This article is about the poetry of writer Maya Angelou. It's an underrepresented topic in the project and has been very well researched. I look forward to helpful feedback and comments, and hope you enjoy the process and learn a lot from it. Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"perhaps to capitalize on her popularity following her reading of her most famous poem" - source?
I've always considered this statement unnecessary to be cited, since it's self-evident and one of those things that I think "not likely to be challenged", but I can see someone unfamiliar with the topic disagreeing with me. Therefore, I've removed the part about the reason Random House published the collection and moved the statement, which is now about her recitation, to the next paragraph.
FN3: which Angelou? There aren't any in Works cited
Caged Bird; fixed, thanks for the catch.
Be consistent in whether you provide publisher/location for periodicals
I've only used the location once in my refs, for The Guardian (London), because its location isn't readily apparent like it is for every other one. I can remove it, though, if you like.
Use endashes not emdashes for ranges
Should be all fixed now.
FN54: this uses retrieval date instead of page number, but there doesn't seem to be a URL?
This is a very-well prepared FAC nomination. Per 1A: After reading it through either 9 or 10 times, I didn't find anything wrong in formatting or writing. The writing is solid and of high-quality. Per 1B: The article provides a comprehensive overview of her poetic oeuvre, it's themes, her career and way of writing, and links to her prolific works. Per 1C: It is well-researched, and the references reflect the sufficient array of the extant scholarship and academic attention to Angelou's work. Per 1D and 1E: The coverage is neutral, reflects all major viewpoints of her work adequately, and there is no indication of any article instability. Per Criteria 4: (which reflects the satisfaction of 1 and 2 mostly), this article covers the subject with adequate and apposite detail in a compact and accessible form within the expectations of WP:SUMMARY.
Per 2A and 2B: The lede adequately addresses the topics covered in the article per MOS and other guidelines, and the article's table of contents is entirely appropriate and reflect an efficient organisation of the body. Per 2C: The article consistently employs APA style citations and with short footnotes.
IMAGE CHECK (Per Criteria 3):
File:Angeloupoem.jpg - federal government work product, therefore public domain. GOOD.
File:Bill Clinton taking the oath of office, 1993.jpg - federal government work product, therefore public domain. GOOD.
File:LangstonHughes.jpg - Library of Congress collection, therefore public domain. GOOD.
File:Martin Luther King Jr NYWTS.jpg - donated to library of congress, therefore public domain. GOOD.
As for the other media, i.e., quoteboxes featuring the poems: It is likely that Angelou's works are still under copyright, however, the use here of one quote from an attributed book, a brief excerpts from the short lyric poems "Still I Rise" (which constitutes less than 20% of the poem) and "Human Family" (which constitutes less than 10% of the poem) is entirely and concisely illustrative and used as exemplars in an examination of her works and themes, properly attributed, and with a minimal amount of material, in compliance with fair use doctrine and Wikipedia's non-free content policy as I am familiar with it in Title 17 USC, and at WP:NFC, WP:QUOTE, and WP:LYRICS.
Only a few comments here. I know how hard it is to write about poetic themes, so good job!
Thanks!
Lead
"She became a poet after a series of jobs occupations" > jobs occupations seems odd.
Double-speak, thanks for the catch, can't believe I didn't catch it before, yadda yadda.
Background
"Despite considering herself a playwright and poet when her editor Robert Loomis challenged her to write Caged Bird, which brought her international recognition and acclaim, she has been best known for her seven autobiographies.[8][9][10] She went on to publish seven autobiographies." > some repetition here
You're right, of course; removed second sentence.
The writing process (which is fascinating!) uses the subjunctive "she would" and so on, which is jarring with the tense shift in the next section
Fixed, thanks.
General themes
"Blundell, in her review of Angelou's third volume And Still I Rise (1978) in Library Journal, finds Angelou's poems similar to speech patterns and songs the most effective." > maybe "poems which mimic speech patterns and songs"? Or maybe reflect speech and music?
Went with the first choice.
Critical response
"Despite these reviews, many of Angelou's readers identify her as a poet first and an autobiographer second." > this has now been said a few times, maybe consolidate?
Um, no, it's only been said once before, in the lead. Am I missing anything?
Like the Maya Angelou article, this article is very well written. And it seems that every possible problem with the article, all minor, has been addressed by the above reviewers and Christine (Figureskatingfan). The only criticism I have is that I don't think that it's necessary to link Maya Angelou again, or include the full name, after the lead. Sure, WP:Overlinking considers such an instance an exception (when linked once after the lead at first occurrence, which is what this article does), but I just can't see it as needed in this case.
Fly, this gets into my personal opinion--that since the lead is a summary of the article, it should stand alone from the rest of the article. That means that linking in the article is separate from links in the lead. Again, that's my opinion, and nothing I'm insistent must happen, so if this article passing to FA depends upon it, I'm willing to change it. But thanks for the support; it's much appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from DMacks moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.
Support. I was a bit surprised at first, like John seems, below, that such a short article could be FA. But I agree that it may well say all there is to say, and it does say it well. It's actually refreshing to see one that isn't an intricately detailed tome. DMacks (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I'm here I may as well give an explicit image review. Images are okay: one fair use, meets all criteria (could be downsampled a bit, but still within the limits), and one free image, relevant to the article, AGF that the OTRS is valid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, changed the image formatting in the article back to the prior size, and left the image at the image page to the new, lower resolution, version. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jimfbleak
Addressed comments from Jimfbleak moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.
Support I don't want to lose my reputation for being a hard-assed reviewer but I couldn't see anything majorly wrong with this article. It's a wee bit short, but it covers the subject adequately, is well-written and well-sourced. I think it passes the criteria. --John (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the Support -- I did my best to try to find all secondary source coverage out there. I appreciate your statements that it's well-written and well-sourced, most appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Addressed comments from Dr. Blofeld moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.
Support Thanks for your swift response. This is a credible, well-written article on the book. Although it might have a bit more detail on its content and analysis I think it covers what needs to be covered rather well.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by to say that I expect to promote this in the next day or so. If anyone's watchlisted the page with a view to commenting, could they pls do so -- or at least let me know of their intention -- within that time...
Meanwhile, I didn't see a source review labelled as such but I noticed Dr. Blofeld reviewed reference formatting so I'm happy to go with that unless anyone wants to do more; given the experience of the reviewers supporting above I'm presuming that no-one has any concerns with source reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Yes, Dr. Blofeld did review sourcing for several citations, and these issues were all successfully addressed and per agreement with the user the addressed comments were moved to the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little concerned on some of them about verification but it seems it can't be helped in this case. All of the sources to me look reliable.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I replied that all of them satisfy verification through archival database resources, for example like NewsBank. And I also noted that I exhausted research in multiple databases to find all secondary source coverage, including Westlaw, NewsBank, LexisNexis, and InfoTrac. — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update:@Ian Rose:, @Dr. Blofeld:, I've gone through and increased accessibility of references by adding notes on the archival news database used to access them, and/or adding URLs. Done. Thanks, now the article is better because the reader will be able to more easily read those cited sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated a few months ago. Unfortunately, it had serious flaws in it, including wrong information. It was greatly improved and now can be regarded among the best biographies of Brazilian royals. Lecen (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning support, very well done. A few comments:
Lede
"unconvinced that she could ever be accepted as monarch among the ruling circles " hm, maybe delete "ever" as not needed, and change "among" to "by". In fact, having read the article and seeing that the justifying sentence in the body is "he had little confidence that a woman could rule Brazil in the male-dominated social climate of the time", I would suggest changing the lede to "unconvinced that she, as a woman, could ever be accepted as monarch".
Birth
"Eugênio" the whatever it is mark above the "e" differs from the marking in the name as rendered in the infobox.
"which according to a contemporary was an event " What was? Was the receipt of congratulations a formal ceremony? I'd make this clearer.
"elaborate ceremony was observed at court" If this is said event, I think this should be merged into the phrasing referenced just above.
I would precede the second paragraph with "Upon Pedro Afonso's birth" or something similar.
I would move Porto Alegre's comment to the next paragraph, so the reader knows about the succession prior to reading it.
The location of the baptism should possibly be mentioned. I'm also getting the impression that the baptism took place before crowds, though I imagine this was not the case. At least ones seeking entertainment.
Death
Can anything be said about where the family spent its time in the non-summer? I assume Rio, but the reader should not have to assume. And about who cared for the child, whether mother/other relatives/nursemaids?
I think Dom Afonso should get a mention very early in the body of this article. I don't know much about Brazilian history, but plainly some of the jubilation about the birth of Pedro Afonso was that it relieved the uncertainty (for the moment) caused by the lack of a male heir. Thus, although it is mentioned in the lede, it should be mentioned early in the body.
Reply: Lecen and I have implemented most of your suggestions. Both parents traveled extensively to fulfill their obligations, though I don't know if the children accompanied them as infants. There is a statement in Barman that the emperor wrote to Cristina Teresa while he was away on those occasions when she stayed behind "looking after the children", but I do not know whether that was always the case, and there would have also been an aia/governess assigned to Pedro Afonso. Perhaps Lecen recalls more details, if there is anything concrete in regard to Pedro Afonso's supervision. • Astynaxtalk05:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wehwalt. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. The Imperial family had dozens of servants, divided in hierarchy, from slaves to nobles. The problem is that there is nothing available regarding Afonso nor his brother Pedro. I could you information available regarding their sister Isabel, but that would be guessing and I don't think it would be a good idea. The imperial family lived in Rio de Janeiro (city) in the Palace of São Cristóvão. During summer they stayed in Santa Cruz farm and later in their summer residence in Petrópolis. I do plan to write about all that in more detailed articles, perhaps in Imperial Family of Brazil. I don't know. There is a lot to do about this period of Brazilian history on Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I suppose you could say in the article more or less what you've told me, that there's no information on Afonso but this is how Isabel was cared for, but that's editor's discretion in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Not required, but is it possible to provide a translation of the image description where it's currently Portuguese-only?
File:Brasao-Brigantina.png: this and both of its listed sources claim CC-own work licenses - what is the copyright status of the original coat of arms, and what source(s) was used for the creation of these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the translations, but couldn't find "File:Brasao-Brigantina.png" in the article. Maybe you made a mistake about the name? --Lecen (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen, Brasao-Brigantina.png is part of the House of Braganza template at the bottom of the article. The same template is used in the other articles about Brazilian royals also, but I cannot recall whether it was already looked at during other reviews. • Astynaxtalk03:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of it. I didn't make the template nor added it to the article. If there is any problem with the picture I believe someone should mention that in the template talk page. --Lecen (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments from Cliftonian
Looks very well done from first glance. Will note thoughts as I go
Lead
Why not say when the elder brother, Dom Afonso, died? (three years earlier)
The lead seems to just kind of tail off without a proper conclusion. "the Emperor started to believe that the imperial line was destined to end with his own death"—Make clearer that it actually did.
Infancy and early death
"born at 08:00"—exactly, or roughly?
Perhaps briefly say where Petrópolis is and make clearer that this is where the Santa Cruz Estate was.
""who disliked any change that threatened the established ways and interests"—who is this quoted from?
"were both struck by fever"—"both" can be removed without affecting the meaning
Legacy
Again, it is not made totally clear that the imperial system indeed did not survive after Pedro II's death. I would recommend fixing this.
Summary: Very well done indeed; excellently written, well-structured and thoroughly deserving of the FA star. I will leave the comments above (which are really mostly nitpicks), but I still feel very comfortable supporting this for promotion. Well done! A really fine piece of work. —Cliftonian(talk)11:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian, I made a few of the changes you suggested. Petrópolis and Santa Cruz Estate are both located in the state of Rio de Janeiro (not to be confused by the city of Rio de Janeiro, its capital), but they are not in the same place. Santa Cruz is now part of the city of Rio de Janeiro (it wasn't in 1850) and Petrópolis is around 40 minutes from Rio (today; but a few days by horse in 1850). The quote is from historian Roderick J. Barman and it's sourced. The hours given to births and deaths are always "5:00", "14:30", and not "15:12" or "03:46". Does it means that he was born around 08:00? I don't know. I preferred to say it as the source said. Lastly, I can't add further info in the lead about the downfall of the monarchy because that's not discussed in the main text. The monarchy ended in 1889 (before Pedro II's death, not after). I don't think it's a good idea to discuss the end of the monarchy in an article about a child that died in 1850, 30 years earlier. Besides, there are plenty of good articles about its end: Pedro II of Brazil, Empire of Brazil and Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. Thank you very much for your review. I really appreciate. --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pedro II received official congratulations at a levee held later in the day following the birth ...". I can't make sense of that at all. Was the levee held the day after the birth (in which case what does "later" mean), or was it held on the same day as the birth?
"In his eyes, the deaths of his only sons seemed to presage the end of the imperial system." It doesn't make sense to talk of "only sons" in the plural.
Reply: Thanks for taking a look. I have reworded the sentence on the levee to make it clearer. I have also removed the word "only" from "his only sons". In the latter case, "only sons" was used to indicate that he had no other sons except the two who had died. His despair over the viability of the imperial system was predicated on the lack of any surviving male issue. It is a minor point which is made elsewhere, however. • Astynaxtalk18:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... a band shell that could hold more than a hundred musicians was raised for the festivities". What's a band shell?
"Pedro Afonso was buried in the mausoleum of the Convento de Santo Antônio (Convent of Saint Anthony) in Rio de Janeiro. The interment was originally supposed to be temporary, but a mausoleum was never built." I don't quite follow that. And why "originally"?
"... regarding the succession of the empire ...". Empire was capitalised earlier in the article. I don't think it should have been, but we need to be consistent.
Reply: Thanks for your further input. A band shell is an acoustical stage or balcony used to hold a band or small orchestra for performances and to provide music for balls/dances. I've wikilinked it to the brief article and also changed the capitalization of Empire to be consistent. I assume that Pedro Afonso was to be reburied in a yet to be constructed imperial mausoleum upon the death of his parents. The first Emperor had been buried in Portugal, and Pedro II died in exile and was also initially buried in Portugal, so no imperial crypt was constructed during the Empire. I cannot point to a source for that conclusion, however, and perhaps Lecen can say whether the sources say anything more as to why the burial was regarded as impermanent. • Astynaxtalk10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister whose 15-year tenure played out like a Greek tragedy, stepped down in 1979 with two parallel reputations, each largely corresponding to opinions on his country in general. To some he was a visionary who understood problems outside observers did not, a hero whose Unilateral Declaration of Independence had saved Rhodesia from disaster. To most, however, he was an almost cartoonish figure of derision, a deluded, bigoted racist who had tried to stop the tide of history. The truth, as I hope this article shows, is somewhere between these two extremes.
This long article (around 14,000 words) just passed GA following a review by Lemurbaby (talk·contribs), who was very complimentary of it, describing it as "among the 100 best articles on Wikipedia". I believe it meets the FA standards and am therefore nominating it. I hope you enjoy reading it, and look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian(talk)13:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know if this is a reason to fail an FAC, but this article seems to be somewhat too long at the moment. I've given it a run through with the User:Shubinator/DYKcheck tool, and it's coming out as 89,279 characters of readable prose. Per WP:Article size#A rule of thumb, that's considerably above the 60k limit at which it "Probably should be divided" and getting towards the 100k figure at which it "Almost certainly should be divided". I'll leave this one out there for the nominator and others to reply to as they see fit - if you have reasons why this needs to be the length it is, or if this is not a major factor in determining FA status then all well and good. I will probably have a read through of this later on as well (might need to set aside an hour for that!) and see if I spot anything else. It looks well written and engaging from a quick glance. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, I know the article is long, but there are similar existing FAs of similar length; Ronald Reagan is only about 1,000 words shorter and Benjamin Disraeli, promoted a few months ago, is also over 14,000. I must admit I modelled the length on these as Smith is a figure of similar historical stature in his country. I would prefer not to split the article if at all possible as I think doing so would cause aspects of his complicated, and often oversimplified, story to be skimmed over somewhat—it should be remembered that many readers will come here not to read the entire article but to read up on a particular aspect (they might be specifically looking for information on what happened to Smith after Mugabe took over, for example). However I'm more than happy for any ideas people might have to be noted and discussed. I hope this is okay and that you found the article interesting. Thanks and have a great week —Cliftonian(talk)18:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article have tended to get longer in recent years; when I started on the FAC trail in 2007 a 14,000-word text was pretty well unthinkable. Now they come quite often – I'm not altogether sure that this is a good thing. For one thing, I think there's a danger that articles of this length don't attract reviewers to FAC, or don't get thoroughly reviewed. However, I agree with Cliftonian that splitting the article into subarticles would cause complications, and isn't necessarily the best way forward. It may be possible to reduce the text by removing some detail – I'll have a better idea when I have reviewed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I share Brian's suspicion that FAs are getting longer, and I am far from guiltless in that matter. But I am agin splitting up a biographical article like this. Better to have a long article to go through than to have one that (say) takes the person to the premiership and then leaves him/her there, with another article to switch to for the rest of the story. Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on prose from Tim riley
Lead
Not clear why "premier" is not capped but Prime Minister is.
"Liberal Member of Parliament for Selukwe…Rising through the political ranks with the United Federal Party" – not clear here how the one party ties in with the other. You explain later, but it breaks flow here.
"the qualities that had attracted him most to Janet, who had represented the Cape in hockey, were her intelligence, courage and…" – too much shoehorned in here. Do we mind that she played hockey for the Cape?
"headed by Prime Minister Sir Godfrey Huggins" – you'll be familiar with my constant plaint that without a definite article before "Prime", this is either tabloidese or an Americanism. I admit my grasp of Rhodesian/Zimbabwean English is slight.
"Many white families were receptive to him because" – is it worth mentioning here or earlier the voting position of non-white families? If you've done so I must have missed it.
I had left this to explain further down, but I think you're right it is worth briefly explain this when we discuss his first election to parliament. I have added a couple sentences here: "The Southern Rhodesian electoral system allowed only those who met certain financial and educational qualifications to vote. This was theoretically non-racial as the standards applied equally to everybody, but since most blacks did not meet the set standards, the electoral roll and the government were overwhelmingly white."
"a somewhat pedestrian figure as Chief Whip, winning little press attention" – I should have said winning little press attention was a prime quality in a chief whip
"popularly known in Rhodesia by his former title Lord Graham" – not all that popularly, I suspect.
I have changed to simply "also called Lord Graham" (people I have spoken to who knew him invariably call him "Lord Graham", and he is often referred to as such in sources, so I think this is worth keeping). —Cliftonian(talk)16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fallout from UDI
"prompted pandemonium in Britain" – rather strong, I'd say. Front page news here, certainly, but not pandemonium. I mean, it's not as if Coronation Street was cancelled or anything.
"Frederick Elwyn Jones" – needs piping: always known as Elwyn Jones. I didn't even know his first name was Frederick. From 1964 he was Sir Elwyn Jones till they kicked him upstairs in 1974.
Provisional support. My few comments are now dealt with most satisfactorily. Delegate, please note that I have commented in detail on only the first half of the text, having, for this very substantial article, agreed with User:Brianboulton to divide the close reading between us, but I have read through the whole article carefully, and I can conscientiously say that in my view it meets all the FA criteria. I don't imagine I shall have reason to change my mind after BB has added his list of suggestions, but I think I must reserve that option. I have added, above, my two penn'orth about the length, and I don't regard the word count as an obstacle to promotion. Back to convert "provisional support" to "support", I hope when BB has done his stuff. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread the whole article in the light of Brian's comments, below, and Cliftonian's accommodating responses, and I am very pleased to join Brian in supporting the promotion to FA. It is a long article, but it was no hardship to read it a third time, because it is very well written. Fine work. Tim riley (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Tim indicates, I agreed with him that I would deal in detail with the second half of the article. I'm not finished yet—still have the last few sections to read—but here are my comments thus far. As you will see, I have a slight concern about the neutrality in certain passages. Smith is a controversial figure, tending to evoke extremes of opinion. In a neutral encyclopedic summary it is necessary to tread very carefully, avoiding as far as possible the use of descriptive terms such as "brutal", "atrocity" etc. in favour of less colourful language. It is particularly important that, when using sources such as Meredith's Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe, you attribute to the author.
Bush War
Wilson and Labour returned to power in March 1974, rather than "meanwhile" which is unnecessarily vague.
I understand from reviews of my own work that "in the event" has a different sense for American readers. The phrase can be dropped without affecting the meaning.
"The first sentence of this statement, taken out of context, became commonly quoted as evidence that Smith was a crude racist who would never compromise with the black nationalists..." That first sentence ("I don't believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia ... not in 1,000 years") contains an ellipsis; should we not know in full what Smith said?
Whose wording is "taken out of context"? The statement seems pretty unequivocal, and it is hard to see a context in which it might be considered acceptable. Nor do I see that this explicit wording is mitigated by the suggestion that he only said it to appease his hard-line colleagues
This was an attempt to integrate the assertion of the source (Peter Godwin) that the quote has become "shorn of all context", but I think the meaning is still clear if we lose this and it introduces unnecessary controversy, so I've taken it out. —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that, in their October 1978 tour of the US, Smith, Muzorewa and Sithole met with Ford, Kissinger and Reagan. You should make it clear that by then, Ford and Kissinger were out of office. Did the party not meet anyone in the Carter administration? Otherwise the purpose of the visit is unclear.
I am away from my books for a few days unfortunately so cannot look this up for now, but my recollection is that the Democratic figures they encountered were not particularly high-ranking and were fairly hostile towards them. The visit was supposed to raise awareness of the Internal Settlement and so forth, and attempt to shift opinion in favour of lifting sanctions and recognising the government. In this they succeeded as the U.S. Senate did indeed vote to lift sanctions and recognise Zimbabwe Rhodesia—though as we say in the article this didn't translate into actual results for the Z-R government. —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sithole, astounded by his party's poor showing..." What was this showing?
"Muzorewa formally replaced Smith on 1 June 1979" Doesn't need "formally", but does need "as prime minister". In fact, I think I would refashion the whole sentence: " On 1 June 1979, the day of the country's official reconstitution as Zimbabwe Rhodesia, Muzorewa replaced Smith as prime minister, at the head of a UANC–RF coalition Cabinet made up of 12 blacks and five whites."
Final paragraph: I think that the statement that "The UK government and the international community ultimately declared the election free and fair" shouldn't be buried mid para, particularly as the preceding sentences tend to imply the reverse. I'd begin the para with this statement, then move to the qualifications.
"Smith vaunted himself as the guardian of what he called Zimbabwe's "white tribe"." I don't think "vaunted" is the right word. It implies boastfulness, self-display etc. A neutral replacement would be "presented himself".
"Police meticulously searched his Harare house and Gwenoro over the next week, confiscating firearms, personal papers and a diary from the latter." The last three words cause confusion (the latter what?), and would be better left out.
"...where it perpetrated a number of brutal massacres and atrocities against civilians accused of supporting "dissidents", far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War.". This needs to be expressed in more neutral encyclopedic language, and the judgement that these actions were "far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War" needs to be specifically attributed to a source, i.e. "according to..."
I have tried to tone this down a little: "where it killed thousands of civilians accused of supporting "dissidents". Meredith asserts that this far exceeded anything that had occurred during the Bush War, an opinion shared by Geoff Hill." —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Zimbabwean government bombarded Smith with vitriolic public threats..." Again, too colourful, non-encyclopedic.
Thank you very much for the review so far; your comments have been very helpful in trying to tone my writing down a notch! I look forward to carrying on and hope you are enjoying the article. —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the rest
Land reform programme; new popularity
A slightly confusing heading. A reader might think that the "popularity" referred to the land reform programme.
"Governmental mismanagement and widespread corruption within the ZANU–PF order led to Zimbabwe declining economically during the 1990s while Mugabe and others became fabulously wealthy". I have numerous issues with this sentence. First, the language is assertive and far from neutral. Secondly, the statement that Zimbabwe declined economically during the 1990s is itself questionable: this chart, based on World Bank figures, seems to show that Zimbabwe's GDP increased in most years during the 1990s, sometimes by considerable percentages, before a rapid decline after 1999. There are no doubt other economic indicators that can be cited, and mismanagement and corruption in government circles presumably contributed to the economy's erratic performance, but there would have been other factors as well, e.g. drought, harvest failures, adverse world trading conditions particularly at the start of the decade. Finally, the statement that Mugabe and unspecified others became "fabulously wealthy" needs toning down, to something like "enriched themselves", and needs a very definite "according to", and perhaps an example or two which supports the claim.
I have tried to tone this down a bit: "According to Meredith, governmental mismanagement and widespread corruption within the ZANU–PF order led to Mugabe and others enrichening themselves considerably at the expense of the country as a whole." Am away from home so unable to go through the literature in detail but perhaps may expand on this. —Cliftonian(talk)17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, as I read on, I realise that this first paragraph is not really about Smith at all. I suggest ditching most of it, replacing with something like: "In 2000, hoping to win support from rural blacks, Mugabe introduced a fast-track land reform programme under which groups of ZANU–PF activists, officially referred to as "war veterans", were sent to take over white-owned farms so the land could be split up, without compensation, and redistributed to black peasant farmers. White farmers and their black employees were violently forced out, food production plummeted, and the economy collapsed to half the size it had been in 1980". This would lead naturally to the invasion of Gwenoro, and Smith's laconic response.
The phrasing "reportedly from a stroke" carries an inference that this was not the real cause of death. If this was the undisputed cause, the "reportedly" can be dropped.
"to quote Mordechai Tamarkin, who as Prime Minister "personified white Rhodesia". Prose needs rearranging. At present it reads tat Tamarkin was the prime minister who personified white Rhodesia.
"Supporters hailed him as 'a political visionary ... who understood the uncomfortable truths of Africa,' in the words of a BBC report". This statement may have been included in a BBC report, as a summary of Smith's supporters' views, but I don't believe that this wording can be attributed to the BBC itself.
Hmmm. Taking this out leaves open the question of who actually said it, though. I have taken the attribution in the prose out and just put the footnote next to it. Do you think this is better or should we try to paraphrase? —Cliftonian(talk)17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and he often claimed in later life that black Zimbabweans preferred him to Mugabe and had been better off before 1980." Well, yes, I'm sure he thought that, but I don't think this personal opinion can be considered as part of Smith's reputation and legacy. In any case, the point is dealt with in the finalpara of this section.
Second paragraph: this refers to a comment I made earlier. I am not at all clear why interpreting Smith's "1000 years" statement as meaning exactly what it said amounts to a "fabrication". What is it that Godwin is implying was fabricated? Does Godwin provide a context which makes the words more palatable?
The source is here. What Godwin says is fabricated is the common assertion that Smith was actually predicting that white rule would continue for 1,000 years and that shows that he was motivated purely by a cocktail of racial hatred and delusional thinking. According to Godwin, Smith "was advocating, not predicting, the survival of white rule and telling his people that while he was still opposed in principle to black rule, he had not ruled out the possibility of power-sharing in the immediate future. He was actually laying the ground work for compromise." —Cliftonian(talk)17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sithole does not need his full "Reverend Ndabaningi", and the wording "who latterly worked alongside Smith following the Internal Settlement" is probably unnecessary, too.
I have cut this down, but I think it is worth keeping "The long-time ZANU leader" just to briefly remind the reader who Sithole was and also to emphasise that this is one of the old guard black nationalists saying this. —Cliftonian(talk)17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: Smith was always going to be a tough subject to get right. I think you have creditably striven to present an even-handed assessment of his life; however, the particular issues of non-neutrality that I have raised need to be addressed. Other reviewers may pinpoint similar concerns – you should be prepared for that. Although the article is long, I found it generally fast-paced, with no areas that obviously needed pruning, not in the half that I have looked at in detail. My position at the moment is similar to Tim's: leaning to support, but I'd like to see your responses to the points I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rest of the review, Brian; excellent as always. I have replied to each point above and implemented most of the changes you suggested. I hope all this is satisfactory. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the article. —Cliftonian(talk)17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think you have dealt sensibly with the points that I have raised, and have allayed my concerns about neutrality. This is a particularly well researched article. Unlike Lemurbaby I have not read all of the other 4.5 million WP articles, so I can't say whether it ranks among the top 100, but I would rate it highly among the political biographies that I have read (and I wrote a couple myself, you know). Subject to sources and image clearance, this looks a thoroughly worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Signature_of_Ian_Smith.svg: this suggests that the PD-signature tag doesn't apply to this image - can you clarify?
Hmmm. Seems the signature is probably not public domain, so we must lose it under the precautionary principle. I have removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion on Commons. —Cliftonian(talk)19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jock_and_Agnes_Smith,_1935.jpg: when/where was this first published?
It seems to have been published for the first time in The Quiet Man, the Smith biography published in Rhodesia in 1978, but I don't know if it was published before. It is not credited to anybody and it seems probable to me that it is a family photograph Smith allowed to be used in the book. My understanding is that the photograph became public domain on 1 January 1986 as photographs taken in Rhodesia before 1967 do so 50 years after being taken rather than 50 years after being published. See here for more details (Section 60, Part I, Article 2 "Duration of Copyright") —Cliftonian(talk)19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. For this one and the one below, that's fine for the Zimbabwean copyright, but the given US PD tag may not be applicable as it does rely on publication details - can you check that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am presuming The Quiet Man (1978) is the first place the image was published. The photograph is not explicitly credited in the book and no notice of copyright seems to be given regarding the images. The acknowledgements page just refers to pictures being "reproduced with permission of the Ministry of Information, the National Archives, the Rhodesian Army and private sources"; individual credits for each picture are not given. I am no expert on this kind of thing; what do you advise? —Cliftonian(talk)16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What copyright notice, if any, was on the book as a whole? Was the book ever published in the US and, if so, when? (this might apply, depending on answers). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright notice appears on page iv: "This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No portion may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Copyright Phillippa Berlyn". The book was never republished in any other country; the 1978 Rhodesian pressing is the only one. —Cliftonian(talk)09:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same with File:Ian_Smith_RAF_3.jpg
I do not know where this photograph was first published (or if indeed it was commercially), or where or when exactly it was taken. We can see however that it was taken while he was in the Middle East with No. 263 Squadron RAF (this can be easily confirmed by the rank and insignia he is wearing, as well as the absence of his wounds from his crash in Egypt). It seems logical to me in the circumstances to trace back to the photographer's country of citizenship or domicile, which would probably be Rhodesia as this was a Rhodesian squadron. Under this reasoning and the legislation described above the photograph would enter PD in Zimbabwe in 1994 at the latest. I hope this is acceptable. —Cliftonian(talk)19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so assuming this was not published prior to appearing at the given source, it was already PD in the US at that time. I can't find a US copyright template that would adequately account for the situation (the current one does not apply); if no one else knows of one, I'd probably just explain the situation in text under the Zimbabwean tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand this one. The source for this image is here. The building was completed in 1913 and the photograph seems to have been taken soon thereafter (it certainly was taken before 1935 as this is when the photographer, Duncan Greaves, died). It seems to me that the photograph has been public domain in South Africa since 1986 at the latest. Regarding freedom of panorama, I know very little about this so I must bow to your expertise, but surely the architecture is in the public domain after a century? —Cliftonian(talk)19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The architecture is fine as far as copyright; my question was for the photo. So you're saying the given tags apply to both the architecture and the image? In which case we would need to know the publication details for the image...and do you have a source for Greaves' date of death? The source suggests that Cory died in 1935, but doesn't give dates for Greaves. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I'm sorry for the mix-up, my mistake. As I say above I am not great on picture licencing, etc. I suspect that Duncan Greaves may not be the original photographer as he seems to still be alive and active as a photographer in the local area (see here). Since the source above describes this as "Photograph of slide no.228 from Sir George Cory's glass lantern slide collection", it seems likely to me that the original photograph was actually taken by Cory in the 1910s, and Greaves more recently took a derivative photograph of the glass slide. I do not know the publishing details of the image; it seems likely to me that it was not published as it is described as part of Cory's slide collection. What do you think? —Cliftonian(talk)16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to confirm this theory. "Collection of 286 glass slides used by Sir George Cory in his Magic Lantern Shows digitized in 2004 by Duncan Greaves of FotoFirst Grahamstown [see link above], including a sample collection of 24 slides [electronic resource] / George Edward Cory." Since Cory died in 1935, the "Magic Lantern Shows" in which this would have been made available to the public must have taken place beforehand (presuming this image was exhibited). —Cliftonian(talk)16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So as a slide is 2D Greaves wouldn't hold any copyright to the derivative, and public exhibition counts as publication. Presuming the image was included in the exhibition, the current tags are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments, not a complete review. Brian and Tim, thanks much for your work on this. - Dank (push to talk)
"In practice, he remained in office until 1979.": I'm not sure what "In practice" means. You might drop it, or say that he held this role within the Rhodesian government until 1979.
"as Prime Minister of Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia) from 1964 to 1979.": How about this? "as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia (1964–65) and
of Rhodesia (1965–1979)." [the "of" is optional]
I understand your idea but unfortunately the case isn't as simple as this. Different people called the same place either Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia throughout his time in office. Moreover the country was renamed (or not) in 1964, not 1965. (A brief explanation of this is given in the article but I will elaborate here to save time—basically when Northern Rhodesia became Zambia in October 1964, Southern Rhodesia's government passed legislation to shorten its name to Rhodesia, but this required British approval, which was not given. Smith's government went on using "Rhodesia" anyway, but the country continued to be officially referred to in many British and international documents as "Southern Rhodesia". This situation continued right up to 1979.) I think the most neutral, least controversial and actually most accurate way to deal with this problem is to leave it as it is. —Cliftonian(talk)19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"agreed the Internal Settlement": This is still informal in BritEng, and often mistaken for a typo outside of the UK. "signed" or "came to an agreement on" (or something else, if something else is meant)
"the international community likewise denied recognition": Something more specific would be better ... perhaps "no country recognised the settlement". - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...that he retained for the rest of his life. - hmm, funny choice of words. Not sure what I'd have as an alternative striaghtaway. Need to think about this one...
How about "that remained conspicuous for the rest of his life"? The point we're trying to make is that even when he was Prime Minister decades later, everybody could still see the wounds to his face, he walked oddly, couldn't sit for long periods, etc. —Cliftonian(talk)21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
where Jock, a fine horseman, won the 1911 Coronation Derby at Salisbury. - "fine" --> "accomplished" (more neutral-sounding but still clarifying the person had skill, "skilled" will do as well)
Welensky does not specifically elaborate but I would guess it was something to do with his farming. The country did not have daylight saving time (and to this day does not); there was probably some debate over whether to introduce it. —Cliftonian(talk)21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall looking good on comprehensiveness and prose..in cases of doubt I think it is probably safer to steer toward hagiography than critique...I don't know enough about Ian Smith to be able to say confidently whether it should be more critical. Wasn't there more criticism about crackdown measures in the 1960s? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the article so far. We refer to this in the legacy section, where Smith is criticised for using "draconian" emergency powers against black nationalists. I have been fiddling around trying to find some way to shoehorn something about this into the biography as well but I can't seem to find a way to do so without going into too much detail. I hope this is all right with you. —Cliftonian(talk)21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article details the events surrounding Jimi Hendrix's 1969 arrest, trial, and acquittal for drug possession. We are nominating it for FAC because we believe the article is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. GabeMc(talk|contribs)18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This well written article, now approaching 3,800+ words, is clearly well sourced (57 footnotes citing 20+ published sources including 18 books), lists six additional books and four documentary films, and includes not only coverage of Mr. Hendrix's arrest, booking, indictment, and trial, but four illustrations and sections on how these affected his career, a discussion of media suppression associated with the arrest, and a conspiracy to set Mr. Hendrix up for the arrest, all of which are highly relevant to his life and career. This is a important addition to WP's material on this high profile iconic musician and pubic figure whose work is still revered by millions 44 years after his untimely death at age 27 which covers in considerable detail this seminal event in the history of his life and career not described in the main article on him. From the point of view of an editor who has not contributed to the article itself other than vigorously opposing the recently closed ill conceived AfD, I believe that it fully deserves promotion to the next level. Centpacrr (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
Feel free to disagree with anything here.
"Further reading" sections are meant to contain material on the subject of the article. Technically, all of them are about Hendrix in general, not about the bust—I mean, and interview from 1967? Talk about anachronistic. I'd delete the whole thing.
It's not always a good idea to colour quote boxes—teh MoS doesn't forbid it (I think), but it's a potential accessibility issue (especially when using a colour that reduces contrast).
We're told twice in the lead alone that Hendrix was "the world's highest-paid performer". I'd drop it from the opening paragraph, as I think it fits the context of the fourth paragraph better.
I think the correct style is to include the definite article, otherwise we run the risk of reducing the prose to something that can be found in any tabloid newspaper or celebrity magazine. We are, after all, supposed to exemplify the very best English the community has to offer. Cassianto (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? The Tabloid style of writing is sloppy, lazy, and shows journalistic writing at it's very worst. If you cannot differentiate between that and good, encyclopedic prose, then I worry not just for you, but for the project as a whole. Cassianto (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about missing the point! I hope your not suggesting a dumpster tabloid would suddenly become a literary delight if you sprinkled it with a few "the"s—the issues those papers have have nothing to do with this particular style issue. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, this is a US vs. UK issue. In the UK, it is correct to write "the journalist Sharon Lawrence". In the US, we write "journalist Sharon Lawrence". But this is a Canadian article, so I don't know which is correct here. Is the rest of the writing more like UK style or US style? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ss for clearing that one up, I had no idea that this was a UK v. US thing. Gabe, in that case, once we have established Ssilvers Canada question, feel free to correct to the preferred style. CurlyTurkey, sorry for the mix up. Cassianto (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Cassianto, but for the sake of clarification, am I to understand that this convention is incorrect in AmEng, or is this a matter of editorial discretion? GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, neither this or the main Hendrix article have ever been "Canadian" articles nor have they ever used Commonwealth English, date formatting, or any other form of Commonwealth usage. Mr. Hendrix was a native born (Seattle, WA) US citizen and resident. The fact that his drug related arrest and trial took place in Canada has no bearing whatsoever on the form or style of English used in either. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[left]Cassianto and Ssilvers, I was wondering why, if the use of an article is required in BritEng, is this construction acceptable: "In 1955, the drummer Ringo Starr was discharged from Hospital. Soon afterwards, he befriended the guitarist Roy Trafford and having fallen behind his peers scholastically was rejected by University." GabeMc(talk|contribs)17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct Brit. English. American would be exactly the opposite: "In 1955, drummer Ringo Starr was discharged from the Hospital. Soon afterwards, he befriended guitarist Roy Trafford and, having fallen behind his peers scholastically, was rejected by the University." It is useless to ask "why", which assumes that regional grammar and spelling variations are logical, which they are not. You simply have to know. Based on Centpacrr's comments above, I have changed the usage to American English throughout. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the bassist Noel Redding was tipped of": "the" reads really awkwardly to me—I'd drop it. Also, "tipped off" may be too informal for an encyclopaedia
Again, the respected FAC reviewer has asked me numerous time to include the article. I think Rothorpe, who I have deep respect for, has also advised me to include the article. I swapped "tipped off" for "warned". GabeMc(talk|contribs)18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the Whisky a Go Go": let's tell the reader what the Whisky is
Curly Turkey, are you saying that I should include the terminal punctuation inside the quote marks in the second example because that would be the rational choice irrespective of the fact that the source does not have it there? GabeMc(talk|contribs)03:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" I ever had" while flashing a peace sign.": I'd put a comma after the quote, otherwise it kinda looks like the remainder of the sentence is a summary of what he continued to say
"Hendrix was not the only prominent rock musician who found themselves": "himself", or "themself" (try and get that through!)—either way it should be singular
"Jeffery's assistant, Trixie Sullivan, speculated that the drugs has been planted by a disgruntled fan who was traveling with the Experience": Is there more behind this story?
Do you mean: "what was his motive"? Because there is speculation that he made unwanted sexual advances toward Hendrix, but that seemed tabloid-esque to repeat. GabeMc(talk|contribs)18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty tantalizing the way it is—and it leaves the reader wondering if there was a story behind the speculation, or whether it was just idle specualtion: "Uh, yeah, it was prolly, like, y'know, some disgruntled fan or some shit, y'know? Hey, are you gonna finish that joint?" Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"although Hendrix "took his fair share of drugs" ": we're supposed to throw an inline cite after quotes, even if it means duplicating the cite at the end of the sentence
I'm not sure about this one, as I've never put a cite in the middle of a sentence that already had one at the end and I've never before been asked to do that. Can you point me to the relevant guideline that spells this out? GabeMc(talk|contribs)18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: MOS:CITE, in the second paragraph: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."
I can't see anything in there that mandates that an inline cite must appear immediately after a quotation, merely that the quotation must be cited inline and it must be unambiguous as to what citation supports it. Sometimes I pick a handful of portions from a more complete quotation to avoid excessive plagiarism, and put a single cite back to the reference at the end of the sentence. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I guess it doesn't explicitly say that there. I have been told more than once that it's necessary. I'll leave it, then, unless I came across a guideline that says it's necessary (of course, there's no guideline against it, either...) Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although I often see this method used, my personal preference has always been to cite the entire sentence at the end, following the terminal punctuation. GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
"the band were met at their plane": if this is in (North) American English, I believe "band" is treated as a singular noun
"Hendrix drew inspiration from the Toronto incident while writing "Room Full of Mirrors" ": meaning the song was inspired by the bust? This is ambiguous
Not exactly. The song was already being written when the bust happened, but Hendrix adapted some of the lyrics after the bust. I think I've clarified this now. GabeMc(talk|contribs)18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd prefer to see the "the"s dropped, but I won't deny promotion over a personal preference. As long as nobody's stepping up to show where the MoS states each quote needs to be followed immediately by a citation, I'll just assume I was wrong (and if it turns out I'm right, it's easily fixed). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided Curly Turkey's issues are resolved - as I mentioned in the GA review, the prose immediately grabbed my attention and drew in me in to reading the entire article from top to bottom with great interest. That's pretty much exactly what I would expect any FA candidate satisfying criteria 1a to do. The referencing passes muster, with a good mix of contemporary news reports and retrospective pieces from several notable authors by publishers with a good reputation for producing rock music related works. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
Support – a few comments as an addendum:
Background
The group's roadies warned everyone to take precautions – perhaps a blue link for "roadies" for the benefit of those of us fogies with a mental age of 100+?
Out of interest I looked to see what the British press had to say. I am distressed to report that The Times said, "Pop singer on bail: Jimi Hendrix, a Negro pop singer, has been arrested at Toronto international airport on charges of possessing narcotics and released on bail." (The Times, 5 May 1969, p. 4). Cringe-making phrasing! But the news got out in a small way in these isles.
"I don't have any doubt in my mind that the right-wing government forces were behind all of that" – A bit odd, given that Canada had a left-wing government at the time, as did Britain. Nixon and the Republicans were newly in power south of the border, but who could imagine the Liberal Pierre Trudeau listening to that galère? By which I mean, really, that this reads like the overheated imagination of someone who knew nothing about the matter, and I wonder if the quote is worth including.
Comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Difficult to imagine anything is omitted. As to balance, the "conspiracy theories" section presents only the conspiracy theories with nothing from sources who take an opposing view, but all things considered I think that's fair enough given the explicit title of the section. No problems about balance anywhere else in the article. Very readable and widely referenced. – Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support, Tim! As far as "presents only the conspiracy theories with nothing from sources who take an opposing view", there isn't an opposing view that I am aware of; all the reliable sources agree that someone set Hendrix up. The only question is who. GabeMc(talk|contribs)16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the national government of Canada at the time was Liberal, the then Mayor of Toronto, William Dennison, as well as the Mayors of other Canadian cities, were known to be antagonistic toward "hippies and deserters from the US military" flocking to Canada with Mayor Dennison saying that "a few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem."
According to the book "Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada" by John Hagen (Harvand University Press, 2001) at page 141: "The mayors of Canada's largest cities used the law (War Measures Act) in a backlash against American war resisters. Mayor William Dennison of Toronto claimed that "a few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem." Mayor Jean Drapcau of Montreal charged that draft and military resisters were part of a "revolutionary conspiracy." Mayor Tom Campbell of Vancouver declared, "I don't like draft dodgers and I'll do anything within the law that allows me to get rid of them." All three expressed a willingness to use the War Measures Act against war resisters. Mayor Campbell was the most explicit, telling the Toronto Star, "I believe the law should be used against any revolutionary whether he's a U.S. draft dodger or a hippie."* During this period American war resisters understandably became concerned about police harassment and cooperation between the RCMP and the FBI."
While not a "draft dodger", Mr. Hendrix could have certainly fallen within the category of Americans that could have been targeted as prominnt "hippies" when entering Canada. Centpacrr (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above was certainly not a sticking point for my support, and I am perfectly satisfied with these explanations. What I admire about this article is that even to a reader like me who starts off wholly uninterested in the subject it leaps off the page and you want to go on reading. It is a pleasure to support its promotion. Tim riley (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, it is a great pity, but the online access to the Times archive is via my local library, and entering the URL confronts the user with a demand for a Westminster City Library password. This is so useless and irritating to practically all our users that I find it better not to include the URL in citations. For what it's worth, the URL is this, but I don't think it will be much use. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment - I will be promoting this candidate in a few minutes. I checked the images and I saw no issues. We have that mug-shot of course, but after much debate on several occasions, there has not been a consensus delete it and the FUR seems complete. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby Peel was a Yorkshire and England cricketer in the 1880s and 1890s. He had a pretty decent career, and was one of the leading cricketers of his day. He would be largely forgotten today but for one incident. He was pretty much an alcoholic (a common cricketing complaint at the time) and was sacked after disgracing himself on the pitch; the modern rumour is that he urinated on the pitch, and this story gets trotted out quite often (for instance a few current English cricketers have had a few incidents involving urine and alcohol, and the Peel story was mentioned as a comparison in a few places). But it is probably a load of cobblers, and it was reading how this story originated that made me work on Peel's article. This article is currently a GA and it had an excellent PR. Any further comments or suggestions would be gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – from one of the peer reviewers. My few minor comments were thoroughly dealt with at PR, and the article clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Comprehensive, well balanced, widely sourced and cited throughout. The most controversial (and possibly mythical) point of Peel's career is most judiciously dealt with. A fine article, packed with information and leavened with pleasing human touches. First class stuff. Tim riley (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had my say at the PR and all my quibbles were expediently dealt with there. I feel this meets the FA criteria and am therefore supporting. Well done Sarastro on another fine piece of work. =) —Cliftonian(talk)19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I missed most of the peer review, so this is my first detailed look. As I've said before, the standard of WP cricket biographies is high, thanks mainly to Sarastro, whose articles are readable even when the subject is a relatively unsympathetic character like Peel. Naturally I have a raft of nitpicks, and here they are. The article history indicates a number of prose tweaks that I felt emboldened to make.
Early career
"...by 1882 was part of the Yorkshire Colts (the county club's youth team)." This sounds odd; by 1882, at the age of 25, Peel had reached the county's "youth" team? Is there any other way of defining the Colts?
This is a bit tricky. Strictly, the Colts wasn't a "Youth team", and such a notion is slightly anachronistic. The "youth team" came up at PR, but the more I think, the happier I would be just leaving this as "Colts", for the players weren't just "young" and it could be almost anyone on the fringes of the team. I can't source this, however, so I'm happier leaving it at Colts. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"later in the 1882 season" – there is no reference point for "later". I would delete the phrase, and add the year to "10 July"
"The match was drawn,[6] but Lord Hawke..." I'm not happy with "but" here. Suggest replace with a semicolon or, since the result isn't particularly relevant here, begin the sentence with "Lord Hawke..."
"Despite the continued presence of Peate in the Yorkshire team..." is a bit strong – sounds as though Peate had some sort of veto. I would prefer, simply: "Peel played regularly alongside Peate between 1883 and 1886", and delete "which allowed Yorkshire to include him alongside Peate" later in the paragraph.
"...the team contained nine players who would have been in a full-strength England side". Too emphatic: "contained nine players who, critics judged, would likely have been in a full-strength England side". This eliminates the need for the next phrase ("Critics considered it a powerful team"), and saves me from questioning the "but" which follows.
"He scored four runs in his only innings, and, opening the bowling, took eight wickets in the match; in the second innings, he took five for 51 on a pitch affected by rain." Sentence looks over-punctuated. I don't actually think his score of four runs is necessary; his contribution to this match was with the ball. Why not, just, "Opening the bowling, he took eight wickets..." etc. That would deal with the punc issue, too.
"He was less effective in the remainder of the series. He ended the series with 21 wickets at an average of 21.47, and scored 37 runs at an average of 7.40." There is close repetition of "the series"; can the two sentences be merged in some way?
"The resulting competition..." in this context is ambiguous, suggesting that the rival England teams played against each other. I'd be inclined to go with "the resulting confusion"
"eight for 12 in the first innings and fourteen for 33 in the match" - odd mix of numerals and written-out numbers: why "12" but "fourteen"? Also, the less initiated might think that "eight for 12" and "fourteen for 33" were separate achievements. I'd say "eight for 12 in the first innings, on the way to fourteen for 33 in the match"
Fixed the latter point. On the odd mix, I generally argue here that MoS permits this as runs and wickets are different quantities. More importantly from my viewpoint is that this is what Wisden does: wickets are given as words and runs as numerals. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend pipelink "Lord's Cricket Ground" to "Lord's"
"In the winter of 1891–92, he was included in the touring team organised by Lord Sheffield and captained by W. G. Grace." You need to add where the tour was going.
By definition, a "feat" is "a remarkable, skilful or daring action, exploit or achievement". I don't think four ducks in a row counts as a "feat". Perhaps "a succession of failures"?
You don't actually say whether Peel's 7 for 23 in the third Test of 1896 brought an English victory. And in what capacity did Jackson present the gold trinket?
Wasn't Spofforth a "former Australian bowler" by 1897? He hadn't played Test cricket for 10 years.
Took out the mention of bowler, as "former Australian bowler" always leads some pedant to point out that he was not a former Australian! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissal by Yorkshire
"Peel claimed that he opened the bowling with Stanley Jackson..." "Claimed" is the wrong verb here; I imagine this was a matter of fact rather than a "claim", therefore: "Peel said that..." etc
If the "pissed at the wicket" story originated with Bowen's 1968 article, how could it be "merely confirmation of the already known story"? I don't think, in any case, that "confirmation" applies. Possibly "repetition"?
"Peel, having concluded that the suspension would lead to his sacking..." When was he actually "sacked", as distinct from suspended? You later cover Hawke's feelings about the sacking, without saying when the event took place.
I think this is the sources being a bit loose with facts. My reading of this (and therefore OR!) is that Peel was never formally sacked. He would never have played again, but that before anything could happen of a formal nature, he signed with Accrington. I can find nothing that says "he was sacked on X", and Pope is pretty rigorous at digging through archives; he gives the formal date of suspension but nothing on sacking. I've reworded this line on Peel but left Hirst's comment on Hawke as those involved probably saw it as a sacking. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...in the aftermath of the incident" – as there is some doubt about the nature of the "incident", maybe "the aftermath of the sacking" would be better?
"At a time when international matches were rare..." – well, compared to today, yes, but not really "rare". Australia came here at 2-year intervals in the 1880s, and we went there in between. They came at three-year intervals in the 90s, by which time S. Africa were playing – I'd settle for "relatively rare".
"MacLaren, who captained England towards the end of Peel's career..." Not until Peel's Test career was over, and not in England until Peel had finished with first-class cricket.
"When Rhodes took over in the Yorkshire team..." Clarify Rhodes took over the main spinner's role in the Yorks team. And surely the Peate-Peel-Rhodes debate would have been some time later, not as soon as Rhodes took over?
No, it was actually a debate by the time Holmes wrote his history in 1904, and I think there was some discussion pretty quickly as Rhodes had such a ridiculously huge impact almost immediately. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another peer reviewer here. As I often say here, this is a high-quality article on a cricketer that is very readable and enjoyable even for us Americans who know little about the sport. Well done again. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to give it a go, if no more competent editor volunteers. Never done a source review before (as opposed to spot-checks) but I think I understand what's needed. Tim riley (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page range and citation formats are all consistent, I think.
I'm sure "Location 354" etc for the Pearson refs makes perfect sense, but I'm blest if I could work out what it was.
As an ebook, there are no page numbers; given that a chapter title (which I've given) is not the most enlightening in terms of verification, I've added the location given on the ebook reader. I've made it clearer in the bibliography that this is an ebook. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear of the reasons for including a couple of books and their bibliographical details in the refs rather than in the bibliography, e.g. "Hill, Alan (2000). Hedley Verity. Portrait of a Cricketer. Edinburgh and London: Mainstream Publishing. p. 57" at ref 119.
Heading of bibliography: I believe the MoS is cautious about the term "bibliography" because of possible confusion between books by a biographee and books about him/her. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references.
I've been pulled up on this before but keep forgetting! I've rejigged a little, stealing a little formatting from some bloke called Riley. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs: I have it in my head, on what authority if any I cannot recall, that for any article we standardise on either the ten-digit or the thirteen-digit form, so that, e.g. Pope would be cited as ISBN095680439X rather than ISBN978-0-9568043-9-6.
Blue-links to publishers' locations: you link to Harpenden but not to e.g. Ramsbury. One or t'other, I think, though to my mind it isn't obvious what useful purpose a blue link serves here.
I hope this is all right. I think I've covered what should be covered. These small points notwithstanding the referencing is very clear and easy to follow. – Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Nagato had a curious history during World War II. She was Nagumo's flagship at Pearl Harbor, but was generally retained at home for most of the war, waiting for the decisive fleet engagement by which the Japanese planned to destroy the advancing Americans. She did participate in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, but inflicted little damage on the American ships that she did encounter. She was the last Japanese battleship afloat at the end of the war and was used by the Americans as a target during the atomic bomb tests in 1946 at Bikini Atoll. The ship survived them relatively intact and is today a popular dive site. The article just had a MilHist A-class review and should meet the FA criteria. I look forward to correcting instances where it doesn't as they're identified by reviewers. No matter how ready you think your article is, there's always something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She meant that in Ref 51 (which has since become 48) The Times should be italicised, as a published source. You do this by entering it in the template as "work" rather than "publication". I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"for repairs. The IJN was running out of fuel by this time and decided not to fully repair her." Can a synonym be put in for repair[s] for one or the other usage?
The information, given in the lede, that she was the lead ship of her class, is not mentioned or sourced within the body of the article. I suppose it could be derived from the reference to "Nagato-class" regarding the turrets, but I think it should be made clearer for those who do not go down to the sea in ships. (even cruise ships)
"Her crew consisted of 1,333 officers and enlisted men as built" There's a bit of a mismatch here, mostly having to do with "as built" I'm not sure if you are talking about a capacity, or the actual numbers of crew at launch.
Crew assigned/capacity changed over time as weapons were added or removed and with her reconstructions. It's a very fluid thing as crewmen can be crammed in where ever they can sling a hammock. No bunks for the peasants! So I'm not sure what the real issue is. I was trying to give a sense of how the crew size changed over the ship's life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, is the initial figure the rated capacity (sorry, don't know the proper term, the expected number of crew were she fully manned)
"The turrets aboard the Nagato-class ships were replaced in the mid-1930s using the turrets stored from the unfinished Tosa-class battleships. While in storage the turrets were modified to increase their range of elevation to –3 to +43 degrees". This passage is problematical, and a lot of it surrounds the word "using", which is ambiguous, making it unclear whether it was a straight substitution, the Tosa turrets for the old Nagato, or whether the Tosa were cannibalized in building the new Nagato turrets. Second, the word "were" in the second sentence should probably be "had been". You are retreating in time.
"The maximum range of these guns was 6,500 meters (7,100 yd),[22] but the effective range against aircraft was 700–1,500 meters (770–1,640 yd)" Was this effective range per specifications, or has this been determined from post-combat analysis? If the latter, "was" should likely be "proved to be".
Max range is simply how far the bullet/shell will travel, regardless of accuracy. Effective range is given in my sources and may be a combination of both, or neither; I just don't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"although when Nagato received hers is unknown." Does the source say it is not known, or does that mean that you don't know based on the sources you have to date?
My sources don't specify, so I'm uncertain if the data is truly unavailable because records were destroyed at the end of the war or if they just don't know themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft
The description of the aviation equipment in this subsection appears at variance with that listed in the infobox. Should the flying-off platform be listed there?
Perhaps it could be made clearer that she did not participate in the attack on Pearl Harbor, but remained at anchor, or whatever she did.
I think that this is a problem from the wording of the lede rather than this bit itself. So I've clarified the lede to spell out what exactly she did do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pearl Harbor is linked on second use, and a link to the attack article would be useful.
"as distant support for the fleet attacking Pearl Harbor" Surely they had been and gone long since by then? perhaps conclude with something like "which had attacked Pearl Harbor" or "returning from Pearl Harbor".
"After rendezvousing with the remnants of the Striking Force on 6 June, survivors from the aircraft carrier Kaga were transferred to Nagato." It is unclear whether the first part of the sentence refers to the survivors, or to Nagato.
"Two days later, when word reached Ugaki of American attacks on Saipan, his force was diverted to the Mariana Islands." Multiple issues. First, you've mentioned that she was transferred from Ugaki's command to Ozawa's. Second, the "word reached Ugaki" phrasing creates an expectation that Ugaki then did something, instead we are given the passive voice, which reads oddly in the context.
"partially due to poor visibility as the defending escorts laid smoke screens, and numerous rain squalls. " It's unclear to me what this explains in the earlier part of the sentence.
"The ship had a length of 201.17 meters (660 ft 0 in) between perpendiculars and 215.8 meters (708 ft 0 in) overall. She had a beam of 29.02 meters (95 ft 3 in) and a draft of 9.08 meters (29 ft 9 in).[1] Nagato displaced..." - I'd have gone for "Nagato had a length of 201.17 meters (660 ft 0 in) between perpendiculars and 215.8 meters (708 ft 0 in) overall. She had a beam of 29.02 meters (95 ft 3 in) and a draft of 9.08 meters (29 ft 9 in).[1] The ship displaced...", which would make it doubly clear which ship we're talking about (obvious, I know, but it never hurts in the first paragraph of a new section).
"The ship had a stowage capacity of 1,600 long tons..." - is stowage capacity the same as the amount of fuel it can carry? If so, how about "The ship could carry 1,600 long tons..."?
"A coal-burning donkey boiler was installed pierside for heating and cooking purposes" - I wasn't sure what pierside meant - I'm assuming it means "on the side of the pier", but first go around I hadn't realised that she had been moored up, so it read a bit oddly. Probably worth emphasising that she was moored. I was heartened, though, to find out that a donkey boiler isn't used for boiling unfortunate four-legged creatures...!
Query Thanks nicely written article, "two forward 14 cm guns were removed" that would be a quarter of her main armament, do we know the reason for such a drastic step? ϢereSpielChequers17:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where to put it? The article's already kinda image-heavy, although I suppose you could find space somewhere in the description section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The major American poet Ezra Pound helped develop the early careers of James Joyce, T. S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway, among others, but was charged with treason and spent 12 years in an asylum. In other words, a complicated man. This has been a difficult page to write and wouldn't have been possible without SlimVirgin. Furthermore, in my view, this article has brought out best of the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, with editors from around the world pitching in. Huge thanks to Crisco 1492 and Curly Turkey for their excellent peer reviews, here; to Deor who has tended the page tirelessly, to Modernist, whose voice has been invaluable, and to everyone else who helped along the way. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespear, Ripostes and Yeats captions should end in period; plaque caption should not
File:Thaddeus_C._Pound_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag
File:EzraPound%26IsabelPound1898.jpg has a PD and MoveToCommons tag, but a fair-use claim and rationale - these two are incompatible
File:Hdpoet.jpg: Open Yale link is broken
File:DorothyPound.jpg: was the given source the earliest publication found for this image? Does that source include any information on source/copyright of images?
File:William_Butler_Yeats_by_George_Charles_Beresford.jpg, File:T.S._Eliot,_1923.JPG: when/where was this first published?
File:Ezra_Pound_1945_May_26_mug_shot.jpg: source link is broken
Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. I've updated File:DorothyPound.jpg, which is identified as having been taken between 1910 and 1920 in Harwood, John. Olivia Shakespear and W.B. Yeats: After Long Silence. St. Martin's, 1989. ISBN0-312-03458-X (page vi). Whether it was published, perhaps in the society pages or as a wedding announcement, is unknown. As a general question, what is the number of fair use images allowed? We're now down to three. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need two Hemingway quotes in the lead? The second one, I think, is more suitable for The Cantos rather than Pound himself. Plus we just learned that they were good buddies, so they may not be the most impartial of views. Further, I think we'd be better served by a quote that illustrates *what* about Pound's poetry is immortal.
"such as T. S. Eliot, James Joyce, Robert Frost and Ernest Hemingway"—given that we go on to mention three of these four people in the next few sentences, I wonder if this quoted bit is redundant and can be excised.
"His contribution to poetry began with his promotion of Imagism,"—this makes it seem that he supported the movt from the outside, rather than being an Imagist poet himself. I'd also like to see a line about the style of his later poetry.
Alliteration alert: "attempted assassination by anarchists of King Alfonso" and "pompous and propagandistic – popular with the public".
Is this article written in British English (Second World War instead of World War II, British date style) or American (two-story, traveled)?
Must there be so many nbsps? I find that they render the wikitext illegible for minimal benefit. Even then, their use here is far more than recommended—"T.;nbsp&S. Eliot" and before all the ellipses, for eg.
Speaking of ellipsis, they too are often excessively used, breaking the flow of the text. Their number can be reduced by breaking quotes into two ("culture in England ... [but] ... has made more") or removing the first few words out of the quote ("protaganists who ... are travellers", "E.P. has ... bats in the belfry"). I also wonder if the choppiness of that final, tragic quote to Ginsberg can be reduced by restoring Pound's words to some extent.
In several places there are hidden comments. Please resolve/remove those.
I found only one major issue while reading so far: the sheer density of exact street addresses. For me (a non-European/American reader), these not only utterly disrupt the flow of the prose, but also I don't really get the areas' significance just by reading the addresses (is it a posh area or a middle-class one or is it a cultural centre?).
For eg: "Arriving in the city with ₤3, he rented a room at 8 Duchess Street in the West End, then at 48 Langham Street, near Great Titchfield Street, a penny bus-ride from the British Museum."—Here you don't even realise the significance of the museum until its reading room is mentioned later. (Also which of these is "The house" of the next sentence?)
Another: is "Pound at no. 10, Doolittle at no. 6, and Aldington at no. 8" necessary when you could just say "the three were practically next-door neighbours"?
Another eg is "The family moved to 417 Walnut Street in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, and in 1893 bought a six-bedroom house at 166 Fernbrook Avenue, Wyncote." How does this add to the article?
Similarly, I wonder if the prose gets bogged down by other kinds of excess detail—names of people (Carlos Tracey Chester, Paul L. Montgomery, Walter Rummel, Rupert Brooke—all from one subsection) and publications (I count 13 different books and magazines in that short Meeting Dorothy section). It would've been fine in any other biography, but given that here we have somebody who famously befriended several important people and was also a prolific writer, it can quickly become overwhelming.
Ripostes and translations from the Italian—why a separate section for a small paragraph?
Some sentences need untangling: "Pound was at that time working on the poems that became Ripostes (1912), trying to move away from his earlier work, which he wrote later had reduced Ford Madox Ford in 1911 to rolling on the floor laughing at Pound's stilted language." (what made Ford ROFL, the Ripostes or the earlier work?)
There is no doubt about the research work that has gone into this, but I wonder if the prose can be smoothed by weeding out some extraneous detail.—indopug (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indopug, addressing a few points in the order you raised them:
I've changed promotion of Imagism to development of Imagism in the lead. [9] I've left the rest of the lead, as it seems to flow fairly well, but perhaps others can comment on that.
The article is written in American English with day-month-year date format.
I've made a few tweaks re: the ellipsis issue, though for the final quote that's mostly how it's written in the source.
The hidden comments can be helpful, so I've left them for now.
Moved British Museum Reading Room sentence closer to British Museum, so the significance isn't lost. The house referred to is 48 Langham Street, and there's a photograph of it. That bit now reads:
"Arriving in the city with ₤3, he moved into lodgings at 48 Langham Street, near Great Titchfield Street, a penny bus-ride from the British Museum.[20] The house sat across an alley from the Yorkshire Grey pub, which made an appearance in the Pisan Cantos, "concerning the landlady's doings / with a lodger unnamed / az waz near Gt Titchfield St. next door to the pub".[21] He would spend his mornings in the British Museum Reading Room, followed by lunch at the Vienna Café on Oxford Street."[22]
Personally I like "Pound at no. 10, Doolittle at no. 6, and Aldington at no. 8".
I've removed three addresses from the first section (where he was born and two of the houses he lived in), [10] and one from the London section. [11]
I've removed some of the publication and other details from the "Meeting Dorothy Shakespear, Personae" section, [12] and a detail about a publisher from the "Introduction to literary scene" section. [13]
Joined the Ripostes section with the one after it about translation work (both sections contain material about translations). [14]
I've tweaked the sentence you highlighted, which now reads: "He was working at the time on the poems that became Ripostes (1912), trying to move away from his earlier work; he wrote that the "stilted language" of Canzoni had reduced Ford Madox Ford to rolling on the floor with laughter." [15]
Hi Indopug, thanks for taking the time to read and review. Your comments, as usual, as useful. A few replies:
Non-breaking spaces: Thank you for mentioning these. I'd meant to weed those out but forgot. I've taken a first pass and will return.
Ellipses - I think I agree about that. Particularly when I really look at that final quote instead of zooming by in edit mode to do something else to the page. This will need a bit of work and time, but I think some weeding is in order.
American English - funnily the construction of First World War, Second World War, seemed off but I couldn't put my finger on the reason. I've changed to World War I and World II but will probably make further tweaks. I'd first like to check a few other articles I've worked on.
Addresses: the Church Walk numbers seem to me okay because there's no way to better way to explain that Pound, H.D. and Aldington lived in the same building in adjacent and across-the-hall apartments; further down we mention Pound's Paris address which too seems okay (same street as Hemingway in the Latin quarter, if I remember correctly).
The article has been heavily trimmed since Indopug's input; but I hope judiciously. Close details left behind are intentional, to give insight into his circumstances at the paticular time. I dont see excessive detail as a problem from here. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I missed the peer review, but if the article was in anything like the shape it's in today I shouldn't have had much to contribute. No comment on images (I know little of WP's arcane rules on them), but as to the text, it seems to me first class. Comprehensive without excess, well balanced, properly referenced and very readable. I have read the article through twice, the second time looking for something to quibble at, but found nothing worth mentioning, which I think may be a first for me. A top flight piece of work, and I am glad to support its promotion. I didn't much care for Pound as a person or as a poet when I started reading and I still don't, but this article does him full justice in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim for the support and for your honesty. It's been a difficult page to balance and that you came away thinking the article does him justice is what we've wanted to achieve. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Fowler&fowler: Delighted that this is at FAC review. I will only comment on one sentence in St Elizabeth section, "The historian Stanley Kutler was given access in the 1980s to military intelligence and other government documents about Pound, including his hospital records, and wrote that the psychiatrists believed Pound had a narcissistic personality, but they considered him sane."
One, although Freud and other psychoanalysts had written about narcissism, the diagnosis of a disorder, esp. narcissistic personality disorder, wasn't really around in the mid-1940s (it appeared later in the late 60s and 70s with the work of Kohut, Kernberg etc. and even later in DSM)
Two, as someone who knew Jerome Kavka, the psychiatric resident at St E who had the most contact with Pound, (i.e. knew Kavka much later in his life, but well enough to know that he was very smart, psychodynamically sophisticated and upright), the sentence doesn't ring true. I don't know how reliable I would consider Kutler (a legal historian) writing in a popular magazine, Psychology Today, as reported by the NY Times in 1981). See for example: Wilhelm, 1994, p260 where Kavka says (in 1991): "I firmly believed then, as I believe now, that Ezra Pound was insane when he was admitted to the hospital." Although some others sources do quote Kavka as saying that Pound was not insane.
Three More importantly, from my perspective, the psychiatrists' understanding of Pound's mental condition was more sophisticated than the prosecution's. In other words, whether he was insane or not (by the book), they saw him as impossible to treat, and impossible therefore bring to trial-worthy state of mind. See Wilhelm, 1994, p 262:" Dr Kavka would add further that any attempt to reduce the highly complex mind of a person like Ezra Pound to some simplistic, all-encompassing, abstract psychological term was doomed to failure. If the "mad" Hamlet refused to be summed up in a nutshell, so did the poet. Pound was insane in parts of his mind and at some times more than others; that is what made him so difficult to deal with——far more than psychiatrists could handle, much less cure."
Hi Fowler, thanks for the comment. Just a note about the source. The New York Times interviewed Stanley Kutler for the article; he wrote a book that referred to the issue, American Inquisition: Justice and Injustice in the Cold War. The Psychology Today article is a separate issue: that was by E. Fuller Torrey, a psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths, who made the same or a similar point as Kutler. Torrey also wrote a book, The Roots of Treason: Ezra Pound and the Secret of St. Elizabeths. SlimVirgin(talk)18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kutler's book isn't online so someone would have to borrow it to check that one point, but I think an interview with Kutler is a good-enough source given that we don't go into detail. At some point a separate article on Pound's time in St Elizabeths would be good, in which case we could summarize it in this article and offer more detail about the diagnosis. SlimVirgin(talk)18:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS The last sentence, the quote, "'But the worst mistake I made was that stupid, suburban prejudice of anti-semitism." sounds a bit off-handed. Were suburbs in America really as blatantly anti-semitic as Pound, even in the 50s? Besides, Pound never lived in a suburb (unless by "suburban" he meant "small town" in the late 19th century). Ending with that sentence seems to suggest the dawnings of self-awareness and regret about anti-semitism. Is there other evidence in the sources? Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked what I have at hand: three major biographies and the essays in the books Ira Nadel edited, and I'm not finding any evidence in the sources. The meeting with Ginsberg and some form of the quote shows up in all the biographies but I'm not seeing any speculation as to what Pound meant. I took the quote from Humphrey Carpenter because the quote is in context of the conversation (he devotes almost three pages to the conversation in quoted form) but he doesn't opine and I'm not finding others opining either. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I saw a source review for formatting/reliability, so will list a request at WT:FAC unless someone beats me to it.
I spotted a few duplicate links using Ucucha's script -- in an article of this length they might well be justified but just let me know you've reviewed them pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review The references appear to be organized consistently. All sources look reliable. I'd note the following:
Consider adding OCLC numbers for the books that lack ISBNs. Those may easily be obtained at Worldcat, just scroll down the page once you've found the book there.
The de Rachewiltz ref lacks a location for the publisher. Yes, I know it's the OUP, but it could be Oxford or New York. Sources by de Rachewiltz are listed under both "D" and "R". Evenhanded.
The capitalisation in the Omar Pound ref title looks odd.
The O'Brien source needs a publisher.
"Bruccoli, Matthew and Baughman, Judith" Worldcat and Open Library list Hemingway as an additional author. Also, the title should be italicised, not in quotes.
The Eliot ref needs a location
In the Feldman ref, you have nested quote marks.
In the 1983 Kenner source, the ISBN should be labeled as such.
On a quick glance, the article looked quite good (I confess to having looked at his college years, as a fellow Penn alumnus!) I have the impression it's pending promotion so shall not do a full review but instead distribute rain checks. Congratulations. Quite an achievement.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt. I got almost all except adding OCLC numbers, which I've never done before. The O'Brien book was added by an IP and I can't find any information about it so I've commented it out. Victoria (tk) 02:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support
I think earlier reviewers have worked out most of the rough spots. One thing that I noticed -- where you write that he asked Hilda Doolittle to marry him, it's not clear whether she turned him down, or accept but her father wouldn't allow it.
Hi Coemgenus; her father kiboshed the idea; when Pound went to him to ask permission he was met with "Why, you’re nothing but a nomad". Our article states "her father refused permission". I might make this a bit more explicit. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could do that. I'd just found that quote when you posted it here. Coemgenus, I've checked the biographies I have at hand and they're vague about her response to his proposal, focusing more on the father's attitude toward Pound. Victoria (tk) 23:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but its derived from a number of places. I dont want to upset the apple cart by introducing new ones at this stage, so Victoria or SV can ye verify with existing sources pls. Plus her father seems to have been quite a character, though *not* in a good way. That might be worth dragging out further. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything else to nit-pick; this is a great article. I especially like your lack of an infobox. I've changed to support -- good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Great Eastern Highway, the 590-kilometre-long (370 mi) road from Perth to Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, and the western section of the main road transportation link to the eastern states of Australia. The Perth end of the highway has been upgraded over the past couple of years, as has the article over the past few months, being listed as a good article in November and assessed as A-Class following an A-Class review. I am now nominating the article for FA as I believe it meets the criteria, and I look forward to your comments. - Evad37[talk]02:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues you identified above. With the duplicate links, they only appeared once in the route description section, and once in the history section, both of which are relatively long – ie they wouldn't have been on the same screen view at the same time – which is something I've seen other articles at the A-class level do. But looking at WP:REPEATLINK, it does specificly say "only once", apart from the non-prose sections and the lead, so I did remove them. - Evad37[talk]01:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
How does flag and icon use fit with WP:MOSICON? I know road article editors like to use icons more than most people, but I gave up counting at 30-something decorative icons. The state and national flags on the templates at the bottom added to the effect. Would the article be worse if we toned down this decoration in line with MoS? Not saying I would outright oppose just for this, especially as otherwise the article looks in great shape. Just asking. --John (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from route markers in tables, and next to portals and sister project links, which have large precedent/consensus, the only icons are in the navboxes. The icons in the navboxes' title bars provide visual cues to the reader: (1) The flag of Australia shows that "Perth" is the (major) one in Australia, as opposed to the other major usage, Perth, Scotland (2) The Western Australian flag symbolises Western Australia (3) The blank route markers represent road routes, which is important as there is limited public understanding/usage of what they are called. The WA flag on the other side provides some balance, while representing that these are road routes in Western Australia. In the expanded view of the first two navboxes, there is also a road icon image, which is perhaps not necessary, but not really any more so than the icons next to the portal links. Having such images is not unusual - there are image parameters in {{navbox}} (ie, they haven't been 'hacked in' against the design of that template). I'm not committed to having the 9 navbox icons, but that's the explanation. - Evad37[talk]01:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the ones in the templates, but that still leaves 43, not counting the Portal symbols and the many on the maps. Do we really need this many? If this is a project consensus, where was it achieved and does it really supersede the MoS, which is a requirement for FA? --John (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just project consensus – there is precedent based on just about every road FA, which have been promoted with the same system of using route marker icons in the infobox and RJL table (there's more than 60 USRD FAs and some others - Kwinana Freeway at least, maybe some UK ones). Also, the consensus on icons in the road junction list table is documented in the the section of the MOS on road junction lists. MOS:RJL#Text_appearance discusses how icons are to be used, and there are icons used in the examples at the bottom of that page. - Evad37[talk]16:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the total number, that is just a consequence of using the icons in a consistent logical manner – long roads have lots of intersections, some roads have multiple road routes. Is there any specific usage you are concerned about, or is it just the total number? - 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Newspaper citations are quite inconsistent in presentation: compare for example FNs 1 and 30. Pick one style and stick to it
Thank you for your comments, I will look at fixing up the newspaper cites, but this might not be till the weekend as I am now busy in "real life" - Evad37[talk]02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the opening sentence, I think it would be more natural to see it written as "is a 590 kilometre (370 mile) road..." First, mile should be written out on the first instance. Second, I don't think the dash is needed (nor is the "long").
"it is the western portion of the main road transportation link " - I think the "transportation" here is redundant. Roads aren't often used for things other than transportation.
"Though planning began in the 1970s, as of 2012, there are no plans to construct this route." - any update on this? It's 2014 now.
"The Causeway, a river crossing into Perth's central business district" - this implies that The Causeway is a river, which the article linked denies. Please make this clearer.
Why do you abbreviate mph but not km/h? Ditto km/mi
"The Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail is a tourist drive alongside the pipeline, with large sections following Great Eastern Highway" - large sections of what?
"Sections of Great Eastern Highway are allocated various road routes" - grammar?
I don't understand why your refs look like this - [6]:36
Anytime you have an acronym, you should spell it out the first time, such as in "although the RAC still..."
"After 4.6 kilometres (2.9 mi), Great Eastern Highway interchanges with Tonkin Highway, which connects to Perth's north-eastern and south-eastern suburbs, and Brearley Avenue, which provides access to Perth Airport's domestic terminals" - don't use "which" twice in the same sentence.
"traffic light controlled fork " - feel like a dash should be in there.
"After 800 metres (2,600 ft), that road terminates at a T junction, just south of the Midland railway line." - I'm confused what "that" road is. I thought it was Great Eastern, but it says it terminates, so I think it could be clearer.
"continuing named as East Street" - rm "named"
"well known" - add dash
You should indicate somewhere that all currency figures are in Australian dollars
Thanks also for your comments. Per above, real life is now busy, but some things I can quickly answer:
"Though planning began in the 1970s..." – While there's probably been no change, I haven't find any information to reliably say one or the other since 2012.
...refs look like this - [6]:36 – It's a way of reusing the same ref with different pages numbers, ie ref [6], page 36. See Template:Rp
"Sections of Great Eastern Highway are allocated various road routes" - grammar? – Can you clarify what is wrong, or what wording you would prefer?
I haven't been able to think of an appropriate word to add here "among" doesn't really seem like the opposite of "to" - if reversed, the sentence could be "Various road routes are allocated to sections of Great Eastern Highway ..." - so do you think it's better to reverse the order, or come up with a better missing word? - Evad37[talk]02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the opening sentence ... First, mile should be written out on the first instance" – per WP:MOS#Abbreviations, "Make an exception for very common abbreviations; in most articles they require no expansion"
"... Second, I don't think the dash is needed" – the dash is used, by {{convert}}, when the measurement is in adjective form
"(nor is the "long")" – In this case, I actually think it does sound better, especially when read aloud. I previously went through and removed some of the "-long"s [17]
Technically, it is an afterthought. Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, kilometres are the primary unit, and miles are only given so that more readers understand the quantity. Someone familiar with the metric system can just skip the brackets, while those familiar with imperial/US units can substitute the mile value into the sentence. - Evad37[talk]00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the western portion of ..." – removed the word transportation
"The Causeway, a river crossing into" – reworded so that it is clear that river crossing means river crossing (can't wikilink in article as that's a dab page)
""The Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail is a ... – clarified that it's large sections of the trail (also true for the pipeline, but that's not the subject of that sentence)
Why do you abbreviate mph but not km/h? Ditto km/mi – kilometre is spelled out as part of the prose, while mi is just a conversion in parenthesis – per the MOS:UNIT examples. Since kilometre per hour was used repeatedly in two adjacent sentences, I changed all but the first to symbols per the first point of WP:UNITS#Conventions.
Anytime you have an acronym, you should spell it out the first time, such as in "although the RAC still..." – Done. Annoying, though, as the non-acronym version is very verbose, and isn't in common usage at all - everyone, including themselves, just uses RAC. Still, the MOS is the MOS.
... don't use "which" twice in the same sentence. – Changed.
"traffic light controlled fork " - feel like a dash should be in there. A google scholar search [18] shows there is mixed usage amongst academic sources. Some use "traffic light controlled", others use "traffic light-controlled", "traffic-light-controlled", or "traffic-light controlled".
"After 800 metres (2,600 ft), that road terminates at a T junction, just south of the Midland railway line." - I'm confused what "that" road is ... – Clarified that it is Johnson Street that terminates.
"continuing named as East Street" - rm "named" – Done
"well known" - add dash – Done
You should indicate somewhere that all currency figures are in Australian dollars – linked the first $ to Australian dollar
The history section seems pretty decent. – Thank you
Support Yup, happy with the improvement and meets FA criteria in my opinion thanks to a good peer review. Always good to see somebody at FAC for the first time and I hope to see more of your articles here Gerda. Only minor quibble would be the first paragraph of music could use a citation.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: it's kind of a summary of what follows, to have a bit of context for the movements before reading the details. Should the citations be repeated? I'll think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Stfg
It's great to see a Bach cantata FAC -- thanks Gerda. I'll add points gradually here over perhaps 24-48 hours and I hope you won't mind if I do non-controversial tweaks to the article itself.
The opening paragraph is rather repetitive, and the links to cantata and church cantata fail WP:LINKCLARITY. I suggest: "Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! (Resound now, ye lyrics, ring out now, ye lyres![1]), BWV 172, is a church cantata composed in Weimar in 1714 by Johann Sebastian Bach for Pentecost Sunday. Bach led the first performance in the Schloßkirche, the court chapel at the Weimar palace, on 20 May 1714." Links to Bach cantata and List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function would be better placed in a See also section rather than worked into the text artificially like this.
The cantata article is one of about 200, the opening is similar, first saying that it is a cantata, with a link to Bach cantata, which supplies a lot of basic information, recommended before reading further. Some are secular, some are church cantatas, for the latter it might be an idea to link to List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, for the context, explaining the liturgical year and its prescribed readings. What do you think?
No, that's what the current version does. To be honest, I think you're trying to cram in too many favourite links, and it comes at the expense of repetitious prose and a lack of WP:LINKCLARITY. Other composers wrote secular and sacred cantatas, and I can see no justification for linking those general terms to Bach's specific instances -- and no need. You're telling the user what you want them to read rather than what will explain the concept you're referring to. --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I understand what you mean. I think that someone who never heard what a Bach cantata is and who doesn't know how the church cantatas relate to the liturgical year will have difficulty to understand what follows. Those who know can ignore them.
It's really the same as the example of Mozart's Requiem in WP:LINKCLARITY. If the reader clicks on the blue word "requiem", the reader expects to get an article about requiems, not just Mozart's. And if the reader clicks on the blue word "cantata", he expects to get an article about cantatas, not just Bach's. At best you frustrate the reader. At worst, you may mislead him into thinking that cantata = Bach cantata. And mutatis mutandis for "church cantata". Other composers wrote them too! So, here's another way to rewrite to opening paragraph:
Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! (Resound now, ye lyrics, ring out now, ye lyres![1]), BWV 172, is a cantata composed in 1714 by Johann Sebastian Bach. It is one of the earliest of his church cantatas, written in Weimar for Pentecost Sunday. He led the first performance in the Schloßkirche, the court chapel at the Weimar palace, on 20 May 1714.
This way the link to the list doesn't set the reader up for a nasty surprise, because "his church cantatas" tells us exactly what we're getting. But I can't see a good way to link to Bach cantata here, and I don't think you should do so at the cost of giving the reader that irritating surprise. Especially as the 7th and 8th words of the list are a link to Bach cantata anyway. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gerda, but you're still missing the point. "Bach cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach" is horribly tautological, and once again you've made "church cantatas" into a "nasty surprise" link. My 2nd draft linked from "his church cantatas" precisely to avoid that. Please could somebody else try to explain this, as I'm clearly failing to. --Stfg (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed, I got it, and fixed the above for Church cantata. A link to cantata is a detour (and is in Bach cantata, for those who don't know). Suggestions:
Or playing differently (leaving "early" for later): Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! (Resound now, ye lyrics, ring out now, ye lyres![1]), BWV 172, is a Bach cantata. Johann Sebastian Bach composed his church cantata in Weimar in 1714 for Pentecost Sunday and led the first performance in the Schloßkirche, the court chapel at the Weimar palace, on 20 May 1714.
Agreed on leaving the "early work" part till paragraph 2. (1) Still tautological. (2) very good, but in this version why not link "cantata" to Cantata? I don't understand why you think that link is a detour. The cantata article describes the thing that this work is an instance of -- "Bach cantata" is not a genre distinct from Cantata#Baroque. If we were writing about a Beethoven piano sonata, would you object to linking to Sonata? (3) Not sure. It solves the LINKCLARITY issue, but it looks contrived to me, and I really dislike presenting "Bach cantata" as if it were a genre separate from the one that Buxtehude, Graupner and the rest were working in. It separates him from his context. I'd really like to know other people's views rather than keep on going round and round this. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) was meant to be explaining. (2) If I would write an article on a Beethoven piano sonata, I would like to link to Piano sonatas (Beethoven), not to piano sonatas or even sonatas. If I would write about a bird species, I would want to link to the family, not to birds or even animals ;) - (Also: I am reluctant to change 200 articles, some existing for more than four years.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm in two minds about this. I can see exactly what Stfg is getting at, in that we don't want the uninitiated reader to miss the Cantata article. On the other hand, for someone who knows a little more, the Bach cantata article is so useful that we wouldn't want to fail to provide a link for that. Practically, the Cantata article is linked from the second sentence of the Bach cantata article (and the Bach cantata article is linked from the second paragraph of the Cantata article!), so I'm probably less worried about the reader failing to find both articles if needed, even if the link from this one goes to Bach cantata. I'd be interested to hear what others think about the general case of linking to Cantata/Bach cantata, because - as Gerda says - this is an issue for around 200 articles potentially. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe even at the start of the second paragraph, which could perhaps become: "This Bach cantata is an early work in a genre to which the composer contributed ...". Gerda, we don't have to change all 200 articles at once, just the ones that are heading to FAC. And I'll help, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Waking up: I will not revert, but reading Cantata again: that should be improved ;) - The question if in a bird species article the first link should go to article animals was not answered. My argument is still: link to the closest more general term, that will link to the next even more general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding birds: one does both, but in a way that achieves good prose and link clarity. See for example the featured article Alpine Chough. I'm very disappointed that you have reverted to a phrasing that tells us that it's a cantata by Bach in one sentence and then repeats that Bach composed the church cantata in the very next sentence. The redundancy and clumsiness of that was pointed out three days ago and was solved by Ceoil's version as well as the two offered by me. And I dispute that "Bach cantata" is a "term" -- it's a common phrase certainly, but no more a "term" than are "Beethoven symphony", "Mozart symphony", "Brahms symphony", ... or even, heaven help us, "Palestrina symphony" (yes, I know he didn't write any). These are just phrases that combine a composer with a genre and are mentioned more or less commonly, nothing more. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, church cantata as the only link might be a good way to go, perhaps. Thanks for linking that discussion. I hadn't seen it, but have read it now. What I'm saying now appears to be the same as what JackofOz was saying back then, and I don't think it was validly refuted. I agree that piping "composed" to the list was a bad idea, but it was at least an attempt to move forward, and could have been solved by continuing the discussion. I do think you went a bit over the top when you restored the old repetitive phrasing. Also, "contributed so proficiently" is editorializing and POV, and that whole sentence doesn't contribute the lead's function of summarizing the article. I feel you are trying to place Bach as an isolated figure on a pedestal instead of presenting him in the context of his time and place. He was doing what many composers around then were doing -- extremely well, for sure, but not qualitatively different. Now, how (in terms of process) are we going to solve this? --Stfg (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, please have a look, anticipating that there will be an article Church cantata eventually. Process: I preferred the process to try things out here, but I will try to learn, patience also ;) - It's no pedestal but simply fact to single him out for the genre in quantity and even more quality, - his works get performed even in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That version is great. You'll see I've also wikilinked the mention of "Bach cantatas" in the Occasion and words section. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning my name, Stfg. After struggling manfully for some considerable time, I just lost all appetite for dealing with Gerda's utter stubbornness and I unwatched Bach cantata, hoping that more persuasive editors might now succeed where I had failed so completely. I hadn't seen the more recent posts to that page. Having now brought myself up to speed, it still looks to me like Gerda is very much a lone voice on the current title, with many dissenting voices, yet somehow the consensus has not yet won the day. How long must we wait, O Lord? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your language defeats me, Gerda (not for the first time, and probably not for the last). This is really the crux of the problem: a non-native speaker of English (not that there's anything wrong with being that) insisting that her wording is better than anything any native speaker would prefer. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph tells us twice that the recitative includes a quotation from the Gospel. One solution could be to remove it from the first sentence (leaving only the closing chorale there), and to rewrite the second as "The opening chorus is followed by the cantata's only recitative, in which Jesus' words from the day's prescribed Gospel are sung by the bass as the vox Christi (voice of Christ)."
I don't understand the sentence "The idea of unity is concluded in a chorale", both because we haven't been introduced to a theme of unity yet, and because I don't understand how a chorale can conclude an idea.
Will think about it.
The preceding duet says: "You are mine, I am yours." That is what I summarized to "unity". Can you word it? I will add more of the text of the hymn. There's a link, but it's probably better to be more explicit.
I tried something, picking up intimacy from the previous sentence. What do you think? (It's the edit summary mentioning bullet 2, because I can't count to 3. Hey ho!) --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background section: I don't know German well enough to replace it, but dargegen in this context surely can't mean however. Does it mean something like on condition that? Also, "monthly" should go after "pieces".
"dargegen" is "however", no way around it. However, the thing why it is used is in the ellipsis, both in German as in English. We could drop the word in both languages, but it is in the source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we drop it we lose the meaning. I've done some research: dargegen is the same as dagegen, isn't it? And dagegen can be used to mean "in return" or "in exchange for it", according to Cassell's dictionary. There is no contrast between having a post as Koncertmeister, so "however" is surely impossible here. I think the meaning is that he had to do the monthly performances in return for being appointed Konzertmeister. --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as performing new pieces seems to be what Bach wanted, "had to do ... in return" doesn't make too much sense to me, but I don't care enough to be against it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ok - that does make sense for me. "He was appointed Konzertmeister dagegen he was required to do the monthly performances". Literally "against that [appointment]" fits. I understand that 'however' would be a normal translation into English, but the sense of 'gegen/against' here is surely that the favour of the position is placed against the obligation to perform - far more literal than the modern 'however' which carries the connotation of 'on the other hand' (which isn't intended here). I also wonder how much translation can be considered OR, but for now, I'll simply recommend 'in return' as the best translation of 'dargegen' in this context. Gerda: I think that the commentary is describing the general duties of any Konzertmeister there. Although Bach clearly took relish in creating the new pieces, he was still fulfilling an obligation of the role. For me I don't see a contradiction in "had to do ... in return" - "to have to do something" in English is often less compulsory than "mussen etwas machen" and more like "sollen etwas machen" as here. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RexxS for that very clear analysis. Gerda, the "had to do the monthly performances in return ..." were my words above, and perhaps not well chosen. What we're really dealing with is dagegen he is to perform new pieces ..., and I think that the sense RexxS describes can be captured with (for example) for which he is to perform new pieces .... I've boldly put that in for now, but if you or anyone have another preference, please go ahead and amend it. --Stfg (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Occasion and words section: need a translation of "Gott will sich die Seelen zum Tempel bereiten".
Seems easy, but the two in the sources are both far away from the German. I take one of them for now and will try to find something better.
By the way, the PDF that comes with the Rillig/Hänssler recording gives this line as "Gott will sich die Seelen zu Tempeln bereiten". Is there a misprint, or are there different versions? That could mean something quite different, couldn't it? Unfortunately, the translation there is no use to us -- it's one of those that preserve the number of syllables rather than the meaning. --Stfg (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"zu Tempeln" is correct, thank you! (But it's Rilling.)
My translation would be: "God wants to prepare the souls to his temples." (not a future "will", but a present "wants", "die Seelen" = "the souls" (not just "souls"), "sich" could also be give as "for himself", as you say. How do we change the article, OR vs. so-called reliable sources which clearly have it wrong?
Oops, yes, Rilling. "... prepare the souls to his temples" wouldn't be understood. "... to be his temples"? "... to become his temples"? I understand about die Seelen, but if we say "the Souls", a native English speaker will want to know which souls. I think sometimes German uses a definite article in places where English omits it. Agreed about will/wants (I'm always making that mistake too). I don't know the answer to the own-translation vs sources issue: we happily write articles in which we cite foreign-language sources, so I suppose it's accepted that we understand them. Why then can't we translate them? Could someone who understands how this is done pitch in here, please? --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closest translation then "God wants to prepare [our] souls to become his temples"? Anyway, a complex building process is what Bach composed, complicated polyphony vs. the simplicity of the first section, - more OR ;) (The trumpeters wished us good luck for the middle section, knowing its dangers. They smiled when we did it, the first time already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Scoring and structure section states seven movements, but the lede states six.
Please find a good wording that <<there are six different pieces of music, and that the seventh is a repeat of the first, but only to 1724, not in later performances during Bach's time. (We repeated, of course.)
Actually I just deleted the seven movements. The table makes the whole picture clear, and the last sentence of the first paragraph makes the history clear. Is that all right? The Rilling CD doesn't do the repeat. I feel cheated! ;) --Stfg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned Rillig PDF says that Bach "composes for the old-fashioned, five-part string setting (with divided violas) in the French style, which he will not renounce until mid-1715 (BWV 165 ...). Is this useful for the Scoring and structure section? I can give citation details if wanted, but I'm not sure where you'd want to put it, as it's neither a book nor online.
It is useful, but is one more a thing for Bach cantata, because it's valid for most of the (22) Weimar cantatas.
Movement 1: need to say in what sense this is a concerto, as this will confuse most readers. Would it be correct to link it to Concerto#Early Baroque concerto?
Good idea!
Movement 1: "The voices enter as a third homophonic choir, repeating the fanfare motives, echoed by the trumpets, and imitating the string lines." -- which are echoed by the trumpets, the third homophonic choir or the fanfare motives?
Score: in the ritornello, the trumpets begin with a fanfare one measure fanfare, repeated by the strings. When the voices come in, they repeat what the trumpets played before on "Erschallet", the trumpets play what the strings played before, - a sequence of short motifs echoed by the choirs = concerto. Better wording, if possible?
I'm not sure what to make of that. If I understood what you just wrote (which I may not have), that would mean the chorus echoes the trumpets while the trumpets echo the strings. But I can't find any of this in the Gardiner source you cite here -- isn't it all OR? --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that anything remotely smacking of analysis of the score that couldn't be carried out by a non-musician is OR. This is because the score is a primary source and comes under the Policy paragraph of WP:PRIMARY, bullet 1. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Movement 5: I've removed the claim that the Christe Eleison and Domine deus in the Missa (also B minor mass) are "for soprano and alto, as in Erschallet, ihr Lieder". Rathey does not say this. Of course, the Christe eleison is for two sopranos and the Domine deus is for soprano and tenor.
Sorry, I should have known better, having written the other article also ;)
Note to other reviewers: I have run Ucucha's duplinks tool and fixed what it found, but have deliberately retained duplicate links to BWV 21 and "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern", since the second links are at places where a reader may well want to refer to those articles.
All isues raised by my comments have been resolved and I am happy to support this nomination. Hope it can be TFA on the tercentenary of its first performance. --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN6: is the translated quote original? If so, needs editing for grammar. Also, ellipses generally aren't bracketed, particularly not when they aren't in the translation
If you mean the quote about Bach's appointment (now FN7), it's sourced in the book to "Bach-Dokumente (Dok) Kassel 1963 ff., II, 53 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "The text thus proceeds from general to more and more personal and intimate reflection" really should have a citation immediately
done
FN13, 22: page formatting
FN27: page?
Why are dates in short cites sometimes in parentheses and sometimes not?
Second entry in Scores needs publisher; also, you should either specify which score(s) from these sites are being cited, or if these are meant as general resources separate them from the list of cited sources
Publisher added. The first score is the edition of the Bach Gesellschaft (BGA), historic, difficult access, PDF, the second is easy access. Both are at present not used to cite (but could be), the vocal score is, see below --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used the BGA now for the information of the publishing, but don't know how to cite it properly. The other has sound, - how could that be shown? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zedler title should use endashes not hyphens. Also, BoD is a printer not a publisher - is there an actual publisher for this work or was it self-published? If the former, should include original publication info; if the latter, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Zedler and Mincham - another self-published author - have in common that they summarize and comment well what can be seen in the score. I tried to reduce citations by Zedler, and to support others by a second source to the same fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There don't appear to be any citations to the Oregon Festival source - should avoid mixing cited and non-cited sources in a single section
A couple of the bach-cantatas links are actually online copies of recording booklets - it would make sense to include the original publication information (or possibly even use that instead, with the BC site as a convenience link only). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't; its streaming only, so unable to download to take an excerpt. I uploaded this - trying to rember the source; I think we are allowed at least one FU short sample. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Schlosskirche_Weimar_1660.jpg: needs US PD tag
File:Wilhelm_Ernst,_Herzog_von_Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach.jpg: needs US PD tag. Also, do we know artist and/or page number in source?
File:Young_Bach2.jpg: source link is dead
File:Commontime.svg is not original enough to warrant copyright protection, and even if it were the uploader would not hold that copyright
The source for File:John_Eliot_Gardiner_at_rehearsal_in_Wroclaw_cropped_portrait.jpeg requests a photo credit
I've amended the translation from FN6 to something more idiomatic in English. Please feel free to improve if anyone is familiar with 18th-century German.
FN13, 22 - I've corrected the p/pp mismatch.
I've standardised on {{sfn}}, replacing 4 {{sfnp}}, thus removing the parentheses around those 4 dates.
Wolff's book is no longer shown as PDF format and its url is more concise. I've removed its accessdate on the assumption that it has no value in the case of Google Books.
I've given the Wayback Machine archive url for the source of File:Young_Bach2.jpg on Commons.
I agree with your assessment of the copyright status of File:Commontime.svg, but as it is PD by either route, I believe that to be an issue for the image on Commons, not for this article. Should I drop a note on the relevant talk page?
Support – I peer reviewed, and my few comments were thoroughly dealt with there. This is a lovely article, clear, comprehensive and well balanced (which does not preclude the nominator's enthusiasm shining out). I can't see any respect in which this does not meet the FA criteria. If, by the way, the delegate calls for a spot check on sources I shall be happy to toddle round to the British Library to do the honours, though, knowing Gerda's work from long and happy experience, I doubt if there will be any problem. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re this edit: am I mistaken in thinking we don't usually need access dates for book sources? Especially as two seem to have it twice and two not to have it at all. --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same, and removed at least the doubles. Main reason for the edit was to point out that the reference for the quotation for the appointment as concert master was a dead link, - it worked a few days ago, and I replaced it by another one. I wonder if we could have direct access to the mentioned "Bach Dokumente"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were introduced by a new editor, (mis)using the checklinks tool in this edit at 14:45 today. Since the Google Books link is merely for convenience and won't be available in an archive should GBooks disappear, the accessdates are worthless clutter. I've removed the remaining six and dropped a note on the editor's page explaining the issue. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A traveller at Peer Review who is delighted to see that this has been improved further from then. I'm very happy to support this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only a small point, but does anybody else find the bolding of "Erschallet, ihr Lieder" in the third sentence a little out-of-place? I know we embolden alternate titles on their first appearance by convention, but I always understood that it was done to let a reader who searches on that term see at a glance that they have arrived at the right page. Surely anyone searching on "Erschallet, ihr Lieder" would know this was the right page when they saw "Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten!" in the first line? I'm sure it doesn't matter much either way, but aesthetically, I know I prefer to keep bolding to a minimum. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we bold redirects, Erschallet, ihr Lieder is one. On top of that, it's the name that many sources use, and the name that will be used for the rest of the article. I hesitated to add it to the infobox as |other_names= because it is not "other", just shorter and practical. - I reduced the bolding of the English translation. As said in the edit summary, it's not a title, only one of many possible ones, not even a good one, but cited. A better one - also cited - raised a minor problem in the PR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gerda might be referring to WP:R#PLA. It might be felt, though, that an obvious abbreviation (curtailment to the first three words) would be an "other obvious close variant". I think not-bold looks better, but don't feel strongly about this. --Stfg (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think unbolded would carry the reader's eye along more smoothly, though, like Stfg, I don't have especially strong views on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; I had bolded "Resound now, ye lyrics, ring out now, ye lyres!", but was reverted as it is a poor eng translation. So why is it within the lead sentance. If its not reflective of the title, its shouldnt be there. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some precedents for the presentation of translated titles. All are current FAs:
Note that all of these are translations of the title, not accepted English titles. None of these translations are cited. I suggest following the music ones (the first two) in going for a good translation, uncited, and presented in unbolded italic. --Stfg (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: the topic was recently discussed at MoS, result "normal typeface unquoted". I think there's clearly no reason to bold the translation. "Ring out, ye songs - resound, ye strings!" is more literal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Tim, purely as this is Gerda's first solo FAC, I'll take you up on the offer to do a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, if you'd be so kind...
On a related point, and following on from Blofeld's comment right at the top, at FAC I generally expect to see each paragraph end with a citation (unless said para is clearly just a summary of cited material to follow). The ones that caught my eye were the first and third paras of Background, and the Publication section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added publication, then first got rid of the red links by writing two articles, then sourced publication (had first to learn how). What I found is that we possibly will have to move the article, because the the publications have only Erschallet, ihr Lieder. Bach didn't write a title.
The first word that Bach actually wrote was Coro, Italian for Chorus. I would like advice how to mention that. My approach was to list it in the table of the structure.
Sourcing of other Bach cantatas: the dates and occasions for Bach's cantatas are given in two lists and the in individual cantata articles, - do we have to repeat it, or is it rather clutter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check of sources
No problems. Two minor tweaks required, I think, as mentioned below:
7 (Dürr 1971) – fine
8 (Wolff 2002) – fine
9 (Wolff 2002) – fine
10 (Wolff 2002) – fine
11a (Wolff 2002) – fine
11b (Wolff 2002) – please check page number: this was on p. 148 in the 2002 copy I consulted
13a (Wolff 2002) – fine
13b (Wolff 2002) – fine
14 (Wolff 2002) – fine
15 (Wolff 2002) – fine
17 (Dürr 1971) – fine
18 (Wolff 2002) – fine
26a (Dürr 1971) – fine
26b (Dürr 1971) – fine
26c (Dürr 1971) – fine
26d (Dürr 1971) – fine
29 (Wolff 2002) – fine
33a (Dürr 1971) – fine
33b (Dürr 1971) – fine
34 (Dürr 1971) – fine
36 (Buelow) – fine
49 (Dürr 1971) – fine
50 (Dürr 1971) – please check page numbers: this info was divided between pp. 115 and 117 in the British Library's copy. (Also, ref 44 should be shown before ref 50 here.)
All statements in the sample are backed by the cited sources. There is no close paraphrasing. Is it too late to add a small afterthought about drafting? In "Scoring and structure" I think perhaps it might be clearer and more precise to replace "while" in the second sentence with "whereas". I enjoyed re-reading this article, and look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about… one of the less loved coins, both in its time and since. The three-cent nickel was born out of public disgust with dirty paper money, an industrialist's desire to market his product, and a mysterious political deal we still don't know much about. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning to support: I have done review duty on numerous US coin articles – a subject of which I was apprehensive and entirely ignorant when I started, but on which I now consider myself almost a regular pundit. My first impression on this one was that the images are a bit overwhelming, and they certainly overcrowd the text in the first part of the article. Are they all necessary, and if so, must they all be in this place? (The situation is not helped by the infobox overhang, but I understand that this infobox format is standard for these articles). At the very least, could not "upright" be used, to reduce the sizes of the images?
The point that the three-cent piece was initially popular but was then supplanted by the 5-cent piece is made twice in the lead. This ought to be fixable.
"This percentage of silver was less than the normal 90% to keep the coins circulating at a time of hoarding." Needs a comma after "90%", to avoid ambiguity.
I'm not sure that a metallic crisis has been established in the earlier prose. Also, why switch from "90%" to ".900", assuming they mean the same thing?
"change was made by a variety of makeshifts" – I think this means "change" in the sense of "loose change", but this is not altogether clear.
It means what is returned to the purchaser when a sum of money larger than the agreed price is tendered. I'm open to suggestions if you view this as unclear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word "change" has a primary meaning of "alteration", so that the phrase "and change was made by a variety of makeshifts" can, by the incautious reader, be easily misunderstood. That's why I suggested "loose change", a (perhaps) British expression. Could you perhaps say "small change"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An mdash rather than a comma after "federally-issued fractional currency"
"The low-value paper currency, whether issued by government or business, were called shinplasters..." Plural verb? Also, I assume that "shinplasters" was a colloquial rather than an official name; this needs to be clear.
"The bill, as introduced..." → "Pollock's bill, as introduced..."
The "inception" section appears to end before the inception of the three-cent nickel, and perhaps should have a more general title, such as "Background"
The caption to the image that shows the enclosed stamp doesn't explain what the lower image (the "sarsaparilla" token) is.
"authorized fractional currency" → "authorized fractional paper currency"
"Fractional currency" is what they are called. That is the usual term. It's been linked, and I think further usages will have to stand. Note that this term is never used to refer to coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They contended that were Congress to order a three-cent bronze coin, that such a piece would be as big as an obsolete large cent, a fact that might be used to deceive the blind into accepting the less-valuable coin." There's one "that" too many in the first part of the sentence. I'd also tidy the latter part: "which might deceive the blind..." etc
You say Taxay "noted that" the three-cent coin was superfluous. I think this is more a statement of his opinion than of fact, and perhaps should be presented as such.
"Linderman submitted legislation abolishing fractional currency of less than 25 cents, and authorizing copper-nickel coins of one, three and five cents..." Presumably, "abolishing all existing fractional currency..." etc, otherwise I can't see that the sentence makes sense
"Although more than a million three-cent pieces were minted in 1881, another blow to the three-cent piece occurred on October 1, 1883..." – awkward repetition
GOt it.
"The nickel proved popular in slot machines..." - I assume this is the 5-cent version
Yes. I've made that clearer, indirectly. I should add that "three-cent" is what is being disambiguated by the addition of "nickel", not the other way around.
Collecting
"1887/6" is a mite confusing, though I understand from your explanation what happened. However, this overdating doesn't really qualify as a "variety", more a botched job.
Are the coins with missing features considered collectable? If so, do they have any great value?
The contrary. They are, so to speak, considered botched jobs. The better the strike, the better the value, in genera.
These are points of detail. which I imagine can be easily fixed. But I would welcome your consideration of the image size/overcrowding issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly for your continuing work on these articles. I will get to them perhaps later in the day (California time). I am slowly gearing up now that I can type again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind pinging me when you're done? I'm chasing a lot of tails at the moment (note the plural) and not noticing everything that's going on. Incidentally I am due to disappear for a short break on 8th – R & R in a warmer climate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so slow, they are done now. Enjoy your break and take care on wet wooden surfaces lest you have more of a break than is convenient!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: One outstanding issue, not significant enough to warrant withholding support. I can see that the term "a short break" might cause you to wince; I will do my best to ensure that it's not literal. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad. Enjoy your trip, and don't take any wooden euros, or if you do take PD photographs. The arm is becoming less of an impediment, thanks. I've added "in transactions" after "change", which I think should address the above matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I read this article a few nights ago and edit conflicted with Brian when he posted his comments. As it happens he picked up the same points I did (and a few more) so they've now been taken care of. The only issue I see (which isn't an impediment to supporting but rather a formatting issue) is that apparently the long quote at the bottom of the production section should be a blockquote. It's not formatting as such on my computer and so I was a little thrown off when I read it, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Just thought I'd mention it. As it happens I like nickels, I've always wondered what a shin-plaster was, had heard of "copperheads" (not the snake!) but never knew what they were, so I enjoyed reading this. Also, I think you've done a good job of detailing the various fluctuations in gold and silver markets during those years, which is not an easy task! Nicely done. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly for your support. I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, can you be more specific? I see you have a fellow Penn grad at FAC, I am hoping to get to it or if it is promoted before I do I will leave talk page comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I meant the "Background" section. I think there's text squash there interfering with the quote box formatting. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's your hand? I'll give this a look. Still need an image review? (Though to be honest I agree with Brian that there are a few too many).
I cut one. Since there is only one image in the latter part of the article, I don't want to cut too many. Yes, please do an image review, thanks. Hand is fine, it's the upper arm that needs time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Designed by Mint Chief Engraver James B. Longacre, it was initially popular, but its place in commerce was supplanted by the five-cent piece, or nickel. - few too many clauses. I'd suggested getting rid of "or ... " and linking five-cent piece to nickel directly.
With precious metal federal coinage hoarded, including the silver three-cent piece, and even the copper-nickel cent commanding a premium, Congress issued paper money in denominations as small as three cents. - The first sentence begs the question "why"? Overall the background section is not well represented here
March 3, 1865, a bill for a three-cent piece in copper-nickel alloy was introduced in Congress, passed both houses without debate, and was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. - Double checking: all in the same day? (what happened to American politics?)
You got it. This is why so many acts, until the Twentieth Amendment shifted the congressional terms after 1933, are the Act of March 3, (odd number years). The last day of the congressional term used to be extremely chaotic and quite a tourist attraction. The president would be in a room, signing bills as they were passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No change was made to the design of the three-cent piece in nickel during its lifetime - would it be easier to say "three-cent nickel"?
I suppose, but as there is no truly official name for this issue, I'm trying to mix it up a bit with various acceptable terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - If I haven't linked it, it has no issues.
File:1852 3 Cent Silver - Type 1.jpg - "It is unclear if this item of currency or official token is currently in circulation. Please update the use of this tag if you have this information." - Is there a way to make this go away? I mean, it's an 1852 coin, I doubt it's going to be in regular circulation. None of your other uploads have it.
Closing comment -- Since none of the minor outstanding points re. images seem to involve licensing problems I think we can safely leave them to be resolved post-FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 9 March 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic. This is the third nomination for this article - the other two have failed, primarily due to lack of discussion. I have received an exemption to re-nominate this after the last failure.
For those who aren't familiar with the game, this was a college football game between the Michigan Wolverines and Appalachian State Mountaineers. It is notable because the Mountaineers were from the second-tier subdivision (FCS) of college football; even though they won two straight titles at that level, they were not expected to even come close to beating the Wolverines, who were ranked #5 in the polls and were favorites to compete for a national championship in the top-tier FBS. However, the Mountaineers won the game 34-32, in an upset that was immediately hailed as one of the biggest in college football history. Interestingly, both teams went on to have success in their seasons, with the Mountaineers winning a third straight FCS title and the Wolverines winning a bowl game against Florida, the defending national champions. ToaNidhiki0521:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as an excellent example of an article about an American football game. I will note, however, that reference 62 links to a Google search hit page, not an article ... GoPhightins!00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I can still remember when and where I was when I heard about this game the first time in 2007 and how strange it was for Michigan to lose it. That being said, I don't have particular interest in either team, but I don't like to see FACs get archived for lack of comments, so I'll be glad to go through this today and hopefully keep that from happening again.
Prose comments - I don't tend to "nitpick" prose, but as an advocate for sentence and paragraph fluency, I have some points to be addressed.
Second paragraph of the lead has three straight sentences that start with "The..." Can this be broken up? It doesn't read smoothly.
"cornerback Leon Hall and defensive linemen Alan Branch, David Harris, LaMarr Woodley" - I think you're missing an "and" in the series of three names in a row.
From "First Quarter": "a 3rd and one" - Here we're mixing numerals with spelled out words for single digits. Per MOS:NUMERAL, these should both be spelled out.
J. O'Neill is listed as the referee in both the prose and the infobox, but aren't college football games officiated by a team of officials and not just one? Make sure to make mention of this for the clarity of readers who may not be familiar with the American college game.
On "File:UMich_App_St_at_line.jpg", what makes "This game was the biggest upset in the history of college football" relevant to the image description? That can safely be removed, and would be more encyclopedic if it were.
I think the "external images" link is a bit strange. Does the site we're linking to have permission to use the cover? If not, that's an issue of copyright violation. However, I'm of the opinion that adding the image itself and displaying it as a non-free, provided it's of a reduced resolution, would meet all ten of the WP:NFCC criteria to illustrate Sports Illustrated's featuring of the game and how impactful it was - it didn't just result in a picture on the cover, it resulted in the whole cover being the feature of the upset.
Otherwise looks good. Everything else is public domain or Creative Commons.
Source review
Sources 53 and 54: Is there anything that can replace the YouTube videos? YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable sources unless they're coming from media entities with reputations for fact-checking. It's a neat primary source, but I don't think it's acceptable use in this context.
I've found a couple citations that say the same thing and added them. Does that fix the problem? They are citations 53 and 54 - same numbers as before. ToaNidhiki0521:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the same note, source 35 is a copyright violation upload on YouTube and needs to be replaced as a reference. Can you cite the show itself instead of the video? If you know the name of the show (SportsCenter), the date, etc., you can cite the show directly and not link it to YouTube.
I'm a tad concerned some of the ESPN links might disappear at some point over time. It's not necessary, but I would recommend archiving those just in case.
Support on the basis of all comments resolved and no major further concerns to be addressed. I should note that my source review did not consist of any spot-checks. I have a few further comments as well that are not necessary for my support, but I would recommend looking into. Good work so far.
I like the mentions of further upsets of ranked FBS teams by FCS teams and think it's relevant. If that's the case, wouldn't this one also be worth mentioning? I'm not sure if Kansas State was ranked, but they were the defending Big 12 Conference champions going into the game, and they lost to FCS team North Dakota State. That makes for another shocking upset, I would reason.
Are infoboxes for sporting events typically signed with the team records before or after the game? I'm not familiar with the relevant WikiProject's standards on this, but I know I've seen other articles use the after-game record. You may want to check just to be sure this is consistent with any relevant guidelines of the sports WikiProject.
Before. I was confused by this as well, but just by looking at other good/featured articles the record prior to the game is what is used. ToaNidhiki0503:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review: Didn't see one of these in the other FACs so I'll add one. Five images in all, all of them relevant. First four are clearly PD. The Sports Illustrated cover I'd like to see the non-free rationale fleshed out more (to explain what makes that pic significant for the article) if you want to keep it, mainly since the prose seems to explain the significance of the game quite well in and of itself. Wizardman03:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- I'm about ready to promote this; before that, however:
You have quite a few duplicate links that you should review to see if they're really necessary (some may be) -- use this script to highlight them.
Scanning the lead, the term "the game" started to grate on me -- I've made a couple of changes to illustrate how you might reduce its usage somewhat. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the finds - I've removed all of the dupe links (none were needed), and have cut down on a lot more uses of 'the game'. ToaNidhiki0513:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, think that's improved, I quickly scanned and made the odd wording tweak -- hopefully some things there to take away for future articles/nominations... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rainbow Trout is a complex species in many ways. Although having a fairly limited native range, it is now a global species that is both threatened in some of its native range, highly successful and regarded in others and invasive in some. It can't be ignored. It is not only of interest to scientists, but sportsmen, agriculturists, environmentalists and economic developers. As a ubiquitous and global species, it deserves prominence in our encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through and looking at each aspect of the entire article, it is obvious that it deserves to be promoted to FA status. Specifically, there is an large amount of quality information both scientific and general. The table of contents is full of good options to choose from and from reading the article I feel like I have achieved a full education on what a Rainbow trout is. In addition, there are a lot of good photos that describe the many different looks, sizes, and habitats of the rainbow trout. Finally, my favorite part that was extremely well done is the large table describing all the different subspecies with information like each different geographical group with their common name, scientific name, range, and an image. The one thing I would still add however if possible is a picture for each subspecies as some seem to be missing. However, there are an extremely high amount of references which is really good where I'm sure a reader can find another article with a picture of the specific species they are looking for if they care enough.
I am glad to support this article here for promotion to FA status.--Rajzwyn (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2014 (PST)
Support. Having worked on many river articles with links to rainbow trout, I'm delighted that it now meets the FA criteria. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I took part in the peer review and made a few nitpicky edits. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't feel ready to evaluate an FA candidate based on all the criteria, but I will say that this article is very comprehensive, well illustrated, and thoroughly sourced. I have made these edits to the article (mostly copyediting) and I gave recommendations at the peer review. Jsayre64(talk)05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportive comment - As one of the peer reviewers, and having done some minor edits to this article during that process, I am too involved to be a neutral reviewer, but I fully support this FAC. Mike has done some fantastic work here! Montanabw(talk)23:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MONGO
(1)...I made a few adjustments and I saw that McCloud River redband trout had been moved by Mike Cline from the previous name which was McCloud River redband, so I adjusted that in the subspecies section to avoid the redirect. Another subspecies Sheepheaven Creek redband lacks the trout ending and has not been moved...I thought if he was so inclined Mike might do the favors on that and fix the article to avoid the redirect.
(2)...Under the section Description, the first sentence might need rewording...by "Resident freshwater rainbow trout" do we mean riverine to distinguish it from lake-dwelling and anadromous forms?
(3)...United States according to MOS does not to need to be written out the first time but we need consistancy...so the article should use United States or U.S. throughout. If we are also using similar abbreviations such as UK for the United Kingdom, we need to follow that format, meaning no periods. I prefer the use of the format with periods, meaning U.S. I would spell out United States (U.S.) in the intro and one more time then use U.S. afterwards. We never need to wikilink major English speaking countries in featured articles...so those wikilinks should all go too.
(4) some instances of overlinking such as Wyoming linked a few times...the rule of thumb is once in the introduction and one more time in article body but any more than that is usually excessive.
(5) reference #2 is used about a dozen times which is fine as it is an authoritative source but some reviewers may wish to see the exact page of that book that backs up the specific item it supports rather than a page range of 65-122. It isn't a deal breaker though.
Support....article appears to meet the criterias for promotion to Featured Article. Kudos to Mike Cline for all his efforts here. I didn't know a thing about steelheads until I read this article..I consider my 15 edits to this article to be minor, for the record..--MONGO18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the photo in the infobox is a good choice. It is an oblique view and does not show the fins or tail well. Axl¤[Talk]15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I wasn't fond of the image at peer review, either, but a search at Commons didn't reveal anything better of a live, properly identified rainbow that illustrated the "rainbow-ness" of the fish. One possibility might be to crop out the person in this image I've posted at right, (much as I like the shoutout to the Rocking R Bar in Bozeman) but I'd want someone to check the licensing first. The fish is atypically large, but it is a pretty nice example. Maybe. Thoughts all? Montanabw(talk)19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy": "These names faded, however, once it was determined that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence (see e.g. Behnke, 1966)." I don't think that the information in parentheses is helpful. Perhaps just delete it? Interested readers could seek out the reference. Axl¤[Talk]15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Taxonomy", I suggest that the meaning of the (current) species name is moved up to follow the sentence about Walbaum, and separated into its own paragraph. Axl¤[Talk]15:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence moved, but not separated into paragraphs as their was considerable energy spent by peer reviews in consolidating sentences into larger paragraphs. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the sentence. Would you also move the sentence explaining the genus name up as well please? The paragraph is currently a large block text. I am suggesting a paragraph space between "mykizha." and "Sir John Richardson". But if you insist that this should not be added, I won't argue further. Axl¤[Talk]15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies", at the bottom of the table, a photo of a golden rainbow trout would be helpful. Perhaps this photo could be cropped and used? Axl¤[Talk]15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I was looking for more photos of Rainbows, I came across these, perhaps they could be added in the article. Not saying they should but @Mike Cline: just a heads up that they exist and may not have been seen earlier. May be plenty of good reasons not to use, but if licensing is OK (@Curly Turkey: might be worth looking at? No agenda, just a proposal. Montanabw(talk)19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to add to "Freshwater life cycle" gallery that has three images, this is a fingerling
This might be a better steelhead to replace the Lake Erie partial that's in there now?
this little fellow might be good to add to the chart if he's different from the other two goldens in there now.
They're properly tagged & licensed, though the third one lacks categories. I won't comment on if they're appropriate or not---I don't know nearly enough about the subject, but they all look nice enough. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies": "Pacific basin subspecies of Oncorhynchus mykiss are listed below." Are there subspecies of other groups (Atlantic basin, etc.)? Axl¤[Talk]22:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Images: 1st we really need a good taxobox image displaying the distinctive red stripe that gives the rainbow its name. It also should be a live, wild fish, preferably from its native range. The current image does that. However it is not the best angle as AXL says. But most if not all the images currently in commons (other than drawings) are either dead, hatchery fish, or juveniles.
Please look at the rainbow trout images being hosted at these links. I have permission to use them if we can use them in the article. If you find one that would work well in the Taxobox (even if it needs cropping), let me know and I’ll get it moved to the commons. I respect these guys as professional photographers so I am judicious when asking for photos for the commons. Be specific when recommending a photo (a link would be good). The large photo from the Kenai is nice, but far from being a typical fish. Some probability that it is a hatchery steelhead, not a wild fish.
I noticed those two as well. All would need assorted cropping and color-balancing. Also consider [23], [24], [25], [26] (if rotated AND cropped), [27]
My take on all of the above is that I agree with Mike that the image 1) Must show the color, 2) Should be a live fish, 3) Ideally is a wild-caught fish, not a hatchery one, 4) Not a steelhead, 5) Of respectable but typical size. My concerns with the current image are 1) The red is too red, most rainbows are more of a shade of pink 2) The entire body is not complete, 3) I hate the way it's being held, not ideal for a catch and release shot (trout to be released need to be handled as gently as possible), I'd prefer to see people with a gentler-looking, two-handed hold. Montanabw(talk)22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, of the five photos that you suggest, I prefer the third one. It shows the head a little better than the others do, while still showing the tail and fins. The fish looks alive, even looking towards the camera. Axl¤[Talk]11:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded BW's #3 to the commons. It is pending OTRS confirmation by the author. Once OTRS clears, I will include in the taxobox. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough information in the "Description" and "Life cycle" sections. Compare the "Life cycle" section of "Salmon". The "Salmon" article describes its eggs as "roe". Are the eggs of rainbow trout also called roe? How large are the eggs? The "Freshwater life cycle" subsection implies that the eggs hatch into fry. The "Steelhead" subsection mentions smolts. Do the young also pass through the parr form? It may be better to put common features in the general section "Life cycle", and specific differences into the subsections. The article "Juvenile fish" also mentions "fingerlings" and "post-smolts". Axl¤[Talk]15:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start sorting this out. Indeed it is again complicated by the various forms rainbow occur in. The term "smolt" is generally used only with anadromous salmonids and refers to the process of "smoltification" which simply means whatever biological changes occur when young fish begin their migration to the sea. So in freshwater resident forms, the term "smolt" doesn't apply, but it does apply to steelhead that migrate to sea. All the other terms that describe the transition from egg to adult can be clarified. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, here are the accepted life cycle terms for salmonids (trout and salmon)
Egg
Alevin
Fry
Juvenile
Adult
These terms are more colloquial and reflect processes, more than accepted life cycle stages
Smolt - used to describe a salmonid in the process of smoltification (the transition from fresh to saltwater by anadromous fish) Smoltification can occur with both fry and juvenile salmonids. The current text is incorrect re steelhead, as a fish does not become a smolt until it begins the physiological transition to saltwater. Thus remaining in freshwater as smolts is incorrect. The use of this term is problematic since it is widely misused in non-scientific sources. Additionally, it is unclear whether freshwater steelhead (ie Great Lakes) go through a smoltification process (doubtful)
Parr - used to describe Juvenile fish because salmonid juvenile typical develop parr marks after the fry stage. Not a life cycle stage other than a synonym for juvenile.
Fingerling - Juvenile trout not yet at a size to make them catchable in typical angling situations. More a hatchery term but often used as a synonym for juvenile
On the issue of "roe". Fish eggs and roe are synonymous. Roe is generally used to refer to the complete ovary sac filled with mature eggs, instead of individual eggs after spawning. Roe is also a culinary term and a term used to refer to salmon eggs and clusters used as bait and that can cause confusion. The text in the salmon article is not incorrect, but would be better if the term eggs was used. It appears to be a near verbatim copyvio from the USFWS webpage. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Freshwater life cycle", paragraph 2: "During spawning, the eggs fall into spaces between the gravel, and immediately the female begins digging at the upstream edge of the nest, covering the eggs with the displaced gravel." When does the male release sperm? Axl¤[Talk]14:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility of a photo of eggs/alevin/fry? I had a look at Wikimedia Commons, but I didn't find a suitable picture. Axl¤[Talk]14:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved that drawing up into the life cycle box, and rearranged the photos from spawning ot adulthood. Hope that helped. Toss it if it didn't or ping me to fix it if needed.Montanabw(talk)22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Steelhead life cycle", paragraph 2: "survival rates for native spawning adults is less than 10 percent." Does this mean that of adults that have successfully spawned, 10% will spawn again? Axl¤[Talk]14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of Behnke, ~90% of first time spawners die before spawning a second time. They may die soon after spawning, enroute to or sometime after returning to the ocean. I suspect it is essentially impossible to access whether or not a returning fish (tagged I guess) successfully spawned the first time. I think the statement, supported by the way Behnke describes it, really means "Yeah, they are iteroparous, but natives aren't really that good at it."--Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Steelhead life cycle", paragraph 2: "Juvenile steelhead may remain in the river for one to three years before smolting and returning to sea." "Returning"? Axl¤[Talk]15:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Smoltification" describes the physiological changes that occur when juvenile steelheads transition to sea water. Is there a reversal of this process when adults return to freshwater to spawn? Axl¤[Talk]15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of question I like. I don't know, so I will see what I can find. In the paper on smoltification I linked below, the authors talk about a rapid de-smoltification process (a reversal of the physiological changes) when some event prevents smolting juveniles from completing the migration to salt water. Whether a similar process takes place with adults and what it might be called, I don't know. Will do some research.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will frankly say that I am in no position to explain that in any accurate, coherent way. I'v read a lot about it over the last few weeks and I can conclude that its pretty complex when boiled down to the "exactly" point. This paper is probably the most comprehensive I've read. Smoltification Most of the stuff written for general readership, does little more to describe smoltification than we currently do in the article. If you think it needs more exact explanation, please try but as it only applied to steelhead, not rainbow trout in general, it doesn't need undue emphasis. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Artificial propagation", subsection "Aquaculture", paragraph 2: "Worldwide, in 2007, 604,695 tonnes ... of farmed salmon trout were harvested." "Salmon trout"? Axl¤[Talk]22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salmon trout is a relic common name from the 19th century when male and female steelhead were thought to be different species of salmon. It is one of many historic common names for steelhead. It still appears in a lot of European descriptions of anadromous rainbow trout. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "salmon trout" is not used anywhere else in the article. It should either be explained, or better still changed to a meaningful one—perhaps "anadromous rainbow trout" or "steelhead trout". Axl¤[Talk]12:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that the term was already in the article. Actually I couldn't find it in the source. Thus I changed to "rainbow trout" instead of "salmon trout". Must have been legacy text from when the article was unbalanced to steelhead. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Artificial propagation", subsection "Aquaculture", paragraph 2: "Rainbow trout farming is one of the largest finfish aquaculture industries in the U.S." Is the qualifier "finfish" necessary? Although the source states "the industry is now the second largest finfish aquaculture industry in the U.S.", isn't there any other source that doesn't use the qualifier? Axl¤[Talk]19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "finfish" adjective is important as aquaculture includes a lot of non-finfish species--clams, mussels, squid, shrimps, etc. As far as #1 or #2, I'll have to sort out, I'd didn't write this section. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point: would the following statement be true? "Rainbow trout farming is one of the largest aquaculture industries in the U.S." If so, is there a suitable reference to support such a statement? Axl¤[Talk]22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement is correct and I think either of these as sources would support it.
From "Conservation", subsection "Hybridization and habitat loss", paragraph 2: "Within the range of the Kern River golden trout of Southern California, hatchery-bred rainbows introduced into the Kern River have diluted the genetic purity of the Kern River rainbow trout (O. m. gilberti) and golden trout (O. m. aguabonita) through intraspecific and interspecific breeding." "Interspecific breeding"? I note that the reference names the species Salmo aguabonita." Axl¤[Talk]18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded slightly to remove "interspecific" which doesn't apply in this case. The Behnke paper here is dated 1971, thus the reference to Salmo instead of Oncorhynchus (changed in 1989) Behnke (2002) put aguabonita as an O. m. subspecies instead of its own species. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly unhappy with the recent changes to the description of the conservation organizations in the "Conservation" subsection. I improved the accuracy of the statement and eventually reached an agreement with Mike Cline. Now Montanabw has changed the text to direct quotation of the mission statements, which he justifies by two weak arguments. In my opinion, there is no need to include mission statements at all in this article. It is adequate to state that these organizations are involved with trout conservation. Nevertheless I am willing to compromise with a short paraphrased statement of their activities/aims. Axl¤[Talk]12:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored text to last version by AXL on March 2. That text is supportable with sources, does not rely on quotations and is sufficient for FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it's not worth my time to argue over, so do whatever you want, but the old wording sans quotation marks was a close paraphrase that could give rise to a copyvio complaint; I've seen it happen. My second concern was Axl's edits changed a mission statement, and I know enough about non-profit organizations to say that mission statements are often fought over every single word, so paraphrasing may change the nuance of what the organization intended. But like I say, I don't actually care that much, though it's snotty and bitey to dismiss my arguments as "weak." Do as you please. Montanabw(talk)05:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be taking this personally. I am approaching this article in the spirit of collaboration, with the aim of improving the article, as indeed we all are. When my edits have been reverted, I have approached the reverting editor with a view to reaching an agreement. I have not reverted anyone else's edits.
Regarding the specific issue of this edit, the best solution to a close paraphrase is not to change it to a direct quotation—it is to change it to a distant paraphrase. Identifying an organization's "mission" does not mean that a verbatim quote is appropriate. Paraphrasing is usually appropriate. Axl¤[Talk]18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification. As it sits, and I say this having worked on some CCI cases, it's a too-close paraphrase; changing a word or two does not a true rephrasing make. I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this, but I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording. That said, if you don't agree, I also don't give a flying fuck about it in the cosmic scheme of things. Montanabw(talk)06:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this." I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by this thinly veiled accusation of copyright infringement. WP:CCI states "Contributor copyright investigations is a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time.... This process is intended only for large-scale systematic copyright violations." If you believe that I have undertaken systematic copyright violations in many articles, you certainly should report me to that process. However you haven't even undertaken a search of my edits, have you? If you had, you would know that such an accusation is utterly ridiculous and a report to CCI would just make you look foolish.
"We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification." If you think that she would be happy to help improve the article, please do so.
"I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording." I welcome a suggestion from you for a suitable rephrasing, i.e. one that is not a direct quote and of course not a close paraphrase.
The California Trout text prior to my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, other salmon and their waters throughout California."
The text of my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout and other salmonids in waters throughout California."
The source's copyrighted text: "To protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, salmon and their waters throughout California."
The Steelhead Society text prior to my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
The text of my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and rivers in British Columbia." I deleted the second instance of the word "wild" as it confused me and I was unaware of the meaning of "wild rivers". In Montanabw's reversion edit summary, he clarifies that "wild rivers" means "undammed".
The source's copyrighted text: "The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
In the interest of moving forward with the article, I am going to suggest alternative text:-
"Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, which protects wild trout and other salmonids in the waters of California."
"The Steelhead Society of British Columbia promotes the wellbeing of wild salmonids in British Columbia."
Solves my concerns; All I can tell you is that a wikipedian I request had an article pulled off the main page for a too-close paraphrase not much longer than this, I offered this in an abundance of caution and in good faith; I was not happy to be treated dismissively. So yes, let's move on. Montanabw(talk)21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I'm taking this as an appropriate juncture to close this discussion and the review as a whole (I'm assuming the new wording will be added, can be done so post-FAC). Thank you one and all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there anything on what are its closest relatives within the Oncorhynchus group?
It might be pretty difficult to explain in simple encyclopedic language with a simple citation because the taxonomic history of Salmo and Oncorhynchus has proven pretty complex as it has moved from a morphological basis to a genetic/genomic one over the last 150 years. The easiest statement to support (but not explain) is that Cutthroat trout and Rainbow trout are closely related. But those close relationships are more at the sub-species level, not species level. In other words, O. m. aguabonita was once thought to be more cutthroat O. c. ssp than rainbow and the Columbia river redband O. m. gairdneri was once thought to be more closely related to the westslope cutthroat O. c. lewsi. I think the important relationship here that is already in the article, is that there are Oncorhynchus trouts and Oncorhynchus salmon. With ~14 subspecies of rainbow and ~14 subspecies of cutthroat plus a few other trout species on the geographic edges, it is a taxonomic minefield. All the Oncorhynchus trouts are very close (taxonomically speaking) to each other, but not as close to the salmon.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike on this; trout taxonomy has done a 180 just in my adult life (which isn't as short as I wish it were, but still...). I tortured Mike about this section pretty bad during peer review before he finally educated me as to the current status of the taxa, and getting the existing section as readable and clear as it is was a significant accomplishment on his part. I think letting sleeping dogs lie is advisable. Montanabw(talk)22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally looks ok, but needs more nitpicking and polish to meet FA standards. More comments soon (reviewed to the end of "Artificial propagation"). Sasata (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Overlink: Pacific Ocean, North America, Asia, Antarctica, South America
Comment: Most of these are linked once, are you saying they should not be linked at all? Clarify? Pacific Ocean is linked twice, but the second is to "Pacific Basin" (which redirects to Pacific Ocean, admittedly) - This was my edit, not Mike's, made out of concern that someone would wonder what the "basin" was. I can chop that if you think it should be. --Montanabw
Per the linked guideline, in "what generally should not be linked": "the names of major geographic features and locations". Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying to unlink all of them? what about "pacific basin"? --Montanabw
possibly useful links: introduced, tributary, subspecies, threatened, endangered, state fish
Done. --Montanabw
"…average between 1 and 5 lb (0.45 and 2.27 kg)" the output numbers of a unit conversions should not contain more significant figures than the input; these are approximate values anyway (and see below about use of "average between")
I'm not sure I agree with that, but do you have a suggested way to structure the convert template to get the output you are requesting? ;-) --Montanabw
Yeah, thinking about it some more "average between" doesn't sound as unusual as it did last night, without coffee, so I'll take that part back. Try this: {{convert|1|and|5|lb|1}} to chop off a sig fig. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a piped link to that article at "sport fisheries" - will that do? If not, recommendations as to where to add it? --Montanabw
"Other introductions into waters previously devoid of any fish species or with severely depleted stocks of native fish have created world-class sport fisheries such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River." I think this sentence is oversimplifying the process of "world-class" sport fishery creation
There’s actually two comments I’d like to make relative to this question: "Other introductions into waters previously devoid of any fish species or with severely depleted stocks of native fish have created world-class sport fisheries such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River." I think this sentence is oversimplifying the process of "world-class" sport fishery creation FYI: World-class definition: “among the best in the world”.
1) One, I think history actually supports the contention that indeed the “creation” of a world-class fishery (where one didn’t exist naturally) is actually a very simple process. It goes something like this. 1) Introduce a suitable fish into a suitable environment. 2) Let the fish and nature go to work. If the fish is something that anglers pursue, then a fishery has been created 3) Looking at the historical record for introductions of rainbow trout into ideal waters such as the Great Lakes, in Patagonia, in New Zealand, and the Rocky mountain west, it takes about 5-10 years for the trout to generate healthy population densities that would warrant the “world-class” caveat. Man did little more than dump a bunch of fish into the water and hope for success. (not all introductions are successful) If the trout don’t thrive or only thrive marginally, then the fishery never gets a chance to compete for the “world-class” caveat. I think “sustaining” a World-class fishery is the part that isn’t simple. I can identify dozens of fisheries that were once or would have been considered “World-class” in the 19th and early 20th century that no longer are—for a multitude of complex human and natural reasons. One of the most striking examples of this demonstrated in the movie Rivers of the Lost Coast. The salmon and steelhead fishing along the northern California and southern Oregon coast rivers was “world-class” by every definition of the term in the early 20th century. Created by nature over centuries, man and nature couldn’t sustain it.
2) The content about Rainbow trout introductions creating “world-class” fisheries is unequivocally supported by reliable sources of all genera—sporting, biological, cultural and environmental. However when I started working on this article several months ago it was in horrible shape, not only from an organizational standpoint, but from a pure content standpoint. It was inaccurate in so many ways, especially the taxonomy. It contained much environmental POV, bias and downright false statements as well a cultural bias related to steelhead. It demonized introduced rainbows and aquaculture while bemoaning threatened steelhead natives, yet said nothing about the introductions that have created or sustained remarkably successful fisheries that obviously generate economic benefits for the region they are introduced in. Our articles need balance and accuracy. The brief addition of the success of introduction is not only accurate, but essential to offset the heavy dose of environmental bemoaning about those introductions the article contains. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except, Mike, (grinning, ducking and running...) your comment "environmental bemoaning" is itself POV and suggests an anti-environmental bias (noogies!) - and I must note that I think the article over-downplays the problems of introduced rainbows leading to trouble for cutthroats and the problems of hybridization. (Though I agree about the steelhead bit) But nonetheless, even though I am clearly in the tree-hugger camp, I do think you have done well in the article to balance everything and I continue to support this FAC - just remember: NPOV ≠ "my POV" (NOOGIES!). Montanabw(talk)04:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a person that was a NPS ranger in Grand Teton and Glacier for 10 years I would have to say that much of the bemoaning by about Rainbow introductions is unwarranted. Lake trout is the real threat and has been for decades.--MONGO05:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the threat of Lake Trout. (Can't we hang bucket biologists for doing stuff like that??) I do fret about the Westslope Cutthroat, though none of this is relevant to this FAC, I was just commenting that Mike phrasing was not as neutral as he may have intended it to be. (grin) Montanabw(talk)22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I have no concerns with POV issues in the article and continue to support this FAC. It's well balanced with all major issues mentioned. I just think cutthroats are cooler than rainbows, but rainbows are cooler than browns, and all trout (except Lake Trout, which are evil) are cooler than any other fish in Montana, though they might tie with the grayling! (grin) Montanabw(talk)00:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please list the synonyms in the taxobox
Taxonomy:
"Walbaum's original species name, mykiss, was derived from the local Kamchatkan name mykizha." Was mykizha the Kamchatkan name for the fish, or for something else?
Done, clarified
"These names faded, however, once it was determined that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence." a description cannot be conspecific; rather, the specimen that was described was conspecific. Also, it might be useful to link or mention the Principle of Priority hereabouts.
Done, text changed, link added.
"In 1989, morphological and genetic studies by Gerald R. Smith, the Curator of Fishes at the Museum of Zoology, and Ralph F. Stearley, a doctoral candidate at Museum of Paleontology (University of Michigan)" why list the credentials and affiliated institutions of these individuals?
(Comment - credentials in text annoy me and I agree here)
ensure bi- and trinomial names have non-breaking spaces in them to avoid unsightly line breaks
Done - I think I've got all the necessary non-breaking spaces included in the prose
"… are listed below as described by Behnke (2002)." Only giving this fellow's last name is inconsistent with the full naming used in the previous section
Done, name clarified
as we discussed in the GA review for another trout species, "type species" is not the correct term to describe O. m. mykiss; rather, it is the type subspecies
fixed
link Aleutian Islands, endemic on first occurrence
Looks like someone got those, they are linked now at first text occurrence as far as I can tell-Montanabw
link variety, headwater, lateral line
variety reveals no appropriate links to animal varieties, only plant. Suggestions? Headwaters and lateral line now linked. --Montanabw
I don't think it's appropriate to use "~" as a shorthand for "approximately" in formal writing (2 instances)
Fixed. -- Montanabw
what were the proposed trinomials names for Athabasca rainbow trout and Sheepheaven Creek redband trout?
Don't think there are any! My investigations reveal with some confidence that no specific trinomials have been proposed for these two forms. They were first discussed during a period where taxonomy was transitioning from solely morphological/geographic basis to more genetic/genomic. I can't find any literature that discusses these two forms using any specific trinomials which is consistent with Behnke (2002).--
I don't think incomplete sentences in the "range" column of the subspecies subsection should end in periods (similar to the guidelines suggested for WP:CAPTION)
Agree and text in table has been expanded/sourced to explain that the taxonomy of this group is unsettled and under research. But I don't trying to explain the situation in any kind of detail is appropriate for this article. An article on the Mexican trouts is warranted.
"The golden rainbow trout should not be confused" sounds like a breach of WP:NOTHOWTO
It isn't really (grin), but I changed the language to say "is not the same subspecies as" - If anyone else can do better, go for it. --Montanabw
"rainbow trout adults average between 1 and 5 lb (0.45 and 2.27 kg)" an average is one number, but this is describing a range of weights
So says the source, I think, and in this context, a range can be an "average" in the colloquial sense, if, as here, there are individuals over and under but the bulk falling in the specified range. that said, if you have a recommendation for a better way to say it, let us know?--Montanabw
Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere should be capitalized
Done
Life cycle
please adjust the image sizes in the triple-image so they are the same height (instructions at template:Multiple image)
That was a surprisingly annoying pain in the butt, somebody thank me for doing that one! (LOL) --Montanabw
"adequate shallows and vegetation for good food production." ambiguous: is the food or the food production good?
Done, reworded
"The eggs usually hatch in about four to seven weeks; however, the time of hatching varies greatly with region and habitat." suggest "The eggs usually hatch in about four to seven weeks although the time of hatching varies greatly with region and habitat."
Done, reworded as suggested
link yolk sac, sea cage
Done, linked
"they are the approximate size of a human finger." suggest "they are approximately the size of a human finger."
Done, reworded as suggested
"Two general forms exist–"Summer-run steelhead" and "Winter-run steelhead"." why capitalize (not capitalized in later usage)?
Done, caps removed
"Winter-run fish general spawn in shorter" fix
Done, fixed
Feeding
"crayfish, shrimp and other crustaceans. missing "and"
Fixed
That was a run-on sentence, I broke it up into three and rearranged it a bit - Mike, check my work, I did some rearranging for prose flow that may not work perfectly. Sasata, you check me too... --Montanabw
Looks fine, one small change
"Some lake-dwelling lines" what is meant by "lines" here?
Fixed, this was a typo, should have read "forms".
Artificial propagation
both "United States" and "U.S." are used throughout the article
For prose flow, I don't see this as a problem, I know MOS has its guidelines, but the length of the article argues for an IAR here, IMHO. Nonetheless, if you want "U.S." used exclusively after the first time, say so and I guess we can fix it. --Montanabw
link Indian council
rephrased to match source, which says "tribal government" ("Council" incorrect for modern tribal govt anyway... ) linked to Tribal sovereignty in the United States --Montanabw
is "ocean cage" the same as "sea cage" used previously?
Yes. Sea cage, ocean cage, sea pen, etc. are all synonyms. Sources used terms inconsistently. Changed text to "sea cage" for consistency
link Pennsylvania earlier
Fixed --Montanabw
"Rainbow trout farming is currently the second-largest finfish aquaculture industry in the U.S." what is "currently" – the source is from 2006
Probably the most current stats, but I'll let Mike tackle that one. --Montanabw
Rewrote sentence to make it less dated. Current source is probably the best secondary source for this. The National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts the U.S. Aquaculture Census every five years. The results of those census don't show up in reports for much later. I can't find any evidence that the latest census (?2012) has been published. The last published census was 2007. A 2009 summary of U.S. trout production [29] does not provide discrete data for rainbow trout.
"On the international scene, the U.S. produces" suggest "Internationally, the U.S. produces"
Fixed --Montanabw
"The disease does not affect humans." sure it does; do you mean it does not infect humans?
Fixed --Montanabw
Temp break
should the description section include information like: number of vertebrae, # of dorsal spines, soft dorsal rays, anal spines, soft anal rays, and caudal rays? I do not know enough about fish to know if these characteristics are different from other trouts, but the FAO page saw fit to include these details …
See the biology question below; I think this could be a spinoff article, Biology of the rainbow trout or something. JMO. --Montanabw
The inclusion of these Meristic characteristics may or may not be appropriate for the article. The FAO characteristics are problematic because they are generalized for cultured rainbow trout, not wild natives. We know from Halverson (2010) that cultured rainbow are "entirely synthetic" and don't closely resemble any given rainbow subspecies. From Behnke (2002) we know that he believes that there are no consistently distinguishing meristic characteristics between O. mykiss and O. clarki. This may actually be true for all of the Oncorhynchus species. A bit of cursory research reveals a lot of work describing the "variability" of meristic characteristics within salmonids. If we include the FAO description, it should be clear that these are the characteristics of "cultured" not "wild native" rainbows. Thoughts? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other significant trout-producing countries include the U.S., Iran and the United Kingdom." the UK is not a country
It is an independent nation with a flag, a government, a UN membership -- not sure what you are getting at? --Montanabw
half of the aquaculture section is devoted to practices and production in the US. Where does most production occur in Asia? How do farming practices there compare to the US? The previous paragraph indicates that Chile is the largest producer. Why no discussion about the Chilean industry?
Probably lack of sources, Mike? --Montanabw
Accumulating a few sources and contemplating what to write.
most of the discussion about conservation is about the US, with a sentence about the Kamchatka Steelhead Project. Are these the only instances of rainbow trout conservation?
If you consider conservation efforts in relationship to the native range, then Russia, U.S. and Canada (BC) are the major regions where conservation efforts are ongoing. BC is mentioned in the paragraph. I've added a sentence to highlight Truchas Mexicanas which at this point is more a research cooperative aimed at the eventual conservation of the Mexican trouts. I am unaware of any significant conservation efforts aimed at rainbow trout outside their native range (where for the most part, many consider them invasives). --Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(O. m. gairdneri, newberrii, and stonei)" - unitalicize "and"
Done
links: siltation, life cycle, immunity, cohort, Thunder Bay, subcutaneous
Done
there are still some missing non-breaking spaces in Latin names
"even more resistant species in the same area, such as S. trutta," full name should be used for this species, as the genus name has not been mentioned since the Taxonomy section
Done
"M. cerebralis was first recorded" should not start a paragraph with an abbreviation
Fixed
"most likely due to inadvertent human intervention." source?
reworded slightly for clarity and cited.
"The mud snail was first detected in the U.S. in Idaho's Snake River in 1987. The mud snail has" reword to avoid repetetive sentence intros
Fixed
"samples have been discovered" samples or specimens?
why is the references section called "Notes"? I didn't see any notes in there other than the bit about the finfish.
Thousands of wikipedia articles use "Notes" for the "Footnotes" section; it's a matter of editor preference in wide use.--Montanabw
authorities should be linked (once) in the taxobox (in the synonyms list). Also, it looks like there's an asterisk after each of the synonyms?
Links in content removed, relinked in synonyms
might want to convert all ISBNs to the recommended ISBN-13
All sources with 13 digit ISBNs are listed as such. No all the books have 13 digit ISBNs
the 57 page range for ref#2 (Benke 2002) is quite broad and will make it difficult for readers to verify facts from this source. COuld you perhaps cite more specifically to page numbers?
Behnke 2002 references broken up
It seems references 2 and 3 are different chapters in the same book. Please add the book editor.
No editor, Behnke is sole author. Use of chapter parameter does not required editor.
accessdates are not required for print sources available online
removed from the one I found
journals do not need publishers included (cf. ref #7)
publisher removed
ref#11 should have Latin names italicized; the bare url in the citation looks odd too, perhaps include this in the publisher field? Also, how does this qualify as a reliable source? AFAICT, "SGER" stands for "small grants exploratory research", so this is a grant proposal (?) and as such, has not been peer-reviewed.
Latin italicized Source replaced with peer reviewed source.
ref 14 is not a reliable source and should be removed
Looks like it is the source for the photo that is used in the chart; should it be moved over to the photo? --Montanabw
Source moved to image
ref #15 uses 97 pages to cite a single fact! specific page number please…
fixed
the editors of the Fishbase reference are included but not those who authored the page? Also, I can't tell from the page that this is the "February 2006" version, where is that info?
Legacy citation. Re cited to exact Fishbase page with the information.
please check the author formatting for consistency; for example, some references include "and" before listing the final author while others don't. Also, compare the formatting of "Hale, MC; Thrower, FP;" vs. "Tyler, C.R, Pottinger, T.G.,"
All multiple author citations should now have a consistent format
ref#22 (Wisconsin Trout Fishing: Trout Stream Classifications) should include the last revision date
revision date included
ref #24 appears to be a product brochure, how is this reliable? Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where this source supports the fact "they are commercially propagated in sea cages"
Source replaced with one that supports both facts in the sentence
another detail to check for consistency: page range format. Compare "pp. 250–51" vs. "437–454"
fixed the two instances I found
include last updated date in ref#32; looks like the title should be "The National Fish Hatchery System"
Not sure what source you are referring to. Numbers change as citations are changed so just listing the # leaves one guessing.
ref #36 does not support the cited statement, is perhaps the url incorrect?
same comment as above, no idea which source/statement you are addressing
Yes, for the food and recipe stuff that it sources, the other place it's used is as a backup, and I'll let Mike make the call if it's needed there. --Montanabw
My take is that this source is just as reliable as ANY source that purports to describe the taste, etc. of trout as a culinary subject. There's no science here, no peer reviewed journals. We could list at least ten different NY Times articles that essentially say the same thing, despite the highly subjective nature of this type of content.
ref #43 needs authors and last revision date
Fixed. --Montanabw
both authors should be listed individually in ref#46
I think all the issues raised above have been addressed in some form--either through comments, sourcing, formatting or changes in content. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata:, I think these were all your questions? Can you strike the ones you think we've addressed here and comment on the ones we have yet to fix to your satisfaction? Montanabw(talk)03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The coverage is excellent, nothing seems left out. I feel it is perfect for FA status, though I do agree that the above issues need attention. Cheers! Sainsf<^>Talk all words11:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assorted biology questions
Shouldn't this article include at least a little bit about the fish's internal organs? This page, though not the best source, explains the basic salmon anatomy, and some of that information (ideally from a different source) could be added under the Description section. Jsayre64(talk)04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JMO, but I'd say only where the Rainbow Trout has some markedly different internal organ from most other freshwater game fish. But I also don't know if there is anything (?) Montanabw(talk)05:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that there is nothing unique about individual fish species internal organs (see Fish anatomy) below the Class (biology) level. At the genus level: Oncorhynchus in this case, one set of fish guts look a lot like the next (sexual organs not withstanding). --Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Predators: Pretty open-ended when it comes to trout, and nothing specific to the rainbow. Trout (really all salmonids) and probably all of their predators are “opportunistic” feeders. Any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish that is in any way piscivorous would be considered a predator of trout. Any list of specific predators would be extremely long and significantly variable by habitat, geography and life cycle stage. This would include man and the rainbow trout itself. In fact it is highly likely that young trout have fallen prey to cnidaria and cephalopods when in saltwater environments. I know of no specific predator/prey relationship for rainbow trout that would rise to a level where we should include it in the article. Additionally, because the rainbow trout is now a global ubiquitous species in suitable environments (to which it is highly adaptable), it is very difficult to even generalize survival/feeding behaviors. Simply put, rainbow trout live an “eat or be eaten” world, regardless of age, size, habitat or geography.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I have to admit I'm struggling a little to tell if there are still outstanding issues above. @Sasata: are you satisfied with the responses to your comments?
Mike, you have some duplicate links in the article. Some may be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case. If you haven't seen it, this script highlights the dups. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prose was looking pretty good; I took out a couple of words and reordered a couple of sentences etc but generally this passes my standards. I will sleep on it and probably come back to support tomorrow. Nice work! --John (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I raised my eyebrows when i saw this in the lead: "Introduced populations may impact native species by preying on them, out-competing them, transmitting contagious diseases (such as whirling disease), or hybridizing with closely related species and subspecies, thus reducing genetic purity. " Is 'genetic purity' the best way to describe this? --John (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, it’s an excellent question. Whether “genetic purity” is the scientifically correct term I don’t know, but conceptually it is accurate. What is happening through hybridization is the loss of pure genome sub-species. Through introgression, pure native forms of a population are diluted and changed genetically. Although their outward appearance may retain the morphology of the pure subspecies, the genetics are different as the entire genome is changed with the introduction of genes from another species through interspecific and intraspecific breeding. Taken to the extreme, hybridization can and has caused genomic extinction of subspecies. (ie. Yellowfin cutthroat trout) Halverson (2010) has an excellent discussion of this in his chapter: A single new mongrel species as it relates to the rainbow and westslope cutthroat. This subspecies assessment for the Westslope Cutthroat trout (2009) illustrates that not all populations of a subspecies are genetically pure (see pages 7-8) --Mike Cline (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well put this down as an open query; I'm not a biologist but 'genetic purity' and 'genomic extinction' raise flags with me. I'll continue to try to read up on these or ask a biologist if I can think off one. Still looks great otherwise. --John (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's a specific reference to "genomic extinction" related to westslope cutthroat: Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Hybridization, and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. From page 1324 "The WCT are threatened by widespread genomic extinction.” They also note (p. 1207, see also abstract) “all of the progeny of a hybrid will be hybrids,” where they define hybrid as (p. 1204) “any individual that is either a first generation hybrid or whose recent ancestry (within the last 100 years or so) includes at least one first-generation hybrid individual.” (To put this definition in proper perspective, assume an F1 hybridization event [WCT x RT] occurred 100 years ago. After 100 years [approximately 20 generations] of repeated backcrossing with WCT, the predicted proportion of a descendant’s genes derived from RT would be approximately [0.5]20, or < 0.0001%. Such an individual would be considered a hybrid, according to Allendorf et al. [2004]). The implicit interpretation is that any genetic introgression will result in “genomic extinction.” --Mike Cline (talk)
I absolutely support Mike's position on this; the risks posed to the Westslope cutthroat by hybridization are significant. They are a genetically unique species and genome. Montanabw(talk)03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Genetic purity and Genomic Extinction
Both terms are used in peer reviewed literature:
In “Silent Fields: The Long Decline of a Nation's Wildlife”, Roger Lovegrove, Oxford University Press (2007), p. 202
The docile Ferret is still widely kept in Britain both as a pet and for rabbiting although the albino form has lost favour latterly to the Polecat-ferret. Escaped individuals will mate freely with wild Polecats to produce the hybrids which, although varying in pattern and colour, frequently resemble pure Polecats. Without doubt, some records over the centuries, including the present time, refer inadvertently to these hybrids, but this fact does not alter the overall picture significantly, since the number of hybrids at any time is relatively small. Birks (pers com) points out that the domesticated Ferret is not well adapted to life in the wild and it is therefore unlikely that it will threaten the integrity of the Polecat. It is interesting that the Polecat has never been known to occur on the Isle of Wight, although a bounty was paid for one at Freshwater in 1791. The genetic purity of that individual can never be known.
In “Conservation Biology: Evolution in Action”, Scott P. Carroll, Charles W. Fox, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 132
This phenomenon is accelerated if hybrids have higher fitness than parentals (in other words, hybrid vigor). It may require decades, but there are several well documented cases in which genomic extinction or near extinction occurred in as few as three to seven generations (for example, California cordgrass [Wolf et al., 2001], Pecos pupfish [Rosenfield et al., 2004]). Rapid introgression of the rare Pecos pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis with the ubiquitous sheepshead minnow C. variegatus, an accidentally introduced bait fish, is effectively driving the Pecos pupfish to genomic extinction.
--Mike Cline (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters?
Hey everyone, this FAC is getting pretty long and complex, and per Ian Rose's comments above, I'd like to ping those who have weighed in here to see if most/all concerns have been met- or not; @Sasata:, can you strike what we've addressed of your concerns above and let us know if you are ready to support? Ditto @Axl:, @John:, @Casliber:: Did we address your concerns yet?. Am I correct that we have support from @MONGO:, @Rajzwyn:, @Jsayre64:, @Finetooth:, @HalfGig:? Montanabw(talk)07:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging - I was a little concerned when I first looked and planned to revisit...alot of water has passed under the bridge since then! Will have another look now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is American recording artist Beyoncé's fourth studio album 4. Significant in her discography as it is the first time she truly vied for artistic credibility, her subsequent release Beyoncé (released twelve days ago) has garnered critical acclaim and has been far more commercially successful, although arguably this is where she "turned the corner" so to speak. I'd like to nominate this for the second time as it came very close to passing. The first time I nominated this I rapidly reduced the article and nominated it with 24 hours, thankfully the commentators of the candidacy pushed more content to be added to it and it's fully comprehensive now. I'd obviously appreciate any comments or suggestions and I hope to build a stronger consensus this time round. Thanks! —JennKR | ☎22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the note, I see some actual references used in the introduction. Since this information is already covered elsewhere in the article, I think it's safe to remove them up here.
Also in the "Singles" section, I suggest replacing all instances where you use "the US" with "the United States". I forget which editor I heard this from, but they used US/U.S. as an adjective (like when talking about charts, the U.S. Billboard 200, etc.) and United States as a noun.
You've delivered a strong article. I spot-checked some references along the way, and they were all in order. After the pointers I've outlined above are addressed, I'll be happy to give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a nice article, but I feel the Singles section is a bit thin on information. Only chart information for a few singles, two if I am not wrong, is given. And I believe it is important to include information regarding the fact that 4 is Beyonce's only studio album not to spawn any top 10 hits in the US(considering the very likely possibility that "Drunk in Love" from her self-titled album will chart inside the top 10). If even the new album does not yield any top 10s, then you can frame the sentence as "...Knowles' first studio album not to spawn any top 10 hits in the United States.." or something similar
There are a few instances where WP:ORDINAL guidelines are not followed, most prominently in the Singles section. According to the guidelines, "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine," thus the sentence "It faired much better on national charts, reaching number 16 in the United States, number 5 in New Zealand and number 3 in the United Kingdom." would become "It faired much better on national charts, reaching number 16 in the United States, number five in New Zealand and number three in the United Kingdom." Other than this (and perhaps more if I realise later), This article is definitely an improvement from the shape it was in before. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chart performance of lesser singles is not vital info about the album, and would result in bloating of the article. Readers can visit the respective articles of the songs for their commercial reception; chart peak positions can also be found at Beyoncé Knowles discography. With respect to the second point, please consider WP:ORDINAL in full; "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Adabow (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. However, I will still emphasise on mentioning the fact that 4 did not spawn any US top ten singles. It is clearly something surprising for an artist of the commercial calibre like Beyonce. As for the second point, it is indeed an interesting observation. I should have read the policy in full, my bad. I do thank you for the information. Also, regarding what you have pointed out about the guideline, there seems, perhaps at only one occasion, where the article does not follow that too. This is a line from the "Commercial performance" section reading "On August 1, 2011, the album was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), having shipped one million copies to retail stores.[135] As of May 2013, 4 has sold 3 million copies worldwide and, as of July 2013, 1.4 million copies in the United States." I have striked out those points which I now feel are not important. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I didn't leave a comment yesterday after I made the WP:ORDINAL corrections. Yeah, I concur with Adabow, and I made a conscious effort to limit the information about singles in this article, mainly because it was bloated but also a lot of album articles seem to focus on this too much when it should really focus on the album. I'll be sure to correct the remaining WP:ORDINAL issues and put in the fact 4 didn't yield a top ten single in the US, I also think it may be Knowles' first album without a number one single Dangerously in Love ("Crazy in Love"/"Baby Boy"), B'Day ("Irreplaceable") and IASF ("Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"), but I'm not sure if this can be sourced. I'll have a look. Cheers! —JennKR | ☎18:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstate my support for this to become an FA. I admit that I overlooked some of the comments and fixes suggested here, but after taking another look, I think it is up to standards. The article is compehensive enough without bordering on extensive length considering how much content is out there, has an excellent prose and is written using high quality sources. My only caveats would be to expand a bit the first paragraph in the lead, and the reception section as well. But these are not necessary, though. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2116:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: A very good article with great prose. Though, I reccomend you to collapse the additional track listings for other editions; plus the critical reception has a minor error ("Knoweles"). prism△23:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I find some of these later reviews shallow and unhelpful. Without more critical commentaries as to why this article satisfies the FA criteria the prospects for this candidate's promotion are poor. Graham Colm (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prism
Visual aspect
Recording: Does the article really need a picture of a recording studio? The quote itself would be fine, plus if you remove the photo, the text won't be sandwiched.
Release and artwork: One paragraph should be about the release and leak; the other one should be about the photoshoot and other packaging details. That being said, could you move the sentence regarding the deluxe release to the end of the first paragraph? By the way, since the section also discusses the reasoning behind the album's title, could you change the section title to "Release, title and artwork"?
Partially Done—moved the sentence, but I don't think two sentences on it being called 4 warrants a subheading.
Promotion:
"on Good Morning America as part of the "Summer Concert Series" in New York City." → 'the' should be 'its', assuming the Summer Concert Series are organized by GMA.
R2/R10/R11/R13/R37/R68/R74/R76/R117/R119/R132/R133/R134/R135/R149/R166/R183/R184/R187/R188/R190/R – Billboard needs publisher parameter, which should be Prometheus Global Media. Only link the publisher in R2. That being said, unlink the parameter in R88.
R3/R4/R14/R18/R35/R71/R72/R75/R106/R120 – MTV News needs publisher parameter, which should be MTV (Viacom Media Networks). Only link parameter in R3.
R5/R43 – Los Angeles Times needs publisher, which is Tribune Company. Only link in R5 (this goes for the rest of the references in which something similar occurs).
R7 – Complex needs publisher (Complex Media).
All references that link to Rap-Up (and there are a lot of them) should have publisher (Rap-Up, LLC.). Plus, why is the magazine wikilinked in R49 while there are references before that don't have it wikilinked?
Prism, as a FAC coord, I've taken the liberty of striking/replacing your earlier bold 'support' since you've added further comments and another support immediately above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "4 was Beyoncé' first album that yielded no number one single in the United States" in the "Singles" section makes me confused: should "single" be in its plural form? — Simon (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, although that's the conventional way to do it, I feel the critical reception section aims to sum up the content of the album and by providing this overview, it fits with the description of what it sounds like, which is ultimately derived from the "Music and lyrics" section. —JennKR | ☎18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so how about the sentence "In May 2011, Beyoncé submitted seventy-two songs to Columbia Records for consideration, twelve songs of which appeared on the standard edition"? I think the sentence should be mentioned before the critical reception? — Simon (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily have to be chronological, I've tried to separate the album's content with its more commercial aspects. —JennKR | ☎12:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image (and other media) review: The song recording is under 30 seconds and the non-free rationale is appropriate. The album cover is fine as well. As for the other three images, one is an older free upload from a trusted user and two are free use per flickr, so everything checks out. Wizardman03:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck of sources -- As this is, I believe, potentially your first FA, Jenn, I spotchecked a few sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I think there's room for improvement. My eye is always drawn to words and phrases that sound like they might have come from a professional review/article, so I checked the following:
"Her microphones were placed strategically to achieve a blend of sounds with clean quality.[16]" -- In this case you've repeated the term "strategically" when I think what's meant is simply "carefully" and you could paraphrase using that word instead. I think also "clean quality" might be better worded as "a clear quality".
"exhibit subtle tension and intense emotion.[25]" -- "Subtle tension" is borrowed directly from the review; you should be able to come up with your own words for that or else lose it. OTOH "intense emotion" is fine, you've clearly taken the review's description of the song's emotional qualities and distilled it into a phrase of your own.
"The song incorporates a military marching drumbeat, synth pangs and African percussion, while Beyoncé's staccato, near-chanted delivery encompasses her full vocal range.[37]" -- I would've hoped you could avoid repeating the source's "full vocal range"; also I couldn't see any allusion in the review to synthesizers and Afro percussion, only the marching drumbeat.
"Horns also feature prominently on "Lay Up Under Me", in which Beyoncé's vocals recapture a feel-good flair,[33]" -- "Feel-good flair" sounded like it might have been lifted from a review but following the citation's link led me to a blank article, and I stopped there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done—thank-you for this Ian. I've fixed all of the above, including an archive link to the reference that returns a blank page. I've been going through the sections where there are most likely to be instances of close paraphrasing (Recording and Composition) and editing them out. I am still unsure about one sentence, however. Line 8 of Composition: ""I Miss You", with its "layers of atmospheric keyboards",[29] ambient synthesizers[30] and tinny 808 drums[31] was sung"—is this problematic? Thanks, —JennKR | ☎12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it may win a prize for most single citations in a sentence, but I don't have an issue with it from a paraphrasing point of view... ;-) Anyway, tks for your responses and for going further into the article than just the examples I gave you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
E.W. Hornung is largely forgotten these days, apart from his hugely popular character A.J. Raffles, who still lives on through film, television and reprints of the novels. Hornung's output was much greater than the four books that gave the world his criminal antihero: his work covered wider and deeper subjects than that however. An extensive re-write has taken place recently, followed by a very productive and helpful peer review which tightened and polished the article considerably. Any further constructive criticism is most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was very impressed with this at the peer review when it was improved even further. Not that well known a writer nowadays, at least in comparison to some of the other writers mentioned in the article like Doyle, but this is very well researched and written. Appears to meet FA guidelines, congratulations Schrod.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate process for that which is underway elsewhere. As this is an ENGVAR difference, the discussion between whether inits or Engvar takes precedence does not take place here, but on the article talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was another of the peer reviewers. My few points raised at that stage were thoroughly dealt with, and the article has been further improved since then. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the three of you for you extremely positive and helpful comments at PR, and your subsequent support here: all is very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and a permanent state of poor health." -- more of a blanket term for a list of ailments, including the asthma and eyesight. I would lose that as it leaves one asking questions as to exactly what the other factors of poor health were, and keep it at asthma and poor eyesight.
I think the problems ran a bit further than just the asthma: it's a point mentioned by all biographers, but without any specifics, unfortunately. I've added "generally" in there, and attributed to a biographer (which also negates the point two below as well). - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"where it was hoped the climate would be beneficial." -- Hoped by who?
"The book was a popular and financial success, although some critics also echoed Doyle's fears,[13][40] and the reviewer in The Spectator wrote that "stern moralists" would consider the book's premise "as a new, ingenious, artistic, but most reprehensible application of the crude principles involved in the old-fashioned hero-worship of Jack Sheppard and Dick Turpin". -- That is one, long sentence for it to be ready easily.
First World War and aftermath
Ballad of Ensign Joy, was published in 1917. -- seeing as we mention 1917 in that sentence, could we get away with saying Ballad of Ensign Joy, was published that year?
"Hornung was concerned about support for pacifism among troops" -- What was he concerned about? Lack of? Too much? Or the fact that there was support?
Death and legacy
"Valentine highlights one of the alterations of the stories was..." -- It maybe just me, but does this read correctly? "Valentine highlights one of the alterations of the stories as being..." Maybe?
Writing
"Watson goes on to write that Hornung's "writing..." Repetition of write →writing.
Driveby comments Given that they are organised by topic, each of the three paras in Style and technique should begin with a topic sentence. "Hornung's prose is widely admired for its lucid-yet-simple style..." for eg. Otherwise, that section appears as a arbitrary collection of quotes. Also, given the predominance of Raffles in this article, I think the first sentence doesn't need the "perhaps" and that "author" should come before "poet". Lastly, can the Nick Rance refs at the start of Major themes be clubbed together as "Rance 1990, pp. 3, 5-6, 14-15" to improve readability?—indopug (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Indopug, much obliged! I've added the sentences, as suggested and changed the poet-author reference around. I'd rather keep the "perhaps" in there: the Raffles stories make up just four of Hornung's 50-odd books, so there is more to him: indeed the Australian Dictionary of Biography concentrates much more fully on the Australian themes than Raffles (and examines Raffles from his development from Australian characters). As to Rance, I think I'd prefer to leave the refs spread out. If people want to identify a single point they can quickly identify the right point in his book, rather than going through a number. I appreciate your concerns on this point, and if others also make comment then I'll happily oblige. Many thanks, once again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reviewed this article at PR, made numerous comments, and was satisified with the responses. Having read the article again just now, I realise that I missed something at PR. The lead rightly states in its opening paragraph that Hornung is best known for his Raffles stories. The second paragraph gives us a brief flavour of these stories. Then, the third paragraph begins: "The First World War brought an end to Hornung's fictional output". Any reader might easily assume from this that Hornung wrote only Raffles novels, but he wrote buckets of other stuff. There is no direct mention of any of his very large non-Raffles fiction in the lead, only the hint in the final paragraph that much of his work has fallen into obscurity. Since his non-Raffles output is discussed at some length in the article, it follows that there needs to be some mention of it in the lead, to meet the summary requirements of WP:LEAD. I am sorry that I missed this point in the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly nothing for you to apologise for, given the fantastic review you gave at PR. It's certainly a point that needs addressing, and I'll work on the lead in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a small addition to the second paragraph to the effect that Hornung also had a number of other works aside from Raffles. Does this read OK, or would you like a little more detail to the rather bald statements there? Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my main review contributions were at PR. Now that you have dealt with the overlooked point, above, I am happy to add my support. On the issue raised below, it does seem rather heavy-handed to register an oppose on the basis of the title format. It is, however, undeniable that almost all the FA biographies with initials use the spaced format (including the egregious Cruttwell, referred to below, one of my less agreeable concoctions of a year or two back). The only exception I can find is the distinctly non-English H.D., which might be considered as a special case. Mainstream English writers (Tolkien, Rowling etc) are all spaced, as is the great H. C. McNeile, which might ring a bell. I think that, in view of the weight of precedent, I would be inclined to introduce the space, while not necessarily agreeing with it. In the same way that an oppose is an over-reaction, so would be a fight to the death on this essentially unimportant issue. (Call me a wimp, if you like). Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments and support here, and for the excellent PR. The matter of the space is out of my hands now: others have (quite corrrectly) put the question through the RfC process, and it has attracted comments on both sides from a number of independent editors. Once the consensus has firmed up it may be easier for a neutral party to bring a slightly quicker close, but that may be in a week or so. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an active talk page thread on the point. BrEng doesn't introduce a space between initials, so the question there is whether our inits guideline take precedence over our policy of ENGVAR. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hugely dubious oppose on mightily shaky grounds. The title does not affect the standard of the article and does not "fail" the MoS. At worst the title will have a space added, that is all: there is a discussion about that space that should not affect the progress of FAC, as it's a question of which aspect of our MoS takes precedence here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'In your opinion, not in the opinion of a number of other participants. Perhaps we could confine further discussion in the right location of the Move discussion, rather than here, where it doesn't belong? (It doesn't seem wise to open up a fourth thread about one space). - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the article meets the FA criteria is a separate issue from the move and it is appropriate for me to express an opinion on whether or not the article meets criterion 2 at this page. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet the criteria, that much is rather obvious. You are opposing based on whether this article meets a flexible guideline? And one that concerns the use of one space that is being discussed in an appropriate manner? I'm sure the delegates will treat this with the weight it deserves. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan So despite the fact that this article meets the criteria on prose, images, research and style, you are opposing over a single space? Surely all these things override the ambiguity on a flexible guideline. If it were up to me then your oppose would not be counted. Cassiantotalk09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I don't review anymore. Say the most minutest thing, "there's a space missing", and you get abuse. I'm not the one who's over-reacting. DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no abuse here, and you haven't said "the most minutest thing": you've opposed, and on dubious grounds to boot. There is an ongoing discussion about the space in the right forum to have that discussion. It's being conducted properly and a consensus will emerge in time. Opposing this nomination over the addition (or not) of a space seems decidedly odd. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not called you any of those things and I am neither belittling or harrassing you. I have described your action here as odd, but not you, so please do not try and smear by innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not attacked you and I suggest that we both let the matter drop. This is not the place for commenting on the supposed behaviour of others. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, all that is required is to wait for a consensus to emerge from an ongoing RfC. That is running separately from the FAC and these should remain discrete and independent from one another. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it: it's something that a number of people have raised a question over. I suggest we leave it to the FAC delegates to weigh up the arguments when they come to read through thre thread. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Crisco 1492, the oppose stated above by User:DrKiernan appears to be motivated by spite and not on any actionable issue (since the usage complained of is entirely appropriate in British English, WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN advise against unnecessary edit-warring or cantankerous opposition over something so subjective.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with ENGVAR or spite. The MoS advises a space, if the article doesn't use one without good reason then it doesn't comply with criterion 2. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advises, not requires. That's the key point, and the reason for several opposes at your requested move. If anything that part of the MOS needs to be discussed further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'll be promoting this shortly. I note that DrK has withdrawn his objection, while standing by his concern. So there's no doubt, I'd probably be promoting the article whether the opposition stood or not, because when assessing the actionability of opposes I've always tended to defer to the main editor's preferred style if there's any doubt and uncertainly about what the MOS says. Personnally, FWIW, I don't use spaces between initials like this either. OTOH, taking a cue from Brian, above, I am a little puzzled that such a strong stand has been taken against spaces in this article's title, but not re. say H. C. McNeile... Anyway, if in the future there is resolution in another forum to use spaces between ititials everywhere then I'm sure this article will be changed accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about something different. You'll not find a single link to Indonesia. Not even one. No, not even through the director's grandparents like in Frank's Cock. The "Streatham" portrait caused a minor stir on its discovery in 2006, as it was thought to possibly be a life portrait of the mysterious Lady Jane Grey. Testing has discounted that, although it is currently thought to possibly be a reproduction of a life portrait. Sadly, no academic articles on this subject have been forthcoming, although we do have several news reports, a short discussion in a history book, and discussion from an independent research on the subject (see the GA review for how that meets WP:SPS).
Per WP:IMGSYN: "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px")." The lead image is currently 350px, which seems rather large on my screen.
Usually is the key word. Visual arts articles generally have larger lede images, as the detail must be seen. That means having the painting bigger than the average lede image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it looks daft on a 19-inch screen then how will this look on a Kindle? Keep in mind that a reader who wants to see a larger version will click the image, so you need not present it in the ideal viewing size. Per WP:IMGSIZE: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference, so the use of upright with a scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." So, per the MoS, if you insist on defining the size of the image, then you should use the upright scaling factor. GabeMc(talk|contribs)23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that previous articles have been passed while not 100% FA compliant is WP:OSE, right? Per WP:IMGSIZE: "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" ("300px")", which IMO implies that they are available and that they should not exceed the equivalent of 300px. GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although of historical interest, it is generally considered to be weak and has been described as "appallingly bad" and "paint-by-numbers".[1]"
1) generally is superfluous; omit. 2) Who described it as "appallingly bad" and "paint-by-numbers". I know that the MoS does not require in-line attribution for quotes that are less than a full sentence, but this one strikes me as needing attribution. After all, if this is the first taste of critical response it would be nice to know who's opinion we are being given.
I disagree on both counts. Generally is not superfluous, as there may be people who consider it acceptable or interesting, and (as you note yourself) the MOS does not require attribution in this situation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It shows a three-quarter-length depiction of a young woman in Tudor-period dress holding a prayer book but without a wedding ring, with the faded inscription "Lady Jayne" or "Lady Iayne" in the upper-left corner."
"without a wedding ring" comes out of nowhere. Why are you going out of your way to assert this negative? She isn't eyeglasses either. If "holding a prayer book but without a wedding ring" has symbolic significance, then you should set some background in the lead so that this makes sense.
"Believing the portrait to be an accurate (though poorly-done) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane".
1) "(though poorly-done)" is awkward, IMO. Consider "(though poorly-executed)", or similar. 2) Might this be better set-off with commas in stead of brackets?
"the portrait was bought by a collector in Streatham, London, by the early 20th century. In December 2005 it was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. Believing the portrait to be an accurate (though poorly-done) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, Foley had the work verified, restored it, and negotiated its sale. The portrait was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London,"
portrait is repeated four times in close proximity in this paragraph, and "The portrait was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London" is particularly jarring. Consider: "the portrait was bought by a collector in Streatham, London, by the early 20th century. In December 2005 it was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. Believing the painting to be an accurate (though poorly-executed) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, Foley had it verified and restored before negotiating its sale. The work was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London", or similar.
Depending on who you ask, an infinitive ought not follow a verb. Since there is already one of these text-stings in the first paragraph, why not recast as: "for an estimated £100,000", or similar. This would flow better without a need for the comma, and it would avoid the fourth use of a "p" sound in the sentence.
"and he and Foley challenged each other's identifications in the media over a period of more than a year."
Were the identifications made in the media? Also, "over a period of" is excess. "Consider: "and he and Foley publicly challenged each other's identifications for more than a year", or similar.
You use "portrait" no less than six times in the second paragraph. A few of these should be substituted even if you don't like my above suggestions.
Down to four. NPG is unavoidable, and the first and last are much more difficult to rework than the others as they both indicate a shift in subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject
"She was in correspondence with Protestant leaders in Continental Europe, such as Heinrich Bullinger, and dressed plainly; her last words are reported to have been "Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit!".[3]"
I think "the short-lived" is excess detail about Edward, since you mention that he died in the next sentence. Also, it seems like WP:OR, since the cited source does not describe him as "short-lived". 16 was young, but nearly middle-age for the time, and the same age that Lady Jane was executed.
1) Will the casual reader know what once removed means? 2) The cited source does not support this statetment, making it unverifiedoriginal research.
Per WP:V: Citation should be for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". I don't think this falls under that scope. That being said, it is most certainly not OR, as references do exist: example. If you insist, I can cite it, but that would mostly serve to balloon the list of works cited with no significant impact on the article. First cousin once removed has been, against my better judgment, linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source does not go into this level of detail regarding the familiar relationships, and the word cousin is not used. Are you saying that if you know that they were "first cousin[s] once removed" that the following citation need not support this assertion because you know its true and its not contentious? GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Que? This has cousin in the first paragraph. The issue was "once removed", which is not OR, just unreferenced. If you insist, fine, but I only do it begrudgingly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently added that source; the source that was cited when I reviewed the article—the BBC—does not state that they were cousins. Which text-sting in the cited source says: "Lady Jane Grey was a first cousin once removed to King Edward VI." GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The cited source does not go into this level of detail regarding the familiar relationships" (00:24 UTC); ODNB added to that paragraph: 00:08 UTC. That you did not check again before writing your second comment is not my fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So instead of just saying: "You're right. That part wasn't sourced when you reviewed the article so I've added another reference" you are playing the: "its sourced" game? GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I noted explicitly below that I have added another source, I expected you to actually revisit the article to verify that I had done so before continuing your line of questioning. I do not deny that the BBC source did not support that they were cousins. I am just curious as to why you didn't attempt to see what changes I had made before insisting that something was unreferenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of just saying: "You're right. That part wasn't sourced when you reviewed the article so I've added another reference" you're playing a game, pretending that the onus is on me to check your every revision. All you had to say was its sourced now. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the reviewer. If you say something is not cited, and I note elsewhere that a citation has been added to text relevant to the issue you mentioned, then you may want to check it. That's just good reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you realize how many words you've written not telling me that you sourced the claim? For example, instead of "Que? This has cousin in the first paragraph. The issue was "once removed", which is not OR, just unreferenced. If you insist, fine, but I only do it begrudgingly", you could have written: "Its now sourced", or similar and the concern would have ended there. I think you were doing well with the review until I found some stuff that wasn't sourced, which embarrassed you and led to the personal attacks. Just relax, man! I have no ill-will toward you; its quite the opposite actually. I admire your work. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a Protestant faction proclaimed her queen"
This needs the context of why religion is mentioned here. I.e., the faction wanted to prevent Mary Tudor's accession to the throne because she was Catholic.
"Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, the short-lived King Edward VI."
1) It seems a bit odd to mention her great-grandfather and her grandmother, but not her mother or father. 2) The cited source states: "Through her mother, Lady Frances Brandon, she was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII", but you have it as "Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor", which, since its not supported by the cited source, is WP:OR. Unless I missed it, the cited source does not state that Mary Tudor was Lady Jane Grey's grandmother, so per WP:VERIFY you need to add an additional source or copyedit away the unsourced statements.
Again, read the definition of OR. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" (WP:OR), not just unreferenced material. It's fine and dandy for you to throw this alphabet soup around, but at least know what you're writing. Jane Grey's father is mentioned below, and her mother had little impact on Jane's claim to the throne. Her relationship with Henry, however, was everything, and that's why he is mentioned here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, the short-lived King Edward VI" is a little too close to a text-string from Lady Jane Grey: "The great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his younger daughter Mary, Jane was a first cousin once removed of Edward VI."
You could argue that this isn't creative enough to justify a paraphrase, or require attribution, but IMO it is too close to material from another Wikipedia article. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied."
The text was copied from Execution of Lady Jane Grey and later paraphrased a little through the GAC and PR process. Attribution is explicitly given on the article talk page, per policy, and has been from the first edit to the talk page. If it was not attributed at the other page, that is through no fault of my own and has no impact on the article currently at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. You just didn't see it. ODNB has cousins explicitly written in the first paragraph. Besides, why is this reply here? The point was about attribution, which I answered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was added after I duplicated the ODNB source (00:08 vs 00:21), adding it to the biographical section. I wrote the reply assuming you had seen that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Two weeks after the death of her brother, Mary, with the support of the English people"
Edward was Mary's half-brother, but perhaps this distinction isn't necessary.
Considering the patrilineal descent required for the throne, the important thing was that Henry VIII was the father of both (and thus half-brother/half-sister is not entirely pertinent for this very brief overview). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Two weeks after the death of her brother, Mary, with the support of the English people, claimed the throne, which Jane relinquished after only nine days."
The cited source does not say how long Jane was Queen, so this is unverifiedWP:OR.
Read the first paragraph of the source. "Jane was nominal queen of England for just nine days in 1553, as part of an unsuccessful bid to prevent the accession of the Catholic Mary Tudor." Also, recheck your understanding of WP:OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Jane, her husband Lord Guildford Dudley and her father Henry, were imprisoned in the Tower of London on charges of high treason."
1) The cited source does not mention Jane's father's given name; it refers to him as Suffolk, so this is also unverifiedWP:OR. 2) The cited source does not actually say that Suffolk was "imprisoned in the Tower of London on charges of high treason". It states: "While Suffolk was pardoned, Jane and her husband were tried for high treason in November 1553." So while I sympathize that this is most likely true, per WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'm sure this is verifiable, but not by using the cited source.
Verifiable =/= cited. Please read the policy a bit closer (and again with the OR; check your definition). I have added the ODNB to the end of this paragraph, which confirms Jane's father's name, and his participation in Wyatt's rebellion as more than a supporter. This has involved reworking the text a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that it is not OR if reliable sources exist and the information is verifiable, nothing more and nothing less. You are attempting to read too much out of my comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not disputed that citations should support what is in an article. That does not mean that it is OR to have information which is not cited, and your wanton use of the term is what I take issue with. Again, read the definition of OR. That you were mistaken in your use of the term is understandable. That you refuse to recognize you were mistaken, only evidence of severe underlying issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your comments about the content of my edits, and not about me. Several of your replies border on personal attacks, IMO. From my perspective, you've deduced that they were cousins and added it to the article without sourcing. That's OR, IMO. Is your point here that nothing that's factual can be categorized as OR? I'm sorry if we have different understandings of the guideline, but you shouldn't make this personal. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) As mentioned elsewhere, that text was taken from another article (as attributed on the talk page), I could not have been an evil genius capable of discovering that they were cousins all on my lonesome and violating WP:OR 2) If having verifiable material uncited is OR in your opinion, then your understanding of OR is out of line with the current policy. Read the policy (for the fifth time... have you read it once?) 3) You have accused me of copyright violations, OR (serious offence as defined by the policy, and not your mistaken understanding of it), and playing games with you instead of trying to work with you to improve this article to be the best it can be. I consider those almost personal attacks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you say I've misinterpreted WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, and WP:VERIFY: I say that if you write: "Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, King Edward VI", but that's not at all supported by the provided source then its likely OR. Is it your position that nothing factual should be characterized as OR? Because there is nothing inherent in OR that demands that the material be inaccurate.GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 1554, Jane's father, who had been released, was one of the rebel leaders in Wyatt's rebellion."
More unverifiedWP:OR; the cited source does not refer to Suffolk as "one of the rebel leaders in Wyatt's rebellion"; it merely says that Suffolk supported Wyatt.
Are you asserting that as long as you know its true then you don't need the cited source to support the facts presented in the sentence? A supporter is quite a different thing then a leader, wouldn't you agree? GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On Friday 12 February, Mary had Jane, then aged 16, and her husband, beheaded; her father suffered the same fate two days later.[2]"
1) The use of Friday seems overly specific. 2) That comma preceding beheaded seems excessive; omit.
"Of the 16th century English monarchs, Jane was long thought to be the only one without a surviving contemporary portrait; one was documented in a 1590 inventory, but is today lost."
1) This is a dangling modifier because the first clause refers to all the 16th century English Monarchs, but the subject of the sentence is Jane. Consider: "Jane was long thought to be the only 16th century English monarch without a surviving contemporary portrait", or similar. 2) "but is today lost" violates WP:REALTIME. Recast to avoid the reference to today.
"Some that had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters"
I'm not sure that sitters is the most encyclopedic substitute for Monarch.
Sitters is an art term, referring to the subject of the portrait, and not a substitute for monarch, and thus not exclude the possibility of works being identified as people who were not monarchs. See the last entry at Sitter.
"Other works, such as The Execution of Lady Jane Grey (1833) by Paul Delaroche, were painted years or centuries after her death.[7][8]"
Since the example you offered was painted 279 years after her death you should omit: "years". I.e., "were painted centuries after her death".
That was one example, one of the most famous, and the only one provided by the cited source. There are others, a bit closer... perhaps not very close, but not centuries. See [40]. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that there are examples from only years after her death, but you should either include one of those or remove it, because your set-up should refer to you actual example. GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is one example. The article says "such as", meaning that there were many, many examples. It does not require me to include five or six examples. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman. I suggest including two examples: the one already mentioned to cover centuries and a more contemporaneous one to cover years. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit more reasonable, but I still consider it unnecessary. As I mentioned, "such as" implies a wide body of work, one which includes a variety of portraits, and is thus more effective than giving the example of a portrait which only Jane Grey specialists may have heard of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if I wrote: "'Green Sleeves' has been covered for years or centuries after it was written, such as John Anderson's 1996 version." Don't you think that begs for one more example? GabeMc(talk|contribs)02:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description
"Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery gave less sharp criticism, stating that "it's a paint-by-number, labored copy",[8] and that "its value is as a historical document rather than a work of art".[11"
You should not introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction; omit.
"Zarin describes the painting as looking bleached in comparison with other portraits of monarchs, with "the flat face of a paper doll".[8] Edwards concurs, stating "the quality might be described as naive, primitive, or even folk art".[12]"
Edwards does not really concur with Zarin's assertion that the painting looks "bleached" or like a "paper doll". Edwards agrees that the quality of the painting is poor, but to present his opinion as supporting those specific complaints from Zarin is an improper synthesis.
"Christopher Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original that 'had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen'."
1) You should not introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction. 2) Unless I'm confused, you first mention Foley in the preceding section, but he is not properly introduced there. This should be just Foley here, and his first introduction should be: "the art dealer Christopher Foley".
Fixed Foley. In this case, "that" or "which" is absolutely necessary: try reading this without the quotation marks. Eliminating "that" would make the sentence unreadable (i.e. "Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen.")
"Damage to the painting's mouth and eyes suggests that at one time it was vandalised"
The interrupter, "at one time", needs to be set-off with commas.
"Another portrait, also credited as Jane and strikingly similar in form"
I don't think that credited is the right verb here, since Jane did not paint the portrait. I can see why you've used it, but it doesn't feel right.
If the term was "attributed to", I'd agree with you. I think this one is okay as-is.00:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
"A third copy, of lower quality, is known through records, although its whereabouts are today unknown.[4]"
1) This seems like an excessive use of commas that breaks the flow of the prose. 2) If both of the aforementioned copies are low-quality then I don't think you need to emphasis the relative qualities of the three. 3) Per WP:REALTIME we should avoid references to today. Consider: "Although its whereabouts are unknown, a third copy has been documented in historical records", or similar.
"By the 20th century the Streatham portrait was owned by a family in Streatham, London"
I noticed that, for the most part, you use commas after introductory phrases, but not always. They are optional, but their usage should be consistent throughout the article.
"Dendrochronological analysis was later undertaken, which dated the panel to c. 1593"
This is already stated in Production and early history: "dendrochronology dates its wood panel to c. 1593."
Removed the date, as it is mentioned above, but the dendrochronology should still be mentioned, as this paragraph is about the testing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Foley visited the owner, hoping "to go shut the fellow up",[10] but upon seeing the work on an easel in the attic he "knew it was right" for the period."
Are these direct quotations from Foley or Zarin? Since its not at all clear, and "go shut the fellow up" is a complete sentence, you should provide in-line attribution.
"Go shut to fellow up" is a clause, not a sentence. It is lacking a subject. Both are from Foley, neither require explicit attribution to Foley under the current MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fellow" is the object. "Go" is an active verb, and requires the subject to be in front of the word "go". "He went to shut the fellow up", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The identity of the sitter was debated after the panel's discovery."
Again, while I don't doubt that the term sitter is appropriate, I can't help but feel that its a bit jargon-esque, or that it would confuse a casual reader.
"Sitter" and "subject" are both appropriate terms when it comes to writing about portraits, sitter rather more specific. The term is used in recent FAs such as Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. A little bit of jargon is inescapable in an article like this, and "sitter" is downright reader friendly compared to some of the other terms used in this article (which are linked). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Foley found that there were at least four Jane Grey's among the English nobility at the time of the portrait, but owing to "the ages and marital status of the other candidates", Lady Jane Grey was the only viable choice, the others being too young, already married and using a different surname, or having lost their title."
This is wordy, IMO. Consider spitting these six clauses into two sentences.
"Starkey was more reserved, arguing that "there isn't that over-the-top quality you get with royal portraits of the period, where the sitters look as though they've just come back from Asprey."
Will the casual reader know what "look[ing] as though they've just come back from Asprey" means? It seems like an inside comment that will not make sense to many readers.
" Since early 2013 it has hung in Room 2 of the Montacute House in Somerset as part of an exhibition of Tudor-era portraits."
I noticed that, for the most part, you use commas after introductory phrases, but not always. They are optional, but their usage should be consistent throughout the article.
"After the March 2007 exhibition, Lost Faces when the miniature was displayed after a recent resurgence of interest in the Nine Days' Queen, Foley published a lengthy letter challenging Starkey's judgement, citing the brooch and emblem."
Maybe its just me, but this is jarring and confusing. 1) What does "the brooch and emblem" have to do with anything? I assume you mean that Foley used those items as evidence of authenticity, but this is not made clear by the prose. 2) Should Lost Faces be set-off with commas, because its making the long and awkward sentence difficult to parse.
"and is considered part of the gallery's primary collection"
I expected to be to follow considered, which trasitions rather awkwardly into "part of the gallery's". Consider: "and is regarded as part of the gallery's primary collection", or similar.
Gabe, I want to thank you (again) for the thorough review and apologize if I came across as attacking you, the person. It appears, to me at least, that there was a miscommunication between the two of us which led to the lengthy debate above. The end result, however, is clear to me: the entire paragraph is supported by the sources now, which is what really matters. Although I may disagree with you on a few points above (such as the examples), I hope you understand why I've taken such a stance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have been watching this develop for a few weeks and its now a very nice, well written, well sourced, concise and to the point article. There is a great story behind this painting and its brought out well here. More please. Ceoil (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed, had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with, and I think the article meets all the FA criteria. It can't have been easy to get the balance right, with fiercely conflicting experts, including the formidable Dr Starkey, having their say, but the nominator has pulled it off convincingly. Top notch stuff. – Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been watching this too, I think since before the PR, and any quibbles I had were nicely taken care of along the way. It's a really interesting article about the portrait of a woman who lost her head. Well done, Crisco! Victoria (tk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning support: I missed the PR, but this is an interesting little article. For what it's worth, I lived for a time within walking distance of the house in which Lady Jane Grey grew up. A strange, rather desolate place these days, but worth seeing! Just a few nitpicks here, although I can't say I'm quite convinced by the arguments of the experts in this article. Happy to support once these points are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”Jane was a devout Protestant in line for the throne”: Do we need to say that she was in line for the throne when the preceding paragraph states that she was briefly queen?
”Some that had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters”: This phrase lacks a certain elegance. Maybe “Academics have concluded that other paintings originally identified as Jane are in fact depictions of others; one example, a portrait now believed to be Catherine Parr [do we need the phrase identifying her “the last of the six wives of Henry VIII”?], was identified as Lady Jane Grey until 1996.” Or something like that.
I prefer we keep the phrase about who Parr was, for non British readers. Not 100% necessary, I agree, but it is helpful. Regarding your suggested wording, it would be inaccurate: the Parr portrait used as an example was identified as Parr, Jane, Parr. I've tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”She wears numerous pieces of jewellery, including a necklace finished with medallions and pearls; indicating a person of high social and economic status, which is reinforced by the silk and velvet of her gown.”: I’m not sure the semi-colon makes sense here.
”A third copy is known through records, although its whereabouts are unknown.”: I can see why this is mentioned here, but is this not the same portrait mentioned in the earlier section? Does it need mentioning twice? If it is a different lost picture, maybe make that clearer.
No, sources do not indicate that the two are the same (if people had trouble believing this was of Jane because of its shortcomings, I am quite certain they would not believe another portrait, of lesser quality, was painted during Jane's lifetime). I'm not sure of a good way to make it explicit that this and the painting in the 1590 records are not the same without a clunky footnote. Suggestions welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”Damage to the painting's mouth and eyes suggests that, at one time, it was vandalised, possibly by a Catholic partisan”: I think “at one time” is redundant here, particularly as the next part of the sentence tentatively dates the damage.
”Owing to the painting's crudeness, Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original that "had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen””: This seems a little strange. Why would they want a copy if the original had to be destroyed? Surely having a copy was as dangerous as having that original, so why destroy it in the first place? (This is a criticism of Foley’s idea, not the writing of this article!)
The source does not go into more detail on this (sadly). I dare not speculate, as I am singularly unqualified to do so. Do you think it worth removing altogether? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”They had long believed the portrait was of Jane”: Perhaps “They had long believed the portrait to be Jane…”?
It feels awkward to me to say a painting was a person, rather than painting of a person. I understand this is common in BrE, but I think the wording here is also acceptable (though perhaps clunky) in BrE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”Lady Jane Grey was the only viable choice; the others were too young, already married and using a different surname, or had lost their title.”: Again I’m spotting some odd logic from these experts. If the painting was of her, it was from 40 years after her death. If it was a copy, there is no way to date the original. So how can the age of the sitter have any relevance? They were too young when? In 1590? But LJG was long dead by then, so by the same logic, it couldn’t have been her!!!
Rather like that argument. To hedge, however, the source does not state "1550s", but "the period", which is conveniently indistinct enough that it could be argued to be the 16th century, or the mid-16th century, or something else. Also, the costume is also useful for dating the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”after a recent resurgence of interest in the Nine Days' Queen”: Someone unfamiliar may be wondering who this “Nine Days’ Queen” was! Maybe state that she was known as this in the section on her life. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lost Faces: a bit confused by the formatting here - is Grosvenor the editor and the others listed authors?
Source has "Catalog entries by David Starkey, Philip Mould, Bendor Grosvenor, and Alasdair Hawkyard." I have removed the (ed.) note. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchell: the link provided shows different publisher and location - can you verify?
I'm going with WorldCat, which appears to be basing the publisher on the back cover. Associated University Presses (used by Google) is listed on page 4. I think I trust the back cover/WorldCat more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the world of video games, there's no stranger story, I believe, than the Sega 32X. It was one of the most unique concepts in video gaming—the idea that a video game console's life could be expanded by adding a piece of hardware to boost the system's power, more so than the Sega CD and its addition of a CD-ROM drive. What resulted was a commercial failure that caught few by surprise because of its incredibly poor timing and support, and it served as a lesson to the entire gaming industry. I think this article is so neat because it features so many aspects of the 32X's short lifetime and how it's seen today, even by Sega's former executives who were a part of its development. Whether you're into video games or not, this article covers a very neat subject, and it's very high quality. I'm hoping the FAC process will help to make it the best it can be. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've edited this article a small amount in the past, but Red Phoenix has done an amazing job. Any criticism of the article I already shared with him in the past months as he improved this, as he's already addressed all those things, I happily give my support.--SexyKick02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of these supports look a bit drive-by. I've taken a quick look at the lead.
First paragraph, final sentence: "The add-on was distributed under the name Super 32X (スーパー32X, Sūpā Sātī Tsu Ekkusu) in Japan, Sega Genesis 32X in North America, Sega Mega Drive 32X in the PAL region, and Sega Mega 32X in Brazil." Was it distributed anywhere as "Sega 32X", and if not, why is the device called that?
WP:COMMONNAME - Media and sources of all kinds explicitly call it "Sega 32X"; with the exception of Allgame, all of the sources used for this article and most sources in media past and present not used in this article call it Sega 32X and not a specific name. As far as I can tell it was never distributed as "Sega 32X" by itself anywhere, but it's referred to in all types of media, both time period-relevant and retrospectively, as "Sega 32X" or just "32X". This somewhat makes sense considering that except for Japan, each region basically had the name of the console included in the title with a "32X" added. I'm not quite sure how to make that explicit, but that's why it's called "Sega 32X" - it's the common name. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the console failed to attract either developers or consumers" – make that "sufficient consumers" (665,000 were sold). I am not sure, either, what "developers" it hoped and failed to attract.
"In part because of this, and also to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994, the 32X suffered from a weak library of titles." I assume that "this" refers to the prior announcement of the Sega Saturn. Why would this announcement lead to a weak library of titles for the 32X?
These are relatively minor points, but they do indicate that the prose could do with some careful checking, to ensure that it meets FAC standards. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I always appreciate thorough reviews. I'm of the opinion that part of the FAC process is to do some final touch-up and improvement with extra feedback of the reviewers to hash out such issues, so I greatly appreciate your feedback so far and look forward to more. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"add-on" — technical term, link to either Peripheral or Video game accessory. Under game library there is an instance of add-on that seems as if it refers to a software add-on ("Sega CD add-ons") and so appears crucial to distinguish.
"pass-through" — I can't find a definition that fits your use of this phrase, which I take to mean that it can play Genesis games?
Done - Exactly what it means, but removed it anyway. Essentially the 32X add-on itself doesn't actually function in playing Genesis games, but Genesis games can be plugged into it and the game can be played with the attached Genesis console without removing the add-on. So, the game "passes through" the 32X to the Genesis to be played. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Reception and legacy": "(i)n theory," should this be "[i]n theory,"?
Oh no, I didn't mean whether the logo should be included; I meant whether the infobox caption should say something like: Top: Logo for the Sega 32X; Bottom: The Sega 32X ... but if it's not in other FAs then it's not a requirement. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I've read through the lead and see little cause to support. "Add-on" links to an article stating "video game accessories are everything except the console itself", so the fact that it had "its own library of games" is confusing: replace "add-on" with wording that is easy to understand. Giving its pre-production codename in the 2nd sentence is a distraction. Why is the Japanese name given in three forms? The lead should be a summary, but the names in some regions are not mentioned in the main text. Similarly, "June 1994" is not in the main text. "and made more powerful": than what? "have the new add-on to market": 'have to market' seems wrong. "causing developers and consumers to wait for the Saturn instead of invest in the 32X": surely "investing" is needed? "the console failed to attract either third-party video game developers or sufficient consumers as the Sega Saturn had already been announced for release the following year, causing developers and consumers to wait": what was the cause – the failing to attract, or the Saturn announcement? Just state what "holiday season" means; following the link should not be required. "In order to have the new add-on to market by the end of 1994" and "because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994" appear to be identical, so there is unnecessary repetition. "by the end of 1994" also appears three times in para 2. When was it released? "the low price point": is that different from "the low price"? "after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting the low price point of the system": this kind of construction is used several times, but is much easier to read if anaphoric reference is used, e.g., "after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting its low price". "poor timing into the market": 'entry' or similar is needed somewhere in there.
Thanks for your comments. In response to some of them:
"Add-on" is the common term used by the video gaming community, and the 32X is referred to as an "add-on" in all of the sources used for the article. This is the reason for this selection of terminology.
The Japanese name is given in three forms because this is commonplace in video game articles for Japanese releases, to have the "translated name", the name in Japanese characters, and the direct romanization of that name.
Names in all of the regions aren't mentioned because none of them are what are commonly referred to in the sources. Video game media tends to broadly call the console "Sega 32X", despite its different naming, and the names are given just for identification purposes. Restating them when nothing else is to be said on the subject of the names is, to me, unnecessary.
I added a "June" at the mentioning of the console's unveiling in the text.
I don't have the time and energy to go through all of this tonight, but if you choose to nitpick the prose, I'd like to ask a favor. I'd prefer to have a bulleted list of suggested changes, if you wouldn't mind. Then, I can rectify them and allow you to make your decision afterward. I don't feel that copyediting prose notes that I would all consider minor issues should be a reason to oppose, and think that that is part of the FAC process and part of why we do it this way. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force01:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I sometimes drop in on an FAC, especially where I see a cluster of brief Supports. When I look at the article and see what I regard as either a lack of clarity for the general reader or a lot of obvious prose problems in the part I choose to look at, then I make some comments that give examples, in the (partly lazy, partly too busy) hope that someone else will look and comment in more detail on the problems exemplified. This is usually, in part, because the frequency of problems found indicates that the FAC process is being relied on to develop the prose, rather than being a final check. It's not a full review, so I don't Oppose or Support. EddieHugh (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think a large part of FAC being used to develop prose has to do with a larger issue of lack of involved editors in review areas all across Wikipedia. As a whole, video games as a subject doesn't tend to draw many reviewers, either, especially not specialists with copyediting or prose. Most video game reviewers, and that does include myself, tend to look at completeness and structure, and I work very specifically with images and source reviews a lot on these as well, but prose is not a specialty. In general, though, it's a dying thing, and I did feel sending this or any of my other FAs and upcoming FA candidates to peer review or for copyediting would not gain any response; ergo, FAC becomes part of the process and I believe creates stronger articles because of the exposure coming here brings. It's my hope, at least, that this review won't end up like this one, where I think User:JDC808 unfairly got the short stick due to short reviews and lengthy copyedit issues that he was able to easily resolve as they came up, but because of their timing, he lost out. For that, I appreciate that you're trying to generate more comments that way. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On that note as well, more responses to raised issues with the lead:
"Have to market" changed to "bring to market" for clarity. Personally, I think "have to market" might be something that comes from my American midwest dialect, the more that I look at it, which is why it doesn't seem wrong.
"Invest" changed to "investing" - Again, this didn't seem wrong to me, but it does make sense with "investing", so I'm good with the change.
Changed one "by the end of 1994" to "November 1994" in order to both add the release date and remove one "by the end of 1994". Interestingly, all three referred to different things, making rewording this difficult: one was the release window for the 32X, another was a worry that the Saturn wouldn't make it by the end of 1994, and the third is the sourcing of the numbers, which (in German) states are numbers up until the end of 1994. Tricky.
Rephrased the "causing" sentence; it should be more clear now.
Revoked repetition of rushing to market by end of 1994.
Changed "low price point" to "low price"
If I may be honest, I've never heard the term "anaphoric reference". I can see that I would likely need some assistance with consistent implementation if it's deemed necessary.
Very minor comment - does "but was later criticized retrospectively " make sense - if something is criticized later, then surely it is by it's very nature retrospective? Is that word unnecessary or am I missing something (the latter is probably true)? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this for clarity. What is attempting to be conveyed is that the game was criticized after the lifetime of the add-on was over, in "retrospectives". However, I've removed it as an unnecessary redundancy anyway. Tone has always been a very cautious stepping stone with this article due to the 32X's highly negative reception in the media today (which essentially blames the 32X for destroying Sega's hardware business, though they continued on until the discontinuation of Dreamcast in 2001) versus its positive reception prior to and at the add-on's launch, hence the attempts to word things very cautiously. Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force03:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Red Phoenix, the article is fantastic!
WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis for the Game library. Can it be expanded a bit in the lead?
Major Point 1: History "Unveiled at June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X as a low cost option for consumers looking to play 32-bit games. Developed in response to the Atari Jaguar with concerns that the Saturn would not make it to market by the end of 1994, the product was originally conceived as an entirely new console. However, at the suggestion of Sega of America executive Joe Miller and his team, the console was converted into an add-on to the existing Genesis and made more powerful. The final design contained two 32-bit central processing unit chips and a 3D graphics processor. In order to have the new add-on to market by the end of 1994, development of the new system and its games were rushed. Ultimately, the console failed to attract either third-party video game developers or sufficient consumers as the Sega Saturn had already been announced for release the following year, causing developers and consumers to wait for the Saturn instead of invest in the 32X. In part because of the announcement, and also because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market before the holiday season in 1994, cutting into available time for game development, the 32X suffered from a weak library of titles. By the end of 1994, the add-on had sold 665,000 units. It was discontinued in 1995 as Sega turned their focus toward the Saturn." & "Codenamed "Project Mars", the 32X was designed to expand the power of the Genesis and serve as a transitional console into the 32-bit era until the later release of the Sega Saturn." (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 2: Technical aspects and specifications "Independent of the Genesis, the 32X utilizes its own ROM cartridges and has its own library of games, but also plays Genesis cartridges." (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 3: Game library "" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
I've rephrased a sentence or two to add a little more, but I would contend that this section is covered (and better so with the new rewording" here: "In part because of the announcement, and also because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market, which cut into available time for game development, the 32X suffered from a weak library of forty titles that could not fully utilize the add-on's hardware, including Genesis ports." Game library was a major focus of the criticisms of the add-on. Red Phoenixlet's talk...23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major Point 4: Reception and legacy "The 32X is considered a commercial failure. Initial reception after the add-on's unveiling and launch was positive, highlighting the low price point of the system and power expansion to the Genesis. Later feedback and retrospectives have given the 32X mostly negative reviews for its shallow game library, poor timing into the market, and splintering of the market for the Genesis." (summarised well in the lead)
Other suggestions:
I think the sentence "At the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in early 1994, Sega of America research and development head Joe Miller, as well as Bayless, Sega hardware team head Hideki Sato, and Sega vice president of technology Marty Franz, took a phone call from Nakayama, in which Nakayama stressed the importance of coming up with a quick response to the Jaguar." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Rephrased as "At the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in early 1994, Sega of America research and development head Joe Miller took a phone call from Nakayama, in which Nakayama stressed the importance of coming up with a quick response to the Jaguar. Included on this call were Bayless, Sega hardware team head Hideki Sato, and Sega vice president of technology Marty Franz." Red Phoenixlet's talk...23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Later feedback and retrospectives have given the 32X mostly negative reviews for its shallow game library, poor timing into the market, and splintering of the market for the Genesis." (I’d recommend a rephrasing: "Later reviews, both contemporary and retrospective, for the 32X have been mostly negative because of its shallow game library, poor market timing and the resulting market fragmentation for the Genesis." The terms "market timing" and "market fragmentation" are more common in business. Please feel free to rephrase it differently or ignore the suggestion altogether.)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Red Phoenix, please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn♥23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite right. As far as I was aware, "fiscal years" run February to January. I didn't recall seeing anything about the fiscal year when I translated the article. Red Phoenixlet's talk...23:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the Man!ac source directly says in German, "Eingerechnet wurden die Verkaufe bis zum Jahresende 1994", which translates into (according to Google Translate): The Sell were Calculated by the end of 1994". It doesn't specify fiscal year, and Man!ac is a gaming magazine, not a business journal. I don't know if we can presume fiscal year here. Red Phoenixlet's talk...00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walking through the lead, the prose looks decent to me but there were still some issues that needed improvement. Based on this I think at least a light copyedit by a good prose editor is needed. Generally of course one would prefer this to have taken place before FAC but the review is not that old and I'm prepared to leave it open if someone gets on to this in short order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and tried to do the best I can to touch it up. I think the biggest issue here is that without fresh eyes and with my own perspectives on prose, it's a little difficult. I don't consider myself a bad writer, but I do stress sentence fluency and connecting sentences and thoughts in an aesthetically pleasing and easy to read fashion which may not be completely compliant with what reviewers here expect. So far, I've made sure to address every prose note given to me here. Red Phoenixlet's talk...02:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reflection on your writing talent, I have quite a high opinion of my own prose abilities but there's nothing like another pair of eyes to point out improvements. Incidentally, since Crisco has kindly shown an interest in the images, I'd be quite satisfied if he gave the prose the additional look-see that I was after... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something along those lines, I guess. And no worries, I'm not offended or anything. I just happen to be a very prideful individual, and an amateur author in my spare time. On the plus side, I am glad to see it get such a detailed review; I doubt I could ever get such feedback asking for it myself. Thank you, Red Phoenixlet's talk...04:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Sega 32X logo.png - Considering the gradation of color and shadows, I don't think this is quite PD-simple or PD-text. Borderline, yes, but I think it crosses the threshold of originality
I used to discuss if images were PD-simple or not fairly often on here, and I personally think it's PD-text. As noted, "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" - that's all this logo is. Red letters, with a parallelogram background. Further more, from this link Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or com-mercial value of a work.--SexyKick04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sega Neptune.jpg - Don't think it meets WP:NFCC #8, as the physical shape of the console is not necessarily required for an understanding of this (proposed) work
File:Doom32X.PNG - I think that a better (and likely free) alternative would be to line up a series of game cases, perhaps with some of the most popular titles, and photograph the spines. See File:Fleming's paperback Bonds.jpg for an example of what I'm thinking of
If the 32X logo isn't PD-simple / text, then the spines of 32X game boxes won't be free either. Especially since there would be other logos, such as Doom's logo. The Doom screenshot is useful because it shows what is typical of 32X games. Good graphics, and obvious technical strides over the Genesis, but with clearly visible limitations and drawback as well. Since Doom was likely the second best selling title for the 32X (coming bundled with the 32X in later 1995) it's kind of a go to option.--SexyKick08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of spines I can look at, to consider your arguments? The logo could be de minimis in the spines, which is why it's always best to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Base on this, I think you are correct that this would not be free. However, as this image is used in a section on the game library and not the system's technical performance, I don't think your argument for Doom holds muster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't an issue here a couple of months ago. What's the difference this time? I'm not going to throw a fight about it to where it interferes with this FAC, but I don't quite understand why it's acceptable in one article and not in another, especially when the 32X game library section provides further criticisms of the game's graphics, and even highlights Doom specifically for its graphical inferiority. Red Phoenixlet's talk...03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - I'd just rather not worry about it. My biggest concern with the "alternative" is that it doesn't actually display what a game on the system looks like - it just shows a bunch of games. To me, it's akin in the NFCC to why individual video game articles all have screenshots (but only one) to demonstrate gameplay. That being said, I know you to be an expert on images and NFCC, so if it doesn't work, it's gone. I don't think the aesthetic is in too bad of a shape without an image at all in the section.
Well, he didn't say it was actually wrong to have a screenshot of a game, he just had an idea for something that might be better. @Crisco 1492:, do you think a picture of a 32X game screenshot would fit better at a different part of the article instead? It's the only image in the whole article that's NFC, so the article itself isn't overloaded with it or anything like that. It looks a bit non-illustrated now without the Neptune or screenshot of a game.--SexyKick00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: could we get a tie breaker !vote from you? I really think there should be a screenshot of a game for the article to be complete, much like the Sega Genesis article has.--SexyKick09:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this, I did not get the ping and have not checked this as regularly as I should have owing to RL commitments. Red Phoenix made a good point regarding the use of this to demonstrate technical abilities; perhaps that would be better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it up to you. That's part of why the image was in the game library section was to demonstrate what a game looks like on the system, and I picked out Doom specifically because we had the extra bits of criticisms in that section as well, making it a hair more relevant. To me, it's not a deal breaker either way, although I would like one for sure. Red Phoenixlet's talk...14:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Crisco. I thought it's possible you might have moved on to other Wiki projects or RL matters, I understand not noticing ^^. I think before, it was probably a mistake for us to have the image tacked on to the first paragraph of the section, when its relevance was really to the second paragraph.--SexyKick16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of the Genesis, the 32X utilizes its own ROM cartridges and has its own library of games, but also plays Genesis cartridges. - Don't think "but" fits here, as that would imply it's not quite independent of the Genesis
In part because of the announcement, and also because of Sega's efforts to rush the 32X to market, which cut into available time for game development, the 32X suffered from a weak library of forty titles that could not fully utilize the add-on's hardware, including Genesis ports. - A few too many sub-clauses ("which ... development" really sticks out)
"Market fragmentation for the Genesis" - I'm assuming that the market was also fragmented for the Saturn, right? Might need to reword
Actually, strangely enough this isn't supported in the sources. The 32X was pretty much kicked into the dirt with the release of the Saturn, and research of reliable sources hasn't indicated that the Saturn suffered because of 32X. Sources are fairly consistent, though, that 32X did hurt the Genesis because new games were available only for Genesis owners who also had a 32X (not necessarily a foreign concept, like Kinect-exclusive games for the Xbox 360). Saturn's failure is attributed more to its own shortcomings and different poor decisions by Sega, with little mention of the 32X at all. Red Phoenixlet's talk...03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sega's console finally took off as customers who had been waiting for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) decided to purchase a Genesis instead. - what's with "finally"?
Bayless praises the potential of this system at this point, calling it "a coder's dream for the day" with its twin processors and 3D capabilities. - what's with the present tense here?
The quick system development time of the 32X also made game development difficult, according to Franz. Not wanting to create games for a system that was "a technological dead-end", many developers decided not to make games for the system. - Too many "system"s. Make sure to check this
Watch for overlinking. Chicago? Nightclub? TELEVISION?
All three removed. Considering we're a multinational encyclopedia, how come "Chicago" is over linking? I could kind of see New York or LA, but Chicago seems to me like it's pushing the threshold of the international community immediately knowing where it is. Red Phoenixlet's talk...03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think, objectively, Chicago would have a better chance of being overlinking than, say, Milwaukee, as Chicago has much higher media saturation than the latter city. That being said, it's not as bad as linking "television", so keeping it could be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as the journalists had been concerned, the 32X failed to catch on with the public, and is now considered a commercial failure. - "Exactly as the journalists had been concerned" sounds stilted. Also, "Is now considered" is out of chronological order as you go back to 1995
although it does require its own separate power supply, a connection cable linking it to the Genesis, and an additional conversion cable for the original model of the Genesis. - don't think "although" is the best conjunction here
You're mixing tenses in #Technical aspects and specifications
I thought I'd had all of these rectified. I found one instance which appeared incorrect; it looks fine now. Past tense is used for things Sega offered during the console's lifetime, present and present perfect for functions of the 32X. Red Phoenixlet's talk...03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
115mm wide, 210mm long, and 100mm high - imperial measurements?
I think we are. But, usually these get promoted on certain days of the week - like, when they have time to come look through and see which are ready to be promoted. Also, I'm still waiting for Crisco to get back to me on that question I asked him, so...that's one loose end. He did say he was open to discussion on that picture, but then discussion didn't happen.--SexyKick06:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sorry to bug you, but Crisco's comments have been resolved and he's added his support above, and Nikkimaria's comments have all been responded to and resolved. Are we good to go here? Red Phoenixlet's talk...03:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's that time of the week when I try to step through the FAC list... Yes I think we're about good to go but I notice you have quite a few duplicate links that you should review -- here's a script to highlight them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Æthelstan, the first King of England. He was king from 924 to 939, and was one of the most important Anglo-Saxon monarchs. It has passed GA and A-Class, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John
What version of English are we in here? I presume British English, but I see Americanisms. Even just on the lead, I can see non-trivial problems with the prose. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:British_Isles_10th_century.svg: what source(s) was used for the location names?
The source was Sarah Foot's Æthelstan, except the Welsh kingdom of Deheubarth, which is from Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons.
File:Painting,_Beverley_Minster_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1317269.jpg: as this is a photo of a 2D work, we need the licensing for the original work rather than the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you advise how to do this. I am not familiar with the rules regarding images.
They show his concern about widespread robberies, and the threat they posed to social order. - I think some sort of collective noun would sound better than "robberies" but none come to mind - "theft" sounds wrong.....
I cannot think of a better word. "widespread felonies, especially robberies" would be more accurate, but even more clumsy.
Æthelstan was one of the most religious West Saxon kings - devout? observant? pious? - all I think encapsulate it a little better
I am not sure religious is the best word, but I cannot think of a better one to describe his obsession with relics and reputation for founding churches. I do not think the alternatives sound right. Devout and pious have a flavour of unworldliness to me which does not describe Æthelstan, and observant could mean good at observing.
On reflection I have changed it to "pious". It seems better and Higham and Ryan in Anglo-Saxon World say he was particularly noted for his piety. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other West Saxon king played as important a role in European politics as Æthelstan, and he arranged the marriages of several sisters to continental rulers - I'd add "of his" before "sisters" ..otherwise it looks for a moment like nuns....
By 878 the Vikings had destroyed East Anglia, Northumbria, and Mercia - "destroyed"? would not "laid waste to", "overran" or somesuch be better verb?
Changed to had overrun.
Æthelstan was thirty years old when he acceded to the throne in 924 - why not just "came to the throne"?
Done.
I'd link pyrrhic victory
Done.
by Oxford University historian Sarah Foot - I'd introduce Foot's descriptors ("Oxford University historian" ) at first mention of her name and also give the other authorities some indication of who/where/what they are at first mention.
Done.
The reign of Æthelstan has been overlooked and overshadowed by the achievements of his grandfather - sounds laboured - don't need both "over-" verbs....
Deleted overlooked
Overall, a nice read - it comes across as nicely balanced between the historians and openminded and methodical (a good thing) and winds up nicely with a nice legacy section. Within striking distance of FA-ness methinks.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close to a support, although the text doesn't always read easily - this may be a result of the original sources. Some comments on detail:
In the "Church" section, the images are placed on the left hand side at the start of the section, against the MOS guidance; the combination of the two images also creates a left-hand pillar of text on my screen, pushing down well into the next section. Right-justifying would solve the MOS problem, and trimming back (or placing elsewhere in the article) one of the two images the other.
I have moved the images as suggested.
"In Sarah Foot's view, "Any man whose parents managed to provide him with eight or even nine sisters deserves our sympathy." - while a droll quote, I'm not convinced it fits well in an encyclopedic article.
Quote deleted.
In the bibliography:
"Æthelstan: the first king of England" - the MOS would have this capitalised as "Æthelstan: The First King of England"
Done.
"Nelson, Janet (1999). Rulers and Ruling Families in Early Medieval Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN0-86078-802-4." includes the location, unlike the rest of the biliography
Location deleted.
There a couple of works with strange italics appearing - "Keynes, Simon (2008). "Edgar rex admirabilis" is an example (I think there are some missing single speechmarks which are throwing out the template)
There are italics in two chapter titles, and both are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle. I saw that double quotes appeared twice at the end of the chapter titles with italics. Putting italics quotes only at the beginning and omitting them at the end removed this problem.
This was raised before. In both cases italics are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle.
In both cases that's not the problem - the issue is that the editor and publisher are italicized but the title of the full work is not; that's the reverse of what it should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. (Not sure what is going on there. When I looked at it before it went wrong if I put end italics quotes in - now it goes wrong if I leave them out.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support: I reviewed this article for GA when it was very good, but quite rough and ready in places. It is greatly improved now, and I think the structure is better than it was. I have no real quibbles (except I wonder if we really need to list the institutions at which the various historians work. But that is not a huge issue for me, it just feels unnecessary), and I think this meets the criteria. It is certainly comprehensive and the sourcing and content are impeccable. My only reservation (and hence the "cautious") is with the prose. To be honest, I can't see any problems as such and I think it meets the usual high level of history FAs, but I notice a couple of people have raised queries about it. I have a bit of a blind spot with history articles, as I'm fairly familiar with the style used in history works, so I may have missed something. Others may have concerns where I wouldn't. With that in mind, I'd be happier if someone took another look purely from a prose perspective. After all that rambling, well done for a really top-notch article on an important (and neglected) figure. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The mention of the institutions of historians is at the suggestion of Cas Liber above. Editors seem to have different opinions on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- we seem to be at the tail-end of this review, so with that in mind:
Hchc2009, did you have anything to add to your review?
Taking a cure from Sarastro1, I scanned some prose and nothing leapt out, except I tend to agree that "historian" or "Professor" is probably enough to establish the credentials of the named sources, minus the relevant institutions.
I believe this is Dudley's first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'd want to know there's been a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- Sarastro, I notice you spotchecked at GAN, are you confident that was also satisfactory for an article at FAC?
Okay, tks all. Just one last thing, Dudley, per other royalty articles I've promoted at FAC, I'd usually expect to see the ancestor table cited, unless everyone's relationship to the subject is mentioned/cited in the prose, and I'm not sure that's the case here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I was planning to wait and nominate Ontario Highway 402 as my next FAC, I've decided to nominate this article in the interim. This highway in the dense and rugged Canadian Shield was constructed in the 30s and opened up a large section of Ontario to the rest of Canada for the first time. It forms a part of the Trans-Canada Highway and would be the first article representing that route to become a Featured Article if promoted. Floydianτ¢20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The 194-kilometre (121 mi)" -> "The 194-kilometre-long (121 mi)" using {{convert|194|km|mi|adj=mid|-long}}
"traverses the largest pocket of arable land in northern Ontario" - citation?
"Following that, the route suddenly enters the Canadian Shield," this sounds rather awkward...
In the lead you spell out US Route 53/71, but you never indicate the abbreviations next to them before using the abbreviations later.
{{convert/spell}} should be used on distances under 10 miles (e.g. 6 km, 4 km, etc)
"over the course of a kilometre and a half" missing a conversion). {{convert/spell}} doesn't handle fractions well, this one you may want to just hard code.
MOS:IMAGELOCATION states that images should not squish text between them. I am having this issue with the New Souix Narrows Bridge image and the Lake of the Woods image.
"obstacles during construction of the 100-kilometre (62 mi) highway," - See the trick from my first comment.
Since these three sources are offline, please ensure you are not violating WP:SYNTH here "entirety of Highway 70 was renumbered as Highway 71.[18][19][20]" - Generally 3+ refs in a row indicate synthesis.
Dabs and ELs check out.
File:Ontario_71_map.svg isn't entirely useful to me. I have no clue what I am looking at really. A locator map as an inset would be very useful.
This is cited on page iv of ref#3, "Rainy River District reported over 211,000 acres of farmland from 312 farms in 2006. This represents the largest area of farmland of any District in northern Ontario and is more than double the farmland area reported by most other Districts."
I'm not sure of a good alternative wording that represents how drastic and sudden the change is. One minute you're surrounding by farmland as far as the eye can see, then you go around a bend and down a little hill and WHAM! You're in rock'n'swamp country for the rest of the drive!
Fixed
Done
Done. I've converted it as "approximately one mile", since 1.5 km = 0.93 mi, and it's a imprecise measurement in this case.
Moved the image a bit, see if that helps.
Fixed
The first two are consecutive maps that show the routing before and after. Ref 20 is a press release announcing the date and route number changes that will be done, but it's hard to put into perspective without the maps. Ref 20 could stand alone for the text it refs, but this is a case where I figured a little backup never hurts.
As for the map, I will see if I can make inkscape work for me.
The images still don't line up for me, but that may just be my monitor, so I am not going to ding you for it. Once the map is retouched I can support. --AdmrBoltz01:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The modern Highway 71 was created... - no need for first two words I think (was there an older Hwy 71?)
The original bridge remained in place until 2003, when an engineering inspection revealed that 78% of the structure had failed - "failed"? this must be some building jargon as I don't understand it in this context...as the bridge was still standing..?
Any notable traffic issues or problems along it? Traffic heaviness or dangerous designated blackspots?
Any previous notable accidents or issues (landslides etc.)
Fixed the first issue. With regards to the second, "failed" in an engineering sense means they are no longer capable of handling the engineered load and factor of safety... in other words the wood was rotten. Regarding the third and fourth, I haven't come across any info regarding incidents... the odd moose vs vehicle showdown here and there haha! - Floydianτ¢04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following my earlier noms for Nos. 33 and 36 Squadrons, yet another RAAF transport unit formed in WWII and still flying today. This is Australia's specialist VIP carrier or, as one Air Force historian succinctly put it, "the private airline of the nation's political leaders". I resisted improving this one for a while as the more "operational" squadrons always seemed more interesting, but in the end I got happily caught up in the convoluted history and inside dope of this unit, and hope you do too... ;-) Tks to Nick-D for some additional information from his library, all who took part in the article's GAN and MilHist ACR, and in advance to everyone commenting here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. One suggestion: replace "biannually" (too easy to confuse with "biennially") with "semi-annually" (not hyphenated in AmEng, btw), or revert to "twice a year". - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about "twice annually"? If not I think I'll go back to the "twice a year" used in the source and if anyone gets me for not paraphrasing I'll refer 'em to you... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 June it became the first operational RAAF squadron to have members of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force in its ranks, a contingent made up of an officer and twenty airwomen.[3] I assume we are talking about ground support, and not combat roles for the women? I think this should be made explicit, if the source supports it. --John (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't spell out the work the WAAAF did at 34Sqn, but the RAAF never employed any in combat roles to my knowledge.
While I'm here, re. this edit, I prefer the previous formatting to reduce the blue. It's a style I try to apply consistently in all the articles I work on and I'm not aware of it violating any MOS policy... BTW, tks for going through the article, John, looking fwd to any further comments/queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re women's roles, it struck me that that was a possible misreading of the text some might make. I wonder if there is a way to avoid this? Re piped links, I've got into the habit of removing links like Wyndham, Western Australia, and changing them to Wyndham, Western Australia which I think is better and clearer in the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. Your Wyndham, Western Australia is neither recommended nor deprecated by MoS and I appreciate it is your aesthetic preference. I would still weakly prefer the simpler version, on the basis that it makes it easier for editors (fewer characters). I am surprised there is no specific guidance on this matter. Nevertheless I would not oppose the article's promotion over such a minor matter. --John (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it won't strain the friendship I might restore it... ;-) Re. the WAAAF bit, although the main ref is no help, I could add/source a general statement such as "The WAAF had been formed in March 1941 to free male staff for overseas postings, and by the end of the war comprised 31% of RAAF ground crew" or some such, if you think it adds useful context without undue weight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the non-combat status I was thinking of; without clarification it is possible some readers might think this was a fighting force, which would be misleading. --John (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Here is a primary source that makes the point clear, if that's any use. --John (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if it's the non-combat nature of their duties you'd like to see made clear then I can alter the wording above and probably cite it to a source already employed in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Stfg (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
to add to "Freshwater life cycle" gallery that has three images, this is a fingerling
This might be a better steelhead to replace the Lake Erie partial that's in there now?
this little fellow might be good to add to the chart if he's different from the other two goldens in there now._2.JPG)
_2.JPG)
-$0.03-Fr.1226.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}