The second of Lynd Ward's wordless novels, executed in uncaptioned wood engravings. It is more ambitious than the first, and perhaps less successfully executed—the relatively complicated plot seems more than the young Ward was yet able to handle. Still one of the outstanding examples of an artistic genre that bloomed far too briefly. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't support at the moment, as I believe that a bit more work is necessary. I see no basic problems, however. The idea of a "wordless novel" is intriguing – perhaps we should develop the concept of wordless Wikipedia articles.
Lead
"...and the fateful consequences it has for him and his family." Clarify whether "it" refers to the theft or to the drum itself
I've changed it to "and the fateful consequences of his actions for him and his family." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium, and formed more nuanced characters, and a more developed and complicated plot, and explicit in his outrage at social injustice." Three "ands" in the sentence indicates the need to rephrase. Also, "was" needed before "explicit".
Changed to "Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium: the characters are more nuanced, the plot more developed and complicated, and his outrage at social injustice more explicit". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last two sentences of the lead are connected, the second presumably being a consequence of the first. I would make this connection clearer, by combining the sentences.
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "demon-faced drum". The brief description is OK in the lead, but a word of explanation in the synopsis might be helpful, e.g. a drum bearing the image of a demon.
Reworded to "A slave trader steals from an African he murders a drum bearing the face of a demon". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Driven insane by the loss of all who were close to him, he loses his mind..." Some redundancy of words here (we don't need "driven insane" and "loses his mind").
Dropped "loses his mind". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
There is no need to repeat Lynd Ward's dates here, and since there is a link to the Harry Ward article, his dates should also be removed – same applies to Masereel and Nuckel, later.
(Added): I have always understood that we do not add birth-death dates when the subjects are linked, but I cannot remember the precise MOS guideline. However, if you feel these dates should be kept, MOS:DOB specifically requires that both years be given in full – which you have done in most instances but not for Lyn Ward. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was mulling this over and forgot to stop mulling. I think I prefer to have the dates (I like to know just how comtemporary his comtemporaries are). I used to always use the full years until someone in an FAC told me I was supposed to shorten them. I've gone with full years for Ward, Masereel, and Nückel, and dropped them for Ward Sr. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested reword: "Throughout his career, Ward displayed..." → "Throughout his career, the younger Ward displayed...", and later on, "He was drawn..."
"the "madman" in the tale" – do you mean "the 'madman' in the title"?
I don't understand—it's not a quote-within-quotes. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I confused you with quotes; my intended point was simply that the word "title" seems preferable to "tale". Reading the sentence again, I see that it requires the words "one of" before "a number of", to make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although you begin the section by saying that the book's 1930 release was well-received, you mostly quote two reviewers ("E.P." and Spiegelman) who are strongly critical. Can you find more material with which to redress this balance?
I've had little luck tracking down contemporary reviews. Walker states Madman's Drum was "published in 1930 to great acclaim", but doesn't cite a source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry Murray used two images in his Thematic Apperception Test..." – two images from what?
"uneven homework" → "uneven artwork", surely, or better: "artwork of uneven quality".
Yikes! Fixed. One of those things a spellcecker will never find for you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the JSTOR link to the E.P. review in Burlington's Magazine. In this review the writer makes the point that whereas the reader of God's Man was assisted by captions, the illustrations in Madman's Drum are entirely without guidance which, he says, makes the story difficult if not impossible to follow. This is, I think, a point worth making in your article.
What he means by "occasional caption by way of a Pole star" was the chapter titles—the images themselves are uncaptioned. I've rewritten as "A reviewer for The Burlington Magazine in 1931 judged the book a failed experiment, finding the artwork uneven and the narrative hard to follow without even chapter titles as textual guidance that Gods' Man had." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "legacy" element – the second and third sentences of the first paragraph – is weak. Berona's 2003 article has more to say about the failure of these early wordless novels to establish a genre, and this material should be incorporated. Also, I think this whole section needs reorganizing. The second paragraph, suitably enhanced, should follow the first sentence of the first paragraph, while the "legacy" material, again properly enhanced, should form the second paragraph.
I've expanded and reworded as you've suggested, and added a couple of other things about the gradual decline in sales of Ward's books, and how few wordless novelists produced more than a single book. What do you think of it now? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to me that the three paragraphs provide a reception → legacy → reception sequence. Recommned that you reverse the order of second and third paragraphs, as a more logical order. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the article is well on the way, I think it needs a little more work before it is promotable. I will look at it again in the light of your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this, and actually checking out my sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to sources and image clearance. I have one outstanding point on the final section (see above) which you may wish to consider. Otherwise, good responses to my issues. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fair use but appear to be appropriately justified, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Had quibbles around the time of nomination and raised through edit summaries. I see that they are resolved now, and post Brian's review would be happy to see this promoted. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"(ja)", "(fr)": Why the external links in the text? How about handling these in footnotes?
Those are using {{ill}}. The external links disappear automagically when someone gets around to creating English versions of the articles. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ward described it as "set a hundred years or more ago ... in an obviously foreign land", but that the situation ...": What does "that the situation" modify?
Added "the story's". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Nikki or Brian, could I trouble you for a source review pls? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. All citation formats OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2014 (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) 11:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Introduction aside, I've been building this article up since early April; it passed GA in early July and has had one (successful) peer review since. Uncommonly, I've added a large amount of content to the page after it passed GA (in the History and Reception areas, specifically), as the reviewer, who unfortunately has recently expressed little desire to stay on Wikipedia, suggested that there might not be enough content for FA. I really, really want to avoid that trap, so I've spent hours and hours gathering every usable source I could find on the Internet. It's been frustrating how little has been written about what I remember being (and, by the available evidence, seems to have been) a very popular show, but I now feel this is the most complete resource on the Internet for this series, even eclipsing the Sonic Wiki's page by having more out-of-universe content. I welcome all input, though I request you look at this with as open a mind as possible considering how few usable sources there are out there. Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by URDNEXT
Support as per comments below. Will also be doing a review for the prose shortly. I'll also be adding my comments later today. URDNEXT (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
URDNEXT, do you have any thoughts yet? Tezero (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, looking at it right now... URDNEXT (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mentioning trailers is notable enough. Tezero
I've snipped it from the infobox as it doesn't reveal much information. I do, however, want to keep them in the body text as they make up pretty much the only information we have about the show's early development. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd paragraph, The plot follows a group of anthropomorphic animals originating in the games—such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Tails, Amy Rose, and Cream the Rabbit—and a human boy named Chris Thorndyke I think the "such as" should be removed. URDNEXT (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not only them. They're the main ones who are with Chris most of the time in seasons one and two, but Rouge, Knuckles, Shadow, etc. are also important parts of the series. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review by czar
While I don't feel prepared to do a prose review for this article, I'd like to contribute an image and source review:
Three fair use images, all with rationales. Cover art is too large (length times width > 100,000 pixels, so tagged for resize). Cover art rationale is good. Still image rationale could use an expansion on "These characters, the art, and the setting would be difficult to describe adequately in text only." Comic book rationale needs expansion on almost all criteria.
Resized cover art; it's a little under 90,000 pixels now. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beefed up still image rationale. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not sure the comic image is necessary; do you think things like this are standard? I've never seen another anime with a comic book adaptation for comparison. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think an image could be useful since it's a comic, but as we have a limit on fair use assets in an article, might I suggest adding a section of a strip as an example instead of the cover art? ♔
I'll take a look. I've also considered a different cover that shows more than just Sonic speeding at the screen. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can delve into the strips if you want, but they're full-page comics so I don't know how much a reduced image would give a reader. I kinda like these covers: 13 26 30 27 34 - they show the comics' relatively silly and non-canonical nature, and for what it's worth some of them show what Bokkun looks like. You can view them, right, czar? (I don't really want to log out of my account to check, because I'm not sure I remember my password.) Tezero (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see all but 26. Perhaps 34 or 13? I wonder what they'll be like at low-res, though. Even if the strip is full-page, that's a better case for the fair use rationale than cover art apropos of nothing. ♔
I think I'll go with 13, then, czar; it more explicitly shows something that corroborates the text and wouldn't happen in the actual show, and it doesn't have the minor illustration flaw of showing Amy with human feet (they're more like blobs). Any further comments? I assume this needs a few spotchecks? Tezero (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
czar: done. Tezero (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No free use images
What free use images do you think would be appropriate? I don't think they're standard for anime articles; I can't remember the last time I used one in a GA or FA other than Pokémon Channel. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required at all—I was just noting that there weren't any. I imagine the only ones you could use here would be photos of the people involved in voicing or drawing or creating the series. ♔
The article associates this show with the "gotta go fast" catchphrase, but does a source actually mention that this was the first venue to initiate the catchphrase?
No, but the credits cite that it's the show's theme song and, well, there's no evidence of it appearing any earlier. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be original research to say that it was the first appearance. You can say it was an appearance, though. czar ♔ 00:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not so hot on the interview sources, but the current norm is to allow them as long as they're not excessively sketchy
Yeah, it's kind of a weird rule; I hope it helped to verify that a couple had been linked from Mike Pollock's website. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was a smart way to handle those, even if it departs somewhat from typical citation method ♔
Citations appear consistent, for the most part. Archie Comics citations need final punctuation. Books need publisher information as a minimum (ideally with city). Highbeam citation is incorrect.
Done for Archie. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only one had this publisher issue, but done. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Highbeam myself ♔
WP:VG/RS check: Games Asylum needs to be vetted—not sure author credibility is enough. GamesFirst has shaky notability—should also be vetted. Also not sure about the sources used for the "gotta go fast" final refs.
As for the "gotta go fast" sources, I can remove them if you want, but they're only being used to cite the appearance of a phrase in game journalism. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't author credibility be enough for Games Asylum? The site didn't write it; he did. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GamesFirst looks the shakiest of the three; how are sites typically vetted? So far I've just gone by whether they're already listed at WP:VG/RS, but I don't really understand the methodology behind that or how it might apply to GamesFirst. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the author was the sole expert on the subject (e.g., a professor), she wouldn't need an editorial staff checking her work. (Even still, that's a self-published source method—usually we rely on a publication for reliability.) If it's a journalist, even a known journalist, the idea is that the publication (the reliable source) provides the editorial integrity through an editorial policy, to keep the content accurate. Unless the journalist is a Sonic expert, she'd need editorial support. Sources can be vetted at WT:VG/RS—just follow the directions at the top and indicate why you find the source credible. Other editors will search for the backgrounds of the main writers, look for an editorial policy, and check how often the source is cited by other publications. ♔
I'll ask, with a tag of urgency as this is an FAC. I suppose it wouldn't be catastrophic if these were found unreliable - I deliberately squeezed the other reviewers' toothpaste tubes hard just in case - but I'd also like to have a larger opinion pool. We'll see what happens. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Impulse Gamer a source where we'd care about their review? Is there a vetted anime source list I should know about?
Not as far as I know. I get the feeling the Anime project is pretty liberal on sources as long as they're reasonably professional. Impulse is not in WP:VG/RS; should I remove it? Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove Impulse unless there is an argument for its reliability. Otherwise it's just some guy's opinion on the Internet ♔
Done. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19: ✓
I'll pause here for now
Highly recommend archiving the unarchived sources
I've never used WebCite before; I'm setting up an account now to check it out. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to sign up, just use http://webcitation.org/archive.php and enter the URL and an email. I can show you shortcuts for using it with Google Chrome if you end up using it enough ♔
czar, done. Tezero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13: alter "don't work for some reason." to match text, also punct on outside, actually better off removing the direct quote. Where is the quote that 13c is referencing? Same for 12c
The quote's "doesn't work for some reason"; fixed that - but I'd rather keep it if you don't mind, as it might be OR to interpret what "doesn't work" means. As for 12c, the specific quote is "I heard one of the game voices and based it loosely on that. I wasn't told sure which one." Tezero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to match the source so I'd remove the don't/doesn't. In retrospect, that doesn't matter as much. The extrapolation on 12c/13c should fit the original quote, though. We only know what one voice actor said, not whether that was their overall practice. czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tailored to Pollock specifically. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59: "three stars" out of what? and what is "also assessing its appropriateness for children"? (rhetorical questions—just fix in text)
Out of five, and they were assessing how appropriate the show was for children; I'd left that out because it wasn't a comment on the show's quality, but I've decided to include a very brief summary of the review. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tezero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3: "the first—and is currently the only"?
There haven't been any other Sonic anime series. Should I rephrase? Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in the source, it's original research, so yep czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems trivial, but okay. Done. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16: "on December 1, 2003" not necessarily true—that's just when the source was published. This is also unclear—what do you mean it was the "second"? Source doesn't say that
I wasn't quite sure what to do there; 4Kids licensed it from the beginning - ShoPro couldn't have been the first, as Sonic X had already been running in the US for months by the time ShoPro was appointed. Am I confusing "license holder" with what 4Kids does? As for the date, I've changed it to "November 2003" - that might still be too OR-y, though; should I just leave it that the appointment of ShoPro was announced in December or something? Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know less about the licensing than you do! We can only say what the source explicitly says, which is that ShoPro became a licensee or whatever in late 2003. czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean about the terminology specifically, but I suppose you wouldn't in this case, either. Removed. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmyblackwing would disagree that something like "Sonic X was extensively merchandised in various forms of media and other products." could be left unsourced, or even sourced to multiple items so as to make that claim
56: ✓, though possibly (almost definitely) unreliable source
I would be remiss if I gave a check for the possibly unreliable sources before we heard back, so I'll have to wait on that. Also there were a bunch of corrections on the sources above, so that either means that I need to do more spot checks (after we hear back) or that I can have some kind of affirmation from somewhere else that the sources are okay
Support on images. Verdict on sources pending feedback from WT:VG/RS (or this FAC) on unreliable sources czar ♔ 02:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
czar, one user has given feedback: GamesAsylum and Inside Gaming Daily are reliable; GamesFirst! (which I've already removed) and GameBreaker are not. If no further objections are made anytime soon, should these two just be classified as, at the least, situationally reliable for here? No word on when any would be made. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify that I support on sources too, trusting that any verdict from WT:VG/RS on those four sites in question will be implemented. While I, myself, doubt their reliability, I think it's fine to leave them for now seeing as they've had little public comment. Nice work czar ♔ 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by DarthBotto
I will be beginning my review shortly. Stand by. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 22:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBotto, do you have any initial thoughts? Perhaps on the sources at WT:VG/RS? (Sorry if this is annoying; I just don't understand why readers of that talk page seem to be jumping right past the two discussions I opened.) Tezero (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably because you lumped a whole bunch of them together, and didn't appear to make any sort of attempt to evaluate them at all yourself... Sergecross73msg me 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be allowed to evaluate them myself, Sergecross73? I'd clearly be biased in favor of them being reliable, because a current FAC and an upcoming one use them. I assumed that would be somewhat of a conflict of interest. Tezero (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could still create more of a case for them though. Like do some research on them, present some facts, and then let others determine it. (You could find/link to whether or not they have an editorial policy, an "about us" section, have been used as a reference point by other reliable sources, has writers who have previously written for other reliable sources, etc etc. And if you can't find a lot of these types of things, that may answer the question for you as well... Sergecross73msg me 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll look into them now. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I wasn't able to find any evidence of GamesFirst!'s reliability, so I had to strike it altogether. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"...however, a further twenty-six were aired elsewhere from 2005 to 2006". Maybe a mention of where else it was broadcast? I mean, if it's largely international, then a more appropriate use of words would do well here.
Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the first paragraph is sound.
The proper word usage for originating is "originating from", rather than "originating in".
Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would seem like the rest of the second paragraph is rather sound, as well. I would prefer more comma usage in place of the dashes while describing the main characters we've seen previously, but what you have admittedly does the job.
I'd like to keep the first set of dashes as swapping them for commas would result in saying "and Cream the Rabbit, and a human boy named Chris", which I think would sound awkward out loud without the increased pauses brought by em-dashes. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues with the tense of the third paragraph, as it uses "has" and "have" for describing the reviewers' consensus, while also referencing it as a past occurrence. The correct form would be to consistently speak of it in past tense, even if utilizing reviews from a day prior, (which you're not).
I had it the other way as reviews for things typically come out all at once, but I suppose anime's different. Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... I'm still not satisfied with the dashes in place of the commas. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them in the 3rd paragraph. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stand by for more. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a complaint, but consider just making the copyediting changes you think are needed yourself rather than notifying me. That's what I usually do during FACs and GANs, except for changes that are more open-ended or where I'm presenting multiple options for the writer to choose from. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBotto, since you're back, I'm wai-ting. (I'm not mad; I just couldn't resist.) Tezero (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched this show somewhat, but it's been years since I last did do. Do they clarify what kind of planet the characters are from? I'm asking because not only do I not know, but because this section doesn't really discuss this, aside from a mention that Earth is a parallel world. Could this be included for ignorant readers such as yours truly?
They don't; they don't even give it a name beyond variations of "Sonic's world". (Fanfics, including a >50k-word one I've written, tend to call it "Mobius" in keeping with the Archie comics, AoStH, and SatAM, but this isn't official or even completely widespread.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. Alrighty, let it be. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this section could be trimmed down significantly, while also maintaining the key elements. As it stands, it seems a little too detailed. I bet a third of this could be removed and it would be more direct and not overly detailed.
Well, it's long for an anime. That said, I've tried trimming before and while there's been some success (it actually used to be about 150% its current size, if you can believe that), some changes have created ambiguity by not explaining the context enough, these having been fixed during PresN's review. If you've watched it, are there any parts you think go into too much detail specifically given how much time they take up or how important they are to the series' overall continuity? (For example, I removed a lot of Amy being aggravated at her chronic friendzoning because it didn't affect the overall plot much.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm looking over it again and the length doesn't seem to be too terrible of an issue. I'll think it over. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, this section is well-written. It doesn't seem to suffer from weasel sentences or any other extraneous details like that. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
"The show was created by TMS Entertainment." - Do you have a better source other than the credits?
THEM mentions it in passing, so I've added that. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure 1 and 2". I think this could be rewritten as "but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2". I would copyedit it, but I think you should be given the discretion to apply the suggestion in this particular case, as it's not the most prevalent in my mind.
No, you're right; Sonic Adventure 1 isn't the official title, though "SA1" and "SA2" are well-understood by the Sonic fanbase. (Personally, I prefer "Adve. 1" and "Adve. 2" to disambiguate from the Advance games.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the portion about the two trailers, do you have a better source than YouTube? Are there any reliable sources that describe the conditions of the trailer/intro you have included?
The report on the World Hobby Fair does that - normally I don't think it'd need a secondary source, but technically the fact that it was exhibited there doesn't appear in the video itself, only in the uploader's title. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, the "Creation and development" section is in ship shape, with the exception of what I described.
In the "Broadcast and localization" subsection, I really like the use of links- it really feels connected to other materials.
Er, thanks, but are there really that many, or are the ones there really that profound? I don't really see what you're describing. Is there an example such that I might take your advice for future projects? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this section is very well sourced and the references seem to be reliable. One question for an ignorant fool: What is THEM Anime? I see it popping up over and over and I was curious about what it is and if it's reliable.
It appears fairly often in anime articles, such as the FA School Rumble. (Actually, I was perusing that very page to see what sites I might hit up for reviews and that's where I found THEM. I can't emphasize enough how frustrating my search for secondary sources for this was; this one was a copacetic find.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Word. I think it will suffice as a source. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this section seems to be in good order itself. I feel like it's properly sourced with reliable references and the wording is of encyclopedic quality. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict
Due to the diligence and attentiveness of the primary editor, in addition to the enhanced quality of this page, despite difficulty in finding secondary sources, I am giving this my vote of Support. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review X by PresN
The X stands for "eXtremely standard". That means it's cool! Jumping ahead of DarthBotto's review, since I've delayed this enough:
I know, right! And when you have something like Final Fantasy X-2... oh, man. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Chris tries to hide the animals from them until Cream accidentally reveals them" - uses "them" twice in a row to mean different things
Added an antecedent. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences starting with "At first only Knuckles" and "With the help of an echidna girl" get really snakey- try to chop them up.
It was also kind of confusing. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Tikal is "from the past" and that Chaos "goes to sleep" with her is clear as mud. I know you're trying to keep the plot section from getting overlong, but that bit's just confusing.
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly, Eggman" - shortly thereafter? or is this just a Tom Swifty?
It wasn't; he's actually one of the tallest characters. I guess "blows up" (as in "blows up half of the Moon") could be one 'cause he's fat, but eh. Fixed, though. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Eggman rebuilds the Moon but its position shifts" - this whole sentence is awkwardly constructed
Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Eggman is arrested" - I know this is a kids cartoon, but... for what? Did he move the moon on purpose?
Yeah. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Six months later" - snakey sentence
Fixed. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"six years have passed" - no need for italics for emphasis
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They board Tails' new spaceship" - this sentence is really, really long
Merged the first clause into the reasonably sized previous sentence. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Later, Rouge finds Shadow" - another snakey sentence
Split. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"void her sight and hearing" - void is a strange word to use unless you are talking about a warranty; try destroy since you don't want to use "remove" again in the same sentence.
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Knuckles pushes for" - snakey comma-splice in this sentence
Moved the comma earlier; see what you think. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The heroes find the Chaotix" - who are the Chaotix?
Added an elaboration earlier. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it includes non-outlined CGI elements" - what's a "non-outlined" CGI element?
You know how traditional animation has outlines? I'm talking about CGI that isn't cel-shaded; I didn't really know how else to word it. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about how the producers "hoped" the show would increase the popularity of the games; is there any proof it did/did not?
Not really; a follow-up to that statement would be ideal but does not exist as far as I know. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"as 4Kids is infamous among anime fans for doing" - editorializing
The source actually says that. If it still comes off as POV and you have a suggestion for rephrasing, I can fix it. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'work for some reason."' - period goes outside the quote unless you quote a full sentence (and the quoted sentence is also the end of your sentence, as it is here). WP:MOSQUOTE
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say when/what dates it was aired in Japan; do you have that information for the US?
Oddly, no. That information used to be in the article, but no reliable source could be found so it was removed. I would like to add it, though; do you have a suggestion for where English (or French) anime airdates might be hosted? Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"SONIC X ~ORIGINAL SOUND TRACKS~" - drop the all-caps
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but they destroy the robots" - is they the humans or the animals?
Animals. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but he (along with Eggman) is locked up for supposedly working with Eggman" - Eggman is locked up for working with Eggman?
Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After more malicious" - this sentence wanders on forever
Split into 3. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"also came in for some criticism" - odd phrasing
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Among critics" - drop this
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"which he summarized thus" - thus? really?
What word should I use instead? Those are Jones' words. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph starting with "Common Sense Media" seems out of place- neither sentence has anything to do with each other.
They're both reviews that don't really give quality assessments of individual aspects of the show. Do you have another suggestion? Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"despite never airing in Japan" - I thought the first 2 seasons did air in Japan?
Fixed. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your 1Up sources are dead; if you move quickly you might be able to find an archive.org backup, and then archive that in turn with webcitation.org.
Amazingly, it worked. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic and Allgame are AllMusic and AllGame, respectively
Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the "infamous" and "thus" bits; I don't have any good source for non-Japanese anime airdates (I've tried before). Ready to Support, assuming the DarthBotto review above doesn't end up mocking my attempt at a prose review. --PresN 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support by NathanWubs
Support , I have been following this review for a while now. Now that problem with the sources have been fixed I can give my support. I cannot comment on the prose as I am not the most stellar writer. With all the work that has gone into it, and all the fixes now too I cannot give anything else but my support for this article to be FA.. NathanWubs (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank's comments
Ian asked me to have a look, this is what I see in the lead:
"18", "26", "fifty-two": consistency.
Chose long-form. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"non-Japanese regions": does that mean "outside Japan"?
Yeah, but "outside Japan" wouldn't fit in context. Got a suggestion? Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"American localization", "English-language localization": an ambiguous technical term (it can mean a range of things, generally including translation)
Standardized to American. Normally it's pretty much just translation, but 4Kids went a little nuts. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"warping": ambiguous (teleporting, traveling fast, traveling faster than the speed of light, etc.)
Teleports; it's basically between the same planet in two dimensions. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"adjusting to their recognition as celebrities": "recognition" isn't quite right here.
Swapped for "status". Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"merchandised": possibly jargony, I'd have to run it by a sample of readers to know. "The merchandising included" would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, I'm done with these; have you watchlisted this? Also, how should I mentally pronounce your name: "Dan K." or the colloquial adjective for potent weed? Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any pronunciation is fine. I'm sick today, so I'll leave this one for the FAC coords. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, they haven't come by. Are you feeling better yet? Tezero (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine thanks. I've talked with Ian about this, he'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose's comments
Tks Dank for starting off a copyedit. I think we needed more so on this occasion I decided to recuse myself from delegate duties and skim through the prose myself -- pls check that I haven't misunderstood anything. Assuming no issues there, I won't support outright but will have no objections if Graham decides to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2014 (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 Colm (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (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): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pobeda was one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I when the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II. The article passed a MilHist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape. I trust, however, that reviewers will point out any infelicities of language or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Russia.svg: source link is dead
If this were anything more simple geometric shapes, I'd be concerned about this, but since that's all it is, I don't believe that this is a problem.
File:Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg: if author is unknown, how can we be sure date of death is more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we can't. I've deleted the PD-70 tag and added a US Navy one as we can't be sure who actually took the photo and rule out a naval attache. The photo ended up in Navy hands, either by purchase or by its own people, so I can only assume that copyright ended up with them as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (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) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't have much, and it's not worth holding the ship for ...
Lede
"The ship was transferred" Wouldn't "assigned" be better, given that it didn't have a previous posting?
Good catch.
Construction
"at a cost of 10,050,000 rubles" this feels awkwardly tacked on the sentence. I know it refers to how much the ship cost, but grammatically, it doesn't seem to meet up with anything.
It's thematically linked, I believe, to the official acceptance of the ship. But if that doesn't work, do you think that I should split it off into its own sentence?
Yellow Sea
"Around 18:00, her topmasts were destroyed ... " This sentence is a bit confusing because I gather it's combining damage from Probeda and damage from what happened to another ship. I think they should be separated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think, rather, that I'll delete the bit about the topmasts entirely as it's not particularly important to this ship since she wasn't a flagship that needed to signal her subordinate ships. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Support -- Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and, having checked changes made since then I'm pretty close to supporting for FA. Just one thing, I can see you've changed the emphasis of when she was likely scrapped, which is fine, but I'm not sure about the wording of it. Finishing with "some sources disagree" leaves one hanging and, besides, there's only one source cited, so is it really some or just one? Based on what I see here, I'd prefer the end to be worded "She was probably scrapped in 1922–23, but at least one source suggests she was refloated and hulked, serving until being broken up at Kure in 1946", citing both McLaughlin and Jentschura et al, and then your footnote could just be along the lines of "She is not listed in Fukui Shinzo's authoritative Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of World War II". Happy to discuss, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works well, I think, with one modest tweak to your wording of the note. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, happy to support. FTR, as well as prose, structure, detail and images, I looked over the sources at ACR and the one minor issue I saw was rectified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this at the A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (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 Colm (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2014 (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): Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a coin that was was in Americans' pockets for most of a century, counting the time that it circulated after they stopped making them. Widely disregarded at the time as too common, it is today both admired and widely collected. The article has had a most searching GAN by TonyTheTiger.Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images: Captions that are not complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, as always. I know which one you are talking about; the GAN reviewer felt it was a sentence, and I am accordingly not inclined to change it. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)(the one of the Civil War token)[reply]
Support Comments
By providing an exact date, which is actually later than I'd have thought, it almost sounds like something specific happened that caused the silver coinage to disappear. But I rather expect that that was the culmination of a gradual process; am I correct? If so, you might want to change commerce in June 1862 to "by" June 1862. Canada was mostly using US silver and gold coins at that point, though they had issued their own coppers by then and there were also some provincial copper issues.
Not really gradual, though Carothers indicates there may have been some hoarding by merchants by the start of 1862, though more in anticipation of a shortage of change than in an attempt to profit. But in June, the value of silver coins vs. paper or gold rose to the point where it was worth exporting them to Canada, where they could be exchanged for gold on a par basis as Canada remained on the gold standard. "The operation became profitable as soon as the gold discount on paper exceeded the costs of collecting silver, shipping it, and bringing back the gold." p. 155.
beginning in 1874, the Mint re-issued these, lowering the demand for new cents. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but the Mint didn't recoin these, but just pulled them out from whatever vault they'd been sitting since being redeemed?
Yes, exactly. I'll clarify. Only the bronze ones, the copper-nickel ones were melted.
I'd shorten United States Post Office Department to the Post Office.
In late 1908, Roosevelt sat for sculptor shouldn't this be "sent"?
No, sat. Brenner was designing a Isthmian Canal Commission medal to be given to (American) employees of multiple years' service. Roosevelt appeared on them.
Minor point, but suffixes like LLC and Inc. need not be included in the bibliographical cites. Not actionable here, but you could save yourself some typing in the future.
Put Mackenzie's title in title case. Other sources and cites look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of those, other than the LLC which I shall leave as is for now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that I'd supported already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AND THEIR NAME IS LEGION, - All caps in the original? I cracked up reading this, BTW.
Yes. Snowden and coin collectors of the time had an interesting relationship. Did you get the "blizzard" joke?
According to Breen - Introduce him?
linked.
James Longacre did often sketch his elder daughter, and there are resemblances between the depictions of Sarah Longacre and the various representations of Liberty on Longacre' - can we avoid repeating "Longacre" so much?
Pared down to one.
, and did any wish to order in bulk, they could be purchased at a discount - what does this add? Also, would "anyone" work better?
I think it's interesting that money could be bought for less than face value.
Many of these tokens were made of bronze, copper with an admixture of tin and zinc to strengthen it, - why not just link bronze and leave out the definition?
Done.
Redesign and change of composition (1859–1864) - a fairly long section... perhaps split along the lines of "Redesign" and "Change of composition"? Trimming some of the politics might help too.
I think it's useful information, and if the reader is reading this, he's here for the history. Split.
but at Roosevelt's request, developed it for the double eagle after learning that under the 1873 act, an eagle could not appear on the cent. - feels like this could be simplified
I think the objection is to the triple use of eagle, so I've eliminated one of them.
Standardize whether or not you nowrap dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axed. I think I've got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent article. Fifty years condensed into 27k characters. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support after a thorough reading. Nice work on this and well-written. It's a minor point, but "Cent-sized Civil War token, which was issued privately as federal coinage was hoarded." is indeed not a complete sentence. It contains only a noun phrase ("cent-sized Civil War token") and a dependent clause ("which was issued privately as federal coinage was hoarded"). A complete sentence must contain an independent clause. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i'll look that over Thank you indeed for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2014 (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 Colm (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (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 is my second attempt at FAC with this article; the first took longer than I expected and I ended up being unavailable, first while I underwent surgery and then I became heavily involved in organising Wikimania. Wikimania's over now and thankfully I'm fully recovered, so I can pick this up again. Having had a look at the previous FAC, I think I've addressed all the outstanding concerns as best I can, but I would welcome more eyes and any further comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed this article on its first run, and the only point I raised which was not addressed was the lead. THis has now been addressed, IMO, and I consider it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per last time. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment. I reviewed this last time, and all my concerns have been addressed except for the lead. My concern was that the first paragraph of the lead acted as a summary for the lead itself, giving information that appeared again at the end of the lead. It has been much improved, but I think the last two sentences of the first paragraph are unnecessary. I'd suggest either cutting them altogether, or possibly moving an abbreviated version of them to the last paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, thanks for looking again. We shouldn't make people read to the end of three paragraphs to find out the end result, and that it was the first individual documentary to be subject to an independent inquiry is a significant part of its notability, so I think those two sentences are necessary and useful. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not how I would do it, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and not an issue with the FA criteria, so I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Caption that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed.
File:Geoffrey_Howe.jpg: according to original source this definitely isn't from 1974, and that licensing tag is questionable. The image from which it is derived has a different tag that makes a bit more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the file it's cropped from, the copyright holder released it into the public domain via Flickr. Where 1974 came from, I haven't the faintest. I've corrected the date on the file. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever The facts that "Death on the Rock" was accused of sensationalism and that Thames commissioned an independent inquiry are mentioned twice in the lead.
First mention in the lead:
It was condemned by the British government, while tabloid newspapers denounced it as sensationalist. "Death on the Rock" subsequently became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.
Remove the first mention.
Second mention in the lead:
The morning after the broadcast, several tabloid newspapers attacked the documentary, accusing it of sensationalism and "trial by television". [...] As a result of the retraction, Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary.
Replace "Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary" with ""Death on the Rock" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by Thames, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.", because "commissioned", "inquiry", and "into the making of" are said twice in the second mention as blockquoted. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think it would be an improvement. I've explained the 'duplication' above, and your suggested alteration would actually make the prose worse and change the meaning of the sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You don't have to do that suggestion. I Support this FAC. I'm happy! =D}IMr*|(60nna)I{ 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed, copyedited (a little) and supported at MilHist ACR so back for another look...
The lead has changed a bit since ACR, so I re-read it from top to bottom and made what I hope are some improvements -- happy to discuss of course.
Still in the lead, the words "many believed" are a bit weaselly. While I accept that they're supported by the conclusion in the main body, I wonder if something like "several involved parties speculated" (or "believed") might not be better.
Other than that I've just reviewed the diffs in the main body since ACR, and see no issues with them, and the structure, level of detail, and density of referencing seems appropriate. As I said in ACR, I find the terminology for "specific" and "general" references (not to mentioned their order being the reverse of the norm) a bit off-putting, but to each their own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the tweaks you made, so thanks for that, and I can see your point on "many people", so I've gone with you suggestion. Thanks for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure, Harry -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exhaustive and definitive, yet not overwhelming or tiresome to go through. Everything checks out. An overall interesting read with a sound structure on a rather "touchy" subject. Great job. All the best, ProKro (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (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 Colm (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2014 (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): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) and Nobeljeff (talk)[reply]
This article is about yet another scientist, James Chadwick is the man who discovered the neutron. In 1932, with a laboratory instrument literally made from string and sealing wax. The group photo of the Cavendish Lab staff that year had eight Nobel Prize winners sitting in the front row. Rutherford. Thomson. Kapitza. Cockcroft. Blackett. And then there was the neutron. Chadwick found it, measured it, weighed it. Within just a few years neutrons would be the key ingredient in a scientific endeavour on an unprecedented scale. And Chadwick played a key part in all of this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the details in the infobox, for example Pollard being his student, do not appear to be sourced in the text
Why bold Chadwick's name in Notes?
FN46: page?
Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the emboldened names in the papers. Someone has been going around creating DOI templates for famous papers. So the links to Chadwick appear bold in his own article. I like to have the original papers linked in the scientific articles so readers can see them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cwmhiraeth
This looks to be a well-written, well laid out article. I particularly like the fact that it is low on jargon and is understandable to a non-physicist like me. A few points on the prose:
What was the occupation of his father?
Added his parents' occupations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He was named after his paternal grandfather" - It would be helpful if the name "James" was mentioned somewhere in this paragraph.
Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At the age of 16, he sat for two university scholarship examinations, and was offered both." - Was he really offered two university scholarship examinations?
Two scholarships. At the age of 16, he sat two examinations for university scholarships, and won both of them.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This time the resulting paper was published under his name only." - I don't care for the "only" at the end of this sentence.
Changed to "alone". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The reason for this would remain unexplained for many years." - This is an ambiguous remark.
The continuous spectrum would remain an unexplained phenomenon for many years.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again, who brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller." - This sentence is rather long and convoluted.
Split. At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again. Geiger had brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... used polonium to bombard beryllium" - I think you mean particles emitted by polonium rather than the stuff itself?
Yes, but I've spent so much time writing about polonium that hadn't occurred to me.
"Chadwick had his Australian 1851 Exhibition scholar, Hugh Webster, duplicate their results." - "had" is not ideal here, perhaps "asked" or "directed" or somesuch.
No, that won't do. Have to think of something else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"His research into such matters were complicated by ..." - Perhaps "was" rather than "were".
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Observing the work on the K-25 gaseous diffusion facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, he realised how wrong he had been about building the plant in wartime Britain." - This needs some explanation, - which of his ideas was wrong?
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... the Hungarian-born economist Peter Bauer. Bauer was subsequently involved in what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, in which fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with the younger Bauer." - Too many Bauers.
In what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with Bauer.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He anticipated that neutrons would become a major weapon in the fight against cancer." - This fact from the lead is not mentioned again in the body of the article as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added this. Chadwick anticipated that neutrons and radioactive isotopes produced with them could be used to study biochemical processes, and might become a weapon in the fight against cancer.
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the changes you have made and now support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. An interesting article about an interesting man! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Headbomb
Lead
Resolved issues
A graduate of the University of Manchester, he studied under Ernest Rutherford, known as the "father of nuclear physics". I'm a bit worried that some people will have to parse this a few times before realizign that the "father of nuclear physics" is Rutherford, and I'm unsure it's necessary to mention that he's the father of nuclear physics. Also, it seems to implied that as a graduate, he studied under Rutherford. And for which degree is unclear. This is further compounded/confused by the next bit "After the war, Chadwick followed Rutherford to the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where Chadwick earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge." I'm having a hard time making sense of the timeline here. I'm sure I could if I sat down and re-read things 20 times, but prose isn't clear if I have to do that to make sense of it. I would try a rephrasing similar to "In <YEAR>, he obtained his <DEGREE> under the supervision of Ernest Rutherford at the University of Manchester." or some such (if this is what is meant). In all cases, I would at the very least mention specific years, and specific degrees and specific supervisions. It's nice that Chadwick followed Rutherford at Gonville/Caius, but he could very well have had a different supervisor there.
Tried to make it clearer, but I think your real problem is confusion over what Gonville and Caius College is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My problem was mostly the unclear timeline and degrees obtained in the second paragraph. I put dates and degrees from the nobel biography. Tweak as needed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that it needs to be mentioned that he paid for the cyclotron with his Nobel money in the lead. This seems superflous to the core of his achievements.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Education/Life
Resolved issues
... first child of John Joseph" John Joseph Chadwick? Or John Joseph?
John Joseph Chadwick Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When were his sibling born exactly? At least the years.
Sorry. Do not have that information. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity, who/when was the continuous spectrum of radiation explained? Is that how Pauli came to postulate the existence of neutrinos? If so, this should be mentionned!
In 1930. Added a date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I had a problem with in this passage [7] was the ambiguity of the word "genius". The language of the explanation also seems a bit irrelevant. The quote itself was a really nice addition to the article. Consider something like A perplexed Chadwick wrote to Einstein "I can explain either of these things, but I can't explain them both at the same time." or something different if it was Einstein that said those words. Maybe with a note containing the original German quote if that's important. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Research
Resolved issues
Chadwick's Clerk Maxwell studentship expired in 1923 He had one? Should have been mentioned in the previous section then.
It is. Chadwick was awarded a Clerk-Maxwell studentship in 1920,
In 1925, Chadwick met Aileen Stewart-Brown, the daughter of a Liverpool stockbroker. The two were married in August 1925,[18] with Kapitza as Best Man. The couple had twin daughters, Joanna and Judy, who were born in February 1927.[19] This is not research. Rename the section, or put this elsewhere.
christened the neutrino "christened" is a fancy word for fanciness' sake. Keep it simple please, not everyone reads at this level.
... Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Liverpool section, we go back to 1930 (last section ended in 1932), before jumping to 1935. I'd keep things chronologically if possible.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lyon Jones Chair link?
Nope. But I can tell you who they were:
1881-1900: [Sir] Oliver Joseph Lodge
1900-1935: Lionel Robert Wilberforce
1935-1948: (Sir) James Chadwick
1949-1960: Herbert Wakefield Banks Skinner
1960-1982: James Macdonald Cassels
1987-1995: Charles Edward Johnson
1997-2001: Peter John Twin
The university was something of a backwater What's a backwater? A backwater town? Backwater location? there's a word missing there. Also according to whom? And the backwater seems very negative. Rephrase to be more neutral/less flowery.
A remote place; somewhere that remains unaffected by new events, progresses, ideas, etc. (wikt:backwater) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He therefore chafed under Rutherford, again flowery for no reason. Keep it simple.
£700 in today's money, what would that be? Same for the other amounts.
No. Per Template:Inflation: This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research.Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Kinsey and Harold Walke links?
Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
so Chadwick paid the rest from his Nobel Prize money the amount he received should be mentioned somewhere, although not necessarily here. He seems to have overspent by some £484, which could or could not be a significant chunk of the prize.
The Prize was 159,917 kr in 1935. I don't know what the exchange rate was then, but this is about 4.8 million kr today, which is about £413,000. Whereas £484 = £35744 today. So he probably had some change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and might become a weapon in the fight against cancer How exactly did Chadwick suspect this? A random guess? Why cancer specifically, and not other biological diseases? I would expand on this if possible.
I have no proof, but I think it is because of the Liverpool Radium Institute and Hospital for Cancer, which opened in 1931.
Chadwick arrived in Liverpool in September 1935 and took up the post of Lyon Jones Professor and Head of the Department of Physics. There was close cooperation between the Faculties of Science and Medicine at that time and Chadwick was automatically a committee member of both faculties... The somewhat ad hoc arrangements for the treatment for cancer in Liverpool and elsewhere were, however, clearly recognised as unsatisfactory and in 1938 Lord Derby led a Commission to look at this problem and report on the work. Chadwick was made a member of this Commission. Sir James Chadwick and his Medical Plans
I would add a mention of Chadwick being a member of that commission and of the collaboration between Science and Medicine. It gives a bit more context, IMO.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries curies are a unit of radiation, not an amount of mass/substance. Rephrase.
No, Curies is what is used then and today. Polonium is 4490 curies/g, so 2 millicuries is 445 ng. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This had a bit of false precision in the conversion. I put 0.5 μg instead. However, this assumes that the polonium sent to Chadwick was pure Po-210. Was this the case? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the short half life of Polonium, that would be impossible. But she made it from lead oxide. The amount of polonium is measured from the alpha emission. So 2 mCu means you have 500 ng. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Do you know in what form this polonium was sent then? "... Meitner sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries (about 0.5 µg) from Germany, in the form of a <type of sample>." This is a minor point, but if you know/if it can be found, it would be good to add it IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory. This makes it look like the mass of the neutron being greater than the proton is a key feature of the theory, and the reason why the theory is right. I'm very doubtful that in the 1930s you could measure the mass of protons and neutron with enough resolution to measure a significant difference between the two. And I'm also pretty sure that expectations were that the neutron and protons had about the same mass. This passage, and those surrounding it, need to be reworked to give a better and more accurate explanation of this.
Measuring the mass of a proton is something we did in high school, so the readers will know how. As for the neutron, you sadly underestimate the genius of Chadwick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to include this in the article.
The expanded section is clearer, but it still makes the point that the mass of the neutron being greater than the mass of the proton is what confirms the theory to be right. This claim will be very puzzling to most, given that Chadwick predicted the mass of the neutron to be less than that of the proton, contradicting the experimental findings. What confirms the theory to be right is that the masses of the neutron and protons are very similar (which is why changing the model of nitrogen nucleus from 14p+7e to 7p+7n still gave the right mass). I don't know how Chadwick estimated the mass of the neutron, but I'm pretty sure he was happy to predict the mass within 0.2% of experimental results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How Chadwick calculated the mass of the neutron is now in the article!
In his paper, Chadwick estimated that a neutron weighed about 1.0067 u. As a proton and an electron together weighed 1.0078 u, this implied a binding force of about 2 MeV, which sounded reasonable. Then Maurice Goldhaber, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a graduate student at the Cavendish Laboratory, suggested that deuterons could be photodisintegrated by gamma rays:
Chadwick tried this and found that it worked. They measured the kinetic energy of the protons produced as 1.05 MeV, leaving the mass of the neutron as the only unknown in the equation. He then calculated that it was between 1.0077 and 1.0086 atomic units.
You can read about it in Chadwick's notebook, in his own hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't resolve the core of the problem mentioned in my previous post in this thread. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prevailing theory was that the neutron was a composite particle like an alpha particle, but consisting of an electron and a proton. (The mass of an electron is negligible compare to a proton or neutron.) By determining that the neutron actually weighed more, Chadwick demonstrated that this could not be the case. So it had to be a new kind of particle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you rewrite this section, could you also add the original articles by Bohr/Chadwick/Heisenberg/Goldhaber/others? I don't have access to Brown, but I would have access to those (as I suspect many others). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the original articles by Heisenberg. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
Resolved issues
He also endeavoured to place British scientists in as many parts of the project as possible in order to facilitate a post-war British project that Chadwick was committed to. Which project?
Changed to "a post-war British nuclear weapons project" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the tube alloy section, the timeline seems to be Meitner & Frisch explained fission, Hahn & Strassman noted the possibility of chain reactions, then Joliot et al. confirmed it. There are a few ommissions in this make it seem to contradict the timeline in Nuclear fission#History/Otto Hahn#Discovery of nuclear fission. Hahn & Strassman discovered fission first (missing), communicated with Meitner & Frisch who explained it, and Frisch later confirmed it (missing). Then Hanh & Strassman hypothesizes chain reactions, which were confirmed by Joliot et al.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't want to stray too far from Chadwick. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The contributions of Wang Ganchang to the discovery of the neutron seems to be overlooked (if his Wikipedia article is to be believed.) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The use of polonium and beryllium a a radiation source was discovered by Bothe and Becker in 1930. Irene and Frédéric Joliot-Curie used it, but did not interpret the results as indicating the existence of neutrons. Given that Meitner was skeptical about the neutrons, I don't think that Wang Ganchang would have found them either had he built his cloud chamber. The fact is that he didn't do or find anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought it might have been documented somewhere that he gave the idea to Meitner, and Meitner gave it to Chadwick or something, but I was going off a a badly-referenced Wikipedia entry more than anything reliable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the point of this edit. Nothing broke... and re-introduced a bunch of long-form citations that really should have been in {{sfn}} format. 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Violates WP:CITEVAR: As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I dislike reducing all the author's names to initials. The doi templates that an editor added have been stripped. OCLCs have gone missing. Worst of all, the source review now has to be completely redone. If retained, I would have to withdraw the article. So I'm putting it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the point of contention is the name of authors, that's a very easy thing to fix. OCLC adds nothing over the ISBN, especially since the OCLC record is incomplete and generally in bad state, but they could easily be added back. Using {{cite doi}} however, just makes things harder to edit and maintain, and in fact makes the article inconsistent, as cite doi templates must not use full names, but rather "Smith, J." format. And I've got no idea what you mean by "source review", given it's all the same sources (except [8], and the expanded further reading section). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of contention is a clear cut violation of WP:CITEVAR. I don't want to spend all my Wikipedia time fighting Wiki Gnomes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My citation style is consistent, and has passed FAC many times. ANI has already supported the mix of {{cite doi}} and {{cite journal}} (which I opposed). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not and I would fail the FAC on these grounds alone. ANI is clueless when it comes to consistent citations if it allows a mixed Smith, J. (2009) next to Jones, James (2013).Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chadwick was a critic of the American approach to science. He refuted Lawrence's claims, which he correctly considered due to contamination. Rutherford and Oliphant then found that deuterium fuses to form helium-3, discovering nuclear fusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this merit mention? I'll defer to you on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit. I wrote that article too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start, but context is a bit lacking, at least as much as it's unclear what are Lawrence's results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded version hits the nail on the head, but it needs original sources for Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's claims. Also, in which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)? Or is my grammar off here? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded. Not sure what you mean by original sources. The paragraph is footnoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rewording is fine. And by original sources I mean the original articles/proceedings/letters/etc... where Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's made those claims. I.e. in what publication did Lawrence postulate the new particle? (Is this the "light neutron" in Heilbron & Seidel? doi:10.1103/PhysRev.44.313?) Where did Chadwick expressed that the results were likely due to contamination? Where did Lawrence rechecked his results? Where did Rutherford & Oliphant found deuterium fusion? Etc... I don't doubt that Heilbron & Seidel and Herken support the paragraph (Heilbron & Seidel gives a an impressively detailed history of this whole paragraph actually), but having the primary sources alongside Heilbron & Seidel add a lot for those who want to see the nitty gritty details of it all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heilbron & Seidel cite the appropriate sources, mostly letters, but since most of they are not online, it makes little point to cite the primary sources. Heilbron & Seidel give a good account. There's no requirement to fill the article with primary sources. The gritty details can be found in the subarticles.
It is the light neutron, but Lawrence didn't publish a lot of papers, preferring to make announcements at conferences and in the newspapers. I don't see the value of including an erroneous paper. The Americans generally presumed that they were the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, but in the 1930s Britain was ahead. Chadwick was one of those Britons that Americans found a staunch ally, but prone to being snooty, patronising and condescending.
The other point is about Big Science. Chadwick was one of its progenitors, but did not like it.
As the article says, Chadwick expressed his opinions at the Solvay Conference
As the article says, Rutherford & Oliphant worked at the Cavendish. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final thoughts
Overall enjoyable, most of the above should be easily fixable. The end of the article is somewhat abrupt however. I like a "Legacy" section of some type, like things named after Chadwick, selected works, etc.. Maybe a "See also" section. Ending with "and then he died" seems... uninspired. Also doi:10.1038/161964a0 and doi:10.1080/00107517208205684 should be explored. I cannot support FA in the current state, but it's close to being there.
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ian Rose
Recusing from coord duties to review, as I have a FAC open myself at the moment...
Tweaked prose as I generally do so pls let me know any issues. Few remaining concerns except:
I fully agree with Headbomb re. "which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)?" -- needs clarification/rewording.
Although I took out a second mention of his daughters' names for reasons I explained in the edit summary, you called them Judy and Joanna initially but then Julie and Joanna -- better check that Judy (from the initial mention that I left in) is correct.
Under See also, if Chadwick crater is indeed named after the man, as seems to be the implication, why not move to and cite in the Legacy section and just drop the See also?
Structure and level of detail seem fine.
I'll happily defer to Nikki for the source review.
Generally looks a worthy addition to your series of mad scientists (is there any other kind?)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a 1996 tag to File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg. Removed the Solvay picture. Cannot understand how Commons can tag an image as author unknown while stating who the author was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the crater into the Legacy section. Hadn't even noticed that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chadwick's twin daughters are Joanna and Judith. (My favourites names were Granville Ryrie's twin daughters, Dee and Dar.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More on images -- Points re. initial check were resolved, have reviewed licensing for two recently added colour picture and both look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I came here with a view to making a closing decision but I am concerned about the accuracy of the physics. This phrase jumped out at me: "Chadwick was able to demonstrate that beta radiation produced a continuous electromagnetic spectrum, and not discrete lines as had been thought." I am a biologist and not a physicist, but I think photons and not electrons form the electromagnetic spectrum. Electrons produce a kinetic energy spectrum, which is different. The source used says "the beta ray emission from the radioactive deposit had a continuous range of energy practically from zero up to a certain limit on which was superimposed these peaks". Am I missing something? Graham Colm (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. I think the problem is in the clarity of the wording. From the article on Bremsstrahlung:
Bremsstrahlung "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation") is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron... The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy... Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not at all convinced by this argument and quoting another of our articles does not help. I think that there is a fundamental error here, which calls into question – at least in my mind – the accuracy of the rest of the physics in this article. I would not be confident in promoting this candidate without more reassurance from our physicists. Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against closing until the concerns about the The mass of the neutron was indeed greater than that of the proton, thereby supporting Bohr and Heisenberg's theory. passage (and surrounding text) have been fully addressed. As it stands, the article is very misleading on that issue.
The mass of a neutron is greater than that of a proton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That fact is not in dispute, it's the whole explanation that is confusing and misleading. Chadwick predicted a lesser mass, then it was discovered it was greater. If the core of the argument is that different mass implies a different particle than the proton, then what is important is that the mass of the neutron is different, not that it is greater, than that of the proton. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the continuous spectrum, I'll look into it. I didn't even notice EM spectrum, in there. The way I've seen those before was in terms of momentum spectrum [9] (which is more or less equivalent to presenting it in terms of an energy spectrum). I don't think Bremsstrahlung is involved at all, but I'll dig further to confirm. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
I am to physics what whales are to rollerskating, so excuse any howlers in my comments. This, to the layman's eye, is a fine article. I don't understand some of the scientific bits, but I don't need to. The biographical stuff – which is most of the article – is first class. I offer these few comments for the nominators' consideration, and look forward to adding my support thereafter.
Education and early life
"physics" – perhaps move blue link to the first mention earlier in the para.
"within an error of less than 1.5 percent" – the Manual of Style thinks "percent" is American and "per cent" British, and so do I.
Cambridge
"You are inconsistent about whether or not to use the false title when labelling people: thus, you have "succeeded by the Russian physicist Pyotr Kapitza" with the definite article but "Theoretical physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg" without it. The latter is undesirable in good British English, though good AmEng and beloved of our tabloid newspapers. There are other false titles later in the article, such as "Cosmologist Sir Hermann Bondi", "Prime Minister Winston Churchill" and "New York Times reporter William L. Laurence"
Liverpool
"the government became more parsimonious with funding for science" – a bit POV, perhaps, especially without a citation. Perhaps, "the government cut back funding for science"
"Chadwick responded condescendingly" – unless this is a quote from a source the adverb seems to me to fall foul of WP:EDITORIAL
"his 159,917 kr Nobel Prize money" – a Sterling translation would be useful here
"Lord Derby" – perhaps a piped link to Lord Derby?
Tube Alloys and the MAUD Report
"Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch created an uproar" – this reads rather as though the scientific community was outraged rather than astonished, which I think you probably don't mean to suggest
References
"Some statements are given as many as four individual citations. To the layman's eye this looks like overkill, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
"Your bibliographic style, though impeccably academic, is not what I usually expect in Wikipedia: I refer to your "— (1932)" style for second and later mentions of authors' names in your list of references. I thought the MoS disapproved of this style, but if it does I can't find it, and so I just mention it and leave it to you to agree or disagree with me.
I hope you can find some useful points in this little batch of quibbles. Tim riley talk 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always good to meet an editor I haven't encountered before. Thanks very much for your review! I presume that Chadwick is a local hero in Liverpool. Well he out to be. I've addressed all your points.
"Percent" makes no sense to me, and my spell checker flags it as an error. The Commonwealth Style Guide says "per cent" is correct. I'm blaming the Wiki-Gnomes.
I'd never heard of "false title" before, but have removed them.
I did not have much hope of converting kroner to Sterling, but as luck might have it, the kroner was fixed to 19.40 to the pound at the time.
What happens with the multiple citations is that one is a secondary source that covers it, and the other three are scientific papers, so the readers can read the details for themselves.
By "parsimonious". I didn't mean that they actually cut funding per se; they tightened the eligibility rules. The whole article is cited.
If you can find the bit in the MoS that disapproves of the bibliographic style I'll change it.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't like the "--" in the citing style, if only because if you click on e.g. "Chadwick & Ellis, 1922, you're transported to a citation that doesn't explicitly contain Chadwick, and you have to backtrack to find who -- was, exactly. It also makes it more annoying to copy/paste the citation (e.g. in Google, or in another document). I like -- for lists of work by the same person (e.g. David_Malet_Armstrong#Bibliography), but I don't like it in reference sections such as this one. But this might be YMMV stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check
File:Chadwick.jpg - Unsure; this doesn't seem to actually clear before the URAA date, and the documentation is a little confused.
It was used for his Nobel prize. It has been in the PD since 1985 - before the URAA date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1996 increase to 70 years in the UK was retrospective, and happened on January 1, 1996, meaning that it counts for URAA. Also, the claim of anonymous photography isn't documented. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is from Sweden, not the UK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing, isn't it? Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, because in Sweden when the copyright term was extended to 70 years on 1 January 1996, works that had already fallen into the public domain were not re-protected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right then. In that case, I suppose the only remaining issue is the anonymity, which needs a little more documentation to demonstrate. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was part of a series of images belonging to the Science Museum in the UK. It was uploaded to Flickr at my request via the Wikimedian in Residence there. It's actually in the PD, having been taken in 1926, but Flickr doesn't allow you to tag PD, so CC was used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem: See first comment about the really annoying thing the UK did with the URAA. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Science Museum have licensed it on Flickr as CC. This was verified by the Commons admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, presuming they own the rights, that's fine, but that should probably be explained on the page. (And I apologise for the difficulty ere, but we do want to get this right.) Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: Probably fails? It might be fine, but I have significant doubts on several images. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment - I have decided to break with tradition and promote this article without the usual level of explicit support. This is not to be taken as a precedent. In my view – thanks in part to the thorough reviews above – this article satisfies the FA criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2014 (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 Colm (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GrahamColm: I'm sorry, but File:Chadwick.jpg claims its copyright in Sweden based on it being anonymous - but lists the photographer. That's kind of a nonsense copyright claim. Please actually resolve the image check issues before promotion. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that any remaining issues will be resolved post FAC as we have done in the past with other candidates. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without actually flagging up such things as needing done post-FAC? The lead image is quite possibly a copyvio. And, given the lead image is liekly the one that will go onto the main.. screw it, I'll just nominate them for deletion at commons and be done with it, shall I? Good thing I actually noticed this was bpassed without resolving the issues, because I don't think anyone else was paying attention. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the closure, the issues with the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory still have not been resolved. The rest of my objections were addressed satisfactorily, but not this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could do was: The mass of the neutron was too large to be a proton/electron pair, and so had to be something else, thereby supporting Bohr and Heisenberg's theory that it was a new nuclear particle.Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad to close things with unresolved image reviews. It's worse when the lead image is one of the ones that may be a copyright violation, because that gives a very high risk of copyvio on the main page. If you expect the things to be dealt with after closure, I'd ask how you expect that to happen, if you don't, say, put a message on the talk page of the article saying, in bold, all caps, "fix these issues now", but, instead, hope they read a closed FAC - which is meant to have had all issues dealt with - and notice that actually, no, that didn't happen, then it's likely the problems will not, in fact, be fixed. We're not in the habit of doing Image reviews on things that are already FAs, because FAC is meant to have dealt with that. Seriously, had I not noticed this had closed, and checked it, I have very little doubt we'd have copyvio on the main page in a few months. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was here as a reviewer rather than a FAC delegate but I have to admit that if I was wearing my delegate hat on this one I might well have closed it too based on the image review as it stood. The way the most recent comments on the outstanding points were worded just didn't suggest to me the level of concern that's now apparent -- there was no oppose statement, and no use of the term "copyvio" until after promotion. Okay, the concern is quite apparent now so it should be addressed one way or another but, for the future, if anyone really thinks an article should not be promoted then the best way is to explicitly oppose it. There's nothing harsh about this, it simply acts as a red light until the issues are dealt with, at which point the reviewer can change it to support or at least strike it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2014 (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) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
George Formby Snr was a music hall star, singer-songwriter and comedian. A Lancastrian by background, he used his regional background and his tuberculosis as a font for his humour. He died at the relatively young age of 46, but his son George picked up his act before coming a major star of the 30s and 40s. This article has undergone a major re-write recently, and a star cast at PR have tweaked, poked, prodded and polished. – SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Tim riley
I was one of the peer reviewers, and had my few and minor quibbles dealt with then. This is a fine piece of work on an important figure in his field, on whom there is surprisingly little published material. SchroCat has tracked down what there is, and has built up as good an article on Formby Sr as Wikipedia, or anybody else, is going to get, bringing to light information missed by e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographyin re Formby's bigamous marriage. A substantial achievement, meeting all the FA criteria in my judgment. Tim riley talk 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments both at PR and here - they are very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Cassianto
Support with some unconditional comments:
Unless I'm missing it, there is no introduction to Ted Granville. I, and a handful of others, would know him to be the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall, but a hell of a load others, will not.
"His popularity increased when Marie Lloyd, the influential music hall singer and actress, said that she would only watch two acts: his and that of Dan Leno." →"His popularity increased when Marie Lloyd, the influential music hall singer and actress, said that she would only watch two acts: his and Dan Leno's."?
"After the Formbys had lost three daughters to early deaths, their first son was born in 1904, George Hoy Booth." →"After the Formbys had lost three daughters to early deaths, their first son, George Hoy Booth, was born in 1904."?
"For much of January and February 1908 Formby was booked to appear in London venues at £20 a week, and followed this the next year with playing three of the capital's music halls a night for £45 a week in total, which included performing at the Tivoli, with Lloyd and Little Tich as the headline acts. -- This might be a bit long for comfortable reading. Also, I would say that "in total" is a bit redundant.
I must say that I think the "in total" is very important, as his TOTAL earnings were £45 (£15 per hall), rather than £135 a week in total -- a big difference! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read it like that actually. I read it like he performed in three halls a night and then at the end of the week, received £45; not like a salary, but that was what he had earned "in total". I just thought that saying "in total" was not needed as we could work out for ourselves that perhaps £45 was the total amount. Either are ok with me, but it depends on which way you like at it. Cassiantotalk 06:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Formby was always worried that his son George would watch him on stage, as he did not wish the boy to become an actor, saying "one fool in the family is enough." -- Are actors considered to be "fools"? Did he mean comedian, comic etc?
"Are actors considered to be "fools"?" Do I have to answer that...?!
Errr, no lol Cassiantotalk 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Formby returned within a week and the reviewers were more positive, with The Observer stating..." -- Can "reviewers" refer to a newspaper, or should it be "reviews"? If you want to use "reviewers", might I suggest using a person as they are the "reviewer", or adjusting it to "a reviewer for The Observer..."
"By making the orchestra play his entrance music and not appear..." -- Formby or the orchestra?
"His act included songs, described as "characteristically simple, some with tunes derived from Methodist hymns, and with catchy choruses" -- By who?
"One of Formby's nicknames, 'The Wigan Nightingale' was coined 'because of the way he incorporated his rasping, bronchial cough into his stage act' ". -- are the last set of quote marks necessary? Cassiantotalk 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All your suggestions adopted - many thanks for all your thoughts at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- spotchecks not done
Per MOS:ACCESS, bolded pseudoheadings should be replaced by normal subheadings
FN22 should be BBC Online
FN25: not sure about this. The citation is incomplete, but actual source being cited is the memorial itself, not the photo of it, and Find-a-Grave is not a great source
Suggest spelling out Hampshire. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki - much appreciated as always. I'll try and track down a replacement for the memorial, just to make it a little more concrete. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support & image review
My apologies for not coming here sooner. I got a little... caught up... in September Morn (which may visit this page in the coming months!), but I've got an image review for you here.
File:George Formby Sr, 1919.jpg - Your licensing on the two seems to be conflicting, or at the very least there are some nasty looking error messages coming up. PD-1923, certainly. If we're going PD-UK-anon as well, then this should be prepared for Commons, which won't have issues like that.
File:George Formby Snr in costume.png - Conflicting tags again. He signed it in 1920, so it's obviously 1920 or earlier (likely in the few years before 1920)
File:Funeral of George Formby, Snr.png - The date of the photograph is certainly not 21 October 1922, a year and a half after Formby's death... it would have been taken during his funeral, probably in 1921.
I've tweaked this a little, as it wasn't the funeral (mea culpa with naming the file as such: it is the unveiling of the memorial (done in October 1922), rather than the funeral. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Do you need me to move the file? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already done - I worked out how to tag it properly in the end! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:George Formby Snr in Stage garb.png - The year "We All Went Marching In" was published should probably be in the information box. Conflicting license tags again
You can fix the issues I raised like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco. I've done what I think is right (but probably stuck in a few more errors instead, as the tags are all gibberish to me at the best of times!) Let me know which ones are still left with issues, and I'll see how badly I can maul them again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Image tags have been cleaned up. Read over the article again, and I don't see anything sticking out. I had my say at PR. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from The Rambling Man
Comments - so much good work done, there's little left but for me to nitpick and probably waste both of our time...! Feel free to ignore all of the following.
"the pandemic of 1918" you link just "pandemic" although the article linked to is specifically about the pandemic of 1918...
"sang at pubs" reads a little odd, "sang in pubs" seems more conventional to me.
" Later on in his life" any real need for "on"?
In the quote, he says "... Which of the 'bhoys'..." - what does this mean?
It's an old Gaelic spelling of Boys (an h is often added to the b in Gaelic), and he was referring to his fellow performers. Would swapping it out to read as follows work: "Which of ... [my fellow performers], I wonder, can say ..."? – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor Baz Kershaw" care to place him context? Prof of what and where for instance. (Only because he's not notable enough for an article..)
"there is no evidence of a divorce" you've jumped a little here from marriage straight to an uncertain separation, anything in the middle of this?
There's nothing extra in the sources about this. There's a lack of information over much of his life, but especially about the more shadowy parts of his private life! – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1897 or 98" is this really compliant with MOSDATE? I'm certain it must be, I just haven't seen it before....
"as the comedian also had several children with other partners" is there anything more that can be said about this?
Again, sadly not. The sources just don't cover this, except to mention it briefly. – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall, booked him to appear in his first London performances, at the Royal Albert Music Hall...." repetitive.
"had no problems in" not sure why, but this reads a little too colloquial for me.
Razzle Dazzle or Razzle-Dazzle?
Both, according to the sources! I've plumped for the hyphenated version, as that's the one we use in a quote. – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No such entity as The Dundee Courier, it's just The Courier which happens to serve Dundee.
It was The Dundee Courier previously, so I've gone for the name at the time (like the Manchester Guardian). – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" his stage persona was also slightly changed" would it be better to say something like "he slightly modified his stage persona"?
"to the US" for prose why not "to the United States"?
"[71][28]" while I've never seen it writ anywhere, I'd prefer footnotes to be in numerical order. - I did it because WP:BOLDNickGibson3900 Talk 03:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise a thoroughly engaging and well-written piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks The Rambling Man! I've addressed all the points, used all your suggestions as above, except where I've commented otherwise. Many thanks, once again. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from NickGibson3900
I reviewed this at PR. I checked refs and prose then and doubt it has changed much in the last couple of weeks to much so that is basis of my support. NickGibson3900 Talk 02:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nick, for your thoughts and comments both at PR, and here: they are very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brianboulton
I missed the peer review through absence, so this has been my first opportunity to read through this interesting article. I am ashamed to say that, until I recently read the excellent Formby junior article, I had no idea that George Senior existed, and it has been a revelation to read about him. Incidentally, I note from the image caption that his wife (soi-disant) Eliza lived to be 102, which might be worth mentioning in the text. I am much inclined to support, but have a number of relatively minor issues to clear first:
"John Willie" should, I think, be in quotes, as a persona rather than a person
I'm someone surprised that, as a relatively young child, Formby was employed as a "loom builder". As the link makes clear, looms are quite intricate pieces of machinery, not the sort of things that uneducated kids can just put together; is there any better indication of the nature of the work he actually did?
Sadly not: the source are vague on much of his life, and this is no exception, with "llom builder" being the only description available. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Formby began to develop his own stage act during the 1890s, building a large following in Lancashire as he did so, and devised several characters with their own costumes, and a series of comic songs." The sentence meanders; I suggest split after "as he did so". Then, "He devised..." etc
Are you sure about the format "JH"?
I'm a bit surprised that the concept of "recording rights" existed as early as 1896. In any event I would replace the comma between "songs" and "securing" with an "and".
"Chaplin also imitated Formby's cane twirl and duck-like walk into his act". Wrong use of "imitated" – you can't "imitate into". Suggest "incorporated"
In the short paragraph dealing with the Salter marriage, you move too quickly from the marriage to talk of divorce and separation. You need some intermediate phrase, e.g. "The marriage does not appear to have been successful, although according to Formby's biographers..." etc.
In the third line of the fourth paragraph of the "Burgeoning stage career" section, the word "marriage" appears three times in close proximity. You should try to rephrase at least one of these.
"In 1902, while Formby was performing in Leeds, Ted Granville, the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall in London's Canning Town, booked him to appear in his first London performances, at the venue for £3 a week" – over-punctuated, and somewhat awkwardly expressed. I suggest: "In 1902 Formby performed for the first time in London, when he was booked by Ted Granville, the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall in Canning Town, to appear for £3 a week;"
You have sensibly confined your present-day value comparisons to the footnotes, where with a bit of luck few people will notice or be confused by them. However, I would advise that you amend the figures slightly, by using rounded numbers consistently; "approximately £3,188" doesn't read like an approximation, and you should make it £3,000.
Reading that Formby made his first recordings in 1906 makes me wonder again at the earlier mention of his obtaining recording rights 10 years earlier
Please would you change "onto phonograph cylinder" to "on phonograph cylinder"? Although American English accepts the onto word unconditionally (I am told), many British style guides find it objectionable. It isn't a generational thing, because Dickens used it and he was before even my time. It just doesn't look right. And perhaps "cylinder" should be pluralised?
"let lose in the capital" is presumably a typo ("loose"). If the source says "lose", then give it a [sic]
"included performing at the Tivoli, with Lloyd and Little Tich as the headline acts". This appears to contradict what you said earlier, that after his London Pavilion appearances, Formby "maintained top billing for the rest of his life, both in music hall and pantomime."
I've removed the letter phrase. I was never entirely happy with the claim it made, and it's clear that the obit may have over-claimed here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a new contract worth £300 a year": clarify that this refers to a recording contract
I'm not an expert on ties, but am reliably informed that "tiepin" is a single word.
Are you sure about Max Wall "appearing on later bills with Formby"? According to his ODNB article Wall made his stage debut, aged 14, in 1922, by which time Formby was well and truly dead. Wall's parents were music hall performers, so Max was no doubt familiar with Formby and other performers without actually appearing with them, but it might be necessary to amend the text slightly.
I've tweaked to remove the reference to Wall, but lefe the oxygen tent, which is mentioned here and in other sources. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Chaplin, who derived some of his stage persona from Formby's..." As you've just been discussing Formby Junior, you should clarify that this is a reference to Formby senior
I've split the para to leave the Chaplin info in a separate para, which should clarify things. It may mean that the paras are too short and stubby, so let me know if you think this is the case, and I'll try and re-work it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to support when these issues are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, many thanks indeed for your thoughts and comments here. As always they are hugely appreciated and much welcomed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: You have dealt neatly and efficiently with the issues I've raised. George Snr should join his son in the FA pantheon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughts. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this article at peer review, and my concerns were well addressed. The article has also profited greatly from the extensive comments of the other commenters at PR and here. The article appears to be comprehensive, well written, well illustrated, and to satisfy the other requirements of FA. I support its promotion, and congratulations to SchroCat on an excellent job! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ssilvers: your comments at PR, directly and in the article have been very much appreciated and have strengthened the article considerably. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2014 (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) 10:07, 25 September 2014 (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 an active typhoon season that featured a lot of damaging storms. I've had it done for a while, but I decided to give it a go and try for FAC, since I believe it represents some of the WPTC's best work, and it's the best coverage on typhoons in 2002. Hope you like it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to invite User:Jason Rees to co-nom this FAC, as I might be busy over the next few weeks with music stuff. He indicated interest off-wiki that he'd be able to help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While i would still like to see this article succeed in its quest for FA Status, I have become rather busy in real life and am currently only able to use Wiki at weekends and at odd moments during the week. As a result i am withdrawing from being a co-nominater of this article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the color scheme used in the headers of the infobox do not comply with WP:CONTRAST. Namely, the link colors#0645AD (unvisited) and #0B0080 (visited) against the dark red (ff6060,ff8f20) and dark blue (5ebaff) colors used do not comply according to this calculator. Since the link is to very useful information explaining the scale used, removing it isn't an option, so some sort of color adjustment needs to be made. -- Netoholic@ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a project-wide issue, one that cannot be addressed solely with this article, and as you are currently in a discussion about it with the rest of the project, I believe it is inactionable at the moment, and that it should not affect the progress of the FAC. When the concern is addressed by the project as a whole, it will also be fixed in this article. If you have any comments pertaining to this article specifically, I'd be happy to address them though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I'm saying that there is a discussion going on to discuss this, since it affects the entire project, so it is inactionable on here. Once the issue is addressed, it will be fixed through the entire project, including this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, there FA promotion request could be "inactionable" if the article fails to comply with the MoS. I suggest helping to move along the adoption of a compliant color scheme. -- Netoholic@ 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but none of the 189 FA/FL's have had issues with this before, so I think it's a little unfair to single out this specific FAC, when it deals with every article in the entire project. After all, just two weeks ago, another season article in particular passed FAC with no problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer about any previous ones. It's a shame this particular MOS has been missed, but its understandable. But what I really cannot understand is why you keep repeating yourself, trying to convince people here to overlook this standard just because it was never brought up before. Now you know about it and it is an issue here and now. I don't know how others will comment, but I will not give this article a free pass on a several-years-old MoS style guideline, especially when the guideline is one designed to assist people with impairments. -- Netoholic@ 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to give it a free pass, or to overlook. I'm just saying that I am incapable of addressing your concerns with this one single article when the changes affect the entire Wikiproject. There is a discussion on this with you involved elsewhere, so I don't see a point continuing to harp on it on here. I just ask that you assume good faith that when a consensus is reached, that the change will be put into effect project wide, including this article. If you have anything on this article in particular (and not other articles) that you have qualms about, I'd be happy to address them, though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have more confidence in what you're saying if, as the nominator here, you said something like "I recognize this is a problem and am working hard to address this concern". Lacking that, it feels like you're ask for a free pass on this article. Perhaps you should withdraw until this article (and the WikiProject) adheres to the MoS guideline? -- Netoholic@ 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. As some editors believe that how we have it currently does indeed adhere to the MoS guideline, I feel no need to withdraw it, since I believe the article does pass all of the FA criteria. Your point is noted, but your edits are getting borderline disruptive. I feel there is no need for more discussion about this specific issue here, considering how lengthy the discussion is at WT:WPTC. But, once again, if you have anything specific about this article (and not the tropical cyclone project in general that you seem to have some beef with) that you have concerns about, I'd be happy to address them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly ignorant about color issues, but I know that ACCESS lists two standards, AA and AAA. Just eyeballing it, the contrast doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm wondering if that's the issue, if the contrast meets the AA standard but not the AAA standard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have normal vision, "eyeballing it" probably won't indicate to you the problem, but WP:CONTRAST links to tools that assist. Since this page uses a total of only about 7 distinct colors for storm strength, we should be able to get AAA, or very close to it. -- Netoholic@ 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got an answer to this question here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment: the tracking images used on this page also fail to comply with WP:COLOR (""Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). These maps use only colored circles to differentiate the intensities. The intensity should instead be conveyed by different symbols for each, and a key should be present on the images to aid readers. -- Netoholic@ 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the season summary map at the top of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the individual ones for each storm. -- Netoholic@ 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is impracticable at the resolutions the track maps are made, and introduces internationalization issues. Additionally, the track maps are not the only way the data in the track maps is presented; the prose of the article indicates when and where the storms reached important intensity thresholds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I said there: Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
original version
accessible version
To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used). Dank above makes the case that there can be "occasional exceptions" to the guidelines, and that is true, but in this case, the large number of track maps means this is far more than "occasional" and the fact that the change can be accomplished without a negative impact means this should not be an exception. -- Netoholic@ 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This change actually makes the data points darker, decreasing contrast with the background, and makes the image less legible for all users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the season summary map at the top of the page. I'm not taking a position on the ACCESS issue per se ... I completely agree that it's a good thing to make images as widely accessible as possible, and of course, that tends to happen gradually as Wikipedia evolves, so I have no problem that you're raising the issue. There are people who are smarter about ACCESS than I am, so I generally just ask around when I don't know what to do. But for the map I was talking about, in the size it's going to appear to most readers (and readers don't click, most of the time), what you want would literally mean changes to individual pixels (on most screens) ... and that gets us to a different issue, the feasibility of what you're asking for. It may help to try to bring more people into the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a note to the FA coordinators. It appears that User:Netoholic has a bit of a quarrel with the tropical cyclone project, resulting in requests for admin action, unilateral edits to heavily used templates, and numerous discussions questioning the user's edits, with regards to hurricane articles. I hope that is taken into consideration with any future action in this FAC, and that instead of having this discussion on four different pages (or more?), that this can continue without too much disruption and instead be focused on an article that I am very proud of, and one I believe should be featured! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poisoning the well immediately after I changed my vote to oppose? Yes, I do hope FA coordinators all this into consideration. Is this how we treat people that bring legitimate MoS concerns up? -- Netoholic@ 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic@ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than threediscussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places. Now, can one of the FAC clerks please close off this section devoted to nothing less than an series of attacks on my motivations for opposing, so that relevant discussion about this FAC in particular can continue? -- Netoholic@ 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above discussion is pretty much a rehash of discussions I've voiced an opinion on in other locales, I'll be skipping down here to list my qualms with this article so far. I have not covered the "Storms" section yet, but I have read through the other sections thus far – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2002 Pacific typhoon season was an active, - an active... needs a subject here.
Meant to put one. Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, there were 37 tropical depressions, of which 26 became named storms; of those, there were 15 typhoons - Since you're using the official tally for named storms and typhoons, I think the count for tropical depressions should be changed since I believe that includes the unofficial PAGASA tropical depression Dagul.
Specified that some were unofficial. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During most of the year, sea surface temperatures were above normal near the equator for most of the year - Saying "most of the year" again is quite redundant
Ack, removed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
floods left about $1.8 million (P94.2 million PHP) - Substitute the peso symbol in for the 'P'
The last paragraph of the seasonal summary section feels incomplete. It begins in January and talks about storms up until September when the summary just ends abruptly with a little factoid on Kammuri.
Added mentions of Higos and Pongsona, how they were farther east than the barrage of China landfalls through September. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"mid-latitude trough" in the Caloy section could use a helpful link to an appropriate article
Well, it'd basically just link to trough, which is already linked elsewhere in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within the North-western Pacific Ocean, both the JMA and PAGASA assign names to tropical cyclones that develop in the Western Pacific - Western or North-western, but not both.
Made it "northwestern". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They became Typhoon Ele and Typhoon Huko keeping their original name and "C" suffix. - You could probably indicate that the JTWC uses these suffixes here as well since there's no guidance on what the JTWC does in regards to naming in the Storm names section
Some rows in the Storm Effects section are given inline citations, others are not.
Well, the refs there cite the damage or deaths. No cite was added for each of the storms, since that's just rehashed from above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the notes (having to do with currencies being converted to US$ using Oanda) can be simplified by using just one broad note that covers for all of them.
I personally think it's easier having them separate, just to clarify the original currency right next to the abbreviated versions (such as "₱522 million PHP"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, taken care of. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no issues with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But I think is better using "Renminbi" to replace "Chinese yuan" at Note 4.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments. I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two -- not sure how much time I'll have tonight. For the record, the debate above about accessibility of the colours used for the storm track dots doesn't incline me to oppose. I'm OK with waiting for a consensus from the project and I'll assume that it will be implemented in good faith when it happens. I do have a different comment about the colours further below, however.
First, thanks for the review! As far as the debate, it's largely settled now, as we removed the WP:ACCESS issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. The Track map color dots are still a major issue. -- Netoholic@ 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now completed a pass through; comments are below -- quite a few, but they're either minor or they're questions.
"In March, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon on record in the month": from the body of the article it's apparent that this means that no super typhoon had ever occurred in March before this, but I wasn't clear when I read it that that was the intention. How about "Two months later, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon ever to be recorded in March"?
Yea, I spent a lot of time tweaking with that sentence. Yours works well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see from a look at some of the other typhoon season articles that the paragraph in the lead starting "The scope of this article ..." is common to most or all of them. I've no objection to some such text being repeated in each season article (though it would be nice to avoid the slightly self-referential "this article"), but I don't see any reason for this to be in the lead -- surely this belongs in the body, in an introductory section on scope, or background? It doesn't seem to meet the goal of a lead: summarizing the body of the article. The part of this paragraph that defines the scope of this article could be added to the first sentence (e.g. "The 2002 Pacific typhoon season, covering Pacific storms that form north of the equator and west of the International Date Line, was an active one ..."); the rest of the paragraph is probably not strictly necessary at all if you do that, but I think it would be OK in either a scope or background section, or as definitional phrases attached to the "See also" lines. And you also made me curious: what about storms that form south of the equator? What are they called, and what articles would cover those?
I omitted the bit about "this article" by saying "The Western Pacific basin covers the Pacific Ocean...". I still think it's important to say just where the boundaries are. It's an introductory section that helps clarify what's going on. I don't want to front load the information too much. Mostly likely, those who visit the article will know where the storms are, but for those who don't, I want a proper clarification on all of the agencies and what's going on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK on including all of that; I agree the reader needs the information. But why is it in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I thought it was the most logical location. The first paragraph dealt with the season activity as a whole, the second dealt with individual storms, and the third clarified just what the season was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through again and I think it's OK as it stands; I'm not used to seeing leads do this but I can't really see anything wrong with it. I think the last sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section, though; see the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Storms that form to the south of the basin/Equator are called tropical cyclones and are covered by the Australian and South Pacific cyclone articles.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I've ever reviewed a storm FAC before, which is amazing considering how long you and I have both been doing this, so this might be a question you've answered on other FACs: surely the colour key for the dots on the storm track should be somewhere in the article, and not only in the picture when you click through to it?
Interesting that's never come up! And it's especially interesting considering we had a discussion about this on the template for Storm path to change the text. I used that text and put it at the end of the 3rd lead paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, but can we say something about the colours too? E.g. "... blue indicates a tropical depression, and intensifying colours of yellow through red correspond to the [[Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale] from 1 to 5"? As above, I think this should not be in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit too much detail and self referential to the article. The text now matches what's used in the storm path template, used on individual storm articles, which was the result of this discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section; it describes something that is not really visible in the composite picture, and is directly relevant to the Storms section, where it would look fine as an introductory sentence before the first storm. I think you could add some form of the sentence I suggested about colours, too: as the discussion you linked to points out, the scale doesn't make any colour recommendations, so the reader can't understand what is presented without a click. I don't think that's ideal; and it's fixable with half a sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that would work. And as far as my talk page message, usually I just use the colons, so thanks for the heads up on how to do it differently :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"which was risen further" is a bit ugly. The problem is that "which" refers to the forecast. How about "The group increased their forecast twice more; in April to 29.6 storms, and then in early May to 30.5 storms"?
I love it :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The group was largely accurate in its predictions": you've just used "the group" as the subject of the previous sentence. How about "These predictions proved to be largely accurate"?
That works, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The JMA issued forecasts and analyses four times a day, beginning at 0000 UTC and continuing every six hours": "continuing" doesn't seem right. It would be more technically correct as something like "at 0000 UTC and every six hours thereafter", though that's just as inelegant. How about "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses at six hour intervals each day, beginning at 0000 UTC"?
I still want to emphasize there being four a day more than the every six hours, so I changed it to...
"The JMA issued forecasts and analyses every six hours four times a day, starting at 0000 UTC and based on a climatological tropical cyclone forecast model."
This also address the below comment, I believe. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two consecutive sentences begin with "The JMA issued forecasts".
"The agency began with several meteorologists leaving": might be better as "Several meteorologists left the agency near the start of the year".
Done, good call. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"slightly below the normal of 26.7": I think this should be either "slightly below the norm of 26.7" or "slightly below the normal value [or number] of 26.7".
"Of the storms, 15 became typhoons, which was a slightly higher than normal proportion of storms becoming typhoons": a bit repetitive, with "storms ... became typhoons" quickly followed by "storms becoming typhoons". How about "15 of these 26 storms became typhoons -- a slightly higher proportion than normal".
I largely did that, but changed the beginning so not to violate MOSDATE and starting a sentence with a date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had to scroll up and down in the article a bit to figure out what Agaton and Basyang meant, in parentheses after the names of the storms. I did recall the earlier statement that "This can result in the same storm having two names", which helped. Perhaps that statement could be expanded to something like "This can result in the same storm having two names; in these cases both storm names are given below, with the PAGASA name in parentheses".
Thanks, added. This is very useful, as this is the first time a typhoon season article is up for FAC, so I appreciate comments like these especially. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm influenced heavy rainfall": this would mean that there was already heavy rainfall, which the storm then influenced. I'm sure the repetitive nature of these storm description means that you reach for the thesaurus, but I think just "caused" would be fine here.
"Caused" is so boring :P I changed it to "induced", hehe. Thank you thesaurus.com! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"forcing the other 15 crew members to be rescued": needs to be rephrased; the storm put them in a position where they needed to be rescued, but it didn't force their rescue.
Reworded to - When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage totaled $700 million, which was one of the five costliest storms on Guam": needs rephrasing; $700 million wasn't one of the costliest storms.
Changed "which was" to "making it". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have "considered the system as" and "considering the system as" in the article; I don't think "as" can be used in this way with "consider". You could maybe drop the "as", or perhaps use a verb that does take as, such as "regarded", though I think the intended meaning is what the agencies classified the storm as, not what they regarded it as.
Reworded all three. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"quickly dissipating by the next day": "quickly" and "the next day" are redundant here; I'd cut "quickly".
Reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Every month had tropical activity, with most storms forming from June through August": per the chart, this doesn't appear to be right -- July through October seems more like it.
Actually, check the table under "Seasonal summary and predictions". It shows that there was a depression in every month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I count three forming in June, eight in July, seven in August, five in September, and five in October. Shouldn't it say "July through October"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, yea, good point. I changed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to tell by looking at one of the storm track graphics which end represents the start of the track? It would seem natural that there should be a way.
That is one of the limitations of the track map program, which doesn't have that sort of feature. However, when read with the text, the start and end should be obvious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to strike this because I agree the text makes it clear, but I did notice that File:Changmi_2002_track.png, for example, has triangles that indicate direction. Another track map I looked at had this just for the very first marker, which might be a cleaner approach -- you only need one arrow to indicate direction. Any reason this couldn't be done for all the track maps? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's because Changmi became extratropical toward the end (basically a different type of storm), which is why the arrow changed. As for why it couldn't be done for all track maps, the track maps use the data from the warning centers, but that data doesn't indicate direction. It would be a lot of extra work to add a symbol that really isn't visible unless you click on the image. It's technically doable, but that's a lot of extra work for fairly minimal payoff, IMO. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and as I say above I'm not going to oppose, but I think it would be a nice touch, if ever an OCD member of the Wikiproject wants to edit several thousand track maps to add this .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no - the track that "disapears of the map" is acctully only just entering the WPAC from the Eastern Pacific region.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use "the PAGASA" a couple of times, though it's mostly just "PAGASA"; I assume these are errors and should be fixed.
Dropped "the". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that " ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee" just redirects to the WMO, I think you should list the 14 members in a footnote; there appears to be no other way for a reader to figure out who they are or what the geographic area is (or what "ESCAP" stands for).
Changed the link to WMO, and added the 14 members in a footnote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tropical Cyclones are named from the following lists by ..." why is "Cyclones" capitalized? And this makes it sound like a general statement about all years, whereas this list is specific to 2002, isn't it?
No idea how "Cyclones" got capitalized, but I fixed that. And true, I removed the "following lists" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Japan Meteorological Agency's RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center ..." The RSMCs are mentioned a few sentences later and linked then; I think they should be linked on first appearance, and since it would be good to spell it out on first appearance, why not abbreviate JMA, as the article generally does to this point, and make it "The JMA's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) ..."?
Hmm, no real reason. I shortened it to JMA and added the RSMC link. Regarding the below, I adjusted where I put RSMC and Typhoon Center so they weren't right next to each other. It is correct that the JMA has "center" while RSMC has "centre". I think it's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also re the above: I can't quite parse "... Tokyo — Typhoon Center", for a couple of reasons. First, the spelling of "Center" is inconsistent with the spelling in RSMC -- is that correct? Second, making it "RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center" makes it sound like that's the official title of the centre, which isn't how you refer to it later in this section -- there you just say "the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre in Tokyo".
I don't think you need to mention twice that PAGASA has a list of ten spare names; I would remove the first mention.
Thanks, agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the unused names in grey makes them almost invisibly different. This is not an accessibility issue, since you do have "(unused)" next to them, but I can't imagine anyone finding the colour a quicker visual check than the parenthesis.
I brought it up to the project whether they should be greyed or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Each of the 14 nations or territories submitted 10 names, which are used in alphabetical order, by the English name of the country." I'm not clear what this means -- each of the 14 nations does this each year, and this is the 2002 list? That can't be right; there should be 140 names. So maybe it means that there are 140 names, and they are cycled through so that the only repeat every four or five years? And the order within the 140 is alphabetical, by submitting country? It doesn't seem to be alphabetical by storm within that, if so.
Yea, it's a rotating list every five years or so. But looking at it again, it doesn't really matter about the 10 names each, or alphabetical, so I cut a lot of it out to make it simpler. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments. One more read through.
You have "Northwestern Pacific Ocean" and "Western Pacific" sometimes with capital N and W, and sometimes lower-case. I think it should be lower-case throughout.
Standardized, agreed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As part of its duty as Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC)": should this be "as a Regional"?
Yea, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused by the naming. What's the origin of the "0201" naming convention? Who assigns these? I'm guessing it's the JTWC, but unless I missed it you don't say that.
Clarified that JMA does the numbering. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an editing error or vandalism in the Philippines storm name list; the T storm is named "File:FE" at the moment.
o.O Fixed ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is PAGASA's naming scheme re-used each year? So there'll be an Agaton every year? Seems unlikely but you don't mention that this is just the 2002 list.
It's rotated every four years, added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You got rid of one mention of ESCAP, but there's another -- can it be linked or footnoted?
Meh, the ESCAP is pretty useless, I cut it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think several of the external links should be cut, per # 19 in WP:ELNO. The JTWC, JMA and PAGASA, for example, all have links within the article text to their Wikipedia pages, and those pages all have links to the external websites. There's no need for the external sites to be linked on pages where they're just mentioned.
-- That's really all I can see; I look forward to supporting once we're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut all but those three agencies. I think it's useful actually to show the home page for the three main agencies in the basin, but some of the others are a bit useless. Thanks so much though for the review! The article is much better now with your assistance :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be picky, but I think WP:ELNO is pretty clear on this, unless I'm misinterpreting it somehow. It says "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered". Do you feel this guideline doesn't apply here? Personally I think this is a good guideline; it's easy to add this sort of link, but when we direct people away from Wikipedia to a page on a topic with an article, we should usually only do it from that article, because that way we can give additional context to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok, good point. I opted to leave that Youtube link, and removed the other three links, and added a link to the page that documents every storm in the basin since 1951, which I believe is valuable as further reading. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've switched to support above; congratulations on a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
images are PD "own work", NASA or USGov - OK.
sources and authors provided - OK.
File:FEMA_-_7423_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_12-13-2002_in_Guam.jpg - the source link is dead, and the Wayback machine doesn't have the link archived. However i am going to AGF on this one - the photographer has made a lot of similar photos and there is no real reason to doubt the source info (if you happen to find a replacement link, great) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, i searched for "Booher" at the site and saw no matching hit - oh well. Thanks for finding it. GermanJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image comment
Note: i haven't considered the previous lengthy discussion for the image check itself. Complex policy disputes should be resolved in their proper discussion boards, not during an active FAC (imo). Thankfully IANAC, so i'll leave that point to the FAC-coordinators' decision. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review!! It was very thorough, and I believe it's especially polished right now :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what strikes me most about this article is the remarkable variety of sources it uses to create a rich account of each storm. It's a bit difficult to seamlessly blend huge government reports, scientific journal articles, and locally relevant headlines, but this article does it masterfully. The individual storm sections seem weighted appropriately, and the 'background' section goes above and beyond by presenting the storms as part of a single season, instead of just listing a fact or two about each one. No significant issues that I can see, so happy to offer my support. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Several of the rows in the last table are missing refs, is there a valid reason they should not be cited like the others? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added the refs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
No objections really. I kinda wanted to indicate when exactly they happened, but it is kinda trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to adding "starting at midnight UTC". - Dank (push to talk)
"operating from Pearl Harbor in Hawaii to represent the interests of the United States Armed Forces in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.": I don't know what that means.
The agency was in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And they pretty much only existed to help the military. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "... to supply forecasts to the US Armed Forces ..."? - Dank (push to talk)
"The JTWC had a backup facility in Monterrey, California for the first time in 2002, having moved from Yokosuka, Kanagawa in Japan.": I don't know what that means. Did they move their backup facility from Yokosuka to Monterrey?
Yep. I reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Several meteorologists left the agency near the beginning of the year, although the new forecasters compensated for their inexperience by relying on the consensus of various forecast models.": I don't know ... that's not a particularly nice way to put it. (Being nice isn't mandatory, but I'm not sure if the tone was intended.) You could say that the new forecasters put more reliance on the models of other experienced forecasters after several experienced meteorologists left.
Well, it's better than what the agency said. "Given the significant turnover in personnel, ...the season was entered with some trepidation. The effective use of the
consensus forecast approach helped to mitigate the break in forecaster experience." Really, they're quite lucky that they didn't have more problems given the change in staff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"compensated for their inexperience" is a slightly more negative tone than "the break in forecaster experience." Your call. - Dank (push to talk)
"have complete sections below": I don't know what that means. It might help to be more specific, something like: "The following is a list of (certain) storms, together with (whatever features constitute a "complete section"). - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have an actual section with an infobox, as opposed to the other minor storms in the "Other storms" section. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't object, I'll just note that it's just not the way most wikiprojects do it. More tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, there's a lot of editing going on so it's not a good time to make edits directly to the article, I'll make my suggestions here, sorry for the extra work:
I think the sentence becomes a bit long at that point, but I'll change if you insist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning in 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with forecasting to five days in the future.": In 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with five-day forecasts.
"which was the easternmost since": the easternmost point since - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attached to either, so I went with yours. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage totaled $150 million, mostly from the crop damage.": Damage totaled $150 million, mostly to crops.
That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There was one death related to the storm's aftermath.": There was one death in the storm's aftermath. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There have been many people who died since that storm. Simply saying "there was one death" removes any connection that "related" has. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming up with a long list here, so I'm going to pause to clarify three things. 1. There are lots of judgment calls here, and the relevant wikiprojects (WP:TROP, mainly) are in the best position to make these judgment calls, especially since there are a lot of fine writers and copyeditors interested in TROP articles. 2. The better copyeditors try to base recommendations on actual usage metrics and actual testing for reading comprehension and flow, rather than just repeating what other copyeditors have said. There hasn't been enough of this kind of testing, and I can't back up everything I'm saying with data ... a lot of it does come from copyediting lore and from what Wikipedians have preferred so far. But I'm interested in setting up testing on everything we can test, and I'm always open to changing my recommendations if testing doesn't back them up. 3. Every extra rule places an extra burden on writers, and that's a bad thing (and writers generally push back regardless) ... so I try as much as possible to limit my advice to the kind that can be automated. I'd like to discuss my copyediting automation project with anyone at WP:TROP who's interested. Okay, back to the grind:
Thanks so much for the copyediting! No worries about the long list. I apologize for taking so long to reply, as I've been moving and working a lot lately. I kinda doubt there will be much testing, as people don't generally leave comments about the specific prose of the article. Mostly, from what I've observed, people glance through the article mostly for relevant stats and figures. But that doesn't mean we can't do that :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1 minute winds": 1-minute winds
Eek, fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"while the storm was located about 610 km (380 mi) east": Delete "while the storm was located"
In previous FAC's, copyeditors suggested not getting rid of those statements. Otherwise, there could technically be confusion if the JTWC was located 610 km east of that location. Best to be clear IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
", with the latter agency naming it "Caloy".": This needs testing on readers ... until we get that done, you're safer with ", and PAGASA named it "Caloy"."
No worries, I changed it to your suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"due to a ridge ... Due to strong wind shear": Avoid back-to-back "due to", and use fewer of them in general. See WP:Checklist#because.
Gotcha, changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, removed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"quickly intensified, developing an eye feature later that day.": Drop the "quickly", unless it means something different than "developing an eye feature later that day".
Yea, that's a key feature. Storms can develop eyes randomly and at random intensities. Usually, as in this case, the higher intensity results in the eye feature, but it can't hurt to clarify. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"entrained": uncommon word, easily replaceable
Why? It perfectly describes what happened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"after having weakened": Most style guides recommend "after weakening", but you also see "after having weakened" a lot.
So does it need to be changed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with a broad circulation and developing convection": Avoid using a participle as an adjective when it could be read at first as a participle.
Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The JMA only estimated peak 10-minute winds of": This seems clear enough to me, and there's even an argument that it's best, but some copyeditors feel strongly that "The JMA estimated peak 10-minute winds of only" is more logical and better.
I'm not sure I agree. This sentence shows that the JMA disagreed with the JTWC. Usually a defined eye means it's a typhoon intensity, but JMA thought not. I wanted to emphasis that it's something in opposition to the previous statement as soon as possible. Otherwise, the "only" rather late in the sentence, as in your example, just seems like ordinary boring prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The threat of the storm prompted school closures and for officials to cancel 20 airline flights": What does "for officials" modify? "... and cancellation of ..."
Shortened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Rammasun developed around the same time as Typhoon Chataan, only further to the west.": I'd go with: "Rammasun developed to the west of Typhoon Chataan, at around the same time." Your "only" has a sense of "except" that doesn't really fit the meaning here.
I kinda like the sentence structure that was here. I changed it to "but farther to the west." Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"killing one person from high waves": You can "die from" something, but you can't "kill from" something. I'd go with "killing one person in high waves".
I don't think that works either, IMHO. Simply changed the "from" to "due to". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"leaving [or left] X million in damage" (throughout): I'm not sure. "Leaving behind" is more idiomatic than "leaving", but this phrase is a bit metaphorical so I recommend not using it as often as you do. Also, assuming this was an estimate, maybe "leaving behind damage estimated at X million" would be less ambiguous.
I'm still not sure what's wrong with "leaving". It's used in many tropical cyclone articles. It's a way not to say "caused X million in damage" 20 times in one article. Your suggestion, while less ambiguous, does seem a tad verbose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"near the same location as Chataan": Does this mean "near where Chataan originated"?
That works well! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"relief efforts from Chataan": relief efforts following Chataan
Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"although it still passed near Okinawa with strong winds": although its winds caused widespread power outages on Okinawa [in part to avoid repetition of "strong winds" with the next sentence]
I like it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"allowed for all water restrictions to be removed": I think I'd go with "eliminated all remaining water restrictions".
Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued": at the same time as the others were being rescued, or whereas the others were rescued? "while" is ambiguous here (and it's especially important to avoid ambiguity when talking about death). [But see below for a different fix.]
Heh, this is the second time dealing with this pesky sentence. The sources didn't really say whether the people died at the same time the rescues happened, but yes, it appears it was the same general time. The ship went down, some died, some were rescued. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in the country. In the country,": repetition
Eek, majorly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage." No comma, and "leaving" is getting overused.
Removed both. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued.[59][60] The typhoon produced strong winds and heavy rain in the country.[9] In the country, Fengshen dropped heavy rainfall and produced heavy rains,[61] causing mudslides and leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage.[62][nb 5] There was an additional death in the country.": The last sentence feels tacked on. Now that I see this, I might go with: "Four people drowned when the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, and one was later killed [inland? Or better yet, give a few words of description]".
Sadly, the source didn't give any description about that death. I opted to combine it with the mudslides and crop damage sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Moderate shear caused the thunderstorms to be scattered": Moderate shear scattered the thunderstorms [or another word, if this sounds too much like "scattered thunderstorms"]
How's "dispersed"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the system gradually organized.[10] It tracked northwestward due to a ridge to the north,[9] and organized": repetition
Changed other one to "becoming." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The depression dropped heavy rainfall in the Philippines during its passage,[9] only weeks after several consecutive tropical systems caused deadly flooding in the country. The rains forced 2,400 people to evacuate due to flooding": Repetition (rains, flooding, rains, flooding ... all for the same events)
I dropped the last "due to flooding". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Three people were electrocuted, and flash flooding killed at least two people.[63] Tropical Depression Juan killed 14 people and injured two others.": ... In all, Tropical Depression Juan killed ...
I'm not sure what you mean by the comment, but I added the "In all". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"two others. There were 583 houses that were damaged or destroyed, and damage": I get that you didn't want to have to spell out "583", but adding the expletive "there" isn't the fix I would have gone with ... expletives test poorly for flow and comprehension. I'd go with: "two others, and 583 houses were damaged or destroyed. Damage" - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that works best though, since it would have two "and"s in the sentence. That's something I always try and avoid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Fung-wong turned to the south": It turned to the south
"imparted weakening": an uncommon and kind of old-fashioned word, and its connotation is wrong for "weakening"
Daw, I tried using some fancy wording and I got kicked in the butt... just like grade school! (changed "imparted" to "caused") ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"0600 UTC": 06:00 UTC per MOSNUM (and search for UTC throughout, adding colons)
Oops, changed. Yea, that came up in a previous FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kammuri killed 153 people, most of them related to the remnants": ?
The deaths were largely related to Kammuri's remnants. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A tropical depression developed on August 10 the east of the Philippines.": ?
Dropped "the". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After affecting the country, the tropical depression dissipated in the South China Sea on August 14.": Delete "After affecting the country".
Why? I changed "country" to Philippines. I think it's a great start to the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Soon after it dissipated, it dropped heavy rainfall across the region": The idea is fine, but the words are contradictory. Maybe: ... the remnants dropped ...
Clarified that the circulation dissipated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"killing twelve people due to landslides": This is one of many examples where the sentence would be better without "due to". "... in landslides".
I'm just not a fan of that style. "in landslides" just sounds wrong to me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"due to a weakening ridge, and dry air caused rapid weakening. Passing southeast of Japan, it weakened": repetition
Changed around. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Officials made many preparations for the storm, although damage ended up being minimal on the island. Two people were killed on Taiwan, however." "preparations" is an abstract noun, not a count noun ... that is, you can't make "one preparation" (here), so you also can't make "many preparations". (You could say "extensive preparations", but I won't. You could also say something specific about the storm preparations.) Also, avoid "although ... however" unless you need it, and you don't, here. So: "After storm preparations, damage ended up being minimal on Taiwan, but two people were killed."
Meh, I just cut the clause about preps and said damage was minor there with the death bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"produced a record wind gust": a record for what area and over what period?
"Since records began" is what the source said, so I think "Record wind gust" works fine. And the first part of the sentence is "there", referring to the landfall point of Wenzhou. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"destroyed several piers and a large boat. High rainfall and winds from Sinlaku destroyed 58,000 houses, and large areas of crops were destroyed.": repetition of "destroyed"
Made one "wrecked". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ele continued strengthening, intensifying to winds of 205 km/h (125 mph) before crossing": Ele's winds intensified to 205 km/h (125 mph) before it crossed
Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the JTWC estimated the storm attained peak 1–minute winds of 165 km/h": Either make it "the JTWC estimated the storm's peak 1-minute winds at 165 km/h", or add "that" after "estimated", both because it sounds better that way in Commonwealth countries, and because "estimated the storm" could mean various things ... until you reach "attained", so it's best to avoid the misdirection. Also make one of those two changes for "the JMA estimated Ele attained peak 10-minute winds"
"quickly weakened into a tropical depression.[8] The JTWC quickly": Lose one "quickly".
"Promptly" ok? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"offshore Hong Kong": off Hong Kong, or off the coast of Hong Kong. "offshore" isn't normally a preposition.
Let's make it simpler and just say "near Hong Kong" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to the storm moving along the coast of China for several days, Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall": Graham (the FAC coord) and some grammarians call the first bit a "fused participle". I don't care much for the boilerplate fix ("the storm's moving"), particularly here. Go with: "Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall along the coast of China for several days."
Not sure about fused participle, but I'm tired, so I'll go with what you put :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges; in the province, there were 25 deaths.": Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges and caused 25 deaths.
I disagree, as I don't like having two "and"s. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Offshore, one boat sank, prompting helicopters to rescue the crew of 25.": Helicopters rescued a crew of 25 after their boat sank. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"shortly after striking Hokkaidō, Higos became extratropical on October 2": shortly after striking Hokkaidō on October 2, Higos became extratropical. If time adverbs are referencing the same time, keep them together.
Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage in the country totaled $2.14 billion (¥261 billion JPY), and there were five deaths in the country.": Drop the second "in the country".
"killing seven people involved in two shipwrecks offshore Primorsky Krai.": killing seven people during two shipwrecks off Primorsky Krai.
Respectfully, I think it works better as it is. I'm not sure why you don't like "offshore" being a preposition, but it works well, and I think "involved in" works better than "during". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"around a circulation": That's probably okay, but it has a redundant sound to it. You may want to fiddle with it.
Added "single" before circulation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"on October 8. ... Early in its duration, the system produced gale force winds on Kosrae in the FSM.[100] Late on October 9,": I don't see why we need "Early in its duration", since we know it's on the 8th or 9th, unless the narrative is out of chronological order.
Changed to "Around this time". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"International Date line": International Date Line (unless you're talking about a place for meeting international dates)
"United States federal government": In the US, it's "US federal government", "federal government" or "US government" at least 99% of the time in print (in part because that's what AP Stylebook recommends). It's widely assumed on Wikipedia that "United States" is always okay and somehow less US-centric than "US", but I'm betting testing will show that our readers are much more used to seeing "US" as an adjective (though "United States" is always fine as a noun).
Dropped United States. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's it. There's a lot to do if we're going to automate most of this advice, but I'm on board if TROP is willing to work with me on this. I'd rather not have to do all this by hand for a lot of FACs. (Now you can see why I generally make the edits directly ... and I started to do that today, but there was a vandal making edits today, so it was too dangerous ... I use Visual Editor, which doesn't have section editing, for big jobs.) These are the few edits I made directly. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I think I got it all. Thanks so much for all of the comments here. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Short version: I'm happy with the article now, but I'd appreciate feedback on my last edit ... those are the minimal changes that will work for me, in light of your comments above. If those changes don't work for you, I need to know. It would also be nice to know if the changes don't make sense, so that I can ask at WT:TROP for feedback. You did a great job in your responses above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments -- I'll promote this now, thanks all for your input. HH, couple of parting things: we shouldn't need to link modern countries like Japan, China, etc; also there's some white space on my 14" widescreen between the first section header and the table that follows it, so not sure if you can put it further down (spacing issues change from device to device so there may be no ideal solution)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2014 (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) 08:17, 25 September 2014 (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 Fanny Bullock Workman, mountaineer, rock climber, suffragette, and feminist. It was one of the last articles being worked on by Adrianne Wadewitz before her untimely death, and between her excellent work and those of us wishing to finish it, we'd like to raise this up in her memory.
Okay, so what have I done? Well, I've reviewed it, fixed up some copyediting, checked and improved the images - probably will try to improve them a bit more through restoration and such, but that's surely not a requirement before nominating here - and her books are more than amply covered by my local library. So, let's do this! Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Fanny_bullock_workman_d_1922.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Bain News Service photo, which would have been used in newspapers and such at the time. Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from EddieHugh
Something to get out of the way early on: there are too many quotations that are unattributed and that could be paraphrased. e.g., in Move to Europe and cycling tours, "the role of "devoted mother" and instead became an "adventurer and author"" (can be paraphrased; if not, attribute them); "lyrical descriptions"; "The Workman's works are colonialist in that they describe the people they meet and observe as "at best as exotic or unusual, at worst as primitive or even subhuman"" (be clear about who wrote that); "commonplace" (surely this can be reworded... it's only one word).
I'm wary of what appear to be editorial summaries. e.g., "Popular reviewers, on the other hand, enjoyed the book. One reviewer in The Standard, wrote "We have no hesitation in saying that Dr. and Mrs. Workman have written one of the most remarkable books of travel of recent years."[16]" If No. 16 is the source of that first, summarizing, sentence, then add 16 explicitly. If it's not, then the first sentence needs a different source or to be cut. Another example: "Their rivalry demonstrated that women could climb in the remotest and most difficult terrain of the world, and that they were equal to male mountaineers" (needs a direct source, as it's hard for the reader to judge if this is the writer's synthesis or has been asserted explicitly by others).
I went through and sourced the quotes some more and did some paraphrasing, as per your request, which I believe will do away with the editorializing, even though I think that Wadewitz's method follows how quotes are handled in some academic literature. When Adam gets a hold of the sources, he can check for accuracy.
Small things: "the 45 miles (72 km)-long" (the hyphen is needed, but "miles" must be singular; there are several examples); multiple sources together should be in numerical order; use same date formatting throughout (e.g., infobox dob and dod differ); either abbreviate months or don't (don't is preferable – MOS:MONTH). EddieHugh (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the above, which was due to use of the convert template. I'm pretty sure I got them all; perhaps someone can go behing me and catch what I've missed or correct any errors.
Thank you for your comments; My sources are at the library, but I'll fix what I can without them tonight, and try to fix the library ones within a day or two (presuming Christine doesn't get to them first). Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I add my thanks for your comments; they'll make for a stronger article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Hamiltonstone. A worthy article aabout an important figure, and glad to see Adrianne's work continuing.
There was some pretty dire repetition early in the prose - sentences using the same word twice etc. I've tried to iron some out, and it got better as i went through.
"After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, using the bicycle to achieve it, she ..." very clunky. Suggest you get rid of the reference to the bicycle altogether here, and just have "After his death, according to Pauly, Workman...", and then introduce cycling early in the following para.
The reason for the clunkiness is to demonstrate the importance of bicycles, which provided women with more freedom of movement, in the feminist movement. That's why I think that it should remain where it is. I agree with you that it's clunky language, so I did this: "After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours..."
They really only carried 20lbs of luggage each? Are we certain we have the source correct on this? That is staggeringly light, unless they had porter-cyclists behind them!!
This is from the Pauly source, which I don't have access to. Adam needs to consult the source to be sure, but I'm inclined to WP:AGF that Wadewitz was accurate.
Pinnacle peak section - something needs to be done about the repetition of the peak being her altitude record - it is described para one and then set out again at the start of para 2.
I think the reason it's described in this way is because the first para talks about how she did it and the second one talks about how she proved that she had done it; i.e., defending that she broke the record. Maybe if you're more specific about what you want changed, I can follow your suggestion here.
I think I;ve fixed it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get past the pinnacle peak section.
Ha! Good one! ;)
May get back some time. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, eagerly anticipating more. And thanks for your copy-editing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gone through to the end, and have fixed the other things I found. I think I'm done.
I took a brief look at the sources and the formatting looked sound. Any particular reason there are lots of – rather than just straight endashes?
Thanks for your efforts to continue the work of one of my favourite wikipedians. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HTML codes for ndashes are common amongst people who either often write HTML off Wikipedia, or who started editing Wikipedia before the character insert tools got added to the edit interface. – is preferred in HTML, I believe, but I also believe the Wikicode can do that HTML conversion for you. That said, it's easier for an editor in the fixed-width font of the edit window to tell hyphens from en- and em-dashes if the HTML is used, which likely makes it a bit easier to proofread. In short, no strong reason to do it, but no reason to change it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Adam. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
"The Workmans left their children with nurses while they took long trips and even missed their daughter's wedding in 1912 while exploring in the Karakoram. In 1893, Siegfried died from a combination of influenza and pneumonia. After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours, "aggressively pursued an alternative identity, one that liberated her from the conventional responsibilities of wife and mother and allowed for her interests and ambitions".": Would it work to put the first sentence (1912) after the other sentences (1893)?
This is how I dealt with this: "The Workmans left their children with nurses while they took long trips.[14] In 1893, Siegfried died from a combination of influenza and pneumonia. After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours, "aggressively pursued an alternative identity, one that liberated her from the conventional responsibilities of wife and mother and allowed for her interests and ambitions".[15] They missed their daughter's wedding in 1912 while exploring in the Karakoram.[14]"
"The books describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas through which the couple journeyed; they were aware of contributing to the genre of travel writing, commenting on other writers in their own works.": I wasn't sure of the exact meaning. I went with "The books describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas through which the couple journeyed and comment on other writers' similar works, contributing to the genre of travel writing." Correct that if it's wrong, please.
I think your version isn't correct (plus, it's grammatically incorrect); to fix it, I changed the first 2 sentences in the paragraph: "Together, the Workmans explored the world and co-wrote eight travel books, which describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas in which they journeyed. The Workmans were aware of their contribution to the genre of travel writing as they commented on other writers in their own works."
Sure thing. The changes look good. I was very sorry to hear about Adrianne ... she was quite kind to me when I needed it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article; it may take me a day or so.
Why is "Himalaya" rather than the more usual "Himalayas" used?
It's technically more correct - "Himalaya" is already plural. Though Workman uses "Himalayas", so it's debateable Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looking around on the web, it appears a shift is underway towards "Himalaya"; it's not something I was aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding an "American English" template; I was about to change "The couple was ..." to "The couple were ..." but caught myself.
I think it would be good to mention a couple of dates in the lead; by the time they reach 23,000 feet I have no idea within 20 years of when that might have happened. Perhaps the year of their marriage, and the year they reached that altitude?
I'll sort this out tonight. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many direct quotes, I feel. I don't see any reason why some of these should be preserved as quotes, rather than reformulated. There are dozens of them. I can see the value of some, but for example is there any reason to preserve "contributed significantly to the sport's evolution from strenuous recreation into serious, regulated competition" in the author's original words?
I went through (a couple of days ago; I was out of town over the weekend, so it was all I had time to do) the quotes and tried to paraphrase as much as I could. It's likely I could've done more, but I think that what I done goes far in fulfilling this request. Let me know if you think that I need to do more.
That's certainly better. (I cleaned up a couple of stray quotes left over.) I'd remove more quotes than you did, but to some extent it's a matter of taste. There are one or two I really don't see the value of, though; could you rephrase the following, which seem low value to me: "slow and uncooperative" (perhaps "difficult to work with"?), "triumph", "moved to establish themselves as the foremost authorities on thin air", "was greatly interested in the higher education of women and in their advancement to an equality with men in social, literary, scientific, and political fields" (how about "...and Bryn Mawr; the bequests were demonstrative of her long-lasting interest in the advancement of women's rights, and her belief that they were the equals of men", or something similar?), and "modern equipment coupled with team climbing enhanced the success and reduced the risk of such ventures"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have any objection to me attempting some further rephrasing myself? I don't have access to most of the sources, but I could probably do a couple, and see what you think. I did see your note above about Adrianne's approach mirroring academic usage, but I think encyclopedic writing is different. I have to say the quotes are the only thing that are preventing me from supporting at this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can you check and let me know if any of the changes go against the intention of the original source? Once that's done I'll support; there are a couple of comments left, but they're minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"However, at times they are aware of their own biases, demonstrating that the people they encounter see them in a similar light": I don't quite follow this. Do you mean that the people they encounter saw the Workmans as exotic, just as the Workmans saw them as exotic? If so, the phrasing doesn't work -- being aware of their biases doesn't demonstrate that the people they encounter saw them in a certain way. Perhaps "However, at times they make it clear that the people they encounter see them in a similar light, demonstrating that they were sometimes aware of their own biases".
Changed as per your request.
"spent more time seeking out ancient history": shouldn't this be something like "spent more time seeking out ancient historical sites"?
Actually, the context doesn't support your interpretation. The Workmans wanted to learn about ancient texts and their background, so they were more interested in history than meeting contemporary people in the areas. I agree that it was unclear, though, so I exchanged "seeking out" with "learning about", so it now reads, "They were eager to learn about the culture that had produced these epics and spent more time learning about ancient history than interacting with living people."
There are two consecutive paragraphs that begin "After their first trip to the Himalaya".
I changed the first paragraph to: "After travelling to the Himalaya the first time..."
I think the section breaks are not ideally placed. Currently you have "Move to Europe and cycling tours" and then "Mountaineering in the Himalaya" as consecutive top level sections, but the second of these actually continues a narrative begun in the middle of the first section. I think it would be better to have a section break before the start of the entire 1897-1900 trip. You could treat the mountaineering in the Himalayas during that trip as a subsection, with another section for the later similar exploits. With the current structure it feels odd to read "After their first trip to the Himalaya" at the start of a new section, and realize we're not moving forward in time, we're talking about part of the trip discussed above.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Since I don't want to follow your instructions incorrectly, would you mind making the changes you suggest? If we don't like them, we can revert them back and go from there.
The mention of the Siegfriedhorn doesn't say, as Plint does, that the name is no longer in use for that peak; I think that should be mentioned. It would be even better to give the current name of the mountain, but I doubt it's possible to figure out which it is.
Similarly, it would be nice to give the modern name of Mount Bullock Workman, if it can be determined. I see that Fallen Giants refers to it as a moderate peak; should it really be listed in the infobox as a notable ascent -- particularly if it can't be currently identified?
I added a note stating that Pauly called them "long forgotten" names. I think this satisfies what you ask. I'd like to keep Mt. Bullock Workman in the infobox because it was notable at the time.
"After their 1908 trip, the couple stopped exploring": the 1908 trip appears to have lasted until 1912, according to the account above, so it would be a bit less confusing for the reader if this were referred to as the "1908-1912" trip, I think.
Done.
Is the nature of her final illness given in the sources? If so, I think it should be noted in the article.
I dunno. I don't have access to the sources in question, so I'll leave it to Adam to find out.
"In her writings, Workman describes herself" and "She demonstrates that women are strong enough..." -- should be "described" and "demonstrated", I would think -- you don't use the present tense in the surrounding text.
Done.
"Ultimately, the Workmans were some of the first mountaineers to grasp that ...": why "ultimately"?
Done.
A search of newspapers.com finds a sentence reviewing what appears to be a piece of fiction she wrote in 1885, published in the April and May issues of New England Magazine. The article doesn't mention that she published fiction; if this can be sourced, I think it would be worth mentioning.
I have a subscription to newspapers.com and I wasn't able to find the review you're talking about. Could you provide a more specific citation, please?
Thanks Mike, for the clipping. Added info as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
Three minor points on orthography. Running the article through the spell-check with the AmEng setting switched on, I find it suggests "buffeted" for "buffetted" and "submited" for "submitted", and boggles, as do I, at "Club Alpin Francais" without a cédille. As to the first and second, above, I don't know if Microsoft's US spell-check is reliable ("submited" looks odd to me) but I just mention the matter for consideration. – Tim riley talk 13:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the spelling use is correct. To be honest, I'd trust Adrianne more than MS. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of spelling. One can argue it variously – as Fowler puts it, "my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education and someone else's ignorance" – but it does seem perverse that the blue link reads "Himalaya" when the WP article to which it links has as its title the familiar "Himalayas". I believe the former is more purist, but do we want to get into "these data" territory, cf insisting that "bimbo" is male, the plural of cello is "celli" and "gild the lily" should be "paint the lily". All perfectly true from the purist point of view, but such pedantry makes Wikipedia look a bit out of touch, me judice. – Tim riley talk 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note
August is a bit of a busy month; I apologise if I'm slow in responding to issues during this period, but will get to all responses ASAP. Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning support. A few comments.
Lede
" The Workmans began their journeys" this is slightly ambiguous, it sounds like each journey started off with bicycling and then went on to something else. Maybe "began their travels"?
Done.
Early life
"her privilege",[1] and a small number" I'd be inclined to split the sentence at the comma, but I can see it both ways.
Done as per your suggestion.
"received his medical training at Harvard." was he a doctor? The article is not clear on this point.
Well, I would think that it's self-evident that his medical training meant that he was a doctor. Should I put the title "Dr." in front of his name?
"Workmans disliked the provincial nature of life in Worcester," hm, not sure that I care for this way of saying that they lived there.
Added the phrase, "where they resided".
" on which her guide was Peter Taugwalder" this seems not to match the first part of the sentence. What does "on which" refer to?
I removed "on which" and separated the two thoughts with a semi-colon.
Labor issues
Did the return to Darjeeling end their journey?
The sources are unclear about that, although they are clear that the labor issues described occurred throughout their voyages. That's why I divided the paragraph. Hopefully, my solution clears up the confusion.
The paragraph could be profitably divided, possibly after "Darjeeling"
Ah, great minds... ;)
Mountaineering in the Himalaya
"they could not have descended to a safe altitude in time" In time for what?
Replaced "in time" with "before altitude sickness set in".
Pinnacle Peak
"giving Workman the record at the time" possibly "confirming Workman's record".
Done.
Legacy
"She demonstrated that women are strong enough to thrive outside the home " this seems a bit ... extreme to me. I don't think there was any doubt that women could thrive outside the home even before Workman. Nellie Bly, for example.
The statement follows the sources. And there was certainly doubt; Workman, along with Bly, wanted to provide more evidence of it.
" PhD candidates" is this not more commonly Ph.D.?
I think that both are correct, but I changed it to your spelling.
Works
"In the Ice World of Himálaya ..." this book is mentioned with a slightly different title in the text.
Correct title is "in": corrected it in the text.
That's it. Looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. (I am not very good at correctly formulating my own references so may miss some things.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent about how you format dates.
ref15 - formatting
ref24 - incomplete
How is this incomplete?
Well, its ref 25 now and needs a year, page numbers etc. and why not put it in the"Cited sources"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some digging around, I discovered an error in the source formatting, which I have fixed. I must say, I started to have a little panic attack; I mean, it's not like I could've asked what Adrianne meant to do! Yikes!
ref40 - where is this from?
Seems clear to me; perhaps the numbering has changed since your review?
Its ref41 now, Plint's comments Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Plink is a source listed in "Cited sources" section; this is an acceptable way to handle notes like this.
Jordan, Jennifer (2009) - capitalisation
How about using two columns for the references?
Um, the refs are already in two columns. Perhaps you mean the "Cited sources" section? If so, I disagree.
Its interesting you say that. They are not in 2 columns on my monitor and occupy two and a half screens of vertical height. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the column width from 20 to 30 and I see three columns; perhaps that will fix it for you.
What is the rationale behind putting most, but not all of your sources in the "Cited sources" section?
"Cited sources" is a Bibliographic list, while "References" are the specific pages cited from "Cited sources" and on-line accessible sources. Another title for "Cited sources" is "Works cited"; both are accurate and depend on the editor's preferences.
My concerns have now been satisfactorily addressed. The article seems comprehensive to me and the quality of the prose is of a high standard and I support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Out of respect for Adrianne's memory as much as anything we've left this open quite a while. We seem to be on the homeward stretch now, perhaps the nominators can check if Mike and Wehwalt have anything further to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'm waiting for to support is for the nominators to check that the rephrasing of quotes I did remained faithful to the source. I believe Christine said that Adam is the one with access to the sources. To be honest, I am pretty sure it's fine, but it would be nice if someone could check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the consideration, really I do. I'll ping Adam and Wehwalt now to get things moving. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. No opinion on the sources, I don't have access to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the coordinators could leave this nomination open a few more days, that would be great. Adam has promised [13] to get to the sources this week. Again, I thank you for your flexibility and patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan and Adam Cuerden: To be honest, I'm not sure what we're waiting on re. sources, as both image and source reviews seem to have been satisfactory. If it's nothing major then I'm inclined to promote this now and it can be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sorry, I've not een able to get to the library to confirm a couple sources. I should be able to any day now. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I agree; I don't think that Adam isn't going to find much to confirm with the sources, anyway--at least not anything major. If you're inclining towards promoting, that's a marvelous direction in which to lean. ;) Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that suggestion would find much in the way of opposition from you guys... ;-) Doesn't look like it's causing other page watchers much anguish either so I think it's time to finally bring this to a close -- tks to everyone involved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2014 (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) 07:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Flight Unlimited III is not a well known game. It bombed commercially and helped to bankrupt its developer, Looking Glass Studios. Even the company's management, and publisher Electronic Arts, seemed uninterested in it. Still, it was technologically advanced for its time, and reviewers loved it.
Now that Flight Unlimited II and Thief II: The Metal Age have been promoted, I only need to get this page through FAC in order to upgrade the Looking Glass Studios Good Topic to a Featured Topic. Because I wrote this article before the other two, it might be a bit weaker; but I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by PresN
A solid article, as per usual; you're a great writer and I hope you keep finding interesting project to work on, either in LGS or outside. I'm generally worse at prose/grammar than you, so lets see if I can come up with anything in that regards in this review.
Well, I feel better already: "Flight Unlimited III is a 1999 flight simulator video game developed Looking Glass Studios" - developed by
I've read that sentence 500 times. No idea how that got there. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the game was well received by critics." - Using however as a transition word for such a short sentence sounds weird to my ears. Maybe it's just me.
"several reviewers lauded its simulated physics. Certain critics commented that the physics lacked precision" - since these two statements seem to contradict each other, you might want something acknowledging that dichotomy- "certain other critics", or "certain critics, however,"
I rewrote the whole passage in an attempt to address both of your criticisms. See what you think JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good now. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel morally obligated to frown whenever I see someone not using an oxford comma ("Beechjet 400A and five planes")
I think it's a matter of taste. As most of the articles I've worked on suggest, I prefer to leave it out. I don't think there's a guideline either way, as long as the usage is consistent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, it's left up to the editor. I frown nonetheless, but it doesn't really matter and I'm not counting it against the article. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"how many people [were] quitting."" - period outside quote
The period is part of the original quote. I haven't read WP:MOS in years, but I'm fairly certain that a period is supposed to go inside quotation marks when the quoted passage ends with one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only realized a few months ago, so apparently I've been doing it wrong for years, but MOS:LQ says that you only leave the period inside the quote if you're quoting the whole sentence, even if your quote fragment ends with a period. What it doesn't say is apparently this is the British method; I was taught in American school to leave in the period, and replace it with a comma (still inside the quote) if you're continuing the sentence on after. The MOS does not approve of that. I'm fine with it if you want to leave it as-is; it's not exactly the best-followed MOS rule. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason the GameRankings average isn't in the review table?
Seemed redundant to have it in the prose and the table, and I couldn't move the score to the table without losing clarity in the prose. I could try to figure something out if you think it's important. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, just making sure it was purposeful. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"graphically glamorous, and lots of fun."" - period outside quote
Period appears in the original text. See above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"experience you can get for a PC." [4]" - same, and remove the space before the ref
You use a lot of quotes, which I'm certainly guilty of quite often myself, but I think the single-word quotes e.g. 'the flight physics "good" in general but "overly gentle" for' could be easily paraphrased or left unquoted as too short
I thought I was doing better about overquoting this time. Oh well. I changed quoted "good" to unquoted "solid", and added a paraphrase to Saltzman's review, but I'd prefer to leave the rest of the superlatives to the reviewers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not one to complain; I once brought an article to FAC where the reception section was about 60-70% quotes by volume. (Someone complained, of course). --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're italicizing online sources in the references, but not the prose. These should really be consistent, unless you add publishers to the references- Ziff Davis for IGN, CBS Interactive for GameSpot, etc. Either that, move the sites from work= to publisher=, or italicize them in the prose.
You shouldn't put "staff" as the author if an author is not specified; it's implicitly assumed (who else would it be?), so you just leave it blank. (refs 22, 23, 27)
Ref 27 is the only magazine cite you give a publisher for, and that and ref 15 are the only ones with locations given- try to be consistent. Not to mention you wouldn't need to specify that southern San Fransisco is in the United States anyway; you don't do it for Orlando, Florida
That ref was added by another user. Fixed it to be consistent with the others. Ref 15 has a location because it's a press release. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources all look good; they're mainly the same ones as at Flight Unlimited II, which I source reviewed last month. Did a few spotchecks for form's sake, and they were clean. --PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and kind remarks. I've always respected your work as well, between the lists, music articles and multiple featured topics—you've contributed a ridiculous amount to Wikipedia. Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - made a few remarks inline for optional changes, but I'm satisfied with the article. You've contributed a ton, too- the LGS (soon-to-be) featured topic is amazing, and the online print archive has supported tons of articles. Glad I've gotten to work with you on some articles/lists! --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tezero
Today's my last day in town before I head back to college, but I'll at least start reviewing by the end of today. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise with "artificially intelligent" - actually, "computer-controlled" might be a better choice, although "AI" is used later - just something to consider
If memory serves, I've wikilinked artificial intelligence in every video game article I've ever worked on, up through FU2 and Thief 2. Not sure why it would need to change now. As for "computer-controlled", I'm not in love with that phrase. Technically, the computer controls everything that happens in a game, even though some of it is influenced by user input. "Artificially intelligent" is a phrase I used in FU2 without incident, and I think it's clearer than the alternative, so I'd prefer to stick with it.
Determinism, eh? Alright, that's fine; it was just a stylistic qualm, a minor one. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the player may select what weather to encounter before a flight" - What or which? In other words, can you choose multiple weather effects? Elaborate a bit.
Did some work on it. See what you think.
good Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"wanted to move on to Flight Unlimited III, while others wanted to create Flight Combat" - Had these projects and their titles already been decided on, or is it just that some wanted to work on a sequel to FUII and others a wholly new IP?
Flight Combat and Flight Unlimited III are both explicitly named in the survey.
good Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development's a bit thick - keep the information, that's fine, but consider splitting it into subsections.
Added a subsection. How's that?
That's fine. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back when you've addressed these/when I get around to returning. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He left after the game's completion to join Flightsim.com" - can you elaborate a bit on what this is?
Done.
Everything else looks fine, I think. As always, I do prefer issue-by-issue reviewing rather than reviewer-by-reviewer, but as far as the latter format goes Reception is fine. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last issue addressed; many thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.
Copyedited a bit
Thanks. I edited a few parts that weren't true to the sources, or that otherwise made the content less grammatical or harder to understand. (Also, as a note, "due to" and "because of" are not interchangeable.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caption phrases do not need final punctuation
Fixed.
While I'm not blown away by the content, I see the importance of having this article pass FAC for the featured topic
Really have no idea what you're talking about. Clarify and I'll take steps to address it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not sure the "imported" wikilink to porting is proper
What do you recommend instead? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dev could use more expansion on why they were split and what Flight Combat is
There is no more information on why they split. Added an explanation of Flight Combat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The contract also stipulated that any advances provided by Electronic Arts were to be paid back from the royalties of both games." Is this necessary? It seems like foreshadow that this becomes a problem later but it isn't
It did become a problem later, but it's generalized in the discussion of FU3 using up SS2's profits. I went ahead and removed the line. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need citations immediately following direct quotes. I only tagged one such spot of several
I've never encountered this in 8 years at FAC, right up through last month's Thief II. Guideline link? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the next few days were spent finding out how many people [were] quitting." this is abrupt. Why were they quitting? The prior complaints seem limited to retrospection post-release, not immediately after going gold
Not sure what you mean. The section clearly details struggles during development. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really the best screenshot available? I feel like it doesn't tell me much about the game unless this is the usual view...
I've been wondering when someone would bring it up. That's an awful image left over from the article's original form, before I revamped it. I've never played and don't own FU3, and the screenshots available online are either lousy or watermarked, so I couldn't replace the screenshot. If you think it's a big deal, I can try to pull something together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add GameRankings to the reviews box, remember to only use two digits of precision, per the template
As I said to PresN, it needs to be in the prose for that sentence to work. Adding it to the template as well is just redundant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a lot of ", because" instances—something to watch in the future as the pauses didn't make sense
Not sure what you mean, and your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception is a little dry and disparate. It could be improved by aggregating the common ideas behind the reviews into a single sentence
Those sentences are common, but they're blatant original research. I omitted them for that reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do an image review. (Perhaps take a look at their FURs first and clean 'em up?) I'm also looking for feedback on the Fez FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the first thing about writing a FUR. The ones present look fine to me. Anyway, @Czar: I responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For import/porting: Import and export of data. Citations immediately following quotes comes from WP:MINREF (part of the good article baseline criteria). Re: "finding out how many people", the section details the individual's unhappiness with the company's handling of the game—particularly post-release—so it is abrupt to hear that the staff was planning to leave even before the final word about sequels and whatnot came from the management. It just needs to be clarified in context of the rest of the section. I think the screenshot is worth recapturing—perhaps you can request one on a relevant forum? Someone is going to add GameRankings to the box eventually—the point of the box is to have easy access to the reviews. Either way, it should use two digits of precision. your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because": could you explain why? The "comma because" appear to make much less sense. I could understand removing it because it misrepresents the source, otherwise... Frame rate still needs wikilink. Aggregating sources that say the same thing into one sentence is not original research any more than having those same sentences from multiple sources spelled out in succession. The FUR on the screenshot should be expanded upon, but that will change anyway if it's being replaced. czar ♔ 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, you misread MINREF. It says that "direct quotations" should be sourced. That is the case in this article: Peter James's quotes are cited at the end of the paragraph, because all of that material is from one source. Second, all of the material from James relates to pre-release marketing, management and team morale; he left almost immediately after the game's release. His claim that the rest of the team left follows up on his claims about the game's rocky development. James's stray comment about his FU4 designs is the only extant source that discusses FU4 or its cancellation, to my knowledge, so I can't add anything else. Third, I'll see what I can do about a screenshot. Fourth, I removed the digits. Fifth, "due to" is interchangeable with "caused by"; "because of" is interchangeable with "on account of". Source: [14]. Your recent rewrites of the "because of" sentences are fine, barring the addition of another improper "due to" construction, which I've now fixed. Sixth, sentences that use phrases like "many reviewers thought X", even when followed by fifty citations, violate WP:WEASEL when used outside of the lead. More general phrases like "the game's X was praised" are full-on OR unless they are followed by a citation that summarizes, specifically, that "the game's X was praised". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm familiar with MINREF. The standard is to directly cite after every sentence that contains a quotation because the idea is that any sentence that can be challenged should have an immediate ref. I ran the cost/CD-ROM "because of" instance past my English rhetoric grad student colleagues, and they said that "due to" made more sense. I understand that you're generalizing from that StackExchange source, but it didn't apply in this one instance. If you want, I can run the other instances past them, but I'm sure about this one you last reverted. The "many" in "many reviewers X" example would be a weasel word since it makes a broad claim unable to be confirmed, but to say "reviewers X" without the "many" wouldn't make such a claim, as the claim would only hold to the critics cited. If it were original research to aggregate claims, we wouldn't be able to say a game received positive reviews without sourcing Metacritic, etc. However you fall on that issue, it's an extreme stance to say we cannot summarize critical opinion given current practices. About James, the issue wasn't adding something else but rephrasing to clarify that they were unhappy during development and planned to leave, and then follow with his retrospective comments. The sense of time is just wonky as is. czar ♔ 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#1 Again, I have eight years of experience at FAC (nine on Wikipedia in general) and I've never seen anyone required to use citations in this way. Not even the four most recent VG FAs (Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage and Development of Grand Theft Auto V) follow the rule. Further, MINREF itself does not actually say what you claim it says. The discussion you linked is also completely inconclusive: it features one guy who shares your opinion, one who shares mine and a third who suggests following guy 1 to save time. This is clearly a case of personal preference rather than guidelines or policies, so I'm going to leave the article as-is on this count. #2 Regarding "due to", you're still using it improperly. Let me cite more sources.
Grammar Girl, "[I]f you find yourself agreeing with traditionalists—or if your writing will be judged by one—use 'due to' if you can substitute 'attributable to,' 'caused by,' or 'resulting from.'"
BBC Manual of Style, "This means caused by, not because of."
Economist Style Guide, "When used to mean caused by, due to must follow a noun, as in The cancellation, due to rain, of... Do not write It was cancelled due to rain. If you mean because of and for some reason are reluctant to say it, you probably want owing to. It was cancelled owing to rain is all right."
#3 "Reviewers" is still a weasel word when used beyond the lead section. Again, see WP:WEASEL, which offers the words "scholars" and "experts" as examples. A generalized word like "reviewers" is acceptable only when it "accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold italics in the original), i.e. when the source itself refers to "reviewers" as a whole. And yes, it is original research to say that "X received positive reviews" unless that claim is backed up directly by a source (such as Metacritic or GameRankings). This is not at all extreme. #4 I tried to address the timeline issue. See what you think. #5 I'll see what I can do about the screenshot, but it might be a few days before I get any bites on the relevant forums. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: New screenshot in place. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the FUR. --PresN 06:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Image-related stuff has always been a blindspot of mine on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Czar is uninterested in continuing his review. Pinged him here and dropped a note on his talk page, but haven't heard from him in four days even though he's been editing elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same happened with Sonic X, which is now in limbo at one support and czar's incomplete image and source review. He passive(-aggressive?)ly mentioned on my talk page that it can be tedious to check what's been done on reviews, but when FACs are waiting on you, four days is a little much, I think. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, please. I have less time to edit during the week and my reviews have almost exclusively been done over the weekends. And that any review hangs on my immediate response (or my complete review at all) is hyperbolic. czar ♔ 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; didn't realize that was a pattern. We can both wait. Tezero (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Czar: had you responded at all on your talk page, I would have known to wait. I assumed from the total lack of a reply that you'd dropped the review for some reason—perhaps because of personal business or the innumerable GAN reviews you're doing. AGF wasn't even an issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pulling of rank was inappropriate in this case. If you don't agree with my interpretation of minref, that's fine, you just had to say so. In the tradition of GA reviews, the phrase is "If the article contains any of these five types of statements, then some sort of inline citation system must be used for those specific statements." I've never seen minref read in your interpretation and just because it hasn't ever been questioned doesn't make me confident that it's correct. On "due to" and "because of", I see the sources you reference, but I'm going from the recommendation of the two foremost editors I know, both English lit doc students and university writing tutors. (Perhaps it's more of British English thing?) Again if you disagree, that's fine, but your tone in doing so has been off-putting. On your interpretation of original research, I just went through a number of GANs in the last week and they all make claims about the positive/negative content of reviews and then go on to combine those judgements on the whole as "X received positive reviews". I'm not interested in debating whether or not your interpretation is extreme, but I will say that in my experience, WPVG articles do not abide by that standard and I do not think a WT:VG discussion on the topic would affirm your stance. These things aside, the new screenshot is much better. It needs to be reduced to <100k pixels and its FUR needs to remove reference to the airplane (which is no longer there) and it'll be fine. I can support this nomination on prose, minding my ideological disagreements on the issues interpreted above, and I would have been able to have done so sooner (as not much has changed) had the bolding and policy-caps retorts been more generous in tone. czar ♔ 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Thanks. And I'm sorry if my tone came across as harsh or insulting; when I'm at FAC, I often handle disagreements in spare, blunt language to avoid wasting time. Add to that my irritation at your usage of "due to"—which was mine, too, before I was set straight by another Wikipedian—in your copyedit, and even I can see where I went over the line. Apologies. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All three images pass; no other media present. --PresN 19:23, 15 September 2014 (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) 01:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Tintin in Tibet (a Good Article) is the twentieth (out of twenty-four) volume of The Adventures of Tintin, one of the most popular European comics series of the 20th century by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. I, Prhartcom, believe I have brought this article to FA quality after a great deal of recent research, writing, copy editing, and coordination of multiple peer-reviewers. Midnightblueowl improved the article in 2011 and assisted in the most recent peer review. Other editors who assisted were J Milburn and Curly Turkey, with additional assistance by Brigade Piron. Now that it is finally being nominated here, Midnightblueowl and I look forward to your comments and critiques, and hope you enjoy reading the article! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492
*is the twentieth volume of The Adventures of Tintin, the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. - wouldn't "a comics series" be more standard? The definite pronoun "the" implies that the author only created one series, when in fact he had several (at least 3 we have articles on)
Fixed. Good point. A few of us worked out that sentence ages ago and applied it consistently throughout the Tintin articles, so we will have to apply this fix across them all as well. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Himalayan mountains - Why not just "the Himalayas"? Standard, more succinct
Fixed in both places. Much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin in Tibet differed from other stories in the series in that it featured only a few familiar characters and was also the only Tintin adventure not to pit Tintin against an antagonist - Three Tintins in one sentence? Could we refactor this to avoid the redundancy?
Fixed; the middle one now says, "and was also Hergé's only adventure ...". By the way, do you like "not to pit Tintin against an antagonist" or "to not pit Tintin against an antagonist"? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some may take issue with the split infinitive in "to not pit". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two things about the plot: you don't really need to footnote it (although if you want to that's fine) and I highly doubt "(who appeared in The Blue Lotus)" is mentioned explicitly in the text of the comic. You could nix the Blue Lotus bit altogether, as you mention it below.
Nixed the parenthetical phrase; I think I see what you mean (don't break the storytelling with an aside to the reader, right?). I suppose I'd like to keep the footnotes to the primary source in the plot summary unless anyone else objects. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
book publisher - I think "book" is implied from the context and thus not necessary
Fixed; good one. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"defend their land from a large corporation that wished to drill for oil on it" - What does "on it" add to this sentence? I think most readers would get it without this being made explicit.
Fixed; much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haddock's butler Nestor was framed for a crime committed by his old employers, the Bird brothers. He dismissed this as well, - any reason why?
The sources imply that Hergé sensed that it was not the right story to tell. The reason why is not important, what is important is that his instincts obviously were correct. Prhartcom (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fanny Rodwell - since her article redirects to Herge, and we've already linked him, do we still need this link?
Fixed; link removed. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
books on the subject of Tibet - how's "books about Tibet"?
Fixed. Much more straightforward. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
his Studios - What's with the Capital S?
It's because of Studios Hergé, previously mentioned. The sources do this too. I changed it to "the Studios". Please let me know if that's not okay? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, "the Studios" works for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Air India: was the change made before or after publication?
The change was made "in the published edition", which is stated, right? Hergé's error was in the edition before that, the serialised strips. Please let me know if that's not okay? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its because of industry terminology, but I didn't get that the Air India logo made it into the serialized version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It took me awhile to see the problem, but your comment finally made me realise that the entire section needed an opening sentence explaining that the story began to be serialised in Tintin magazine (as it says in the lead), then go into the Air India story. Prhartcom (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin in Tibet was well received by prominent literary critics and writers on the art of the comics medium. - Prominent sounds weaselly to me.
Fixed. Agreed, and it's a tighter sentence now too. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the television series by French studio Ellipse and Canadian animation company Nelvana. - same as my point above (#1)
Fixed. Now reads, "a television series ..." Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book became a video game of the same name for PC and Game Boy in 1995. "became a video game of the same name" sounds really awkward to me — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K, last question: "While developing the story, members of the Studios confronted Hergé with concerns about elements of Tintin in Tibet. Bob de Moor feared the scene in which Haddock crashes into a stupa was disrespectful to Buddhists." - Is this during serialization? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was during "While developing the story" and before "After the serial concluded". Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Good work, both of you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
Leaning Support This article is FA quality. I have made a few suggestions below, but the article has few issues. The reader will feel the subject has been given a complete treatment by the editors. Very fine work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 problems with " Hergé considered it "intensely personal" and came to see it his favourite Tintin adventure, as he created it while suffering from traumatic nightmares and a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife of three decades for a younger woman."
It has a bit of a runon feel to it. I don't think "as" conjoins these correctly. I would just split the sentence. I think the second part of the sentence may belong later in the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both of these. The first by adding the "as", the second by replacing the "as" with "which" (see my comment to your next point below). Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
replacing the "as" with "which" does not clean up the sentence. The problem is that "which he created it while suffering from traumatic nightmares and a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife of three decades for a younger woman" has two problems
It is attempting to explain the "intensely personal" rather than the "his favourite Tintin adventure" element, which is the grammatical referent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the LEAD might be better without the content of this phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it is attempting to explain the "intensely personal" rather than the "favourite Tintin adventure"; I had never noticed that. I don't think we can lose it though, not only because it summarises a sizable portion of the article, but also because it, more than most of the sentences in the lead, hooks the reader into wanting to read the article. I believe I have fixed it. How is it now? Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Influences
I am not the best grammarian, but "an adventure which 'must be a solo voyage of redemption' from the 'whiteness of guilt'" feels like it should be "an adventure that 'must be a solo voyage of redemption' from the 'whiteness of guilt'"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Actually, you are a good grammarian, especially since you caught our incorrect use of a restrictive clause (part of a sentence that you can't get rid of because it specifically restricts some other part of the sentence). A restrictive clause always uses "that" and not "which" (and there is never a comma with the former but there is with the latter). Grammar lesson over. I looked over the article and actually found one other of these; thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publication
"Studios Hergé serialised Tintin in Tibet two pages per week, from September 1958 to November 1959, in Tintin magazine." Oddly, this sentence infers that the publication is both a weekly and a monthly. If it is a weekly, then can you be more precise with the beginning and ending dates. If it is a monthly, then why do you talk about pages per week?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It was a weekly, and our sources don't give the days of those months. I had quite recently added this sentence (because of a point made above) and have now removed mention of "two pages per week". Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"two pages per week" is important encyclopedic content. No need to remove it just because of lack of specific issue dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for that, and I have even added another reference to a source supporting that. I believe I have fixed the passage now. How is it? Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
It is odd to see the word friendship 3 times in 2 sentences like this. I understand that you are making a point, but wonder if anything can be done to eliminate the repetition without detracting from the point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In each case, "friendship" is part of a direct quote, so we couldn't just replace it with synonyms here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it is a bit redundant, but we can't change it because of the reason Midnightblueowl gave above, and we can't lose it completely just for redundancy. I think it's fine and I hope you agree. Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical analysis
Since you have already spelled out Michael Farr, spelling it out again violates WP:LASTNAME. Check for similar situations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have sorted out the problem with regards to Farr's name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've done the same for Harry Thompson too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have heard of dark stories, but this is my first white story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awards
ICT must be defined before being used as an abbreviation. Put it in parenthesis following the full term.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plane_crash_in_Tintin_(300x169).jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Absolutely it should. Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria! Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki passed this image review (diff to comment to confirm is here:) [16] Prhartcom (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
Resolved comments from Dank
*"He thought it an ode to friendship, composed "under the double sign of tenacity and friendship". "It's a story of friendship,": Repetition of "friendship"
Yes. See above. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can throw this into the pile of things to test for readability and flow, if you like. Most copyeditors will bet that a lot of readers are going to pause and wonder if something's wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
"Thompson called it "a book of overwhelming whiteness and purity," saying that the "intensely personal nature of the story made this Hergé's favourite Tintin adventure,": If the two commas aren't in the originals, move them outside of the quotations, per WP:LQ.
Fixed; good catch. In the source, the first was a full stop and the second was a comma, but I believe what you and the MOS suggest are still preferred. There was another occurrence of this problem in the article and I fixed it also (and there are numerous examples of proper usage). Thanks again for catching this. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"adding that if readers wondered whether "the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders,": If this isn't missing a verb, then "lifted" is the verb ... and it shouldn't be, because it will be read at first as an adjectival past participle. I'd drop "the effects of", and stick a "[was]" before "lifted".
Fixed. This is a good observation. You are quite right; I was using "lifted" as the verb; it's a verb, but it isn't the predicate. Let's really geek out and look at this closely. Here is the original source: 'The effects [of weight lifted] can be seen.' This has it's own proper subject and predicate. Thinking I was clever, I stuck an introductory phrase up against it (which is fine) and also divided it into two phrases separated by a comma (which is also fine) but if I am going to do that, each phrase needs its own subject and predicate (and I mistakenly thought "lifted" was the first predicate). Therefore, I see two possible ways to fix this, one of which is your suggestion, and the other is perhaps even simpler. Here is the first: "adding that if readers wondered whether 'the effects of the enormous weight [were] lifted from Hergé's shoulders, [this] can be seen'" and here is the second: "adding that, 'the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders can be seen'". The first has two phrases each with noun/verb agreement and the second has the original one. What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as grammar problems are fixed, I'm happy. Reviewers in general will be happier if you aim for conciseness. - Dank (push to talk)
"Given that the book was translated into 32 languages,": The balance of opinion is against the textbook-y "given that". How about this? "The book was translated into 32 languages;".
I see, but then it loses the introductory phrase; we should at least say, "As the book was translated into 32 languages", keeping a comma following and not the semicolon, but I am sad to hear about the fate of "given that" as I thought it was fine. What are your thoughts; may I keep it? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As" is fine with me. If you want to keep "given that", I suggest we test it for tone. - Dank (push to talk)
Fixed; added "As". Prhartcom (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this sentence has the word/number "32". Twice in this article I spell out a number: "twenty-eight" and "twenty-three" (and the second one there is a quote) so I seem to be inconsistent. Do you think I should change the above to "thirty-two" or change the others to numbers? (I suppose I can't change the quote ...) Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's not inconsistent if all numbers above a fixed number are numerals and all those at or below are written out ... but if the fixed number is anything over 10 or maybe 20, then the text will become inconsistent over time as people insert numerals that are lower than your cutoff. - Dank (push to talk)
"this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny: to become Sarrasine to Tintin's la Zambinella.": I think our target readership is going to have to work too hard to make sense of this sentence, and to make sense of the analogy (Tintin as a castrato?)
Oh dear. But that means cut it completely and losing the Balzac footnote too, which devastates me. Okay, how about this idea: Keep it, but add some explanation. Right before this sentence is the word "expounding"; perhaps change that one word into a phrase: "expounding on his destiny,"? Or maybe I have to just cut it, but I could leave: "this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny" and cut the Balzac (sniff!). What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has prompted me to add a new essay in my style guide called HEARTS AND MINDS. You're asking the readers to trust that the effort they're putting in will be rewarded, and of course readers will draw the lines in different places. Not many of our readers are going to be persuaded that it's worth their time to look up all the uncommon words in that sentence, and then study the plot of the novella to get the analogy. The best writing in the world is no good if the reader makes the choice not to follow along. I'm not saying this wouldn't be fantastic in a scholarly treatise on Tintin. Your last sentence seems fine to me, if you stick "[fate]" after "moira". - Dank (push to talk)
To clarify: I'm not saying you can't mention Balzac, it's above my pay grade to decide what goes in the article. I'm saying that complicated ideas should be explained, at a reasonable pace, and without too many fancy words that aren't needed for comprehension. It's fine to say, in the note or in the text, that McCarthy and Vandromme compare Hergé to Balzac, or that McCarthy analogizes Tintin to (whatever, and explain the analogy).
I believe this is the most elevated copy edit discussion I have ever had. It should be, given that I've intentionally subjected this article to the reviews of nearly a dozen copy editors just to get to this point! I see what you're saying, Dank. I need to think about how best to apply your suggestions. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, your edits are fine and appreciated; thank-you for the complement and for these comments; I really enjoyed delving into the detail while trying to answer them! I would appreciate hearing back from you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best part of FAC is discussions with smart people that open my eyes to new way of looking at things. Thanks again for your review. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly, I look forward to more Tintin at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Neelix
Resolved comments from Neelix
This article looks great overall. I do have some concerns:
It's good to have your review, Neelix! And so many comments! I will read each one; I will need some time to do this. Soon, I will return. Prhartcom (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having the phrase "intensely personal" in quotation marks in the lead suggests that Hergé is being quoted, when it is in fact Harry Thompson, who is not mentioned in the lead. I recommend rephrasing this sentence to remove the quoted phrase.
No. I'm so sorry to start this way; I am eager to accept your expert insight when I know it will make the article better but I will let you know if I believe your idea will not, and I hope the latter doesn't keep you from eventually giving your Support. I knew about the "unattributed" Thompson quote in the lead; I hadn't considered it could be attributed to Hergé. Nearly all authors in the bibliography write in some way that this was an intensely personal experience for Hergé; there's really no denying this—except that of course the voice of the encyclopedia should not make such a strong statement, only a quote can, which is why I'm quoting one of them here. We do not want to weaken the prose in this sentence. If I had written an weak sentence here you would be leaving me a note asking me to make is less wishy-washy. I considered adding a single footnote reference in the lead referencing either the one or all authors who said this and can still do so, but I decided the article attributes this exact quote to Thompson later, so I believe all bases are covered. Let me know if you think I should add the exceptional footnote and if so, to the one or all authors, which I would be happy to do. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using quotation marks is not the way to emphasize a statement in an encyclopedia. At present, having these two words in quotation marks will be interpreted very differently by different people; some readers will take them to be scare quotes indicating that the phrase's validity should be questioned, while others will take it to be a quotation by Hergé as I did. In any case, I do not see a reason to further emphasize this phrase by way of punctuation; the rest of the sentence already serves to give the phrase emphasis, as it details why the work was intensely personal. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You may be misunderstanding me; I meant that I intend to use a stronger voice here than what the neutral voice generally allows. I am assuming that can only be done by asking one of the biographers to say it for us, as they have greater leeway in their vocabulary. I wouldn't mind if I am wrong; it would be fine to avoid the quote marks and still communicate "intensely personal". I certainly do not think the scare quotes argument is valid. I kept thinking about this and focused on your main objection, which is that it currently says "Hergé considered it ... intensely personal" when he didn't exactly, and that is a fair point (although the other thing we say is true: ""Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure.") Why don't we say, "Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure while Hergé's biographers wrote of the "intensely personal" effort Hergé undertook to complete it." Let me know if that is better. Or if you have other ideas please suggest the rephrasing you are asking for. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to rock the boat on this one although I find myself in agreement with Neelix on this particular instance. I think that we could remove these quotation marks without too much problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, Midnightblueowl; I feel better already now that you are here. What can we do, what do you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Midnightblueowl is recommending that the quotation marks simply be removed, I would agree that this seems to be the best option. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the simple removal of the quotation marks will cause any problems, and it does have the great benefit of removing the problem that Neelix points out. So that would certainly be my recommendation although I am happy if we decide to consult other editors too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I am honestly surprised to learn it is okay to quote in the lead without quote marks, but I am willing to learn from anyone wiser than myself. I didn't think Wikipedia's unquoted voice could speak loaded language like "intensely personal" without quoting it. I don't see any mention of your idea at WP:QUOTE. And you're sure this isn't WP:EDITORIALIZING? I was ready to keep the quote marks but add a single footnote to it. Having a single footnote in the lead, while a little inconsistent, is at least encyclopedic, which I would rather prefer over any ambiguity. Midnightblueowl and Neelix, do you mind if I ask at least one other, perhaps Curly Turkey, Crisco 1492, TonyTheTiger, or Dank; whoever has a few minutes, to comment on this topic? This decision should be based on established precedent. Re-read my last suggestion above. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed it was a Hergé quote—I'd say it's nearly impossible to assume otherwise, given that the quote isn't attributed, and no context for the quote is provided (in the lead, I mean). I understand your motivation for wanting to include it there, Prhartcom, but it's not an encyclopaedic one. The Lofficiers and Farr also describe the work as "personal", and I'm sure I've seen others do so as well. I'd drop both the quotes and the "intensely", and then perhaps throw in a line in the body summing up those who called the book "personal" or some synonym for it (should be easy). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I have changed it to "Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure and a personal effort, as he...". No intensely. I admit that was simpler than I thought and the result actually works. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. I hate having single word quotes, as it is ambiguous almost anywhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to leave the lead ambiguous about whether or not Hergé left his wife. I recommend rewording the phrase "a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife..." to "his process of deciding to leave his wife..."
Fixed. I believe you just made the article stronger. Now, at this late stage I want to change very few words to accomplish this; the word "decide", which you suggest, is the perfect word to use. I have have changed from "a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife" to "a personal conflict while deciding to leave his wife". Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The metaphor "parade of characters" diverges from the standard tone and writing style of an encyclopedia. I recommend something more like "large cast of characters".
Fixed. As you might imagine, some portions of this article have been endlessly tinkered with and discussed with other reviewers while trying to arrive at the correct prose, and this passage is one of them. One reviewer took exception with the word "cast", as this is not a play or show. However, I have decided to overrule them and listen to you; it now says "large cast" of characters instead of "parade". I would be interested to hear your comment on the merits of your solution vs. theirs. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the other reviewer's concerns on this front; I had not initially recognized that the word "cast" is also a metaphor in this context. Perhaps "multitude of characters" would be better, avoiding what to call a book's _ of characters entirely. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, however not the way you asked; "multitude" is worse than "parade". The former sounds like an excessive description of the twelve or so characters in that book, and the latter really does describe how they appear in the book, one by one. Please know that I will impertinently swat back anything I believe makes this article worse (just as I will lovingly embrace anything that makes this article better). I have changed it to "large number of characters"; it's less intriguing (we tried and failed to push the boundaries) but it wins points for being understandable. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The verb tense in sentences about the text itself should follow the literary present tense, as explained here. For example, "Tintin in Tibet differed from other stories..." should read "Tintin in Tibet differs from other stories..."
Fixed. Great catch. I agree completely and yet missed it; thank-you for spotting that one. I just looked for other errors of this type but I believe we have now caught them all. Nice Vanderbilt link! Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this switch. The rest of that sentence should be in the present tense as well (ie. features, is). Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I'm so sorry, I apologise; my eyes are opened. I love that sentence now. Thank-you very much for that. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence looks great now; thanks for making those changes. The "Critical analysis" section should receive some attention in this respect as well. For example, "the literary analysis of Tom McCarthy compared..." should read "the literary analysis of Tom McCarthy compares...", etc. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I believe you are right. Unlike all of the History, Awards, and Adaptation sections, all of the Critical Analysis section takes place in the present tense. Is that what you are saying? I never noticed before that this should be the case. We should now return to other FA and GA Tintin articles and correct this, actually. For this article, a total of 16 small changes were required in this section and they all have been made. The changes were all similar; "Assouline called" changed to "Assouline calls" and "He also suggested" changed to "He also suggests". Please check this work and ensure we caught them all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify why "Tintin believes that his friend Chang Chong-Chen is badly injured and calling for help" and why "Tharkey believes that Tintin saw the Yeti"? The text does not currently suggest any reason that they came to believe these things.
Fixed the first point, please check and reply with your thoughts. I see what you mean, I appreciate that you pointed this out, and I agree that this needs explanation, as we do mention extrasensory perception later in the article without enough context here. It is important to only add a few strategic words to this carefully condensed synopsis, though, for reasons I'm sure you are aware, without losing any of the power of the existing prose. I changed to: "Tintin believes that he can see his friend Chang Chong-Chen, badly injured and calling for help"; italic words are newly inserted, the comma is new and replaces the deleted verb "is". Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about wording it "Tintin has a vision of his friend..." The sentence as currently written suggests that Tintin can see Chang in a photograph accompanying the news report. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. So much clearer and better, and is now going to tie in so much better when we later mention ESP. We have a new problem: Three sentences in a row beginning with "Tintin [verb]." I changed our middle sentence from "Tintin has" to "He then has"; I think that fixed it. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, for your second point there is nothing to fix. We clearly say "after glimpsing a silhouette in the snow" and in the next sentence explain that Tharkey "believes that Tintin saw the Yeti." Maybe I'm missing what you are saying. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Silhouettes can depict lots of things other than people, and, without further clarification, this statement suggests that the silhouette is of the cave rather than of a human-like figure. How about "after glimpsing what seems to be a human silhouette in the snow"? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ah, so I was missing what you were saying! Thanks for the clarification. I see now exactly what you mean, and I agree. I see that the extra words do not appear draw any energy at all, they add it. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "whilst" seems unnecessarily formal in a place where "while" will do.
Fixed. Please consider, however, that in North America, where you and I live, this word is considered formal as you say, but this article is written in UK English. Wiktionary does not use the word "formal" when defining this word in UK English, so it may not be considered the way you think. Regardless, I have changed it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a native speaker of British English, I don't think that it matters much if we replace "whilst" with "while"; they are synonyms anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, Midnightblueowl; as I suspected, either one would work, so the change wasn't necessary, but it is fine this way too. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to be more explicit about how Tintin and Haddock are saved when climbing the cliff wall.
No. You're asking me again to add more plot synopsis, after I worked hard to condense the prose. This particular suggestion of yours is unreasonable; any attempt to solve it would result in a clumsy and less powerful synopsis, as we clearly state that Tharkey has returned (so that is how they were saved). Besides, even Hergé skips the part about Tharkey actually climbing up and rescuing them; it's obvious that he does and as it's not in the story there is no plot to explicitly summarise. However, I notice we didn't clearly say Tharkey had previously abandoned them, which was made clear in the plot. If we carefully add that to the synopsis, then this should add more impact to Tharkey's return and should achieve the solution your instincts feel is missing. I have changed the previous sentence from "and continues on with the Captain" to "and continues on with only the Captain". What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "who has returned" is only marginally shorter than "who returns and rescues them". This seems like a key plot development that would be confusing to readers to omit. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, however not the way you asked. No, we don't see that happening in the story, so it would be wrong to summarise it, as I said. Please carefully check the things you want; I believe you overreach a little. Getting back to my idea, a little earlier in the plot synopsis, what do you think about even further expressing that Tharkey has left by changing "and convinces him to abandon his friend" to "and convinces him to abandon his friend and return with him to Nepal"? Does that solve the issue you raised? Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. The book doesn't show exactly how Tharkey rescues Tintin and Haddock, but it shows Tintin and Haddock in a state of being returned to safety. How would you feel about rewording the sentence about losing the tent as follows: "Once they are out of immediate danger, their circumstances force them to trek onwards because they have lost their tent and are therefore unable to sleep lest they freeze. They arrive within sight of the Buddhist monastery of Khor-Biyong before collapsing from exhaustion."? I find the present wording and juxtaposition of these sentences very confusing, and I think many other readers would find it so as well. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, however not the way you asked. "Onwards because they have lost their tent and are therefore..."? That's terrible. But I do respect that you believe that we have not solved the problem, so by all means let's solve it. I returned to your previous, better, suggestion and believe I improved it without sacrificing integrity, and I also added a bit of transition to the sentence following. I have changed it to, "alerting Tharkey, "who has returned in time to rescue them. They try to camp for the night but lose their tent and must trek onwards..." Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Hergé came to realise that retracing old ground would be a step backward" suggests that he was right in his belief, but we aren't in a place to make that call. I recommend rewording to "Hergé came to believe that..."
Fixed, in the way you suggest. That's a fair observation. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is M. Boullock A Disparu commonly known in English as The Disappearance of Mr Boullock? That is not a direct translation of the French title, and it also differs from the English title given on the Jacques Van Melkebeke article (Mr. Boullock's Disappearance).
Fixed. Good Tintinophile call, there. The Melkebeke article has it right; it's Mr. Boullock's Disappearance, according to a reliable Tintin source (Peeters 2012). Midnightblueowl originally added the incorrect English title in 2011, but only because the only available source then (Lofficier 2002) actually published the incorrect English title. I never noticed this in my research and copy editing. I checked for other occurrences of this kind of error but I believe this was the last. (Funny note: I remember, while editing this article, fixing what someone called the "Truth of Light" Award. Similar kind of "backwards is forwards" thing.) Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the phrase "Bernard Heuvelmans, a cryptozoologist who had helped him envision...", the word "him" is ambiguous. I recommend switching around the words "him" and "Hergé" in this sentence for clarity.
Fixed. Good call, easy fix. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article characterizes the option to not leave his wife as being in keeping with Scout Law, so stating that "In the end, Hergé decided to follow the Scout Law: 'A scout smiles and sings through all his difficulties'" is very confusing as a sentence to preface the statement that he decided to leave his wife. I recommend simply removing this sentence; the three words "In the end" can be added to the subsequent sentence.
No. I see the point you are making, but unbelievably or not, this last scout reference is fact and is documented in multiple sources (I believe Hergé stated it in the Numa Sadoul interview). I believe it means he fell back on what was familiar; a Scout Law, even as he was probably breaking another Scout Law in the process by leaving his wife. I understand it is conflicting; I'm sure it was very conflicting for Hergé. I'm not deleting prose in a futile attempt to change reality. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attempting to change reality; I am indicating that the prose is unclear. Starting this sentence with the words "In the end" suggests that this sentence will be the one to indicate whether or not Hergé decided to leave his wife, but it is not. "In the end" would be a more appropriate beginning for the subsequent sentence. The quotation about following the Scout Law would be much less confusing after the sentence about leaving his wife, and phrased "While believing that he was breaking the Scout's word of honour to Germaine, he believed that he was following the Scout Law..." Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this point; I think Neelix's proposed wording is a little clearer and is more encylopedic, if perhaps a little less engaging, in general tone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I returned to your first idea and have simply cut the sentence, "Hergé decided to follow the Scout Law: "A scout smiles and sings through all his difficulties" and moved "In the end" as you suggest. We have lost some encyclopedic content and I appreciate your attempt to try and keep it, but it's better to just cut it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to have brief explanations of who certain people are when they are mentioned, such as Harry Thompson, Raymond de Becker, and Michael Farr. "A collaborator of Hergé's, Jacques Van Melkebeke..." is a good example of how to do this.
Fixed. I think I was subconsciously concerned about this, thank-you for forcing me to deal with it. I added "entertainment producer and author" before Harry Thompson, "his former editor" before Raymond de Becker (Hergé is then immediately mentioned), "reporter and British Tintin expert" before Michael Farr. Note that I am avoiding the mostly undocumented term "Tintinologist". I already had "interviewer" describing Numa Sadoul, "collaborator" describing Jacques Martin and Jacques Van Melkebeke as you said, "Belgian Tintin expert" for Philippe Goddin, "biographer" Benoit Peeters, "biographer" Pierre Assouline, "literary critic" Jean-Marie Apostolidès, "literary analyst" Tom McCarthy, and "members of the Studios" is said before mentioning Hergé's most important collaborator Bob de Moor. Jean-Marc Lofficier and Randy Lofficier are mentioned without introduction, but they appear near the top of the Critical Analysis section so perhaps it is obvious they are critics. I believe that's all of them; the three you pointed out were the only ones that needed this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Lobsang Rampa a "discredited author" sounds like a teaser. A short footnote explaining the nature of the discrediting would be helpful.
Fixed. Note: The Tintin source inserted the word "unfortunately" before mentioning that Hergé read Lobsang Rampa, then inserted their footnote, so your suggestion is on track. This sentence has a new footnote with a new source citation. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He thought it an ode to friendship" should read "He thought of it an ode to friendship".
No, not really. And your way may need an "as". This way is grammatically correct and shorter, and in fact, this phrase is from Assouline. (I'm not identifying it as a quote though, as I need the quote marks in the phrase following.) Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "writers on the art of the comics medium"? How is this different from literary critics?
OK. The writers on the art of comics, specifically Hergé's Adventures of Tintin, are the biographers Assouline, Peeters, Farr, and Godin (Assouline and Peeters being slightly more scholarly than Farr and Godin, who are more popular via their colourful coffee table books). Others, such as McCloud, write more generally about the comics medium. The literary critics are Apostolidès and McCarthy; their topic is not comics or Hergé but literary analysis, using Tintin as their vehicle to guide discussion. Thompson is a pop lit entertainment writer and Lofficier & Lofficier wrote a Tintin information anthology. I hope this answers your question. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Writers on the art of the comics medium" seems unnecessarily clunky to me. Why not just say "literary critics and Hergé's biographers"? Someone who writes generally about the comics medium is a literary critic; comics are just as much literature as Shakespeare's plays. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comics, like film, is a hybrid medium, which can incorporate literary elements, or not (see abstract comics). You could say "comics critics" or "writers on comics". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, Curly Turkey; I would be interested in your thoughts on the solution I came up with. Neelix, if the current prose is clunky then by all means let's actually improve it. What I was going for was critics of all kinds have reviewed Tintin, from the stuffy to the popular. You should not cut the word "art". Of course I agree with what you said about Tintin comics; you're preaching to the choir here. How about this; I have changed it to: "Tintin in Tibet was well received by literary scholars and writers on the art of comics"? Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the obvious issue of not cutting the word "art" is: does "art" refer to the artform or the artwork? I suppose "writers on the comics artform" is an option? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or something like "Tintin in Tibet was well-received by critics not only in comics circles but literary ones" etc. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like both of those. I got the idea for the term "literary scholar" from the dust jacket of Apostolidès. Neelix, which is your preference? Prhartcom (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey's last recommendation ("not only in comics circles...") seems like the best idea thus far, although it suggests that comics or graphic novels critics are not literary critics, and I know a lot of graphic novel professors and graduate students who would respond angrily to that suggestion. How would you feel about the similar "Tintin in Tibet was well-received by graphic novel critics as well as other literary critics."? Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the type. They're as obnoxious as the "comics artist" twats who object to being called "cartoonists". If they have issues with it, they should get themselves a shrink. Film critics don't have these issues, nor do real comics critics. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "comics and literary critics"? You could parse that as "critics of both comics and literature", or "critics of comics and critics of literature", and let those with issues chose to interpret the why that best satisfies their fragile little egos. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a pissy bitch, but I'm one who enjoys both literature and comics; when I want literature, I pick up a novel; when I pick up comics, it's because I want to experience the particular aesthetic pleasures that the comics medium delivers (ditto painting, music, film). I don't read comics as a substitute for literature any more than I listen to music as a substitute for literature. Claiming comics as a subgenre of literature is factually wrong, and ignores comics' strengths as a medium. Many great comics aren't particularly literary (or at least their strengths aren't in their literary aspects), and many "literary" comics are plain garbage. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "comics and literary critics" is a pretty good option here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I would prefer "comics critics and other literary critics", as I don't agree with Curly Turkey that comics are not literature, but I won't press the point here; it's a minor quibble for an article that doesn't really need to get into the debate. Neelix (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I am certainly no comics expert but find myself agreeing with Neelix that comics are indeed literature (they are in the GA and FA literature category, after all) and would enjoy hearing more about graphic novel professors, however of course comics are also a separate genre as Curly Turkey says, just as film and music are. I have changed it to "was well received by comics critics and other literary scholars" which is similar to what Neelix and Midnightblueowl suggest, without redundancy, with the point-counterpoint rhythm that I wish to keep. We probably haven't heard the last of this. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"comics critics and other literary scholars" again places "comics" as a subset of literature; there's certainly no consensus in the world that that is the case, and Wikipedia can't simply state it as a fact. How about "critics from the comics and literary fields"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "Tintin in Tibet was well received by critics from the comics and literary fields." I like it. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who produced the poll in which Tintin in Tibet was "voted the best French-language graphic novel ever done in a poll of professionals, editors, and critics"?
OK, good question. Lofficier mentions it and then gives no further detail. Their actual quote: "Tintin in Tibet is arguably the best book in the series; it was, in fact, voted the best French-language graphic novel ever done in a poll of professionals, editors, and critics. The reasons for that are ..." Note that they go on to say, "The book reaches a degree of perfection, both in its story and in its stunning art, that has rarely been equaled, before or since." Pretty strong. If you insist, we could swap this sentence for the other. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend switching these pieces of information. Wikipedia should not cite irretrievable studies. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I'm glad I gave you something to strongly recommend that I swap it with. ;-) It's all good; I like this new way much better. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the phrase "Given that the book was translated...", "the book" is ambiguous, as the most recently named book is The Castafiore Emerald.
Fixed. Replaced "the book" with "Tintin in Tibet". Good catch. Hopefully it's okay that the word "Tibet" is then redundantly mentioned further down. Note: A reviewer above didn't like "Given that", so I replaced it with "As". Please comment on this and check my work. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "foundling" and "moira" Wiktionary links have better internal-link analogues; the Child abandonment and Moirai articles would be good alternative targets respectively.
Fixed. I appreciate that; I had looked but not hard enough, apparently. I see that, while these are not as perfect a match as the pure dictionary definitions, the words "foundling" and "moira" are there in bold in the lead sections of the respective articles, so these are perfectly appropriate wikilinks that stay within the encyclopedia. That's great. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: A reviewer above suggested I change "moira" to "moira [fate]". I haven't done it. What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on this matter; including it might make it more easily readable for some readers, but might suggest that moira is just a synonym for fate. I don't think it's a big deal either way, and I wouldn't object if it was added. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations by Apostolidès are long in excess when taken together, and two of them are not integrated into the prose. I recommend paraphrasing or removing those two quotations.
No. His quotations are not as long as Lofficier in the previous paragraph, so why pick on him? And those sentences are so integrated; they each support the assertion made in the prior sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good general rule is to not have adjacent sentences that include direct quotations. Most of the prose should paraphrase the sources rather than quote them directly. I don't mean to pick on Apostolidès specifically; the Lofficier paragraph could use a similar treatment. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I agree with that general rule; it sounds sensible. I have cut "For both Chang and Tintin, the Tibetan adventure is a series of abandonments" and it's reference and I have ensured that no quote is immediately followed by another quote at the start the next sentence. It seems to be better this way; Tintin and Chang are now mentioned immediately before the quote about "the heroes"; I'm guessing this solved the problem your instincts sensed. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be miscommunicating on this point. As far as I can tell, every sentence in the Apostolidès includes a direct quotation, and most include multiple direct quotations. It is a standard expectation for academic writing to space direct quotations with at least a full sentence bereft of direct quotations; at least half of the sentences in a given paragraph should not include direct quotations at all. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to get back to you on this. You are making a good point, Neelix, and I want the fix to be correct. Midnightblueowl, could you help me on this one point? I would really appreciate it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue on which I find myself supportive of Prhartcom's position; I do not think that the quotation here is excessive, and I am unsure if it is prohibited or even discouraged under Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to cut it down further; I have completely removed the quotation from the first of the three sentences, and hope that it still contains the meaning that Apostolides originally intended (which is often quite vague and wishy-washy, but I guess that's just what you get when a literary critic talks psychoanalysis!). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend following WP:SAID more closely; words such as "opined" should be replaced with more neutral terms.
No. I know WP:SAID, and I believe it is followed closely throughout the article. There is nothing wrong with opined; it implies that Assouline is stating his opinion, which he is, and this synonym of "said" is not one of the numerous examples listed at WP:SAID to be cautious of. I will resist any suggestion to homogenize good writing in the name of conformity. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to the Apostolidès paragraph, the paragraphs of quotations by McCarthy, Assouline, and Peeters contain too much text devoted to direct quotations. These paragraphs can use both paraphrasing and shortening.
No. This is the Critical Analysis section; it is supposed to be quote heavy as it describes and then showcases the actual analysis. See every other Tintin article that has reached FA or GA, or any number of other examples in Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical analysis sections are supposed to be opinion-heavy, not direct-quotation-heavy. Encyclopedic writing intersperses direct quotations with original prose. I know it is only an essay, but the Wikipedia essay on quotations recommends that we should "intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations". Whether or not this problem was identified in previous FACs, this concept is standard in academic writing. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this article now intersperses direct quotations with original prose. As we have made a few changes, per above, I am hopeful this point has been adequately addressed. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response above in the Apostolidès case. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the sadness the Yeti experienced at the story's end reflected Hergé's feelings about his breakup with Germaine" suggests that Hergé and Germaine had separated before the completion of Tintin in Tibet, but such is not the case. Perhaps "Hergé's feelings about his failing marriage" would be more appropriate; I don't have access to the relevant source to know what Peeters had in mind, but I assume that he understood the chronology.
No. It pains me to say this, but it doesn't sound like you understood the chronology. Hergé left Germaine during production, and doing so gave him the strength to finish the project, as stated in the article. He divorced her sometime after that. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I don't know why I thought the chronology was otherwise. The word "breakup" still seems odd to me in this context, as it connotes a dating relationship. Is it the word that is used in the sources? How would you feel about rewording to "his separation from Germaine"? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Hmm. I see what you mean about that word. Midnightblueowl, an extremely valuable, capable, and prolific editor, added it, and I see that it does not appear in the source—"separation" does. Good call. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this change. Now that the word "separation" is used, the next word should be "from" rather than "with" in order to be grammatically correct. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected; many thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Thompson quotation in Note C is not really an aside, and would do better as normal paragraphical text in the article.
No. The reason I didn't do that was because the message it brings is contrary to the main narrative the sources present and I reflect in the main text. The narrative at this point tells the story of Hergé's sensible decision to conquer his fear and his guilt and rescue Tintin in Tibet. The fact that he broke a few eggs in the process, i.e. essentially being hypocritical to the Scout Law and hurtful to Germaine, is the aside. It does not assert what the main text asserts ("Man Conquers Circumstances") but instead asserts, or rather admits, something contrary ("Man Hurts Woman"), and I instinctively knew not to muddle the narrative by directly including it. For completeness and humanitarian purposes, however, it is included. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the problem, and a significant one. Encyclopedia articles do not present facts selectively in order to portray events in a chosen light. "Man Conquers Circumstances" and "Man Hurts Woman", as you call them, should be presented equally in the text, and not doing so results in a biased article. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not rewriting the article. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to rewrite the article; I am asking you to move a sentence from the footnote to the main text of the article. The article is biased on this point, and your response suggests that this bias is intentional. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly just a difference on personal opinion, with both of you making fair points, neither of which are explicitly right or wrong. Personally, I incline towards Neelix's position, but that is because I don't much like Notes in Wiipedia articles anyway, and would choose to use them sparingly. Are there any Wikipedia policies explicitly dealing with the issue of how and when to use Notes ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. No, it's not a problem with Notes (which are perfectly fine). I realised that Neelix is right about being biased. Even better, I realised he is right about how easy this is to fix. I don't want to be part of a biased article and in my defense I must have been looking for a consistency, which caused me to be led in mostly one direction. I have moved that note into the main text; this passage now has Farr's point of view (pointing one way) followed by Thompson's point of view (pointing the other way) followed by Goddin's point of view (pointing the first way again), and I have removed the phrase about the Scout Law. Is this better? I am amazed and excited to realise that we were able to avoid some bias and achieve some neutrality so easily. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sometimes I wonder about you Neelix, as you just told me above to keep links that appear in a quote ("foundling" and "moira", same quote, too). Don't worry, I am keeping them. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend adding more images to the article, as it is currently fairly text-heavy. There are images of Apostolidès and Assouline available that could be added to the "Critical analysis" section and of Tovey to add to the "Adaptations" section, for example.
Fixed. I have wanted to add more images for a long time and knew about the images of the two authors you mentioned, but wasn't sure the Assouline image was good enough. I decided to add it, though, as your suggestion. The Apostolidès image is so boring I could barely bring myself to add it to the Apostolidès article. Same boringness with the Tovey image. I wish I could add this brilliant non-free Tovey image: [17] Another Tintin biographer Benoit Peeters has a nice free image, but it has already appeared in the Critical Analysis section of practically every Tintin article to reach GA or FA. I don't need to tell you that it is extremely difficult to get Tintin images into a Tintin article as the topic is a visual medium yet the images of the subject are copyrighted. Let me know if you like the Assouline image that has now been added. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Assouline image looks good. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my impression that linking to Google Books is generally discouraged, partially because the ISBN links provide more diverse options, including Google Books. I think the citations would be more functional without the Google Books links.
OK, I am interested, but skeptical; I think I see what you are saying but I was simply looking at it as more access to information. (Perhaps some people think they don't like Google.) Can you provide an essay, guideline, or policy on this? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that this is in fact poorer access to information, because the ISBN links do a much better job allowing people to engage with the book in the way they see fit rather than streamlining them to a predefined resource (which I wouldn't recommend as the default anyway). I haven't managed to find an essay, guideline, or policy on this matter, so I won't push my opinion on this point. I may attempt to have a guideline put in place at some point. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am interested if you ever want to get back to me on this. I never knew the Google Books links were bad. Did you notice that I trimmed each URL so that it would not result in a close-up of a random page with random highlighting but instead gives the book overview. I just now randomly picked three Featured Articles and all three happened to have Google Books links (one was a recent promotion). I think it's fair to say this is not a FA requirement. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Tintinologist.com source reputable? I question it because it isn't used to source any content, and because it describes itself as a fan site.
OK, you are "going there"? Okay, let's go there. You are certainly being thorough; that's great. I have never touched that link, in this or in any Tintin article; I have left it alone out of respect more than anything else. This is more a question I would like to ask you, as this link was added May 2007 in the days you were one of the principle editors who watched the Tintin articles. Why did you allow it then? Since those days, this link has been in every Tintin book article; I believe. I think I have seen other external links to other external Tintin resources come and go, but for some reason this one, the oldest non-Hergé Foundation site, has remained in the Tintin articles. I'm not very familiar with the website, but I believe it is a useful resource for our readers and has legitimate Tintin articles too, as you know, such as Tintin Crosses The Atlantic: The Golden Press Affair and many others (I have that particular one in a bibliography of another Tintin article that needed a reliable source). So, I don't know what your call is, but mine is: Leave it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me; I was more hoping you had insight into the site's reviewing policies than I do. We link to IMDb in this way all the time, but we don't use it as a source. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider adding alt text to the images, although I believe this isn't a requirement for featured articles anymore. It is helpful for users with visual impairment.
OK, why are you raising this when I long ago added the alt text? You could have clicked the Alt Text tool above and seen for yourself. Maybe you are confusing this article for some other article you reviewed. Yes, it is no longer a requirement, as I recently found out while I reviewed another FAC [18] and insisted to them that it be added and was rebuffed. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I don't know why the alt text isn't coming up when I mouse over the images. It may be the computer I am currently using. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Alt Text tool; it's right there. Try Preferences Gadgets "Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links". Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After the first instance of referring to a person, men are referred to in this article consistently by their surnames, but the women are sometimes referred to solely by their given names. In particular, it would be more consistent to refer to Fanny Vlaminck by her surname in instances after the first rather than simply as "Fanny".
Fixed. That's an astute observation. What does it say about me, or anyone that reviewed, that no one noticed this before now? Here is what I have done: There is a passage after Fanny Vlaminck is first mentioned that compared Fanny to Germaine. I have left the first names there. Elsewhere, "Fanny" was mentioned two more times, and for both of those I changed it to "Fanny Vlaminck" (rather than just the surname) and I believe it works very well; please check and see. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: After all that, we mention Fanny one more time, as "Fanny Rodwell". By now, she has married Nick Rodwell and her name has changed. Do you think we need to do anything here? Do we need "(née Vlaminck)"? Will readers recognise this is the same Fanny? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you raise this point! I meant to previously and forgot. How would you feel about adding a footnote indicating that she married Nick Rodwell and changed her name? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Note and citations to two sources (one new) has been added. I heard that eyebrows raised when she married him. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that this article gives such a uniformly positive depiction of Hergé's separating from his wife; normally, we have the opposite problem (that an article will uniformly negatively depict a person's separation from their spouse for someone else). Did all of Hergé's critics, biographers, and contemporaries praise Hergé for this decision? If not, I recommend adding some other reactions for balance.
Yes, pretty much quite literally, all of Hergé's critics, biographers, and contemporaries praised Hergé for this decision while covering this human drama. This is what I meant while trying to explain about the "main narrative" and the "scout law" above. I believe I have covered the topic of Tintin in Tibet quite adequately and won't be adding whole paragraphs or sections or go into any more in-depth explanations. I hope this sounds reasonable to you and I hope my firmness doesn't stand in the way of your Support. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be discussed above. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did we hopefully solve it above? I'll know if you cross this one out. I like this observation you made about normally we have the opposite problem in articles and find it facinating. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your fixes above; they neutralize the article's treatment of the subject considerably. I have visited some of the source texts and I have two recommendations of additions that might flesh out the section further. 1) Peeters indicates on page 280 of Hergé, Son of Tintin that Germaine made a scene in public on several occasions in which she berated Hergé and Fanny Vlaminck and complained loudly of the way they were treating her, and even started stalking them. The article at present doesn't indicate any averse reaction on Germaine's part, and including this information might clarify why Hergé's inner turmoil became so severe. 2) Assouline indicates on page 185 of Hergé: The Man Who Created Tintin that Vlaminck was a catalyst for transitioning Hergé away from his Judeo-Christian upbringing and towards the morality and philosophy of Taoism. At present, the article indicates that Hergé resisted leaving his wife because of both "his Catholic upbringing and Boy Scout ethic", and the way he dealt with the Boy Scout ethic is explained later on, but there is no explanation of how he dealt with the Catholic upbringing; adding the information about Vlaminck and Taoism should tie up this loose end. With those two inclusions, I think this section will be well-balanced. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I know about both of those events and many other remarkable things in la monde de Tintin; my copies of the book sources in the bibliography happen to contain several paper bookmarks, and two of them are to the pages you mention above; I had decided those facts do not need to clutter this article about Tintin in Tibet. By the way, you say we resolve Hergé's Boy Scout ethic later on, apparently forgetting what is still fresh in my mind: you asked me to remove all that, so no, we don't. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is interesting: "Germaine made a scene in public on several occasions"—was this contemporary to Tintin in Tibet? If it's something that happened a decade later, I'd keep it out, but if it happened while Hergé was working on the book, I think it should be mentioned in passing. I don't know about the Taoism stuff—how deep was the interest? Did it have an on Hergé's composition of Tintin in Tibet? If not, then I'd call it trivia at the scope of this article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined toward Curly's view here that this is trivia and not really of the utmost importance to the article in question. But I am open to being convinced otherwise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Germaine making a scene in public on several occasions and stalking Hergé and Fanny happened at the same time as the writing of Tintin in Tibet; it occurred while Hergé was seeing Fanny, but before he had left Germaine. This was not a decade-later event; Peeters indicates that it is one of the main things that increased the severity of Hergé's psychological issues, and what brought him to the point of leaving Germaine. At present, the article indicates several reasons that Hergé left his wife, but this is a significant one that is curiously missing. As for the Taoism, I am not concerned that Taoism be mentioned specifically, but I think it important for Hergé's shift from Judeo-Christian philosophy (represented by Germaine) to Oriental philosophy (represented by Fanny) be mentioned. Assouline states that "Fanny was a catalyst for him to change what Germaine and Father Wallez had inculcated in him" because Fanny represented "Taoism and revelations foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition... All of a sudden he discovered different instincts: openness, tolerance, and a sense of freedom." The shift is relevant to Tintin in Tibet because the article argues strongly and at length that Hergé's completion of the volume symbolized his new-found sense of freedom, which he found by leaving Germaine for Fanny. It seems strange to me to raise the issue of Hergé's Catholic upbringing and not then state that it was his transition away from that tradition that brought him the sense of freedom he found with Fanny to finish Tintin in Tibet. Even with the removal of the Scout Law sentence, the Boy Scout ethic issue is later resolved the statement that "Hergé chose to keep his Scout's word of honour to Tintin, but not to Germaine". Not doing the same with the Catholic upbringing seems incongruous. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to it that this, Neelix; you've only just found the sources and you think you've found the key to their separation, but if you keep reading other chapters there is more that occurred earlier that leads to their separation than just some undignified stalking or some Taoism that happens at the last minute. Please consider that it could be superficial of you to be led into thinking this is what must be included in this article, and that you could instead respect the instincts of your fellow editors who hear alarm bells at your suggestion. Germaine had been introduced to Hergé by their employer, right-wing fascist Abbé Norbert Wallez, Hergé's former editor (Germaine was his secretary), who blessed their union of course, since he arranged every part of it, despite the fact that the couple were never in love. Wallez's controlling influence over Hergé ended a decade earlier, post war, when he was disgraced and arrested, yet Hergé had not yet taken care of the last piece of unfinished business: leaving the woman who doesn't love him and who is the last remnant of his old life. If you wish, I can return to the sources and somehow include some of this emotion in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not suggesting that this article needs to cover the full history of Hergé's relationship with Germaine. I do think it important, however, that a section of the Tintin in Tibet article called "Hergé's psychological issues" should at least mention each of the reasons that scholars have indicated Hergé to have had psychological issues during the writing of Tintin in Tibet, and Peeters suggests that this is one of the main reasons. Peeters explicitly states that Germaine's public outbursts and stalking "literally made him sick. During the autumn of 1959 he suffered from a duodenal ulcer." The cause that Peeters identifies for Hergé's distress to the point of physical illness is explained in the same paragraph: "One day Germaine caused a scene right in the middle of avenue Louise, noisily berating Hergé and Fanny... She complained about her troubles to anyone who would listen whenever she had the opportunity. She also began stalking Georges and Fanny, seeking out the places where they went; since the young woman still lived with her parents, the couple was forced to go to small hotels for their encounters. None of this suited Hergé's temperament at all; it literally made him sick..." For a section that discusses Hergé's psychological issues during the writing of Tintin in Tibet, this seems like a glaring omission. Neelix (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking it through, I am certainly not averse to the inclusion of the information which Neelix suggests we add. At the same time, I am not convinced that such material is necessary for inclusion. So I'm afraid that I am somewhat sitting on the fence on this one, between the positions advocated by Prhartcom and Neelix (as I understand them). Hopefully the views of others will allow us to come to a definitive conclusion on which course of action to take. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've with Midnightblueowl. If I've understood the exchange correctly, which considering its length may not be the case, it appears to me a bit in-depth for an article on this scope. While certainly not irrelevant, we do have to make an editorial call somewhere. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for inclusion on the main Hergé biographical article? Too much context, in too much detail, in my opinion risks swamping the content on the actual book itself. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that, to my surprise, no one else appears to think this information as relevant to the subject of the article as I do, I will relent. I hope the information will be added to the article, but whether or not it does will not prevent me from supporting the article receiving featured status. Neelix (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with you—if these things were contemporary to the creation of the book, I'd say the article would benefit from working them in (if only briefly in passing). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the five of us who have weighed in on this subject are split fairly evenly in our positions. I can understand the arguments that we should prevent the section from getting too long, but I think this content can be added in a way that will be brief. Would anyone object if I added to the article a sentence or two relating to the above? Neelix (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I object. Has no one noticed that there is little-to-no place this can be added into the Hergé's physiological issues section? It is only two paragraphs. The flow of sentences in both paragraphs, especially the second paragraph, the way they connect to each other, prevent such an abrupt inclusion. This trivia certainly doesn't merit it's own paragraph. I'm guessing no one has actually looked critically at the section to see where this could possibly be added, as I did when this idea was first suggested. The information Neelix wishes to add reminds me of yellow journalism and just feels wrong. We already communicate that Hergé felt ill/tormented about leaving his wife; this info does not add illumination to his motivation. Discussion of feelings, actions, or attitudes of either of the two women do not belong in a section about Hergé. I am amazed that Neelix essentially finished his review of the article (we had answered all of his objections), then decided to go out of his way to locate sources from the article—not to review how they were used, but to try to continue writing the article. When do reviewers do that? If he has the sources, why doesn't he review the page numbers, source references, etc. of the research and ensure this is all correct? I am disappointed in those who don't agree or understand what I am saying, I am still hoping Neelix will drop this idea, and I am still waiting to see if perhaps one other editor may answer my modest canvassing call above and hopefully side with me on this. Prhartcom (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom: it's disappointing that you'd react so harshly to Neelix's suggestion—you seem to be veering into bad faith territory. If you disagree, then disagree, but I don't think you need to call Neelix's motivation into question. Why not see Neelix's proposed change first and then comment on it? He's already supported, remember—after five supports on no opposes, it's not like the article is going to be archived. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with Curly's point here. Neelix has gone to great trouble to aid us in improving this article, and as a result it's not fair to criticise them in this manner. I am glad that we work together well on a lot of Adventures of Tintin articles Prhartcom, so for that reason I held out from commenting on this before, but I do think that this was a bad move. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the primary editor doesn't appear too keen on it, maybe it'd be best to post your suggested change here first. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, you asked where this information would fit in the article. Between the second and third sentences of the "Hergé's psychological issues" section seems very appropriate to me. Information isn't yellow journalism or wrong simply because it can be interpreted as negative. You stated that this information doesn't add illumination to his motivation, but I disagree. The article suggests that the motivation was no longer loving his wife, but the sources suggest otherwise; the Peeters source states that Hergé planned to remain with Germaine while pursuing a relationship with Fanny, and that it was only Germaine's considerable protestations (in the form described above) against his relationship with Fanny that motivated him to leave Germaine. Neelix (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix, what sentence, pray tell, do you propose be between the second and third sentence, please. The reason I am unhappy is, you must admit, you unfairly added this one last requirement at the last minute, and also, you must admit, it changes the tone of the section a bit; it adds "too much information" as people tend to say. The readers get the big picture already—without this way-too-lurid detail. Prhartcom (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe my late comment on this point to be unfair; all of the other reviewers in this FAC supported solely on prose, as I did, and it was only when I began a source review that I discovered this problem with the article. I do not see what is lurid about this information. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored, and it is unfair to our readers to only present positive information on a subject. Here is the content I recommend adding to the article: "Hergé began going to small hotels with Fanny weekly on Friday nights, and telling Germaine that it was 'perfectly normal to have a secondary wife; people have always done it.' Germaine's response to the relationship between Hergé and Fanny was to complain about them loudly in public places and to try to stalk them on the nights of their encounters, and these actions on Germaine's part significantly augmented the intensity of Hergé's psychological issues." All of this information can be sourced to Peeters page 280. Neelix (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am imagining you had opened Peeters (2012), found yourself on that page, started reading, and said "Oh my goodness, this isn't in the article." Just now I picked up a different source, started reading, and found the part where Germaine frequently has her male friend Bertje Jagueneau come over for private visits. Like I said, there is much here and we can't get it all and we shouldn't; this isn't the article about Hergé's separation, it's about a Tintin book. Your recommended prose could be better; it is too long and gives too much weight to this topic. As well, your attempt may begin well enough, but it does not skillfully fit into the sentences that immediately follow. I'm not suggesting censorship; I've fought against blatant censorship on other Talk pages, I'm talking about restraint, balance, and common sense but also a striving for brilliant writing. How about: "He and Fanny Vlaminck, a colourist at Studios Hergé twenty-eight years his junior, had developed a deep mutual attraction.[1] They began courting on Friday nights; Hergé's new companion lifted his morale and shared many of his interests, unlike Germaine, who did not.[Thompson (1991) p.168, Farr (2001) p.161, Peeters (2012) p.280] Germaine soon began interfering with the courtship, causing Hergé to admit his desire had been to maintain a relationship with both women.[Peeters (2012) p.280] When he failed to please either, he began to contemplate divorcing Germaine to marry Fanny.[Farr (2001) p.161, Assouline (2009) p.186, Goddin (2011) p.109] His Catholic upbringing and Boy Scout ethic, however, caused him to feel tremendous guilt.[Thompson (1991) p.168,170, Farr (2001) p.161]" I would now like to phone a friend: Midnightblueowl, what do you think? Neelix (or David), quick question: when this issue is resolved to your satisfaction, will you also please Support the source review? Prhartcom (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The addition/rewording you propose sounds fair enough to me. Given my spot-checks, I won't have any remaining concerns once the edit is implemented. Neelix (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Neelix (or David), quick question: when this issue is resolved to your satisfaction, will you also please Support the source review?" Prhartcom (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tweak it to "They began courting on Friday nights; Hergé's new companion lifted his morale and shared many of his interests, unlike Germaine, who did not." I might even move "unlike Germaine" to before "Hergé's new companion". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those changes make sense to me, Curly Turkey. Yes, Prhartcom, I would be glad to support fully once this issue is resolved; I apologize if I was previously unclear on this point. Neelix (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Neelix, not at all, I was just clarifying that I need your support on the source review. I'm just realising that for any Tintin article, some inaccessibility of the sources could make it difficult. Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix, would you please actually use the word Support in bold in the source review? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen anyone give a bolded support for sources before. They just announce that one has been done, and note what issues there are. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; as long as it's clear to Ian Rose who asked earlier, or anyone else, that the source review has been done for this article. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl and Curly Turkey: The second-to-the-last thing I would ever do would be to make either of you unhappy. The last thing I would ever do would be to allow harm to come to the article. My friends, it was truly about to happen; what Neelix described and then explicitly stated would have been a gross imbalance of information. I couldn't allow that to happen and I'm glad that I ultimately prevented it. Everything I stated I believe to be correct. I wish both of you had spotted this as well and given your support. I'm happy, as I've always said, for Neelix's thoroughness and I'm also happy that we gained the two new facts that he wanted by mentioning them in a single sentence, keeping the proper balance and focus in that section of the article. I just wish that I had thought of suggesting that final sentence on the very first day of this discussion. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a pleasure to read. In general, is well-written and well-researched. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments above. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, Neelix, for your review! Your good ideas are extremely valuable and have already made the article better. I will respond to any comments or questions you have for me. Thank-you, as well, for your complements! As you can tell, I am so pleased and honoured that you were able to take the time in what must be a busy schedule to make this review a part of your administrative (and Tintin) duties! We'll talk again soon. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the fixes, changes, and responses thus far! I have struck the points that you have either addressed or demonstrated as not needing addressing. I look forward to discussing the remaining matters with you further. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Neelix, and thank you Prhartcom for responding to them in such a thorough manner! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate both of your responses and alterations. I have struck more of the concerns you have addressed, and there are only a few remaining. Of them, I am most concerned about the ones regarding Hergé's separation from his wife. The placement and wording with respect to the Scout Law, as well as the subjugation of the Thompson quotation to a footnote, both serve to bias the article on this point, and the responses and lack of responses to these concerns have suggested that this bias is intentional. I think highly of the work you have done in developing this article and I think it almost feature-worthy, but I will certainly oppose giving the article featured status if the prose remains biased in this way. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin in Tibet article looks pretty good in WikiWand. Thanks to Brigade Piron who first added the free picture to this article a few months ago; WikiWand appears to place only free pictures in an article's top header. Prhartcom (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed by your sustained willingness to think about this article critically and make any necessary improvements. I have struck all but two of my concerns; all that remains is the concern regarding WP:QUOTEFARM and my recommendation of two missing relevant pieces of information. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for that; I am grateful while not surprised at your thoroughness; when I invited you here, I knew you were an expert, a scholar, and a fan of Tintin; three attributes that would come in handy to improve this article even more. You have made a few mistakes, I believe, in your review of this material, where no others have, but I believe those are excusable and expected when such thoroughness is executed like no other, so I remain happy, and besides I have made mistakes too. As long as the article is improved in the process. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You've written a great article here. Thanks for wrestling through all that with me. I look forward to seeing more Tintin articles achieve featured status. Neelix (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Resolved Source review
Note -- Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, do you mean a review to ensure the sources are used correctly, i.e. page numbers, close paraphrasing, etc? No you haven't, although I have been expecting it. The sources are primarily books which are mostly not available online. The last reviewer above even went out of their way to acquire a few sources from the bibliography but not to do a source review; perhaps you can still politely ask them to do one. The editor I asked to be the co-nominator could also be asked to do a source review if necessary, if that is allowed, as that person has access to all the sources. Failing all that, I can objectively review my own work if you ask me to. I can tell you I insisted on my own accuracy throughout my research, so I at least believe the sources are used correctly. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have only partially reviewed the sources, but the Peeters source is in conflict with the information in the article. The article indicates that Hergé was contemplating leaving Germaine because he had fallen out of love with her, but the sources state that he was planning on staying with Germaine while simultaneously pursuing a relationship with Fanny, and that it was only Germaine's public protestations and stalking of the couple that resulted in Hergé's contemplation of leaving her. I do not know if there are other points in the article that are in conflict with the sources. Neelix (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; Neelix is referring to an argument he and I had over one of the thirty points he raised above (all other points he raised were addressed to his satisfaction). Prhartcom (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now resolved this to the reviewers satisfaction. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source conflict I mentioned has been resolved. My other spot checks have not turned up additional issues. Neelix (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2014 (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) 00:45, 20 September 2014 (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): Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated several months ago, but after only one vote of support, it died, so I'm renominating it. This article is the seventeenth episode of seventh season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It is notably because it was written and directed by series co-star Gillian Anderson, but was also critically mauled. It was first promoted to good article status in April of 2012, and was later promoted to A-class status in September of the same year. The article has also changed substantially since it was promoted to good article in April of 2012. In addition, it has undergone two copy-edits: one by User:TBrandley in September of 2012, and another by User:JudyCS in January of 2014. I've also copy-edited while I've gone along, and the article was also unofficially peer-reviewed by User:Sarastro1. After a long trek up (about three years!), I think it is finally ready for FA review, but, as always, I am open to comments, criticism, and suggestion!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a quick drive-by comment, but I think you should include a note at the very beginning of the article clarifying that the title is "all things" and not "All Things". The first thing I thought I saw the title was that some mischievous IP address had gone and vandalized the article, and I almost changed it to the "correct" version. If you can find an explanation for why the title is lowercase, all the better, but certainly clarify what the correct episode title is. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I have implemented an explanatory note at the very beginning. I couldn't find a reason why the episode is lowercase (other than the words are taken from the middle of a soliloquy given by Scully in the episode, but that's OR), but I put some references that explain that it is the official way the title appears.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the previous nomination. Images are okay too - One FU image with adequate rationale, which is discussed in the article. Two free images, both from Flickr, both relevant to the text. I'd move Anderson's to the left side of the screen to face inward, but that's just me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments and support on prose from Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Taking a look now - 'nuff said. WIll drop queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is ill and suffering from a as-of-yet undiagnosed heart issue - any reason why we're not saying "heart condition"? "issue" sounds sorta weird/unnatural to my ears....
There are alotta "Scully"s in para 3 of plot section - even removing or replacing one with "the agent" or something would make it flow better.
Good catches. I cut the down the "Scullys" a bit, added 'condition' instead of 'issue', and linked existentially. How's it look?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 16:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fine...support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments and support on prose from Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"one which in [she] is taken": "one in which ...", maybe?
Typo on my part. Fixed.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"backstory: after Scully and Waterston came close to having an affair": but ... they had an affair.
I added the the word "original" between backstory; Anderson was explaining her original ideas. They were later changed and/or omitted in the episode.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
meet the maximum episode length of 42 minutes. the episode is 45 minutes long, in the infobox. What's the difference; can you provide a note that explains the difference?
the plot's significance was drowned out by needless flourishes. what does "needless flourishes" mean? Seattle (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads, "unnecessary artistic flourishes and needless pizzazz".--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have no qualms; met FA requirements after I reviewed. Seattle (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "support" statements should be left standing, rather than hidden with the rest of the comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose. Fixed.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 00:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Tezero
Back-to-back inactivity-failing sucks horribly, so I'll be covering this. Tezero (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a direct opposition, but why is an astronomy website used as a review source? Is this typical for X-Files episodes?
I've used it for several other episodes. Would you suggest removing it?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other FA episodes? (Me supporting its inclusion isn't necessarily contingent on this precedent; I'm just wondering.) Tezero (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about citing an Amazon.com listing, and if so, you should mention that it is in the citation. Or are you citing the DVD itself? If so, specify that it's the back cover, the liner notes, the on-DVD episode listing, etc. (You could actually just change this to another reference to the liner notes [citation #1], assuming the episode list appears there.)
I just removed the Amazon.com link and mentioned that it is citing the liner notes.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would seriously suggest archiving the iTunes link using WebCite, as iTunes URLs are notorious for their short lifespan as a result of recurrent reorganization.
Done.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For #24: what the nuts does "passim" mean?
According to Wiktionary, it is "used especially with the name of a book or writer to indicate that something (as a word, phrase, or idea) is to be found at many places in the same book or writer's work". Since the entire book is discussing feminist philosophy and feminist epistemology, this is a way to cite something over a large scope.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Note: Information is in the section titled "w/e July 3–9, 2000", listed under Sky1" - might want to put a period at the end and quotes around "Sky1"
Done.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks:
38: not seeing "interesting" directed at this episode
"Season seven produced some memorable episodes, with Duchovny and Anderson both writing and directing interesting episodes this season." This was the only episode written/directed by Anderson, so it must be the one being referred to.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2: iTunes says the length is 44:40; are two significant figures the standard or something?
I'm guessing so. For the last few X-Files FAs, I've only gone to the minute marker.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14: good, though The AV Club is an odd source for an interview. Would suggest italicizing "essence" in blockquote.
What seems odd about it? But I italicized what you suggested.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31: good, though even with the directions it was a little difficult to find the pertinent information. I wonder if WebCite would be able to take you straight there...
Not sure what you mean here.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I was able to find the information in the source, but only after puzzling over the directions for a bit. To prevent this if a reader decides to look at the source, you may want to use www.webcitation.org to archive the specific page with the appropriate categories already selected. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I've never done that before. To be fair, I'm new to WebCitation.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. This isn't an accusation. It just might be helpful as iTunes URLs are one of the most volatile URL types around, right up there with official movie websites. Tezero (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when done or addressed. Tezero (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note -- By all means pursue the last point but I think we can safely leave it to post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (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) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (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): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a fairly unproductive film corporation, even for the 1940s Dutch East Indies, but one which spent money as if it were going out of style. Oriental was only open for a little over a year, but it brought Fifi Young and her husband Njoo Cheong Seng to film, and helped a few prominent stage actors/singers start their film careers. This has had a great GA review by Seattle and a non-formal PR by SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK.
Images are PD in Indonesia and the US. Sufficient source information (authors mostly unknown). GermanJoe (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review. Glad to see you're back at FAC! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the Filmografi cites have locations, others don't
Some of the books have locations, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've gotten them all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support All good from me - just one very minor tweak, which I think I'm right in doing - please feel free to undo if it's an error. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, both before the nomination and now. :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Review from Cliftonian
Lead
Why not put the wikilink on Batavia rather than Jakarta?
Dhalia? What an excellent name.
Establishment
"the film industry of the Dutch East Indies – which had been severely weakened by the Great Depression" recommend rewording to "the Dutch East Indies film industry", as the present wording could be understood as saying the Indies in general had been severely weakened, but I think we mean the industry specifically
Not sure we need to say "fate: dissolved" as directly below we have "defunct: 1941". Perhaps merge the two under one or the other.
Don't need to link the Dutch East Indies thrice.
Not sure we need to say both that it was a film company and that its products were motion pictures.
All done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done and engaging. Good job. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you right kindly for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Supporting above. Well done! — Cliftonian (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, one comment I'm happy to support this. I wonder about the use of the term "lower class" throughout the article; "working class" or "low-income" would be less value-loaded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Indies, the "upper" class (the nobility, or priyayi) generally ended up working as well... in administration, or in other areas which required an education. Also, the original "kelas bawah" doesn't carry the negative connotations and value judgments as "lower class" (or, even worse, low class). However, low-income would probably be a reasonable compromise, and has been included here. Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a handful of minor points - these are suggestions for the most part, so you have my Support whether you choose to implement them or not:
"For the film, a love story set in Timor starring Young as the title character, Oriental used bright, extravagant costumes, Njoo gave the characters whimsical names which would not be found in the setting" Second clause should be separated by "and" or a semicolon.
Good point; what a mess! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Rather than shoot on location – which would have been prohibitively expensive – Oriental constructed sets behind the ANIF Studio" and other similar sentences: maybe use {{spaced ndash}} instead of -?
Does it have a benefit besides being (marginally) easier to read? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Both women, teenagers at the time, had previously established stage careers..." It's not clear here whether their stage careers were previously established, or they had previously gone through the process of establishing stage careers. Doesn't make much difference to the meaning of the sentence, but it's a bit unwieldy.
Perhaps nixing "previously" would work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After Pantjawarna, Fred Young drew Njoo and his wife to the newly established Majestic Film" - worth a redlink to Majestic Film?
Done. Majestic has several films with articles, so I think it is probably notable enough for an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The films targeted low-income audiences and extensively used kroncong music, for the recording of which the company established the Oriental Novelty Five." Oriental Novelty Five? Or perhaps a few more sentences of information about them somewhere in the article?
Haven't been able to find much on the group so far, sadly. Documentation is a bit sparse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Fifi Young, who continued acting for Njoo until their divorce in 1945, appearing in more than eighty films before her death in 1975." Surely, "appeared in more than eighty films"?
Overall, very interesting article - thanks for the read! Yunshui雲水 09:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (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) 10:45, 16 September 2014 (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): Seattle (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I first found the article, it looked like this. Now, it's far expanded from its beginnings, and I hope to culminate the progression with a formal recognition. Seattle (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (I'll do a prose etc. review as soon as I can)
Only one image, File:Chris Gragg, ULM at Arkansas, 2012.jpg, which considering the length of the article is not an issue. The image is free; I am convinced that s/he was the photographer. Sadly, it is is, sadly, low quality, but barring any other free images of the individual I don't see any way around that (and I don't see anything on Flickr or Google that we can use). Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the team's coaching staff - perhaps trim "team's"? It would be contextually understood, I think
Agreed
in the draft, the Bills chose Gragg with the 222 overall selection, - this is probably because I don't follow football, but I don't quite get this sentence
Linked "draft".
Chris served as the team's water boy until he was in junior high school. - any word when he started?
I can't find anything on it; the source says "Football was something for Chris Gragg to do in rural Southeast Arkansas. His father was a football coach for whom Gragg would serve as a water boy until junior high", and a Google search doesn't reveal anything either. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the Warren squad, Gragg played football as a wide receiver alongside future NFL players Jarius Wright and Greg Childs. - This is a big jump: junior high school to him playing on the team? When did he enrol? When did he start playing?
There's some sources listed at [21] which could produce a transition sentence, but I don't have a subscription. I'll ask around. Seattle (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the 148-best receiver - would the 148th best receiver be more common?
Yes, changed.
Professional career / Buffalo Bills - I know why you're doing this (in case he is traded) but it looks odd to have a single subsubsection after a subsection, without any introductory text. I'd put it in hidden text for now, or move the bit about the selection competition as a lead-in paragraph
Commented out.
In his freshman season, Gragg played in all 12 of the team's games, and the Arkansas Razorbacks finished with a 5–7 win–loss record. - I'd rework to have the name of the team (Razorbacks) before "the team's"; introduce it for the reader
Introduced.
When Arkansas faced the Georgia Bulldogs, Gragg caught a touchdown on a 57-yard pass for his first reception of the year. - when? Specific games are mentioned but no dates given in several other sentences too
Added date
a game that Arkansas lost 31–26 after defensive end Solomon Thomas intercepted a pass from Ryan Mallett in the final minute of the game. - might be worth being explicit about what teams Thomas and Mallett were playing for
Added "Ohio State" before "Solomon Thomas", and "quarterback" before Ryan Mallett, which should provide context to understand which team Mallet plays for. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to his junior season, a writer for Arkansas Business - reads almost as if the writer was a junior
Changed.
During Buffalo's 2014 preseason practice, Gragg was hospitalized with heat cramps. - And what's happened since? That was three weeks ago.
Updated.
I'd work "Personal life" into the college section (as a lead in to his competing in the scouting game), with the other part in his early life section.
Worked the degree into the college section. I prefer to keep the part on Will in the "personal life" section so that the article stays in chronological order. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of June 2014[update], Gragg has received offers from forty-five collegiate schools - Will or Chris?
Alright, changes look good. I'll try and trawl the internet for further sources to check comprehensiveness, though (except for his early life) this feels as if it ticks all those boxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. I've been unable to find anything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Ref 26 and 29 use different template (cite web), to Ref 15 (cite news)
Why is there no accessdate parameter filled in for sources with links (eg: Ref 10, 32, 33) Lemonade51 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to cite news. I didn't include accessdates because MOS:REF#Links and ID numbers implies they're optional for web sources with dates. For references without online dates, such as Refs 33–35, I included accessdates. Thanks for the review! Seattle (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"an American football tight end who plays" -> "an American footballer who plays tight end for..." to avoid the consecutive blue links and awkward phrasing.
A footballer is a soccer player. Do you have another suggestion? Seattle (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't ref 25 have an en-dash in that scoreline?
Yes, added.
Comprehensive article on a short career so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns with the ability of the article to meet criterion 1b, which stipulates the subject must be placed in context, as well as 1e, which stipulates the article must be stable, and not change significantly day-to-day. As a young player whose career is yet to evolve, it is almost impossible to place him in context, and the article is likely to change frequently as the season progresses. I think for a veteran player, it might be possible to achieve these criteria, but for a young player like this one, I am not sure the criteria can be met. Tentative oppose. GoPhightins! 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given other tried featured articles, I think your oppose overstates how much the article will actually change in the next few years. All events are included and given appropriate weight regarding what already happened in his career. Will the lead, infobox, and sections of Derek Jeter change over the course of the Major League Baseball season and into his retirement? Yes. Will our article on Reese Witherspoon change after she stars in another film? Yes. Similarly, Gragg's infobox will need updating over the course of the season, as will a paragraph in the "Professional career" section, a few changes to the lead, and a statement once Will accepts an offer. The article, as of August 16, is stable day-to-day in a way that Jeter and Witherspoon's articles are as well. Seattle (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how anyone could object as to whether the subject has been "placed in context" (1b) as most of the article deals with his position contextually within his sport, even daring to note that while notable, he's not going to break any records soon or be on the front page of many newspapers. As for objections on the grounds of stability, (1e), that's going to apply to any active player in any sport in the world. We consider "instability" in this sense as a result of a series of edit wars, or as a result of some unforeseen event. The former doesn't apply, the latter isn't applying yet (and if it does, I'm certain the nominator will cope with it and update any part of this article accordingly). An oppose based on 1b and particularly 1e should be disregarded as unactionable. If we do allow this kind of oppose to stand, then we can kiss goodbye to anyone being prepared to write featured quality articles on young athletes whose careers are up and coming. I see no merit nor any value in that opposition. The Rambling Man (talk)
My question (and yes it's a question, hence the "tentative" in my !vote) is whether a player whose notability stems from his playing career can have a comprehensive article written on him in such early states of the aforementioned career. GoPhightins! 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is clearly yes. The real question is "will the article remain comprehensive as his career progresses?" and we'll have to rely on Seattle or WP:FAR to resolve that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and therein lies a valid concern. I know at WP:BASEBALL, we have had one and a half FAs ever on current players (the half is one who had just retired when the FAC started), and the concern has been over comprehensiveness and contextualization ... GoPhightins! 12:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any article that's notable enough for a Wikipedia article ought to be notable enough to become a featured article as long as the article meets the criteria for the item at that point. We shouldn't be precluding articles on young sportspeople because there's a potential concern that the article will not remain comprehensive and meet the criteria at some undefined point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any article can change at any time for any reason (if sources back it up). That shouldn't prevent anything from being promoted to FA. Worst-case scenario is that something major happens to Chris Gragg and User:Seattle or someone else doesn't change it. The article is demoted. It's that simple (although I have faith in the user(s) who worked on this page).--Gen. Quon(Talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, the prose is really well done, although there's a few issues I want to bring up:
"Otis Kirk of Rivals.com credits Gragg with only 409 receiving yards in his senior year." Is there a reason for this, or is it just an error made by Rivals.com?
I don't know. Rivals.com and Scout.com are the two big-name recruiting websites and display high school stats. Most other sources use the Scout.com figure of 420, but because I don't know the correct statistic, I don't know if it's an error, so that's why I made it a footnote.
I feel like the first line of "Personal life" could be completely rewritten. As it stands, it pretty much is substantially changing the text enough that you could probably remove the quotes, tweak it a bit, and make it 'your own', so to speak.
Rewritten.
I see that there are no access dates, but apparently that's not required (you learn something every day).
Not for websites with publication dates, to my interpretation of the MOS.
In the template box, should "1990 births" be before "American football tight ends"?
Moved.
But those are the only 'issues' I could find.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Support--Gen. Quon(Talk) 00:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comment This is a tidy article; I can't see much wrong with the prose.
I'd make it "Warren High School in Arkansas" in both the lead and the first section; no reason not to let the reader know this is an in-state player.
Added.
"the 222 overall selection": should be 222nd, surely?
Yes, changed.
"on the 53-man roster, with 53 as the maximum number of players a team can have on its active roster ": no need to repeat the "53"; I'd cut "53-man"; or maybe simplify it to "tried to earn one of the 53 positions available on the active roster".
Changed.
What is "vertical speed"?
Added quotes.
Sorry, I still don't understand. What is it? Speed in jumping vertically? I see the quote in the original but I have no idea what he's referring to.
Tried to clarify. "While the team trained at St. John Fisher College, Buffalo head coach Doug Marrone praised Gragg for his knowledge of the Bills' playbook and his vertical running speed."
Now you have "vertical running speed"; I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really have no idea what this means. Is it a specialized American football term that means something to NFL fans? What's the difference between running speed and vertical running speed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Vertical running speed means how fast a player can run up and down the field, as opposed to lateral speed, which is side-to-side. On a football field, vertical speed means how fast one player can run from, say, the 10 to the 40 yard line, straight, without much side-to-side motion. The yellow arrows at [22] are a good representation of vertical speed. The orange is lateral speed. If I could find a good external definition I'd include it, but I can't, and "vertical running speed" should be clear enough as to what kind of activity Gragg did well (i.e running, not jumping). Seattle (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see from some Googling that it's a common term in the NFL. I've switched to support; if you can think of a way to provide an explanation, that would be very helpful to other readers like me. Perhaps an entry for "vertical speed" in glossary of American football, and a link from this article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I've reviewed the discussion re. 1b. Fair point to raise but I think TRM, in particular, has provided an equally fair response, so given the resolution of all other comments and requisite checks being complete I'll be promoting it shortly. Tks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2014 (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) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (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... Franklin Pierce, a president almost always denigrated. Yet in his time, he was one of the bright young stars of the Democratic Party. His efforts to deal with the slavery issue won him lasting, and possibly deserved, condemnation, yet as one of Andrew Johnson's biographers once said, the issues the presidents of their times faced were so overwhelming it would have taken a succession of Lincolns to deal with them properly. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and such not very important quibbles as I had were dealt with then. I found this jointly-written article outstandingly pleasing to read: I ended up feeling quite indignant at the engaging Pierce's low ranking in the hierarchy of US presidents. Well balanced, comprehensive, neutral, nicely illustrated, widely and judiciously referenced, and a really good read: FA quality without doubt. Loud applause to the co-noms! Tim riley talk 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your patient peer review and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Support – I caught a few minor formatting issues with the refs but can find nothing else. A fantastic piece of work! Cassiantotalk 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that and for your catches!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Nikkimaria
File:First_ladies-pierce.jpg: given the typical long estimates it is possible that the unknown author died less than 100 years ago
It's a very long shot indeed that he did. I've done a bit of internet searching on this, and the photo dates from 1850. He would have had to have been a very young man at the time and lived to be a very old one. Given that he is unknown (and other sources say "unknown" as well), I'm inclined to maintain the tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Southern_Chivalry.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:President_Franklin_Pierce_grave_concord_NH.jpg should identify copyright status of the memorial itself.
I've deleted that. It was built in 1946 and without a physical inspection I could not say there was no copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Brianboulton
refs 15, 16 require "p." rather than "page"
ref 18 requires pp. not p.
ref 19 requires pp. not p.
ref 51 check page range format (compare, e.g., ref 48)
refs 55 and 56 ditto
ref 67, "Gara", 38" needs a p.
ref 74, p needs full stop
ref 115 check page range format
ref 122 ditto
ref 138 ditto
The Crockett article? That's OK, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies: some have publisher locations, others not. Likewise "other works"
The Pierce Manse is a cited source, and should not be listed among ext links
All external links checked and working. Sources appear of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted above, I've gotten those. Thank you for your source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
Oppose not a bad article, but I'm sorry to say this was nominated prematurely for FA.
Lead
"All of their children died young"..... specify that they had three sons
That either leaves "All of their three sons" which is sloppy, or "Their three sons died young" which leaves room for any number of daughters. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"gruesomely killed" is borderline POV, just say "killed"
I appreciate your point, but when a child is decapitated, or nearly, in the parents' presence, I think the term is fine. I do not think the use of adjectives is POV. POV means you are taking sides on a subject which can be disputed. What is the opposing point of view? Where is it advocated in reliable sources? Every book on Pierce I've consulted dwells to some extent on how horrible that railway disaster was for the Pierces, as it would be for any parent who loses a child, especially in a disaster that they survived but the child did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pierce's credibility was further damaged"..... reputation or image would be better
"Administration" subbed--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and family
Childhood and education
Include the names of Pierce's siblings here
I think that this is unnecessary detail. Why is this relevant to the reader? They are not his children, and played no part in his political career. They would just be names to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"two of his older brothers fought in the War of 1812"..... specify which ones
Ditto. I would not downgrade an article for including them, but it isn't terribly relevant to Pierce's story. There is not the opportunity to present them as individuals.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma after "year" in "Later that year he transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy"
"By this time he had built a reputation as a charming student, sometimes prone to misbehavior"..... I'm not sure this sentence is even needed
It presages his mixed career at Bowdoin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"his memory for names and faces served him well, as did his personal charm and deep voice"..... "charm" is somewhat POV
Personalities are well within scope for a biography, especially when there's a strong consensus about how a person was perceived in their lifetime. "Charm" isn't really POV, since every source represents him as particularly likable and personable even by a politician's standards. Compare to (FA) Ronald Reagan: "His age and soft-spoken speech gave him a warm grandfatherly image." —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even Pierce's enemies admitted he had personal charm. Again, unless there is an opposing point of view. This was part of what advanced Pierce in politics and the law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State politics
I'm not convinced "hotbed" is the best word choice
I've played with alternatives but nothing comes to mind that would not be awkward "New Hampshire had a highly partisan atmosphere". We're open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma after "1831" in "By 1831 the Democrats"
Is this really a rule? It seems like personal preference. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma after "27" in "At the age of 27"
Added, but as Designate implies, this is acceptable either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given how the "tantamount to election" page is currently proposed to be merged into Safe seat, it's probably best to unlink this and use some other phrasing to describe the election
It's used in other FAs, see for example United States Senate election in California, 1950, and similarly linked. I think the delink should be considered if the merge discussion succeeds, but I don't see that as a reason to rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough"..... here you should introduce his wife Jane by name
If the sections were farther apart I would support this, but given the proximity, think it's cleaner to finish off the political section without blurring it too much with the marriage section. —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage and children
"She was slight and constantly ill"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what "slight" means in this instance
I've changed to "somewhat gaunt".
Remove the "see below" from the bit on Benjamin dying in a train incident
I've redone it as a link to the section. I don't see that the reader should have to wade through sections of prose to find it.
Congressional career
U.S. House of Representatives
"shot down challenges" → "declined challenges"
Rephrased somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to be an annoyance"..... keep it simple and just say annoying
I was trying to avoid the phrase "abolitionists' agitation annoying", or worse, "abolitionists' agitation an annoyance". Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Senate
I'd remove "vigorous" from "vigorous debate"
I'm not sure it is necessary but I've changed to "much debate".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that is
"his father, sister, and brother"..... specify which sister and brother
Again, I don't see that it's worthwhile to name them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"who was often in financial difficulties" → "who often struggled financially"
"He was an able senator, but not an eminent one"..... doesn't read very well or seem encyclopedic
Strongly disagree. He was one of the many second-rank senators who are perfectly good representatives of their state but are not national leaders.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pierce campaigned vigorously throughout his home state"..... "vigorously" doesn't seem like the right word
It seems appropriate to me. Is there a difficulty with it? "Enthusiastically" might be a possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma after "1841" in "In December 1841 Pierce decided to resign from Congress"
See Designate's comment above. We will await comments from further reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Party leader
Lawyer and politician
Place a comma after "1842" in "In June 1842 Pierce was named chairman"
Also see Designate's comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling James K. Polk a "dark horse" is unneeded
Until we come to the section on 1852, where Pierce's dark horse candidacy is widely compared to Polk's. It's foreshadowing and it's in there for a reason. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"an issue which caused a dramatic split between Pierce and his former ally Hale" → "an issue that ended Pierce's alliance with Hale"
I think that understates the case. If you look at the following paragraphs, the phrasing is justified. This, and similar stands made Hale an abolitionist leader while Pierce basically wanted to sweep the issue of slavery under the carpet and hope it would go away. And worse than that Hale was doing it in the New Hampshire Democratic Party, which Pierce felt should remain united.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican–American War
"even though by the time Grant wrote Pierce had been dead for several years"..... reads awkwardly
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Grant described him this way"..... not very encyclopedic
This way stricken.
Return to New Hampshire
Remove "notable" from "in one notable case", and add a comma after "case"
It tips the reader that it's an exceptional matter, not a typical one. In the case of the comma, I think that if we are to be spare of commas, we should be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"36°30′ N" → "36°30' N" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
In this case it's not a quotation mark but a prime mark which is governed by different rules. {{coord}} uses prime marks, for example. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "fiasco" the best word choice?
I think it goes beyond "controversy". They ditched their candidate for governor because of his views. I'm minded of when McGovern ditched Shriver because he had been treated for depression. That was certainly a fiasco.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem... McGovern ditched Eagleton, and chose Shriver in his place (how do I know this stuff? Must get out more) Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fingers sometimes get ahead of my mind, alas. Thank you for the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Election of 1852
"Their son Benjamin wrote to his mother, hoping that Franklin would not be elected, as neither mother nor son would like to live in Washington"..... any particular reason they didn't?
Jane's hatred of politics has been made known to the reader. Benjamin's motives can only be guessed at, but I'd imagine he was sympathetic to his mother and aware enough of her views not to want her to be First Lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency
Tragedy and transition
"Gruesome" in "Pierce was not able to hide the gruesome sight from Jane" is borderline POV (as noted in lead)
See my comments to the lede. An 11 year old torn nearly in half is self-evidently gruesome, especially when it's your 11 year old and the last surviving child.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"which likely affected Pierce's performance as president"..... I'd either find a more definitive answer than "likely", or remove this altogether
It's the opinion of his biographers, and is probably not subject to perfect proof. However, it's not stated as definite fact, but a likelihood.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Great sympathy" in "making her public debut in that role to great sympathy" doesn't seem very neutral
That's what the source says. Is there an opposing school of thought? Were the American people indifferent to their First Lady being in mourning for her child?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoiding the word 'slavery', he emphasized his desire to put the 'important subject' to rest and maintain a peaceful union"..... If including the bit on not saying "slavery", readers will probably ask why he avoided the term
I think the sentence is self-explanatory. He wanted peace and he wanted Congress to stop talking about slavery altogether. Avoiding the term goes along with that goal (as Wallner picked up on) but it would be OR to dwell on it. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administration and political strife
"It quickly became clear that having a Democratic-controlled House and Senate would not ensure a successful presidency"..... something about this just doesn't read well
I think it can be safely deleted.
"Pierce and King never communicated once they had been selected as candidates in June 1852"..... why not?
Far from unusual for the time. See John Tyler#Vice President for another example. The Veep only became a major factor in the administration in the Eisenhower years (Nixon). Remember that Truman didn't even know about the atomic bomb project?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign and military affairs
"The Pierce administration fell in line with the expansionist Young America movement"..... took place during would read better
"Fell in line with" means "went along with", not "coincided with". I don't think it's useful to say it took place during a movement when the parties were so splintered. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unique" in "a uniquely American, republican image" is borderline POV
"Distinctively", then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need "unpopular" in "the unpopular Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850"
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bleeding Kansas
See above note on "36°30′ N"
Per above response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1856 election
"In reality his chances of winning"..... needs comma after "reality"
See comment on commas. We don't all write the same. Some people are sparer with commas than others. What is important is consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"none of the three main candidates could clinch two-thirds of the vote"...... none received two-thirds of the vote sounds more professional
Rephrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"received assurances from Buchanan's managers that this would be the case".... Buchanan's managers assured him
It would have been less direct than that. Douglas wasn't there. Buchanan's managers would have reached out to Douglas's political friends, all very indirect. Thus the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"To soften the blow" doesn't sound very encyclopedic
The obvious alternatives involve "sop" and "consolation prize" and I'm not convinced you'd like them better. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "vigorously" in "he vigorously attacked Republicans and abolitionists" really needed?
Well, he was criticizing abolitionists his entire career, so this sentence is worthless without the extra punch. The sources portray this speech as unexpectedly aggressive for a lame duck and for Pierce in particular, and it's fair to reflect that here without being too specific about it.
"and the author found the retired president as buoyant as ever"..... not convinced this is necessary
I think it's a look at a president from some one close to him that we don't always get for an early president. It's helpful to remind the reader now and then that these are more than figures in a faded picture or idealized painting. They walked, talked, had emotions, just like we do, and were as vibrant and alive as we are. They did not live in a black and white photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Post-presidency
"President Buchanan broke hard from the Pierce administration"..... "broke hard" doesn't read well
"altered course"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make note of what Jane Pierce died from
I will look to see what can be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added TB.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Civil War
"Pierce paid a visit to Michigan, visiting his former Interior Secretary, McClelland, former senator Cass, and others"..... visited..... in Michigan
Tweaked, a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final years and death
"took a growing toll on his health"..... something about "taking a toll on" doesn't seem very professional. Try something like Pierce's drinking worsened his health, perhaps.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He had a brief relationship with an unknown woman in mid-1865"..... I question including something like this when a partner's name is not even known. Also doesn't seem worthy of inclusion if the relationship was only brief.
I don't want to bowlderize him, either.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A caretaker was hired for him; none of his family members were present in his final days"..... any particular reason known?
He had no one close and his nieces and nephews had their own lives--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry's son Frank Pierce received the largest share"..... if known, I would include how much estate Pierce left him
I am not sure that dollar figures are relevant over 145 years, when the economy has changed so and the dollar is paper, not gold. In Pierce's day, middle class families could have hot and cold running servants at a trivial expense. Today, not so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
The entire first paragraph doesn't belong here- it focuses on Pierce's negative reception, legacy sections are for positive reception, influence, and such.
I don't agree with that. Stalin and Hitler didn't have legacies? If legacy sections can't be negative then we'd have to avoid them on Wikipedia entirely. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Designate, and negative legacy paragraphs are accepted in FAs (see Richard Nixon as an example)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it would've been better to first go for GAN, better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate your view. I am traveling at present but will be replying to these within the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I commend your efforts so far. However, I do think the best place do to all the needed work would be outside of FAC. After lots of copyediting (GOCE could really help), I suggest GAN, and then maybe another peer review before later renominating for FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Fair points although I had a few comments above. I can't imagine the use of two PRs and a GOCE on such a straightforward article. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also. I've made changes where they seemed appropriate and responded where I did not agree. We will await additional reviewers. I should note, as someone who has been reviewing FAs for six or seven years, that there is no "right" way to write an article. People's prose styles differ. A certain amount of conformity is dictated by the MOS, but we have no editor in chief to dictate beyond that. Personally, I will accept a fairly broad range of prose styles. I often would write something differently, in an article that I review, but I don't see it as a reason to ask that it be changed, if it is to its own self true. With respect to POV, adjectives are not POV. POV is taking sides. If something is generally accepted, and thus there are not two sides, it is not POV.
I see no point in a GAN (which is very hit or miss) or GOCE. The article had a comprehensive peer review. We will await further comments by reviewer, and if they are favorable, will ask you to take a second look at the article and to reconsider. In the interim, we would welcome any further comments you may have and thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have read through the comments and suggestions in the above review, and in general find myself in agreement with the nominators where they have resisted suggested changes. The reference to "all the needed work" seems inappropriate; any outstanding changes are of a relatively minor nature, if not optional, and should be no barrier to the article's promotion. We all have stylistic preferences, but should be prepared to accept the choices of others unless they are plainly wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support, and for the thoughtful words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Designate and Wehwalt, I just looked this over again, and it's definitely improved over the past week. Good work! Fair points for some of my comments, but here are my explanations for the others:
Commas: MOS:DATE says to include a comma after a year, i.e. "On November 19, 1834, Pierce married Jane Means Appleton" as opposed to "On November 19, 1834 Pierce married Jane Means Appleton". My bad for neglecting to mention this at first.
Siblings: my basis for including them was FA's like Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Harry S. Truman.
"campaigned vigorously": "enthusiastically" would be better
"Great sympathy": I meant that the "great" part wasn't needed, even if the source included it
Pierce and King not communicating: For those who have no previous knowledge of their political relationship, I felt it could benefit them to know why Pierce don't follow Buchanan's advice
"Soften the blow": I think "console" would be fine
Legacy: From what I've read in other articles, "legacy" tends to have a more positive connotation. For example, Barack Obama is an FA whose legacy contains honors and praise rather than criticism. For Pierce, I would've imagined his criticism would be in a different section than "legacy". Regarding Hitler and Stalin, they certainly had prominent impact on society, but I haven't exactly heard people describe it as a legacy per se.
The brief relationship after Jane's death: Given how this isn't regarded as a prominent aspect of his life (at least compared to Jane), it seemed trivial to include when compared to widely reported/discussed relationships like Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings, Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Lucy Mercer, or Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky.
I'm almost ready to support this, most of my doubts seem to have been resolved and I'm much less skeptical now about this meeting FA criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, I'll support this nomination now. It's much better than when I first reviewed it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and for bearing with us while we improved the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Victoriaearle
I started reading this a few days ago but got sidetracked. I'll try to finish it this weekend. So far the only (extremely minor!) nitpick I've come across is that somewhere it mentions fall (as in autumn) and I think per some MoS rule we're supposed to use a month. I'll be back - it's an interesting read. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. When I did that the source was not ambiguous and it was clear from context North American seasons were intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, you're right! I was trying to wrack my brain to find something to comment about. This is beautifully written! And it's such an important period, which we tend to overlook. Thanks so much to both you for taking on this task and doing such a fine job. With much diligent work I have found a few comments to make, but they won't stand in the way of supporting.
Lawyer and politician": Which paper did Hill found? Not important, I'm simply curious.
Hill's New Hampshire Patriot. Interesting discussion of its future history [23]--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Election of 1852"
I had some trouble with this sentence: "He publicly declared such that a nomination would be "utterly repugnant to my tastes and wishes", but understood that his position as state party leader was in jeopardy if he flatly refused.[64]"
… and with this sentence: "Their son Benjamin wrote to his mother, hoping that Franklin would not be elected, as neither mother nor son would like to live in Washington.[66]"
Both clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Foreign and military affairs"
Fourth para has "First In 1854," (prepositional phrase + comma) followed soon after by "In his December 1855 message to Congress Pierce set forth the American case" >> these need to be made consistent. I tend to use fewer commas but it's up to you.
"Bleeding Kansas"
The map is tiny. Can it be boosted a bit. Also some of the pics throughout are inconsistently sized, some "upright" and some not; these should probably be fixed, but not a big deal (except that they're all very nice images)
Sources:
What are we doing about "Further reading" sections these days? Just thought I'd mention.
There's one there. Is there a difficulty with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought we tried to avoid them? But, I might have dreamed it. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but I follow very few discussions these days. If anyone has a view on this, feel free to weigh in. We had more sources than we were actually using, so rather than delete the surplus one, I grouped them into "further reading".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, when I get a chance, I'll probably go through and trim your g-book references so they don't include the search string with the page number. But I'd only do this with your permission (maybe when the FAC is over) and would want you to know because those kinds of fixes look like a lot is being deleted.
I know what you mean. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent job and thanks so much for writing this. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks your your comments and your support. I will work through these later in the day or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten to them all, though I am not the best guy on images and others should feel free to adjust.
Okay, thanks. The clarifications are good. I might play with the images a little on another day (I'm about to log out) because the images are nice and maybe worth boosting a bit if the space allows it. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I got sidetracked. Yes, the explanation about further readings is fine. I've gone through and made the image formatting consistent; if you hate it, it's fine to revert or rejig. Just a comment re the review above mine: you don't need me to tell you that we don't cherry-pick sources, and that we follow the sources. If the sources tell us his legacy wasn't great, then that's what happened. I am vaguely familiar with this period but much more through literature, (I love the Hawthorne connection and had forgotten Pierce visited Hawthorne in Rome), and there's a very good reason the legacy is what it is. Furthermore, I meant say this the other night but held back: I think this is an exemplary article, fwiw. I read straight through, top to bottom without a hitch. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
I had less patience than Brian did; I stopped reading the opposing review after disagreeing with 13 of 13 review comments.
"During Pierce's childhood his father served as a governor's council member and county sheriff, while two of his older brothers fought in the War of 1812; politics and republicanism were thus a major influence in his early life.": I think it would be better to state the influence directly rather than implying it ... if you want to state the influence. It could be something like: "Pierce's interest in politics and his country started early; he looked up to his father, who served ..., and his older brothers, two of whom fought in the War of 1812." Or you might not have information on or want to focus on the influence his family had on him ... in which case, I'd leave off the "politics and republicanism ..." part. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"reelection", "re-election": consistency
"toward", "towards": consistency
"cant heresy and treason": If "heresy and treason" is accurate, I'd recommend that.
Oops. VisualEditor just lost all my edits to the second half of the article ... I click on the "Save page" button, and nothing happens. Sorry about that. I'll run through it again, but I might miss things I saw the first time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to only hire": that they only hire
"filibuster": unauthorized military excursion
"future filibuster attempts": such attempts
"slow embrace of new technology": I moved things around to change this to "slow to embrace new technology" (but lost the edit).
Thank you indeed; I've made most of your changes, though sometimes in my own words. Where is the "6" that you refer to in your final caveat?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't remember if I lost that edit; it must have saved. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAC Coord notes
Note -- Having walked through the FAC list, I'm going to call it a night but I expect I'll be back to promote this in another day or two, as I think sufficient effort has been made by the nominators to accommodate the suggestions of the sole opposing voice, and consensus seems to be that the remainder is more a matter of taste. In the meantime though, as usual, pls just check that you need the duplinks that Ucucha's checker will highlight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through this again, my oppose isn't so strong now, Ian. Only several comments now, and I'm closer to supporting than I was last week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums, please check you're working off the latest version of the article. For example, your complaint about the missing comma is just wrong - it's been there at least since you edited the article on 1st September. And I really don't know why you think that getting your preferred adjectives should be the price for this article's promotion. I agree with the others who have said that the remaining matters are questions of taste, and as it happens I would prefer to defer to Wehwalt's taste on such matters. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
indeed; consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Nominators are allowed to leave oppositions stand. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see this has resolved itself positively in any case. Last thing then, hopefully -- Designate/Wehwalt, did you in fact check on the duplinks per my query above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All set. —Designate (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2014 (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) 13:08, 13 September 2014 (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 floral emblem of the state of Victoria. I think it came together well and invite folks to let us know what else we (i.e. me and Melburnian can fix..pronto-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment
Is there some exception with plants regarding the use of the single quotemarks? They shouldn't be double? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
when writing about plant cultivars we'd generally write ones that hadn't been PBR'ed with single quotes and ones that had with double quotes, but I think that is not a general rule. Have seen both here, but single quotes seem to be preferred - see Wikipedia:NCFLORA#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_namesCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the exception is mentioned at MOS:QUOTEMARKS (Double or single). --Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another driveby: in the taxonomy section there's this sentence: 'A year later, he described E. nivalis, which he described as an "exceedingly beautiful species", from specimens growing in Loddiges nursery.' This uses "described" twice in different senses of the word, which is awkward and possibly confusing. Can the second use of the word be replaced, one way or another? Off the top of my head "characterized as" or "mentioned as" would be plausible, but neither of them sounds quite right. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Within the corolla is a central style with the stigma at the apex and ovary at the base, where the nectar is also located. Different colour forms are often observed growing near each other. The fruit is a 5-locule capsule that is about 3.5 mm (0.14 in) in diameter. It is globular in shape, sometimes with one end flattened, and the style is persistent."
When I saw "and the style is persistent", I figured you meant the shape of the fruit, or capsule, but it could be a little confusing to readers who are not botanists. I may be wrong, but I think this is a different meaning from the first use of "style". Is there any way you could use a different word for the second instance (if it does in fact mean something different from the first use)?
Both instances of the word "style" refer to the floral element so I combined the two mentions to reduce confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Prolific botanist Robert Brown described Epacris ruscifolia in his 1810 work Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van Diemen alongside E. impressa".
I wonder about including the adjective "prolific" here. It doesn't relate to anything else in that sentence or paragraph. No adjective before "botanist" would be all right, but if you want to use one, I think it would be more interesting for the average reader to give his nationality.
I ended up removing 'prolific' as (although he was prolific) it is not particularly germane to this article and looks odd when combined with his nationality... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) Also in the second paragraph in "Taxonomy" are the following sentences:
"John Lindley described Epacris tomentosa from plant specimens collected during the third expedition of Thomas Mitchell in 1838. Found on Mount William in the Grampians, it was described as "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris with large, curved, purple flowers, allied to E. grandiflora but much handsomer".
This is similar to the problem mentioned above by Nihiltres regarding E. nivalis later in this paragraph. You have the word "described" twice but with different meanings. (I believe the first instance is a botanists' term meaning something like "described for the first time".) In the first sentence you write, "John Lindley described...." Then in the second sentence, you switch to passive voice and say, "it was described as", with a detailed description full of admiration. If that is all right with you, then it can stay. I tried to figure out a way to change it so that you have Lindley saying this rather than the passive voice "it was described as", without making the first sentence longer, but haven't yet.
I changed it to ...Mitchell remarked that it was "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris..., as it was Mitchell's remark in the account of his expedition, rather than Lindley's description, the latter appearing as a footnote in that work.--Melburnian (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4) The last sentence of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy" is:
"He classified plants collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains as E. impressa as a separate species E. reclinata".
This is a little confusing. I think it means:
He classified plants [that had been] collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains [and that Cunningham had identified] as E. impressa and identified them as a separate species E. reclinata.
If I am correct, then I think many readers would have trouble gleaning all this meaning from that sentence. I think some words need to be added to the sentence to fill it out and make the meaning clear. If I am wrong in my guess as to what it means, then that just supports my feeling that the sentence needs clarification.
You are indeed correct and I have tweaked it to try and make it unambiguous... 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the problem is completely cleared up. I will look at it again a little later today.CorinneSD (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded two sentences in this paragraph to improve flow and clarity.
5) Regarding spelling: You've got "south-east" in the first paragraph in the lead and "south-eastern New South Wales" in the fourth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy. I thought "southeast" was one word and "southeastern" was one word.
6) Regarding measurements: I see you used the conversion template for measurements early in the article. I've exchanged ideas with Sminthopsis84 on this. I know metric measurements are expressed in decimals (ml., centimeters, meters, kilometers), but inches and feet are not usually expressed in decimals. For readers (like me) who are used to inches and feet, a decimal such as 0.3 inch or 2.5 inches means very little. We can't get a mental picture of the size of the plant, length of stem or leaves, etc. Is there a way to calculate the inches measurements so that they are expressed as 1/8 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/3 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch, 1-1/2 inch, etc., and feet so that they are 1'6", 2'8", etc., and delete the decimal that came out of the conversion template? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, funny you should say that, as that is what I did initially at FAC (see Banksia ericifolia) before (I recall) folks suggesting different. I am morethan happy to dispense with decimal places for imperial units...will have a look round and see if/when we discussed it...I have now asked at MOS as I am intrigued myself.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, ok - it's late here and I think I will sleep on it.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)I must admit I do prefer fractions...amused there is "6 ft 7 in"..I can't look at that and not be reminded of Mae West's famous quip when meeting a 6 ft 7 in cowboy... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(See some additional comments, interspersed above.) The fifth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy begins:
"In his 1972 publication A Handbook to Plants in Victoria, Victorian botanist Jim Willis..."
Even though you've got "Victoria" in the title of the book A Handbook to Plants in Victoria there, the adjective "Victorian" before a name often means "from the Victorian age". I don't think you mean that because he published a book in 1972. You probably mean that he is/was from the province/state of Victoria in Australia (and Australians would be more likely to immediately associate "Victorian" with "from Victoria"). Do you really need to say that he was from Victoria? I don't think it's necessary. I think just "botanist" is enough, or perhaps "Australian botanist". The nationality would be an interesting bit of information for non-Australians.CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Australian botanist".--Melburnian (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CorinneSD - I think we've covered (or replied to) all concerns raised so far....how do you think it looks now...? cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking! Here are just a few minor issues:
1) At the beginning of the lead, I'm wondering whether "the southeastern part of Australia" wouldn't sound better than "the southeast of Australia".
Hmmm, I was musing on this - "Australia's southeast" sounds more natural to me but I suspect could be construed as a tad informal, so yeah I think it's slightly unfamiliar but ok Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2) Just after that, you give the usual height range of the plant as:
"about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall".
I'm wondering whether it would read better if you put the range in the metric system first and then the range in feet and inches:
"about .5 m to 1 m (1 ft 8 in to 3 ft 3 in) tall".
Yep - agree it's an improvement and would have done myself (thx!) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I know it's probably Mos style, but in the U.S., the abbreviations "ft." and "in." are always written with a period after them, so it looks really odd the way they are written.)
Is it worth discussing and changing the template maybe? Beyond the scope of this a little... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) In this sentence:
"It grows best in a well-drained but moist soil in a semishaded position",
I don't think the indefinite article "a" is necessary before "well-drained but moist soil". I guess botanists and landscapers may use a jargon in which "soil" is treated as a countable noun (thus having a singular and a plural form), but "soil" is normally an uncountable noun, so does not require an article before it. It would then read:
"It grows best in well-drained but moist soil..."
If you prefer a countable usage, you could add: "an area of", so it would read:
"It grows best in an area of well-drained but moist soil...."
If you really like the countable usage of "soil", perhaps the plural:
"It grows best in well-drained but moist soils..."
but if you like the singular "a well-drained but moist soil", that's fine.
Hmmm, I must have left that in accidentally - it is unequivocally better without indefinite article (agreed) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4) I made two copy-edits at the beginning of Epacris impressa#Description. Hope you approve. After I saved them, I saw that at the beginning of the section you give a range of height, grouped as I suggested above. However, you have used en-dashes. I wonder if you would consider using the word "to" instead of en-dashes? I think it would be easier to read.
I like using "to" liberally instead of dashes - regardinng this, I think I might need to tweak - it is the plant that grows to height X, not its habit Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right. I think I was a little tired when I was editing last night.
have changed dash to "to" ...and removed a couple of convert templates....mixing it up a little... Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
hanging participle duly removed ..cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the usual phrase is "dangling participle". I don't know why I called it a hanging participle. But it's fixed, anyway. I'm wondering whether you would consider adding a word in front of "encountering":
"After encountering....", or
"Upon encountering....". I think it needs something.
Hmmm, I am happy enough without, but I am prone to dropping pronouns and particles all over the place...folks are often asking me to readd..so I'll take "Upon" please for 50 points... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering "eastern spinebill" should be plural, "eastern spinebills", to parallel the plural "crescent honeyeaters" or whether it is all right as it is. Maybe "spinebill" is one of those words that can be either singular or plural.
Aah, "crescent honeyeater" should have been singular there - all are species-as-units there and hence singular. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, who had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia".
I'm wondering about the use of the relative pronoun "who" to refer to a nursery. In U.S. usage, "who" is used only to refer to a person or people. I believe that in British usage, it can refer to an organization or government agency. Is that also Australian usage?
oops, missed that...should have been "which"... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all. It's a very nice article.CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my notes at Items 4 and 5, above. I want to ask you about your use of the green font color. I think it's such a good idea. It really makes your comments stand out. I'd like to do the same, but is there a place on WP where one can select from among various colors? I wouldn't want to use the same color that you are using.CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think I should convert all the dashes? for little fiddly mm-type thingies seems a bit laboured..but if you really think so I am not averse....re the colour...will take to your talk page 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth
A nice article. A few points on the prose (mostly) struck me:
"It generally grows as a small shrub, about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall, with small stiff leaves." - I thought at first that this was a conversion error but eventually spotted the previously invisible decimal point before the 5.
I've dispensed with the template as it sounds better like this...and kept a '0' in Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a bit short.
Did a little but hard as the article itself isn't that big,, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the lead section is inadequate. It doesn't mention taxonomy and does not summarise the "Ecology" section, merely providing a couple of examples but omitting the regeneration after bushfires. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Taxonomy section comprehensive and excellent.
"Honeyeaters such as the eastern spinebill are attracted to the flowers in their native habitat." - "in their native habitat" seems redundant.
Agreed...now I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... attaches itself to the feather on the heads of the birds ..." - A single feather?
hmmm, should be plural...and now is Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, which had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia." - this sentence changes subject halfway through.
am in two minds here - I know what you mean but I sorta think this switches 'neatly' here. An happy to field 3rd, 4th opinions on this Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the following wording for this sentence:
"Propagated from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia, Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825."
"In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. Initially popular, over seventy cultivars appeared in literature at the time; however, most have since disappeared.
as:
In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States, with over seventy cultivars appearing in the literature at the time. While initially popular, most have since disappeared.
or:
In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. While initially popular – over seventy cultivars appeared in the literature at the time – most have since disappeared.
taken latter one - first is not right as it makes it sound like there were 70 varieties of alba rather than (correctly) referring to the whole species. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As they age, plants may become straggly, but benefit from hard pruning after fertilizing and watering, which promotes compact, bushier growth afterwards." - "afterwards" is redundant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...now I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I saw your edit to this sentence, but something is still not right:
"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally as a small shrub..."
Do you think "it is generally as a small shrub" is right? I think you could leave out "as":
"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally a small shrub...",
or change the verbs:
"Thriving in (or Found in) heathland, shrubland or open forest, it generally grows as a small shrub...".CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a sloppy cut and paste - "as" removed.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my comments mentioned above (which have got a bit mixed up with Corinne's) have been satisfactorily dealt with, but I still think that the lead section fails to conform to the MOS as it does not summarise the article fully and includes some specific information that should not be there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your alterations to the lead section and am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peter coxhead
Generally this seems to me a very clear, well-written and comprehensive article about a plant species. It gives all the information that could be expected (for example as per WP:Plants/Template), except perhaps its position within the genus – is anything known about origins or phylogeny of the species within Epacris? Has anyone proposed sections within the genus? I support the candidacy of this article. A few small points follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall seeing anyithing infrageneric in Epacris, but will do another check can't find anything..lots at family or genus level but nothing infrageneric.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve started looking into these two literature sources: 1 2 —but as yet i haven’t obtained the full text copy of the first, paywalled from where i am now, and the best reference source chance of the two; the second is free, interesting in other information, may cite useful other papers and so first i’ll have a quick read of it. --Macropneuma 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
damn, can't get that Springer one either at first glance...will see if there's another way...might be too broad but one never knows... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"that is native to Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales in southeast Australia" – any reader who needs to follow the link to "Australia" isn't going to know what the states are (or even that they are states – "South Australia" could just be an area with a stray capital on "south"). I'd be inclined to write something like "that is native to southeast Australia–the states of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales."
"The flower is formed by five petals fused to form the tubelike corolla, with the petal ends free to form five corolla lobes at the apex." – this doesn't seem worded quite right to me; to a non-botanist it may imply that it's only a corolla because the petals are fused. Perhaps something like "The corolla of the flower is formed by five petals, fused at the base to form a tubelike structure, with the free petal ends forming five lobes at the apex."
Tricky point, but in the taxobox, Epacris ceriflora is spelt correctly – the ICN requires correction of names originally published with "ae" instead of "i" – but in the text of the Taxonomy section it's spelt ceraeflora. The article could say something like "Dr Robert Graham described Epacris ceriflora (which he spelt ceraeflora) ..."
"... yet conceded it was difficult to find characters that distinguished ..." The word "concede" is an editorial comment – Graham wrote that "it is extremely difficult to get written characters" [my emphasis] to distinguish the three but that they were "obviously very different species". He neither "conceded" nor said that it was "difficult to find characters", only that it was difficult to describe in writing the characters he considered to distinguish the "obviously" different species.
Speaking as a non-botanist, I don't understand "it was difficult to describe in writing the characters that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". What are "characters"? And why is "in writing" necessary? Do you mean he could describe something orally but not in writing? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like your clear thinking, re: plain English, here, CorinneSD. As a field botanist who has observed in the field, examples of some of the variation (within what is now thought of as this one species) referred to by those names (synonymised former segregate species names), i confidently assert that that author meant that it is difficult to describe in words (in writing or orally) the plant parts characters (—jargon. The characterising parts of the plants, if you like.) that distinguish those four names. Field observations make remembered mental images (which can have great detail for field botanists); illustrations, including drawings, paintings and more recently the technology of photographs (even 3D photography tech.), may or may not provide sufficient visual description for viewers to distinguish them, but the rules require formally published written description so that would be informal description as it’s unwritten. CorinneSD please help (academic) botany (in this article’s case) to make sense in plain English of what may be their insiders’ obscure information and jargon shifts of word meanings.--Macropneuma 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is a dialectal difference between Australian and American English or whether the use of the word "character" in this context is simply botanists' jargon, but when you write, "the characterising features of parts of the plants", I would use the word "characteristics" rather than "characters" in the sentence we are discussing. That would make much more sense to me. If you would accept the change from "characters" to "characteristics", I suggest the following wording (feel free, of course, to modify it):
"it was difficult to put into writing precisely those characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa" or:
"it was difficult to put into writing the precise characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". -- CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input above. I put in: it was difficult to describe the precise characteristics that distinguished ... --Melburnian (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes briefly now, i’m very happy to accept that, as well. (For one of many examples, see the frequent wording in this world renowned botanical key, nicknamed 'The RFK', which people like me use such a lot; perhaps it has some bits of poor English and my frequent use has shifted some of my English usage, including of repeating those parts of it having poor English? —Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.) --Macropneuma 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a, related, general English semantics example, please consider: The character of a person eg. John’s character. cf. The characteristics of a person, eg. John’s characteristics. --Macropneuma 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Character" is the standard term used in biology generally for a precise feature. It's defined in The Kew Plant Glossary as a "single technical difference, used to distinguish taxa". Characters then have particular "character states", so that the character "symmetry of corolla" could have the character state "actinomorphic" or "zygomorphic". The character/character state terminology is standard in phylogenetics, for example – see that article for uses of the term "character". So Melburnian's "precise characteristics" are actually "characters". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter Coxhead for finding a biology dictionary/glossary source for its usage—indeed … . --Macropneuma 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Also we field botanists often read, write and say the wording of: (botanical) key characters, etc. --Macropneuma 07:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Character could be used but I think it would need to be linked for those that are not familiar with the use of the term in biology and I can't find any article suitable to link it to. --Melburnian (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Melburnian: well, there's Character (biology) though it doesn't seem quite right – the use in phylogenetics is important these days. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, the title sounds promising but the redirect to the article Phenotypic trait doesn't help here.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all the explanations. I learned something new -- the use of the word "character" in the field of botany. I think the word is closer in meaning to the general word "characteristics" than to the meaning of the word "character" when speaking of a person: "he is a man of good character". If it is not possible to link the word "character" to an explanatory article, I think the word "characteristics" should be used here. The use of the word "character" is mystifying to an average reader, and the article should be written so that an average reader can understand it. If you feel that the word "character" needs to be used, perhaps putting "characteristics" in parentheses after it would suffice. CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think an implied [character = characteristics] would not be correct here, your original [character = "precise characteristics that distinguished"] is closer to the mark IMHO.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the way you worded the sentence, Melburnian. I was just responding to Peter Coxhead's statement above: "Character" is the standard term used in biology..." (and arguing against the use of "character"). CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a sentence beginning "fit Bentham's original description"; I restored "The plant populations that best" from an earlier version, but please check that this is correct.
"The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other, in which case the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring.": I don't want writers to be self-conscious about perfectly good words they'll sometimes need ... but there are five phrases in one sentence here (occur, proximity, in which case, former, latter) that I'd like to test for tone ... I think they may signal stuffiness to some readers ... and so many at once should probably be flagged (and this is something that can be automated, so I've thrown it into my pile of things to automate). I'm interested in whether this advice comes across as too fussy. (Possible substitute: "When long-pink and short-white races grow close together ...")
thanks - no, it's a fair comment - I often try to be economical with words and phrases...and it looks like I've gone too far. Adopted Macropneuma's suggestion below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G’day. … good insights on the two sentences …, IMHO. How about this? (leavening your idea by using a tiny few words bit of my first hand subject matter knowledge of Epacris impressa and plants in general):
"The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other. In these mixed populations the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring." —--Macropneuma 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Wehwalt
Very nicely written and quite interesting. A few comments.
No, I guess I missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A number of specimens described as separate species" I might put "once" before "described". In view of the heavy use of the term "described" in the paragraph, I might suggest "regarded" here
added "once"...."described" has a specific connotation (see species description), as I don't know how long after they were described that they were considered separate (not long I think), therefore has the right emphasis. Also, "regarded" used almost straight after...and we'd have two regardeds...will see if I can tinker elsewhere... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Variation etc.
"there was no incompatibility between them – all populations were compatible" It strikes me that what comes after the dash is implied by what comes before and might be omitted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. This looks in great shape.
Pardon my ignorance, but why are several levels of the taxonomic hierarchy in the infobox marked as unranked? Surely there is indeed a phylum, and a class?
There's a guideline in the Taxobox documentation that explains it here.--Melburnian (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...with over seventy named cultivars. However, most of these have vanished": suggest "...with over seventy named cultivars, most of which have now vanished".
Done. --Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence beginning "Scottish botanist Robert Brown" seems to be a run-on sentence; shouldn't that comma in the middle be either a period or a semicolon?
Done. --Melburnian (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say that E. grandiflora is regarded as a synonym of E. impressa, but earlier you have E. grandiflora linked to E. longiflora, which appears not to be a synonym. Isn't this inconsistent?
E. impressa var. grandiflora is the synonym of E. impressa. I've added a footnote to distinguish the two, and hopefully alleviate confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can spot; I expect to support once these minor points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good; switching to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all reviewers for their time.--Melburnian (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This has had an unaddressed source review request for a while so I've just given them a quick look myself. Nothing looked obviously unreliable, and the three or four links I checked were all live. Formatting-wise, just a minor point: Australian Journal of Botany seems to linked inconsistently in the citations -- I'd have expected all the time if it's part of a special template, or not at all, or on first use only, but it seems to be none of the above. I won't hold up promotion over that but pls check it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've de-linked the second reference. I was cutting and pasting the reference before tweaking the differences as it was a second article by same authors. Now the journal only linked in first mention Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2014 (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) 12:24, 13 September 2014 (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) 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second attempt at FAC for this article - the first was archived due to lack of reviews. As I said at the first attempt, I'd like to run this article on 8 December this year, to commemorate the centenary of the Battle of the Falkland Islands, where this ship was sunk with all hands. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR, owing to the aforementioned lack of reviews first time round, the nominator obtained leave to launch a second nom without the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (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) 22:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Check alphabetization of References
Fixed, good eye!
You have county/state for one location but not for others - suggest adding a few more. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've lately been of the mind that state/country info really isn't useful in the references since it doesn't help find the reference and it usually isn't recommended by style guides, so I removed the one that was here. Thanks for checking these as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find the 1913 edition of TNA in Google Books, but from the 1904 and 1911 editions it looks like Sydney W. Barnaby, who was a naval architect at Thornycroft, made the illustrations (though curiously, the German ships are omitted from the 1911 edition). Oddly enough, the 1907 edition has the German ships, including Scharnhorst, but Barnaby isn't credited (nor is anyone else). According to this he died in 1927 so we should be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll update the image description page. If this problem applies to every illustration in commons:Category:Brassey's Naval Annual ...get a bot.
File:Schantung Kiautschou.jpgInsufficient documentation of copyright rationale: I'd like to see why it's presumed anonymous for copyright purposes. Illustrators are sometimes listed only at the front of a book. As before, could always move it here to en-wiki and {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} it.
You're probably right - I've moved it here since I don't have access to the book. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:The German far eastern squadron in Kiau-Chau Bay.jpgCopyright tag invalid. You can't say you don't know the photographer, then say he definitely died within 70 years. We need either good evidence of anonymous publication, or it moved here and - you know the drill about what tag to use by now.
Well, and there's a possibility that it wasn't a European photographer so the anonymous rule might not apply. I've moved it here as well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work; once I've edited the Brassey's, I think everything is now cleared. SupportAdam Cuerden(talk)
Oh, one other thing, though it's a minor point: File:Schantung Kiautschou.jpg is very obviously tilted. Shall I just rotate it and reupload over? Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you don't mind! Though the local version is here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Don't know why you should put the exact tonnage in the lede, but if you want it, it needs to be hyphenated as a compound adjective.
Yeah, I don't know why I did that either. Just removed it entirely.
Link magazines and define "machinery spaces" a bit better for ordinary readers. And conning tower.
Done.
Add something specifying that Glasgow was under Cradock's command.
Drop the tonnage in the lead sentence, totally unnecessary given the tonnage is covered in the first section
Done, see above.
"who recalled the attacks of foreigners" "on foreigners"?
Good catch.
suggest "On 13 April, the ships went on a month-long cruise in Japanese waters, returning to Tsingtao on 13 May."
Sounds good to me
"secondary 15 cm guns" convert template needed
It's converted earlier in the article - I only convert on the first instance.
the maps of the East Asia Squadron and the map of the Falkland Islands deployments need to be bigger, 250px perhaps
Heh, I have my default set at 300px so I didn't even think of that.
alt text is required for all images
As far as I'm aware alt text isn't a requirement at FAC, but I've added it nonetheless.
Not having a crack at you personally, but when would it be a requirement then? Not at ACR? Not at FAC? If WP doesn't require alt text for its best articles, that is a half-arsed sick joke, and it should dispense with the idea completely. Accessibility is important. I have a kid with special needs, and I find it ridiculous that accessibility is absolutely required for tables at FLC (and I have the scars to prove it), but not for images at FAC? WP needs to get its shit together on accessibility. Rant over. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, it was a requirement several years ago, but a lot of people were upset about it (for whatever reason) and it was withdrawn as a formal requirement - I seem to think the problem was no one could decide what exactly was useful as alt text. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scharnhorst2 is probably redundant, given there is a contemporaneous pic in the infobox at high speed
A bit surprised there are no mentions of her successor battleship
Added a bit on this.
there are no redirects to this article, I would think "German cruiser Scharnhorst" would be a very reasonable redirect
Added
suggest adding refbegin and refend templates to References section
I don't generally like using them unless the ref section is excessively large - I'd say it's fine as is.
ISBNs are fine, no need for OCLC as well
Removed
Great article, a few tweaks needed, but looking very good. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Just FTR, generally we prefer to see some commentary from outside the subject's wikiproject but this has been open a long time so that's a luxury I think we'll have to do without, especially given it's the article's second time at bat here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2014 (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) 14:05, 10 September 2014 (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): Floydianτ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the first highway to connect Thunder Bay to the outside world, in this case, Duluth, Minnesota. The bridge between Canada and the U.S. was done without government approval, but despite that, was officially opened by both governments. I feel this route has some interesting history, and is well written/comprehensive; this merits the star in my eyes. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments reading now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the length in the lead as it is a pretty integral/key fact
Done, and resisted the urge to editorially point out that the length is ironically the same as the route number. - Floydianτ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any information on traffic figures? heavy/light traffic issues? any issues with too-heavy traffic? any notable serious accidents?
Nothing that I've seen. Generally only serious pileups on major freeways get mentions (NOTNEWS), and my peer editors often even frown on those. From what I can tell (haven't been to Thunder Bay... yet), it's a pretty tame and average highway. - Floydianτ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate see also sections - if the film is about the road, then make it a few sentences and reference it.
It doesn't really fit in with the rest of the article, and the movie is about driving 61 from Thunder Bay down through the US... I doubt more than a few scenes, if any, take place in Canada. I usually don't like See also sections myself, but this was a compelling case for its use. - Floydianτ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken - I can live with this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, the addition of five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway - streamlining the prose would be better...such as "This involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, and adding five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway"
Used a slight variation of your suggestion. - Floydianτ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Outlaw_Bridge.png: not seeing anything in the source to support a 1917 publication for this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... good eye. I must have just assumed it or made a mistake when I uploaded the image. Regardless, it is public domain in Canada and wouldn't "qualify" for the URAA restoration. Publication isn't required under the old copyright laws that this image fell under, just creation date. I've adjusted the image and licence to suit. - Floydianτ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my past review on the ACR. --Rschen7754 06:06, 1 September 2014 (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) 13:56, 10 September 2014 (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): Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I got back into regular FA editing a year ago I seem to have alternated between military bios and unit or aircraft articles, so now it's time for another bio. For a change of pace, I offer a naval subject in place of air force. Burrell was in fact the first article I ever wrote on an admiral, back in 2009, and I took it to GA and MilHist A-Class but thought at the time that there might be scope for a bit of expansion, at least on his later life, before a shot at FA. I've recently taken care of that so here it is -- tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, I realise, but that lead photograph isn't very well-composed. Do you have access to any others? If we can't get better, well, sometimes you get what you get, but the top of his head is cut off or nearly, and his pose is very awkward. Of the other images, I found one potential problem: File:305416Burrell1954.jpg is labelled "c. 1954". That's not good enough when the copyright status depends on whether it's from before 1955 or not. Everything else checks out. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for looking them over. Lead image may not be the world's greatest picture but I think it's the best portrait available; I certainly consider it superior to the only alternative I've seen... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, File:306783Burrell.jpg is too vaguely dated as well. "c. 1950s" would imply a 50/50 chance of it being out of copyright. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both these objections, by the way, can be ignored if the images are considered state or commonwealth-owned. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Australian War Memorial sources, both are considered PD by the Commonwealth government. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. Sorry, but one does need to ask. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I know next to nothing about modern warfare, so I hope my comments make sense.
"Burrell served several years on exchange with the Royal Navy" - I think served for several years would read better.
Fair enough.
" hockey, winning colours for the last-mentioned". A matter of taste, but I would prefer repetition of hockey to the clumsy last-mentioned.
Also fair enough!
"He went to sea firstly aboard the light cruiser HMAS Sydney" Presumably this was in 1922 but it is not clear.
Deliberate -- the sources state it was his first sea posting but not the year precisely.
Out of curiosity, captain in the 20th century is obviously a much higher rank than in the 18th, when a man could be posted captain and command a frigate in his early 20s. What modern rank would be equivalent to 18C captain?
I'm afraid I'm not enough of a naval expert to answer that, although in general I think that as you go back in time you find that senior commands were often invested in much younger officers than today -- part of it might be technology related, part of it simply life expectancy!
"his familiarity with ratings earned him the criticism of Devonshire's captain" Worth mentioning the captain's name? Did he not have any mentors/colleagues/commanders worth mentioning? I strikes me as a bit curious that hardly any other naval officers are mentioned by name, and none before 1942.
The source didn't think the captain's name worth mentioning so I haven't attempted to dig it out. When I walked through the article and expanded a little to get it ready for FAC I did make a point of naming a few predecessors or successors in commands, so I think I probably got most of those the sources mentioned explicitly.
" mentioned in despatches on 19 February 1943 for his "bravery and resource" during the operation" I think it is worth giving more detail of how he earned the mention.
The recommendation states simply "bravery and resource during operations Madagascar", so I think we've said as much as we can.
"There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies on 2 September aboard USS Missouri." A slightly odd wording, as if she boarded the Missouri.
Does "There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies that took place on 2 September aboard USS Missouri" improve it?
"It also resulted in augmentation of the RAN's rotary-wing assets " It is not clear what "It" refers to.
The re-equipment drive mentioned previously -- will clarify.
"The shift in reliance for equipment from Britain to the United States" This is mentioned as if it has previously been discussed.
It refers to the purchase of the destroyers mentioned in the previous paragraph -- will clarify.
"We will need a Navy as long as Australia remains an island" I would date this quote.
Precise date not available but it was while he was CNS so will mention that.
Was it normal to retire at 58 or was there a reason?
This is just speculation as far as Burrell goes but in those days I don't think there was anywhere for him to go after CNS except to become Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and that was never likely as a Navy man had been there not long before. These days a vice admiral might move into the Vice Chief of Defence position or one or two other senior roles before retirement, even if he wasn't selected for the top job.
A first rate article. These points are all minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for your comments, Dudley. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
This link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nikki -- interesting about the second one, it must come from an older version of the article. I noticed the problem myself two days ago and replaced with this link, which seems fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
This is kinda fussy, but link the N-class article since you mention it.
Done.
Be sure that your refs are in number order, unlike this bit: 15 September 1941.[5][14]
Um, doesn't 14 come after 5? Or have I missed the point... :-)
It rather appears that I missed it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more fully or link the General List? I'm not sure that I have a good understanding of what it involves.
I've explained a little bit more. Alternatively we could link to Navy List, although that's a general article rather than the specific Australian one.
Also link to the Second Naval Member. I suspect that this is the Aussie equivalent to the 2nd Sea Lord, but would like confirmation. And is that part of the Navy Office or the Naval Staff? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with the past structure of the RAN as I am of the RAAF but I believe they were somewhat similar, meaning the Navy Office was analogous to the Navy Department (as it then was), whereas the Naval Board actually commanded the service, being made up of the Naval Staff (i.e. Naval Members of the Board) and some civilians. In the absence of anything more specific I've piped Second Naval Member to Australian Commonwealth Naval Board. Tks for looking this over! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
"led to him being personally nominated by": Some copyeditors feel sure that this isn't as good as "led to an invitation by" (in this context). Others think that your way is fine, that it's better to use a verb when the sense is verbal, as here. There's a fair amount of prejudice against any redundant "being" in the copyediting world. Just passing this along, I don't have a recommendation.
Changed to "led to Prime Minister Robert Menzies personally nominating him"
"on the event": This usually means "on the occasion" (but I believe that testing will show that it's uncommon enough for an international readership that it's not appropriate, even to mean "on the occasion").
That was a typo, should have been "in the event of war".
Check for single quote marks.
Found one instance, corrected.
"desultory": uncommon word - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Dan! One thing, I seem to remember "in fact" being somewhat frowned upon in WP, perhaps your old standby "as it happened" might be preferable in this case? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (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): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an order of crustaceans that live in the sea, in freshwater and on land, the best known example probably being the woodlouse. Earlier in the year the article became a GA, having a very thorough review undertaken by Sunrise which was helped by considerable input from Esoxid (who knows a lot more about isopods than I do). I hope you will find the article interesting and worthy of becoming a FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. :-) Sunrise(talk) 10:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Aa77zz
Lead: "Isopods are detritivores and browsers, carnivores (including predators and scavengers), ectoparasites, mostly of fish, some endoparasites, and filter feeders." This sentence is rather complicated and I don't think the word "some" should be there. Aa77zz (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified it. Better?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good in my opinion. Succinct in the lede and the detail in the body. Esoxidtalk•contribs 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peter Isotalo
Looks like a very nice, appropriately concise treatment of an order to me. Some initial remarks before I go into more detail and depth:
The lead starts off by referring to an order, but then consistently refers to the members of the order as a group. So why not "isopods" right from the start? More of a thought than a criteria for support, though.
I'm not sure what you mean. I tend to use "groups" periodically so as to avoid excessive use of the word "isopods". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there's some unnecessary technical language in the article. By "unnecessary" I mean terms that could be explained with a few extra words or are highly specialized. Some examples: "derived" (somewhat difficult to grasp even after I checked the link), "dorsoventrally" (no link at all and I suck at spatial terms), "thoracic" ("of the thorax" perhaps?). There's "vermiform interstitial" and "Gondwanan" which seem a bit specific to me. On the other hand, sentences like "The isopod body plan consists of..." are exemplary with basic explanations followed by specific terminology in parentheses.
Done, plus a few other technical terms.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This map is very busy with colored regions, figures and whatnot. And though you get it after a while, it's quite meaningless in anything but sizeable resolutions. Is there anything simpler out there?
Isopods occur worldwide so a range map is unhelpful and I can't find a better map. I could just remove it.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, please keep it. It's a tad confusing, but not bad enough to merit removal.
I'll provide more commentary within the next few days or so.
PeterIsotalo 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with them as best I can and look forward to more.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made some tweaks myself.[26] Surprisingly little to fix, I must say. Good job overall. Looks like a well-rounded, well-written article. Support.
Thank you for your tweaks and support.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
Images are all licensed as CC (own work or downloaded with complete source/author info) - OK.
The original CC license for the 2 Diversity-images is a bit hidden, but can be found in the source PLOS articles (DOI see image information) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GermanJoe.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Don't mix {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates
Edition formatting is inconsistent
FN6: missing accessdate
Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers
Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 21. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I have made the alterations you suggested.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim
Looks comprehensive, my main concerns are with readability. While it isn't possible to avoid technical language altogether, I think you can help your reader more. Some examples
Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans.— very off-putting as first sentence. Why not open with something like Isopoda is a group of crustaceans that includes woodlice and sea-slaters before launching into taxonomy?
See below.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name Isopoda has been derived from the Greek roots ἴσος (iso-, meaning "same") and πούς (pod-, pous, meaning "foot")— why "has been"? Isn't this the current accepted derivation?
You must have been looking at an old version of the article because that change was made before your comment!Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could help your readers by glossing technical terms either parenthetically eg oostegites (plate-like flaps) or by piping eg seabed-dwelling
Working on this.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In places, you appear to have almost deliberately made things difficult. Examples include gnathopods instead of the linked appendage, and the obscure classical plural "penes" rather than the familiar English plural "penises" (I've never seen the former in anything I've read)
Changed the latter.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not far off, just needs to be more accessible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, information is lost when technical terms are avoided, e.g. "gnathopod" is a special case of "appendage" which doesn't have its own article, which is why it redirects to the explanation in the more general article. On your first point, all species groupings are taxonomic groupings, so IMO it would be improper to define it without at least calling it an order. Nothing wrong with something like "Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans which include [examples]" though. Sunrise(talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Jim. I have removed the word "peracarid" from the first sentence as being unhelpful and have rewritten that sentence and a fair proportion of the lead. Better?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes improve the readability of what, realistically, is never going to be an easy article, Happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"may occupy one or more of these feeding habits": It doesn't sound right to occupy a habit.
"first known instance": "first" in what sense? (only? first discovered?)
"they need to conserve water, often living in a humid environment and sheltering under stones, bark, debris or leaf litter.": That's mine. Fix it if it's wrong, please.
Thank you. That was helpful, and I have attended to your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Little Jerry
From the article: Isopods lack an obvious carapace (shell), which is reduced to a "cephalic shield" covering only the head. This means that the gill-like structures, which in other related groups are protected by the carapace, are instead found on specialised limbs on the abdomen'
From the source [8]: Because they lack a carapace, the gills, which are covered by the carapace in other groups, are absent, so they breathe using specialised lamellar gill-like pleopods ("swimming limbs") on the posterior section of the body."
From the source [3]: (2)the carapace reduced to a cephalic shield... (7)abdominal branchial structures...
From the article: Some members of the family Cirolanidae suck the blood of fish, and others, in the family Aegidae, consume the blood, fins, tail and flesh and can kill the fish in the process
From the source [17]: One very large group of isopods, the Family Cirolanidae, is comprised of carrion-eating scavengers and parasites. The parasites may prey on and suck the blood of some fishes.... The isopod [Aegids] then swims rapidly up and fastens on to the fish, and proceeds to eat its fins and tail. The bug then slices open the fish and eats all its blood, proceeding then to eat the lateral muscle bands and, when they are done, they discard the guts and skeleton.
From the article: They [Isopods] were primitive, short-tailed members of the suborder Phreatoicidea. At that time, Phreatoicideans were marine organisms with a cosmopolitan distribution. Nowadays, the members of this formerly widespread suborder form relic populations in freshwater environments in South Africa, India and Oceania, the greatest number of species being in Tasmania. Other primitive, short-tailed suborders include Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea and the terrestrial Oniscidea.
From the source [14]: In general, the primitive suborders (e.g. Phreatoicidea, Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea, Oniscidea, Valvifera).... Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record agree that the earliest isopods (and the most primitive living species) are members of the short-tailed suborder Phreatoicidea. Today, phreatoicids have a strictly freshwater Gondwanan distribution, with most species occurring in the rivers and lakes of Tasmania. The earliest fossil records of isopods are phreatoicids dating from the Pennsylvanian (the Carboniferous Period of the Paleozoic Era), 300 million year ago. However, Paleozoic phreatoicids were marine forms and they had a cosmopolitan distribution; their fossils have been found in marine deposits from Europe and North America. Thus, the present-day Gondwanan freshwater distribution of these primitive crustaceans represents a relic, or refugial biogeographic pattern.
Looks alright to me. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the spotchecks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2014 (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): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Æthelwold, who was the son of Alfred the Great's older brother, King Æthelred I. Æthelwold thus had a strong claim to the throne of Wessex. He rebelled after Alfred's death, but was killed at the Battle of the Holme. He has been described as "one of the 'Nearly Men' of early medieval Europe". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I had my say at the A class review in June. I commented at the time that I thought the article was of FA quality, and rereading it I remain of that opinion. Top-notch prose, comprehensive as far as a layman can judge, balanced, well illustrated, and referenced to a good range of sources. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems an excellent article and covers far more about Æthelwold than I was aware we knew. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing myself from coord duties here, like Tim I had my say (and tweaked some prose) at the A-Class Review. Having reviewed changes since then I'm happy to support for FA as well. Just one thing, I believe you're no longer citing Abels (2007) and Williams (1991a) -- which I noticed thanks to Ucucha's Harv error script -- so they should be removed from the reference list, or at least transferred to a Further Reading section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images - Only two, no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Colm - User:Nikkimaria checked images at A-Class and queried the lack of a source for the map, so I replaced it with an old one. User:P. S. Burton has now kindly replaced the old map with a better one. This is a derivative of a map which is based on one of 1910. I have added the source information to the new map, and hope this is now OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much to Ian and Graham. I have removed the sources no longer used. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this already has three supports, so I'll just note that I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer two months ago, and I made one small change (ground -> grounds). These are my edits. One "restrictive which" has been added since June; I don't generally put up a fight over those, but someone else might. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to "Lavelle suggests that opposition came from the descendants of the faction which had sided with Edward at the Battle of the Holme". I have not come across the "restrictive which" before, but there is an interesting discussion here. As "which" sounds better to me, and many first rate writers use it in the same way, I would prefer to keep it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominators: Ceoil, Victoria 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Large polyptych altarpiece painted by Rogier van der Weyden c. 1445–50. The work was comissioned by Nicolas Rolin and his wife Guigone de Salins as the centerpiece for a hospice at Beaune in France, a region then undergoing decimation from bubonic plague. Patients were not expected to survive their stay; the work served a dual function; comforting the dying with its choice of saints Sebastian and Anthony (both of whom were associated with assisting those suffering from plague), while its exterior Last Judgment panels acts as moralising reminders of the pitfals of sin.
Rolin undertook the commission well aware of his age and mortality, and "having put aside human cares [and] thinking of my own salvation..." set aside large parts of his fortune to care for the dying. Afer his death, de Salins carried on the project, and is buried before the alterpiece's origional position in the church. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod The usual good stuff, but...
You should probably work in how common a Doom (painting) was in fresco (now mostly lost), from before 1000, typically on the west wall of churches, so you saw it on your way out, which in a larger sense was what it was also there for at the hospital.
More later, Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point re positioning, but might need help from you sourcing it, esp considering you wrote the artice on Doom paintings. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can do that, over the w/e. Not sure about the last part though, but it will be somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JB - interesting addition. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I might do more later. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have found a source on this, will be able to add tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in the Low Countries, although it is likely that it was in a gesture intended to heal wounds between the Burgundians and the French" - this doesn't seem a mystery to me. Rolin was not a Netherlander at all, but came from Autun, 50 kilometres from Beaune, which is in the middle of Burgundy proper - surely Burgundian territory at the time? And just down the road from Champmol outside Dijon (actual capital of Burgundy), where the dukes were buried. I don't see how the French came into it. Also his mother remarried a Beaune man, & may have been buried there. Jan van Eyck's Madonna of Chancellor Rolin likewise was given to a church he rebuilt in Autun and shows a hilly local landscape. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of slapped that in from a previous version during my lunch break today and meant to come back this evening to work on it. I think it's important to mention where Beaune is, as Cas says. We did at one point have a piece explaining about Autun, which I snipped out, but tried to find earlier and am about to search again now. In my mind, the issue is how much information to give for the lay reader who hasn't a clue who Philip of Rolin or any of these people were, and what to us seems too much or plain wrong. Anyway, thanks for mentioning it. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed this down a bit again - there's a lot about the hospice in the sources which I think should go to that article. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now "It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in his birth-place of Autun; although Philip kept a residence in Beaune, the Burgundians assembled there,...." plus a point about Beune lacking a hospital. But while Beaune was in "eastern France" in the sense of the Kingdom of France, it was Burgundian territory at the time - in fact geographically almost dead centre of the core Duchy of Burgundy (map, handily as at just the right date). What is the force of the "although"? - not clear. If the political machinations of 50 years before were a factor in the choice of locatuion, it needs more explaining. Sources permitting, one might mention he chose a place at a shortish respectful difference from the planned burial-place of his old master (d. 5 years later, in 1467) in Champmol/Dijon, and at his mother's last home (don't know anything about her later life - had she needed a hospital perhaps?). Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was poorly done. I've tried again. According to Richard Vaughan's biography of Philip the Good, the conditions in Beaune really were dreadful in the last years of the 1430s and early 1440s, which Blum emphasizes as well (I've attributed to her for now). I've rejigged, put back pieces I'd previously trimmed, and tried to clarify more. I will re-read to see if any of the sources mention the other points you bring up - respectful place from Dijon and mother. But it does seem that impetus was the ravages by the écorcheurs followed by an outbreak of the plague. I'll come back to it later: trying to decide how much to add re the hatred between France and Burgundy - very big can of worms! Anyway, hope this helps for now. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be picky but "Beaune's proximity to the ducal holding in the Low Countries made it politically important" also seems odd. Philip's only "principal" residence in Burgundy proper (out of 5 Vaughan lists, p.136) was at Dijon (still there, see Palace of the Dukes of Burgundy), which is closer to the northern territories than Beaune. He can't have spent much time at any house in Beaune. One of the big problems, and political constraints, for the Burgundian dukes was getting themselves and others between their northern and southern territories, across potentially hostile territories ruled by others. It was a long way, and must have been over a week's journey even for a party travelling light - no doubt Vaughan has figures somewhere. In fact Philip spent most of his time in the north, where most of the money, military and art were. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried again. Victoria (tk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Heaven is represented by a gate leading to a cathedral" - do we know this? Whose cathedral could it be? Surely it is the Heavenly City" - suggest "Heaven is represented by an entrance to the Heavenly City, which is in a contemporary Gothic style." The architecture doesn't seem specifically ecclesistical, with no statues of saints or angels, as many similar heavenly structures in EN paintings have. Gothic palaces, almost all now vanished, look just the same. What do the sources say? Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say it looks like the entrance to the hospice. I thought we had that in the hospital? If not, will put it back or use your wording. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all points addressed; thanks for the quick response. Nice piece, one of a fine series. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod! Victoria (tk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Weyden-beaune-achterkant.jpg: source link not working. Same with /File:Weyden-JudiciFinal-closeddreta.jpg
File:Patients_of_the_Hotel-Dieu.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:Beaune_Altarpiece_detail.jpg
File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg: since there is no freedom of panorama in France, we need to account for the licensing status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! I've fixed the source links and the tags. Re File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg - I understand the no freedom of panaroma but don't understand the bit about licensing the status of original work, which is 800 years old. Is this an image we can claim a FUR for? It would be nice to keep it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can keep it, we just need to throw in a PD template indicating that the original work is now in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the file a bit, but don't know which PD template to use for this, so leaving it to Ceoil to figure out (or maybe Johnbod can point me in the right direction. Victoria (tk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I never understand these and Commons is completely useless at helping you find the right one. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've done some copyediting but most of it was gilding the, ah, er, lily. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, for the support, and for taking the time to read through and make the edits. Very nice changes. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good - only little things I'd do are use som descriptors to locate Beaune (French city, city in eastern France, whatever) and descriptors for Blum and Panofsky. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas! I've retrieved a previously snipped bit (strangely, yesterday was thinking I'd been a little aggressive with the pruning shears) to explain a bit more about Beaune. Re the art historians, generally we let them stand on their own merits, but Ceoil should decide on that point. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't suppose all my hole picking and whining counts for much unless I support this after you've fixed it all up. (If there's some hidden rule for FAC supporters that says they must have been here for a year or have 20 billion edits or be able to jump over a cow without a run-up then I guess you can disqualify this support; I'm going to go out and try jumping over a cow in a minute, so if that is the rule, you might want to hold off striking my support until I report back). Belle (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it. Belle (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do what? Jump over a cow? Thanks for the support and your sharp eyes. Here are your comments, for the delegates to see that you really made us work hard! I think you have enough respect and skill as a reviewer to be entering the fray at FAC and this is a place where your skills are needed. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just clarify that I did mean that I couldn't jump over a cow (to be honest it looked quite angry, so I didn't even try). I think that's more important for the delegates (sounds like it's some secret society; don't disappoint me by revealing the truth, I'm imagining golden sickles, chanting and flowing robes) to know than anything about how I went through the article and annoyed everybody with nit-picking. I'm scared to even try jumping over a cow. There, I said it. Shun me if you want, I don't care any more. Belle (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your picking and whining on talk was most appreciated. Carry on. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. It's very nicely written, interesting to read, seems comprehensive and it looks great. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SV, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and for helping with the image placements. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am embarrassed to say that I was in the Hospices de Beaune last month but have no recollection of seeing this altarpiece. Had I read this fine article beforehand I should have made certain to seek it out. The text is evidently comprehensive, and is clear, well balanced and fully and widely referenced; the images are magnificent. Manifestly of FA standard in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From me too! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
I got down to Beaune Altarpiece#Description, and saw a few things to tweak, but nothing major. The writing is lively and readable. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the copyedits. Thanks, and thanks for reading. Victoria (tk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources/citations
This has been waiting a while for a source review so I've had a quick look myself:
Harbison isn't cited, so could be under Further reading but not Sources
Is "The Patron and the Pirate" 1991 or 1981?
There are a couple of paragraphs that I'd expect to end with citations:
Third para, Inner panels
First para, Sources and influences
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, and good catches. I've removed Harbison (that bit seems to have been binned), fixed Lane, fixed 3rd para in Inner panels. Let's give it a few days for Ceoil to surface - I think he had more to add to the "Sources and influences". Btw - there are a couple of duplicate links but they're intentional. Victoria (tk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, I've removed the uncited sentence at the end of first para, Sources and influences. I think that takes care of everything. Victoria (tk) 01:11, 5 September 2014 (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 another small constellation..we're well on our way to tidying up all the 88 constellations in the sky...18 are now at Featured status. This one came together nicely and I can't see what else to do. Let me know and I'll fix it quick-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its name is Latin for painter, but it is in fact an abbreviation of its original name Equuleus Pictoris, - Although I can follow it, this sentence is a bit of a mess. Might be a good idea to split the whole sentence into two.
Pictor also hosts RR Pictoris, a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925. - Why is it notable that it brightened in 1925? What was it before that?
clicking on nova gives you the answer - these are hitherto very faint or undetected star systems that have a cataclysmic event that sees them brighten considerably. magnitude 1.2 puts it in the top twenty stars in the sky. You think I should add something more? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might wanna explain apparent magnitude, though I think the link is fine.
have added "(visual)" just to make clear to layreaders Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Why is Lacaille introduced as "Abbé" in the lead but not here?
Think the lay reader would appreciate an explanation of "and is far enough away to not be tidally locked".
added link to tidal locking and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pictor&diff=621203662&oldid=621203248 parenthetical bit) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General
I think it would be a good idea to keep French to English translations in parentheses. You switched in the article between styles. I think I fixed them all though.
Support from Ceranthor, based on the prose. ceranthor 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
I was a bit spaced out - ha, see what I did there - with all the technical stuff, but got there in the end. I suppose this subject matter is always going to be a bit wordy!
History
Having read the lede and now into the main body, maybe saying "Pictor" instead of "the constellation" would be a useful swap? "The term Pictor was first used to describe..." Maybe?
I think the parenthetical "(he erred in naming the wrong star with the Greek letter epsilon, which is now not used)" interrupts the flow somewhat. Could we footnote this?
yeah that works...footnoted Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He labelled it Equuleus Pictorius on his 1763 chart.," -- we have a punctuation fight occurring the end of this sentence (my money is on the full stop as it always has the last word).
I think introductions for both Francis Baily and Sir John Herschel are in order here as one is forced to click a link to find out who they were. When, or indeed if you do, might I suggest using the definite article, depending of course of your BritEng / AmEng preference.
introduced. Mixed it up a little - described Herschel differently so we wouldn't have so many "astronomer"s in the para.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable features
"Since then a planet around 8 times the mass of Jupiter has..." -- Depending on how you feel, I feel a comma after "then" would help break up the line somewhat.
...whereas the comma in "In 1984, Beta was the first star discovered to have a debris disk" is not entirely needed and would be more of an American way of doing things (again depending on native tongue).
Up to here, more soonest! Cassiantotalk 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"HD 42540, called 47 Pictoris by Benjamin Apthorp Gould" -- Could we have an introduction to Gould?
whoops, missed him.....added Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"is another orange giant, this time of spectral type K2.5III and average magnitude 5.04." -- Not sure of "this time" here. Also, "and average magnitude 5.04" is an odd conjunction to use; "with an average magnitude of 5.04" would be wholly better.
the use of "this time" was to introduce a slight contrastive to distinguish this from Gamma Pictoris, the previous orange giant, and make the prose sound less wooden. I have changed it to "slightly cooler" as this is derived from the spectral type directly. "witrh" intreoduced as well Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we somehow combine "It is a suspected variable star" with something with either a comma or a semi-colon?
I lengthened the sentence a little - is that ok? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is better. Cassiantotalk 07:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size still to be on the main sequence," →"Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size to still be on the main sequence".
Support – I see no other issues; an interesting subject which has been explained well despite its technical terminology. I think this meets all the criteria once some alterations have been made.Cassiantotalk 21:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowmanradio's comments
I have only read the introduction so far and I do not know much about astronomy:
that is fine - having readers unfamiliar with material helps make it as accessible as possible as we can forget which words are jargony Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link for "Southern sky" in redirected to "Southern hemisphere", but that page does not give a good definition of southern sky. If I looked to the south for it in the UK, I would not see Pictor. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and find a better link. If you look in the Characteristics section, it explains that it is only wholly seen at latitudes south of 26 N. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... its second-brightest star Beta Pictoris, 63.4 light-years distant, ...". Distant from what? The brightest star or from Earth. The number 63.4 does not appear in the body of the article (not found with a search), so this is factual information that only occurs in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
whoops, I must have forgotten to keep that in the body of text. Now readded. I have added "to Earth" to clarify distance Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"super-Earths"; sounds like jargon to me. I had to look at the linked page to find out what it meant. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it is a succinct way of describing planets of mass greater than the earth but much less than the gas giants. The term is very widely used in astronomy and science now and not quite filtering into general speech I take it. I though the name and blue-link would be enough to explain especially as the name is pretty obvious. I guess I could describe then as "two planets heavier than Earth" but then that loses accuracy as Jupiter is heavier than Earth and that is not what we mean here. Question is, if we said "super-Earths (planets heavier than earth)", that is a bit repetitive and obvious I would have thought Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen worse jargon. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"white main sequence star Alpha Pictoris,"; contains two consecutive blue links, which should be avoided. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged the sentence to address this, as both terms should be linked Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
"Pictor has attracted attention in recent years"; "recent years" seems a bit vague to me. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, upon removing the "in recent years", I realise it is redundant Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention how far Alpha Pictor is away from the Earth in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is looks like most astronomical features are capitalized, but "southern sky" is given as lower case. Why is this? Perhaps, Southern Celestial Hemisphere would be a better target, and I note that Southern Sky is capitalized on that page. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is great. This article needed to be done beofre now and I must have missed it when linking things. Links corrected now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." Presumably this was not a nova before 1925 or after 1925 (only a nova during the ictus), so I think that the language needs improving. Possibly change to something like; "A nova caused this star to brighten to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." However, I have just followed the link to "nova" and I think that this word is jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the star is the nova, the nova doesn't cause the star. It became a nova - reworded now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled, because the nova article says; "A nova (plural novae or novas) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion on a white dwarf. This makes a nova sound like an event rather than an object. The article goes on to say that a star can have more than one nova events. Is a nova a rather long-lasting event where hydrogen gravitating to the star becomes a fuel for nuclear fusion? The introduction makes it sound like the whole star became a nova, but in reality I think that it would be just hydrogen (and possibly its lower molecular weight elements) that were involved in the explosive nova event. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the star dim after the ictus? If so, this could be helpful in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is RR Pictoris still subject to the nova event, which started in 1925? or has the nova event ended now? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that RR Pic is now magnitude 12.5 as listed on List of stars in Pictor. This sounds to me that the nova event on this star has ended now, but I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also just seen the Wiki article RR Pictoris, which goes in the some of the details of the nova event. I find that the language there much more logical than in the introduction. The article says; "RR Pictoris is a cataclysmic variable star system that flared up as a nova that lit up in the constellation Pictor in 1925." I think that the expression "flared up" helps to convey that the nova event was a temporary condition. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more reading and expanded the daughter article a little. I am tired and need to sleep right now but will likely rejig and use "flared" in lead - will sleep on it. You are welcome to tinker with that or I will be back in several hoursCas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Have rejigged the lead now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kapteyn's Star is a red dwarf located 12.76 light-years away"; away from what. There are lots of ways of fixing this. Would it be better to list the main stars with their distances in the first paragraph and details about the stars in a subsequent paragraph? Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added that it is the nearest star of the constellation to Earth. Will that amendment fix this? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency in language between Beta Pic has "as well as an extrasolar planet" and HD 40307 "is an orange dwarf that has six planets orbiting it". It is obvious that a planet going around a star in a constellation light years away from the Sun is an extrasolar planet. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By stating it is obvious, do you mean the adjectival bit is unnecessary or necessary? I thought the best practice would be to use full title (Exoplanet) and link on first mention and then just planet thereafter as it is obvious (and hence implied) they are exoplanets (like using full name of a person at first mention before abbreviating to surname thereafter...) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious, so why not just say that some of the stars of Pictor are known to have planets. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The List of stars in Pictor say Alpha Pit is 3.24 magnitude, but the article says 3.3. I presume that to the nearest one decimal point 3.24 should be rounded down to 3.2. Why not use two decimal places? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is at SIMBAD, which has 3.30. I have no idea how the other value got into the list and I have changed it now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the dwarf galaxy Omega Centauri swallowed up by the Milky Way." How speculative is this? Snowman (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is certain that it is a globular cluster and likely (but not certain) that it is a dwarf galaxy. Hence I will change the lead to what is certain as it is hard to be speculative. The body of the article has a bit more space so it can be touched upon Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Another five stars in the constellation have been found to have extrasolar planets". This implies that there are six stars with planets. But the infobox says that there are a total of five stars with planets. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah yes. that has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, List of stars in Pictor lists five stars with planets, unless I missed something. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That also has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery. I have fixed that now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has taken me quite a long time to realize that the easel is simply drawn as two straight lines joining up the three main stars. If this is correct, can the caption of the night sky photograph included this, and perhaps this can also be briefly included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Constellations are notoriously inaccurate in depicting what they are supposed to depict. I have no source that discusses how and what lines depict what, so I am at a loss in what I can write here Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the original name Equuleus Pictoris". Its first Latin name is Equuleus Pictoris. The original name is "le Chevalet et la Palette". Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are correct, hence I have changed "original --> older" in lead Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the history section;
Is there any point in showing Nicolas Louis de Lacaille's own picture of the easel in the article; is this it here? I think that a later picture by Johann Bode is here. I would guess that the easel follows the triangular shape of the configuration of several stars in the constellation, as seen from Earth. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think I will fetch one of them.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Snowmanradio - I am going to be busy for a while so if you want to import one or both of those images to commons that would be great. Otherwise I might have some time in several hoursCas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I am uneasy about getting them off ridpath's site but will try to look for some original scans somewhereCas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Got one now - added. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see your request to upload an old image, because I am quite busy too and will be busy mainly working out-of-doors while the weather is dry here. In my opinion, the old image is relevant and helpful. It shows how packed together the constellations are and that Pictor is approx triangular. Also, I like the depiction of Canopus. I wonder if the caption would be better if it also explained briefly the constellations of the fish and the keel of the boat. Other than being visual, I am not sure why it helps me. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no problem - image added now. yes can add that. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the general guidelines on drawings is that it is recommended to include the artist in the caption. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the old image upside down to both the image in infobox and the photograph? Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at his original planisphere. All the writing is facing one way more or less and the south pole is at the centre, so the writing is facing all different directions instead of facing north. Convention of the other maps is different, with north upwards. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to explain how a French astronomer discovered a constellation which his only seen from the Southern Hemisphere. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pictor is a faint constellation, its three brightest stars forming a line near the prominent Canopus." It is not possible for one straight line to join the three main stars as seen from Earth. Two straight lines are needed. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the sentence does not specify the line is straight. And the three are a bit too linear to be clearly a triangle (well, a very flat one). Any three stars can be connected by two lines so that would make the comment redundant. I am open to suggestions..."bent line"? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Two straight lines angled at the middle star". What is the angle in degrees? See Line (geometry). Could exclude all mention of lines and just say that the three main stars are near to Canopus. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that as the easiest Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably easiest and best way. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression. Until recently, I was concerned that all the reviewers including myself had little knowledge of astronomy. I think that the long section on stars in the "Notable features" section is too long and its length put me off from reading it. I think that there is probably a better way to organize the the information on stars with more sub-headings. I think that some tables might be useful. Perhaps, a table on "Stars known to have planets" would be useful and perhaps some other tables or lists would help. I will leave it to others to decide if this article is FA or not. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The event was remote, with a redshift of 0.54". Most distances are given as light years, so the use of redshift as a distance does not seem consistent. Why not give the equivalent distance in light years as well here? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the flow if the second paragraph of the introduction could be improved. Any comments? Should deep sky objects be included in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged lead to make material segue on more naturally. I am tempted to add Pictor A to lead though might write the article first. Not keen on a redlink in the lead Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know much about astronomy, but I found watching "The Sky at Night" on TV interesting. Can the second paragraph in the introduction be made any more interesting? I have not been sufficiently motivated to read the long paragraph about stars from beginning to end, but this might be because I am rather busy doing tasks out-of-doors. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you found it interesting. I understand your concern but am wary of keeping speculative facts out of the lead. I will have a think on this and see what of the more extreme things are more solid to put in. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a 1925 newspaper report of the nova; see Trove. They called it Nova Watson-Pictoris then. What was understood about a nova back then? Going on this small newspaper report, I would think that the nova was not high profile in the media at that time, but I might have missed some more prominent newspaper reports. Surely, if a nova appearing as bright at that happened now, then it would be in the mass media and lots of people would look for it. How unusual is this sort of nova phenomenon? Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be better not to gauge a the nova entirely by visual magnitude in the introduction. Why not say that it was one of the 10 brightest stars or whatever is appropriate and this will be immediately obvious to general readers? Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I did want to put that it was one of the brightest star in the sky as that would be much more engaging for readers but was unable to find a source that ranked it like that in peer-reviewed material. I will have another look. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could compare it to the brightness of stars in List of brightest stars, which would give you a rough estimate of how many stars were still brighter than it at the peak; the other way would be to say that it was as roughly as bright as Deneb, with a note comparing the magnitudes (but be careful to compare brightness in the same colour band) - that may fall fowl of WP:OR though... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I have avoided OR but just stating the other fact as a footnote without a comparison as such Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction does not make it clear why Beta Pictoris came to attention, but it describes some of its features. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the facts outlined immediately following it (the dust disk and planet of Beta Pictoris - the word "because" is the link Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression 2. I think that the article fails to engage a general reader like myself. To me, the introduction seems mediocre or weak. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that, though I think generally that people who click on it might be more interested than a person with no interest in the topic reviewing for FA status - I will try to look on the specifics and actionable items. I do think alot of your comments have been very helpful. Some other events led my attention away yesterday and my time has been patchy. I want to ensure what I put in is supported by sources. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in terms of text only (I bring no knowledge about the subject to the table). Nicely put together and good enough to support. Two things that may need a quick tweak: History: Caption of the image has "Canopus of Carina": Carina is a disambig link; and FNs FN d finishes "Eta1, Eta2etc": needs a space before etc, I think? – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done both - good pickups - thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two lengthy reviews have left no crumbs of infelicity for me to pick up. Reads very well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Unless I've missed it above, has anyone with some expertise in physics and/or astronomy reviewed this? No slight on Cas or on the very welcome reviews for prose and accessibility, but we do like the range of comments to be as broad as possible. As well as the text itself, I'm thinking in terms of a source review for reliability (as it looks to me that Schro gave them the once-over for formatting). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - I don't think so. Constellation articles are less technical than star ones, which need more input on astrophysics. I have found leaving messages on astronomy wikiproject has not resulted in much feedback and will think on who I can ping Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See what you can do but don't sweat it too much -- if no-one else elects to comment we can only go with the consensus as we have it, and I don't consider the risk particularly high because, as you say, these are not as technical as some and your track record is good... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Mikle Peel, so let's see how we go....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mike Peel
Thanks Cas Liber for the note on my talk page. Here's some comments from a scientific perspective that I hope will be useful:
History
"two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope". It would be good to be more specific about where he was staying. I don't think there's an observatory at the Cape itself - perhaps he was staying in Cape Town? Or did he have a cottage somewhere in the area?
have added it as a footnote Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics:
It would be good to give a definition of the polygon defining the constellation, or to point to the infobox picture as an illustration of it.
note telling folks to look in infobox added Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning how far south you have to go before the constellation is always in the sky.
added what I could find Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stars:
Alpha Pictoris - it would be better to reference the journal article directly for the spectral type, rather than just simbad (the relevant reference is given in simbad).
"In 1984 Beta was" - I wouldn't shorten the name to "Beta" - better to use the full names. It seems to be a toss-up about whether the greek letter should be spelt out or used directly - the latter might be more compact though.
I'd recommend linking to the journal article for the Beta Pictoris planet discovery, either instead of or in addition to the press release, and giving an uncertainty range rather than saying "approximately 8 AU". Also, I'd link to Very Large Telescope rather than the European Southern Observatory.
"In 2014 Kapteyn's Star was announced to host two super-Earths" - the grammar could be better by saying "In 2014 it was announced that Kapteyn's Star has two super-Earths", but scientifically it would be good to say by which method they were discovered. The same goes for other exosolar planets in the constellation.
done for all the planets. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magnitude (astronomy) should probably be linked to from somewhere in the article, making it clear that it's apparent magnitude rather than absolute magnitude/actual luminosity.
I'm fairly sure there will be more objects worth mentioning than are currently listed here, but you'll need to search for them based on coordinates as constellations aren't really used that much in modern astronomy.
I tried looking for stuff using "pictor" and some keywords in Google scholar. Will give it once more but the idea is that the constellation page is for more notable objects and not more exhaustive... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pictor A, rather than saying "remote" it would be better to give its redshift (0.035058) or luminosity distance (149 Megaparsec - numbers from [30], search for Pictor A).
GRB 060729 might be worth mentioning. Also, there might be more useful material at [31] that can be incorporated here. (Yes, this is where I spotted the GRB, rather than searching on the coordinates...)
GRB definitely notable and added. am scouring for anything else. Coordinates is going to ce a challenge....the words.."needle" and "haystack" come tio mind... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a Wikipedian perspective, I'd also comment that this article might be better as more of a bulleted list / series of sections summarising the different objects. It's difficult to glance at the article and see what the key constituents of the constellation are. Also, I'd recommend either using the external links as references in the article, or removing them if they don't add value to the page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed external links - these are often added to constellation articles...agree they don't add anything. Regarding list vs prose - yes I've mused on this as constellation articles are by nature pretty listy. I felt there were natural enough threads in the material that I could make it into a prosey segment, but at least one constellation has been done as a list. Might be worth discussing at the astronomy wikiproject overall. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked a colleague who knows rather more about stars than me, Iain McDonald, to have a look at the article. Here's his comments:
Introduction: no citations listed
generally don't need inlines in lead as all material in lead is in body (and reffed at that point) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction > Kapteyn's star: it is likely to have been a member of a small galaxy that has been swallowed by the Milky Way, of which omega Centauri (note lower case omega, following the Bayer designation) is a suggested candidate. It's quite metal-rich for omega Centauri, although a small handful of stars do have this metallicity.
I suspect that is more of an issue to go in detail on the page about the star - I can only go on the sources...so leaving it as a possibility (which some sources consider it to be) and then leaving the pros and cons to the daughter page on the star I thought was the best way of summarising. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History: "canvass" -> "canvas"
f:::oops..missed that; extra 's' removed Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable features > Stars: I got lost in this section. Would it be better as a bulletted list?
see above. I figure the blue text serves as markers for items to read or click on Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable features > Stars > Delta Pictoris: it's worth saying the stars are oval shaped because they are gravitationally distorted by each other (rather than rotationally distorted like alpha Pic).
Notable features > Stars > RR Pictoris: it's not clear what's meant by "calculations of the speed" (-> "calculations from the orbital speed"?)
yep. orbital speed. tweaked Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that there's only one comment above from Mike that's not been acknowledged, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
aah, forgot about that. fixing it now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
original version
accessible version
czar ♔ 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Map.png){kind=link}
_in_biogeographic_regions.png){kind=link}
