one of those at our article on the script. Perhaps we could get one made in svg at the graphics lab. The standard example is the differnt ways to write "b'alam" with a logogram, with syllabograms and with combination of the logogram with syllabograms as phonetic complements. For example found at page 24-25 in this pdf.[25] I am sure the graphic artists at the graphics lab could make svg examples of these examples. I've taken the liberty of requesting them at the graphics lab.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the glyphs to the section. If we want to condense more I think it is also a section that could be considerably shortened to a sinle section without subsections. I would suggest moving the entire sections about scribes and writing tools to the main article on Maya writing, and summarize them each in a single sentence. I could condense the section a little more by removing what I think is superfluous sentences if requested by the nominator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Images: I think the lead should not have two images of monumental architecture, it would be better if one of them depicted some other cultural form. I think a hieroglyphic text would be good, but it could also be a vase or a flint or a stucco detail. The atlatl photo is terrible and doesnt provide any information - I would remove it. The Maize photo is also quite poor, and I think a different more aesthetically pleasing photo of corn should be easy to find.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of liked the maize photo, because it showed diffent colours of maize... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure we can find one where the maize is better in focus and doesnt look like its been eaten by gorgojo. I'll look around.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've switched the image. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also swapped the lead image of Palenque for detail from a Yaxchilan lintel. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from SingoraSingora (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Could "exhaustion of agricultural potential" be re-worded to something like "depleted agricultural resources"?
2. I note that the author of this article also wrote two of the very best Featured Articles on Wikipedia, Spanish conquest of Guatemala and Olmec colossal heads. His article about Quirigua is also good.
Let me add a bit of credibility by saying I visited the Mayan world about 25 years ago. I flew from London to Miami and then took a Mexicana flight to Cancun. I remember seeing Chichen Itza early in the morning when the site abounded with giant lizards; I saw Uxmal and climbed the pyramid of the magician; I took a bus down to Belize and checked out a Mayan complex near the Guatemalan border. Tikal was good, but better was a little known site called (I think) Ceibal. I got to Quirigua when it was pouring with rain, but found the site really interesting. Copan in Honduras was good, but maybe a bit "over restored". I then headed back into Guatemala and saw a small Mayan complex near the Mexian border (can't remember the name), and then continued north to Mexico City. Teotihuacan was impressive; much better was Tula -- the lost city of the Toltecs! Singora (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FunkMonk
Due to the sheer size of the article, it may take a little while for my review to finish, so comments will come gradually. I've recently read some old books about ancient American civilizations, so will be good to get some updated info... FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"which covers a region that spreads from northern Mexico southwards into Central America,[1] covering an area of approximately" Isn't the second "covering" redundant here?
I've dropped the phrase - a quick search found very limited use of the term, and no definition. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Maya artists apparently painted murals at Cacaxtla" Why apparently?
I've clarified this - more recent research prefers a strong Maya influence over direct painting by Maya artists. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related to the discussion below, I find it a bit puzzling why we need to know both which Mexican states were part of the Maya territory and what Mexican states are located on the Yucatan peninsula? Isn't the latter listing redundant/overdetailed? Perhaps say something like "Apart from/outside Mexico/the Mexican states, the Yucatan peninsula incorporates most of the Guatemalan department of Petén, and all of Belize." Or just say that Yucatan incorporates parts of Mexico, Guatemala, and all of Belize.
I've trimmed down the geography section. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a matter of taste, but under Weapons, I'd prefer to see a depiction of an actual Maya weapon, instead of some random modern person playing around with a replica. No images of swords or stuff like that? This free image, for example, seems to show a warrior in costume and with a spear or sword: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arnybo/3429873387/
A photo of the same object was already on Commons; I've swapped it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, not bad to have more of this fantastic artwork either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"n the Postclassic, the Maya engaged in a flourishing slave trade.[211]" With who?
Slaves were traded across Mesoamerica, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maya stelae is not linked until the art section, though stelae are mentioned many times prior to this.
It is first linked from the lead, and linked again from art. Does it need more than this? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS recommendation (policy?) seems to be that after the intro, a word should only be linked at first occurrence. But well, not a show stopper for me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed more apt linking from the section actually dealing with stelae... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bone, both human and animal, was also sculpted" It this the correct way to put it? I assume you mean sculptures were made from bone, but now it could read like they made sculptures that depicted bones...
Techically this is no problem, & I didn't feel a problem reading it. Might "carved" reduce any concerns? Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's correct use, no problem. I'm not a native English speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under writing system we get: "The Catholic Church and colonial officials destroyed Maya texts wherever they found them, and with them the knowledge of Maya writing, but by chance three uncontested pre-Columbian books dated to the Postclassic period have been preserved. These are known as the Madrid Codex, the Dresden Codex and the Paris Codex.[329]" And then again in the very next section, we get: "Shortly after the conquest, all of the codices which could be found were ordered to be burnt and destroyed by zealous Spanish priests, notably Bishop Diego de Landa.[340] Only a few reasonably intact examples of Maya codices are known to have survived through to the present day, including the Madrid, Dresden, and Paris codices.[329]" Seems these two paragraphs should be merged.
I see there is a Women in Maya society article, but there is little mention of their role under the Society section here, left me wondering a bit (though I see there are some mentions scattered in other sections). Perhaps a single extra sentence or paragraph would be enough to cover it.
Support - I'm sure the length issue will be dealt with through the discussion below. But in my opinion, it is just a matter of taste, I don't see any "objective" arguments for why shorter should necessarily be better. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review, and for the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs
Oppose solely on the basis of size.
Huge kudos to you for tackling such a large article. I learned a great deal from reading it. The biggest issue I have is that this article is crazy long. I understand that as a larger topic, but this would be the longest FA ever passed (several thousand words larger than Byzantine Empire). I think there is much more room for summary style, which may mean that one or more child articles still need to be created. I only got as far as Warfare, but here are a few suggestions for cutting.
There's repetition in the Mesoamerican section and the rest of the article. I wonder if the entire second paragraph (or most of it) can go.
This section was added at the request Maunus - see above - whether it stays or goes will have to be decided between you. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information is necessary, but that it could probably be conveyed more concisely. I think it should be possible for example to comnbine the Mesoamerica and Geography sections into a short section of two paragraphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need quite so much detail in the Geography section? Unless the geography has changed from then to now, I don't see that this is that useful beyond the first paragraph and a second paragraph that just mentions the amount of coastline and the differing types of landscape. I don't believe we need the details of this region and that region in this article.
I've cut out a lot of the detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you put year ranges in the headings for the different periods? I kept having to refer back to the table.
Most articles like this have a "History of <topic>" child article, which summarizes the different periods. This article does not. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to use what you have in the current history section to seed a History of the Maya civilization article, and perhaps make the history section in this article a little shorter.
While I agree that a child article should be created, what is here is already a brief summary of Maya history (it was briefer, but Maunus requested more specific detail, with good reason, see above). Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my requests for more specificity and inclusion of Maya rulers as agents could be accommodated while also shortening the section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of interesting details in the article (such as the sentences on the rituals surrounding the king/prince), but I wonder if this overview article is the appropriate place for them.
The Classic Maya civilization was centred upon divine kingship, so the article would be lacking without this, which could be covered in much more detail in a subarticle. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the King and court section, I'd get rid of a lot of the definitions of different words. A paragraph discussing the loose hierarchy could be a lot shorter than what is currently in the article
I think they are necessary in an overview of the civilization. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are too many images in the article. It's a bit distracting.
A comment to the last point, I strongly disagree that there are too many images. Without the images, it would be harder to follow the text. They break up the wall of text, give the reader something to relate to/context, and they are not cluttered. I somewhat agree about summarising parts, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Funk Monk. One could argue for more of them - there is no image in the religion section, which is a bit odd. Personally I don't care for the multiple image template that has suddenly become fashionable, but the use here is far more restrained than in some other articles on this page. On size, I agree the article is long, & I wonder if any of us have read it all in one go - I certainly didn't. But this is an encyclopedia dammit, articles are supposed to be long and in places boring! This is a big core topic, and the magazine-ish approach we can take on many smaller topics isn't appropriate. Some of your specific points may have merit. As a further suggestion, I asked for a museum section, & have certainly got one. But since this adds some 5K, can I suggest it is relocated to Maya art, with just a sentence with a link here? I also note that the architecture section here is longer than the "main article" Maya architecture, and with less overlap than one might think. I think some of the content here might go there instead. I also note we don't have History of the Maya civilization or anything similar. Floating that off & replacing with a shorter summary would lose many K. Just thoughts. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, there are not too many images at all. This topic requires a high degree of visual support and is the better for having it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First response - since the FAC started, four sections (at a glance) were added as a response to reviewer requests, suggesting that, while the article is long, it is not too long considering the level of the topic. I will shorten the Geography section, which is probably overly detailed, and will move off much of the museums section as suggested. Note that the individual sections are already concise summaries of broad topics, and should not really be condensed more, and they should not be judged by the poor quality of currently existing subtopic articles (for example, there is more here on Maya astronomy than in the Maya astronomy article). The architecture section really contains the bare minimum that it should cover as an introduction - the regional styles are frequently mentioned in the literature, and should stay. I disagree that there are too many images, which are carefully spaced and selected to illustrate the article - when I first came to the article there were galleries, which I stripped out. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general I disagree that the length should be considered a major problem. As Johnbod says this is an encyclopedia, and it is supposed to be informative not entertaining. As long as length is justified by the actual informational content (i.e. not repetitive or redundant, not going off-topic, or overly wordy) I see nothing to be gained by simply shortening it to be readable in a single sitting. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is so long, actually 15% longer than the longest FA previously promoted, is a sign that summary style is not being used appropriately. There may very well have been more information that needed to be added, which means either a) there were gaps in the coverage or b) parts of the article were too detailed which means the parts that weren't looked uncomprehensive, and, thus, reviewers asked for me. I think in this case it was a combination of the two. A good direct comparison is Byzantine Empire, an FA which is several thousand words shorter. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In particularly broad articles excessive use of summary style makes for an article that is fluffy and full of empty, vague statements, but with little of the actual hard information that readers are likely to be looking for. It is not a service to readers to write vacuous articles that provide links to articles where they may or may not find the information they are looking for. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but also that it is too long. I would rather see specific areas cut (floated off) in chunks (I've suggested some above) than the whole article slimmed down pro rata. That is also less work. Creating a "history of" article seems the easiest way, and perhaps the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the history section is what would be more beneficious to cut. I would combine the Mesoamerica+Geography into a single paragraph section, Politics+Society+Warfare+Trade+Agriculture into a single section with single paragraph subsections, shorten Writing and Literacy into a single section with no subsections, and combine calendar+astronomy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is a matter of taste, but I agree with Johnbod, the history section goes into extreme detail (the hardest section for me to get through when reading the article), and I just don't see how the other sections should be cut in favour of that, this would basically just be a history of the Maya civilisation article as a result. If anything has to be cut (which may not be necessary), I support a history article being split off and summarising it here, that would be more balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of options in how it can be better streamlined. I don't have a particular preference, although I think that several of the ideas floated make sense. The point is that there are places where cuts could be made and places where they shouldn't. I'll rely on Simon's expertise to figure out which data falls into which bucket. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having created a History of the Maya civilization article, I see now that the History section is too detailed for the article (it looks almost like a complete article in its own right). I am working at trimming it down, while still leaving a few specific events related to the Tikal-Calakmul struggle. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This has now come down from a peak crude size (per edit history) of 213,695 on 12 June to 191,641 now. I note btw that Barack Obama is an FA at 258K crude size. Byzantine Empire is now at 179K, though it was 185-187K until last month. Has enough been done? I think so, though another 5-10K reduction would be ideal. What do others think? User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics unfortunately has not been kept updated, but most articles there seem to have put on weight over the years since. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out all the redundant refs, which has dropped the total size by about 8K. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the readable prose size that matters (the larger number includes all the HTML and templates). The Obama article has fewer than 10k words. FYI, here is the list of Longest FAs as of Nov 2014. 15k words, which is where the article currently stands, would still be the longest FA ever passed. I haven't read through again since the changes started to be implemented. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, according to the linked list, Manhattan Project Passed FAC 2011 with 15,227 words. Maya civilization currently stands at 15183, so wouldn't be setting any precedent. Manhattan Project was the first on the list, but the list isn't ordered by size, so there are probably other, longer, articles. (just had a quick look, Elvis Presley was also longer). Simon Burchell (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been dealt with. I've posted to Karanacs diff, and am awaiting a response. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
"This region consists of the northern lowlands, encompassing the Yucatán Peninsula, the highlands of the Sierra Madre," 1. Lowlands of what? 2. Is it 'the lowlands encompassing (the peninsula and the highlands)' (which sounds odd) or (the lowlands encompassing the peninsula), and the highlands?
The lowlands encompass the Yucatán Peninsula, I've shifted the punctuation. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Preclassic period saw the establishment of the first sedentary communities in the Maya region" 1. As this is the first mention of the preclassic I would add (c.2000 BC to 250 AD). 2. You say it saw the first sedentary communities, but Sharer and Traxler p. 98 say that in the archaic period there were "Settled communities and agriculture". 3. I was going to suggest that you should link somewhere to the article on the archaic Maya, but there does not seem to be one!
I've clarified this, both in the lead, and in the intro to the History section. In the absence of an article on the Archaic, I've linked to the appropriate subsection of Mesoamerican chronology. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human sacrifice should be mentioned in the lead as it was an important part of Maya culture.
"Forming a language area Mesoamerican languages share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal number system." This could be more clearly expressed, e.g. "Mesoamerican languages form a language area which share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal (base 20) number system."
"In an extraordinary act of treachery for someone claiming to be of the Tikal royal family, he thereafter served as a loyal ally of Calakmul" I would delete "extraordinary act of treachery" as POV.
"Its Classic-period dynasty was founded in 426 by K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo'. The new king " New king implies a previous one but you say he was the first.
He was the first king of the new dynasty. There was apparently an earlier series of kings, but very little is known about them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
"This model of rulership was poorly structured to respond to changes, with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses. The rulers reacted in their culturally-bound manner, by intensifying such activities as construction, ritual, and warfare. This was counterproductive and only served to exacerbate systemic problems.[" This is a bit vague. What changes and systemic problems, and what did rulers fail to do?
I think that shortening the section has removed some of the context - I'll see if I can fill some back in. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Activity shifted to the northern lowlands and the Maya Highlands" I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the postclassic period.
Hmm. Sharer and Traxler p536 is clear that Uxmal reached its height in the Late Classic, and was inhabited for an unknown length of time before that. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misread them. They say Terminal Classic, 800-1000. On p. 534: "These new Puuc cities, such as Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil, Labna and others, were founded, grew, prospered, and ultimately declined over the relatively brief interval of about two hundred years during the Terminal Classic period."
Terminal Classic is still Classic, not Postclassic... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I should have said: I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the Terminal Classic period. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked against several sources, and Uxmal predates the Terminal Classic - Sharer and Traxler above, as cited, but also Demarest 2004, p. 236. has "...lowland Classic Maya civilization began to flourish in the seventh and eighth centuries in the Puuc hill zone...by the eighth century many sites in this region, such as Oxkintok, Uxmal, Sayil, and Edzna..." - this firmly places Uxmal in the Late Classic, as does Foster 2002, in her summary of the Late Classic on p. 49 "From Palenque in the west and Copán in the east to Uxmal in the north..." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, check out Andrews 1984 - on the political geography of Yucatán - "there is good reason to believe that many of the provinces existed before the founding of Mayapán, in the mid-twelfth century. They may have evolved out of earlier polities of the Classic period." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The agents of the Catholic Church" What agents? Not priests?
Not necessarily - also monks, converted natives etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" the capture and humiliation of enemy warriors played an important part in elite culture" Perhaps "the humiliation and execution of captured enemy warriors"
It appears that they were not always executed - they could be enslaved, for example, or be forced to switch allegiance. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is some evidence from the Classic period that women providing supporting roles in war, but they did not act as military officers with the exception of those rare ruling queens.[159] By the Postclassic, there is some evidence from native chronicles that women occasionally fought in battle.[" Repetition of "some evidence". Also presumably "provided" rather than "providing".
"The bar-and-dot counting system that is the base of Maya numerals was in use in Mesoamerica by 1000 BC;[309] the Maya adopted it by the Late Postclassic" Do you mean pre-classic? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. You are quite right of course. I've fixed it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Congratulations on a first-rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, and for your support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I didn't spot an image licensing check or a source review for formatting reliability above; you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC for those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now posted. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from RO
Support I think this is a perfect example of an article that deserves an exception to our guidelines regarding size. The topic is massive, and reviewers here have pushed for more detail, not less. I think Simon's effort should be applauded and supported without asking him to fit 10 pounds of grain into a 5 pound sack. Having said that, I think there might be some room for summary and farming out of material to sub-articles (I'd suggest architecture and writing), but to engage in that here would be to introduce instability to an otherwise stable and well written article. I'd greatly prefer to see CE and BCE instead of BC and AD, but I think that's within the realm of editor discretion. This is fine piece of work, Simon. Thanks for all your hard work! RO(talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Maky
Most images look good. There are a few issues, though:
File:Mayamap.png – No source is given for the information on the map, either in the original or in this derived image. A citation in the "source" section of an information box (which this image needs) would be good. In general, I suggest cleaning up the Commons page for any image used in a FAC.
I've added supporting references. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information template to clean it up. – Maky« talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:El Mirador 5.jpg – The description could be more explicit. Also, the license on Flickr didn't match that on Commons, so I added the template "Flickr-change-of-license". The licensing was also duplicated, so I cleaned it up for you.
File:Calakmul - Structure I.jpg – I've also cleaned this one up, but the file history on it seems odd. It seems like a bot uploaded a different image from enWiki, and then a user overwrote it with a different image. I'm not sure if that causes any problems, though. It's too bad the user didn't clarify his actions in the comments when uploading.
That is strange, but the uploader also put in their own license etc., so I don't think there is any problem - it seems it is just using the same filename. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lienzo de Tlaxcala Iximche.gif – PNG is superior to GIF, so it's probably best to convert it. However, there may be other issues. This is obviously a scan of an existing work, and all the source says is "Lienzo de Tlaxcala". Is that a book, and if so, how old is it? Things can get touchy if the redrawn art is copyrighted. The image that we have on Commons would have to be drawn from the original, I believe.
The Lienzo de Tlaxcala was a painted book produced by Nahua allies of the Spanish in the 16th century. This copy is taken from an 1892 reproduction (as noted in the description) - in any case, both old enough to be out of copyright. The superiority of PNG over GIF seems to be on colour depth; since the image is black and white, and fairly low-res, there seems little to be gained from converting it. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Castillo Maler.jpg – The source "own archive" sounds sketchy. What proof is there that this photo was published in 1892 and where exactly did it come from?
Own archive refers to Teobert Maler's archive at the Peabody Museum, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Uxmal nunnery by Catherwood 02.jpg – This Commons page needs a lot of clean up, with proper headings and templates. Also, a proper citation is needed for the source.
I've sourced this and tidied up the page. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source available online? Did you scan it yourself? A full citation should be provided. – Maky« talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't do it - I've given a full citation though, and linked to this page at Reed College (where it is illustration 14), Portland, Oregon, written by Charles S. Rhyne, Professor Emeritus of Art History, which I would count as a reliable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Comalcalco brick.jpg – This image needs cleaning up, though I'm not sure it can be used. The image has a convoluted history, starting on Flickr, being uploaded to enWiki, and then being transferred to Commons. However, the Flickr link is dead and there is no template stating that the Flickr license was verified. If you can find the original, maybe it can be used. Otherwise, it should probably be deleted from Commons.
File:Mayan Language Migration Map.svg – The "source" needs to also include a citation for the migration dates/geospatial data, as well as the origins of the base map.
As far as I can see these images are not copyrightable - these are representations of ancient Maya glyphs, and that would be the equivalent of applying copyright to an individual letter or word. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on whether or not the tracing was from a flat or 3D surface. I'll give the benefit of a doubt, though. – Maky« talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maya script reading direction.png – Many problems here... For starters, the original simply claims the source is enWiki. Second, there's a note under summary saying that the reading order depicted in the image is incorrect... something which needs verification. The image is also very low resolution given the higher quality of its source, so a new one should be made (if the first two points don't mean the image needs to be deleted). Lastly, an information box needs to be added to the summary to clean things up.
The inscription used is apparently a portion of a larger inscription (i.e. the reading would have continued off the photo). Since the inscription is illegible, it it pretty much irrelevant. For illustrative purposes, the reading order given would be correct if the inscription only consisted of the glyphs visible in the photo. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the page needs cleaned up and the comment should be moved to the talk page (and replied to). – Maky« talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tidied and clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Madrid Codex astronomer.png – What is the source for this? Given all the other material uploaded by the person responsible for this image, I'm surprised its resolution is so low. It makes me wonder if it was lifted from another source. Anyway, if it's from the uploader's own photo, the infobox needs to be corrected.
This is cut down from a much larger photo of the Madrid Codex - it is actually a tiny detail on the page, hence the low resolution. The original work is by an unknown Maya artist, so hardly my own work. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long list, but there were a lot of illustrations in the article. Hopefully you can get these cleaned up without too much of an impact on the article. – Maky« talk » 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review - I believe I have responded to everything. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are in good order. As long as the sources and the text check out, this article has my support. – Maky« talk » 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Maky - I greatly appreciate the time you took to look into all the images in the article, and the tidying up you did over at Commons. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source check by MONGO
Support promotion to Featured Article. I've spent the past three hours reading and checking information against what I can find on the web and see no discrepancies. I am unable to find any standout MOS violations. A few image captions are nearly sentence length which means they may need a period. I noticed what appeared to be unnecessary links like to "dog" but that's just piping which leads to the details on Dogs in Mesoamerica. Yes, a quite longish article, especially for FA, but I've produced FAs that exceed 100k bytes and have fewer images so this isn't a deal breaker and of course we have to have one article that has the most bytes. Excellent effort and an educational read. Thank you.--MONGO 21:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks MONGO - I appreciate that checking sources on this article was a mammoth task, thanks for taking the time and effort. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note - I have added full stops to image captions where appropriate. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment
Tks everyone, I think we're done here now. I note the outstanding oppose on the grounds of size but see that the article has shrunk almost 30MB since then, and is shorter than our largest FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a short novel by Evelyn Waugh, in which the author relives a real-life episode of temporary madness through his fictional counterpart, Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh chose to frame his experiences in the form of a black comedy. The book was greatly admired by his friends for its unshrinking honesty, but the critics and the public were less entranced. It is indeed a slightly odd work, but the quality of the prose surely redeems its faults. Read it (the book) when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have read it – about forty-five years ago. I found it more disturbing than funny. Time for another go, perhaps. Meanwhile, no hesitation in supporting the promotion of the article. Handsomely meets all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I first read it when I was probably too young to appreciate it fully; having gathered from critics that it was "brilliantly funny", I read for a long time looking for the first laugh. I found it on what is page 54 of my current Penguin edition: "Later Mr Pinfold tried to raise the topic of burial st sea, but this was not taken up with any enthusiasm". For some reason I still find that funny. Anyway, thanks for your discerning eye and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't read it, philistine that I am. Shall do so one day. But the article I have read and reviewed on the talk page. I thought it a splendid piece, amply meeting FA standards, and have no qualms about echoing Tim's support. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review comments & support here. I hope you do get round to reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Ordealevwaughcover.jpg: source link returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the broken link with a working link to the image of the book's cover. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
As usual a fascinating read on an interesting topic. I've made some minor tweaks to, but feel to revert anything you don't like. Aside from that, a couple of things to look at:
Writing history
"September he told Ann Fleming": I think we should probably give a word or two as to who she is. You should also note that you give the full name "Ann Fleming" on each of the three occasions you name her.
I have described her on first mention as Waugh's "friend", and have added a footnote giving details who she was. I'd rather leave her as "Ann Fleming" on the subsequent mentions, as to refer to "Fleming" might perplex readers. I hope I'm not in breach of some gender equality rule lately imposed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. On reflection I think you're probably right with the full name; referring to "Fleming" may suggest Ian to some. I have Ann on a list to write at some point - she's notable enough for the DNB, so she prbably warrants something on here too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Rebecca West and Pan Books.[n 5] an ..." I'm not sure what punctuation you want there, but it isn't a full stop!
Is there a reason that New Statesman isn't linked? It looks like the other publications are.
Now linked
That's all from me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this input. I have made the necessary fixes as noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments. I've read through twice and can find little to comment on; a very polished article. Some minor points:
"He had financial worries, a legacy of his free-spending post-war habits combined with lack of remunerative productivity and accumulated tax liabilities" might be better as "He had financial worries, a legacy of his free-spending post-war habits combined with accumulated tax liabilities and a lack of remunerative productivity". I think "a lack" is more natural than just "lack", and the plural sounds better coming first in the list of two.
Any reason not to link "BBC" on first occurrence?
The lead and the body give slightly differing explanations for Waugh's decision to embark on the SS Staffordshire. The lead says he took ship in search of peace; the body says it was to finish his book. Obviously these are not necessarily in conflict but I think the two descriptions should match a little more closely.
Stannard is introduced as "Waugh's biographer"; I think something similar is needed for Sykes.
"Pinfold's age, his domestic and professional circumstances": I think this should be "Pinfold's age and his domestic and professional circumstances" -- both his age and circumstances are the subject of the following verb.
"The novel was published on 19 July 1957 by Chapman and Hall in the UK and by Little, Brown in the US": this makes it sound like simultaneous publication, but I believe the Chapman and Hall edition is actually the first.
"This comment followed closely on the issue of Muriel Spark's first novel, The Comforters, which also dealt with issues of drug-induced hallucination": "issue" twice in a short space.
Mike Christie: Thank you very much for your time: I believe I have dealt with all your points – mainly by adopting your suggestion. Unfortunately I don't have the date for the first American publication; it may have been simultaneously with C and H in London, or perhaps shortly afterwards. I have slightly tweaked the sentence to leave the matter a litle more open. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was published on 12 August in the U.S.; I found a couple of newspaper announcements of the impending date, and the reviews in U.S. papers all cluster around that date. I'll leave some links to clippings on the article talk page and you can decide whether to use them. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike, for your help and support. I have added the US publication date into the article, and will contact you concerning the incorporation of a brief critical comment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my comments at peer review. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your earlier comments and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Just a reminder that we'll need a source review at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
We have some references with locations and others without. For example the Life article has its location given as "International: Chicago" while others such as The Times, Guardian etc have nothing at all. To me consistency is the most important thing, so I am happy to see either locations for everything or no locations.
Locations are not normally given for newspapers or magazines. In this case I thought from the sourse that "International: Chicago" formed part of the magazine title. Now deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22 (O'Halloran) needs the access date for the link as no page number is given.
I think the rule is that page numbers are required where there is no online link to the source. I have never given access dates for online articles that originate from a printed source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I'm going to promote but, in passing, I'd have thought this would normally take a retrieval date because it's in web format rather than newsprint format, even though it may also have appeared in newsprint. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have fiddled with some of the formatting a bit.
Spot-checked refs 4, 22, 77, 95. Assuming good faith on the rest.
Hope this helps. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm sorry I haven't got to this sooner but I have been extremely busy of late and I've had no real time for anything around here. Having said that I did manage to read this today and could find no faults at all. I did spend a bit of time looking at the paragraph that starts "Shortage of cash was the principle reason why..." in the "Background" section. "A shortage of cash was the principle reason why..." looked more correct to me, but I expect either would be OK. An excellent article! CassiantoTalk 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, "a shortage" reads better. Thanks for dropping by, and for youe welcome support here. Brianboulton (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Two of us have buffed this article up over time. We feel it looks pretty good and is within striking distance of FA status, so have at it. We'll try and fix stuff double-quick. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, is this a WikiCup entry for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Fregata_distribution.png: possible to provide a more specific citation for this data?
I don't have the book but the distribution map is also available from the publisher's web site and I've added an external link to that. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tangata_manu_statuette.jpg needs a US PD tag, and does the current licensing reflect the status of the photo or of the artworks themselves? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:I'm unsure about the license for this photograph. It was published in 1935 in a self-published French book by Stephen-Chauvet. His dates are 1885-1950. The author thanks the British Museum for the photograph and there is a BM logo on the ruler included in the original plate. I've looked in the British Museum database and there is only one possible entry here. Unfortunately the BM doesn't give a photograph to confirm that the object is the same. It doesn't appear to be on display - otherwise I could visit the museum and take my own photograph (I live in London). The BM entry gives the date as: "18thC(late)- 19thC(early)". The object is thus almost certainly very old but who owned the copyright of the photograph - the author of the book or the British Museum? The author died 65 years ago. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is he thanking the BM for taking the photo and sending it to him, or allowing him to take a photo himself? The copyright of the photo would belong to the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the US copyright. We can request an image I see - I wonder if there is still a wikipedian in residence there? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this alternative photo, though the sourcing seems a bit weird: [28] Or this diagram: [29] FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That first one is from the same book I think, and there are problems. The second one is not as interesting, and not sure it would add much visual value to the article... sigh... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Routledge, 'The Mystery of Easter Island' publ.1920 - Bird-Men
Might be better to use an image of the petroglyphs of birdmen. The artwork is definitely out of copyright even if the photographs might not be, and more importantly whilst some if not most wooden objects are likely to be fake or post contact made for export the petroglyphs are legit. My own photos are in some drawer from the pre digital era, but there are others ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fake?! yikes what a controversy..that photo is indistinct (sorry). Might have a look for some others then... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim
Great article from two experienced editors, but of course a few nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the frigatebirds to be less divergent than tropicbirds but more than pelicans related to a core group of gannets, darters and cormorants—I had to read this three times to make sense of it. "Related" is ambiguous here, with two meanings. Unless it's just me, it needs punctuating or rephrasing for clarity.
In addition, with their long wings, they would have great difficulty taking off again—not cause and effect as written. Albatrosses have even longer wings and they can take off. Maybe long wings relative to body weight?
tweaked, though to body size not weight Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the species has fidelity to the site they were born despite their high mobility—The… they… their
Support as parting shot, in the species has fidelity to the site they were born/their site of birth I query whether "born" is appropriate for birds, suggest "hatched" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to review this, and will make comments as I work through it. In general, it is very well written. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Evolutionary references classify Fregatidae ..." - What does this mean?
It sorta means the papers using cladistics, but it is pretty universal consensus-wise, so rewrote it thus Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the last sentence of the lead, some of the frigatebird species common names have a definite article and some do not.
I've juggled with the definite articles. Are you happy with my changes? Aa77zz (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence starting "Three species have been described:", it would be nice to know where the Green River Formation and the Wasatch Formation are.
fixed - both western US Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the same sentence, there are two juxtaposed phrases starting with "from" which jar.
these are hard to find substitute words or phrases that aren't ungainly themselves....nothing is coming to mind but it is late and I am tired here... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you need to include the phrase "from a recovered coracoid and humerus" at all. You didn't state which bits of bird were found in the other fossil species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the same sentence again, there is an implication that Ascension Island and Saint Helena are in the Pacific, which they are not.
specified Atlantic for Ascension and St Helena Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the species table, you give the sizes of some species and not other. I was intrigued by the great frigatebird being F. minor.
The use of minor is certainly confusing. The species was originally considered to be a small pelican. This is explained in the great frigatebird article. Aa77zz (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the great frigatebird section of the table, you need a Fahrenheit equivalent for the water temperature.
Fahrenheit added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Frigatebirds have markedly pneumatic bones, making them very light and contribute only 5% to total body weight." This sentence needs clarification.
You have misunderstood. It is the grammar of the sentence I dislike. The subject of the sentence is "frigatebirds" not "bones", and the whole sentence wants rejigging in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, rejigged to align subjects now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the distribution section, you need some imperial equivalents for the metric distances.
Imperial distances added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"frigatebirds have found ways to not overheat" - I would have said "not to overheat".
changed - but both versions sound acceptable to me. Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"particularly as they spend days on nests in full sunlight" - you probably mean "particularly as they are exposed to full sunlight when on the nest"
agreed and changed Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In Nauru, catching frigatebirds was an important tradition. It is still practiced to a lesser degree." These two sentences could be combined. Is "practiced" spelt correctly?
"It is not now found on the island, and its incorporation into local ceremonies suggests it only vanished from there sometime in the 19th century up to the 1860s." - This sentence is a bit awkward.
I tried this - I figure I didn't have to clarify "now-vanished" as it has been discussed as widespread elsewhere in the article...? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Aa77zz (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Maky
"oldest fossil record"—it's nitpicking, I think "oldest fossils" sounds better. I guess I always read "fossil record" as defined at Fossil.
Under etymology, I recommend starting the etymology and then mentioning the other names after. When I read it, I wondered where everything was going. The point is: address the point, then visit your tangents.
paras switched - my only minor quibble is this is now less chronological...but see the idea. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it going both ways. But for me, at least, I favor addressing the subject first over chronology. If others disagree, you can switch it back. – Maky« talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do a good job covering the synonyms in the body, but what about a quick list in the taxobox?
Umm...might be a bit tricky, as the name covers both family and genus...so do we do synonyms for both...? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although not the most ideal FA to refer to, Ring-tailed lemur also deals with synonyms for both genus and species. With Ucucha, we used a slightly different approach at Pachylemur... though I'm not sure I like it now. If there are a lot of items in the list, it can be made collapsible. – Maky« talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For note b, can you provide a translation in brackets following the quote?
"This was because the genus names..." – The last half of this sentence sounds like it played a role in the decision, rather than just being an outcome. Am I reading it wrong?
It did play a role - had the synonymisation happened after 1961, the family name would have been Tachypetidae. See chapter 8, Article 40 here Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can encase the cladogram in {{cladogram}} and use the "caption" parameter... but that's just a suggestion...
I futzed it when I tried rejigging...I give up :P Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change I suggested. (Don't worry, the syntax messes me up a lot, too. That's why I go back to other articles I've written and use existing work as templates.) Anyway, if you don't like it, please revert. – Maky« talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: "Bones of the left foot of Fregata aquila showing pectinate edge to mid claw, [43] a characteristic of the Suliformes.[44]" Why not cover this in the body and repeat without captions? I don't know... if I were looking for anatomical details, I would look in the appropriate sections, not in image captions.
am in two minds about this - there are lots of minor little bony things and this is just one example, so would not be significant enough to mention in text, but makes a nice caption. My co-nominator added it so will see what he says. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responsible - the figure was added here. I would be happy to lose the figure as it adds extra complexity that I don't believe is necessary. Aa77zz (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be in favor of losing the image. However, if you do remove it, you might move it and the text to the Suliformes article. – Maky« talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I have moved it to Suliformes - that would be the place where osteology can be discussed sometime...(aaah future chores...)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"regularly travel to Johnston Atoll (873 km (542 mi))..." – can you pull the numbers out of the parentheses by saying "travel x km (x mi) to..."? Also, the rest of that sentence seems a bit run-on.
Otherwise, the article looks great. Looking forward to giving my support. – Maky« talk » 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The only point left is in regards to the synonyms, and that's not a reason to hold up the nomination. I'm happy to add my support. – Maky« talk » 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Victoriaearle
Non-science editor here with the smallest nitpicks.
"Classified in the genus Limnofregata, the three species had shorter less-hooked bills and longer legs, and lived in a freshwater environment." This sentence threw me off - I didn't know whether it referred to the fossils or not. The question is answered in the fossil section, so not sure it's actionable, but thought I'd mention it.
Yeah it does - added "of which" to clarify Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't a clue what totipalmate means?
It means all toes are connected by webbing between them Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tiny tweaks; feel free to revert of disagree.
I made one minor change in punctuation [30]. Other than that, the citation style and quality of your references looks excellent. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx!...and change is okay Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article on-and-off since the storm's formation last October, and after a recent final push to tie up loose ends and flesh out my research, I think it's among the finest tropical cyclone articles on the site. I hope you'll agree. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the GA reviewer. I was very impressed with the prose while I was reviewing it, and it looks even better now with JC's finishing touches. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very impressive, I only suggest at infobox, "Up to $400 million", remove "Up to".--Jarodalien (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
two official hurricane landfalls – is "official" needed? Are there sucha thing as an unofficial hurricane landfall?
Gonzalo tracked northwestward as it intensified into a Category 4 major hurricane, the first in the Atlantic since Ophelia in 2011, by October 15. – having "by October 15" (referring to 2014) following "2011" is a bit jarring. It might be better in the middle of the sentence after "hurricane", but is it even needed at all? The timeframe is already set by "formed from a tropical wave on October 12" and "on October 16, Gonzalo peaked".
"Barely a road" – quotations in the lead should have inline citations per MOS:LEADCITE (or rephrase into your own words)
Guadeloupe – the first mention (in Preparations) should be linked rather than the second mention (in Impact and aftermath)
The hurricane generated hurricane-force winds – repetition of "hurricane" should be avoided
Naturally, elevated weather stations observed the highest winds – is "Naturally" needed here, does it add anything?
but the strong winds likely compromised the accuracy of the rain gauge – should probably be more explicit that the measurement is likely an underestimate, rather than just inaccurate
Currencies should be used consistently – some figures are marked as US$, others just use $ without specifying which dollar
Specifically, the article uses US$ when referring to the Caribbean, but when referring to Bermuda does not specify
0.25 mi (0.40 km) – 0.25 mi probably reads better as a quarter of a mile, and metres is a better unit to convert into for amounts under one kilometre
''Lowest pressure 940 mbar (hPa); 27.76 inHg – appears in the infobox, but is not in the article(and therefore unreferenced)
Should all be taken care of I think. Thanks for the review. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the resolved issues, just a couple left now - Evad37[talk] 00:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed the remaining issues here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Support on prose now - Evad37[talk] 06:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Solid work all around JC. I've made some copyedits here and there so please double check to make sure everything is still in line. I also removed some redundant referencing that was covered by the TCR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images review - All images used are well captioned and relevant to the topic. They are on Commons, and appropriately licensed. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources - Sources used are mostly government institutions or mainstream media. A spot check with Duplication Detector does not show any close paraphrasing, copyvio or areas of concerns. AGF on non-English sources. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well-written, well-illustrated article. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second-best known species of mammoth (after the woolly one), and being from America, also one of the largest. I have tried to be as comprehensive with the literature and imagery as possible. Some of the text is similar or identical to that in the woolly mammoth FA (mainly in the evolution and dentition sections) as these species have several features in common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I read through this while on a smartphone somewhere out and about. Most of the article reads ok except the lead is clunky in places. will post some queries below:
The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The Columbian mammoth lived during the Pleistocene epoch, and inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica. --middle bit clunky - would trim to "The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: best to comment on Calliopejen's edits to let folks know if you're happy with them (she's also left some queries in commented out notes.
And my rejigging of lead, while we're there.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, I'll fix the issues above and those raised during copy edit today. Not sure if Calliopejen1 is completely finished copy editing (dentition, palaeobiology and distribution are largely untouched), but I think the sections she has already finished should be fine for me to edit. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now addressed all the issues raised during copy-editing. Just notify me if you have further questions, Calliopejen1. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. ok, looking better...more now.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch. - do we know approximately where in the U.S.? It's a big place north to south....
As shown on this map[33], it is most of the US. I have added "northern", but not sure if it is enough or is udnerstandable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there are alotta mammoths in the first para of Evolution...if we can reduce one or two it'd flow better...
Removed two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from their larger size and more "primitive" molars, - why is primitive in quotes here?
Many specimens also accumulated in "natural traps" - ditto
... male mammoths mainly lived alone and were more "adventurous" .. - ditto
supported the "overkill hypothesis" - ditto, especially as unquoted a few lines before.
Removed the quotes mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see anything else to fix but I often miss things so will feel happier when some other folks look at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this is stalling for some reason, should I advertise at relevant Wikiprojects? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrally worded requests for comment at relevant projects is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made this section[34] at the animal project, which seems to be the most visited relevant project. Also at the palaeontology project[35], and mammal project[36]. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
In the lead "which entered North America about 1.5 million years ago". I would add from Asia.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to the Channel Islands will confuse some readers (well it confused me wondering how they got to islands off the coast of France). I would show it as "of California".
I assume you mean in the intro? If so, done. Already in article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"since doubt about its adequacy as a holotype has been raised." Presumably doubts - one doubt would hardly be taken seriously.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pygmy mammoths - maybe mention that they are an example of island dwarfing.
Added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it known whether there was a land bridge 80,000 years ago - or whether their ancestors might have swum across? Neanderthals crossed a land bridge from Europe to Britain around then so sea levels must have been lower.
Readded explanation that was snipped during copyedit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"of the Columbian mammoth showed that the two examined specimens, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth"" A bit clumsy. How about "of two Columbian mammothss, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", shows that"
Took your suggestion in slightly modified form. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not clear about this paragraph, probably due to my limited knowledge. If I understand correctly, two Columbian mammoths have the same mitochondria as one sub-clade of wooolly mammoths. This suggests inter-breeding, but is it sufficient on its own to show introgression and dominance rather than genetic drift?
The problem is that only two Columbian specimens have been analysed, so more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused. 1. You say that more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded, but the article implies that the doubt concerns which species was dominant, and my query was about whether alternative explanations - such as genetic drift, or that the Columbian mammoth and the woolly mammoth sub-clade bot retained the original mitochondria of their common ancestor - can be ruled out. Is it correct that the doubt is which species was dominant? 2. I also do not understand how the results could be explained by the dominance of Columbian males. It would affect the nuclear DNA, but why would it explain "Columbian" mitochondria inherited through females in a sub-clade of woolly mammoths? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of puzzled by the part myself, here it is, from the open access paper, I've bolded a part I felt may be a bit too specific, but perhaps it is the key: "At present, however, we suspect that hybridization between CMs and WMs may be a more parsimonious explanation for our observations. Under one conception, haplogroup C could have been a predominantly CM haplogroup that introgressed into WM populations, at such a frequency that it came to dominate the North American mitochondrial gene pool of that species. The fact that both CMs sequenced here are haplogroup C would lend some support to this hypothesis. Another possibility is that introgression occurred in the opposite direction, such that WM-typical haplogroup C introgressed into CM populations (Figure (Figure2a).2a). From a behavioral perspective, this configuration is perhaps more likely, especially in light of phenomena documented in extant African forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) and savanna (L. africana) elephants (Figure (Figure2b).2b). These living species are morphologically distinct and deeply divergent at many nuclear loci [32-35], but are known to interbreed at forest-savanna ecotones [36,37]. The result is 'cytonuclear dissociation' [38] between genomes in hybrid individuals, such that forest-typical mitochondrial haplotypes occur at low frequency in savanna populations. Hypothetically, this is driven by savanna males reproductively out-competing physically smaller forest males [38], producing unidirectional backcrossing of hybrid females into savanna populations. Since mammoths were probably very similar to modern elephants in social and reproductive behavior [4,27], it is conceivable that WMs and the physically larger CMs engaged in a similar dynamic when they encountered each other." [37] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is very tentative - "At present, however, we suspect", "may be a more parsimonious explanation", "could have been". It was also apparently immediately questioned, although I do not have access to the commentary you cite at ref 13. These speculations seem to me too indefinite and tentative to justify the detailed account (and somewhat more definite language) in the article. I would suggest shortening it drastically to something like "A 2011 study of the complete mitochondrial genome (inherited through the female line) showed that two examined Columbian mammoths, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. One possible explanation is introgression of a haplogroup from woolly to Columbian mammoths, or vice versa, as a result of interbreeding. The authors of the study also suggest that the North American form sometimes referred to as M. jeffersonii may have been a hybrid between the two species, as it is morphologically intermediate.[12] These findings were not expected by scientists, nuclear DNA and more specimens will have to be analysed to clarify the situation." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took your suggestion, but kept a short part about the modern analogues, and that the offspring were fertile. These two issues are not questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments! All should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
There are several early 20C pictures by Charles R. Knight and others. Comments, maybe in the captions, about how accurate they are would be helpful.
Interesting suggestion. These images have actually been used in some modern contexts, a line drawing copy of the Knight image is used as an icon in the 2007 Lister book, and I believe I saw the Horsfall image used in the Nova documentary linked at the bottom of the article. We had some newer, usermade restorations on Commons, but these lacked fur almost entirely, which is inconsistent with the cave fur mentioned in the text, and this is also why I used those old illustrations instead, as they do show some fur. Modern restorations, like these[38][39], vary wildly on the extent of the fur, so the age of the images in the article doesn't really affect their accuracy. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the captions that the extent of the fur is hypothetical. Another thing that could be noted is that both restorations are based on the AMNH specimen with the crossed tusks, shown under evolution. This was originally considered a Columbian mammoth, and is so today, but for some part of the 20th century it was suggested to be a distinct species. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" It was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft), and was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii." Presumably Columbian not woolly mammoth the same size as earlier species, but it is not entirely clear. "It was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii, and was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft)." would be eliminate any ambiguity.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mandibular symphysis could be linked.
It is mentioned twice under description, and linked at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was puzzled why tusks are in the dentition section until I saw in the article on elephants that tusks are modified teeth. Perhaps worth explaining?
Noted in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mammoths may have formed herds more often than modern elephants, since animals living in open areas are more likely to herd than those in forested areas." But some elephants live in deserts and grasslands.
True, I forgot to add "large" before herd, because all elephants of course form herds. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tusk growth slowed when foraging became more difficult, such as during illness or when a male mammoth was banished from the herd.[" But you say above that males were solitary.
Until elephant males reach a certain age, they do live with the herd. The source mentions this in another section, so have added that fact. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The earliest evidence of mammoth-butchering dates from 21,500 to 22,000 years ago." How solid is this date? Aren't claims of human occupation of the Americas this early highly controversial?
Added "suggested evidence", is that enough? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the Columbian mammoth evolved from M. trogontherii which entered north America 1.5 million years ago, but unless I have missed it you do not say when the Columbian is thought to have evolved.
None of the sources I could find state it, annoyingly. I guess it is because most of the old remains are fragmentary, mainly consisting of molars, and since the two species had a similar number of molar ridges, it should be hard to point down when the transition happened. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No change needed but I think there is a great deal of special pleading in denials that humans were responsible for extinctions of megafauna. Apparently all over the world they survived all that climate threw at them for hundreds of thousands of years and then coincidentally disappeared as a result of climate change just when humans reached to area.
Yeah, climate change certainly didn't help, but I doubt it was the sole cause either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all suggestions should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think a sentence or two in the taxonomy section or the captions on the accuracy of the early 20C images (in addition to the one on fur) would be helpful, but this is a minor point and the article is first rate.
Thanks, yeah, I think more research will be done on those specimens in the coming years anyway, that will give us more reliable information to add about them.... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cwmhiraeth
In general, the article looks good. A few points:-
"Several sites contain the skeletons of multiple Columbian mammoths, either as the result of single incidents such as flash floods or natural traps in which individuals accumulated over time." - This sentence is a bit awkward; I would have preferred "a single incident such as a flash flood"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is their closest extant relative." - This is ambiguous because the previous sentence is about the mastodon.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram shows the Asian elephant and the Columbian mammoth, but what about the other mammoth species?
That's all which was included in the original paper... But the text explains the interrelatedness of the rest of them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They are therefore considered the distinct species M. exilis, the pygmy mammoth (or a subspecies, M. c. exilis)." - This sentence could usefully add "to be".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvis, since the birth canal is always wider in females than in males." - You have birth canal wikilinked to "vagina", and I think this sentence needs rephrasing.
Removed the link, the redirect was too specific. How should it be restructured? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could just replace "the birth canal" with "it" (ie the pelvis). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be too broad, as osteologically, the birth canal is the opening in the pelvis where young pass through, but we don't seem to have an article about that specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Males cannot give birth so they do not have birth canals. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it also appears to be a bit inconsistent, but the opening is "used" as birth canal for females, as stated on Britannica: "The ring made by the pelvic girdle functions as the birth canal in females."[40] So well, the cited source uses the term for both males and females in parts: "Because this bone contains the birth canal through which baby mammoths were born, its shape differs clearly between males and females. In the female, the birth canal is relatively wider, and the bone surrounding it, the illium, is proportionately narrow. In males, conversely, the equivalent hole is narrower and the illium wider. Measurement of a series of skeletons has shown that the ratio of canal width to illium width is always higher in females than in males." So I've now changed the text to: "The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvic girdle, since the passage that functions as the birth canal is always wider in females than in males". FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thay's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which part of the skeleton is the rostrum?
Specified further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Annual tusk growth of 2.5–15 cm (0.98–5.91 in) continued throughout life" - This conversion factor is too precise.
"the third were 15 cm (6 in) 15 cm (5.9 in) long" - some duplication here.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Growing 180.9 mm of ridge took about 10.6 years." - Could use cm instead of mm, round to 18 cm and provide imperial equivalent.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Columbian mammoths had four functional molar teeth at a time, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower" - Does this mean a total of four molars? What was their dental formula?
Yes, like modern elephants, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower (can be seen in the photos under dentition and diet). Not sure about the exact dental formula, though, if you mean what each molar "number" each of them corresponds to. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the molars are impressive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The dung consists of 95 percent grass and sedge, with 0-25 percent woody plants between boluses (including saltbush, sagebrush, water birch and blue spruce)." - I don't understand this sentence.
Will it make more sense if I add "varying from 0 to 25 between boluses"?FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand what you are getting at now, but you can't really start with 95% grasses and sedges, and then continue with your other information, because the percentage figures should add up to 100%. Do you really mean boluses or are you referring to droppings? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bolus is an individual, err, "ball" of dung. The percentage inconsistency is of course weird, but the source says: "Bechan mammoth dung ... comprises 95 per cent grass and sedge by weight. Woody plants also occurred, in quantities varying from zero to 25 per cent between boluses". FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bolus is "a small rounded mass of a substance, especially of chewed food at the moment of swallowing" and I don't think the word is used for dung. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would appear our article is inadequate, as several modern elephant papers mention "dung boluses":[41][42][43] So maybe I should just add "dung" in front of bolus here? The book source I used only says "bolus". FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would satisfy me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, both this and the stuff about the birth canal have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now supporting on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that point, LittleJerry, but I feel there are other significant issues with the images. – Maky« talk » 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
(edit conflict) There are a few issues, which I've listed below.
For File:Mammuthus columbi molar.jpg, I suggest trying to find information about birth and death dates of the artist / lithographer... which I know can be challenging. It took a little while, but I found "Austrian-born Joseph Dinkel (c.1806-1891)" in an interesting article by The Geological Society. This also changes the license to PD-old-100. Also, be sure to add the template marking the description as English so that this doesn't appear at the top of the page: "This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one!" This goes for all of the images in the article.
Added death info. I don't get the language note, and I have never heard of that being a requirement for FAC. So I don't think it is necessary, is more of a local Commons standardisation thing. I'd certainly have to get some more confirmation for this being a criterion before going over the task. You can probably turn the notification off in your preferences. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language thing is not required for FAC as far as I know, but it does add a professional element to the image documentation, as do proper headings for the Summary and Licensing. It helps readers from other Wikis know what language the description is in, and if multiple translations of the description are given, it helps them quickly find their language. File:Pygmy_mammoth.JPG is an example. I'll add it to the images for you since it's no biggie. Here's the diff in case you're not familiar with the template. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for adding the template then! Images in these articles are replaced so often that paying attention to details not covered in the FAC criteria often end up being in vain. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the death dates of the artists, per Commons:Creator: "date of death and nationality is also important for verifying validity [of licenses]". I went ahead and created Creator templates for each of these artists and added the templates to the Summary boxes. Mandatory for FAC? No. Should it be? IMO, yes. – Maky« talk » 21:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very minor issue, but please also clean up the descriptions and anything else for the images used. For example, File:Columbian Mammoth - Front View (Florida).jpg could be simplified to use the link only rather than say "More information about this species: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Mammoth".
Removed the text, was on the original Flickr page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Again, nitpicking, but I feel the media of a featured article should have descriptions (in addition to sourcing and licensing) that matches the quality of the article. Just a pet peeve of mine. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added dates. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Elephantidae-scale.svg needs sources for these numbers. Under "Source", "Own work" is fine for the image, but it should also include the sources for the data.
I have notified the author[44], if nothing comes of it, I'll crosscheck with sources myself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Mike.BRZ, who has commented on such scale images in the past, perhaps he knows where to cross check and verify the image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the biggest Stegodon mount I was able to find information on [Link], seems that the 4m tall claim is rounded from that, maybe accounting for the flesh but imo is important to note that in life, the scapulae even in standing position, extend beyond the neural spines (Osborn 1942, Larramendi 2014) therefore the shoulders are too low in the ribcage and its true skeletal shoulder height would be about 3.5m. As for the Columbian mammoth, Osborn (1942) puts the skeletal shoulder height of "Archidiskodon imperator maibeni" Nebraska Museum 5-9-22 AKA Archie, at 383cm and estimated flesh shoulder height of 407cm. I've got nothing at hand about Gomphotherium though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lister 2007 states 4 m for the Columbian mammoth though, so that one would be fine, I guess. I guess the modern elephants are within range? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I don't know if it'll be an apples to apples comparison, the Asian elephant appears to be 2.5m at the shoulder (contra the description) and the African one is 3m, those are not the sizes of full grown males while Columbian mammoth at 4m and Stegodon at 3.5m are for the largest specimens. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this image is better/easier to verify?[45] FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that size chart, assuming the human is 1.8m tall, M. trogontherii is 4.8m, M. meridionalis is 4.6m, M. columbi is 4.4m, M. primigenius is 3m and M. exilis is 1.5m.
M. trogontherii, you might find a mention of a supposedly 5m tall specimen (Garutt & Nikoloskaya, 1988) but is an extrapolation based on an skeleton, again, mounted with the shoulders too low in the torso, the best estimate for that specimen is that of Osborn (1942) at 4.5m in the flesh and that is to this day the largest specimen found however average height of a full grown male appears to be around ~3.9m in the flesh (Larramendi, 2014).
M. meridionalis, according to Osborn (1942) the largest specimen is the one in the Paris museum with an skeletal shoulder height of 3.5m, 3.7m in the flesh, Gaudry (1893) gives an skeletal shoulder height of 3.8m for the same specimen and Christiansen (2004) repeats it but this is once again a measurement to the top of the neural spines in a mount with the shoulders too low in the torso.
M. columbi, we already talked about this one, 4m is accurate for the largest specimen.
M. primigenius, this is tricky because there seems to be geographical size variation with those from the Siberian tundra being the smallest and some specimens ascribed to it might be M. trogontherii but Osborn (1942) gives a height of 3m while Christiansen (2004) mentions two mounted skeletons about 3.2m tall.
M. exilis, Agenbroad (2009) estimates an average of 1.7m for M. exilis and a max of 1.9m.
And the silhouettes are not very accurate for mammoths, they seem too Asian elephant-like. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could seem like a comparison should be made from scratch? I have an issue with the current image actually, which is that no source is provided for the silhouettes. In fact, after a quick Google search for Stegodon, it seems the silhouette is based on this image:[46] So I've now nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now cutting out some new silhouettes from free images on Commons, but I'll probably need some help for cross-checking and finding references. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you say the scapula would had extended above the neutral spines in life, Mike.BRZ? Here's a preliminary version, based on thenumbers in Lister 2007, all the big ones are given as 4 m:[47] Based on these free images:[48][49][50][51] I made the M. exilis outline myself after a skeleton, probably needs more belly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the scapula is the tallest point of the shoulders in a proboscidean, I think M. exilis looks fine, that size chart is much better. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I've now replaced it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work. I've tweaked the summary box a bit, too. However, as User:Crisco 1492 once pointed out on one of my FACs: "A JPG will display better [compared to a PNG] in the article (has to do with how MediaWiki downsamples)." If you decide to create a JPG version, here's an example of the image I had to create a JPG for, complete with template examples, etc.: File:Katzenmaki (Chirogaleus_furcifer).png– Maky« talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty easy for me to do a jpg version, though the reason I used png is the "warning" template someone added here[52], and because it allows for transparent background. Not that the latter feature adds much... Thanks for the cool stuff on the image page, and of course thanks to Mike for the detailed responses. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically an image like this should be a SVG... but due to its content, I'm not sure how to best convert it (or create that way in the first place). Honestly, I'd say you're fine unless someone complains. – Maky« talk » 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not much of a vector guy myself, so maybe someone else will do it, also why I made sure that none of the shapes overlapped, so it would be easier for others to edit the image. By the way, am I the only one who doesn't see any image when I go to the file page? FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a server-side issue. I'm seeing that, too. It usually resolves itself in a day or two. – Maky« talk » 01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CC licensed paper with free size comparisons was just published yesterday[53], so if I do a new image, i'll use those images... Kind of annoying that it came out right after... FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Socoaststatebeachterracemammothrocks.jpg needs to go through Commons:OTRS. Simply saying "written permission has been received from the photographer to licence this image via "share-and-share-alike vers 2.5" Anlace 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)" is not enough. They will need you to send a copy of the correspondence, and hopefully it meets all the legal guidelines. Once things are adequately documented, they will archive the information in case of a legal dispute. Sorry, but this is not optional.
I was thinking the same, though it has passed DYK and been on the front page without problems. I'll now ping the uploader Anlace, so the email correspondence can be provided. Also noted on talk page:[54] I have temporarily added this photo of some of the same rocks instead:[55] FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it passes somewhere else (particularly DYK), doesn't mean it's golden. FAC is the final check. Hopefully we can get this one resolved. It's a nice photo. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader doesn't reply, I guess it'll have to be nominated for deletion, if the photographer can't otherwise be reached. The replacement image is fine enough for me (borders will be cropped), and I'm sure better free images will be found in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort and for replacing it. The replacement image is good and checks out. I've flagged the old image as needing OTRS approval, and you've given the uploader notice. If nothing is done in the next couple of weeks, it will be deleted. – Maky« talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be made into a regular deletion request, to buy it more time? I could imagine others would want to make an effort to save it if they saw it there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change it to a regular deletion request, go for it. I just marked it so it wouldn't slip through the cracks and sit there unquestioned for another 5 to 10 years. – Maky« talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to some people on the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and we fixed this summary box up. The uploader should have used {{own}}, so we removed the username from the Author field and changed source to that template. Apparently the {{own}} template has "native" support for multi-licensing. It should be good now. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I moved it from the Description to the Source, though. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:A Mammoth Hunt.jpg, date is given "17 March 2013, 17:53:36" yet claims PD-US. Also, "John Steeple Davis (1844-1917)" found here. It would also be nice if the pink could be edited out.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exact tracings of PD work cannot be copyrighted, as they are merely derivative works.[57] "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." The site also has the following, which I don't think applies, as this is not a photo: "Cave paintings: Cave walls are usually not flat, but three-dimensional. The same goes for antique vases and other uneven or rough surfaces. This could mean that photographs of such media can be copyrighted, even if the cave painting is in the public domain. (We are looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other PD paintings on flat surfaces should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks." FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're right, PD-old-70-1923 isn't the right license. It would be either {{PD-scan}} and {{PD-art}}. However, the PDF source claims it's a "drawing" by the author. In other words, this is a borderline case. I took the issue to the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and the two people I spoke to agreed that it was very sketchy (no pun intended). Both felt the image should be removed. I think the best thing to do is discuss it at the Commons Village Pump and remove it until the matter is resolved. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, whether it's a tracing or freehand drawing doesn't really change the fact that it's clearly a derivative work of PD art with no original input. I'll bring it up at the pump. Here's the discussion:[58] FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fly, I'll do my own tracing, if allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the best route to go. I'm sure you're allowed to trace it and release the image. The question is whether you need to release the image, or whether it's automatically in the public domain. – Maky« talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced it with my own tracing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me! – Maky« talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, there might be too many images in the article. That's just my opinion though, and I'd want the opinion of other reviewers. For example, there are three illustrations of their molars, which seems a bit much.
The images that show molars also serve other functions (they have been carefully chosen for this reason). The first one shows the holotype specimen (which just happens to be a molar) and gives historical context, the second shows a lower jaw as well as lahar preservation (now noted in caption), and the last shows the underside of a tar pit skull under preparation. Subjects not shown in any other of the images. Furthermore, showing lower and upper molars in place in either the mandible or skull is not really interchangeable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There's no hard limit to the number of images an article can have, so I can't hold things up over this. Looking again, I guess it's fine. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know I'm a bit picky about image captions. Although I'm perfectly fine with noting in the caption the excavation site at which the photo was taken, I really dislike naming the museum (or zoo) where specimen photos were taken. If the reader wants that information, they should go to the image description. Otherwise it feels like advertising... and in fact, some people (not you) put their photos on Wikipedia to highlight their personal travels or bring attention to their local attractions. Again, that's just my pet peeve. You're welcome to discuss.
I personally disagree, noting the museum hints at the context and history of a specimen. Many of the specimens are rather famous (Huntington, AMNH, the Page Museum specimen, etc.), some have been exhibited at the respective museums for over a century, so their institution is part of their "identity", just like other museum objects. Very different from living zoo animals in this respect, I think, which are often moved between zoos for breeding purposes, and are therefore not especially connected to any of them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though there are a few zoo animals that stay put. I'm not entirely convinced, but in this case I'm fine with the museum fossils. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise things look pretty good. Once these issues are fixed, I'll add my support. – Maky« talk » 01:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (by far the most detailed image review I've ever seen), all should be addressed, apart from two issues that await response from the original uploaders. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry for the extra work. And sorry for the additional item (below). I've been put through a rough image review or two, and I learned a lot for it. (And I'm still learning!) Good points were made, particularly about sourcing and licensing, and I feel they should definitely be requirements at FAC. (I believe they all are.) Fixing up the descriptions is a pet peeve, as explained above. But most of what I pointed out either directly or indirectly dealt with licensing and/or sourcing... as does my next point. (Also, I just had another major edit conflict. Hopefully I haven't missed anything you were adding while I was replying.)
For all the old art (PD-US, etc.), can you please convert the sources from raw links to proper citations with the link(s) wrapped around it? To ensure you have the right license (e.g. PD-US, PD-1923, etc.), we need to know when and where these books were published. (The best way to show this is in a proper citation.) For example, if one were published in the UK in 1921, the image might be usable in the US, but not in other countries. This is part of the reason why I think we should have death dates on the artists—to show we've carefully reviewed the image and determined it's proper license.
Should now be done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, File:Columbian mammoth.jpg needs verification of the 1909 date. The source cites if from 1942, and the other page doesn't seem to give the copyright date. – Maky« talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The painting itself has 1909 written in the lower corner, and the caption by Osborn on that page states it was painted under his supervision in 1909. If that is not enough I can search for other sources. Knight made several small paintings for the AMNH in the late 19th and early 20th century. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the date in the corner, and to be honest, I can barely read it. Please note in the information box (next to the date in parentheses) the source of that 1909 date, and then I think you'll be good.
1909 now links to the same page as what is under source, where this info is found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the license was wrong, so I got some help on the IRC channel again, and we fixed it. You should be good now. – Maky« talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After this and the three lingering issues, all should be good to go. – Maky« talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I guess we can only wait for answers from the two uploaders and the villagepump. Have to wait for the source review too anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like matters are resolving themselves. It looks like you're going to have to do your own tracing, and it seems you're getting lots of good discussion about the size comparison graphic. I'm sure this will all wrap up soon. Sorry for dragging it out. – Maky« talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, I think this needs a fourth support following another article review perhaps, and of course the source review, so it's not necessarily the image review that's holding it back at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As long as the sources and text check out, based on the images I give my support for this article. Good job! – Maky« talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the help! FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Overall, formatting/layout of references looks sound and consistent.
footnotes 26 and 44 - can we find some form of identifier (doi, issn, isbn, url etc.)
Here's a URL for the first one, but it's not free and seems a bit sketchy, is it ok?[59] And here's a giant PDF with all Natural History issues of 1967, relevant article on page 762 of the PDF, ok?[60] FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use Eurekamag - I've seen some wierd mishmash of stuff on it. ok, just leave that one if nothing comes up. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lister refs don't link to bibliography.
How is this done? FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography ref, use the parameter |ref=harv. In the body, use the citation template {{Sfn}}. I use Sfn all the time, so if you need an example, see my FAC. – Maky« talk » 05:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i'll try it out. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do something wrong?[61] Doesn't appear to be linking correctly... FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to number the "last" and "first" parameters if there are more than one. So "last=" and "first=" should be "last1=" and "first1=". Secondly, because there is a "last2=", then {{Sfn}} needs to include both authors, so include a pipe after Lister and use Bahn (the second author). If you need help, I'll fix it. – Maky« talk » 08:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, worked! I'll now replace the other page ranges. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All should link now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
footnote 23 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.
two items cited to footnote 12 are faithful to source and are not copyvios.
footnote 27 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.
footnote 17 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.
i.e. spotchecks appear to be all in order....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another early German battleship for your consideration. The ship had a fairly uneventful career, and was too old to see much use in World War I. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
No DABs.
I made a few adjustments to the infobox and the main body. However, there are a lot of missing links in the infobox and a few in the description.
Should be good now
Move horsepower and boilers to new |ship power= line.
Done
Engines returned to propulsion line and a few links tweaked.
Link overhaul, target ship, guard ship
Added
Is that the one volume of HRS that only has an ASIN?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, the last few volumes of HRS aren't in Worldcat. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the Germans use standard displacement since the ship was scrapped before the WNT was written?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably was using "standard" as a synonym for "normal", not the technical meaning. Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to copy over most of these changes to the other ships in the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot about this, but did somebody change the horsepower unit on you? Was 13,000 ihp, but is now 13,000 PS. Which is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see [User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP#Recent_edits_to_German_ship_articles here] - in a nutshell, it seems that the English translators for Groener simply changed PS into hp without converting the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joy, but at least it's not my problem since I only deal with German ships that have nice sensible turbines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice article! The only comment I want to make is regarding the use of the letter "ß" (Eszett). In its native German language the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große. I understand that in English sources the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. I also understand that the article Wiki name therefore should use the English variant. What I am unsure about, does this rule also apply to how the name is spelled within the body of the article? I am asking this because the article makes use of the ß in "Schießpreis" and by referencing the source "Grießmer". This raises my question, if the use of "ß" is ligitimate could the text itself use the correct native spelling variant? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my sense is that it would be the best option to simply change to Schiesspreis and Griessmer, since it would look odd to have the title one way and the article the other, and there really aren't any good policy-based reasons to use the eszett in the title. Of course I'd be open to arguments to the contrary, but that might be better suited to the article talk page. Thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a comment. Are there any better maps? The one used could be smaller if it was remade with some the city names etc were left off, etc. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've been able to find, though I like this one in part because it shows contemporary borders. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured that's why you used it. Perhaps a Commons mapper will come along at some point. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 19:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review -- refs look reliable, just a couple of formatting suggestions:
I think you can lose "Vol. 47" for the RUSI Journal -- there's only on RUSI and, for consistency, you don't use volume number for The United Service.
I think I'd rather keep it - when I've tried to track down these old journals in Google books for other articles, the volume number is a useful way to find them. And The United Service does have a volume number.
Yes, both have volume numbers (per the References section) but in the citations you use the volume in one but not the other -- should be consistent there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right - probably a legacy from whatever article I copied the citation from, which used more than one volume. Thanks.
You could use "Hildebrand et al" instead of "Hildebrand Röhr & Steinmetz" (which without a comma or semicolon after Hildebrand looks more like two authors than the actual three anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer adding a comma rather than et. al. Thanks for checking these, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I reviewed prose, structure and content at MilHist ACR and see no other issues after checking changes since then, so happy to support here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator: Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the 14 c.1821–1823 "Black Paintings" by Francisco Goya, who lived longer than he might have preferred, into an old age of significant physical and mental ill-health, and a social period when, after the enlightment, Spain in ways regressed with outbursts of dogma and social control that drew in a calculated way from medieval doctrine. Goya withdrew and went silent in his last years; all we have are the paintings which are often strikingly modern (Francis Bacon, who rarely praised anybody, was greatly influenced) but nobody really knows what Goya wanted to express or intended.
All we can do is project, and this is the finest single piece of that late period, in my openion. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a couple of minor comments from Iridescent
"He wears a goat-like beard and horns, references to irrational animal instinct"—are they really references to animal instinct? Surely this was pretty much the universal visual shorthand for "demon" within Catholic imagery?
"The eyes of some figures emit beams of white light"—call me stupid, but I've looked at each figure and I can't see this.
No issue at all with supporting, even with the two above quibbles. Note that I haven't checked the sources, but I've no reason to doubt them. – iridescent 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I cant see anybody, ever, calling you stupid and have reworded the offending sentences. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you never met Ottava, then? – iridescent 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a disclaimer that I've made edits, but after basically a four or five year long peer review, per Iridescent, no issues supporting. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its been a long one and you helped a lot. Thanks for the support. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Quinta_del_Sordo_1900.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Aquelarre_de_Laurent.jpg should identify copyright of original work and photo. Source link is dead, and what aspect of the image is reflected in the current licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added US PD to the first image; having difficulty with the second; will continue to search. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I find this bit about "inversion" unclear, i.e. lacking context: "The earlier painting uses traditional imagery of witchcraft in that its depiction inverts traditional Christian iconography. The goat extends his left rather than right hoof towards the child, while the quarter moon faces out of the canvas at the top left corner." Traditional Christian iconography has goats extending right hooves, and quarter moons facing other directions... or what?
Now reading ...uses witchcraft imagery to invert traditional Christian iconography. I agree re material in the lead not in the body, will relocate. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive quote from Stafford doesn't scan. The bold part is what doesn't scan, but the whole thing could stand to have more breathing room. Could you simplify it?: "Barbara Stafford said that Goya "brusquely [inlaid] spots of light within prevailing darkness [and] aqua-tinted and painted [verb or adjective?] visions [which] demonstrated the powerlessness of the unmoored intellect to unify a monstrously hybrid experience according to its own a priori transcendental laws.""
"His use of chalk for the preparatory drawings compounded the problem, as oil and chalk generally do not bind well." This is a bit of cheating as the article says earlier that he didn't use an underdrawing for this particular black painting. Is it possible that sources conflict or one sources was just talking about the black paintings in general?
Corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "a pre-emptor of today's artistic sensibilities" means. I figured it meant exactly what you say in the bit that follows it: "and a precursor to works by modern artists...". If so it's redundant; if not could it be clarified?
Otherwise great work Ceoil. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the second paragraph of the lead has more detail on the privateness of the black paintings than the "Background" section does and I think a couple of facts from that paragraph could be moved there, such as "They are not mentioned in his letters[6] and there are no records of him speaking of them.[7]"--which really is just more detail confirming the previous sentence. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Riggr, have fixed the Stafford quote and the pre-emptor claim. Working through your other points. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The inversion thing is mostly around left/right, espically around crossing of hands, orders of devils and saints. Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your extensive c/e and guidance *much* appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"'Contemporary photographs tended... - I'd probably change this to say, "Photographs from this period tended..." - due to the misinterpretation and misuse of "contemporary" to mean "modern".
Otherwise, all looks in order....I couldn't find any other niggles though was tired when I read it...hmmm...will take another look a bit later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cas. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well up to standard. Comprehensive, well documented, good prose and of course beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing stuff, well done...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't fault it even though I'm now cursed with a mental image of Ceoil in tiny speedos (long story, but at least I've hopefully spread that image to you, dear reader). Do The Dog next; I love that painting, even if he is sooo sad; I'm off to bleach my mind. Belle (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Belle. Re the dog; try as we might to ressurect mr Yomangan, he seems to have passed onto pastures zenn. I do rememeber him producing a lazy bastards guide to FAC, and I suppose he should have been careful what he wished for; presumably the retirment was all part of a ruse. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been over a week so I'll look after this myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review -- references look prima facie reliable and citation formatting seems fine but:
You don't seem to have cited Gallucci, Myers or Wight anywhere, so they should be removed or used in a Further reading section.
You have two Havard sources but only one is cited and without more info we don't know which; the unused one should be removed from Sources.
I'd expect to see footnotes 12 and 30 cited, as are 5, 6, etc.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, all fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the two Havard sources but only one citation... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a notable historic landmark in West Virginia's oldest county, and it also illustrates the Baptist and Methodist heritage associated with the church. All guidance and comments are greatly appreciated throughout this process. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be of interest to FAC reviewers that Capon Chapel has already reached Good Article status and it has been successfully nominated to DYK and has undergone a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors. A peer review of the article was also recently completed. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments taking a a look now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and explain what I do in the edit summaries - please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning - and jot questions below. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, I appreciate your review of this article and for the meaningful edits you have made thus far. Please feel free to be bold in your copyedits, as it is important for me to have someone not myself look at this article with fresh eyes and ways to make it better. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Capon Chapel property consists of the church structure (c. 1852), its associated cemetery, and the historic wrought iron fence enclosing the cemetery. A separate section of the cemetery is enclosed by a chain link fence. - comes over as a bit wooden, why not "The Capon Chapel property consists of the church structure (c. 1852), and its associated cemetery, which is enclosed partly by the historic wrought iron fence and partly by a chain link fence." ...
Cas Liber, thank you for the suggestion. Your version flows much better, and so I have incorporated it that way in the text. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a land grant that Charles II of England awarded to seven of his supporters in 1649; the grant was renewed by an official patent in 1688 - why not just, "a land grant that Charles II of England awarded to seven of his supporters in 1649 and renewed by an official patent in 1688" ?
I've also incorporated this suggestion in the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Baptist denomination was the first to establish churches in Hampshire County that continue to exist - this is confusing, do you mean, "The Baptist denomination established the oldest extant churches in Hampshire County"? or something else?
This is what I was attempting to convey, and this conveys it more clearly. I've also incorporated this suggestion into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since no singular denomination oversaw the church during this early period sounds odd, I'd say --> "Since no single denomination oversaw the church during this early period"
I've incorporated this change into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I can't see anything else and it impresses as exhaustive, so it's a tentative support from me on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cas Liber for taking the time to assist me in improving this article, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Flag_of_West_Virginia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original flag?
File:Logo_of_the_United_Methodist_Church.svg: according to the source page, this was registered as a trademark - are we certain it wasn't also registered as copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for engaging in the image review for this Featured Article candidacy. As these two images in question are used for the West Virginia and Methodism portals, I do not have control over their usage and modification. Therefore, I've removed both portal links from the portal bar. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In the section "Baptist affiliation" I was confused by the first two sentences "The Baptist denomination established the oldest extant churches in Hampshire County.[12] After the end of the American Revolutionary War, other Baptist preachers continued their attempt" what is the difference between "Baptist denomination" and "other Baptist preachers"? Are one group "primitive" which is mentioned later in the paragraph?
Rather than Baptist denomination, I've rendered this "The Baptists" so that it is less confusing. Let me know if this works! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the grammar of "...came from Pennsylvania after arriving in Pennsylvania from Wales... " may need clarification.
I've changed this sentence to "one of the families that came from Wales through Pennsylvania in the late 17th century." -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was also confused by the grammar in the Architecture section "facing toward Timber Ridge, and facing opposite of the Cacapon River and Christian Church Road".
The main facade faces toward Toward Timber ridge, and not against the main avenues of approach (Cacapon River and Christian Church Road). I've rendered this as "The church's main façade is located on its east side, facing toward Timber Ridge, and away from the Cacapon River and Christian Church Road." Does this work? -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the deprecated parameter "author-separator=" from refs 3,4,5,6. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also some problems with the "Harv" linking of the references - If you click on the names "Scaffidi", "Brannon" and "Grose" in refs 7,8,17,19,21,25,27,& 30 it doesn't link to the full details in the bibliography. This may be because of details about the PDF file coming after the page number in the Harvnb references, but I'm not sure of the cause.— Rodtalk 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the PDF mention from refs 7,8,17,19,21,25,27,& 30. There should not be any Harv linking errors now. Thank you for your suggestions and additional guidance, Rod! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are still showing as a problem (but I can't remember which tool is highlighting the errors for me). I will try to look at this again later.— Rodtalk 06:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I made some further fixes to the references themselves, and all links seem to be working for me now without error. Let me know if you have any other issues with these links. - West Virginian (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
In Geography and setting "Capon Chapel and its associated cemetery are located to the east Christian Church Road" - should it be "to" or "on" - this may be a US v Brit English but it is not how I would say it.
Rod, thank you tremendously for your additional comments. Regarding this first comment, it is correct to use "to" here. As this is an American historic site, American English should suffice here. I'm not opposed to changing it to "on" though if that garners your approval! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest waiting for a native US English speaker before making any changes to this.— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18 is to an image on commons of the sign outside the church. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy but could a secondary source be found for the claim about meeting under an oak tree & the likely first construction date of 1750? If the date is accurate it conflicts with the construction date in the info box.
I was not able to find another claim of this date, but it is the date given in oral tradition throughout that end of the country. While a structure may have been constructed at that date, the current church was not built until the 1850s. I can remove this text if this is problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If true I think it makes the church more "notable" but would worry whether the "primary source" of a sign outside the church should be considered RS in this case.— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I've removed the two instances where the historical marker was used as a reference. The only information that was sourced from the sign was the information regarding burials and meetings under an old oak tree at the site in the 18th century. I've removed mention of this oak tree as there is no other documented evidence for it outside oral tradition. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Methodist affiliation, what is the significance of the statement "In 1976, the circuit's pastor was Thomas Malcolm"?
It's not necessarily significant, but it fills in a blank as to who the pastor was at that time in the church's history. No written records were kept of the preachers of this small church, so when a name was available, I included it. This too can be struck if problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I just thought as it is pretty much the only historic pastor named that it might be significant.— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not significant on its own, but because little information exists, I felt it wouldn't hurt to mention him. I can remove him from the prose if this is problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Preservation, what does "refurnished" mean - does this mean planks were replaced?
The usage of refurnished here means that the planks were sanded and "refurnished" or re-lacquered if you will. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a little explanation would be useful, perhaps saying "and its wide, heart pine plank floors were sanded and re-lacquered". (or similar).— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been incorporated into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Exterior, what is a "drop pendant"?
The drop pendant in this case is a small "pendant-shaped" wooden embellishment at the top of the gable-front. A drop pendant, especially in American English, is anything shaped like a drop. Drop pendant usually refers to jewelry, but can also refer to doorknobs, lighting, and in this case, a wooden embellishment. I'm definitely open to suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK perhaps just the addition of the word wooden ie "accentuated by a single wooden drop pendant at the top of the gable" (or similar) (to stop me thinking about jewelry).— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the text so that it says this. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Interior how can the alter be a pulpit? To me (based on UK churches) these are different concepts. Should "swag" be wikilinked to Festoon?
As it is a very small church, the pulpit and the altar are one in the same. I've wiki-linked swag to Festoon. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Cemetery, should Picket fence be wikilinked as this is not a term used worldwide?
The fence in this case isn't a "picket fence" per se. The pickets here just refer to the fence poles or posts, which are also known as pickets in American English. I can definitely reword this if necessary. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence of my lack of US English. Again I would wait for any comment by a native speaker.— Rodtalk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to hold up a review over the word "picket" so I've changed it to fence post. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these additional comments may be because of my (very) limited knowledge of the subject matter and/or US v Brit English, so please reject if inappropriate.— Rodtalk 07:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above Rod, I really appreciate you taking the time to review this article and leave comments and additional guidance. I've responded to all your above comments, and can reword and rephrase as necessary. I will try to find additional sourcing for the historical marker, but I am fine with removing that content for now if need be. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I've removed the information from the historical marker, since it was not sourced elsewhere. I've also removed the problematic word "picket" and I can also remove the pastor if his mention too seems problematic. I'm also concerned that "to" continues to be problematic as well, so I do hope another American English speaker comes to my rescue on that account. Thank you for taking the time to conduct such a thorough review. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of my comments are resolved (just waiting on a US English speaker for "to" or "on") but I can now support this as meeting the criteria.— Rodtalk 17:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, once again, thank you for taking the time to perform this thoughtful review and for providing guidance to improve the overall quality of this article so that it meets FA status. It is really appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had forgotten about this sorry. I reviewed this at an earlier date and believe it is certainly the best article we can produce on it. Excellent work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- West Virginian, is this your first FAC? If so, a belated welcome from the coordinators, and a note that we'll require an editor to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is a hoop all newbies have to jump through. Looks like we also need the usual source review for formatting/reliability, which we try to conduct on all nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spotchecks
Formatting of sources looks ok. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources appear to conform to reliable sources. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refs from Maxwell and Swisher support sentences they are at end of, with no paraphrasing and good faithfulness, though the second item attributed to refs 13, 17 and 23 - I can't see how 23 supports that, given the sentence talks of the early 20th century and the book was written in 1897.
I can't check Munske and Kerns as that book has no preview to me. Ditto Wirtz book...
ref 18 supports text well with no paraphrasing
Scaffidi references checked against source and are faithful. A couple of repeated words were substituted, otherwise wording is acceptably distant (some can't be substituted)
i.e. I think this one looks alright overall....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Tom Simpson, one of Britain's most successful professional cyclists. I brought it up to GA back in 2013 and I'm keen to get it to FA, ideally on the front page on 13 July (the anniversary of his death). It's had a thorough copy edit thanks to Miniapolis over at WP:GOCE. The peer review only had one user's (Brianboulton) help. One thing I've found hard is toning down the cycling detail in the prose. All comments are welcome. Thanks. BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought this was able to pass FA when it passed GA. Solid work here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like Disc Wheel, I felt that this article was able to pass FA when it was already at GA. I also note that BaldBoris has proposed 13 July for a potential showing if it was to be promoted...It could equally be sufficient for 5 September, as that would mark the 50th anniversary of him becoming world champion. But other than that, would be delighted to see this reach the top echelon. Pardon the pun. Craig(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – with a few prefatory niggles:
"semifinals" – the OED hyphenates the word
"center" – American spelling
"license" (noun) – ditto
"bedrest" – another word for which the OED prescribes a hyphen
"pedaling" – another American spelling
"kilometers" (twice) – ditto
"That's my years supply of Micky Finns" – I can see that this is in a quote, but it might be worth checking that the source really does get "year's" and "Mickey Finns" wrong. So be it, if so.
duplicate links:
individual time trial
breakaway
Fausto Coppi
Jean-Claude Annaert
Raymond Louviot
world road race champion
Paris–Tours
Circuit de Provençal
Trofeo Baracchi
road world championships
Rudi Altig
six-day race
Felice Gimondi
Vin Denson
Eddy Merckx
Alan Ramsbottom
Cycling magazine
References
I spotted one ref (in "Personal life") where the citations were in this order: [282][79][153]. There may be other such cases: please check. For FA it is usual to have all refs cited in numerical order at each occurrence.
The subject of the article is so far outside my areas of expertise – such as they are – that my comments on the content must be seen as those of a well-disposed ignoramus. At 8,400 words the article is evidently comprehensive, and seems, to my layman's eye, to stick to the essentials; the referencing is full and varied; and the prose passes muster (I ignore its regrettable tendency to use the false title). I feel confident in supporting. Tim riley talk 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Tim. All fixed. The quote was my mistake, good spot! BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brianboulton
It's a very detailed article, obviously the result of some devoted work, but I feel that the prose is still unpolished in places, and in my view it's going to need more work if it is to pass FAC. I've only read the Childhood and Track years sections, but I've picked up quite a few quibbles and a few more significant points. I've also made a few adjustments myself. Here is what I've got:
Childhood and club racing
"To upgrade his bike, he delivered groceries in the Bassetlaw district by bicycle and traded with a customer for a better road bike." - Clunky as it stands; I suggest you remove the first four words.
"Simpson began winning club time trials at his club" – delete the last three words
"In late 1955, Simpson was suspended from racing after a dispute between the two governing bodies of cycling in Britain (the NCU and the BLRC); both bodies agreed that if any rider committed an offence under the Road Traffic Act, they would incur a suspension." There is no evidence here of any dispute: rather, the two bodies seem to be in agreement.
"Simpson was caught by police failing to stop at a stop sign, and was banned for six months." I think you have combined two separate events here. It was not the police that banned him.
I originally overcomplicated it and then was lost further during the GOCE job. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Track years
General point, here and elsewhere: too much use of parentheses for subordinate clauses - normal punctuation should be used, unless the clause is a definite aside.
This was the GOCE editors style. I don't want to blame anyone, but I'm not skilled enough to tamper with it. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Cartwright gave him diet advice, lent him a track bike and developed his technique" - I would say "helped him develop his technique"
"Reg Harris, a 1948 Olympic silver medallist, was brought in to train with Simpson." I find this wording odd. Harris at the time was at the peak of his fame – 1954 world champion, among the best-known sportsmen of his day – and it is not feasible that he could simply be "brought in" to train with a novice.
It seems to have been just a one-off session, so I cut it. BaldBoris 03:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The seven-rider contingent began in Leningrad, continuing to Moscow before finishing in Sofia." First, Sofia is in Bulgaria, not the (then) Soviet Union. Secondly, as written the sentence reads as though the team raced from Leningrad to Sofia, whereas I imagine this was the itinerary for a series of events.
"In spring 1958 he raced in the Daily Herald Trophy at the White Monday Meeting at Fallowfield before racing in Sofia with Sheil for two weeks and winning the national individual pursuit championship at Herne Hill Velodrome." Too much information for a single sentence. Perhaps: "In spring 1958 he raced in the Daily Herald Trophy at the White Monday Meeting at Fallowfield, before travelling to Sofia with Sheil for two weeks' racing. On his return he won the national individual pursuit championship at Herne Hill Velodrome."
In the brief peer review I carried out 18 months ago I expressed some concern that the prose might be more suitable for a cycling mag than a general encyclopaedia. This is still a problem. An example is "Against reigning world champion Carlo Simonigh of Italy in the opening round of the individual pursuit, his wheel got caught in the guttering tyre at the end of the race; when he bunny hopped his bike out, his tyre burst as it hit a crack in the concrete track". General readers won't know what "guttering tyre" means, and the term "bunny hopped his bike out" is equally hard to follow, even with the link.
Another general point: I am getting the feeling, as I read through, that there is substantial overdetailing, particularly in the sections dealing with Simpson's early career. I don't think it's necessary to refer to almost every race Simpson entered; there is scope for considerable summarisation.
I'll read on, although my time is somewhat limited. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciated your help on this. I think I've neglected these sections thinking they were fine. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
Track years (continued)
"Although he was in pain, team manager Benny Foster forced him to race in the quarterfinal against New Zealand's Warwick Dalton as a strategic move favouring Simpson's teammate Sheil, who won the gold medal." Needs more explanation if it's to make sense.
Why the citation string ([15][43][44][45])? Looks like over-citation
Move to Brittany
"The next day, his National Service papers were delivered; although willing to serve before his move, he later avoided conscription." This needs brief explanation: how did he "avoid" conscription?
What does it mean to be "underneath" the professional team?
More citation strings: it is simply unnecessary to cite straightforward facts to four sources.
1959
Foundations
"He expected to progress further..." – do you mean "He had expected to progress further..." (than the q-finals)?
"He retired from the Giro di Lombardia with a tyre puncture while in the lead group of riders, his first appearance in one of the five "monuments" of cycling." The sentence is wrongly constructed. Suggested rephrase: "In his first appearance in the Giro di Lombardia, one of the five "monuments" of cycling, he retired with a tyre puncture while in the lead group of riders."
1960
Tour debut
Shouldn't the title be "Tour de France debut"?
"the now-famous" – beware WP:WEASEL (see "puffery")
"His televised effort launched his career, and he was now known throughout Europe". Surely something of an overstatement? "Known throughout Europe" implies international fame acquired over a long and successful career, rather than from a single TV race appearance. I would modify the wording.
"At age 22" is American English. Delete the "at" and say "aged 22".
"failing to recover" suggests that he dropped out of the Tour altogether. Yet he completed all the remaining stages of the race to finish in 29th place
"He struggled in the last of the classics, finishing 84th in the Giro di Lombardia." Again, an odd sentence construction: "In the last of the classics, the Giro di Lombardia, he struggled, finishing 84th".
All I have time for at present, but I'll continue. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks again. BaldBoris 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More:
1961 Tour of Flanders and injury
"As the race reached the paved section, he went on a solo attack and was told that Mercier-BP-Hutchinson rider Raymond Poulidor was chasing him down." "And" is not appropriate here, and I would like to know how he was told. Something like: "As the race reached the paved section he went on a solo attack, at which point his team-mates told him that Mercier-BP-Hutchinson rider Raymond Poulidor was chasing him down " – assuming that is accurate.
The sources just say he heard or was told. His teammates wouldn't have been able to from behind in the race, so it would have been either his team's support car or a service vehicle. BaldBoris
"catching the vehicles in front". Perhaps you should elaborate: "catching the team cars and other motor vehicles..." etc
I think he "collected" rather than "retrieved" the replacement wheel. To "retrieve" is to get something back, not to replace something.
His injury had not healed; after seeing several specialists, he had to ride, for financial reasons, in the Tour de France with the British team." I am confused by this. Are you saying that the "financial reasons" arose from his seeing several specialists? That's how it reads at the moment. I suspect, however, that what you mean is that his injury had not healed, even after treatment by various specialists, but for financial reasons he was forced to enter the Tour de France. Perhaps you can clarify, and adjust the prose accordingly.
1962 Yellow jersey
"Simpson moved to Ghent, Belgium" - Do you mean that he set up home in Ghent? If so, when, and why? In any event, Ghent should be linked.
Consistency in use of dashes is required. For example, you write "Paris–Nice" but "Milan – San Remo". Why is the latter linked on second rather than first mention?
"He would become his team's leader..." Was he not already his team's leader?
"As the highest placed rider of the group in the GC before the stage..." For clarity I would reword this: "As he finished ahead of all the other leaders in the GC,..."
I found he paranthetical reference to Boardman unnecessary and distracting. Also another citation string at the end of th paragraph.
I dropped it, and the one about Cavendish in 1965 too. BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He began six-day racing into his winter breakaway." What does this mean – what is a winter "breakaway"?
Is break clear enough? BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1963 Bordeaux–Paris
Why did Simpson withdraw from the Paris-Nice race? If it was simply because he was no longer in contention, youn should say so.
Again, why the spaces around the dashes in "Milan – San Remo"?
I'm about halfway through, now. It is, I must say, very hard going; the relentless detailing of race after race without interruption is difficult for readers, particularly those with very little knowledge of cycle racing. Did Simpson do absolutely nothing else in his life except race? I see there is a little information in the brief "Personal life" section, at the end of the article, but a little leavening throughout the text would have humanised Simpson, who is presented here as little more than a robot. Maybe it's not too late for some careful restructuring. To be continued. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand your point. Although I must say though, professional cyclists ride bikes non-stop and don't have time for much else. It's never going to be a great read to, lets say, a science enthusiast, equally, an article on a type of flower won't interest a sports fan. Very hard to please everyone. I actually planned to include his life outside cycling in the pro career section but thought it wasn't done. Will have a good go at that and trim down the reeling off of results. BaldBoris 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that there is little you can do to make his life more varied than it was – though I wonder whether his performance in pretty well every race he entered, including relatively minor ones, has to be recorded? I'm taking a 24-hour break from reviewing, which will give you a chance to do the trimming and other adjustments you refer to, and I'll return at the weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to date with your suggestions now. I've done the trimming and will try to add something from his life in all of the sections. I'm away for the weekend, but will be able to get online. BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why the non-standard format has to be used in Milan – San Remo. If it's because that's how the title of the Wikipedia article is formatted, use a pipe thus: Milan–San Remo. Please note here and here and here – no spaces around the dashes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some more reviewing:
1964 Milan–San Remo
"Two days later..." It would help if there were some earlier date indicators
Poulidor should have been linked on first mention, earlier in the article.
"a group of 22 riders (including Simpson) finished on a cinder track" – what's the significance of mentioning the cinder track? Did the other riders finish somewhere else?
"25 minutes and ten seconds behind" – don't mix text and numerics. Also, "behind the race leader", if that is the case.
"Simpson later discovered that he rode the Tour with tapeworms". I'd say "suffering from" rather than "with", which reads rather oddly.
"With the race reduced to five riders..." and then "Simpson was repeatedly overtaken, finishing 21st." How come?
Is cracked OK?. BaldBoris 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My query was, how could Simpson finish in 21st position in a race that apparently only had 5 competitors. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1965. World championship and Lombardia
"Simpson and his friend Albert Beurick supplied food and drink, stealing from other teams". I don't think "supplied" is the word; I suggest "Simpson and his friend Albert Beurick obtaind food and drink by stealing from other teams".
" Simpson was offered lucrative contracts by teams, including Flandria-Faema-Clément, offering him the years salary up front." Mangled syntax and punctuation here, and repetition. Something like: " Simpson was offered lucrative contracts by teams, including Flandria-Faema-Clément who were prepared to pay him the year's salary in advance".
Link Super Prestige Pernod International, and better preced it with "the"
It's linked in the 1963 section? BaldBoris 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(with Formula One world champion Jim Clark finishing second) – entirely irrelevant as far as I can see.
1966. An injury ridden season
I've made a few minor prose adjustments.
I'll complete the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are my final comments:
1967. Paris–Nice and Vuelta stages
First paragraph: A clearer explanation is needed as to how Simpson could be the leader of the "British team", and at the same time co-leader of the Italian team Salvarani. Surely, conflicts of interest would arise between the two appointments?
I don't understand your confusion. National teams, as I'm led to believe, only participated at the Tour de France (occasionally) and the world champs. Salvarani never raced against the British team. If you mean how can he share leadership of Salvarani, but not the British, well, this is commonplace on pro teams. He was outright leader of the British team. BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He planned to attempt the hour record" – needs a bit more amplification
You mention Merckx's age twice, in text and in caption. Surely once is enough?
"Simpson rode away from peloton" – "the" missing
"by which time the race has passed" had passed?
"In an interview, Tour de France physician Pierre Dumas revealed that Simpson told him that he was taken to hospital during the Vuelta". I'm not sure you need this, but if think it's important you should indicate when the interview took place and who it was with.
Death
What caused Dumas to make the 6.30 am statement: " If the riders take something [drugs] today, we'll have a death on our hands"? Was it that excessive heat was forecast?
"Simpson, still ill, was seen washing pills down with brandy" – who saw him?
General point: The habit of putting minor subordinate clauses in parentheses, e.g. (one of which was labelled "Tonedron") should be resisted. I've knocked out a few - perhaps you'd deal with the remainder.
What does the description of Mercks as "the only continental professional" mean? That every other continental rider was an amateur?
Changed it to "the only continental rider in attendance" BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doping
"although he implied that other competitors were involved" – do you mean that he implied that he himself was not involved? Obviously he thought others were.
"Lewis recalled Simpson acquiring a small box from outside at their room's door." This is excessively awkward phrasing - try to polosh it.
Riding style and legacy
A "fearful" descender? It sounds from the description as though he was fearless.
It's what's printed [66]. A misquote? BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Simpson's death was contributed to his unwillingness to admit defeat ascending Mont Ventoux". I think you mean "attributed"
""He said he felt peace of mind and wasn't afraid to die. He said he would have been happy dying." Clarify that it is Denson saying this.
Family and interests
"Soon after moving to France in 1959 the Simpson met Helen Sherburn": the Simpson?
"who's" → "whose"
General
I'm impressed by the amount of research behind this article, less impressed by the rather unseemly haste with which people have rushed to support it at FAC when it contained far too many basic prose errors. Some of these I have corrected myself and others I've raised in the review. I have done what I can, and can't spend any more time on it. It probably needs another pair of eyes, when you have have made the required changes. I'm sure it will get there in the end. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your time given to this Brian. I'm sorry if you thought it would be easier. If I do another FAC, I won't make the same mistakes. BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
File:Tom_Simpson_1969_Ajman_stamp.jpg - Maybe it's just me, but his portrait looks like the artist's stylized impression and not like a natural portrait. Have you considered other alternatives? Even a black/white image with a more natural portrait could work as lead image. (Copyright-wise this one would be OK, if no better photo is available).
I know what you mean, but I'm sure it's just because of it's a scan of a stamp. I had a cropped version of this non-free until recently, when I saw it on commons. There's almost no chance of another free portrait. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the stamp shows a realistic portrait and is suitable for identification, I am afraid we can't use a non-free variant for the same purpose (WP:NFCC #1). It would have to be a PD photo. But as I said, if you can't find a PD alternative, the current image is OK. (GJ)
File:Stéle Simpson Ventoux 84.JPG - I hate to say it, but France doesn't have Freedom of Panorama (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France). The photo can't be used on en-Wiki (and should probably be deleted from Commons).
Does that mean all the images in the category should be deleted? BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has been quite strict about FoP violations in the past, but I have posted a request for further advice at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright to verify the current handling (I wasn't aware about the whole batch of similar photos, thanks). Suggest to remove the image for now (if I am completely on the wrong track, it can be easily re-inserted). GermanJoe (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image has been deleted and replaced - the new image should be OK under de-minimis considerations (memorial is not the image's main focus).
All other images are PD (the dresses are PD-simple imo) or CC and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
MOS:CAPTION - please check all captions: complete, grammatically correct sentences should end with a period. GermanJoe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is obviously a well-written and very well-documented article earning to be promoted. One remark about the Freedom of Panorama act in France, as I am familiar with the Belgian code - which is similar to the Panorama act in France. There is no freedom of distribution, but the act is very unlikely to be imposed. Images need only be removed if there is an official complaint, which rarely occurs. Dr.robin (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll give the article a proper review in the nest few days, but it looks good. One thing I did notice wss that the tables in the results section do not meet WP:ACCESS. You need to row and col scopes to these to ensure they are accessible to people who use screenreaders to browse the site. Good work. NapHit (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NapHit, your input would be great. I'll sort out the tables. BaldBoris 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More
"before taking the general classification..." taking doesn't sound right to me, perhaps change to "and won the..."?
I would perhaps move ref 4 and 6 to after 1943, as refs are supposed to come after punctuation
"at and engineering..." think this is a typo
I'd perhaps move the ref about the poggio being used for the first time, to directly after it is mentioned. Just so it is clear that it is referenced
"he alone for about..." missing a word here
"that he began following Simpson's death..." this reads oddly to me
ref 265, seems to be missing something, as there is a red help sign next to it
Other than these quibbles, this is a fantastic article that details the subject extremely well. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. The citation error has driven me crazy on the numerous times I've tried to fixed it. The error shows when |series= is missing from {{cite episode}}, even though the error says |title=. The problem is that the radio episode was a one-off? There was a discussion about it which stalled. BaldBoris 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not going to stop me from Supporting the article. As a cycling aficionado, it is a great read though I can relate to Brian's point about it being a bit hard for the layman to read. NapHit (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just 2 minor points (unfortunately I won't have time for a full detailed SR):
Refs #290 and #296 have no page numbers. If possible, you should provide page information for all book references and other large sources.
I was just referencing the actual books. Added Roman numerals to the edition notice. BaldBoris 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses "Simpson 2000" twice (ref #97 and #102). Should that be 2009? (or is it a second book source of the same author?). GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yea added these yesterday, silly me. BaldBoris 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - I'll continue this then: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
material faithful to ref 169's source.
material faithful to ref 81's source.
material faithful to ref 198's source.
Material from sources in McGann & McGann 2008 all faithful and good.
I ran this though Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got this result. Now I was alarmed at first look but the latter page is from this one. The second article is clear and fine.
some prose issues:
Simpson's risk-taking on descents was visible throughout his career - "evident" is a better adjective here....
In mid-September, Simpson competed for two weeks in Eastern European against Russian and Italian teams to prepare for the Olympics. - "Eastern Europe", right?
Can't link to a foreign language wikipedia article directly - Carlo Simonigh needs an en.wiki stub, not linked to the italian one, and Tour del Sud-Est needs an english stub, not a link to the Catalan wikipage...
The prose and comprehensiveness look ok otherwise. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source check and comments Cas. Regarding the interlanguage links, I can't see anything at H:IL discouraging their use. Also was there a reason why you didn't mention these:
Club Olympique Briochin
Leroux
Piet Rentmeester
Salvarani
Pelforth-Sauvage-Lejeune
Gaston Plaud
Town Hall
Route de France
Essor Breton
Emile Severeyns
If you just missed them, shall I unlink them, if you still think they shouldn't be used? BaldBoris 22:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're right, I can't see anything there so don't worry about the foreign links. Support then. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article has something to interest both women and men, those who settle in with a good book to relax and those who'd rather boot up their computer and play a video game, introverts and, well, introverts. Vision in White is a romance novel written by bestselling author Nora Roberts. The book was later turned into a video game, which is really odd for a romance novel. WP's coverage of romance novels is pitiful, and the newly launched WikiProject Romance is attempting to fill those gaps. This article is only the third romance-novel related FA nomination ever (the others being articles I wrote five+ years ago).
Although it is at its core a love story, don't worry, I sprayed for cooties before I hit save. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hello Karanacs, I remember you from a long time ago. I've only read the WP:LEDE and my comment may simply be a matter of preference rather than need (so it may not need to be addressed in article text), but I found the lead a bit confusing. Because I'd never heard of Nora Roberts, I was surprised that the publisher needed a special logo to distinguish this book from reprints etc. So, is the wikilink to Roberts enough to cover her long career, or should it be mentioned? This depends on your personal definition of "stand-alone article." • Arch♦Reader 03:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ling, nice to see you (although I was a bit confused by the name change at first)! That's a great point, thank you. I rewrote the lead, and I think it makes a bit more sense now. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. It's really nice to see a new wikiproject interested in FAC, especially one of particular interest to women. This would make a great TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your changes were an improvement :) Karanacs (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. A couple of comments:
"On average, she completes a book every 45 days." – If this refers to 1979 through 2008 from the previous sentence, it should be completed; otherwise, it should be specified as being as of the date from the source
"...and celebrate the women's success at niche marketing." – Maybe its just me, but when I first read this, my initial reaction was 'which women?'. Is there another way of wording this so it more explicitly refers to the fictional characters?
The ISBN is for the ebook version of Prioleau's work. I double-checked the number, and if I google it, it brings me to a copy of the book. I don't know why it isn't showing up in the BookSources search.
I think I fixed all the case issues with the newspaper sources. I left the book titles as they were published. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, issues resolved - Evad37[talk] 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: FUR for lead image should be expanded, and the "n.a." parameters filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for the feedback, images are not my specialty. I hope that this [69] is better. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better but for one issue - is Roberts herself the copyright holder of the book cover? Typically that would be either the publisher or the designer/photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I changed it to "Illustrator unknown; published by Berkley" Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Spot check of online sources show they back up claims. Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – iridescent 09:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unwieldy title, which if promoted would end the nine-year reign of Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering as the FA with the longest title, but the article itself is fairly straightforward. In the early 1830s, artist William Etty had acquired a (deserved) reputation for thinly-disguised pornography masquerading as art, and tried to address this with The Destroying Angel…, in which assorted loose-moralled types receive a thorough smiting.
The "Reception" section is slightly longer than is usual on painting articles; because it was painted specifically with how it would be received by critics in mind, the critical response on its initial unveiling is more significant than for most visual arts articles. Likewise, as with The Sirens and Ulysses the legacy section is shorter than might be expected; Etty fell from fashion very quickly, so there are few people influenced by him, and for the last 150+ years the painting has hung in Manchester where for various reasons artworks tend to receive less attention from historians than they might elsewhere. – iridescent 09:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Etty had become famous for nude paintings, and had acquired a reputation for tastelessness, indecency and a lack of creativity.: my whole family just gave me strange looks as I unexpectedly burst out laughing at this line. I'll have to make time to come back for a review. Thank you, iridescent! Curly Turkey¡gobble! 09:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The juxtaposition of these two articles in the FAC list is serendipitous, isn't it? Etty's problem was that a glance over his works will show that the only thing he could paint well was pornography—his conventional portraits tend to look like they're straining to lay an egg. The more I see of him, the more I'm coming to find him interesting, and I'll try to write a proper biography of him at some point; he seems to have genuinely believed he was performing his Christian duty by showing off God's creation without obscuring it with clothes, and to have been constantly surprised when early 19th-century England wasn't receptive to this. – iridescent 10:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"in today's terms": possibly a WP:DATED issue, but not my call. The footnote that gives a date seems sufficient to me.
The price conversions are generated the the {{inflation}} template, so "in today's terms" should always be correct as it the figures update automatically. (The UK inflation rate is currently zero and barring unforeseen circumstances will remain around that figure until 2020, so even if it stops updating it won't cause any significant effect.) a policy Using the Consumer Price Index is always contentious for anything other than staples is potentially contentious, but in this case I think it's reasonable, as we're talking about individual buyers of paintings and the question is effectively "how much could they have bought with the money if they hadn't spent it on pictures?". – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can tell, Wikipedians haven't reached consensus on the question of how best to handle this, so it's not my call (with my copyeditor hat on). - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Each human figure is shown in a different position and expresses terror in a different way, and are deliberately painted": singular/plural
I think this is a legitimate jump from singular to plural, as it's initially talking about individual items and later about the group. It's analogous to "Each member of the basketball team is under five feet tall, and they have lost their last 30 games". – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a grammar issue, not a comprehension issue. There's no word that's available as the antecedent of "are" (unlike in your analogy, where "they" is the subject). - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "each is" instead of "are". - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Behind the central figures of the lunatic, daemon and gambler are a group of figures who have only just realised what is happening. A male figure ... female figure ... female figure": lots of figures
Removed a couple of "figures". It's complicated by the fact that it's not always apparent which characters are intended to be human. Most of them are obvious, but the characters being discussed here—the guy in the smurf hat and the two topless women—are painted in the same pale tones as the humans but are quite likely to be intended to represent anarchy. (A red liberty cap would have been as readily understood in the 1830s as a symbol of radical revolution as a swastika armband is recognised today as a symbol of fascism.) – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and perhaps also by the cholera epidemic": That's my edit ... that may need an "indirectly", depending on your meaning
AFAIK he never mentioned his thinking behind the composition, so this is all speculation. He certainly had form for painting corpses from reality (see The Sirens and Ulysses), so might have worked directly from memories of the bodies piled in the streets during the epidemic, but it's equally possible that the whole thing is entirely imaginary. – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(writing under the name of 'Ridolfi')": Possibly a MOS:QUOTEMARKS violation. I've seen plenty of single quotes around individual letters, though.
I'm not entirely sure—MOS:QUOTEMARK is about titles rather than pseudonyms, and I'm not sure if we even have a policy on this. My attitude towards punctuation has always been not to worry provided changes don't affect the meaning, if anyone feels the need to change it. – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus leans in favor of double quote marks for all except single letters (which can comfortably take single or double quote marks at FAC, for some reason). But I prefer not to push the point for BritEng articles, because it's too easy to misunderstand my intent, that I might be misunderstanding BritEng or trying to force AmEng on everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or disagree with any of my comments.
The article will require an infobox
No article requires an infobox, and WP:VAMOS articles less than most. As a visual arts article on an image containing substantial detail which is only easily visible at higher resolutions so needs the lead image as large as possible, this is pretty much the poster child for an article which shouldn't have an infobox. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(This was a failed attempt at smartassery in reaction to the hidden comment that begins the article source.)Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate, also known as The Destroying Angel and Daemons Inflicting Divine Vengeance on the Wicked and Intemperate[1] and The Destruction of the Temple of Vice: I might move these down (to the end of the last paragraph maybe?) as this flood of barely-different titles is an ugly way to open an article
It's ugly, but necessary, since it doesn't have a "primary" title as such. (I've used Interrupting the Orgies… as the article title as that's what Manchester Art Gallery currently have it labelled as so that's what people are more likely to search on, but it doesn't have any kind of primacy.) The "also known as" could go in brackets, but shouldn't be moved out of the first sentence. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ahead of John Constable: "ahead" in what sense? Chosen at his expense? Placed in a higher position?
Both. RA is the highest rank in the English arts world; Constable was bumped to 1829 to make way for Etty in 1828. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
many critics condemned his repeated depictions of female nudity as indecent: I wonder if we can get more context here—the nude was already a well established painting subject, was it not?
No, it was virtually nonexistent in England as a painting subject, and completely unacceptable socially. Other than classical relics, the first significant English publicly-displayed nude in London was the Wellington Monument of 1822, only 10 years before The Destroying Angel was completed. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I was wondering if we could get more context. To a public that associates "old art" with naked people (The Birth of Venus, David, etc) this would be surprising. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a quick one-liner of the Proclamation for the DIscouragement of Vice and the suppression of nudity in painting.16:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In terms of the {{inflation}} template, "today" is generally between one and two years ago. The template updates automatically once the CPI figures are released. The {{Inflation-fn}} template, which is used on each occurrence of an "as of today" price conversion, automatically generates a footnote giving the date and source of the figures being used. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we've been through this before. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wikilink this unless and until we have an article on him, it goes to a disambiguation page on which the Payne in question doesn't appear: is it likely there will ever be an article on him? If there is, you may want to do a Henry Payne (dab)
The dab page already exists. The hidden-text warning is there to stop people adding a link to it, as it's highly unlikely this particular Henry Payne will ever warrant an article. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd meant by "(dab)" was "(fill-in-the-blank)", but if he's unlikely to warrant an article, then whatever. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It measures 127.8 cm by 101.9 cm (50 in by 40 in): you don't like {{convert}}?
The {{convert}} template can't handle feet-and-inches in multiple dimensions—it would output as 127.8 by 101.9 cm (4.19 by 3.34 ft)—so the conversions have to be completed manually. This has been a documented bug for as long as I can remember, and no-one has ever shown any inclination to fix it, so I imagine it never will be. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's surprising—in that I've always been pleasantly surprised that the template would handle everything I'd throw at it. Disappointing. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This problem does appear in the documentation for the template, but is buried so far down that most people don't realise it's there. I assume the issue doesn't arise often enough to make it worthwhile fixing. – iridescent 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each human figure is shown in a different position and expresses terror in a different way, and are deliberately painted: "each" takes the singular, but "is deliberately" sounds wrong. I might go with "and they are".
See my comments above to Dank; I think (but am willing to be persuaded) that this is a legitimate shift from singular to plural. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the antecedent is singular, I don't think there's such a thing as a "legitimate" switch to the plural—which is why I suggest throwing in a new antecedent. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raving Madness: worth a redlink?
I considered it, but probably not unless someone writes it. It's very unlikely ever to get a stand-alone article, as it's a single architectural element of the gateway to Bedlam. Even on Caius Gabriel Cibber it isn't redlinked. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(identified as a Bacchante by Sarah Burnage of the University of York): the wording makes me wonder: was she the first to identify it? Was it a mystery? Disputed?
Burnage claims it's a Bacchante; I've not seen the claim made elsewhere, but feel it's worthy of inclusion. (Burnage curated the only significant Etty exhibition of the last 100 years, so her opinions are more important than most.) I personally think Burnage is wrong here, and given the woman's pose and the fact that Revolution has his arm around her waist she's supposed to represent Marianne (and consequently anarchy, which was a Big Deal in 19th-century Europe), but that's well over the line into OR. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the left of the painting: "to the left of" suggests to me outside the painting
Reworded to "On the left-hand side of the painting" which should be clearer. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" the apocalyptic works of Jan Brueghel the Elder." Don't we mean Pieter, his dad? Even he only really did 3 such, in paint anyway.
This gets complicated, now I dig into it. The source just refers to "Breughell's frightful fancies", which could be a reference to Pieter the Elder, Pieter the Younger or Jan the Elder. In the 1830s, the hell paintings of P the E (Dull Gret, The Fall of the Angels and The Triumph of Death) would probably have been best known in England through reproductions by his sons. Of his sons, Pieter the Younger ("Hell Brueghel") was at that time attributed with further hell paintings, but those have since been reattributed to Jan. Given how messy this is now I look into it, I'm going to change this to a direct quote and de-link it. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although I'm thinking it might make sense to remove it altogether or replace it with something vague like "Flemish apocalyptic paintings". All our articles on the Brueghels are fairly dreadful. – iridescent 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pieter Bruegel the Elder in particular is a long-standing disgrace. You know that describing PBtE as "Flemish" is inviting trouble - see his talk page? Why, he isn't even documented as setting foot in the county of Flanders! Both likely birthplaces are now (just) in the Netherlands. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. He lived in Brussels, he worked in Antwerp, he was taught by the Flemish van Aelst, his wife was Flemish, he died in Brussels, he's buried in Brussels, Dull Gret and The Fall of the Angels are in Antwerp and Brussels respectively, and aside from a single painting in Rotterdam not a single work of his is on display anywhere in the modern Netherlands. The man's a Belgian. – iridescent 10:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's a Brabanter. The English usage that South Netherlands = Flanders is what makes our Belgian colleagues cross. Neither Brussels nor Antwerp are Flemish cities according to them. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh again. The map at nl:Vlaanderen covers Brussels and Antwerp, and the world has not yet come to an end. We describe Beethoven as German even though no such country existed in his lifetime and he spent all his adult life in Vienna. (Unless someone suggests a better alternative, I'm just going to leave it as a unlinked quote. In any case, the writer saying it would have been thinking of Pieter II, as in the 1830s the hell paintings were attributed to him.) – iridescent 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine as it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sources mention the borrowing of the collapsing columns in the left background from Giulio Romano's Sala dei Giganti in Palazzo Te? If so, worth a line.
None that I can find; aside from Burnage's chapter on the painting it really hasn't been written about much. Per my comments to Curly Turkey above about the obvious reference to Marianne/Liberty, I can see quite a few obvious references in here, but mentioning them is going to over the line into OR; the only ones I can find specific sources for are Raving Madness and the Barberini Faun. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usually on display, is it? It would be nice to add something on that if possible - even if only that it was/was not on display at some recent date.
As of a couple of years ago it was hanging in the MAG, albeit tucked away in a corner. Their online catalogue is currently down for maintenance; I'm going to be in Manchester in a couple of weeks and will poke my head in and see if it's still on display. (I suspect it probably is; given how much they invested in Sirens, they have a vested interest in generating interest in Etty.) It was certainly exhibited in the Etty retrospective at the York Art Gallery in 2011. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. York is worth mentioning I think, if you have a ref. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Doing a bit of OR and taking a look and asking a staff member, the MAG has Sirens and Perseus & Andromeda on permanent display, The Warrior Arming on for-the-foreseeable display, and Venus and her Doves currently on the main staircase but liable to be rotated out next time they change the theme. The Destroying Angel has suffered the indignity of being removed to make way for All You Need Is Love by Banksy, which looks singularly out of place in the "English painting of the early 19th century" gallery but I guess they hope will entice the yoofs to engage with the romantic tradition. – iridescent 19:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's all I could find, plus I made a couple of edits [71]. Nice piece, and I think the emphasis on the taste/nudity issue is correct. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All comments sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very small comment(s) (not in small font):
There are repeated instances of conversion to current monetary value in which the note is inside a right parenthesis instead of outside it. There's no hard and fast rule on this, I know, but it strikes me as unsightly-ish. • Arch♦Reader 04:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal feeling is that when a statement inside parentheses is being cited, the citation needs to go in there as well to make it clear it's the citation just for the fact in parentheses rather than the sentence as a whole. – iridescent 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the cost of all his paintings had fallen below their original prices"... but this one seems to have gone from "£11,000 in today's terms" to "£68,000 in today's terms"? • Arch♦Reader 05:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is "by the end of the 19th century the cost of all his paintings had fallen below their original prices". That "£68,000 in today's terms" is what it went for in 1854. – iridescent 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
does size matter? 36x46, Robinson p. 189 [same page(s) describe large size as going out of style for economic reasons, and wives not liking the profusion of T&A out in the open parts of the house.. important?] • Arch♦Reader 05:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this painting, no, since this is an absolutely standard-size work. When Robinson's talking about large paintings in the context of Etty he means works like The Sirens and Ulysses, which is the size of a small house; not small works like this which could easily be put in the cupboard when the vicar came to tea. To put in perspective what Robinson is talking about when he talks about "large paintings", the image to the right shows Sirens hanging alongside Perseus and Andromeda, which is about the same size as The Destroying Angel. (The blue Banksy is hanging in the spot normally occupied by TDA.) – iridescent 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many interesting details/observations (Laocoön, Tories and Whigs, oh my!) in Elliott, B. J. (1982). Painting and Politics at the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1832 (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).,but I'll leave it to you to pick through them I like knowing these kinds of things, but I don't know if you deem them FAC-ish. • Arch♦Reader 05:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment to Johnbod above, I'm very reluctant to engage in a "spot the allusion" exercise without explicit sources for each figure mentioned, unless someone can either come up with a quote from Etty where he says "x is a reference to y", or the allusion is so obvious (such as the reference to Raving Madness) that it's unchallengeable. There are a lot of glaringly obvious references (the Palladium on the altar immediately below the angel springs to mind) but playing Where's Waldo without explicit sources is just going to lead to a mess of "This figure is possibly x, this figure is possibly y". – iridescent 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support wonderful addition to the series. Engaging, informed, knowing; this is wiki at its best. It hints at a few realities I never dated mentioned in polite society but allways knew. Late 80s Ireland and early Victorian Britain were not that different. There are some small things with commas and that I can fix later, but very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! From you this is high praise indeed. – iridescent 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hamiltonstone. I made a couple of copyedits I hope are OK. Lovely article about a very striking painting. It reminded me of the works of his contemporary John Martin, but with the dramatic treatment of the landscape replaced instead with similarly violent treatment of figures. Thanks for this. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
All of the sources appear to be reliable, and the citations are formatted correctly. I agree with Archreader about the citations inside parentheses, but without a hard and fast rule on it, I guess it comes down to a matter of taste. That's my only quibble, everything else looks fine. No sourcing problems here. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
I'm about ready to promote this but, just scanning the article, I'd expect to see "Breughell's frightful fancies" attributed inline. As it stands, I don't know if the quote belongs to Burnage or a contemporary critic (anonymous or otherwise). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done; the reference was already in there, but had wandered further down the section during a reshuffle. I've given the {{Ref supports2}} template an experimental outing, to indicate which part of the text this is supporting. – iridescent 15:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'll admit I was expecting more along the lines of 'and, according to The Examiner, "Breughell's frightful fancies"' but I think the way you've done it makes sense too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg/1280px-What_Nanjing_looked_like_in_the_Ming_Dynasty_(4133133398).jpg)
WP:VG/RS#GameRanx_and_DualShockers – czar 16:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
_at_AEE_2007.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg/1280px-D%C3%ADa_Internacional_de_los_Pueblos_Ind%C3%ADgenas_(7852553230).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
