Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

An editor is allowed to nominate only one article. While the nomination is still active, that editor shall not nominate another article. If the article is promoted, the same editor may nominate another article immediately. If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics

Featured article tools:

Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles

Toolbox

Checklinks Dablinks

Nomination procedure

Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Cedric Howell 1.2 The Kinks 1.3 The Disasters of War 1.4 Killswitch Engage 1.5 Voyage of the Karluk 1.6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 1.7 2009 Giro d'Italia 1.8 Nothing to My Name 1.9 The Chinese Restaurant 1.10 Montague Druitt 1.11 The Avery Coonley School 1.12 Lightning Bar 1.13 Court of Chancery 1.14 Irish Thoroughbred 1.15 Nick Adenhart 1.16 Tillson Harrison 1.17 Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park 1.18 Elvis Presley 1.19 Ratanakiri Province 1.20 Golden White-eye 1.21 HMS Calliope (1884) 1.22 Magdalena Neuner 1.23 Twin Spica 1.24 The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 1.25 Aliso Creek (Orange County) 1.26 Battle of Winterthur (1799) 1.27 Inauguration of Barack Obama 1.28 Ben Paschal 1.29 Wendell H. Ford 1.30 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes 1.31 City of Blinding Lights 1.32 Wildfire 1.33 Flower (video game) 1.34 What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) 1.35 Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) 1.36 1910 Cuba hurricane 1.37 Mono-Inyo Craters 1.38 A Momentary Lapse of Reason 1.39 Like a Rolling Stone 1.40 Tropical Storm Marco (1990) 1.41 Sam Loxton 1.42 Petlyakov Pe-8 // Nominations Cedric Howell Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded this article on an Australian flying ace of the First World War from a Stub, and believe it now meets the criteria. A participant in the England to Australia air race, Howell was killed at age 23 when his aircraft crashed into the sea off the coast of Corfu. Article has been passed as a Good article and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Talk about rapid service! :) Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Comment Images look properly licensed. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The Kinks Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm presenting The Kinks for FAC—the article is the result of several months of extensive rewriting, copyediting, image research, and reference gathering. I nominated it for FA back in November; looking back, I realize that the article was far from ready, although certainly a good deal better than it was before—compare the current version to the revision at the start of the work. For help with this article, I would like to acknowledge the following users, who were both helpful and kind throughout the previous review process:

DocKino - An extremely helpful person and a fine copyeditor who helped bring the article to the point it is now. He also located some great PD photos for the page. Malleus Fatuorum - His extensive copyediting (150+ edits) vastly improved the article. PL290 - PL290 made some very helpful comments at FAC and even made a few edits to the article itself. Shirik - Jumped in at the last moment to give the article a fighting chance at FAC.

The article has undergone several thorough copyedits and a peer review since the last nomination, and I, among others, believe that it is ready to be featured. Please express your opinions on the article, and I will attempt to respond to you promptly and address any issues raised. Thank you all for your time, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text OK; I'm making a few small corrections. Ucucha 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Comments This is indeed much improved from the last time it was at FAC, but I see a few red flags: No Musical style section (like, say, in The Beatles Featured Article)? I see that in the history section you often go into too much detail discussing the lyrics or musical style of a single song ("You Really Got Me", "See My Friends", "Waterloo Sunset"). All this might be better off in a Musical style and lyrical themes section, serving to trim down the History section as well as give the reader one place where he can find all this info. The Legacy section can be expanded. I suggest moving the statements about the New Wave groups, Van Halen and the Britpop bands from the History section and integrating them into the Legacy. This way you also avoid duplication of info. I am not sure why that Research and literature section is necessary. I mean, how are book's about the band a significant part of the group's story? Just seems very odd; I have not seen another band article with it. I strongly suggest removing that Personnel timeline thing. It is rather unsightly (no offense), and redundant to a good ol' list of names. A section is called "The Golden Age" (in quotes), but the quote doesn't feature in the prose at all. Who called that period specifically "The Golden Age"? The captions in the sound samples should be expanded, explaining the music in the sample. "Dave's second solo single, "Susannah's Still Alive", was released in the UK on November 24. It sold a modest 59,000 copies, but failed to reach the Top 10."—Any solo material of Kinks members doesn't belong in this article, especially not in this much detail.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments - I'll try to address all of them. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indopug, how do these changes look? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the Dave Davies bit in the article, as the song mentioned features the entire band (including Ray Davies) performing on it. It also reflects the rapidly dwindling success of the group at the end of 1967. Also, I'll think about cutting the "research" bit, per your suggestion. Other than that, I believe all other issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Media review from Charles Edward All images are PD and properly sourced The two music samples have proper fair use rationales. Having two non-free music samples violates Wikipedia:NFC#3a. One sample conveys their singing style and voices, the second sample doesn't add significant additional value. You should remove one IMO. Everything else looks good. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sound samples: The advice to expand the captions in the sound samples (or, at least, the ones other than "Lola") is well-taken. The view that there is any policy violation here is simply incorrect. Four samples is an exceedingly modest number for a band that recorded for over three decades, released over 300 sides, recorded in a wide variety of musical styles, and was highly influential both for its lyrics and its music in multiple styles. In fact, I believe the article needs an additional sample to help fully explain the "theatrical style" to which band was committed during the early and mid-1970s. I see there is good sourcing for "Sweet Lady Genevieve" from Preservation: Act 1 as a strong "candidate for Davies' forgotten masterpiece". Or perhaps there is another song from this period that has been described as typifying the style.—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I most wholeheartedly agree with DCGeist's comments above. I'm currectly working on the captions - how do you think they're coming along? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The Disasters of War Nominator(s): Johnbod, JNW, Outriggr, Yomangan, Modernist, Ceoil

82 depressing, bleak etchings by Francisco Goya, who, at the time was non plussed by his French neighbours. Appreciation to Steve and Anonymous Dissident for careful and extensive copyedits. Ceoil sláinte 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links or external links. Alt text is present in all but a few images—rather an accomplishment considering the number of images and their significance. It's mostly good, but there are a few problems here and there: per WP:ALT#Verifiability, we shouldn't be speculating what the devil is writing about, for example, and I don't think we can see that the soldiers in the second image are French. Also some prose issues here and there—please check. Ucucha 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Its very unlikely those soldiers are not French. They were at war at the time, the Spanish and French. Very messy. Ceoil sláinte 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Of course. The issue is that from the image alone it is not clear they were French. Again, see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Ucucha 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The second sentence in the lead says art historians view [the etchings] as a visual protest against the violence of the 1808 Dos de Mayo Uprising, the subsequent [[[Peninsular War]] of 1808–1814 . Spanish rebels and French army. Ceoil sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) We're still not talking about the same thing. I know what the Peninsular War is and who fought there, and you don't have to tell me. My issue is rather this: If a non-expert would look at The Third of May 1808 (the image I was referring to; the third and not the second, as I corrected below), this non-expert would not be able to see that the soldiers were French. Thus, it shouldn't be in the alt text. Ucucha 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The Third of May 1808 is one of the most famous painting in art history, and a FA by this team. Its so well known, I did not think to cite that it involved French people. Second sentance in that articles lead says - In the work, Goya sought to commemorate Spanish resistance to Napoleon's armies during the occupation of 1808. Napoleon was French. Ceoil sláinte 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Well its refed now! Thanks anyway for your review. Sorry if I was prickily; a look is appreciated. Ceoil sláinte 02:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I edited the alt text for this painting; I think the text I wrote gives people who cannot see the image more of an impression of how striking the painting really is. (Added after EC: Actually, you shouldn't add refs to alt text: everything in the alt text should normally be verifiable from the image itself. But thanks for the changes made and for making me see some great if depressing works of art. Ucucha 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I think your version is better - thanks for that. Sorry if the page depresses you; I did mention the word bleak at the head of this nom! You were warned! Ceoil sláinte 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC) All the images now have alt text. CommentThe alt text in the second image says only soldiers. The caption reads French Soldiers because Goya made this group of images that are memorializing the French armies invasion and occupation of Spain and image 2 depicts Spanish civilians clobbering French soldiers...Modernist (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant the third image. The second is fine. Ucucha 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In the second plate in the gallery, could one of you take look at the caption: "Plate 5: Y son fieras (And they are wild beasts or And they fight like wild beasts). This plate shows a priest is tied to a stake Soldiers murder priests with bladed swords" --- are these typographical errors? Other than this, I can find no other glaring issues, but I will suggest moving the larger notes in the references to a separate section, using the <references group=a/> feature. A very fine article. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks IMS - I fixed that. Ceoil sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The article on El Greco, uses that group template for long notes. However, its beyond me, frankly...Help! Ceoil sláinte 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'll do it. Ucucha 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Ucucha. I did try, but got confused. html buggs me. Ceoil sláinte 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) There is a separate section The Disasters of War#Footnotes now. Feel free to change the section header and the label "a", of course. You can also add refs within these footnotes (as at Noronha skink#Footnotes); I can do that if you wish. Ucucha 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thats a great improvement. I would like to add footnotes within sure - that I can figure out my self. Thanks, though. Ceoil sláinte 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC) If you say so... it's actually pretty complex, since you have to use {{#tag:ref| syntax. Ucucha 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not as thick as I look. If I run in to difficulty....I'll knock. You did a good job here, I'm happy with the result, and certainly not saying I could just throw similar out. Ta, in other words. Ceoil sláinte 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, this is an excellent article on a wonderful topic. However, it seem to me that there are a couple of significant problems revolving around the notion of "line" and an overreading/misreading of one of the article's primary sources, Anne Hollander's Moving Pictures.

The first, and recurrent, problem is the idea that Goya "abandons line" in these images. Here are some of the effects of this claim: The reader is obliged to reject the evidence of her own eyes, which reveals that Goya clearly does use line to create figures. A lot of strong like work, for instance, is used to create the predominant figure in plate 3, Lo mismo. In the lede, one sentence after reading that Goya "abandons line", we read that Goya used "manly etching for the line work." That's not coherent. In the Technique and style section, we similarly read that Goya "abandons line" and then three sentences later that he "uses line" (for particular effects that are well described). Again, that's not coherent. In sum, it's clear that Goya does not abandon line—certainly not the way he "abandons colour" (which he evidently abandons entirely). From the description by Hollander quoted in the article, it would be much more accurate to say that he largely abandons the classical uses or virtues of line and employs it for a different effect. Let's look at the unquoted passage from her book that apparently inspired the "abandons line" claim: "Line as well as colour is demonstrably irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes." Now, we could argue over whether Hollander is overstating matters to begin with, but that's not necessary. It is surely overreading her argument to transform "irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes" into "abandons", especially when Hollander herself very specifically describes Goya's employment of line in these pictures. The second problem occurs immediately afterward in the Technique and style section. This states that Blake and Fuseli "both contemporaries of Goya's, worked in a similarly graphic and direct manner", a claim cited to Hollander. In fact, Hollander poses Goya in sharp contrast to Blake and Fuseli in how he handled comparable subject matter. She writes that Blake and Fuseli's "graphic works of extreme fantasy show the uses to which exquisitely applied linearity may be put, to keep scary and sordid material from being overwhelming by lodging it firmly in the safe citadels of beauty and rhythm." She has just described how Goya avoids anything that might be called "exquisitely applied linearity" in favor of the "scratch", the "splinter", the "jagged", exactly so as not to "dignify and tame" his scary material.—DCGeist (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Killswitch Engage Nominator(s): TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is reliably sourced and I believe exceeds FA criteria. All issues from last FAC have been resloved. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Five images:

File:Killswitch Engage Pic08.jpg: Commons image of band in concert, used as main infobox image. License: PD-self. No reason to doubt it. Quality: Good. File:Howard jones of killswitch engage.jpg: Commons image of lead singer Howard Jones in concert. License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified. Quality: Good. File:Kse-2006.jpg: Commons image of Jones and lead guitarist Adam Dutkiewicz in concert. License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified. Quality: Poor. The security guard is better lit than the lead singer. The article includes two superior images of Jones and two superior images of Dutkiewicz. This is the sort of image that belongs in a Wikipedia article only if there is no comparably informative image, free or fair use, available. It should be removed from this Featured Article candidate. File:Killswitch Engage.jpg: Commons image of band in concert. License: CC-SA-3.0. Well evidenced. Quality: Acceptable...just barely. Shows backdrop with logo and relatively spare stage setup. Image size already set--would probably be more satisfying if set larger. File:Kse-adam-joel.jpg: Commons image of Adam Dutkiewicz and rhythm guitarist Joel Stroetzel in concert. License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified. Quality: Good.

No audio samples. What? Really? Please provide one or two samples typical of their metalcore style so as to significantly increase readers' understanding of what the band sounds like. Perhaps one with Jones and one with original lead singer Jesse Leach.—DCGeist (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed crappy image and added media files. The only reason why I had that image was because it was the oldest image that I could find (that could be on wikipedia) where you can see the band, as opposed to the band's crowd. Can you check the media that I uploaded? It was the first time I uploaded a sound clip, and I don't think that an acceptable source would be "My music library." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Excellent work. I think the article looks much better with that image removed. And very well done with your sound samples. Yes, you do need to correct the "Source" information in the rationales. What we want there is the name of the respective source album and the name of the copyright holder (Roadrunner Records). It's also good to identify the songwriter(s)—you can add that information to the "Author" field. I'm afraid there's one other issue here, which applies to almost all sound samples: Per our rules, "Samples must be of reduced quality from the original. A Vorbis quality setting of 0 (roughly 64kbps) is usually sufficient." (In practice, the 0 setting will produce an output of anywhere from 58 to 74 kbps—that's the customary target range.) At 158 and 139 kbps, these samples are probably of too high fidelity. Can you rerecord?—DCGeist (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Re-fixed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Voyage of the Karluk Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Karluk's tragic Arctic voyage happened just before the First World War, and because of this historical timing is perhaps less well known than otherwise it might be. Eleven men died, nothing significant was achieved, yet as with other polar tales the tragedy is tempered by personal heroism. The story is here, after a very comprehensive peer review, probably the most thorough that I have encountered. Thanks to all who participated, and to Finetooth for the excellent map. Also thanks to Dankarl, who created the stub from which this article was expanded and has continued to provide content and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Thanks, but I did not start the stub, just cleaned it up a bit and added some references; several other editors contributed along the way. Dankarl (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support I was one of the peer reviewers and all of my concerns were met there. The PR was so extensive and thorough that I did not find anything else to raise here on another reading of the article. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your reviiew contribution and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Comments. No dab links or dead external links. A few problems with the alt text: for example, the one for the map does not include the itinerary of the journey. Ucucha 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I've added a bit of alt text to the map image. You refer to "a few problems" - can you identify them? Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the vagueness. My issues mainly have to do with WP:ALT#Verifiability: for example, in the fourth image ("The expedition's scientific staff"), it says they are "probably on a ship", which is not clear to me at least. Also in the image of the Chukchi. Then there are some copy-editing issues (for example, "caucasian" not capitalized, "2" somewhere in text). Thanks for adding the map alt text, but this doesn't give the information that is most useful to someone who can't see the images, which is where the journey actually went to. I think you should say something like "The voyage began at a point in western Alaska and continued close to a coast to an island near northeastern Alaska." and so forth. Ucucha 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I have extended the map alt text a little more, have removed the uncertainty in "probably on the deck of a ship" and have corrected a couple of typos. If you think you can improve on these texts, please feel free to do so, but bear in mind that alt text is intended to explain the essence of an image, not to provide a detailed description. Otherwise alt texts can easily become essays. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Of course, but I feel the essence of this image is the route of the ship, and the map provides an important visual summary of the journey, the subject of the article. I'll see what other minor changes may be needed in the alt text—thanks for the work so far! Ucucha 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support. This is beautifully written, a good length, and nicely laid out.

Just a couple of comments. I would include in the first sentence when and where the ship was built—with some of the details from the Ship section, such as it (her?) being a 29-year-old brigantine built for the Aleutian fishing industry, later converted for whaling, and that karluk is the Aleut word for "fish." Along the same lines, I'd say more about the characters on first reference e.g. in the lead that Stefansson was a U.S.-based, Canadian-born anthropologist of Icelandic origin; otherwise the reader is left to wonder a little who is what. I would explain what "pemmican" was, at the point where you explain that it might have killed them, even though you linked to it earlier. Or I'd signal on first reference that it was going to be important and would explain there. I would also combine some refs to avoid things like: By the afternoon all 14 survivors were aboard.[112][107][108]

These suggestions are all just editorial preference, though, so feel free to ignore. It's a lovely article, which I enjoyed reading and learned a lot from. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and support. I have added a couple of short descriptive phrases into the lead, re the ship and Stefansson, but am reluctant to add more and thereby merely duplicate what's in the main text. I have also added a brief description of pemmican at its first (linked) mention. I'll tidy up the odd multiple reference. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support. I've been working on articles on Arctic exploration here for a couple of years, and this is one of the best I've read. I have participated in earlier reviews, but am not an author of any of the text. Watching the peer review process, I was impressed with the way each suggestion or criticism was addressed -- I think this entry is very well-honed, readable, and meets all other FA criteria. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the support, and for the encouragement you have provided throughout the article's development. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and I made the map, as Brian noted above. All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arson. Explosions. William Shatner going through a dozen shirts. All this you'll find in the article on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the middle chapter of a loose trilogy of Trek films. The article has undergone a peer review and separate copyedit by the obliging Brianboulton, and I've taken my own stab at cutting down redundancies and making it a little more accessible.

References: At the PR, two references, trekmovie.com and slashfood, were brought up as possible issues in regards to RS. The Trekmovie site is mostly blog-style. The post's author, John Tenuto, is a sociology professor at College of Lake County and is quoted in other publications[1][2][3] John Devore of Slashfood has had some of his work appear in The New York Sun and CNN (other mentions may not be the same person, so those are the only ones I'm sure of). In short I believe both are reliable, although the Slashfood one can be readily removed (it's referenced to the same point as the Tenuto ref) if people here disagree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, except for the video, which also needs it. But there are also some points in the existing alt text that need work. Alt text needs to be verifiable for a non-expert who looks at the image only, and I, for one, wouldn't be able to verify from the first image that this guy is called Spock, or any of the other names mentioned. There are a few similar problems in the other images. Ucucha 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Please see WP:ALT#Videos and animations for guidance about what alt text to supply for File:S03-The Search For Spock-Enterprise destructs.ogv. Eubulides (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I've added alt text for the video, and modified the existing alt descriptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Five still images:

File:003-the search for spock poster art.png: Movie poster (fair use), used as main infobox image. Usage: Good, standard. Rationale: Good. File:Phil Tippett, Robert Watts, Richard Edlund, Ben Burtt and Ken Ralston.jpg: Commons image of five creative/technical personnel. License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified. Quality: Acceptable. File:S03-The Search for Spock-Bird of Prey decloaks.png: Screenshot (fair use) of adversary spaceship. Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film. Rationale: Good. Caption: Needs cite. Caption contains information not included in running text ("while the red feather design on the ship's underside was a remnant of its planned Romulan origins"). This needs to be sourced. File:S03-kruge fights the worms.png: Screenshot (fair use) of unusual-looking adversaries and tasty-looking worm. Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film. Rationale: Good. File:Dürer, Kupferstichpassion 15, Auferstehung.jpg: Commons image of Dürer engraving. License: PD-Art. Unquestionable. Quality: Dürer.

One moving image:

File:S03-The Search For Spock-Enterprise destructs.ogv: 25-second screen capture (fair use) of the Enterprise's destruction. Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film and could not be effectively conveyed via still image(s). Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I've added references. I realize now that it's not explicitly laid out that the design was a Romulan thread that made it into the final design, which is hopefully clearer now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2009 Giro d'Italia Nominator(s): Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe all concerns from the previous FA and PR have been addressed. I have heard from fellow editors in passing that they believe the article satisfies the FA criteria, so here I am to try again. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links. No dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Nothing to My Name Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A short but in-depth article on an old but important song. It's been through GA and PR, and I believe it's as comprehensive as it is ever going to be (information on sales and 'chart performance' is difficult to find for music in China even today, much less 20 years ago—I'm not sure if charts even existed). It might not quite fit the templatic form of many music articles, but its current form seems to be working fine for what it is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: No dab links, external links and alt text seem fine. Second image is tagged appropriately - I'll leave the first for someone with more knowledge of fair-use rules. Contractions should not be used in article text - please remove "couldn't". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't share your views on contractions, but in this case it doesn't make much difference to the flow of the article and it's not worth making a big deal over, so changed. Thanks for your review, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Two images. Alt text provided for both.

File:CuiJian blindfold.JPG: Single cover (fair use), used as main infobox image. Usage: Good, standard. Rationale: Good. Alt text: Good. Please provide English translation or prose explanation of the Chinese characters. The vast majority of the alt-text audience will have no knowledge of Chinese, and it is not immediately self-evident that the characters give the song title and performer's name (they do, right?). File:CuiJian1 2007 Hohaiyan.jpg: Cui Jian in performance. License: CC-SA 2.0. Verified. Quality: Good.

One audio sample (fair use): File:YiWuSuoYou sample.ogg. Selection is standard and good., but there are two problems:

It is too long at 35 seconds. We draw a hard line at 30 seconds. The rationale must specify the copyright holder.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I've added more alt text for the image and copyright information for the sound clip. I think I can cut it off at about 22 seconds without really losing anything (i.e., it would still contain all the stuff I wanted to point out) so I will do that shortly. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I've uploaded a new version, at 24 seconds, and deleted all the old versions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Looks great.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Regarding the alt text, I actually removed this piece from the text, as I explained at my talk page: WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text be verifiable for a non-expert from the image, and I doubt that a non-expert can verify the English translation from that Chinese text. Also see the examples at WP:ALT#Text, which do not contain translations either. Ucucha 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC) It looks like Eubilides agrees with that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I think the alt text, as it now stands, is excellent.—DCGeist (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Queries Can we tone down the lead image? Why are we specifying a large image size rather than letting Preferences handle it? On my screen, it dominates over half of the page horizontally. Can you explain the editorial decision behind all of the Mandarin text? Generally I see translations of the title of the work, but you have it sprinkled all over. Consider that it is mostly a visual distration to most readers. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I think inclusion of the original lyrics is warranted, as translations are always sketchy and some stylistic stuff is often lost in the conversion. The mood and register of the original Chinese cannot be quite captured in English translation. I'm a linguist and read a lot of journal articles in a couple languages, and I can attest that it's quite frustrating when someone gives something (whether it's the quote, a name of a source, etc.) only in translation even though you want to see what it is in the original language. Finally, given the subject matter of this article, I don't think it's accurate that it will be "visual distraction" to most readers, just to many. Pardon me if I misspoke—Mandarin would be the spoken dialect and the writing is referred to as Chinese. Is that correct? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Technically yes, but it's not a problem :) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I have removed two other unnecessary bits of Chinese, though, that weren't lyrics. (The Chinese for "father of Chinese rock" is a common expression but not really needed here; the Chinese name of the album this appeared on is something I added before there was an article about it on en-wiki, but now that there's an article it's not necessary here.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I've removed the forced image size from the lead image so it just goes to the default. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Support. I enjoyed reading this and it brought a tear to my eye. It's nicely written and well-sourced. A few minor points: I would remove as many refs as possible from inside sentences, as they're quite distracting. I also don't like to see multiple footnotes next to each other; I prefer to see them combined between one set of refs tags, mostly for aesthetic reasons but also because multiple footnotes can look as though there's something contentious going on, and a whole bunch of refs are needed to settle it. Also, if I were writing it, I would consider placing the section called "Lyrics and meaning" higher, along with the sample; it was a little bit frustrating as I was reading about where and when performed, and the impact of it, still not having heard it or knowing much about what it said. But these are issues that boil down to editorial preference. Overall, I really enjoyed it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. Cleaning up the footnotes should be pretty easy. Reorganizing the sections will take a bit more work, but I'll brainstorm for a while and then see what I might be able to do. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The Chinese Restaurant Nominator(s): --Music26/11 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is now ready for FAC. The biggest concern of the previous FAC was the lack of a "Themes" section wich is now in the article (thanks to Awadewit). All previous concerns are fixed.--Music26/11 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that I recommended to Music2611 that the "Themes" section be copyedited before this article was nominated (see Talk:The Chinese Restaurant#Themes section. It still needs some work. Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, you shouldn't blame her if you think it isn't up to quality.--Music26/11 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text okay. Ucucha 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: One image. Alt text good.

File:Michael Richards 1992.jpg: Actor Michael Richards at a public event. License: CC 2.0. Verified. Quality: Acceptable. Usage: Inappropriate. Usage is usually not a concern with free media, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a television episode to be illustrated with an image of an actor who does not appear in the episode (it's a quirky idea worthy of Seinfeld, but not Wikipedia, I'm afraid). Apparently the entire episode, or virtually all of it, takes place at a Chinese restaurant—not one of the show's standard sets. It would aid the reader's understanding of the episode substantially if the article included a screenshot illustrating that set and—to the degree possible—the lead characters' primary relation to it.—DCGeist (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I'd like to second DCGeist's comment about that image. The article needs images, but this one isn't appropriate. Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hi, great article, made me wanna re-watch the episode. I noticed that the plot sections says that Elaine approaches "an elderly couple". But there were three couples at the table (totally six persons). P. S. Burton (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I did last time and is more polished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Due to "The Chinese Restaurant"'s lack of storyline — is that "' correct? I remember reading somewhere that one should never turn a quoted phrase or title into a possessive. Is it really necessary to specify that the characters are using US dollars? I think anyone who's interested in the article would already know that Seinfeld is an American show. (And if they don't, they can click on the link to the series article.) George is nervous about his girlfriend Tatiana, whom he left during sexual intercourse as he felt he was "not getting enough space". — I thought he left because he had to go to the bathroom, or something like that. Is "not getting enough space" a quote from the episode? Seinfeld also used the replacement discussion the following year when he guest-hosted an episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live. — Do you mean that he used the joke about policemen/garbage? (If so, I would assume he used a modified version of the dialogue, unless he had the entire Seinfeld cast with him on SNL. The relationship between the characters and food is another recurring theme of the series. In Seinfeld, specific food items are associated with individual characters and food itself is a "signifier of social contracts". — This needs some elaboration. How does food serve a as "signifier of social contracts"? Only a couple of specific food items are actually mentioned in the episode. Vance Durgin of The Orange County Register praised how the show was able to "wrung" so much comedy "out of a simple premise". — The quoted text doesn't fit within the flow of the sentence: "wrung" is a past-tense verb. There are some other minor tweaks to be done; I'll try to make as many of those as I can. Zagalejo^^^ 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (for now). First off, well done to the editors who have worked on this article. However, the article observes in the lede a larger significance for this episode, and cites a TV critic from the Sun Sentinel suggesting it expanded the lexical reach of US sitcoms. Well, that Sun Sentinel dog ain't gonna hunt, not with scholarly sources that cite this episode in particular in conjunction with that idea. Here are four:

R Hurd, Taking Seinfeld Seriously: Modernism in Popular Culture. New Literary History, 2006 D Lavery, SL Dunne, Seinfeld, master of its domain: revisiting television's greatest sitcom (2006) JE Rapf, Doing Nothing: Harry Langdon and the Performance of Absence, Film Quarterly, 2005. J Mittell Narrative complexity in contemporary American television, Velvet Light Trap, 2006.

There are probably others, but those were turned up in a quick search. My suggestion would be to beef up the significance of this specific show and drop (or aggressively summarise) some of the more trivial TV critic & production stuff and instead situate this within the larger framework suggested by the sources above (i.e. as an example of modernism, breaking boundaries, moving beyond plot etc...). What were the antecedents for a show about nothing? For an episode that had no narrative arc? etc etc... I'm happy to do a more general evaluation and c/e when this article has garnered more substance. As it stands now, this does not do full justice to its topic. Eusebeus (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would actually be hard to do what you are suggesting in relation to this episode specifically. I spent quite a bit of time looking through the sources to see if a "Themes" section could be created and most of the sources only mention the episode in passing. Lavery and Dunne is already used in the article, but what they say about this episode in particular is very limited. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Montague Druitt Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Was he a Dastardly Doer of Evil Deeds, or just a cranky cricketer? DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The terms are not mutually exclusive. I am reading to discover the truth. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Technical review: no dab links or dead external links, alt text seems OK. A quick check of the images doesn't reveal anything obvious. JulieSpaulding 12:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Agree that alt text is good; images also look good. Ucucha 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton (see below for support statement)

Images Licencing information on File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg looks suspect. If we don't know who took the photograph, how can we assert "author's death plus 70 years" as a basis for non-copyright use? A 25-year-old photographer in 1888 would have been 77 in 1940 - by no means infeasible. The statement This image is in the public domain in the United States because it is an anonymous work created over 120 years ago that was published without a copyright notice and without a subsequent copyright registration and was in the public domain in its country of origin at the time of first publication is not reflected in the license, and seems more based on assumption than fact. I believe that a fair use rationale would be fully justified, if PD cannot be established. Much the same can be said of the second Druitt image which also carries a "death + 70 years" licence, though fair use could only be justified for one of the images. Both Druitt images carry the same caption: "M.J. Druitt". In view of the lack of information about these images—dates, circumstances etc—is it necessary to have both in the article? Other issues Career section: it would help the reader if there was a brief mention in this section of the alleged reasons for Druitt's dismissal from Valentine's. Although this is dealt with later in the article, the reader is left rather hanging, at this point, by the unexplained "until he was dismissed on 30 November 1888." Cricket section: It should be pointed out—lest Druitt's prowess as a cricketer be exaggerated—that Dorset was not (and still isn't) a first-class county in cricketing terms. Also, a brief explanation of the Incogniti Club would be helpful (some information here). Finally, he played for, not with, the Gentlemen of Bournemouth, and the phrasing "and bowled 5 out of the 10 wickets in the first innings" is inauthentic cricket reporting. I would suggest: "and took five wickets in the visitors' first innings." Death section New section should not start with "His" "Stones placed in Druitt's pockets..." suggests involvement of a third party. "Placed" should be removed. Having established that Druitt received little by way of a legacy from his father, and was forced to supplement his barrister's earnings by schoolmastering, it is curious that his personal estate was as large as reported. Has any explanation for this been offered? Jack the Ripper suspect: "There are, however, serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence." This needs to be presented in a more neutral manner, e.g. "Whitehead and Rivett, in their history of the Ripper murders, have pointed out serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence."

An interesting, low-key addition to this grisly Whitechapel series. I will have no difficulty in supporting when the above issues are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already made an extensive search for details of the image. I don't feel as if there's anything further I can add or do, within the bounds of a volunteer project. I've changed the license tag to accord with the position in the United Kingdom, where copyright on the image, as an unpublished anonymous work, expired in 1959 at the latest. I'm assuming that as I cannot find a registration in the States and it was first published when in the public domain in its source country that it is also public domain in the States. If it isn't then I'll remove it. I don't think strict image reviewers will accept that it can be used in fair use as it isn't necessary to see a picture of him to understand his life, so it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. I'm not expert enough on US copyright law to know if you are assuming the US position correctly, so we must await more expert advice. However, I think in a biographical article on a long-dead person where no free images are available, a fair use rationale would normally be acceptable. In understanding a subject's life it helps a lot to know what he/she looked like. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've replaced the close-up. Dismissal moved. Not a Dorset fan then? I'm only to happy to admit my ignorance of cricket. Dreadful game. Changed the cricket report as suggested. Thanks. What do you have in mind with regard to Dorset and the Incogniti? Well, we don't want to alienate the Dorset readership by describing their county as second-class, so we could let that one go. As for Icogniti, a short descriptive phrase, e.g. "a gentlemen's touring team" should suffice. Changed by moving the dismissal. Removed "placed". No, but one minority view I read on the internet (so not included in the article) is that he was not as unsuccessful a lawyer as people make out. Changed to "Other Ripper authors, however, point out..." [4] DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: On the basis that the image question will be sorted out one way or another, and seeing that my other (pretty minor) concerns have been addressed, I'm ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the review and suggestions. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - Current ref 22 (Blackheath Cricket Club..) needs a publisher Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments. I enjoyed reading this a lot. Just a few quibbles: We need a publication date for File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg to show that it was published long enough ago that it's now PD. Would be nice to see some of the images a little larger than thumb size (e.g. Winchester is very small on my screen). I'm not keen on the lead. It seems hesitant, a little jerky. I'd like to see it fleshed out just a little with better flow. :I edited the lead a little to show what I mean, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, please feel free to revert. [5] "He played cricket and rugby for the college team, and was the winner of both double and single fives at the University of Oxford in 1877." We know he was at the university. Just "for the university in 1877" would do. Do pounds needs to be converted to dollars? I'm never sure of which things need conversion and which don't. "it seemed bound to create discontent": you need to say who you're quoting. "the total of the legacies in his will exceeded the value of the estate" and "In a codicil, Druitt senior had instructed his executors to deduct any money he had advanced to his son from the legacy of £500" -- what does that mean exactly? You have the dismissal and disappearance in the Cricket section, where it comes as something of a surprise. "One theory speculates": theories don't speculate. Looking at Google, there seem to be quite a few sources out there that aren't used e.g. Ripper Suspect: The Secret Lives of Montague Druitt by D.J. Leighton. [6] And I saw a claim that he was associated with the Cambridge Apostles, which sounds unlikely given that he went to Oxford but it's possible, I suppose. Are these sources unreliable? According to Robin Odell, Ripperology: a study of the world's first serial killer and a literary phenomenon, p. 90, Druitt's gravestone in Wimborne says he died on December 4. Is that a mistake? Actually, thinking about it, no one could know, except perhaps for the December 1 train ticket issue that a few sources allude to, which I don't think you mention. I'm getting the impression that there's a fair bit of detail out there that you haven't included. Some problems with flow e.g. repeating Druitt's name in successive sentences instead of "he". "On 30 November 1888, Druitt was dismissed ... One newspaper reported that Druitt "had got into serious trouble" ... In early December 1888, Druitt disappeared ... On 31 December 1888, Druitt's body was found ... Stones in Druitt's pockets ..."

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument for PD is on the file page. I have no further information. For people using other screens, the images might then be too large. I prefer to stick to the default parameters which are judged to be the best for most viewers. I have removed the "upright" parameter though. Fine. Changed. Conversion to dollars is not necessary in this instance. They are Tom Cullen's words. No-one else's. Druitt senior advanced money to Montague during his legal training. This money was to be deducted from the legacy. Moved. Fixed. Leighton and Stephen are included. Death date changed; footnote added. Contents of his pockets added. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Responses: I think you need a publication date if you want to use that image. Images on WP must be in the public domain in the U.S. There are a number of ways to show that, e.g. published before 1923, or not copyrighted in the country of origin on January 1, 1996. But I believe they all involve knowing when it was published. Does the licensing information in the books you cite on the image page not say something? There is usually a page at the beginning or end that lists permissions. Alternatively you could write to the authors. Actually, that may not be right. From WP:PD: "Works having seen their original U.S. publication on or after March 1, 1989 (with or without copyright notice or registration) are protected until 70 years after the author's death (70 years p.m.a.); anonymous works, works made for hire, works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation." So if this is an unknown author, it would be PD from 2008 at the latest. But if the author is known, that would change. I'll strike the objection. Could you address the issue of comprehensiveness? I get the impression that there is a fair bit of material out there about him that you didn't include. If this were a long article I could understand that, but it's short so it would seem sensible to include anything significant that reliable sources have published. Do they all agree, for example, that he is not a serious suspect? I think the train ticket belongs in the text, not a footnote, and it needs a source. "seemed bound to create discontent" needs in-text attribution of some kind; otherwise it's just a dangling phrase with no clear reason for being in quotation marks. Same with "no evidence whatever," "outrageous fantasies," and any others. "was the winner of both double and single fives at the university in 1877" -- did he play for the university? "At" is not clear. People generally play within the university for their colleges, or for the university against other universities, and the difference tends to be a stark one at Oxbridge in terms of quality, which is why it's worth pinning down.SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has major problems. I don't have time to go through them all right now, but for starters:

The article is lacking sufficient general info about the Ripper to understand the context of this person being a suspect. Most of the general information that is included is slanted and/or misleading in its brevity. For example, yes, five women were murdered. So were lots of others. Some people think only those five were linked, but just as many sources believe it was more or less than that. Any time any reference is made to "the last murder" in the article is wholly misleading, as nobody knows who the Ripper's last victim was. Some people think it was Mary Jane Kelly -- and it was apparently belief that it was and the suicide relatively around the same time period that brought Druitt up as a suspect -- but many people think there were others after her by the Ripper (invalidating the dead Druitt as a suspect) and some even think Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than the Ripper. In fact, lots of people think the sole reason Macnaghten thought Kelly was the last Ripper victim was specifically because otherwise his favorite suspect wouldn't work, and if it weren't for a lot of books releasing the information about Druitt around the same time and when there was a lack of police information being published the "canonical five" or "Macnaghten Five" victims probably never would have become as influential of an ideas as it did. Police and medical opinion was all over the map on which victims were linked together and which were not. A lot of claims made in books are presented as if they were facts citing only a footnote to a book to back it up. Much in Ripperology is disputed. Sources for any claims should be cited in the body to present those claims as the beliefs of those particular authors, not to be presented as facts. Some of the sources used are pretty fringe. Some solid, dependable authors are not cited. As a particular notable example, footnoting some book by some not very well known or respected authors to try to back up the claim that m"most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" is pretty POV-y. Woods and Baddeley do not speak for the entire field, and most authors and researchers do not consider them anywhere near the top writers in the field. That's not to say that they are wildly out of touch on this particular statement, necessarily, but any sort of presentation about what a majority of anyone says in this field needs very solid sourcing, and that does not cut it. Another example: "Consequently, it is easier for writers to concoct solutions based on a wealthy culprit rather than one based on a Whitechapel resident.[64]" That's an opinion touted as fact. This doesn't have much point in an article and is actually the opposite of reality. It's actually more difficult to concoct solutions based upon wealthy people because the more wealthy someone is the more likely they are to have been mentioned in papers or other documents in a manner that should rule them out as suspects. Nobody knows what random tramp on the street was doing day to day, but we know Druitt was far out of London not too many hours after some very important indisputable Ripper victims were killed. One of the most well respected modern researchers on Druitt is conspicuously absent. Andrew J. Spallek's articles in the Ripper periodicals should be used as a source above about half of the books being cited. Spallek uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, for example. And there's just so much trivia thrown out, often just strung together in a choppy way, that people reading this just don't get the overall picture. That said, the article itself isn't horrible (worst transgressions are acting like we know how the last victim is for sure and presenting a lot of weak sources very strongly), but it could be a lot better.

DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Avery Coonley School Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on an interesting school which is notable for its place on the National Register of Historic Places, historic importance in the progressive education movement, association with important architects and landscape artists, patented educational innovation, and academic accomplishments on the state and national level. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. Substantial work has been done post-GA to further improve the references and prose. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article, as well. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comments. Needs a little more work IMO. Just a few comments on the lead:

I think you need to give a little more explanation for those of us not in the colonies who may be unsure what "eighth grade" means. Can you not just give an age range, as in from X-Y? I understand from The Beverly Hillbillies that a student can be in the first grade forever. Eighth grade is wikilinked to address this. All the US grade names are linked, per WP:WPSCH/AG. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "The school been located on an 11-acre ...". Is this typical of the rest of the article? Typo fixed. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "... with grounds designed by the famous landscape architect Jens Jensen ...". I've never heard of him, so probably best to drop the peacockery. The claim is well-supported by the references in the article and the association is a notable feature of the school. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "The curriculum preserves the school's founding philosophy and traditions but is accelerated and enriched ...". How do you "accelerate" a curriculum?] Acceleration is also wikilinked to an explanatory article. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. I see similar errors and peacockery throughout this article and no desire to fix them, therefore I must oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I am sorry you feel that way. I would be happy to address any alleged "peacockery," which I think would likely be also supported by the references, if you were inclined to point them out. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My responses were meant to be explanatory, not recalcitrant, and with additional direction from Ucucha I now better understand your comments. It's my first time through this. I'm slow, but I do get there. Accordingly, I have done the following: Confirmed that the first appearance of US grade names (and other obviously US-centric school terms) are wikilinked, which seems to be the approach at WP:WPSCH/AG and in other FA school articles. There seems to be no solution that does not confuse at least one side of the pond. Reviewed superlative claims throughout and "neutralized" where appropriate. The sources might support the stronger claims, but nothing is lost by dialing them back. So I did. Removed terms from the lead that are not fully explained until later (like "accelerate"). I believe this will resolve your specific concerns and hopefully your opposition to the nomination. I appreciate your comments and would welcome additional feedback. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I'll take another look through either later tonight or more likely tomorrow. I do understand that the FAC experience can be a little intidating, even for those of us who've been through it before. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments Oppose (see below). No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work. You don't need to tell people that something is a photo, just what is on it. Give some sense of the locale in the alt text: what does the background look like? To readers who see the images, they tell a lot about the kind of place the school is in; this information should not be lost to those who do not see them. Ucucha 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) All alt text now revised accordingly. Thanks for the comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, much improved. Please check the one for the auditorium, which reads mangled at the moment. Ucucha 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Demangled now. Thank you. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) You might still want to mention the empty seats. They are still there. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) From a cursory reading, I do see Malleus's points. "Student scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills have been in the top one percent in the nation", you say. Good to see that the Iowa Tests are so popular. Ucucha 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The Iowa Tests are administered in schools across the US, as the referenced article states. I've changed the sentence to quote that fact directly from the source to clarify for readers who might not be familiar. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Also, the first paragraph of the "Curriculum" section sounds quite promotional. It is sourced to the school's mission statement, which would be questionable anyway, but this mission statement does not even contain much of the information. Similarly, the claim that "ACS refers to grade levels as "groups", a practice which dates back to the early days of the school." is not supported by the source. With such problems found on a cursory check, I do not believe this article is likely to meet the FA criteria. Ucucha 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The paragraph is intended to link the modern day curriculum to the extensive discussion of the history and explain what all of that has to do with what goes on there today. These are also some of features that make the school interesting and different. I don't read it as particularly promotional, but will try to revise it if current reviewers disagree. The source is not actually the mission statement, but the "At a Glance" page with spells out the basic facts and figures of the school, which I think would be reliable for such things. I did not think that the claim about the term "group" was likely to be challenged. I will find a reference for it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I have revised the explanation of groups and quoted directly from a source that explains why the term is used.Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I have also revised the Curriculum section per your comments and I believe it will read more neutrally now. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I was not implying that the mission statement was sourcing the claim that the practice of calling grades "groups" dates back to the early days of the school. But the "At a glance" page does not contain that claim. Neither, for that matter, does it say that classes have 32 students, that there are four divisions, or that the EC program is for three-year-olds, all claims in the paragraph it references in the article. The same source also cites the sentence about tablet computers, much of which it does not support either. Further down, several sentences were lifted directly from the source. I deleted them. I thought you meant to say the curriculum was sourced to the mission, which I agree would not be a reliable source. I was merely pointing out that the mission is not referenced in the article at all, for the reason you mention. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I added a reference which specifically supports the class size and EC claims. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I have added a better source for the technology section that supports all the claims made. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) And I have revised the sentences in question to avoid repeating the source. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) When you give something as a reference for a paragraph, it means, to me at least, that all information in that paragraph can be verified in that source. This article repeatedly does not do that. Ucucha 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I understand the comment. I have worked towards WP:V by citing quotations and anything likely to be challenged. The sources are not meant to support each fact in the paragraph, in the belief that many of those facts are in the not likely to be challenged bucket. But I have taken your comments to heart and added the appropriate references where indicated. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Your efforts in improving the article to address my and Malleus's concerns are commendable. Whether it will be enough to get the article to FA status, I don't know, but I'll review further later on. Ucucha 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all of your comments. I will make additional efforts along those lines in the next day or two and look forward to your further review. Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Please fix the article so that it does not contain invalid HTML. See the article's W3C Validator report and Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC) As a matter of general interest, which of the FA criteria make reference to valid html? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC) This is caused by a section that has a perfectly valid and sensible name. When that results in invalid HTML, that is a bug in MediaWiki, not something that should be fixed in this article. Ucucha 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Lightning Bar Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because while not exactly the most prolific or longest lived of the various horses in the AQHA Hall of Fame, Lightning Bar is one of the more interesting. Noted during his lifetime as a racehorse, and sire of racehorses, after his death, two of his descendents went on to shine as progenitors of cowhorses and halter horses. At least it's not a tax, right? But yes, another horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present for the one image and looks good now. I think the fair use rationale would be stronger if you would say and substantiate that there are no free photos of the horse that could be used. Sources look good. Ucucha 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) That rationale has held good (with only the change of name when the subject changes) for four FAs on Quarter horses (Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V, and Barbara L). I do not KNOW that there are no free photos, but I've been able to turn up none. Flickr shows nothing relevant for "Lightning Bar" & horse. All the photos I've seen in books are copyrighted and attributed. The one I chose is just cute, I think ... and different than the run of the mill "sideways shot of a horse" that you usually see. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's difficult to prove a negative. I'll assume it's okay from the earlier FAs—and I agree it's a nice picture. Ucucha 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: Is the first item listed under References, the AQHA Official Get of Sire Record for Lightning Bar, a book, journal, website, or what? I was thrown off by the "Accessed on" date on the end. In any event, there should be a period after the title. Also, can you expand the postal abbreviations used for publication locations? Some readers may not know them. Mm40 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's actually a database report that anyone can order from them. it's a rather.. odd .. bit of information, so I've chosen to model the format of the citation after a book. The "accessed on" information is important as it's a dump from their records, and conceivably could change (highly unlikely in the case of this horse, but possible never the less.). I'd rather not expand the postal codes, they haven't been required to do so previously in the other horse FAs. The chances of someone not from the US accessing this is pretty... slim. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) And the requested period has been added. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Support Due to time pressure and impending wikibreak to Caribbean (sigh) only one read through, but I couldn't see any real problems. Bishop next? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks much! If you see something while you're lounging on a beach, feel free to let me known. As for the next one up, that is up to the copyeditors... I've got enough of a backlog awaiting copyediting that I'm enticing them with allowing them to choose what to copyedit next. Two archbishops, a bishop, a horse and a document in the queue right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Support Definitely not my usual reading material, but this seems like quite a good article. I have a few minor issues to raise: first, is it necessary to repeat the "dam, or mother" construction in Early life, as it's already in the lead? Second, note 1 contains a conversion from miles to knots - should that be kilometres? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I've fixed both of those issues. (The knot was a typo, since the template abbreviation for knot is "kn" which is obviously too close on my keyboard to "km", thanks for catching that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Court of Chancery Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments One dab link, to court of first instance, but that appears to be intended. Could you perhaps make the court of first instance article a stub on the general concept of a court of first instance? No dead external links. Alt text is mostly present, except for File:Court_of_Chancery_edited.jpg. Ucucha 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. I unfortunately don't really have the sources to do a CFI article justice. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. The dab link remains. Ucucha 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed, see my point about sources (and legal pun :P). Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Please fix the article so that it does not contain invalid HTML. See the article's W3C Validator report and Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Is this an FAC requirement? I've never had it asked of me before, but I've patched the flaws regardless. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Irish Thoroughbred Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer for Ealdgyth: This article has very little to do with horses. It also has nothing to do with my normal topic area, Texas, or battles (except the kind that end with kissing) or wife selling (although there are some wife-aquiring shenanigans). This article actually covers the first novel written by Nora Roberts, who can apparently write a New York Times bestseller in about the time it takes me to pick out a new pair of shoes. The article is fairly short, and I was actually surprised to be able to find this much information about it. The book in question is a romance novel, and generally these receive very little critical attention. On top of that, the book was orignally published in the 1980s, when romance was even more widely ignored, and it was intended to only be available for purchase for 30 days. In general, if the info is not in this article, it is probably not available. This is the first romance novel to be presented at FAC and it is my first attempt at writing an article on a book, so while I'm confident it meets the standards, I appreciate any feedback on further improving it. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments One dab link, which I fixed. No dead external links. Alt text for the cover image is a bit too concise; it should tell what is in the image. Alt text good Images look OK; first is fair use with standard rationale for covers; second is CC-BY-SA and appears appropriately licensed and described. Ucucha 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Good gracious, you're fast. I think I might have been in the process of rewriting the alt text when you posted. It should be fairly descriptive right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, looks good now. Sources are reliable and consistently formatted. Perhaps I'll review the contents later—though that'll probably take me longer than five minutes! Ucucha 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support Comments Good article that, although short, appears to cover the subject adequately. I was unable to find more substantive sources. Two small points to be cleared up: Any reason you're using Roberts' but Travis's? The first paragraph of "Genre" contains some rather short sentences. Ucucha 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for taking the time to do a full review. I've polished the first paragraph of Genre, and I've modified all the Roberts' to Roberts's. I remember questioning myself on which version to use and never went back to fix it. Thank you for catching it! Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Great, I'm happy to support now. Ucucha 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Support small but (almost) perfectly formed. Three tiny, tiny queries I assume there's nothing to link Silhouette Books to? It's Simon & Schuster with the ampersand, not Simon and Schuster - at least that's what their website (and the Wikipedia article) say could CA and PA be written in full in the the Regis and Snodgrass sources? I'll probably deprive myself of the pleasure of reading the novel, but good luck, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much, Jim. If you actually read this book, my opinion of you will jump even higher - I know very few men who admit to reading romance novels (and this is really not a very good one). I've fixed Simon & Schuster. There's nothing yet to link Silhouette Books to. It's on my list of articles to write. In my experience with the MLA, publication state is always abbreviated when it is provided, so I did not change that. I did note, however, that I'd forgotten the state on one and had misformatted one ISBN, so I've fixed those. Thanks for prompting me to take that much closer look! Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Disclosure, I do not read Nora Roberts, but boy, my mother does. She does agree, this is not one of her better ones.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments for the time being with regard to the prose:

I can't understand why "multiple" is usurping "many" is this and many other FACs that I have reviewed. In the Lead we are told that the protagonists were adversaries, but the sentence reads like we are expected to already know this. I might just be me, but I think a phrase or sentence is missing. I am not sure that "loosened its criteria slightly" is FA quality prose. Can criteria be loosened, can they be tightened? I am stuck for a better word but how about "relaxed"? I think "the general parameters that define its line" is a bit ugly. Would "genre" be of more useful here? Now, I'm British so this is difficult for me to talk about; with regard to sexual intercourse, I find the word "related" a little odd as in "sexual intercourse is only related within the bounds of marriage". Does this mean "takes place", "described", or "happens"? Again this might just be me but I think "ethnic" has had its day. It is such a tired, over-used word that's beginning to lose it's meaning. On this side of the pond it is often used out of misplaced political correctness instead of "foreign" or "black". I think in this context it just means "Irish". This sentence needs help, "This plotline of an impoverished Irishwoman's surprise at the wealth of America essentially reframed the Irish immigration to the United States of the 19th century." The meaning does not come over well, particularly "reframed". OK, I am scared of Tony, just like many others and I have found one of pet hates. "Dee was trapped within a patriarchal culture, with her uncle and prospective husband arranging her future for her." Here we have a fused participle, which Tony calls noun plus -ing. If the meaning is crystal clear, I don't object to the usage; but they can be ugly. A possible solution is, "Dee was trapped within a patriarchal culture in which her prospective husband arranged her future". (The "for her" is redundant). Lastly here, "In this novel, Roberts also included the motif of jealousy." I think in this novel is redundant.

I look forward to reaching a consensus on these somewhat trivial issues and adding my support for this candidate. Best wishes. Graham Colm Talk 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham, for your very helpful comments, and my apologies for not working on them until today (I took the weekend off). I've made the following corrections Added a sentence to the lead to make the info about their relationship transformation make more sense changed "loosened" to "relaxed" changed "related" to "described" Some nice editor fixed the noun plusing  :) rem redundant "in this novel" I did not change the following - "the general parameters that define its line" - The genre is actually romance novel, with subgenre category romance. Within category romances, each publishing imprint has its own rules, the "general parameters", as I called them. These don't really make up a subgenre but are really publication guidelines/criteria. "Genre" is not a completely accurate term, and I'm wary of using "publication guidelines", because that could be interpreted as whether or not the manuscript must be double-spaced, etc. I'm open to other possibilities, but haven't thought of any good ones yet. I left "ethnic". I could substitute "exotic", but that seemed really funny, to me, in relation to Irish. I'm also not sure if that is the appropriate connotation - it's not that the places and events were unusual, just that the people/attitudes were atypical. I'm a little surprised to see a question over "reframed" - I thought it was fairly common for that word to be used to mean that one is saying something in a different way, or presenting ideas in a new manner. Perhaps that is just in American English? I've thought of "evoked", but that doesn't seem quite right. I may not be thinking out of the box enough, but I'm having trouble figuring out another way to get the message across without making the sentence much longer. Thanks again! Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'm happy with reframed now because I can't think of a better way of saying "redefined from a fresh perspective". Similarly, I see what you mean about "general parameters" and again I'm stuck for a better expression. The sentence you added to the Lead improves the flow IMHO. I noticed the kind editor's fix wrt the fused participle and redundancies. I can live with "ethnic", since it is only used once, but I still don't like the word. As I said earlier, I think my issues were relatively trivial, but I hope they were useful. I am pleased to add my support for this FAC, but I am becoming a little worried about Malleus :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) You're worried duckie, my wife is distraught! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support. This not the kind of novel that I would ever be likely to read, so this article is mercifully short. My reading prejudices don't mean that this isn't a subject worthy of this kind of attention though. I do have one small issue to raise. The article isn't consistent about whether Harlequin is singular or plural: "Harlequin loosened its criteria slightly ..." and "Harlequin was unwilling to further expose themselves to risk". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Malleus - you are now reviewing two romance novels! Nice to see you are so confident in your masculinity ;) I fixed the pronoun issue. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC) You wouldn't find that so strange if you met me in real life Karanacs. I have testosterone oozing out of my pores, although in a refined English way, like Alan Rickman when he played the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Nick Adenhart Nominator(s): User:Gogo Dodo and Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Those who have watched baseball in the past 12 months know this name. Those who haven't, this is a biography of a major leaguer whose career was just beginning to rise when he was killed last year. His legacy lives on though, and while this FA is rather short, it is a comprehensive bio on a career that unfortunately was not. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and since I'm in the Wikicup, this is technically a cup nomination, though you guys can treat it as a regular ol' nomination. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Two quick notes since I'm sure they'll be brought up first: ALT Text I'll do tonight or tomorrow. I've never done it before and honestly don't see the point, but I'll do it nonetheless; have to read the page to understand how first of course. Also, I've looked for a free image to replace the one in the infobox but have been unsuccessful so far (if one of the other three pictures worked there I'd put it there, but alas it does not). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Hi, I replaced the non-free infobox image with a cc-by-sa image from Flickr (one that is not a derivative work of copyrighted work). It catches this man in a weird angle but it's free and he is about as identifiable as on the non-free image that was used, I believe. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Yup, just got the guy to change the license a couple hours ago :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Congrats, then. Hekerui (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. No dab links and no dead external links. Am willing to help with alt text if needed. Ucucha 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Alt text done Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC) If you want to add it in, go for it. If not then I can, no worries. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It'd probably be better if you do it yourself first, since I know so little about baseball that I'll probably screw up somewhere. Ucucha 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I added alt text for the first one. If it's good then I'll do the others, if I didn't do it right I'll try to find someone to help me out on it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) A good start! Some comments: Please provide some context in the alt text: he is evidently in a stadium, but that is not apparent in the alt text. The second half of the second sentence is difficult to parse, as it is unclear who the "he" is and who the pitcher is. Also, you don't need to tell that it is a photo; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Ucucha 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. alt text added for images #2 and 3 (4 is gonna have to wait until tomorrow, that one is more complicated) all images. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I made some further corrections and am satisfied with the alt text now. Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - What makes http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/ a reliable source? Likewise http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/nick_adenhart.php? Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Baseball America is recognized as a major baseball magazine focusing on pre-major league careers.Here is a fairly good recognition of its notability. The second ref I was considering taking out myself when I saw it at first, it felt borderline reliable at best. I'll replace it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Let me know what you replace it with. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Replaced with newspaper, some of it can be read online. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) An alternative freely available source may be [7], but then we would have to discuss the reliability of that. I tried finding the original announcement from the Cedar Rapids Kernels, but nothing is available that far back. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Few quick post-Super Bowl comments; will try to review the rest at a later time.

The significance of the Salt Lake City Bees cancelling the game after his death isn't clear in the lead. I assume he played for the team in the minor leagues, but it would be worth clarifying that. Early life: "Entering his final high school season, that magazine dubbed Adenhart the No. 1 high school prospect in the country." The mention of Baseball America is two sentences before this, and the sentence stopped me in my tracks for a second. It left me wondering if this was broken up by the addition of content. It would be worth it to mention the magazine's name again. Baseball career: "with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate." The last part is supposed to be modifying the team, not the league. How about "with the Pioneer League's Orem Owlz, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Changes made. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Tillson Harrison Nominator(s): JulieSpaulding 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been expanded to the extent of the information available on this person - well, at least what Wikipedia editors have access to, anyway! The article is an interesting read, so even if you don't want to contribute to the discussion here, it's worthwhile taking a look for your own interest. It is well-written, and the text has gone through two sets of meticulous copy-editing from two different editors, at GA nominations and peer review. The article's subject has had little written about him, so research has been difficult, and all sources have been exhausted to the point that not much more information can be garnered from them! I would say that this article is as comprehensive as it could ever be with the sources available to us. Of course, if some big discovery occurs to change this, well, that's a different matter :) JulieSpaulding 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Image and technical review No dabs, all links live, alt text present, the sole image is appropriately licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Great read so far.

"After World War I, Harrison traveled throughout the Middle East, treating venereal disease and operating an X-ray facility in Lod, Israel." Some of the links in this sentence are of low value; is there anything in the World War I or Middle East that readers don't already know and need to know to aid their understanding of this article? This is especially important because there are two "good" links in there: venereal disease and Lod, Israel. Personally, I would remove the link to X-ray too but I'll leave it up to you. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "World War Two" "Two" is usually in Roman numerals here, isn't it? Anyway, it's inconsistent with the rest of the article. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I love the penultimate sentence of the lead; the matter-of-factness of it adds a bit of humor that really lightens up the article. One niggling issue, though: "six different languages"—is "different" necessary? Consider that the opposite doesn't make sense (six identical languages?), I think you can do away with that word. I notice the same issue earlier in the lead ("fifteen different countries"). JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "His daughter Rosalind considered his life to be the model for the film character Indiana Jones." I couldn't figure out why this was worth mentioning in the lead until I read the last paragraph: "This, she claims, became the inspiration..." "considers" and "claims" have different connotations; the former is soft, like a pipe dream, while the former is much bolder. I think if you could add a mention of Rosalind's contact with Lucas and Spielberg to the lead and explain the link between her father's life and the movie a little more, this factoid would seem much less trivial. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) There is a bit of overlinking of common terms throughout the article: lawyer, postmaster, World War I, France, Mexico, prostitutes, frostbite, etc. Do a careful link audit of the article. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "Never content" I found this phrase a bit vague; with what was was he discontented (job, himself, family)? JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "titled Cesarean Section Under Difficulties" I think article titles are in quotes, not italics. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "without divorcing his first wife Sybil" We've already been told his first wife's name. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That was from the lead and first section. There are a few rough edges that could benefit from a proficient (read: not me) copy-editor, but this article seems pretty good so far. The subject is definitely not your average physician! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Dabomb. I have implemented them, and the article looks even better! Of course, I would welcome any further suggestions. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) No problem, and I'll try to return with more later in the week. One note: please don't strike my comments; per WP:FAC instructions, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Apologies! I think my idea from that was from the FAC instruction to not include templates such as 'done' or 'not done' on this page due to a template limit. Maybe I misread it, but I thought the solution was to strike comments - at first I thought that there was conflict between that instruction and the talk page guidelines. No matter... I must have misread something somewhere along the line! Sorry about that! JulieSpaulding 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support with COI - I did the GA for this. A good first attempt at FA. I'd normally wait for other comments before supporting, but wikibreak coming up, so off the fence (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - What makes http://www.tourismoxford.ca/site/2990/default.aspx a reliable source? Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for your comment. I would say that this source is reliable because the publisher is the local government. Considering the same local government (Oxford County, Ontario, just in case you didn't know) is one of the overseers of Annandale National Historic Site, the original source of information for most of the other sources cited in the Tillson Harrison article, I would say that it is pretty reliable. I know I didn't explain that very well: to make it clearer, I think the source is reliable because the publisher is: a) a government, and b) oversees the Annandale National Historic Site, the premier source of information on Harrison and his family. JulieSpaulding 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. That alt text "Young man in suit and tie" is pretty generic. Can you modify it to describe a bit of the man's appearance for the benefit of the user who can't see the picture? See WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I have improved the alt text and it should appear better now. JulieSpaulding 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Do we know that File:Tillson Harrison.gif was published before 1923? If not, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used, but that might not the right tag for it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, come to think of it, I can't find any proof that the photo was indeed published before 1923. Is it still possible to use the image? The earliest publication of the image that I can find on the internet dates back to 2007. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park Nominator(s): Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°°

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. Although it is not the main article on Ricketts Glen State Park, it follows a format and style very similar to that of six other state park featured articles we have worked on, the two most recent being Cherry Springs State Park and Upper Pine Bottom State Park. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Finetooth and Brianboulton) and we want to thank all of the editors who helped choose the images here. We also checked at WT:FAC to make sure this was not too list-y and OK to submit to FAC, here. This is a beautiful park and the waterfalls in it are its most famous attraction. We hope this article does justice to them. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present and generally good, though some parts could use a copyedit. For example, please check the text for File:Ricketts_Glen_State_Park_Murray_Reynolds_and_Shingle_Cabin_Falls.jpg and File:Ricketts_Glen_State_Park_Onondaga_Falls_4.jpg. Ucucha 15:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for checking these, I have copyedited both alt texts, hopefully they are now better. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I have copyedited alt text through the end of the Ricketts Glen section now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this carefully written and beautifully illustrated article in mid-January. All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm certain that the article meets the requirements for FA. Finetooth (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind wortds, help selecting images, peer review, and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks so much for checking those, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: My one comment is that, at 450px, the lead map overwhelms the text. I know comments are often made about unreadably small maps, but in this case 350px would be more than adequate (I've tried it out), and I strongly recommend you resize to this. The only other observation I have is that because of its length and multiplicity of images, the page takes an age to load - a couple of times I got timeouts. Maybe I should update my software. I mentioned the overall quality of the article at peer review, and I am happy to reiterate its praises here; a magnificent achievement, well deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review and very kind words. I have resized the map per your suggestion. I know from the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject talk page that the coordinates templates also slow page loads, as do the convert templates. In a few articles we have replaced the {{convert}} templates to speed load times, not sure if that would be worth it here - I would not want to remove any of the images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your support. We added 120 images to List of Pennsylvania state parks without slowing the loading of the article. I think the slow loading is due to the convert template. Which I can live with or without. Dincher (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I have removed all of the convert templates (over 100) and hope it loads faster now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Now loading in about 20 secs on my machine, and I reckon that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for checking and glad it is somewhat faster. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Only minor change I would suggest would be to add a text instruction within the lead map clarifying how to enlarge it. Other than that, it looks to be a superb piece of work. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - clicking on the image of two rectangles in the caption allows the reader to enlarge the map here (or any thumbnail image). I am not sure how to say this succinctly in the caption, will think about how to try and do it, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I have tweaked the map caption, hopefully this is clearer. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. An engaging contribution, so well-written I can almost smell the water. The photographs are beautiful. Whoever lives in this part of the world in very lucky indeed. Thanks for the virtual tour; I really enjoyed it. Graham Colm (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your very kind words and support. Glad you enjoyed the tour - even in Pennsylvania, Ricketts Glen is unique. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Elvis Presley Nominator(s): PL290 and DocKino

Notes from previous FAC:

Media review reported no issues. Source review noted issues: these have been addressed. PL290 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Support, carried over from the last FAC. Some opposition floated in after my review last time, items that I should have noticed and did agree with—the nominators appear to have addressed them. The para about Elvis meeting Nixon looks much better as well, which was the other standout objection that I noticed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Some sources doubting Presley’s reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day are still missing. For example, this one:

Though he has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence, sociologist Philip Ennis writes, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252.

Some details that were part of previous article versions have frequently been removed, for instance

His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems.

Furthermore, why isn’t there a special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era in the article? In that era, for which Presley is so well known, the singer was distanced from the main currents of rock 'n' roll, which were seized by groups such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones during the 1960s. This moving away from his roots was much criticized by critics and rock musicians.

"There was so little of it that was actually good," David Bowie says. "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.

One of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley.

Furthermore, why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?

The Legacy section primarily includes superlatives. Where are the critical remarks about the world-wide Elvis industry and the Elvis cult at Graceland? The same section still includes the following (false) claim:

"Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television", Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

“...the most famous person in the world?” Sorry, at the age of 21, i.e. in 1956, Elvis was much loved and hated in several parts of the USA, that’s true, but Charles Laughton didn’t even know the correct name of Elvis when he introduced him in the Sullivan Show. More famous in the minds of many at that time may have been Mao Zedong, if you count all the Chinese people whose hero Mao was and who had never heard of Elvis. And you can be sure that many Americans too hated him in 1956. Furthermore, in 1956, Marilyn Monroe, as a celebrity, was surely more famous for marrying Arthur Miller than Elvis for his gyrations. More famous than Elvis in the minds of many American adults at that time were also Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev (the latter for his de-Stalinization policy). So much for the false claim that, "at the age of 21," Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

More critical voices have stated that while "Elvis’s success as a singer and movie star dramatically increased his economic capital, his cultural capital never expanded enough for him to transcend the stigma of his background as a truck driver from the rural South... 'No matter how successful Elvis became... he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans... He was the sharecropper’s son in the big house, and it always showed.'" See Linda Ray Pratt, "Elvis, or the Ironies of a Southern Identity," The Southern Quarterly, vol. 18 (1979), pp.43, 45, also cited in Rodman, Elvis after Elvis (1996), p.78, and Janet Podell, Rock Music in America (1987), p.26. Such statements certainly belong to the "Legacy" section, but have frequently been removed.

See also the critical commentaries by Johnbod, for instance [8] and [9]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The points which Johnbod raised have been addressed and I look forward to his assessment of the actions taken. The remaining points appear to relate to incidental aspects of the artist's life and career, or that of his parents, relatives and colleagues, or, alternatively, dwell too much on details of one aspect for a summary article of this size. The question of inclusion of both positive and negative aspects has already received careful consideration and I feel the correct balance has now been achieved. PL290 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, well researched, well written, and relates a very complex story with clarity and, yes, excellent balance.

I'm disturbed by the nature of the opposition raised just above, which appears to be made without any concern for the need to maintain that balance, as well as proper focus and manageable length. The interest in inflating coverage of Presley's family and associates is obviously misplaced, as is the desire to further emphasize the decline in his physical condition and his disreputability in certain circles—issues already covered by the article in depth and at many different junctures.

Particularly questionable are certain misleading and poorly based arguments, which cast the opponent's good faith into grave doubt:

The conflation (via "because") of the high school poll with the isolated statement ""Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" appears to be willfully deceptive. Here is that sentence fully in context—it begins a section in Ennis's book called "The Legacy of the Pantheon":

Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load; yet he clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon. He, more than the others, has become a national icon. The legacy of rocknroll's founding years, therefore, is largely Elvis', even though it was a collective accomplishment.

The desire to introduce this single high school poll also reconfirms the obliviousness to concerns of balance and length. Its inclusion would require the survey of broader, more objective standards of popularity in comparing Boone and Presley, such as chart success and record sales. In 1957, Presley had four chart-topping singles; each "sold about two million copies. Elvis had two number-one albums and three number-one EPs, and in all had spent twenty-one weeks at the top of the singles charts, fourteen heading the album charts. The single 'Jailhouse Rock' sold an instant two million copies, and the EP became Elvis's second million-seller in that category" (Ernst Jorgensen, Elvis Presley: A Life in Music, p. 98). And, of course, 1956 was even bigger for Presley than 1957. Boone's achievements were impressive, but not in the same league (for instance, he spent seven weeks at the top of the singles charts in 1957). Believe otherwise? Please quote in similar detail and properly source. Thank you. Presley's first network appearance was in January 1956; he turned 22 in January 1957. The statement that he was "arguably the most famous person in the world" within a year of the first event, when he was still 21 (that is, by roughly the end of 1956) is well sourced. I checked the source. Indeed, it flatly claims that he was the most famous person in the world. The statement in the article thus—appropriately, I believe—moderates this claim, for which much evidence may be marshaled but which is ultimately hard to prove conclusively. The idea that an English actor's (possibly intentional) mispronunciation of Presley's name in September 1956 contradicts the statement is bizarre—especially when the article clearly states that this September '56 event was key in catapulting Presley to the heights of fame. The opponent's OR claims concerning Mao, Monroe, Eisenhower, and Khrushchev, all obviously unsourced, in no way refute the well founded statement. A request is made for a "special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era". The era—including the attention paid to Presley's costumes and, of course, the nature of his music—is already extensively and appropriately covered in the article's historical section. Johnbod's comments from the last FAC are raised, as if the nominators had not expressly worked to address them.

In sum, I don't see anything actionable here and I believe the submission as a whole represents a fringe position.—DCGeist (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a few notes. According to the New York Times, May 17, 1991, Queen Elizabeth II "is arguably the most famous person in the world -- a woman famous not for Andy Warhol's 15 minutes or for 15 years but for almost five decades. She is incalculably wealthy, a living link with the Britain of Chaucer and Shakespeare and Wellington and Churchill, who has herself been privy to the deepest secrets of the West since 1952, when Harry S. Truman lived in the White House and Joseph Stalin lived in the Kremlin." See [10] Another source says that "During the anti-Communist witch-hunts spearheaded by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Paul Robeson became a target for repression. He went from being arguably the most famous person in the world, to being erased from the history books. Now, after a six-year grass-roots campaign, the United States Post Office is issuing a commemorative stamp in his honor." See [11]. So much for the ridiculous claim that Elvis, in 1956, was "arguably the most famous person in the world." According to Billboard, Boone was the second biggest charting artist of the late 1950s, behind only Elvis Presley but ahead of Ricky Nelson and The Platters, and was ranked at No. 9 - behind The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney but ahead of artists such as Aretha Franklin, Chicago and The Beach Boys - in its listing of the Top 100 Top 40 Artists 1955-1995. See Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, 1996, p.806. It is a fact that, for high school students, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." This suggests that Elvis, the bad guy, and his rock 'n 'roll music was more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers, the latter favoring the good guy Boone. And this fact is certainly of some importance. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on John Lennon includes a comprehensive section on "Marriages and relationships", the Paul McCartney article has "Personal relationships" and "Lifestyle" sections. The Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, Marlon Brando and James Dean articles all include "Personal life" sections. It’s a mystery to me why a biographical article on Elvis Presley should not have such sections that more specifically deal with Presley's family and associates. Onefortyone (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.

Elizabeth II was indeed very famous in 1991, as she remains. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article: "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world." According to the New York Times article, Queen Elizabeth II was "arguably the most famous person in the world ... for almost five decades. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Did you know... that in the English language, the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question? Did you know... that two hours before your latest love letter to the Queen, the passage was emended as a result of a sane, productive, English-language exchange with Johnbod? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know that the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question. That's why I think that such statements are ridiculous, especially if they are cited in a featured article. Thanks for emending the said passage. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Paul Robeson was indeed very famous when he was blacklisted, in 1948. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article (I'll repeat it for your convenience): "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world." You have provided zero evidence that the vastly popular Presley was relatively "more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers" compared to the very--but rather less--popular Boone. I see nothing in the poll with which you are obsessed that breaks down the respondents' opinions by economic class. Nor, in my considerable reading in the field, have I encountered any evidence to support your novel claim. Given Presley's unprecedented sales, it is most plausible to assume that he had large followings among teenagers of all economic classes. If you have any contrary evidence that directly addresses teenagers and class, please present it and we can consider whether and how it should be integrated into the present article or if it is more suitable for the topical article Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Boone had three No. 1 hits in 1957 ("Don't Forbid Me", "Love Letters In The Sand", "April Love") and still holds the Billboard record for spending 220 consecutive weeks on the charts with more than one song. According to Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess and Gloria Jacobs, “Elvis was visibly lower class ... He represented an unassimilated white underclass that had been forgotten by mainstream suburban America – more accurately, he represented a middle-class caricature of poor whites. He was sleazy.” See Lisa A. Lewis (ed.), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992), p.100. According to Lucian K. Truscott, “Elvis Presley made lower class Americana sexy.” See New Times, vol. 9, 1977, p.7. According to Gilbert B. Rodman, “in the eyes of many (perhaps even most) of his fans, one of Elvis’s greatest virtues was that he never strayed terribly far from his working-class roots...” See Rodman, Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), p.73. Music critic and Presley biographer Dave Marsh says about the singer's fans: "There are people in places that count in the world, and people in places that don't. He is the son of the people who don't count, and their shining star. That's what makes him unique and what people still respond to." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. These quotes certainly support the view that Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth, as the opinion poll also shows. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Did you know... that not a single one of the quotes you have provided actually establishes that "Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth"? Did you know... that not a single other person has read this article on Elvis Presley and experienced distress at Pat Boone's absence from it? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Here are some further sources. “The growing varieties of popular music in the 1950s helped socialize young people into their ‘appropriate’ social classes. Coleman saw rock ‘n’ roll as the soundtrack for working-class youth.” See Joseph A. Kotarba and John M. Johnson, Postmodern Existential Sociology (2002), p.105. Mike Brake writes about Elvis: “The working-class Southern boy from the wrong side of town with sexy, black movements and voice spoke beyond the United States to working-class youth everywhere.” See Mike Brake, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain, and Canada (1990), p.73. Social and cultural studies indicate that new Hollywood heroes such as Presley “became important models for rebellious young men from working and lower middle-class milieus”, whereas the group identity of highly educated middle- to upper-class youth was more “based upon cultural consumption and physical styles that advertised the fact that they - unlike their ‘social inferiors’ decked out in leather jackets and jeans - enjoyed elevated European-style tastes” (though some of them may have personally enjoyed Elvis movies and rock ‘n’ roll). See Heide Fehrenbach and Uta G. Poiger, Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American Culture in Western Europe and Japan (2000), p.102-103. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You have voiced your personal displeasure with the fact that the editors have chosen to thread discussion of Presley's personal life throughout the article, rather than to create a discrete section for it (though there is, in fact, a subsection that specifically deals with the influence of his friends, the so-called Memphis Mafia). The fact is that his personal life is given the coverage it merits. Your personal preference for a different structural choice--one that is objectively no better or worse--is irrelevant to the FAC criteria. DocKino (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I still do not think that in the Wikipedia article Elvis's personal life is given the coverage it merits - in comparison to all the other details mentioned in the text. All other Elvis biographies include much more material concerning his parents and friendships etc. There are even entire books dealing with these details. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Did you know... that four other reviewers have apparently read through the entire article and offered their support without a single one even hinting that they agree with you on this issue? Did you know... that in addition to all of the coverage of personal matters in the present article, there is even an entire article dealing with these details, Personal relationships of Elvis Presley? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The main article mentions several important details about Elvis's personal life only in passing. Some of these details are not even mentioned. The other article only deals with some of these aspects. However, the main article should include a summary of this material. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. The article contains several instances of invalid HTML; see the W3C validator report; can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Done. PL290 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support - My opinion still stands from the last nomination; this is a fine article and it meets, perhaps even exceeds, the FA criteria. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support I think enough has been done to address my concerns from the last review, & other improvements made - too many changes to follow in detail but a second read does not leave the same impression as the first. I think I'd be inclined to soften or drop the "most famous person in the world" claim. It's reminiscent of Lennon's "more famous than Jesus quote", but I'm dubious that in 1957 Anglosphere popular culture did have that reach to China, USSR & Soviet bloc, Africa & even much of Europe & South America. 1957 was just before the point where the transistor radio became cheap and popular, and so on. How many countries had he even been released in by that point? But I won't withold support for that, & otherwise its a very strong article. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your observations in the last FAC--they led to definite improvements in the narrative. As noted, the claim in question is softened from our source with the addition of "arguably". Here's several other relevant references: "In April 1956...after a couple of hit records and a handful of TV appearances, he was one of the most famous people in America, soon to be one of the most recognised on earth" (Ray Connolly, Daily Mail, 3-15-2002) "By May his 'Heartbreak Hotel' was top of the charts in fourteen different countries" (Hunter Davies, The Beatles: The Authorized Biography, p. 34) "the litany of 'youth culture' happenings in 1955 and 1956—the rise and fall of James Dean, the rise into a world-historical stratosphere of Elvis Presley" (Christian G. Appy, Cold War Constructions, p. 248) In Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexican Counterculture, Eric Zolov describes how new overseas territories were becoming an increasingly important source of revenue for the major U.S. record labels in 1956–57. Among the countries cited in that regard outside of Western Europe are Australia, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Venezuela (p. 23). "On February 3, 1957, the New York Times ran a story under the headline "Presley Records a Craze in Soviet Union." The paper reported that, although not officially released in the Soviet Union, bootleg recordings of his music were being pressed on discarded X-ray plates and sold on the black market in Leningrad for the equivalent of about $12." (Scott Schinder and Andy Schwartz, Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever, p. 14) Weighing your observation and the above, my inclination is to soften the claim a bit further from "arguably the most famous" to "one of the most famous" and to add the Soviet craze information to the history so the scope of his impact is more apparent in the narrative. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea. The Soviet info is interesting & unexpected (to me anyway, at that date), but I expoect most of the Soviet population had still not heard of him at that point (unless he was being mentioned by Soviet media as an example of Western decadence etc). Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. DocKino (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some general questions.

A featured article should be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. To my mind, the present article neglects several details concerning the singer’s family, his personal relationships, and the world-wide Elvis industry. Did you know... (just reflecting on the couple rare specifics your mind has brought to the table) that the article already states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics"? Did you know... that you are the only person living, dead, or avatared that believes the article would be improved by quoting Peter Guralnick to the effect that Gladys Love Presley was "full of spunk"? DocKino (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You are wrong, DocKino. In 2008, this version was favored by at least four different editors: Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk,"1 and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17, 1933. See Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 24. Some excerpts from the discussion: Is there a reference for when her alcohol issues began? Lara❤Love 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Yes, there are several references. I did some further research. Here are some sources: Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006) says, "While Vernon was serving his time in prison, Gladys found solace in Elvis and, increasingly, in drinking. Even though she drank in private, her bloodshot eyes and the lingering aroma of stale liquor gave her away. She also began missing work..." (p. 17). The author adds (p.23) that those who were like Gladys "owed their extra weight to drinking or avoiding field work. Alcohol was cheap; food might be hard to come by, but one could always find a drink." According to Jane Ellen Wayne's chapter on Elvis Presley in her book, The Leading Men of MGM (2006), in younger years "she also enjoyed an occasional night out drinking and dancing" (p.368). The author also mentions that "Gladys and Vernon were both heavy drinkers" (p.373) and that "Gladys took Benzedrine and consumed vodka to excess to ease the pain of loneliness" (p.377). Rex Mansfield, Elisabeth Mansfield and Zoe Terrill write in their book, Sergeant Presley: Our Untold Story of Elvis' Missing Years (2002): "she had a weight problem (Gladys had been taking diet pills on and off for some time) and a drinking problem." (p.54) J. G. Ballard says that "despite her own well-developed taste for drugs and alcohol, Gladys seems to have offered Presley rock-like support throughout her short life." See J. G. Ballard, A User's Guide to the Millennium: Essays and Reviews (1997), p.39. There are many more references of this kind. Other sources deal with her liver problems caused by drinking heavily for many years. See, for instance, Elaine Dundy's chapter on "The Death of Gladys" in Elvis and Gladys. Onefortyone(talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Some further sources. When Gladys's friends and co-workers collected some money for her shortly after the birth of Elvis, Elaine Dundy says, they were warned: "Don't give it to her in money." " He'll only drink it up." (p.10) Bobbie Ann Mason, Elvis Presley (2002), writes about the young couple (p.9): "I think of Elvis's parents, Vernon and Gladys, as a pair of cutups — teasing, playing cards, drinking beer, dancing." Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx add in their book, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream (p.62): "Like Gladys, Grandma Presley was known to enjoy a drink or two..." Interestingly, the Presleys did not talk about their drinking habits. According to Larry Geller and Joel Spector, If I Can Dream: Elvis' Own Story(1989), p.46, "Some people ... suggested that Gladys drank then, but if Elvis knew, it was his secret. He occasionally remarked about 'the drinkers' in his extended family, and he detested drunks. Elvis did say that Gladys would have an occasional beer, but that was all." Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Elaine Dundy says about Gladys alcoholism, "She was drinking a lot. At the end she was drinking all the time. Vodka. Where'd she get it from? Vernon — he give it to her. Just to keep her quiet." (p.294) In addition, here is Dundy's statement about Elvis's father: Vernon "didn't work very hard or very steadily. ... He had been known all his young life as a 'jellybean' – by definition weak, spineless, and work-shy." (p.10) Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I support this version with the first reference provided above to back the statement of her drinking and Rikstar's additional of their elopement. Lara❤Love 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) So do I - let's have some clear preferences noted on here!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I concur, absolutely, unequivocally. Except for the omission of the Johnny Burnette quote, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of this article's progress. Rikstar (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) These are clear statements by other Wikipedians. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I deeply resent the misuse by 141 of the quote above, made by me nearly two years ago. It applied to a version of the article that had little if any other reference to Gladys's Presley's character. There are now new references to her in the completely and excellently revised FA nominated version; they are more than adequate, and if they had existed in the version of two years ago, I would have supported those "unequivocally". It is also worth pointing out that my overuse of positive adverbs in the above quote was somewhat tongue in cheek - simply a plea to move on, at a time when, yet again, the main objections to the collaborative effort being overseen by LaraLove were coming from user 141, and causing a good deal of frustration. If user 141 wants to dig up past quotes, how about this one from LaraLove, from December 18, 2007? "He's [Onefortyone] obviously pushing his own POV on the article. If we prove this, he should be blocked from the article. This has gone on for far too long." [12]. In my opinion, too, nothing has changed, except for the profusion of gray hairs and the twitch in my left cheek... This has gone on for far too long. Rikstar409 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Significantly, my old opponent Rikstar has reappeared on the scene. Do you remember that your attempt to ban me failed because the arbcom rejected the case? Furthermore, do you remember that other users were of a different opinion? See [13]. However, it is a fact not to be argued away that, in 2008, my version of the said section was supported even by my opponents. By the way, you are wrong, Rikstar, that there are sufficient references to Gladys's Presley's character in the current version of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I am so glad that my existence is seen as 'significant'. Yep, you've survived a banning attempt - congratulations. If that was me I'd be cock-a-hoop just knowing that so many editors found me disruptive, and blind to the collective reasoning and wishes of others. Can't for the life of me think why anyone would object to your involvement in wikipedia. To think of all those editors who've had the temerity to think you're not a good-humored team player. I'm so glad that you managed to point out that I am plainly "wrong" about matters of subjective opinion, and that you have managed to expose me as an uncritical ELVIS FAN (is it curable?). I am absolutely certain that everyone reading this will agree with your many objections regarding this article, and will fall over themselves in the clamor to add their support. Rikstar409 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Folks, that'll about do it with the personal bickering. Please take the commentary that's not specifically about the article elsewhere. Rikstar, why do you keep posting that weird tagline at the end of the page? Check your history. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC) A featured article should be stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content should not change significantly from day to day. In the past, there were several edit wars and many significant changes were frequently made. Did you know... that in the past the United States was at war with Germany, Italy, and Japan, but that this is no longer the case? Did you know... that you have been a central party in virtually every single edit war the article has been subjected to in living memory? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) That's not true, as in the past there were also edit wars between several other users. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) A featured article should not be protected or semi-protected. In the past, the Presley article was frequently attacked by vandals and therefore protected. How can this problem be solved? Onefortyone (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC) There is absolutely no requirement that featured articles not be semi-protected or protected. Indeed, there are several that are permanently protected to some degree. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read through the latest from 141--which includes selections from a two-year-old Talk page dialogue, in jumbled chronology, all of which should have been blockquoted for visual clarity--and find nothing there that would improve the article. Once again, the article states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics." Leading biographers tend not to identify Gladys as such, and there is no profit to weighing down this article on Presley's entire life and career with an attempted delineation of the precise quantity of spirits his mother imbibed. The important person here is Presley himself, and the information which is clear and relevant is that he reckoned that several of his family members had been alcoholics, and that he largely refrained from drinking in order to avoid becoming one. The article currently conveys this information.

It is a fact, that, in 2008, there was a consensus to include the following passage in the “Early years” section of the Wikipedia article: Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk,"1 and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17, 1933. The current version fails to consider this decision. After mentioning that Elvis Presley was born to Vernon Elvis and Gladys Love Presley, it only says about the singer’s parents: Gladys was regarded by relatives and friends as the dominant member of the small family. Vernon moved from one odd job to the next, evidencing little ambition. Query: which version is better? Certainly not the current one. However, it may be added that Gladys was the dominant member of the small family. On the other hand, the following passage on young Elvis is still part of the article: He was encouraged to enter a singing contest after impressing his schoolteacher with a rendition of Red Foley's country song "Old Shep" during morning prayers. The contest, held at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show on October 3, 1945, saw his first public performance: dressed as a cowboy, the ten-year-old Presley stood on a chair to reach the microphone and sang "Old Shep". He recalled placing fifth.2 Query: what is so important about this singing contest that it takes up so much space? Isn’t it more important to add some further details concerning the character of Elvis’s parents and simply say, At age ten, Presley won fifth prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show for his rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep"? This shorter version was also part of the 2008 consensus. Onefortyone (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Interesting - 141 actually refers above to the concept of consensus. It would help discussion about this nomination enormously if 141 showed a consistent regard for consensus, given the many unilateral objections he has raised. Rikstar409 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have learned that there is a new concern: Mr. Walsh informs me that despite 141's probation in this area, he is now canvassing and asking known opposition to come to the FAC page. Given the nature of the canvassed party's contributions to the article Talk page ([14] [15]), should s/he appear here, I believe complete silence will be my only appropriate response. I believe, at this point, that this is also the most suitable response of the nominators to 141's own commentary. Though I will continue to read everything, of course, I will remain silent in the face of any further entries by 141 unless a second reviewer or delegate flags an item as requiring a response. DocKino (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What should be wrong with asking another user for his/her opinion about the current version of the article? Much more significant are your recent personal attacks against me on the Elvis talk page. See [16]. I have not yet seen some kind of excuse for these unjustified attacks. For several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Some of these fans even took me to arbitration, that’s true, but they were all banned by arbcom decision, because my “editing has substantially improved” in comparison to some of my earliest contributions. As the arbcom says: “A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says, “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety: Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:

Support All my worries about sources from last time have been sorted. I was going to support based on sourcing, but I had a read and all the other criteria are fulfilled. One nitpick I've got left is the Billboard article pages. I'm sure you can easily find them on Google Books. Overall, great job guys. RB88 (T) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratanakiri Province Nominator(s): Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a well-written, comprehensive article about a part of the world not covered well on Wikipedia. The history of this area is somewhat tragic, and its future doesn't look particularly bright either. I think it's an interesting read that delves into issues facing many parts of the developing world. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One note: I was holding off this nomination in the hope that the 2008 census data would become available. It's still not up on the govt website and I have no idea when it will be posted. Much of the data in the article is from the 1998 census, though I have provided updated stats where available. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Technical comments: Several dab links indicated in the tool, but I can't find them in the article, so presumably a case of server lag. Please check the dead external links indicated in the link to the right. Alt text is present, but needs work: Text such as "A photo of" is unnecessary. Alt text should not duplicate the caption. In the map, the roads are not indicated in the alt text (also, I'd call them orange, not red). In the photo of the lake, how can one see from the picture that the forests have been replaced by fields? The map of the districts should indicate the approximate location of each. Please check WP:ALT. Random comment: I think I just wrote an article on a shrew that occurs and was first found there. Ucucha 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah I fixed those dabs recently. The dead external links are just links to the original, where I have added a new archive link. (God, I have gone through hell trying to replace links that have gone dead. Clearly websites in developing countries don't last long.) The one where it says "Excessed redirect limit" works fine if clicked. I tried to fix the alt text. Hopefully it's better. I'm going to stick with red for the roads if you don't mind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) How do you want me to mention the roads in the alt text for the map, without duplicating the caption that already mentions them? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Re the forests replaced by fields - Clearly the natural state of the environment is forest. It has been replaced at some point with fields. Considering the problem of logging in Ratanakiri, it has probably been replaced relatively recently. I can remove this from the alt text if you want, but I don't think I'm drawing impermissible conclusions from the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC) As for the deforestation, I think such info should belong in the caption. As for the roads, I think the caption merely says that the roads are indicated on the map, and the alt text should say where they are (to a certain extent). Thanks for the replies and fixes! Ucucha 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comments . Yep, that's a good point, it might be possible to write a new wildlife paragraph. Also I believe there is the problem of deforestation in that province and that needs to be addressed and how it interferes with the ecosystem and habitats too. I see you've briefly mentioned this but I have been led to believe the logging is a serious problem in the area and is perhaps worthy of a more detailed evaluation. Other than this I find this article very clear to read and I believe it addresses most of the main points without going into too much detail. A couple of other things. Perhaps you could use File:Cambodia location map.svg and create a better quality province locator highlighted in red. I am admittedly not a fan of the quality of the blue highlighter and blocky looking map. Also I'd recommend creating a montage to go in the main infobox, an assortment of photographs to try to give a balanced scenery of the province for aesthetic and information purposes. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think there's enough information to write a new wildlife paragraph - there's really not much info out there more than what I wrote. I struggled with how to include the logging/deforestation issues. Currently there's some info in history about the land title problems, which come in part from logging, some info in the geography section about environmental degradation, and also some info in the economy section. Do you think it should be rearranged or expanded? I don't want to put unwarranted emphasis on it. I think I prefer a solid map, but I'm open to hearing what others think about a new locator map. The US one is solid and blocky and the India one is more complex, and I find the India one hard to use for someone with little sense of Indian geography. I used to have an image above the map in the infobox, but another editor removed it. I could put one back. None of the state FAs I have seen have photos in the infobox. Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, actually I think for the main article you've pretty well summarised the main points about logging and wildlife. I'm not sure though whether it would be easier to dedicate a paragraph to say wildlife and environmental issues, if not that's OK. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Don't I do this in the third and fourth paragraphs of the geography section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yes it is summarised, I meant a section on environment and wildlife. As for the map, what's wrong with something like the one for Chiang Mai Province. I prefer the quality of an svg locator... Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I'll see what I can do about making a map similar to Chiang Mai. It may be beyond my svg abilities... I don't think I should separate those paragraphs into a new section because it would be very small, and it would leave the remaining geography/climate section even smaller. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I got a new map made by the people at the Graphics Lab. See what you think. I also added a lead image, but at the moment it appears super-saturation-boosted. I'll have to tone it down later. I tried a collage earlier[17] and it looked ridiculous IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is a report on the fauna of Virachey here, and it appears the survey was carried out in the Ratanakiri part of Virachey. The map that is in the description of Crocidura phanluongi indicates that it was also caught in Ratanakiri. It's your call whether to include that in the article. Its information does appear to be more detailed than that (Desai and Vuthy 1996) currently in the article. Ucucha 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I added one sentence with a summary of that survey - thanks for the find. I don't think it warrants more than that, because it's specific to one national park rather than being an overview for the whole province. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The same goes for the other reference (Desai and Vuthy), though. Ucucha 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I know, and it only gets one sentence too. There's really not any information about which animals are most common throughout the province, etc, just some inventories from surveys of limited areas. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. This page contains invalid HTML, as reported by the W3C validator; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I don't know what would cause this. Can anyone else help? Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I fixed it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support -now that those things have been fixed as I mentioned as Blofeld I think this is of featured quality. I think it is very clear to read and does a very good job of summarising the main points. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) To be clear, before I nominated this I asked Blofeld (a frequent collaborator) whether there was anything I could fix, and then I let him know I had put it up for nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Support. Good to see such a nice article on a part of the world that certainly I knew very little about. I have only one comment, which is that gems seems to feature quite significantly in Ratanakiri's history and economy, but I've got no idea what gems we're talking about. Diamonds? Sapphires? Emeralds? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I did some new searches to investigate this - it hadn't really been addressed in the stuff I found so far. Ganoksin.com says, "Blue zircon has been coming out of the province for years, and the amount is increasing as the stone's demand increases. The mines in Ratanakiri also produce small amounts of amethyst, peridot, and black opal."[18] I'm not sure how reliable the site is though. Maybe I can put it on the reliable sources noticeboard or ask a wikiproject about mining or jewelry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Actually it seems that this report was done by a trade magazine Colored Stone.[19] That looks pretty legit so I'll work it in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Golden White-eye Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This article had a very thorough GA nomination round. It's stable and has just about every reference there is on this species. It's shorter than some other bird FAs, reflecting the relative poverty of research species in this part of the world get. Nevertheless I feel it meets the criteria. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments (may do a full review later) Please fix the dab link to Rota External links all work Alt text is present, but describing it as just a "small yellow bird" may be a bit too little. Perhaps add some more descriptive alt text? Ucucha 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Link to Rota had been fixed, a bit of lag I feel. With the alt text, I have expanded the alt in the first image, do I have to do it every time? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, presumably server lag. Thanks for the expansion, alt text is good now. Ucucha 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Hello—I would presently oppose [concerns addressed] based on some problems with the writing: "Fossil evidence shows [that] the Golden White-eye once also occurred on Tinian and Rota but has subsequently become extirpated in those locations from the impact of human activities."—does fossil evidence show that the species "has subsequently become extirpated", or is this a new thought? I'd recast as "Fossils provide evidence that the Golden White-eye once also occurred on Tinian and Rota, but the species was extirpated in those locations by the impact of human activities." "In addition translocations of 50 birds from Saipan to the island of Sarigan, a predator free island reserve, is currently being planned by scientists working to save the species"—"translocations ... is currently being planned"; compound adjectives like "predator free" or "golden coloured [bird]" need hyphens; "in addition" is clumsy without a comma following it there are a number of "which"s that need a comma before them ("It is threatened by the invasive brown tree snake which has recently become established on Saipan") Some basic proofreading is needed: "The song that is a long raspy warble rendered as "séé mé-can you séé mé-I can séé yóú-can you séé mé'"; "where it is shares its range with" "There is considerable overlap between their foraging range and those of"—grammatical number This is a run-on sentence: "Certain tree species are preferred as foraging habitat, for example the common forest tree Cynometra ramifolia is the preferred tree and used more frequently than the equally common Guamia mariannae." "On Saipan, the only habitats it is generally absent from are the..." is much nicer as "from which it is generally absent" Regards, Outrigger (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have tried to address them all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. The sentence about fossils showing that the species was extirpated by humans still reads the same (if that's intentional, fine). Otherwise the prose has improved. Outrigger (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Image review All OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I made some changes, mainly minor stylistic stufF, but please check 2,095 birds/km² needs imperial conversion Some reference tweaking fr icon, bare url etc, please check Um, km² gets converted to... square miles? Acres? Hectares? Sorry, really don't know. Other edits are cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I've put 8.47 per acre, round it to 8.5 if you prefer. Or you could use 5427 per sq mile! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Acres is fine. That is an impressive number of birds to cram into an acre. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Support COI declaration. I'm another bird project member, but I hadn't edited this until the FAC tweaks above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Appears well-written and comprehensive; my concerns were all resolved and are now moved to the talk. I leave one here for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ucucha 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. A good article in general, engagingly and comprehensibly written. I have a few small comments on the text and found a few sources you have not included. Per WP:TIES, shouldn't this article use American English? Mebbe. It's borderline, in my opinion, the ties are there but they don't strike me as being very strong (most islanders seak English but not at home). And since my British English is better than my American English (I tend to use both) I tend to use it, and since I was the first person to expand this in any way yadda yadda yadda. I don't care one way or another, if anyone wants to change it they can do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Don't care much either, not enough to change it at any rate. Ucucha 13:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:Birds member and sometime looker-over of this article. I can't think of anything else to improve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Looks good, just a few comments below. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks FAC-quality to these eyes. Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The following source (Camp, RJ; Pratt, TK; Marshall, AP, et al. (2009). "Recent status and trends of the land bird avifauna on Saipan, Mariana Islands, with emphasis on the endangered Nightingale Reed-warbler Acrocephalus luscinia". Bird Conservation International. 19(4 ):323-337) mentions that since 1982, "the human population on Saipan increased more than four-fold and much of the island has been developed." It also gives birds numbers for surveys conducted in 1982, 96, and 2007 that show decreasing population. Perhaps this info could be worked into the article? Bird Conservation International is irritatingly one of the journals I cannot get at my uni. I can certainly, working off the abstract, state that it is declining, but the abstract provides no context, is it precipitous? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 749-> 426-> 373. I can email the PDF if you'd like. Sasata (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, the paper was great (if depressing) reading. Have incorporated the info. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC) "… rendered as ""séé mé-can you séé mé-I can séé yóú-can you séé mé"" what do the accents on the vowels imply? I have no idea. I just quoted what the HBW did and attributed it to them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe another bird fan could comment? I'd like to be able to correctly reproduce this bird call, it might save my life someday... Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) maybe link breeding pair, forest canopy, understory, predated what size are the eggs? Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Reference formatting needs a quick copyedit: compare page range in ref#5 (194–95) versus #12 (317-326). Article titles have inconsistent capitalization. Fixed I hope. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Close, just make the display of final page in the range consistent (eg. 355–65 vs. 660–668). (yeah, nitpicky, I know) Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, fixed. Thanks for the comments, paper and support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HMS Calliope (1884) Nominator(s): Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This small British cruiser, built for distant service in an empire at peace, was in the late nineteenth century among the most famous vessels on the seas. Sent to watch over German and US warships competing in a race for colonies, she was trapped with them in a small Samoan harbour by a violent Pacific cyclone. In a brilliant feat of seamanship, Calliope was the only one to escape being sunk or wrecked. Her memory is still kept green by the Royal Naval Reserve training center which bears her name. This article tells the story of her 64 years of service. Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments No dab links No dead external links, but please add dates of retrieval to some links that lack them (unless you believe that unnecessary). Please add appropriate alt text to all images. Ucucha 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Alt text was actually present but incorrectly formatted. Most is good but I'm a bit concerned about WP:ALT#Verifiability: Is it really clear to a non-expert that image 2 shows the starboard quarterdeck, for example? Ucucha 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your review, and fixing the formatting. Retrieval dates are present in Sources; I have added retrieval dates to urls in the foonotes which are not listed in Sources. I have not added retrieval dates for print media which are identified in the Sources section, even if the footnotes contain a convenience link to a webpage which republishes the pages of the book or periodical. The description for photograph 2 is verified by the title of the source image. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Please note that WP:ALT#Verifiability says the alt text should be verifiable for a non-expert who merely looks at the image. Ucucha 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I have modified the text. Kablammo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I think it's good now. Ucucha 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

While I think the service section is pretty comprehensive, the design section is severely lacking. The ship needs to be more fully described even though most of the serious details belong in the class article. This article needs a brief summary describing machinery, armament, armor, etc. as have been present in the FA ship articles like SMS Moltke, etc. Why the long period between her launch and maiden voyage? When was she laid down? When exactly did she become a drill ship? And did she keep that exact role for the duration of her time there? It's not really relevant, but why were GAR and ACR bypassed to come directly to FAR? Other sets of eyes might have identified some of these issues earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Addressing the comprehensiveness issues: In the past I have notice a lot of overlap between design details in the class articles, and the design sections for individual ships. To me the details belong in the class articles. I wrote Calypso class corvette and C class corvette (of which the two Calypsos were a subclass) for those details, and transferred some of the text that originally appeared in this candidate to the class article. There is still an overview in this article, with more detail on armour, machinery, and armament in the infobox. This allocation avoids burdening down this general article on the ship with technical detail which can seem turgid to the general reader, while still making it accessible to the aficianado. I'm amenable to adding some more detail to the Design section, but want to keep it as an overview. I will however add some text on armament. (now done; see below) My preference is for a brief recapitulation of the infobox's information as part of the Design or description section, but that's just me, as I don't want to have to go to the class article to get basic stuff like armament layout, etc. On the other issues: I don't know why Calliope, the last of her class, took three years from keel to launch, and another three to completion. (Her sister and half-sisters took two for each.) For the reasons given below, I doubt such information is readily available. (no completion date available but did find commisssioning date and year of completion) Year laid down should be here, and I will add it. (done) The date she became a drill ship in 1907, which can be gleaned from the text; I will add exact date as given by Colledge. (done) I'm not aware of any different role while she was a stationary drill ship on the Tyne. There may be some more information available on the RNR unit there (I have seen one tidbit), but that would belong to the separate article on that unit. In general, it is difficult to find out much about these ships. As stated in the cited Mariner's Mirror article, information on these and similar ships "is extremely vague", and Brassey's and Jane's "do little better than tabulate the main details". ". . . The author also states that "Comus and her sisters have been almost completely passed over in history." That has been mitigated by the 1963 article in the Mariner's Mirror (which I mined for details), but I have not been able to find out much more than is here. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I have now added a textual summary of armament, protection, and construction dates. As to the level of detail, FA criterion 4 states: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I understand that we disagree on the appropriate level of detail; that's fine because it's a subjective call. Conversions are needed to metric units. Please see Wikipedia talk:WIAFA#Unit conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC) What caliber are the Nordenfelt guns, the machine guns and the torpedo tubes? American acquisitions on the continent were complete with the Alaska Purchase back in 1867. This is awkward and nearly every crew had been diminished or decimated by the loss of men killed by the storm Fix the dab for armoured cruiser Fix the page reference in the Lyon and Tute books; they abbreviate pp., but only one page is listed. Location is needed for Amerika Samoa Inconsistent capitalization in your sources that needs to be addressed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Sturmvogel, I much appreciate this careful further review. Metric conversions-- I have elected not to give repeated conversions for units after their first appearance. I have decided to remove entirely the steam pressure conversion, as the sentence flows better without it. It is also esoteric; while I have a few sources giving the steam pressures attainable for marine uses during this era, I doubt that tangent would mean much to all but a few readers. (And I have no sources for the machinery's theoretical maximum pressure in any event.) calibers-- I do not have information on the calibres of the other weapons. American acquisitions-- I was thinking of control (the frontier existed until 1890), and have reworded it accordingly. diminished or decimate-- Yes, I agree. Latter deleted. armoured cruiser dab-- it does not go to a dab. Did you mean to have it go directly there w/o redirect? If so I have done that. Tute page nos.-- fixed (thank you Sandy), but I am no longer citing this source. Removed. location needed for Samoa -- I have generally located it. Capitalization-- While I believe I have used the capitalizations as given, I will audit the sources again. I changed Colledge from template to hand-formatted version, to conform to the others, which do not include the unnecessary proprietary OCLC link. Thank you for your edits as well. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to image reviewer: In checking links I came across this photograph, which I am considering substituting for the somewhat similar one in the left margin. Could you please review the rationale for the new one, and if insufficient, would {{Template:PD-UK-unknown}} would be acceptable? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Image review In response to above, there are a couple issues. First, {{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't seem to exist, but I would prefer {{PD-UK}} over what's there now. Additionally, I think you'll need to provide more information in the Source field about the periodical in question, so people can more easily verify that its copyright has lapsed. I don't suppose there's a chance of nailing down the exact issue it was scanned from? Can we contact this Steve Johnson? Alt text looks good. File:HMS Calliope in port.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good. File:HMS Calliope stbd quarterdeck.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good. File:HMS Calliope 1880s.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good. File:Illustrated London News.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good. File:Helicon 16.jpg could be problematic. I realize the author is unknown, but where did you actually get it? Web search? Scan? The Source field should list where you got it. Looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This looks interesting—will return later with a prose review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Andy. I am digging into the one scanned from a periodical by Steve Johnson-- it looks like it was published before 1900, but I'm still tracking that down. The Helicon image, poor thought it is, shows the ship in her later career. I e-mailed the Reserve unit at HMS Calliope (shore establishment) and they sent me this image, with the knowledge it would be used on this article. It clearly dates from 1951 or before, as that was when the ship was moved from the Tyne for breaking. Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see. I didn't understand what "RNR unit" meant in the Source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've put links in the Source field now. Thanks. And I just did a test-- the PD-UK-unknown is in use on Commons. Kablammo (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. I'm surprised not to find "Calliope had 90 pounds (41 kg) of steam in her boilers". Get rid of the unencyclopedic colloquialism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Gene, that is from the source. I assume it is PSI, but I am not a boiler engineer. Perhaps, as you suggest, I should get rid of it entirely--90 psi would have been more significant then, than now. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, so its just a reading comprehension problem then. I'll take care of it. Note that if you don't understand what your sources are telling you, then there are likely to be a whole lot of Wikipedia readers who don't understand us if we mindlessly parrot the same nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Gene, "best practice" marine steam engines ran at 77.4 psi in 1881, and 158.5 10 years later, so I'm pretty sure what this figure means. But the source is not explicit. Kb Don't know why you have such incredible (i.e. unbelievable, not to be trusted, because they'd never be making even one single measurement of the gauge pressures involved to that precision) over-precision in those numbers you give here. But interpreting what our sources tell us is something that we simply have to do all time. Just because a source doesn't explicitly remove all ambiguities in the meanings of the words it uses, doesn't mean that we cannot figure out what they mean and act accordingly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC) The data are from a chart assembled by Robin Craig, and the precision is from the source. They are consistent with a few less precise figures found in the Institute of Naval Architect's "Transactions". As it does not seem to me that steam pressure is highly useful to our readership (there being nothing to compare it to, without excessive explication), I have deleted the figure. Kablammo (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - Can you please italicise your book titles that are links in the short notes? And put quotation marks around the article titles? This will make them consistent with the non-linked titles in the short notes. Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Will do. Thank you. Kb I believe this is now complete. Thank you for your review and requests. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Look-through by Awickert (talk) Every point addressed. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Worked through some spelling/grammar/style things. I've found 2 items that are unclear so far:

"forced draught" - this should be defined, or should have a stub made and wikilinked. I see that HMS Collingwood (1882) defines it and has a redlink. "revolutions" (in reference to propeller speed) - is this revolutions per minute?

I'm probably done for tonight, but I'll be back to finish it up, Awickert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I put in links for both. I had linked "forced draught" in the text of the class article, but forgot to do so here. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Wow, that was lickety-split! Awickert (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC) "lickety-split"?? Is that what one of these is to a geologist? Kablammo (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Usually. But lately I've been spending too much time in the Quaternary. Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Very au courant of you. Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Finished going through the article and all the stylistic issues I could find. There are 3 more words or phrases with which I am unfamiliar, and that may be unfamiliar to the audience in general:

latter: I'm guessing that this is part of the hull by the rudder, but I'm not sure and Google doesn't find it immediately handling relieving tackle on her tiller: tackle = rope and tiller = the connection between the wheel and rudder, I think, though I'm not 100% sure this attracted the custom of the British Admiralty: What does "custom" mean in this context? I'm guessing "attention".

Also:

The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and in order to protect that empire and its trade routes, Britain had the largest navy. Great Britain assumed the role of peacekeeper on the world’s oceans, and the Royal Navy was the instrument by which the Pax Britannica was kept. This probably needs some references (largest empire, largest navy, global peacekeeper, Pax Britannica).

That does it for my concerns, I'm a "support" once these are done, Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Every concern of mine has been addressed, the prose is nice, and the presentation of the heroics at Samoa is engaging. But my support can't cover the content. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine. Comment. Fine article, but a few concerns: Why was the ship built? The link to the design section of the Calypso class corvette articles doesn't seem to give this information either. Why did the British build these ships? What military requirement were they fulfilling? What threat were they meant to counter? Under what naval construction program were they planned and constructed? Which government figures were their advocates? An article stub on the Samoan crisis needs to be started, it one hasn't already, and then a "see also" or "main article" link added to the top of the "Service with the fleet" section or "Samoan crisis" subsection as discussed below. Since most of the "Service with the fleet" section deals with the Samoan crisis, it probably needs to have its own subsection. I take it that details of the rest of its service with the fleet are sparse? Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies Thanks to all who have commented. Responses to both previous and current suggestions:

Weapons calibres-- RC Butcher and I have had a colloquoy on my talk page; he believes the Nordenfelt machine guns likely were 1" models. Similarly I believe it is likely the torpedos were 14" Whiteheads, which were common in RN ships at the time. In both cases we would need reliable sources: I will look again at all my sources. found size of torpedo. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) latter-- the ground, i.e., the reef. Will clarify. done. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) relieving tackle-- ships of this era did not have power-assisted steering. Ships had once been steered by tillers, and in extreme conditions lines were used to restrain the tiller. The steering wheel was developed, which was used to turn the rudder; and Calliope had a double wheel, which allowed more hands to turn it. In extreme conditions the wheel could break free of their grasp and turn freely (causing injury to those handling it), so relieving tackle below was also used. I will consider how to address this point, but probably in a textual footnote. created article on relieving tackle and linked it. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) custom-- patronage; from which "customer" derives. (Awickert-- a usage perhaps more Paleogene than Quaternary). OK - then it is just my ignorance, thanks. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) British empire text-- I will supply sources-- unfortunately, my resources may be more in the nature of popular history than scholarly sources, but the points should be uncontroversial. done, principally using the Massie book. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) why ship was built-- imperial policing, trade protection (mentioned in this article already), "send a gunboat" diplomacy. May address in class article instead. Sentence added. Kablammo (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Samoan crisis-- no article yet, and no mention even in History of Samoa. It is touched on in Samoan Civil War, which is problematic. 1889 Apia cyclone also mentions it. I think it would be too far afield from the story of the ship itself to give more detail here on the crisis or the storm (especially given the existing article on the storm), but I will at least give a clearer link to the cyclone article in the Service section here. tried a slightly more explicit link to the storm article, but otherwise made no changes. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Service with the fleet -- I considered having subsections, but decided against it. You are correct that there are few details. Calliope went straight to reserve from completion in 1884; commissioned in 1886, sailed to Pacific 1887–88; returned 1889–90 and went back into reserve for 7 years, and was a tender from about 1897 until 1905, when she was stricken. As far as I can tell the ship had no active service other than a few years in the late 1880s. Rather than have one-paragraph subsections bracketing the Samoa service, I decided to handle the service all together. If you feel sectioning is important I have no strong objection.

Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Kablammo. Regarding Pax Britannica, I guess I'm short in my history of the British Empire as well as the nautical terminology! Maybe it isn't as important as it's obvious to someone who knows about the topic. But if you want academic sources, just send me a wikipedia-email as usual and you'll get them in my reply. Awickert (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the offer-- we'll see if there are any questions about the ones I'll use. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Magdalena Neuner Nominator(s): EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all featured article criteria. The article has been nominated before (here). I slightly restructured the page recently and made some improvements. With the Winter Olympics coming up, I think it would be nice to have a FA of an athlete competing in Vancouver. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work: see WP:ALT. Alt text needs to be verifiable from the image itself to the average reader, but the average reader cannot see from any of the images that it is Neuner who is photographed, nor that the photo was taken during a World Cup. Ucucha 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Changed Neuner to female biathlete and World Cup race to biathlon race. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text can be verified from looking at the image itself by a non-expert reader. I cannot see from the first image that this is a biathlete during a biathlon, and there are similar problems in the other images. Ucucha 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Changed the text again. EnemyOfTheState|talk Looks good now. I don't think the flags should have alt text, but that appears to be a problem with the templates. Ucucha 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) That's not a "problem" with {{flagicon}}; it is designed to work that way. If you don't want alt text, then don't use {{flagicon}} near the wikilink to Germany (i.e. duplicating the link). Use {{flag}} to render the country link and flag together. But please don't bypass the standard flag templates to do something differently. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I don't know any way to use the standard flag templates to do what was wanted here, namely something like this: " Oberhof, Germany", where the flag is purely decorative (as it repeats the "Germany" in the text) but the desired wikilink is to part of Germany, not to Germany as a whole. Rather than wrestle with the templates I think it's better in this case to drop the flags, as they're not appropriate in that list. Also, the wikilinks to the countries aren't appropriate either. (It's a list of ski competition locations, not a list of national teams or anything directly relevant to flags.) I made this change accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) That's probably the most sensible solution. Flag icons are greatly over-used on this project, and this page certainly doesn't need them for that purpose. There is no additional navigational improvement by putting flags in front of World Cup locations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment – One of the primary criticisms of the article in the first FAC was that there was an overreliance on statistics sites as sources. Has anything been done to address this concern? On a quick glance, it appears that stat databases still make up the vast majority of the references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) They do make up the majority of the sources, mostly because I put a reference with a link to the official results page behind all mentioned races in the career section (50 or so). English language sources for biathlon are difficult to find, so I gladly took those, thinking what could be a more reliable source than the sport's official governing body? I don't believe these statistics are used to source any controversial statements, they are pretty much exclusively used to confirm race results. I suppose I could replace some of the references with German sources, but I don't see how this would really be helpful. Generally, I don't think I can find enough adequate sources (particularly in English), if I can't use these official statistics. EnemyOfTheState|talk 02:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Twin Spica Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DAB links - no dab links found ALT text - present and detailed enough External links - no problems or redirects --PresN 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - As the GA reviewer for this article I can confirm that it meets all the style and layout requirements of WP:MOS-AM. This is well researched and fully referenced. Images all have the proper rationale attached to them. Article doesn't appear excessively bogged down in minor details, but has an appropriate length to cover the topic properly. Only one thing sticks out here, is the red links in the intro and music sections, as well as one in the references, otherwise this looks like a FA to me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W.

I am nominating this for featured article because recent restructuring, copyediting, and referencing leave me confident it's ready. This is G.W.'s baby, but he's given me the go ahead to sail it in. Thanks for comments and criticism (and a support, if you're feeling charitable). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The message from G.W. that you linked indicates he should be listed as a co-nom; is that no longer correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) He is, unless I've done it incorrectly. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Is it working now? G.W. (Talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) comment <ref>Images from rockpapershotgun.com at [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-limbo.jpg] and [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-oblivion.jpg]</ref> - doesn't use a citation template, unlike every other citation. Also, there is a ref name called TVG that appears to have been duplicated. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Both fixed. (The links were not really necessary, and arguably not appropriate.) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Comment- Hey, I remember this article! I GA'd it back in the day, before G.W. completely rewrote it and took it to A-class. Anyways, please check that external link checker up in the right corner there- you've got a bunch of redirects happening on links in references, as well as a few dead ones. For the dead ones, go to web.archive.org and find the latest version of them if you can't find a replacement- I know you'll have to do that for the music4games one, as the site has completely died. You're also going to need to add alt text to all of the images- it's a bit difficult, so just ask me if you need any help. --PresN 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the external link issues. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I've added alt text to all images but one. (I'm not sure the last one deserves to be in the article. I have left it for the moment to see if Dissident wants to keep it.) This is the first time I've done this for an FAC, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Thanks! G.W. (Talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I agree; image removed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: Made a copy-edit of the article. I placed a couple of {fact} tags that people might like to look at. Cheers.  HWV258.  23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose—Reluctantly, I find myself opposing an FA because I don't think this article is quite ready, based on criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. There is a lot of good material, but there are also some holes. Here's a list of my concerns: The lead doesn't summarize some of the sections. In particular, the Development, Audio and parts of the Gameplay sections. See WP:LEAD for clarification. The Gameplay section needs to approach the subject by assuming the reader knows little about computer games in general. It discusses skills in reference to the Morrowind system, but it instead should stand by itself. It needs to explain what skills are in the context of the game. It also needs to explain that combat is real-time and mouse-driven. Part of this is somewhat mixed into the third paragraph when it mentions blocking, but that really should be in a separate paragraph on player interaction. Finally, I think it should also briefly describe character creation, since this is a fundamental aspect of the game. The third paragraph of the Gameplay section starts off about the stealth and combat skills set. At somewhat random points it adds in comments about the magic skills (see below). These are a different subject and should be in a separate paragraph, along with some brief discussion of the magic skill system. The ability to "forget" spells was also not included. (This statement also needs to be clarified.) Enchantment as a skill, by which items are endowed with special powers, was not carried over from Morrowind to Oblivion; instead, items are enchanted via plot-specific processes. "leading to the expedited creation of more complex and realistic landscapes present in past titles..." Is a "than was" missing here? Is this saying the landscape are as complex as in past titles, but were build more rapidly? Please fix the ambiguity. "...uses more multi-level environments than previous games..." This statement is unclear, even with the appended remark about the topology. By multi-level, I assume you mean allowing movement between different levels of buildings and dungeons without necessarily requiring a transition screen. There appears to be very little discussion about the Radiant AI system, which gives the NPCs full lives of their own, independent of the player's activities. I thought this was a highlight of the game, and it really brought the world to life. This issue proved a show-stopper for me. "quest NPCs" is unexplained. There are some cites that have what appear to be anonymous author names. In particular, APY, Finger, KingSix, Maeyanie and Polybren. How do we know that these individuals are reliable sources? I reviewed this article having played and enjoyed the game, but I tried to take the perspective of somebody who was unfamiliar with the release or computer gaming in general. Sorry to have to oppose at this point.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC) All fair comments. I'm sure these are resolvable, and I'll get to work immediately. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll check back later then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, all your concerns have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure if all the images meet the non-free content criteria, particularly File:Oblivion.jpg and File:Ssmartinwallpaperiw8.png, which appear to just be decorative. I confess that I haven't read the article carefully, but in my skim I didn't see any critical commentary about those images themselves. File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg is also questionable (the horse armor package is mentioned briefly in the text, but nothing is really said about its visuals in particular). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I'd be entirely willing to scrap the images. Dissident? G.W. (Talk) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) The first two are probably okay to remove. However, the horse armor picture provides the reader with a valuable visual understanding of what consumers were paying for, if you ask me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps there's some way we could emphasize that "the contents of this image represent the entirety of the DLC". G.W. (Talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose: Overall, a very good article its contributors should be proud of, but I've got several issues, big and small. Prose: You need to add non-breaking spaces to many areas (WP:NBSP), and there's inconsistent formatting approaches—in some cases game-specific terms are emphasized, while others are "quoted". To me the prose is a tad too wordy, when phrases could be simplified and shorted, and relies a bit too heavily on wikilinking, not explaining technical terms when it really should (the readers should be able to get the bare minimum without having to link away and thus probably never come back to your page.) I'm also concerned about what I feel is improper synthesis. The reception section is very short, and reads, for example: "...1UP.com and several other publications criticized the repetitive and occasionally absurd nature of conversations between in-game NPCs: "...when an NPC greets you with a custom piece of dialogue (such as a guard's warning) and then reverts to the standard options (like a guard's cheerful directions just after that warning) it's more jarring than the canned dialogue by itself." ". What other publications? Why is 1UP's opinion the only one worth quoting, let alone sourcing? Why is only Metacritic quoted in the lead (or was, I removed it as overly specific) while Game Rankings is only quoted in the reception section? Why are scores mentioned when they are listed in the table? I don't think you should source a general summary that "Oblivion was well-recieved" to Bethesda's own awards page (COI issue much?) I also agree with RJH's issues about accessibility (some of which would be solved by explaining the bluelinks as I suggested above.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Aliso Creek (Orange County) Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliso Creek rises in the looming shadow of the highest mountain in Orange County, and converges with the sea at the mouth of a dazzling precipitous gorge on the border of one of the maniacal region's most beautiful cities. But in between, it merely exists as the convenient garbage chute of seven monstrous, lucrative, separable-only-by-name congregations of suburban sprawl that don't give a thought. This is the second time I'm putting Aliso Creek up at a shot at FAC and I'm sure all of the problems mentioned in the previous one have been addressed. All of the potentially unreliable sources have been taken care of and all the dead URL's and dablinks have been fixed. The context covers just about everything that can be proved about the little stream. I feel that it fully meets the criteria and has been improved dramatically since it was passed as a good article. Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm confused about how you've cited the sources. You have inline citations listed under References, which is fine, but then under Works cited only two citations. I see some of the inline citations list the full citation, and others don't. I thought perhaps you were distinguishing between books, articles, and websites, but I see a book listed as an inline citation (with a full citation), but then not mentioned in Works cited, so I can't work out what your system is. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I've moved the book citation to the References section. Shannontalk contribs 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (This is independent of SV's concern listed above, which would need to be dealt with.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 'Comments' - I'd suggest renaming the "References" as "Footnotes", and "Works cited" as "References". Also, consider differentiating the templates with a {{citeweb}} for non-news sources; and a {{citenews}} for the news sources such as the LA Times and the OC Register. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Shannontalk contribs 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present for many images (thanks), but it's missing for File:Aliso creek map.jpg, File:California Locator Map.PNG, File:AlisoLagoon.jpeg, File:California 1.svg, File:California 73.svg, File:I-5 (CA).svg, and File:California 241.svg. Proper use of road-sign templates should fill in alt text for you. Eubulides (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I filled in what I could, but I don't know how to do alt text for maps, nor what the "road-sign template" is. Shannontalk contribs 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps; there's a worked-out example in Template talk:Geobox/River. An example road-sign template usage is "{{jct|state=CA|CA|1|road=[[Pacific Coast Highway (California)|Pacific Coast Highway]] (1926)}}", which generates " SR 1 / Pacific Coast Highway (1926) "; please see {{jct}} for documentation. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Added alt text for maps, and finished the road-sign alts as well. Shannontalk contribs 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, almost done, but one image is still missing alt text. Please add a |map1_alt= parameter. The example at the bottom of WP:ALT#Maps suggests how to word alt text for locator maps like that one. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Shannontalk contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks, looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. I have just done some work on your first paragraph. All the right info seemed to be there, but badly ordered. Can I suggest you check other paragraphs and put linked ideas together so that the info flows logically. Amandajm (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm enjoying this article. The SoCal creeks are fascinating: particularly for those who don't realize a single rainstorm will turn a seemingly dry creek into a raging river! Anyway, a few problem sentences:

"The Wisconsinian era was responsible for chaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys." Shaping? Also, set the "Wisconsinian era" in time for those of us who don't know when it occurred. Hehe, "chaping". Also added the rough time frames for the Ice Age and the Wisconsinian. (Not sure how the Wisconsinian got its name.) Shannontalk contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing untreated down storm drains." Needs a rewrite (something like this): The sources for chlorine pollution in urban runoff include tap water, irrigation, car washes, and the chlorinated water flows untreated into storm drains. Fixed, with a few tweaks The map of the area is nice but teeny: try giving it a boost to 300 px. Done. Shannontalk contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back as I make my way through the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "conquistador" the correct term to use? That term refers to early explorers, rather than the missionary period that began in the 18th century, I think. My understanding is that the main California missions were established in the 18th century, and in some areas the Spaniards also sent soldiers, such as in Santa Barbara, but that was past the era of exploration. yup, conquistador was actually for Spanish explorers to Mexico and South America. Fixed, Shannontalk contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) The conquistadors explored the Americas in the 16th century; yet in the article's "History" section it mentions the conquistadors came to the area in the 1770s. I believe by the 18th century the Spaniards in California were no longer referred to as conquistadors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I meant to boost the map in the "Geology" section. In fact all the images could do with a boost. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Increased geology map, but most images have to be thumbed per MOS, I think. Shannontalk contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Pretty sure the thumb size can go as high as 300 px. Will check on that after work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) This defines current default as 180px, soon to change to 220 px, and acceptable to 300 px, just so you know you have a bit of room to work with! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately I note that the redirect links to the tributaries are in the geobox and can't be removed, but fixed everything else. Shannontalk contribs 06:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Comment Needs some rewording in the "History" section: "It is widely held that in Native American times," needs tweaking Changed to "It is believed in..." Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "The creek's use as a tribal boundary is, however, disputed." try not to split the verb with "however" Put "however" in front, fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "As other southern California tribal boundaries have suggested, " a little awkward - they don't literally suggest Changed word. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "Kroeber (1907) was the first to support this theory, and many other archaeologists have supported this as well." repetitive use of "this" Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "Around the 1770s, Spanish conquistadors came upon Southern California and took over both of these Native American groups." needs rewording Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, a really nice article. I've enjoyed reading it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Winterthur (1799) Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap. I'm preparing several articles on the War of the Second Coalition, focusing in particular on the campaign in southwestern Germany and northern Switzerland, and including several battles and several generals (Johann von Klenau, recently promoted to FA, is one). This is a gap not only in wikicoverage but also in literature on the Second Coalition in general. Much of the literature focuses on northern Italy campaigning, which of course is where the great man himself was most active. Thanks for your comments and helpful critiques. As always, I will work hard to bring the article up to snuff; it has passed GA and Military History A-class review, and is in good shape, although I'm sure some folks will find some issues to bring up here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've checked Dabs, and as of now there are none. All pictures have alt text, or link=, and the link checker tool says the links are good. I'm also the primary editor. Auntieruth55 (talk) PPS per talk page discussion, this is my fifth FAC. Unification of Germany, Cologne War, and Hermann Detzner have been promoted, and Johann von Klenau was promoted last week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Comment - you have multiple citations for the same page numbers. Use the <ref name> template. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) No thanks. I prefer to not use name templates because of the confusion they cause for newbies. This is not actionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Do you have diffs for this "confusion to newbies" thing? Is that the only reason you dislike named refs? ... Everything confuses newbies. Could probably find diffs of newbies being confused by wikilinks, citation templates, shortcuts, etc. In refs but not notes: Hicks; Mörgeli; University of Zurich. In notes but not refs: Kurdna and Smith. • Ling.Nut 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I'm the newbie.;) I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read, and would prefer go the other route. Thanks for catching the Kurdna and Smith thing and the other ref. I'll fix that. Hicks is in there. Ref 45. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Well that's your choice, personally I think it makes things more confusing. If you're going for "east of use" though, a quick look at the formatting of your citations reveals: References - inconsistent capitalisation of Accessed. Huerliman ref. fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Ref 22 - check pp or p, also, why are there two page numbers? because they are two different books....? Unless you mean citation 19, which refers to pp 45-46, and p. 48. In that case, since I've been castigated before for not being specific enough in the citations, I noted specifically where the information came from. pages 45-46 and page 48. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) So why cite two book with one citation? You should use two citations instead, to avoid confusion. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Also, why are several books quoted in full in Citations and Notes and Bibliography, while other books are summarised in the former, and quoted in full in the latter? All are cited in full in citations and notes the first time they are mentioned, and afterward, I use the abbreviated citation. In the Bibliography, I use the bibliographic citation format Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Ref 48 - Smith, Data Book - Bibliography says Databook (no space). Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Bibliography - Peter, Armin... no full stop on the end. Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Seaton, Albert. The Austro-Hungarian army of the Napoleonic wars. London: Osprey, 1973, 9780850451474. - what's that big number on the end? fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998, ISBN 1-85367-276-9. - why does this ISBN have dashes, and others do not? fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Young, John, - this entry highlights that its in two volumes, but other books just quote the volume number. yes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Parrot of Doom: I've thought a lot about your comment above

Summary of Featured article candidates
Summary of Featured article candidates. Views. Summary. I'm looking for some feedback on how ... Dispenser. Article. Suspicious. Dead. Cached on. Tools. 2009 Giro d'Italia ...
toolserver.org/~dispenser/.../Featured_article_candidates

Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section. and actually started to switch the citations to short form throughout, but cancelled the switch. When I read an article, I like having the full citation, so I can see what is being cited, at least in the first instance, and from there, knowing what "Smith, Databook" is, for example, or Blanning is. There are a lot of Smiths out there, and it could be anyone, but knowing it is Digby Smith gives credibility to the citation. Although there aren't a lot of Blannings out there, knowing it is Timothy and which of his books is cited gives credibility also. While there is room for minor formatting problems (accessed/Accessed, Data book, Databook, etc.), these are fundamentally minor and easily fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well that's your choice, but I cannot reconcile your statement "I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read" with having a references section that frankly, looks a mess. Sorry. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - Hugh Chisholm, The Encyclopædia Britannica, New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910–11, vol. 29, p. 735 Can you give the title of the entry for this one, so we know what is being cited? it's duplicated in a lot of other place, so I took it out. Current ref 18 (Terry J. Senior) "Ney had been promoted to General of Division only weeks early." do you mean "earlier" here or was he promoted two weeks earlier than his sceduled promotion? same as above.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Current ref 18 again, can you link to the actual PAGE you're citing on this site please, rather than the home page? Also, what makes this a reliable source? all of this is replicated in the other sources for the paragraph, so I took it out. Archibald Alison. History of Europe from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. N.Y: Harper, 1855, Chapter 28, p. 20 is a 150 year old source, surely something more recent is available to cite "On 22 May 1799, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf led a large column across the Rhine at Stein and Eglisau, while Hotze led another column across the upper part of the river, where it is still a mountain stream. From from there, Hotze's force passed through the Grisons, into Toggenburg, and moved toward Zürich." Very few detailed accounts of the battle. Most of the "modern" literature focuses on the action in northern Italy (where Napoleon and Suvorov were), not in northern Switzerland. This was the most specific description of that I could find, plus Jomini.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I'll leave this for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) As we are all aware, the discipline of history has changed in the last 150 years. Is there no modern source that backs up these facts? That kind of thing always worries me. Sometimes facts are omitted from modern sources because there is no evidence for them. If, however, there is no modern interest in Switzerland, as you say, that is a different issue. Are we absolutely sure that no modern source can be found? Should perhaps an attribution be made in the text, then? Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is Rodger, which I cited earlier in the text. Blanning has also written some on the situation, and I've incorporated his work. But the most specific texts are Jomini, Archduke Charles' papers, Alison, etc.. As you've pointed out, the discipline of history has changed a lot, just in the past 20 years, much less 150 years, and the best source on troop movements, etc., is still the really old texts. Who went where, did what, lost how many. In some cases, there is a considerable amount of confusion about who did what, where, when and how. For example, crossing the Rhine, where...? But once people like Jomini got involved, well after the fact, and sat down with their maps etc, these are fairly reliable, if not always impartial. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The only modern French, German or English source I could find that commented on the Rhine crossings was http://www.napoleon-online.de/AU_Generale/html/nauendorf.html , a German website associated with the Napoleon Series that has Nauendorf crossing one day before Hotze, on May 21st. Beyond that, I found various older sources contradicting each other to some extent as to the precise location and date of the crossings, including one older source that mentioned that there were conflicting accounts even then (all posted on Ruth's talk page). But as much as they differ in details, they are in broad agreement in that Hotze and Nauendorf crossed the Rhine on May 21/22, Nauendorf west of Lake Constance, and Hotze to the southeast. I guess we could (and perhaps should) place a note giving alternative accounts, but it is really a minor detail. --JN466 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I'm satisfied on this point, but I wonder if adding a footnote to the effect that particular sources are useful for troop movements might be nice. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Current ref 23 (Smith) same problem as current ref 18 above, link to the exact page please and what makes this a reliable source? link to page: cannot link to exact page. site doesn't allow it. I've included all the information one needs to find the page.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reliability: well, first, it's Digby Smith. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about him. He's written about 20 books or so on the Napoleonic Wars, plus many many articles. Second, the Napoleon Series website is one of a hand full of really good sites for research on the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the contributors are amateur historians and reenactors, but there are several professional historians involved. Third, it's Robert Burnham, the editor in chief, who has peer reviews for all the articles, if even if the quality of the writing isn't always top of the line, the information is. I refer my students to it (university students) as a legitimate reference, and a couple of my students have had their papers published on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) We bow down to the god of Digby Smith. :) Whereas I would prefer to use his book publications, I do understand your reasoning for using the web versions. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) actually, the only thing I've used of his online is the Kudrna/Smith bios on the napoleon series. The rest are hard copies in my library. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC) "Michel Ney". New international encyclopedia, Volume 17. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914–1916" surely something more recent is available for information on Ney! Sure there is. This one is surprisingly detailed, though. And the basic facts don't change. Born, promoted, injured, executed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, occasionally facts CAN change. Granted, not often, but when you exclusively use older references, you leave yourself open to comments that you haven't done a good comprehensive survey of the available sources. I could sorta understand if you linked to the googlebooks page on this, but you're not even doing that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I did give a preference to sources that are available online, either at Googlebooks or Gutenberg, but I didn't link to the pages, because that would make it appear that we are promoting one online book source over another, which I'm told we don't want to do. For the Unification of Germany article, I was told to remove all the googlebooks links, which was a real chore!, after I had taken great care to put them all in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) And I echo LingNut's comments above. if named refs are made a requirement for FA, I probably won't be nominating any FAs any more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't mean the named refs, but the other bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Are you using this source for the details you mention or the basic facts? If you are using it for the basic facts, I would suggest using the modern EB. One of the major flaws of the 1911 EB is that it includes interesting anecdotes that are completely unreliable. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I have a 1990s print copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as an online subscription to britannica.com. If you need something checking, let me know. --JN466 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This is the only remaining question I have about the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Removed. Cited to Bravest of the Brave. Reliable standard (if elderly) bio of Ney. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I"m going to leave these out for other reviewers to consider. I'm not sure who told you to take out the googlebooks links, because it's never been required at FAC as far as I know, but I'm not going to tell you to put them back in either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I went through this Google book links question before; we decided that there was no rule against them. • Ling.Nut 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC) seems there is no rule for it either, so I'll leave it to readers to fetch the books from where-ever they wish. I've added another paragraph with some more up-to-date sources, but there really isn't much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

I think that this article needs another copyedit. As I was reading it, I found a lot of little typos. I fixed them, but I am by no means sure that I found them all. A single pass by another person should help find all of these. I passed through again and several others have as well but. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) J has gone through it (he's a copy editor, and very good), and I've gone through it again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) A map of the battle would help. I wasn't exactly sure where all of these towns were. My understanding of European geography is perhaps better than the average American, but it is still not stellar. there had been a map once, and it had been deleted. See if this one helps. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) It would help if there were some surrounding context to the map. What are the surrounding countries, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) new map. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) That helps, yes. Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I think that the casualty figures should be mentioned in the text, not just in the infobox. Perhaps these should be placed in the "Aftermath" section? added.Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, I found the article comprehensible and thorough, particularly the "Clash" section, which I thought was particularly well-written. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am doing a proofread and copyedit now. --JN466 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks - just indicate here when you are done, and I'll cross that off above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) There's a sentence I can't resolve: "That night, 26 May, Hotze camped 30 kilometers (19 mi) between Frauenfeld and Hüttwilen". Could you have a look, Ruth? --JN466 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've now completed the run-through. Unfortunately, I had work coming in, so it took a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The revised graphic is helpful! There is one more thing which I think could be made clearer, namely that Ney stayed with his rear guard (he must have, because he was wounded by the musket fire directed at his rear guard). When I came to that bit of the narrative, I at first did a double-take, because I expected Ney to be safely on the way to Winterthur, his retreat covered by Walther & Co. Otherwise, like Awadewit says, it is very engagingly written. --JN466 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) My remaining concerns with the article have to do with the sources - see questions above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I took care of the sentence J pointed out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Are there more source issues? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) New map. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I will be happy to support once my last question about the encyclopedia is answered (see above). Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) My issues about the sources have been resolved. I am now happy to support. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support; well researched, well written. --JN466 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - background information needed on this point: you refer to a rivalry between Ney and Soult, but could you elaborate more? The infobox image is, for me at least, extremely confusing at that resolution. Consider moving it down and increasing its size? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC) apparently Soult was not a team player. It isn't particularly relevant, the rivalry here, but just that Soult didn't do what he was told to do, and Ney didn't forget it. image. Well, I could but I don't have a info box image to put in its place. Suggestions? Location map? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Well it seems to me (from just reading the article and having no other knowledge of the topic) that the French might have won if Soult had showed up, so I just want to know more :) A map would be good. I can't get any useful information out of that image unless it is blown up, which I believe would be prohibited by MOS:LEAD(?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) they might have, but it would have been a close run affair. Hotze had a lot more men than Ney, and Nauendorf was on his right. Massena didn't have a lot of flexibility to move guys around because of the circle Charles was building around him. Or semi circle. But certainly, if Soult had followed his orders, which apparently he developed a habit of ignoring (see his actions in the Iberia campaigns later), then it might have taken a day or two to push them out of Winterthur, not 11 hours. re the image. I'm not being difficult, there just aren't a lot of relevant images. The Swiss and German campaigns have been largely ignored due, I think, to Napoleon's absence. Jomini gives it quite a bit of coverage, but he was interested in mountain warfare, or at least upland warfare, and the Austrian problems with it at that stage of the military's organization. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Haha "a habit of ignoring orders" -- not normally a thing you want to see out of your commanders. ;) I just think you could add a sentence or two on the rivalry, as otherwise a mention of a rivalry with nothing else attached leaves me, and I presume readers, wanting a little more. Indeed! I actually don't know much more about it. One source mentioned it in passing, so I used it. I have read, though, that Soult made life difficult in Spain for Suchet and others. I'm reluctant to go into more detail. Seems to me that could be another article, or an addition to the Soult article. Apparently he was unpopular with the other generals. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Okay then. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I know you aren't being difficult! Perhaps the map you made that is now in the clash section would work? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) the map that is in the clash section needs to stay there I think. There is a location map in the Winterthur article. Perhaps that would work? I don't know how to insert it though, with the long/lat marker on it. Do you? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Hmmmmmm. To me, it looks like {{coord}} and {{Infobox Swiss town}} are interacting to produce that? I'm really not sure. Does anyone else know? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC) thanks, that wasn't there 5 days ago. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but it doesn't seem to have been fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Did it again!  !Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Summary Support from JN and Awadewit Ealdgyth reviewed the sources and left a few for others to decide for themselves. He also checked the links, and they were fine. With Awadewit's help, this is cleared up. Ed doesn't like the main image in the box, but neither of us can figure out what to do to add a specific kind of map, and there already is a map, so.... Parrot thinks the citations are messy, but hasn't presented any other objections to text. The citations are standard, and consistent, Parrot just doesn't like the style of them (wants named refs). Dabomb87 has checked for Dabs, and I fixed the one he found. Needs image review, which I asked for on project talk page Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Media review from Charles Edward File:Andremassena1.jpg - image needs source and description File:Général JEAN VICTOR THARREAU (1767-1812).jpg - image needs source and author information. These are done. Plus added additional information on the other marshals' images. File:Archdukecharles1.jpg - image needs date an author will find. Swapped image for one that I could verify with date and location. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) File:Н. М. Аввакумов. Портрет А.В. Суворова.jpg - image needs an english description, source, and author. swapped this for one that wasn't from someone's personal archive. But I did add the english. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) File:Winterthur Battle 1799.svg - I see the alt text in the code, but it don't display on the page for me. Maybe you have some bad syntax in there? HELP!!!! Why doesn't it display. There is a red box in front, does this mean there is an error? File:Winterthur Battle 1799.svg - image is a derivative work, the source of the original image needs disclosed. These are the district maps from the Swiss project. 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Good luck. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Inauguration of Barack Obama Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC closed with no clear actionable issues and the article has improved modestly since.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is very good, except that it's missing for File:Barack Obama inaugural address.ogv; please add some for its JPEG rendition using the |alt= parameter that was recently added to {{listen}}. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC) What is involved in adding alt to a .ogv file, which is an audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Use {{listen}} with its new |alt= parameter. Please see the {{listen}} template's documentation. Eubulides (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I have tried this. My point was more about the fact that since a blind person can hear the audio is what I have done correct, or is there more to and audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The alt text is for the JPEG image, not for the AV file. I tweaked it. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I thought originally, when reviewing this article, my review would be skewed due to my opinions of Obama. However, after reading the article from end-end and skimming it, I think this article deserves my support. I give you guys a lot of credit for working so hard. Just a couple of nitpicks: Citation 23, the first use of the NY Times, should be the only reference wililinking NY Times. Check same for the rest. It is my understanding that redundant links are not applicable to the footnotes. In the text we assume that the reader has read the article from the beginning and would have checked the link upon the first usage of a term. However, we do not assume that a reader reads all the footnotes. Thus, it is acceptable and probably helpful to repeat links in footnotes. We do not assume that a reader of footnote 26 read footnote 23. Thus, when he does a mouseover on the footnote, we want the link to be readily available for him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I have seen it in policy, and I've made it important.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I have not seen it in policy and have discussed it at FAC before. All my FAs use redundant links even the two already promoted this month. Where is the policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I would love to see a pic of Bush and the Obamas departing the area and the Bushes leaving on Air Force 1. Those would be very useful www.flickr.com offers no pictures of Bush on January 20, 2009. I would not know where else to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (On a sidenote, Bush left Washington on Marine One, not Air Force One.) P. S. Burton (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange - try here.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Bush_in_Marine_One.jpg P. S. Burton (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I have added it here and in Presidential transition of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I would switch Viewership and the unofficial events' order to where the unofficial ones come after the official. I am not sure I understand the suggestion since the Unofficial events section follows the Viewership section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Um, why Events -> Viewers -> Un. Events? I would switch Unofficial Events to be right after the planned ones.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I got it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are the best nitpicks I can come up with. The first one is the most important.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Comment by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · contribs) moved from User talk:TonyTheTiger actual diff) The congressional committee released the full schedule of the January 20 inaugural events on December 17, 2008. The inauguration schedule referred to the President‑elect as "Barack H. Obama", even though Obama specified previously that he wanted to use his full name for his swearing-in ceremony, including his middle name Hussein, in "follow[ing] the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other".[7]

The article should say what the conclusion was. What was used, H or Hussein? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed. And I've only looked at the top.

44th, 56th, 200th? My head is spinning; well, I can work out what it means, but many readers won't be able to. Do we need to explain that some presidents have had multiple inaugurations for having been reelected in the WP:LEAD (44th vs 56th)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The opening is very wordy; for example, do we have to repeat "President of the United States" fully for a second time? I was hoping my co-author who is a professional editor (Lwalt (talk · contribs)) would come by and take care of this. I have addressed the specific complaint. I did not attempt further general changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I hope my co-author's efforts were satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Compared with, not to, is better for contrasts. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The first photo looks like a theme-park entrance: undignified. Isn't there a better one? Or perhaps it looks better when bigger? It nestles uncomfortably with the first subsection title. I am not a image buff, but I thought that was a fabulous photo. I resized it a bit. I am not sure what you mean by nestles uncomfortably. I guess you don't like the fact that the subsection header is forced right. I am not sure what policy is on issues like this. I am willing to compromise on location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I would pipe to "the election campaign", to make it clear it's not to the common term "election". What link are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "The District of Columbia City Council used the occasion to help bars and restaurants increase sales by staying open around‑the‑clock to provide hospitality services to the hordes of people planning to attend the inaugural festivities." Roundabout sentence; wrong meaning at start—they didn't use the event to do what they'd always wanted to do (that's the sense). 24-hours should not be hyphenated—it's not a double adjective like "24-hour" parking. Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Invitation and ticket photos: pass me a microscope. Can anyone read a single word on them? Much bigger, probably vertically arranged. Tony (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Throughout the article, I see en dashes in places such as "President–elect", "inauguration–related", "re–administered", etc. I've never known such terms to require dashes instead of the usual hyphens. Has this been tightened at FAC lately and I missed it, or should an effort be made to change these? Any of the MoS people here know if these are correct? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These seem to have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notice that refs 106–108 are not formatted, and all go to the same web page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone added those late. I have merged and reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The article contains invalid HTML as per its W3C validator report; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the report is having a problem with the section title beginning with a quotation mark. Is this against MOS or just a problem that shows up on this report?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC) It's not a MoS thing; it's a W3C thing (the W3C outranks the MoS :-). You're right about the quotation mark; see Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I removed the quotations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, that test looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I started on these. It takes a while to find suitable alternative citations. I will do some more tomorrow or Monday if my co-authors don't drop by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I got the rest of these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Ben Paschal Nominator(s): Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-nom. Backup outfielder for the 1927 Yankees, based on the current Bob Meusel FA. His rather lack of playing time keeps me from expanding this article further (can't find nothing on his life after 1934, nor does he has much of a legacy). Thanks for NatureBoyMD for a copyedit, it may need further copyediting, but I'm dylexsic and can't really help on that. One of many articles on that team I'm bringing to featured status. I feel the article is good enough to skip the GA process. Thanks Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comments - Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original Surely there are book sources that cover him? Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed the first part, as for book sources, it's mostly passing mentions, as he wasn't considered an important part of the Great New York Yankees teams of the era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs) Note there are more book sourcing now. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to the images; see WP:ALT, particularly WP:ALT#Portraits. Also, the article needs more images. I suggest at least File:Ben-Paschal-1925.jpeg, and quite possibly you can find other free images. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Added your picture thank you so much, also added alternative text to the image. Thanks Secret account 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) You're welcome, but I'm afraid both images still lack alt text. Please click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Also, please look for more images, as the article needs them. They don't have to have Paschal in them; they can be about his environment. For example, it would help to have a picture of Sanford, Alabama, about the time he was growing up there. More generally, there's almost nothing in the article about Paschal as a person; more coverage of him outside baseball is sorely needed. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I which I could find information about him as a person, the only thing I found was that he was a quiet, soft-spoken fellow who was in the Yankees movie crowd. That was one sentence in a book. He doesn't have a famous personaly Ruth had. I'm still confused about alt text, so I need your help, but I'll fine alternative images. Secret account 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Ok now I understood the alt text, fixed Secret account 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, much better, but it still needs some work. First, alt text generally should not contain proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names) such as "Ruth", "Paschal", "1926 New York Yankees", "Hargrave"; this is due to WP:ALT#Verifiability concerns. Second, please omit the phrase "black and white photo" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Third, alt text should not repeat the caption's phrases such as "fourth person on the left side", as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Finally, the alt text for the lead image should convey to the visually impaired reader what Paschal looks like in that image, as opposed to what other baseball players looked like or as opposed to Paschal in other moods, etc.: this info is obvious from the image itself but is not obvious to someone who can't see it (see WP:ALT#Essence). Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples about how to do alt text for that lead portrait. Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not a good interpeter of images, I tried my hardest with the alt images, I tried to fix your concerns. Thanks Secret account 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I put some information about Paschal personality, about a couple of setences. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: It concerns me a bit that none of the references have page numbers. Even for ones you could barely preview I'd have to think that information would at least be there for a few of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'm starting to add page numbers, but several of the sources I can't seem to find it. Secret account 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The article needs a good copy-edit:

"Considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees, sportswriters constantly wrote how Paschal would start in most other teams in the American League." This is known as a dangling modifier. Right now, the phrase "Considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees" is modifying the noun "sportswriters" when it should be modifying "Paschal". Also, "start in" is not correct, I don't think; try "start for". Grating repetition of words: "Paschal became known ... Paschal is best known"; the word "considered" is used in three of the four sentences of the second paragraph of the lead. "Paschal was born in Enterprise, Alabama but grew up as the son of farmers in Sanford, Alabama." False contrast, "but" is used for opposing ideas, but is it so surprising that he grew up away from his place of birth? "Dothan of the Georgia–Alabama League." I don't suppose Dothan or Georgia–Alabama League have articles? "His ability started to attract area scouts" No, too weak. "His ability attracted area scouts..." "19 year old" Hyphens needed. MOS issue: image captions that are complete sentences need periods at the end. Example: "Paschal was considered Babe Ruth's understudy when he first arrived in the American League" You have the opposite problem with the infobox image; "Paschal before a game during the 1925 New York Yankees season." is a sentence fragment and therefore should not have sentence-ending punctuation.

I'm there are plenty of active editors at WP:BASEBALL who can pitch in. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some of it, but I'm a awful copyeditor, I'm asking around. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments – Secret asked me to copy-edit this article, and I just couldn't turn down a request to work on a Yankee-related page. I gave it some attention, but it still needs quite a bit more. Here are a few quick suggestions before I call it quits for the night: I added a cite tag regarding the 1926 World Series, since it wasn't clear what was citing that part. His role on the Murderers' Row teams is mentioned in the lead, but is not expanded on at all later in the article; in fact, the term is never used again. Just leaving this in the lead with no explanation is not only going to confuse readers, but it is a violation of WP:LEAD, which says that everything in the lead should be in the body of an article. One of my main issues with the article is that there is no consistent description of how his teams did. To give only the most glaring example, there is not even a mention that the 1927 Yankees won the World Series, let alone that the team is considered one of the best ever by most historians. His role, albeit minor, on the Yankees teams of this era is a critical part of what legacy he has, and I was very surprised at the lack of much information on this in the body. Paschal apparently had contract disputes in 1926 and 1927. Do the sources have anything on how he came around to re-sign for the Yankees? "His season ended on September 12 against the Philadelphia Athletics when he was hit on the leg with a pitch." What injury did he sustain that caused him to not play again that year? The disambiguation link checker is showing one dab link (Washington Senators), but I fixed one like it during my copy-edits, and I don't see another one. That might have been it, though a check in the future will be the best way to know for sure. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Another thing I just saw: "After a two year break from baseball because of World War I, Paschal moved on to the Charlotte Hornets of the Southern Atlantic League, where he played in 1916 and from 1920 to 1923." The non-chronological organization of this part is odd. Why not move the 1916 stint to earlier in the section? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Wendell H. Ford Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article is comprehensive and well-sourced. I look forward to addressing any concerns that might prevent its promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image; please add that. Also, the alt text that is present conveys little information about the appearance of the persons pictured: other than age and sex almost nothing is said about what these people looked like. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance about useful alt text for portraits. Also, please omit phrases like "A black and white photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The guidelines given seem to encourage alt text that is longer than what I would use as a webmaster, but I have nevertheless taken another stab at it, including adding it to the infobox image, which I forgot initially. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - This is pretty good, which is no surprise. I'm a little leery of the length, but knowing Acdixon's extensive work on Kentucky political history, I figure if there was more information to be found, he'd have found it. Some generally minor issues: I've done some copyediting; feel free to revert what you don't like. "He purged most of the Republicans from state office, including helping Walter "Dee" Huddleston win the Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Republican stalwart John Sherman Cooper." I gather we're talking about the U.S. Senate; is that really "state office"? Seems like one of the sources called this a "state office" but the source eludes me at the moment. It is a state office inasmuch as it's voted on by people statewide. That's what I'm really trying to convey here. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it. I'd suggest replacing by "statewide office"; I assume that the quote doesn't refer to things like state legislators (which are the opposite of U.S. senators, since they're state office but not statewide office). Do we know what he studied at U of K? Not having much luck on this one. I'll add it if I find it, but I haven't so far. Do we know his children's names? Found them in Newsbank. Do we know anything about where he served in WWII? Found a good source on his service in the Army and the National Guard. This has been beefed up. Do we know what issues Ford won on in 1965? I gather that his opponent was something of a heavy hitter. I'm coming up empty here. My Newsbank archives don't go back that far, and Google News only turns up a couple of references to Ford being the choice of Governor Breathitt while Gardner was allied with Harry Lee Waterfield. Reading into this with my local knowledge, I'd say Democratic factionalism was the major issue. Ford was part of the ascendant Bert Combs-Ned Breathitt faction, while Gardner was a member of the waning Happy Chandler-Harry Lee Waterfield faction. It'd be original research for me to make that assertion in the article, though. I also vaguely remember reading something about Ford's association with the Jaycees being helpful in one race, but I thought it was the lieutenant governor's race. I'll try to go back and check, and if it was the state senate race instead, I'll add that. Is there a wikilink or elaboration available on the Supreme Court ruling about residency requirements for voting? I have found one article that would allow me to elaborate some, but I'm really trying to find the name of the case. More later on this. Found it. Dunn v. Blumstein. I've added some elaboration now. Is this enough? Looks great. "He also increased funding to human resources..." This seems very vague. Did he hire more people? In what capacities and to what end? Had to go back and look this one up. Landis Jones says: "Human resources expenditures were also increased with better benefits for dependent children, services for the aged, and increases in the food stamp program." I don't really think of some of these things as "human resources expenditures", so I assumed they were just various facts juxtaposed in a compound sentence. What do you think? That's a weird sentence; I really don't know what to make of it. Grammatically, I can see no way of interpreting it other than that "better benefits ... food stamp program" are examples of increased human resources expenditures, but that really doesn't make sense. Maybe the author is using "human resources" to mean all spending on people? Anyway, I guess there's not much you can do here, and the current wording does reflect the source. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) How did he save millions in printing costs? Found one reference for this. It isn't much, but it helps a little. The U.S. Senate section in particular seems a little thin for a guy who was in there for twenty-five years. Do we know anything about his relationship with successive presidents, or the extent to which he toed party lines? The stuff about NAFTA and the Panama Canal treaty is good, but is there nothing about the assorted other major issues to come before the Senate during that time? One that occur immediately to me are the Bork nomination and the Clinton impeachment, but there must be many more. Landis Jones says of Ford that he "was astute at working behind the scenes" and Cross says "Unlike senators who specialize in one or more national or international issues, Ford was content to be an insider and back-room operator in the Senate." Further, he quotes Ford as saying "I wasn't interested in national issues. I was interested in Kentucky issues." Nevertheless, I'll search Newsbank and see if I can turn up anything about the issues you mention. Those are actually really illuminating quotes, especially the last one. Could that be worked in somehow? If nothing else, it would convey to the reader why we're not told about any significant stances on national issues. Steve Smith (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I got the last one in there; not sure about the other two. The source about government printing did have a few more national issues in it, though. Do we know why Ford was inducted into the transportation hall of fame? It doesn't seem immediately obvious. I have broken out some of his transportation-related accomplishments into their own paragraph. I'll add more if I can find them. I expect that I will, as usual, eventually support this. Steve Smith (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your confidence. I've addressed a couple of these above. More later. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) More responses above. I may be off-wiki this weekend, but I'll see what I can find today and get on the rest on Monday. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Still finding a thing or two here and there. Please go ahead and strike things you're satisfied with, and I'll keep trying to address the others. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC) One new question: "Opponents of the bill cited ... concerns about the erosion of copyright protection." As I understand it, the bill would have dealt only with federal government printing. Since works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, what were these concerns about the erosion of copyright? I found this odd as well. Quoting the source: "Another [critic] viewed the legislation as having a potential for eroding copyright protection." That's all it says, and understandably, there isn't a whole lot of published material on a subject like government printing, especially on a bill that didn't pass. Support. Anyway, remaining issues are minor, so I now support this nomination. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much. It's always nice to have your support, and the additional searching I did as a result of your review significantly contributed to the quality of the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comments on 1b from Mm40 (talk): Unrelated, but the last three sentences in the United States Senate section all begin with "He". Any way you can vary this? Done. Also, "He was as youth chairman" should be "a youth chairman" Fixed. Nothing on the 1998 Government Publications Reform Act named for Ford (according to this) I found one source for this and provided some details. Does this suffice? Christopher J., Deering (Winter 1986). "Leadership in the Slow Lane". PS (American Political Science Association) 19 (1): 40.  says: "During the 98th Congress Sen. [Dan] Quayle and Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ken.) chaired a committee that reviewed, for the third or fourth time during the last decade, the rules and procedures on the Senate." No more is said about this in PS, but could you explore? Haven't turned up anything here. Most of the articles from this period focus on both men's election campaigns. Clinton, W. (1997). Statement on Senator Wendell H. Ford's decision not to seek reelection. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 33(11), 330 has Clinton's reaction to Ford's retirement: "Senator Wendell Ford has served his home State of Kentucky with pride and distinction for four terms as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He has been a leader in the Democratic Party and a personal friend for many years. Senator Ford's tireless efforts as a veteran, businessman, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor before coming to Washington, have earned him the admiration of all who know him. I will miss his leadership and advice on Capitol Hill but know that he will continue to find ways to improve the lives of the constituents he has served so well for so long. Kentucky and the Nation are better for his dedication and service. Hillary and I wish him, his wife, Jean, and their family well in the years to come." Mm40 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I tend to regard statements like this as political platitudes. They don't really seem that encyclopedic to me. Thanks for the review. I hope I have addressed your concerns or can do so in the near future. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support This is well researched, and nicely written. It's even interesting and I'm inherently not particularly interested in politicians. Coming in to the review process after most concerns are addressed, I found few problems remaining. Nice job! I made a couple of tweaks on commas (one too many, one not enough), and which/who problems, and one sentence toward the end that used a form of the word election in two ways, which was, or could have been, confusing. I've been happy to support this editor's work in the past, and once again, AC has produced a sturdy and informative piece of writing on Kentucky governors. Thanks, AC, nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Auntieruth! Glad you enjoyed it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Is it bad that I created this problem by changing Paul Patton to a dab page earlier in the week? LOL Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) File:WHuddleston.jpg needs a source. Images look OK otherwise. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes Nominator(s): BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is complete. A fairly small article, yes, but the earthquake swarm consisted of minor earthquakes that were too small to cause damage or to be felt by people; the largest earthquake was only magnitude 3.9. Thus, only seismic devices were able to record the earthquakes. But the swarm is still notable, given the fact that these are only recorded earthquakes in the area it took place from, they caused interest to scientists and they were even mentioned on CBC Television. I searched the internet to gather as much information as I could from reliable sources, but some were just discussions from people on chatterbox websites that were interested in the earthquake swarm from when it began in 2007. The article is in a good state for such a small series of earthquakes..... BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I checked myself and everything appears to be ok. There are no disambiguation links or dead external links. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it doesn't convey the essence of the maps, namely, the useful information that they convey to the sighted reader. Instead, the alt text mostly just repeats the captions, which isn't what alt text is for (please see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps, and WP:ALT#Essence for advice in general. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Hopefully the alt text is better now. I have expanded and rewriten much of the text. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, it's better now. I improved it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose Support - Sorry, BT, think the prose needs a bit more work. I'm concerned that the article has only 10 sources, though the length doesn't really concern me as much. Perhaps you could search a bit more for sources? I'd understand if there wasn't. I searched everything and I could not find anymore sources. I would think 10 sources would be ok for a minor series of earthquakes compared to earthquakes that have been felt, done damage and killed people. While I was reading through the article again, I fixed some the of written information. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) My concerns have been addressed, but I'm still a bit wary of the length. I recognize it's a rather minor series, but even so that gives me notability concerns. Despite these concerns, I'm willing to post a weak support. ceranthor 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Amendment for delegates, changing to full support since Awickert has confirmed the content is good. ceranthor 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC) What is wrong with the length? It's not like every earthquake article has to be the same length in order to pass a FA candidate. The earthquake articles you brung to FA status are just a tad longer than this one (e.g.1968 Illinois earthquake, 1997 Qayen earthquake or 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake). And this minor earthquake swarm is most likely notable enough if it was reported on TV news channels, it caused an excitement throughout BC, it is the only notable earthquake series away from the BC Coast and it brung attention to scientists. That seems pretty notable in my opinion. BT (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) It took place in the sparsely populated Nazko area of the central British Columbia Interior starting on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. - it? Wasn't it a series of earthquakes? Also, there's an inconsistency with the infobox with the date. Yes. The reason I used "It" was because the earthquakes in general was an earthquake swarm. If you think about it as an earthquake swarm, it would be single. As for the infobox date, it is supposed to be for when the earthquake swarm began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The main shock epicenter - shock's epicenter I deleted "shock" since the epicenter is really part of the swarm's hypocenter. While I was changing that I noticed another error; since it was a series of earthquakes, there would have been more than one epicenter. So I changed it from "epicenter" to "epicenters". BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Its cause is not clear, but the swarm originated from a magmatic source due to the existence of sporadic outbursts.[3] - due to the existence of sporadic outbursts? Yes, meaning the outbursts of the earthquake swarm went off and on. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Before the Nazko earthquake swarm began in 2007, the earthquake zone these earthquakes originated from did not necessarily exist.[6] - didn't they occur at the edge of the Anahim hotspot (according to the lead)? The Anahim hotspot or Anahim Volcanic Belt was not known to be an earthquake zone before these earthquakes began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Seismologist John Cassidy said: "the depth is enough to rule out hydrothermal but it's up in the air as to whether the cause is tectonic shifts or volcanic activity. If it is volcanic there are certain characteristics that we would expect, there's a tremor-like character to it. And so we'll be looking for the types of events that we see beneath volcanoes and we'll be looking to see if they're getting closer to the surface of if they're migrating at all."[8] - he stated that... True. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ceranthor 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article looks overall pretty good. I can't find any issues with the science, just with wording and clarity. I'll be making some small edits to address these over the next few days, and if there's something large that I notice in the meantime, I'll post here again. Awickert (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional <add>Full</add> support pending resolution/explanation of below minor issues:

"It has been suggested" is passive voice. Please revise. Fixed. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 400px is too wide for an image to have text flow around it per MOS. Made the pic smaller to 350px. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Scientific response section:"The earthquake swarm was notified on..." Shouldn't that be "noted" or is that a peculiarity of Canadian English? I don't believe so. Changed it anyway. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Preparedness and hazards section: "... have established seismographs in the area to determine future earthquakes in the area more clearly." Shouldn't "determine" be replaced with "monitor"? Yes. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Odd usage "living magma chambers". I've never heard that usage before. Odd for sure. I changed it to "active magma chambers". BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the content Just finished going over it. The science looks good, and I fixed and clarified all the little things that seemed to want attention. I did some stylistic stuff too, but I'm not extremely familiar with the more intricate parts of WP:MOS, so it might want a new pair of eyes before it heads out to be a full-fledged FA. But content-wise it has thumbs-up from me. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid you misunderstood my addition to it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that occur at subduction volcanoes. Of course explosive eruptions can occur far from plate boundaries, but I added that because the volcanoes she mentioned (i.e. St. Helens and Pinatubo) are related to subduction volcanism and not hotspot volcanism like Nazko. Hotspot volcanoes are not normally highly explosive like those that occur at subduction zones; Yellowstone is only one of the few hotspot volcanoes that have highly explosive activity. BT (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that! Maybe it should be restored as, it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that can occur in subduction-zone volcanoes. (Non-explosive volcanism also occurs at subduction zones, and "subduction volcano" isn't used in the professional literature.) Awickert (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC) That's likely better. I understand not all eruptions at subduction zones are explosive and "subduction volcano" is not used in the professional literature. I used "subduction volcano" to be parallel with other usages in articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles are not close to FA class, so it's clear the term "subduction volcano" should not be used. BT (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Not a problem - I knew what you were talking about, but as this is a FAC, I wanted to make it as professional as possible. I figured that you understood that about subd. zone volcanoes, but the sentence was ambiguous. By the way - thanks for writing the article! I had a blast reviewing because I'd never heard of the earthquakes before. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC) File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png doesn't appear to be accurately licensed, since it's apparently a derivative of an image with unclear permission. Otherwise images look okay. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC) How is that file a derivative? It's not a direct copy if the file is not the same. Plus, the file is my work I took from the given source. My image and the other image on the given source are not the same. They have different graphics. BT (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) It's nearly identical to this image [20]. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Ok are you saying my image is copyvio or should I just replace the current source with the one you cited. If it looks like copyvio then I will just replace that file with another one. BT (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily. I'm saying you need to provide permission info for the original image. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'm confused. There is info given for the original image in the file's source section and it provides the same website you gave. Apart from that, I'm the creator of File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png. How is it not accurately licenced under Creative Commons if I'm the creator of this image? BT (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC) File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is almost identical to the image from the original source. Correct? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) City of Blinding Lights Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am nominating "City of Blinding Lights" for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria. It passed GAN with flying colours and recently underwent a Peer Review which led to some additions in both images and composition. I have compared it with several of the current song FAs, and I believe that this article either matches or exceeds the information that they have (although since I did a lot of work turning it from this into its present form, I probably would think that!). I'm pretty sure that all the sourcing checks out, and everything online is archived in case the webpages are later taken down. I hope that the article is to your liking. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment You can wait and see what others think, but I vote to lose the File:Midtown Manhattan as City of Blinding Lights.JPG image. It's a bit over the top, and its direct relevance is questionable. • Ling.Nut 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks; I'll keep it in mind, but I don't think that I'll remove it until I've had a bit more feedback on it from other editors. It was suggested in the peer review that the image be included to help illustrate the song's lyrics, so I'd like to see what other editors think about its inclusion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Ling Nut. Maybe a different photo of New York would be good, but this particular photo looks cheesy. Consider adding a picture of GM Place, and maybe something from the Obama campaign. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) What about this image of the Brooklyn Bridge? It is one that I like very much, but my only concern with it is the length of the image. I will try to incorporate an image of GM Place or of Obama's campaign, but given the length of the sections and the number of images and quotes already used, I think there may be some difficulty in fitting both. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Images of GM Place and from Obama's campaign have been added. I've swapped out the previous image of NYC with the bridge image linked above. It's a featured image, so it should be okay I think. Alt's have been provided for all three, but I'm not particularly good with architectural alts so somebody may want to double-check what I've written for the GM Place image. Thanks for the feedback thus far! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Looks good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Support. Well-written and the sources look like they're of good quality. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) DAB links - no dab links found ALT text - present, but for the images of people it's not detailed enough- for both Bono and Obama you just say "a man", rather than describing them External links - Something funky is going on with the "Irish Singles Chart" (http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement) link; it's not resolving --PresN 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC) User:PresN was notified on 30 January that his comments had been addressed, but he has yet to revisit/respond. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Alt text has been modified accordingly; I tried to base it on the portrait examples on WP:ALT. I only hope that I didn't make it overly detailed. As for the website, I can only assume that it is a temporary downtime. I was on it just yesterday and it was working fine. Given that the site is run by IRMA and is their official archive, I can't imagine that it would be taken down wthout notice. I imagine that it should be up again within the next little. I've added a temporary back-up (reference 59) for the time being until the server issues are resolved. The source I have used for this backup is Chart Stats which, according to WP:GOODCHARTS, is reliable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Alt text and external links seem fine now. --PresN 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Fine What makes these reliable?

http://www.atu2.com/news/directing-u2-from-vertigo-to-vancouver-with-alex--martin.html http://www.webcitation.org/5lSh9TQd1 http://www.webcitation.org/5lShG3fje The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick books are only used once. It would be nicely presented if they were put in notes instead. This needs to be put in references and each page cited in the the notes: a b c d e "Chapter Five: City of Blinding Lights". U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Guitar Recorded Version. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2005. pp. 33–47. ISBN 0634096907.

RB88 (T) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The atu2 source was an exclusive interview with the directors of the music video that contains information not available anyplace else. The conductor of that interview, Matt McGee, is an author well known to U2 related subjects for the book U2: A Diary, which chronicles the life of the band dating from the 1970s to 2009 and is heavily used on many U2 articles on Wikipedia (particularly Timeline of U2). The two webcitation sources link to U2Gigs. The U2Gigs website is an archive of U2 concerts that is identical to the ones on the U2.com website (Vertigo and U2 360°). I selected those two particular pages to make it easier so that people do not need to trawl through over 200 individual setlists to ascertain that the information is correct. U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of No Line on the Horizon. If you prefer, however, then I can change the cites to the generic tour pages on U2.com. That'd be best. An official source is always better, even if it has loads of searches and flash menus and whatnot. RB88 (T) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Alright, give me two minutes and I'll have it changed to U2.com. I only used U2Gigs to try and avoid using primary sources as much as it was possible. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And it's done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You can use primary sources for things like track listing and gigs without fear. RB88 (T) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Alright, thanks for responding to my replies so quickly and for pointing out that primary sources can sometimes be okay! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick refs have been moved to inline as part of Notes, and the pages for the Hal Leonard book have been cited individually with the main ref moved down to References. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Concern addressed Just a quick comment. I noticed the running time has been changed to only list the single length. I disagree with this. The article is primarily about the song, which happens to be a single. The infobox, although indicating the song is a single, captures other information that is true of the song as a whole (lyricist, composer, producer, etc). I think both lengths should be included. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Whoops, I hadn't even noticed that was gone. I can see the original intent to simplify the infobox, but I agree with you that the album version should be listed since much of the article, particularly in regards to the lengths in "Composition", is more about the album version than the single. So re-added in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Wildfire Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. It has been some time since the previous nomination and I believe that all of the concerns have been addressed. I just updated all the dead links and figured it was time for some additional feedback. MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a random comment: I'm surprised that there are no print sources at all. While I see a good number of online journal articles, print sources are usually far more thorough, and a topic like this is bound to have them. Any particular reason you didn't include any? NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Print sources as in books? I have access to books on the topic, but I was under the impression that WP:Verify was essential, and most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet. Is this not the case? MrBell (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) "most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet". Not the case. Definitely not the case. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) All other things being equal, freely-readable online sources are better than non-free, because the free sources are easier to verify. However, Wikipedia articles should cite the best sources, even if they're not freely-readable. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), except it's missing for File:Tree struck by lightning.JPG and for File:Image-DSCF0013.JPG; can you please add alt text for these? Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Added both - your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Looks good, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Yikes. You're in for some dissapointment. An important subject (like this one) should be sourced (almost exclusively) to books and scientific journal articles. You may have to rewrite the whole thing for FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The previous comment is a bit strong, as many of the sources cited are quite high quality, e.g., Bowman et al. 2009 (doi:10.1126/science.1163886). Anyway, here are some recent sources, some all freely readable, that seem worthwhile looking into, and perhaps cited: Pausas JG, Keeley JE. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life [PDF]. BioScience. 2009;59(7):593–601. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10. Lay summary: USGS Western Ecological Research Center. I've tried to access this article on several occasions, but it doesn't appear to be available without subscription. Do you have a direct link to it? MrBell (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC) A quick Google search found one, which I added to the above citation. Eubulides (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much - I'll start reading it today. MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) McKenzie D, Gedalof Z, Peterson DL, Mote P. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation [PDF]. Conservation Biology. 2004;18(4):890–902. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00492.x. This is from a special issue on wildfire and conservation in the western U.S., and the other articles should be looked at too. Keeley JE. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage [PDF]. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2009;18(1):116–26. doi:10.1071/WF07049. You might want to look at recent issues of this journal, for example, Pausas et al. 2008. Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the resources. I'll check them out and add them over the next few days. MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not opposing over sources. Personally I like web sources, since they can be checked easily. Another editor and I took Jackie Robinson through FA, and had to ad maybe 100 book sources so that it didn't rely on web sources. It depends on who the reviewers are. Not everyone is a stickler for book sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. The article took about 25 seconds to load, which is far too long to edit comfortably. The HTML took 21.614 seconds to generate on the server, a sign that it's using slow citation templates. I suggest switching from {{citation}} (which is the biggest, slowest, and hoggiest citation template) to faster templates (I like {{vcite journal}}, but I'm biased) or simply doing the citations by hand, without templates. Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I changed them from citation to other templates - is it faster now? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Not really. With the switched templates the page took 22.837 seconds of server time in my test. I was thinking of the vancite templates; with them, the page took 12.051 seconds in my test; much better. Also, the current version generates 300 kB of HTML, whereas the vancite version generates only 205 kB, so there's a significant savings in download time too. The vancite templates switch to Vancouver system style, which you may not want, so I reverted my edit to try them out. If you don't like the Vancouver system, other options would be to do the citations by hand, or to lessen the number of citations (does the article really need 200 citations)? Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Vancite sounds like a good idea - could you revert back to your revision? MrBell (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Done, with the corresponding change to {{Origin of fire}} to handle the citations there. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - Current ref 2 isn't published by Cambridge University Press, it's a book that Cambridge is hosting online. Should cite like a book, not a webpage Done - better? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Please spell out abbreviations in the notes, I noted NOVA, VOA, but there may be others. I spelled out VOA and others, but I think NOVA doesn't have an abbreviation (it's the title of the TV show). Your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What makes the following reliable sources? http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/bushfire/background_effects.shtml Sounds like a multi-national organization - http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/about/partnerdetails.html MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://www.madeira-live.com/en/nature.html Not sure - text and citation was removed. MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I'd love it if the images were bigger. They're so educational and visually appealing at full resolution, it's a shame they're so tiny in the article itself. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Agree with Juliancolton for all the non-panoramas (except maybe the lead image), and especially for the model near the prose end (I had to squint to read the labels). Give 'em an upsize, perhaps with upright for a percentage increase. --an odd name 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose, mildly. This is not a major oppose, but rather a keen request for another prose copyedit. The prose is mostly professional, but there are some infelicities and grammar glitches that an independent copyeditor would surely catch. Some examples, all from the first third of the article: The ability of a wildfire's burning front to change direction How about A wildfire's burning front may also change direction unexpectedly and jump across fire breaks.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Growth and behavior are unique to each fire due to many complex variables, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics. The intention is presumably to claim they all exhibit the same basic characteristics. It would be clearer to say so. How about These factors produce fires that are always unique, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) in 1949 the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died. "In" or similar needs to come twice, since it happened both in 1949, and in the Mann Gulch fire. Or in the 1949 Mann Gulch fire would work, I suppose. Changed to In the 1949 Mann Gulch fire.... MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Sunlight warms the ground during the day and causes air currents to travel uphill, and downhill during the night as the land cools. Uncomfortable sentence structure. How about Sunlight warms the ground during the day which creates air currents that travel uphill. At night the land cools, creating air currents that travel downhill.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Caption)A tree struck by a lightning How about A tree that was stuck by a lightning on Mount Erymanthos in Greece.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (And yes, bigger images! Down with postage stamps, especially for attractive images like these!) Bishonen | talk 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC). I'm no copy-editor, but I can change whatever you notice. Several editors have gone through the article, but I guess a few things were missed. MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the examples I gave are *examples only*, by no means a complete collection. I'm reviewing, not editing, and unfortunately I don't have time to note all minor and/or stylistic problems for you. I do understand that people miss stuff, but I think that simply means you need to get more eyes on the text. Responding to your fixes:

"A wildfire's burning front": Yes, ok. "These factors produce": Well, no, you're not addressing what I'm after. My question was, are these characteristics the same as the characteristics of other wildfires? If they're not, it's a self-evident statement. Pretty much everything in the world "exhibits basic characteristics"! Ahh, now I see it. How about "Wildfire behavior is often complex and variably dependent on factors such as fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, wind speed, topography, geographic location, and ambient temperature. While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:"? MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) And by "the following characteristics", do you mean the entirety of the rest of the section, with its five subheaders? That doesn't work. Really not. You have to finish the sentence "While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:". Right now it ends with a colon. And the few lines under "Characteristics" just aren't a suitable way of introducing the subsections, which I take to be the job those lines are there for. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC). Regarding introductory/summary paragraphs, can I write one myself based on the material that follows, or does the exact wording have to be linked to refs? I could group 4-5 references together to create a summary paragraph, but I've been told previously that 4-5 refs after a block of text is too much. MrBell (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) "In the 1949": Yes, ok. "Sunlight warms": Yes, fine. "A tree that": No, the problem was "a lightning". Lightning is an uncountable noun. Change to "struck by lightning". Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC). Oops - changed to "struck by lightning". MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Ouch, it turns out that those images were downsized from the default. I just now removed all specifications of sizes smaller than 300px: this noticeably grew the images and addresses some of the objections noted above. As logged-in users can specify a preference for 300px thumbnails, articles typically shouldn't specify sizes smaller than that. If some images are still too small, "upright=1.1" etc. could be used to tweak them a bit but I wouldn't go overboard as the default size is scheduled to increase from 180px to 220px soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Changed to upright=1.1 - is that too small? MrBell (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 1.1 should be fine for now (gives you 200px). We may want to revisit this once the default is changed to 220px, as 1.1 will turn into 240px, which is a tad large for typical readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose at this point. I have only looked at a single section / issue, "Human involvement". I don't think an article on the subject of wildfire can comprehensively examine the literature without drawing on Pyne's massive study Cycle of Fire:

"World fire: the culture of fire on earth" (1997) "Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire" (1997) "Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told Through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World" (2000)

Until this work is cited, the article cannot meet 1(c) (in my view).

Is this something I can check these out from my local library? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Please try following the ISBN links in the following citations. Follow the WorldCat links in the resulting pages. They should tell you about local libraries. Pyne SJ. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Holt; 1995. ISBN 0805032479. Pyne SJ. Fire in America: A Cultural History of WIldland and Rural Fire. Princeton University Press; 1982. ISBN 0691083002. Pyne SJ. Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World. University of Washington Press; 1997. ISBN 0295975962. Although these are important sources, please don't take them as gospel. See, for example, Pausas & Keeley 2009 (the source I mentioned previously), which is careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the links. I'm not sure how much time it takes for an FA review, but I'll try to get those books sometime. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I wasn't suggesting they be taken as gospel, but the article cannot be comprehensive and "a thorough and representative survey" of the lit without looking at, and using as appropriate, this major study. As for "careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis" - well, if Pyne says it is a hypothesis, then what else would one label it when agreeing with the author? Sounds like scientific community weasel-speak for "I don't think i agree, but i can't explain why." Either way, i am not suggesting Pyne's "hypotheses" be included, just the scholarship. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the same section: reference is made to "University of Oregon. Climate change, human activity and wildfires" (currently note 111). This is the uni's media release about a major study scheduled two years ago for publication in Nature Geoscience. The study should be being cited, not this media release.

Link to journal added. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) <frowns>Well, sure, but it wasn't just a change in the ref that i meant, i meant actually reading the ref to see if it says what the media release says. Just looking at the Nature abstract, for example, i see the abstract refers to "sedimentary charcoal records spanning six continents", whereas the WP article refers to "Charcoal evidence from the Americas". This discrepancy concerns me, which is why the actual refereed article should be the basis for the WP content. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the same section: prose problems. First sentence says "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, from minor allusions in the Bible to classical writers such as Homer, although less focus was placed on uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred". Early human history perhaps - the range from the Bible to Homer isn't much of a range! Less than what? And the "from" "to" thing doesn't scan right either.

How about: "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, including minor allusions in the Bible and classical writers such as Homer. However, while ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Roman writers were aware of fires, they were not very interested in the uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe, but "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history" is a very daggy phrase, and doesn't focus on the time period involved. There's really room for a lot more work here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Next sentence: "Wildfires were also used in battles" But we have not been told about any uses yet, so they cannot then be "also used".

How about "Wildfires were used in battles throughout human history as early thermal weapons."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) "Thermal weapons" makes it sound like something the Klingons would wield, along with "ray guns". What about an expression from the literature explaining how they were used in combat? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Later that para: "Charcoal sedimentary data off the Pacific coast of Central America also suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas". I assume what is meant is "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits" - "Charcoal sedimentary data" is not going to fly as a compound noun. Then "more burning occurred in the 50 years before..." more than when?

How about: "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits off the Pacific coast of Central America suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas than compared to periods after the colonization."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Half way there, but the expression "compared to periods" needs to be deleted from your revised version, otherwise it doesn't make sense. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was just one para. I haven't read the rest (may get to it sometime), but from this section (which is closest to my own expertise), the article needs work. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Should I wait until you have a chance to read the rest to start making edits? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) minor PS - There are two van Wagtendonk refs in the end list, but no discrimination between them in the notes. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) They differ in page numbers, but I agree that it's hard to differentiate between the two. Any suggestions? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, use years, as in standard Harvard referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Related to that point - controlled burning is a major subject in any discussion of wildfire. In Australia at least, there is a substantial debate - and significant research effort - relating to the merits and management of controlled burning, or hazard reduction burning (the prevailing term now). I would suggest the article is going to need more than the say-so of a single researcher (van Wagtendonk) to have text such as this: "burns are reportedly "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread,..." " Quoting this one researcher won't be enough at FA i would suggest. This is too big an issue. Similarly, the article has "Building codes in fire-prone areas typically require that..." but the two cites for this sentence are Californian - no mention of whether this is the case in other states, Australia, African countries, Spain or other areas where wildfire is a significant human settlement hazard. See for example this global overview paper which covers the US and Australia and some other countries (unfortunately omits Meditterranean states), and in fact some countries don't have national bushfire codes (p. 5). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments: I have started a line-by-line prose review here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Flower (video game) Nominator(s): PresN 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating here Flower, an indie game for the PlayStation 3 that involves flying flower petals across a landscape, enlivening and brightening the world around you. It's had a successful GAN, I've tried to copy-edit it with a fine-tooth comb, I've checked external links and dabs, and all of the images have fair-use rationales and alt text. The game itself is only an hour long, but I think that the article gives a fair treatment of everything about it. --PresN 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by MelicansMatkin

Very nice article! As you say, dabs and external links check out, and the fair-use rationales all seem to be fine. I'm not exactly an expert on alt text, but it looks like you've got that covered too! I think that the prose could do with one polish in places; I did a minor copyedit to the lead so I apologize if I changed any meanings, but the sentence beginning with Flying towards flowers causes petals to follow the lead petal strikes me as being a little off; I'm not sure if its just me, but that sentence I think could do with a quick re-write/polish. Insofar as I can tell (game articles aren't really my speciality) all of the sources check out (though you might want to archive the online sources in case they are taken down later; use |archiveurl= and |archivedate=). Save for criterian 1a) (the prose), I think that it meets all of the requirements. My only quibble (and a very minor one at that) is that I think Development should be above Gameplay (if the Wikiproject generally has Gameplay above Development, then I'll be happy to strike that)? Switch that and a prose polish and I'll be happy to support. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! For video games, the typical flow is gameplay->plot->development, per WP:VG/MOS. I agree that the "flying" sentence is a bit off, I'm just not sure how to say it cleanly. You don't have to touch the flowers, but you do have to get really close... I'll try to think of something. --PresN 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I've struck that; thanks for pointing me in the direction of the VG MOS. I'll try doing a little more messing around with the sentence, but please revert me if I accidentally remove or alter the meaning. There are a couple of other prose inconsistencies I think spread out across the article; perhaps asking somebody at the VG WikiProject to do a quick copyedit could help. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Reworded to Flying close to flowers will result in the player's petal being followed by other flower petals. A gain in the number of petals following the player may have side-effects on the game world, such as bringing vibrant color to previously dead fields or activating stationary windmills. I think this makes it a bit clearer and preserves the original meaning, though it is a little more wordy. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Alright, I've done a copyedit which i think has addressed most of the uncertainties I had with the prose; since I can't see anything that I object to, I will support. While you wait for input from other people, I encourage you to review another featured article candidate. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Leaning support pending further evaluation. Images look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Further: Looking at the article I'm concerned about prose, mostly redundancies and awkward, repetitive wording. I think it needs an experienced copyeditor to give it a one-over. Below are some examples of issues I found: "This focus on emotions was sparked by Chen, who felt that the primary purpose of entertainment products like video games was the emotions that they evoked in the audience, and that the emotional range of most games was very limited."-spot the overused word? "transforming dead grassy areas to vibrant green fields"-this is a tad too close to the wording used in the lead, especially with the doubled "vibrant" that sticks out; we see vibrant used three times in relatively close proximity, and I think adding in synonyms would be helpful. An example of cutting redundancies: "The development team commissioned two pieces of music that they felt would inspire the right emotional tone for the game before beginning development work on Flower.[8]. They created a number of prototypes, including concepts focused on growing flowers and based around human consciousness. The team eventually decided that a prototype centered on petals floating in the wind best captured the emotions they wanted to evoke. awk, rw: They kept their design focus on keeping the player in a peaceful emotional state, removing elements that frustrated players such as petal collection requirements to unlock levels and game mechanics that were too traditional and made the players too excited.][10] The team also tried to not use any guidelines in the gameusing "the game" excessively is an issue I see in this article, as with many others, allowing the player to go anywhere in an open world, but they realized that without a few synonym? guides], such as the camera focusing on new flowers or segmenting the levels, players became confused and frustrated." A pet peeve, but I prefer using critic's names in addition to the publication. While generally the critic does represent the whole editorial opinion of a site, it's still just one reviewer's point, and we can't really ascribe certain actions to publications (IGN wrote, IGN felt, IGN said). Also, can we find a reliable source for the game's price point? Since it's actually mentioned as a criticism, knowing at least how much it was in the territory the reviewer was discussing would be helpful to the reader. I'm not really sure how much info there might be in archived newspaper coverage, but since the reception section's fairly light, send me an email and I'll reply back with sources from a LexisNexis/ProQuest search if I find anything useful. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the specific redundancy issues that you raised; I'll go through the article when I have some time for the rest of it. I'm leaving off the reviewer's names for now as I've emailed you about the print sources and assuming you find some I'll be rearranging the reception section anyway. --PresN 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Alright, added in some print sources from what you emailed me to expand the reception; I think I'm close to the limit of what can be said there without just saying "sources X,Y, and Z all agreed and said the same thing". I also added in the names of the critics, the price, and tried to copyedit the article again with an eye towards redundancy; please tell me if you see any more. --PresN 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) There's nothing necessarily wrong with saying that everyone agreed on some point; it's certainly less weaselish to say "X, Y, and Z considered AA" and, if necessary, point to a single critic's comments to more thoroughly explain (for example, in Halo 3: ODST I group critics who fell on either side of considering the game's $60 excessive or not.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Support I see no problems in the article at all. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) Nominator(s): Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nicely written article! ATC . Talk 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few "as" sentences that should be rearranged so they're more direct.

"Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"." What would you suggest? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) " However, John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead, as Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world"." Changed to: However, Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world", so John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) "As Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress." Changed to: With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) "As is typical of the series,[11] the episode also featured rock songs.[12]" Would "Following the series' tradition, the episode also featured rock songs." work? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence sounds funny. "Kripke's favorite was a group shot of the Winchesters wearing matching Christmas sweaters, as it "cracks [him] up to no avail"."

I removed it. It doesn't really add anything to the article, IMO. Ωphois 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, looks pretty good. I'll give more comments later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice fixes! ""Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"."" Could be: "Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script. This surprised her because she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"." Done. Ωphois 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I'll make more comments soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) This sentence is still indirect: "With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress." Maybe "Because Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, the production schedule was adjusted to accommodate her." or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05 20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Ok, but I kept the last part as "the actress". Jessica is the character, so your version implies that the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the character instead of Palicki. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As David Nutter was one of the first directors that Kripke had gotten to know well and had learned a lot from" - Indirect "as" sentence should be made for forceful. "gotten to know well" is also a bit informal. I'd also replace that sentences semicolon with a period; it's pretty long.

Do you have any suggestions? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe "One of the first directors Kripke had become acquainted with and learned from was David Nutter..." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Ωphois 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Production attempted to match the camera angles" - Maybe "The crew attempted"

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Much discussion and details were put into each one" - Sounds funny.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) It just sounds bad. Not sure what writing rule is falls under. When I say something sounds funny, I mean rewrite it. Mabye "Each was discussed, and had details addded..." or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Ωphois 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"one of the lowest ratings for the season." - Is that OR, or should the ref be moved to follow it?

It's based on the ratings from the season 2 page. Ratings there are done one-by-one, so the only way I know of to cite it would be to make 21 other citations. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Actresses Samantha Smith and Adrianne Palicki were welcomed back" - Maybe something about them being "a treat"? Anyways, "welcomed back" sounds a bit odd.

Done. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tom Burns of UGO deemed the episode "one of the strongest hours of Supernatural all season, feeling that "the actors really stepped up their game...and sold every moment"." - MIssing quote?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"He especially noted the "unapologetically emotional"" - "especially" is odd.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) It sounds like OR. That you are personally ranking the things that he noted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Ωphois 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"he feels that Ackles' "hardcore acting chops"" - "felt"?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Writer Raelle Tucker won the Constellation Award for "Best Overall 2007 Science Fiction Film or Television Script" for her work on the episode.[18]" - Single sentence paras should be merged or removed.

Previous FAC's I've done have specified that single sentences that are unrelated should be separate. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) It can probably be fit in somewhere. Maybe In its original broadcast, "What Is and What Should Never Be" was viewed by an estimated 3.11 million viewers,[14] one of the lowest ratings for the season. Despite this, writer Raelle Tucker won the Constellation Award for "Best Overall 2007 Science Fiction Film or Television Script" for her work on the episode, and the episodes garnered positive reviews from critics." Also, "and the episodes garnered positive reviews from critics". should episodes be plural? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed both. Ωphois 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that. I wasn't sure how to do it with the multiple image template, but it's been added now. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) No problem; and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Needs some rewriting/revision for clarity. See the following examples: "What Is and What Should Never Be" is the twentieth episode of the paranormal drama TV series Supernatural's second season on The CW, and was first broadcast on May 3, 2007." —A big first sentence for the reader to chunk. I separated it into two sentences. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother was not killed." —Does the "as" refer to the character, or is the djinn a separate entity? Changed to: "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as he finds himself in an alternate reality after a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother had not been killed when he was a child." I've split into two sentences to avoid the confusing and repetitious pronouns. Revert if it's not correct.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC) That works, though I made a couple minor edits. Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "Though he finds happiness in this new world" —Which new world? I think the previous revision fixes this. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Try making it more active: "Initially he is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and finds a method to bring himself back." I'm not sure this is correct either, but essentially, the stacking of information in the sentences is hard for a reader who is not familiar with the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Changed to: "Dean is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and attempts to find a method to bring himself back." Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "Dean realizes that all the good he and his brother Sam (Jared Padalecki) did as hunters of supernatural creatures has been undone, and he rejects the new reality." —Needs a rewrite. What is the "new reality"? See above. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, stopped after the third sentence in the lead. Will return later to have a look at other sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Neutral. The prose can be tightened throughout and made more active. I see the article is B-class. Have you considered taking it through GAN before nominating for FA? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) From my experience with GAN, mostly only glaring errors are found, and it is only the opinion of one person. This article has already been copy-edited twice, and I think the FAC will help find any other things needed to be fixed. Ωphois 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Can you give another example of something you feel needs to be tightened, so I can do a run-through and fix any other similar things? Ωphois 00:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Keep in mind, this is only a single example but here's a sentence I had to read twice to understand (and that's when you lose your reader!): "Finding inspiration in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which demonic poison causes the character Buffy Summers to have hallucinations in which she is a mental patient who has been imagining the series' storylines,[3] Kripke loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll go through the article again later today. Ωphois 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) For your example, do you think this would work: The Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which demonic poison causes the character Buffy Summers to hallucinate that she is a mental patient who has been imagining the series' storylines, served as inspiration for Kripke; he loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world. Ωphois 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Or this: The Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which hallucinogenic poison makes the character Buffy Summers suspect that the series' storylines are merely her own elaborate hallucinations as a catatonic mental patient, served as inspiration for Kripke; he loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world. Ωphois 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If those don't work, I can do a blockquote of Kripke's comment. Ωphois 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Spend some time with User:Tony1/How to improve your writing—in my view the best writing guide in Wikipedia. This isn't really the place for sentence-by-sentence copyediting, and I'm afraid we're starting down that road. I think you'll find Tony's suggestions helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. This article contains invalid HTML, as mentioned in the W3C report for the article. Can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC) What is invalid about it? Sorry, I don't understand the report. Ωphois 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC) It contains duplicate citation IDs, which break internal wikilinks. Please see Help:Markup validation #CITEREF already defined. Eubulides (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Ωphois 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. Well done for steadily improving. RB88 (T) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I've copyedited a little bit, despite making some gramatical mistakes, which were fixed immediately. In my opinion, I don't see much else the article needs to pass WP:FAC, apart from maybe some minor fixes, if any. ATC . Talk 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC) A few nitpicks as requested: I suggest links to characters and actors in the infobox's caption. Though I'm all for short plots, one paragraph, really? It comes off quite shocking to me and gives me the impression it is clumped. Can you at least break it off into two paragraphs? Restates who Kripke is in case the read neglected to read the lead prior to reading the "Writing" section. Colon between "script" and "This" (?) In "Filming:" "Principal photography for the episode took place in Vancouver, British Columbia." In "Reception:" I've always found "Conversely" seems better grammatically then "Despite this" or "Despite of." The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Done to all. Ωphois 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) Nominator(s): –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if much else can be done here, but here goes. I'm hoping this meets the FA criteria in that it's comprehensive, well-written, neutral, and stable. In a nutshell, this article is about one of the best video games released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (coincidentally, of all the numerous video game-related FAs, none of them are NES games) as well as one of the best games of all time. It's already been through three peer reviews (actually two and one-half as one of them wasn't much of one), a successful GAN, and very recently a successful A-Class assessment. –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

No dabs or dead external links—good. Alt text looks great and detailed (and not too detailed). Dates appear to be consistent Month Day, Year in prose, and ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial) in refs. OK to me. For citations: Shouldn't ref 48's book title use italics? Check the other ref titles to be sure. "May-December 1989" (in ref 43) and similar date ranges should use the en (–).

I'd have sit this one out entirely due to another game that now robs my time, but this is Ninja Gaiden dammit. --an odd name 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did the endashes (also changed a couple of emdashes I forgot in my last copyedit sweep) [21] and [22]. Hopefully I got the rest of the non-italicized occurrences of the title [23]. I also didn't realize that the {{cite book}} automatically italicized the title :) –MuZemike 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Image comments All images are low-res, have proper licenses and fair use rationales. I'm a bit iffy on File:Ninja Gaiden NES Duel.png but since there's a source that specifically comments on it, I suppose it meets WP:NFCC. On an unrelated note, "They and called the version in Ninja Gaiden Trilogy"→missing a word here.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for noting that extra "and" in there; I removed it [24]. –MuZemike 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Fine. What makes these reliable?

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/ninjagaiden/ninjagaiden9.htm http://ocremix.org/game/134/ninja-gaiden-nes

RB88 (T) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the minor corrections. For the first source, I actually found a much more reliable one from IGN (a review of the arcade version) which says the same thing as the HG101 interview, which I just replaced ([25]). As far as OCremix is concerned, can you clarify a bit more there? Basically, OverClocked ReMix is a directory of remixes of video game music. I was under the impression that it would meet #4 on WP:ELMAYBE. It's no big deal to me if it stays or not, however. –MuZemike 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose - I don't think there's enough reception material from the time of its release and there's no feedback from Japan. - hahnchen 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Video games didn't use to garner anywhere near the critical response they do today. For example, the articles for Super Mario Bros. and the original The Legend of Zelda don't really show any reviews from the time. It's difficult to find non-retroactive reviews for games this old. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I know it's difficult. This is FAC. - hahnchen 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Again, sorry for the "11th hour expansion", but I was able to dig up some copies of Electronic Gaming Monthly and Nintendo Power, with a treasure trove of extensive coverage in the latter. I've done some expanding to include coverage seen in those magazines ([26] and [27]). –MuZemike 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1910 Cuba hurricane Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This storm was first considered to be two separate storms that struck in rapid succession due to its initially unknown loop. Its unfamiliar track led to extensive debate and research, and helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops. It was also deemed among Cuba's most significant natural disasters, but since the hurricane occurred exactly 100 years ago, information is somewhat scarce. Interested yet? Happy reading. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Cuba — "The city of Casilda was devastated." Any way of using a conjunction? Actually the whole sub-section seems a bit dot pointy. Also, shouldn't "city" have a capital? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean to be honest... –Juliancolton | Talk 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Basically, the sentence is too short and should be joined with another. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's better as it is, but feel free to change it if you feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC) No big deal. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — I don't know a great deal about cyclones; however, this looks comprehensive considering the sources that are available - or as I'm lead to believe. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine read, but I think more coverage of how the storm "helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops" is needed. "[E]xtensive debate and research" would appear to require a section of discussion, rather than a sentence. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed - What is there is excellent but the article is missing an ==Aftermath== section, which is the place where a discussion about the research and lessons learned from this storm would go. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth. I can't find any journals or documents that would provide enough info for an entire section on it (especially considering that it occurred 100 years ago). –Juliancolton | Talk 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) One source should be enough to create a paragraph on the topic. I'm sure WikiProject Cyclone members will chime in if more is needed than that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC) There's only a couple sentences in the book, though. I doubt I'd be able to get any more information on that particular topic without resorting to OR. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) A search on Google books seems to confirm that. I'll add my conditional support and condition it on others not finding comprehensiveness issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC) One other thing: Is Florida Fun Facts the best we can do? I'm sure there are more respectable and trustworthy sources to draw upon. I see it's not cited inline; I might consider just removing it, or at least confining it to a "Further reading" section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum (again): "Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth." If that's the case, you really should mine that source. I'm sure there's more than a sentence there – in fact, you confirm it: "... a couple sentences in the book..." Is it possible for you to get to a physical library to find out more? I'm pressing the issue because the "extensive research" line at the end of the first section really left me hungry for more, and feeling that information was missing. There must be sources out there; "extensive research" is published. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Removed the superfluous source. As for adding more information, I don't know what else to say. There's nothing further on the topic in any of my tropical cyclone books, nothing in the Monthly Weather Review as far as I can see, and nothing in Google's newspaper archive. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comments - Julian! You have two last name first refs in your "general refs" then the last one is first name first! Consistency! (Normally I'd fix this myself but you know better!) Ugh, sorry. Trouts for me I suppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.cubahurricanes.org/history-hurricanes-chronicles.php a reliable source? Normally it wouldn't be a reliable source, but I'm only using it to demonstrate an extreme unofficial report, so in the context it's being used in I think it's OK. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose for the moment too short and ignores too many sources. I'll be sending them to you Julian, and I've incorporated a few facts myself, but am pressed for time. Cool three (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me now. Cool three (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've added quite a bit more with the new sources (thanks!). There's a lengthy report of a shipwreck I'll add in eventually. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I've added several additional paragraphs of text. Hopefully your comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OpposeLeaning to support. supportAuntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has a good lead (I wish the lead from the other cyclone article was as good), and indeed the first couple of paragraphs are pretty good, until we get here: "The storm is unusual in that due to its cyclonic loop near Cuba, initial reports suggested that it was actually two separate cyclones." I'm not the most scientifically inclined, but I haven't got a clue what you meant. Its cyclonic loop near Cuba led some to believe that it was actually two separate cyclones? Okay, but what is a cyclonic loop? Is it because it was near Cuba that it was thought to be two cyclones, or the path of its loop. I'm guessing that the path of the cyclone went northward, but at some point circled around to the west or east, came back at Cuba, and went over the tip of it again, a couple of days later. This is right? The paragraph just before it explains the loop. I'm not sure what more I could add to make it more clear. Also, what other cyclone article? There are around 900. :-) –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) the other one in FAC right now (Australian cyclone). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Organizationally, after you get out of this section, the article is choppily presented. Two sentences on preparation?  ???? The section on the ship Holliswood seems to be dropped into the middle of the article, but without much preparation for it. A map is included for no apparent reason other than that this is a map of Florida; although it shows counties, is that relevant to this article? How about a map showing the path of the cyclone through the state? "thousands of peasants were reported homeless"..... were these peasants in Florida or Cuba? Or both? What were the complexities of cyclone preparation in Cuba and Florida in 1910? And what happened to the Captain of the Holliswood? peasants? Given that the storm occurred in 1910, there's not a lot on preparations. I renamed the "preparations and impact" section to simply "impact". What were the procedures for warning people about hurricanes? This one came in the night, did it? There had been one in 1899 that did, and caused immense damage in PR. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Erm, outside of speculation, there's not a lot more I've found. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) As for the organization... I'm not sure how to address that. The section as a whole goes in chronological order from Cuba to southern Florida to northern Florida, and since the ship was caught in the hurricane between Cuba and Florida, it seems only logical to reflect that in the article. As for the image... I dunno, there's not a lot (and adding another track would be utterly useless), so it breaks up the text and adds a bit of context for foreign readers. As for that sentence you mentioned, the surrounding context appears to make it quite clear. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) perhaps there would be a way to show some of the locations of intense damage. As it is, it's a meaningless image, to show modern-day counties for a 1910 event, and not show the track, or highlight areas of the most damage. A different image of the hurricane? Dunno. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah. You're right. Removed then. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'm also confused about the citations and the lack of bibliography; does "general" mean you read them but you didn't cite them? I've run into this in another editor's work, and I get as confused there as I am here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I guess I could change it to something else, but it's really a matter of personal preference. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) no-no, I'm not quibbling with the heading names, but with the lack of bibliography. What does "general" mean, as opposed to "specific" and why are "general" citations included in "specific citations? What is the difference in these sources? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Changed now. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Same Holliswood? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) this article has information on the damage in Florida. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Nice find. I'll see if it has anything useful. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Noaa puts a name on the person who developed the theory of the loop. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure it's very relevant, though. A newspaper from right after the storm mentions the possibility of it being a single cyclone. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Gulf should be capitalized, though, because it refers to the specific Gulf of Mexico. If the sentence were, hurricanes pick up power and speed over a shallow gulf.... then no, it is not capitalized. But in this case you are using the word as a shortened form of the name, thus it should be capitalized because it refers to a specific Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not going to reverse it, but it should be capitalized. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I disagree. WP:MOSCAPS says Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name, in other words when they have become part of the name: "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "Mitterrand was the French prime minister" or "There are many prime ministers around the world." I don't see why it should be any different for place names. (I'll ask Tony1 to comment, though). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)' yes, and when you're writing an article about President Nixon, and you refer to him by his title, you capitalize President. Or an article about Queen Elizabeth, you'd capitalize Queen when you refer to a specific queen, but not when you refer to just general queenship. But if you write, a president could do x, then you don't capitalize president. I get tangled up on this all the time, when I write about this and that Holy Roman Emperor, and I'm always told to capitalize Emperor, as in the Emperor, when I'm referring to a specific one (Emperor Joseph). Since you are referring to a specific body of water, and you are using the first word of its name as an shorthand for the whole name, I think it should be capitalized. I would argue, though, that the same rules that govern Celestial bodies should also govern capitalization with geographic entities. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I see that the MoS is not explicit about the short-form usage of such an item as "the gulf" or "the Gulf", even though "the" is specific ("You know the gulf I mean: the Gulf of Mexico, not some other gulf"). My immediate feeling is G, but I've sought further advice from User:Noetica. The MoS needs to say something about this. Its examples of "the city" don't make it clear that "the city" could refer to a particular city-name. Tony (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Noetica writes:

Unless it refers to the Gulf of Mexico as a mere gulf among gulfs or among natural features generally (for comparison or "geophysical" description), definitely "Gulf", not "gulf". Compare:

the Queen the Rock (Ayers Rock [Uluru]) the Prom (Wilsons Promontory, Victoria) the Harbour (Sydney Harbour)

I don't think the presence or absence of "the" in the full name makes any difference. If "Gulf" is capped in the full name, it is capped in the short name. Compare and contrast "the river Ganges" (most common capping), referred to as "the river" with lowercase preserved, except in personifications or evocations. (Tony (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Noetica writes further:

I've now had a chance to look at the context:

"... the storm began to drift northwestward and rapidly deepen over warm waters of the Gulf."

Cap it, I say. While that body of water is mentioned as a purely physical entity, its being a gulf qua gulf is not relevant. It might have been the "waters of the bay" or "waters of the straits" without change in relevant detail. More salient is its identity, given here by naming it.

How this should feed into a MOS guideline is another matter. Something has to be added; but it must be robust and simple. (Tony (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good. Done. Thanks for the help (to Noetica as well!) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

a few other prose issues:

Weather two storms have been raging in Cuban waters within the past week, or whether the same storm... in Lead: Although total monetary damage from the storm is unknown, it is estimated that at least 100 deaths occurred in Cuba alone. This seems strange, and also not true, since you put specific amounts on losses later. How about: Although total monetary damage caused by the storm is unknown, estimates of losses in Havana exceeded a million dollars and in the Florida keys, $250,000. At least 100 people died in Cuba alone, and at least 20 died in Florida. revenue cutter. Should be Revenue (same reason as "Gulf") (Department of Revenue). The inlet being closed the rivers rose 8 feet above normal high water, which in a flat country like this, puts practically all land under water from 1 to 8 feet. Which inlet? and this is largely unintelligible to people who don't know Jupiter. Although it's a quote, you should probably translate it. However, very little damage occurred in and around the city. Nonetheless, due to persistent northeasterly winds, low-lying coastal areas were flooded.  ? Although little damage occurred in and around the city, persistent northeasterly winds caused the flooding of low-lying coastal areas.. Minor flooding extended.... The sentence on the citrus crop should go in one of the earlier paragraphs on Jupiter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've taken care of the majority of this, except the quote... it's a direct quote, so it's best not to change it too much here. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I realize it's a direct quote. I'm just suggesting that you translate it into something literate after you quote it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC) What's illiterate about it? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I think you mean legible. Even then it doesn't make much sense. Maybe intelligible. *shrugs* —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) intelligible, literate, understandable, whatever word you want to use. just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Mono-Inyo Craters Nominator(s): mav

Hike395 and I have been editing this article off and on ever since I created it in 2003. Over the last few months, I purchased/found many good sources on the topic and have used them to massively expand the article. Much fine tuning by myself and Hike395 has occurred since then (including a Peer Review). I now think that the article is up to current FA criteria. If not, then what else needs to be done? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - I read about half the article and glanced through the rest, and I'm impressed by the detail, comprehensiveness, and accessibility. I don't know a lot about geology, but I found this article easy to read, interesting, and concise. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Support—The article is in fine shape with only a few trivial nits, listed below. "Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of that line and are either phreatic explosion pits or rhyolitic lava flows and domes." It's a nit, but is 'line' here intended as a synonym for 'chain'? Is the 'either' meant to indicate uncertainty or a mixture? Please create stub articles for the red links. "Mule Deer, Coyote, Black Bear, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Raccoon and Mountain Lions all have ranges that are coincident with forests that cover parts of the Mono-Inyo craters." I believe that the common names of animals are not normally capitalized. "...to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) downwind to 2 inches (5.1 cm) 50 miles (80 km) downwind." Was one of the 'downwind' supposed to be 'upwind'? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks - All fixed except for the red-link stubs. I'll work on that this weekend. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Please clarify the 'either' in the first bullet. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Ah, missed that. Now reads " Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of the chain and consist of phreatic explosion pits, rhyolitic lava flows and domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text is quite good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif doesn't convey the essence of that map and diagram to the visually impaired reader. There's no need to give all the details but the overall gist should be given (as it is for the other map). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Alt text expanded to give a better impression of the image. Hopefully not too wordy now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) No, it's good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. The precision to which the various conversions are carried needs tweaking. However, there is a problem to be overcome first. There are several in which conversions have been done by someone, either by Wikipedia editors or their sources, before the Template:Convert is used to "unconvert" them back to the original numbers (or at least to get back in the ballpark of what the original numbers were). In these cases, it is the number which is the input into the black box which has improper precision. But it is hard to tell for sure when this is the case. Can anyone help identify those cases? I'd sure like to see all the conversions going from the original measurements to other units, but at the very least, the conversions which are not made inside the article but rather outside it need to be reviewed. For example, "covered {{convert|38|sqmi|km2}}" which gives "covered 38 square miles (98 km2)" should likely be "covered {{convert|100|km2|mi2|-1|sp=us}}" or "covered 100 square kilometers (40 sq mi)". Or, at the very least, fix the input and output of the black box so that you have "covered {{convert|40|sqmi|km2|-1|sp=us}}" (covered 40 square miles (100 km2)); the area it covered nearly a millennium ago cannot be known any more precisely than that, and the 100 km² might indicate an even rougher measurement than what is apparent for 40 mi². Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Good point. I fixed your examples and many like it. The books that I consulted used U.S. units but the USGS sources used metric. Per MOS, I had to choose a standard for the article and chose U.S. units as the primary. There are HTML comments in the wikitext that state the exact values and units used in the cited references. I created a feature request for the convert template whereby the cited value could be used in the template but the order reversed when parsed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) No, you don't have to "choose a standard for the article"; that isn't what the MoS says. It might come close to suggesting that at times, but never as a hard and fast rule, and then it gives many examples where it doesn't apply. And this article shows one big reason why it shouldn't be that way. It's hard enough to figure out the optimal precision when the originals are given first, and it is even harder when they aren't. Sure, if you have two similar measurements of the same quantity nearby, it's probably a good idea--maybe one standard for the elevations in the article, as in the example given in the MoS. But not one standard for every measurement of different quantities. It really depends on the individual measurements. I hadn't noticed any comments in the text, probably would have seen some of them if I'd tried to edit them first. That should help. I'll look at what's there now, see if I can do some tweaking. Unlike the one I mentioned above, in most cases there will be at least two, sometimes even three defensible places as to where the rounding should occur. My guiding principles are that the people who ignore one set of measurements should get basically the same information as the people who ignore the other set of measurements, and that the most common problem with overprecise conversions is that they bog down the reading speed for everyone. Keep in mind that even in the United States, much of our scientific work is done in the metric system, and in the portions of the articles which specifically with the results of those scientific investigations, metric units should usually come first. I don't like the idea of putting converted values first. It often gives false information, and even if you convince somebody to make a template to do so, the readers who do not see the parameters used in that template will be misled. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) You've done a good job, mav. Looks like that problem is resolved. That's not to say I might not quibble on a couple of them, but it really does look good now, much better. Thank you. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - just a placeholder for now, will review the rest of the article later. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) lead

"Politically, it is located in Mono County in the U.S. State of California." Use of politically reads oddly to me, can this just be left out without affecting meaning? wlink cinder cone "Various activities are available along the chain," Maybe reword, sounds a bit strange to say an activity is "available"

Geography and description

"Mule deer, coyote, black bear, yellow-bellied marmot, raccoon and mountain lions all have ranges" mixture of singular and plural looks inconsistent "…as lava after its heat had already created a steam explosion crater." lava after its heat? wlink Devil's Punch Bowl "They were formed from slow-moving pasty lava" what's pasty lava? *There's still a mention of pasty lava in the "Inyo Craters and Paoha Island" section Fixed. Pasty is geo-jargon. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) scree wlinked twice in this section why are temperature given first in Celsius,with a F conversion, not the other way around (consistent with other imperial-metric conversions in the article)

History

"This book was published in 1872." Extraneous sentence, just mention the year in the previous sentence. Ellipses should be spaced on either side, according to MOS "Gold rush-related boomtowns sprang up near and in Mono Basin in the 19th century to exploit local bonanzas." unclear - is the implication that there was gold to be found there? N/m, found Bodie listed in the Gold Rush article. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) wlink tributary —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasata (talk • contribs) Had a go at all your suggestions except for adding the wlinks; Devil's Punch Bowl is not notable by itself to have its own article and tributary is just a common English word which is not directly related to the subject. Tributary would be appropriate to link in the Mono Lake article, but not in this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, but see Devil's Punch Bowl. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Different punchbowl. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) The devil sure gets around! (think I also saw him in the details) Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (continued) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "Above that layer are basaltic to rhyolitic volcanic rocks" I'm not well-versed in geology… does this means there's a range of rock types between these two without any clear demarcation? Swapped "to" with "grading to". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "The massive eruption of Long Valley Caldera some 760,000 years ago laid down a thick sequence of Bishop Tuff over the region." A sequence? Would "layer" work? "Sequence" is a better term since there is a layering of different rock/ash/welded ash. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "A mix of ash and pulverized rock, called tephra, covered about 3,000 square miles (8,000 km2) of the Mono Lake region to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) from the vents and 2 inches (5 cm) 50 miles (80 km) away. (Wind direction varied during that time)." Needs rephrasing, listing the depth and distance values right next to each other may cause confusion (interpret as distance = 20 miles and 8 inches). Not sure what the parenthetical sentence adds, nor why it's in parentheses. Good point. Put a "deep" in-between the depth and distance values. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "Pyroclastic flows of glowing-hot clouds of gas, ash and pulverized lava" were they glowing because someone saw them, or because "glowing" here means "really, really hot"? Does really hot gas glow? Not always but very often (the glow can normally only be seen at night). It depends on how far up the ash and lava go before crashing down. I removed "glowing" in this case b/c the source did not in fact say that - I was just trying to give an in-context definition of the jargon "pyroclastic flow" and got a bit carried away. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "…38 square miles (100 km2) in the second phase." Just to clarify, was the first phase the stuff that happened in the previous paragraph, or the first part of the sentence? " in the second phase" removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "The rhyolite magma was rich in the mineral silica and thus oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" Why "thus"? Is molten silica well-known for oozing? The silica part not needed, so removed. Silica is sticky when molten and caused lava rich in it to ooze. Changed to "Rhyolite lava oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(continued)

checking on 1c. Have you considered the following journal articles as possible sources? Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Title: Constraints on continued episodic inflation at Long Valley Caldera, based on seismic and geodetic observations Author(s): Feng, LJ; Newman, AV Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 114 Article Number: B06403 Published: 2009 Title: Use of neural networks and decision fusion for lithostratigraphic correlation with sparse data, Mono-Inyo Craters, California Author(s): Bursik, M; Rogova, G Source: COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 10 Pages: 1564-1572 Published: DEC 2006 Title: Lahar in Glass Creek and Owens River during the Inyo eruption, Mono-Inyo Craters, California Author(s): Bursik, M; Reid, J Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 131 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 321-331 Published: MAR 30 2004 Title: A volcanotectonic cascade: Activation of range front faulting and eruptions by dike intrusion, Mono Basin-Long Valley Caldera, California Author(s): Bursik, M; Renshaw, C; McCalpin, J, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 108 Issue: B8 Article Number: 2393 Published: AUG 23 2003 Title: Chemistry and mineralogy of a granitic, glacial soil chronosequence, Sierra Nevada Mountains, California Author(s): Burkins, DL; Blum, JD; Brown, K, et al. Source: CHEMICAL GEOLOGY Volume: 162 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 1999 Title: NEW EVIDENCE ON THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM IN LONG VALLEY CALDERA, CALIFORNIA, FROM WELLS, FLUID SAMPLING, ELECTRICAL GEOPHYSICS, AND AGE-DETERMINATIONS OF HOT-SPRING DEPOSITS Author(s): SOREY, ML; SUEMNICHT, GA; STURCHIO, NC, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 48 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 229-263 Published: DEC 1991 Per WP:PRIMARY and limitations of time and money on my part, I much prefer to use reliable secondary sources. My main use of primary sources is to fill in gaps and help figure things out when secondary sources say different things. But access fees are the major barrier. Density and narrow focus of most journal articles is also an issue. Interpreting them can also easily and unknowingly lead to WP:OR. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak support Sasata (talk)

Primary sources can also be useful as they each have an introduction section which summarizes research on the topic up to that point, and so they effectively are a secondary source when used that way. They are available at university libraries or through interlibrary loans, so cost shouldn't be a factor. As for time.... you've had since 2003, right? :) Anyway, geology is not a topic I'm knowledgeable about, so I won't even try to determine whether these sources should be included or not, but I did notice from reading the introductions of these papers that Martin Bursik seems to have published widely in this topic area (i.e., geological evolution of the Mono-Inyo area) going back to the 1980s, so it seems that something is missing in that this article does not mention him, nor use any of his numerous publications as a reference for technical information. For these reasons, my support is only weak. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well, I guess if I can spend hundreds of dollars and a couple days vacation visiting the chain, I can find time to visit local university libraries. I never really considered this before due to the fact the geology, not to mention geology of the western U.S., is not a focus of any local universities. But they must have at least some geoscience journals. I'll keep this in mind, but still insist that WP:PRIMARY is fairly clear that Wikipedia article should mainly be constructed using reliable secondary sources. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted USGS, but there may be others). REALLY picky but consistency in the notes - either US or U.S. (grins) Pick one. Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Mav, did you do the two above? the ones above the bolded comments were Sasatas... not mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC) U.S./US fixed and a few USGS fixed as well. The ones that remain are fine since the publisher on those same cites is written as the "United States Geological Service" and there are two instances of "United States Geological Service (USGS)" in the article to introduce the reader to the initialism "USGS". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I'm concerned about the grammar of "Mono-Inyo Craters is a chain of...." Try "The Mono-Inyo Craters are volcanic craters forming a chain which runs north-south.......etc" Mono-Inyo?! Make a clear statement in the first paragraph. Say that there are two types of craters, those called Mono and those called Inyo. If you have any idea what the names Mono and Inyo mean, tell your reader that, too. First parag again. You say North south, then describe south north. Decide which direction your heading and stick to it! Amandajm (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) That and similar plural issues fixed. First para already describes all major parts of the chain; Mono Craters and Inyo Craters are there and introduced as distinct parts of the chain. Mention that Israel Russell named Mono Craters added. He did not say what he named them for, but "Mono Valley" (the old name for Mono Basin or "Mono Lake" are likely candidates. I could not find, after a great deal of searching, who named Inyo Craters or what they are named for. "Inyo" is a Paiute term for the mountains to the east of the Owens Valley. Farquhar says "Chief George (who became a leader in the Indian war) told them that the name of the mountain range to the eastward was ‘Inyo,’ meaning, as near as could be ascertained, ‘the dwelling place of a great spirit.’ ". I have no idea why the specific craters are named Inyo. —hike395 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) North-south part fixed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Image review Alt text is present for all images, but in some cases it is strangely written (ie "Dirty gray and light colored long mound in a lake") and omits proper punctuation, which is a violation of WP:ALT. Please go through and proofread them as you would the other text. File:Mono-Inyo Craters satellite image-annotated.jpeg is PD (NASA), looks good. File:Mono Craters airphoto by Von Huene 032079.jpg is PD (US Geo Survey), looks good. File:Inyo craters.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good. File:Inyo Crater Lakes - Mule Deer nearby.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:Panum Crater.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good. File:Mono Craters - Northwest Coulee from CA 120.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:Mono Mills, California period photo of mill activity.JPG is PD in US (copyright expired), looks good. File:Mono Craters by John Muir.jpg is PD in US (copyright expired), looks good. File:Mono Lake Visitors Center.jpg is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:Geologic map of Long Valley and Mono Basin region (USGS).png is PD (USGS), looks good. File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif is PD (USGS), looks good. It's aesthetically awful though. File:Mammoth Lakes California USGS.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good. File:Mono Lake - Paoha Island.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:FutureMono-InyoTephraFall.gif is PD (USGS), looks good. File:Mammoth Mountain from the top of Deer Mountain.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:US 395 South sign near Mono Craters.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. File:Mono Craters from US 395.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the Image review. Alt text edited. It is still descriptive in tone. I hope that is OK. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Note: Looks like this needs someone to look through the geology and rubber-stamp it, so I'm volunteering. This note is here to say that I will probably be making edits to the article as I see that they're needed. But maybe not too many tonight - it IS Friday! Awickert (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I would prefer a geologist's hammer over a rubber stamp, but any feedback will be most welcome! :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Your wish is my command: you shall receive this rock hammer of verification when I am done! Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC) OK - first question, "Nearly all the rock east of the Sierra Nevada is volcanic in origin." - clearly this needs a eastern boundary, perhaps this is East of the Sierra Nevada and within Mono Valley, as this is the confines of the cited study? Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Reminder to self (or others): find a ref for the Long Valley and Mono-Inyo magma chambers being separate. Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC) A Momentary Lapse of Reason Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Its Pink Floyd lite's first outing. Some may view this article has being heavily-biased toward the infighting and politics that were going on at that time. Necessarily so, because all the sources used focus on these events, to the detriment of the technical details some may wish to read. I've also struggled (annoyingly) to find many online reviews for the album. I've done my best, however, and I present Gilmour's growing girth for your mirth. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No dabs, alt texts present. JN466 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I find the second para of the lead somewhat confusing: "Guitarist David Gilmour had, in 1985, begun to assemble a group of musicians for what, at that point, would have been his third solo album. Later he changed his mind however, and then with the assistance of drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Richard Wright, he helped craft what would become the group's first album since the departure of lyricist and bass guitarist Roger Waters in December of that year." December is the last month of the year, and the paragraph reads as though all these things happened after Waters left in December. Could this be reworded? --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, you're correct. I've clarified matters, have a look at the lead now. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) We refer to Profiles as Mason's solo album, but according to our article on the album, it was a collaboration with Rick Fenn (the cover says "Mason + Fenn"). --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) A solo album doesn't necessarily mean that the artist worked alone - it can be inferred that a solo album is a body of work away from the artist's usual home (band). Blake (2005) refers to Profiles as "Mason released his second album, Profiles, a collaboration with former 10cc guitarist Rick Fenn". Schaffner (1991) says "they decided to try their hand at an album". While its primarily a collaboration, I'm happy to call it a solo effort when referring to Mason within Pink Floyd. Zee, which Richard Wright was a partner in, cannot be described in the same fashion, as he had left the band years previously. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Okay. I guess one could see it that way. --JN466 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The citation of "In the Studio with Redbeard, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Barbarosa Ltd. Productions, 2007" is a little cryptic. Given that it is a radio show, would it not be best to use the {{cite episode}} template for radio show episodes, inserting the show's official title (wikilinked) for "series", and adding the airdate along with season and number, if available? --JN466 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I only know the year it was broadcast (20th anniversary), not the date. I can't use the cite episode template as I'm using the citation template throughout. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Per WP:CIT, there is no citation-family alternative to {{cite episode}}. Perhaps Sandy could advise us here? Is the citation template okay to use for radio shows? At any rate, I feel something in the ref should make it apparent that "In the Studio with Redbeard" refers to the radio show In the Studio (radio show), and that "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" refers to a (September?) 2007 episode of that show. But, you understand, it's not a big thing, and not something I'd oppose over. ;) --JN466 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've added format = Radio broadcast to the reference. This should be enough information for anyone interested to track down the source, which unfortunately is no longer on Redbeard's site. I can't add a month as I don't know which month it was broadcast. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "To drive home the message that Waters had left the band, a group photograph, shot by David Bailey, was—for the first time since 1971's Meddle—included in the gatefold. Wright's name appears only on the credit list." I think we should spell out who was included in the group picture. --JN466 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I'm thinking of adding an NFCC image of the centrefold for just this reason. Its pretty notable - the first group photo they put on a studio album since 1971. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I would like to have the picture if it's compatible with our NFC criteria (I don't have a very good understanding of those, so I'll keep shtum beyond saying I would like it.) --JN466 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've added the picture, which includes the list of credits (emphasising Wright's role) Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) What we have in the article looks good and well researched, but I do miss information on the music itself -- the style and mood of the songs, the arrangement, the musicianship and the production values. --JN466 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I have no source material on these matters - and I have most of the best Pink Floyd books. I'd normally fill this in using album reviews, but I haven't tracked many down. Most people focussed on the Waters-Floyd feud, rather than the music. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Amazingly, we have a separate article on each of the album's 10 or 11 tracks, but they don't cite more than 3 sources between them. And none of those are about the music. :( --JN466 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've dropped Parrot of Doom a couple of possible sources on their user talk page. I do feel that in an FA on an album we have to say something about the music itself. --JN466 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've added some details about individual songs. Thanks for this. Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've left you some more sources on your talk page (including a Gilmour quote which I would recommend incorporating for balance -- we give Waters a lot of room, given that he didn't play on this). But I think the article is 95% there and therefore support. --JN466 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

External links look good. Needs a link to The Final Cut.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) It already has one. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine, but make sure the MacDonald book has a publishing location for conformity.

Any luck with this location? RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I ce'd the lead+infobox and the lists at the bottom btw.

Unfortunately you introduced several factual inaccuracies while doing so, and the list is (as with other Floyd albums) displayed in the same order as appears on the album. Fair dos, but I did not add or take any info away. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Note 5 flirts very dangerously with WP:OR. Its a well known fact that they weren't allowed in, Mason is just more diplomatic about things. In fact Mason glosses over most of the bickering. I thought it worthwhile adding the note although it isn't necessary. Although reviews are used in the text, why are they not put in the list? Also, I found two more if there are spaces in the 10 limit: Because they're not sourced from the review, they're sourced from the books that summarise the review. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58764201.html?dids=58764201:58764201&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+28%2C+1987&author=CHRIS+WILLMAN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=POP+MUSIC+REVIEW+It+Looks+Like+Pink+and+Sounds+Pink-but+Is+It%3F&pqatl=google http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/55744650.html?dids=55744650:55744650&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+24%2C+1987&author=John+Milward%3BDavid+Patrick+Stearns&pub=USA+TODAY+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Popular&pqatl=google In the lead it says "multi-platinum" and that's it. My question is: In what market? In the US. Corrected. Why is Richard Wright in "additional musicians" instead of Pink Floyd in personnel? He wasn't a member of the band. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Then maybe this should be made more explicit in the lead, which might make some readers think otherwise as the current sentence stands. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) That's a fair point, how about this? Parrot of Doom 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Detail added and I'm happy, although it might bring up prose issues with two bracketed sections in the same sentence. RB88 (T) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support with regard to well-written, engaging prose and comprehensiveness. I never think of this as a Floyd album, and I suspect Gilmour would agree, but this is not a neutral point of view. The nominator does not need to "apologise" for the article's focussing on the legal shenanigans between Waters and Gilmour, Mason and Wright—these are central to understanding the significance of this album to the Floyd cannon, both artistically and historically. I think the editors and nominator should be congratulated for contributing what is, IMHO, the best article on this album I have read. Graham Colm Talk 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Alt text looks fine and is present for all images. File:MLoRLP01.jpg - Fair use image, seems reasonable rationale; album cover helps identify the album and is discussed at some length in the Packaging section. File:Pink floyd learning to fly.ogg - Fair use media sample; this is questionable. You use it to illustrate how the album's sound was drastically different from the previous, but I don't see where in the text you provide critical commentary about the stylistic differences. Indeed, the discussion of the musical style of the album is almost completely absent. All we have is Ralbosky's quotation, unless I am missing something. better? There are several points in the article which discuss differences in style. Firstly, the fact that no other Floyd album previously, used samplers, or drum machines (both of which would use MIDI syncronisation, which is mentioned). Secondly, Gilmour's quote about "can't go back". That same track also includes the boating sample described in the article, as well as Mason's takeoff commentary, but its not possible to include both of those as the audio clip would then be too long. The clip also includes the lyrics mentioned in "Recording". Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) File:AstoriaHouseboat.JPG - cc-by-sa 3.0, looks good. File:Pink floyd momentary lapse gatefold.jpg - Fair use; again, questionable. You mention the gatefold, but it is not the subject of critical commentary. Nothing is represented that's not said in the text, and as such, the image does not aid reader understanding. The gatefold includes the photograph of Gilmour and Mason, which was included only to reinforce to the public the fact that Waters had left. Pink Floyd hadn't included a band shot on an album since 1971. The image also shows clearly that Wright is not a part of the band, but is a contributory musician, by showing the credits. Considering the politics and infighting were so central to this album, its inclusion is certainly warranted. If you doubt the fair use rationale, nominate it for deletion. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) File:Pink floyd momentary lapse tour montage.jpg - cc-by-sa 2.0, looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose on criteria 3 for now until the above problems are addressed. I also have a potential concern about the research. You mention in the article that its sound was drastically different from The Final Cut. Why is there no significant coverage of the overall musical style? I've already been berated this week for not understanding the vagaries of WP:ALBUM, so please bear with me if my question is ignorant. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) If you can find significant coverage, you'll be more successful than me. I've already mentioned in the nomination why this article focusses more on internal politics than music - because most of what's written about this album is about the former, rather than the latter. Its a musically weak album, but important in the history of the band. Actually though, the easiest way to demonstrate the stylistic differences is simply to click through to the Final Cut article, and listen to the audio clip there. I'd include that clip here, but doubtless it would just create problems. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I am satisfied with the responses, thanks. I took a quick look around the library databases and didn't find anything on the style anyway. The only thing said is that it's different, which is what you already have. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. If I'm honest its been frustrating having to read different sources all saying essentially the same thing about the album - "Waters- "Gilmour is a cunt etc", David "I can write lyrics, honestly!" Gilmour, Mason "I'm keeping out of it, etc etc". I'd like to find a good solid review of the album but unless I find original magazine reviews (and I wonder, given the general opinion of the album, if they're lengthy), I think I'm stuffed. So I've tried to explain things chronologically, but have focussed on all the fighting. There's actually more, but some readers I think would want to read a little bit about the music... Parrot of Doom 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose on 1b and 1c for now: I'm sorry to do this, because I like the article, but I think we're missing some things here. I spent some time digging around the library and came up with some additional sources that you haven't use and which represent information that's not in the article. I'm thinking that with some additional research, we could beef this up with more information about the style. In particular, the area of focus could be how the style of this album was incidentally different from past Pink Floyd albums, and the things Gilmour did deliberately to make it different. So in summary, the 1b objection is to lack of sufficient information on style, and the 1c objection is to the number of sources I found containing new information. These are all from NewsBank/Access World News: MacInnis, Craig (September 1, 1987). "Pink Floyd's new 'melodic' album out next week". The Toronto Star. This one contains an interesting story about their rehearsals for the world tour in an airplane hangar at Pearson International Airport. That is a wholly speculative article about both the album, and the tour rehearsals. I have already summarised the early tour/rehearsal problems using more up-to-date and more reliable sources, but any more information about the tour belongs in A Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour, not here. I see you attribute a quote to the Quill article "Has Pink Floyd changed its color to puce?", but there is a lot more in there you didn't use. It is a whole discussion of the question of what stylistic elements make a "Pink Floyd" album. Yes, and there are some issues with that same article - "Nick Mason's lumbering drum fills" isn't wholly accurate, for one. I'm not keen on using a largely-dismissive album review to summarise the album's style and content. It would raise issues of neutrality. Morse, Steve (September 17, 1987). "Equal time for Pink Floyd". Boston Globe. There is some background here about the songwriting and style imbalance that contributed to Gilmour's opinion of the shortcomings of The Final Cut, and what strategies he used to address the imbalance on Lapse. Also makes mistakes: "bassist Richard Wright" - Wright wasn't a member of the band, and he certainly wasn't a bassist, with weak research like that I'm not sure I want his comments in the article. I'm not certain why I should include Gilmour's opinion of The Final Cut too much here. Its all readily available at that album's article, and the two albums don't share any particular connection. It would make more sense to compare About Face with The Final Cut, since they were made much closer together. I don't believe that Momentary Lapse was created "in response" to TFC. Quill, Greg (September 18, 1987). "Now Pink Floyd is doing it Gilmour's way". The Toronto Star. More information about stylistic differences between Gilmour and Waters, plus some interesting stuff about the tour production, special effects, etc. Plus many more. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I've already read almost all of them, several weeks ago, when I spent hours trawling Newsbank's search results. Ultimately, they're almost all rather weak in content, and I'm not particularly keen to "build up the content" with scraps of text from a wide range of newspaper comments. The audio clip does a better job than any amount of prose could in summarising the differences in style between this, and other Floyd albums. When listened to with the comments in the reception section, I can only think that a quote from Gilmour regarding the lack of sentiment usually found in Floyd albums, missing from TFC, and his trying to restore that sentiment, would be appropriate. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Well you're nothing if not persuasive, I have to hand it to you. My overall concern is that two narratives emerge in the sources I've read: One is that Waters had taken almost complete creative control of the band with The Final Cut, upsetting the normal balance between his "heavy" lyrics and Gilmour's "warm" music. How did Lapse restore that balance, or did it? The other is that there was debate over what defines a Pink Floyd album; how did the style of Lapse affect that debate. Do you feel those narratives are represented in the article today? --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I think you're right in that there's certainly something to be made of Gilmour's comments about "more about the music, than the lyrics". I'll have to have a read through my sources to see what I can find. I'm a little bit busy with Blackbeard right now so I'll probably do it tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the delay with this, work etc. Have a look at this and tell me what you think. Its probably the best I can do for now, there are so few reliable comparisons elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in on sourcing I scouted all the paper articles mentioned above when I did my review and concluded that they did not add anything or were wholly accurate for that matter. Also, most, if not all biographies, summarise nearly all articles together with band interviews. Since all important Floyd biopics are researched and covered, I have to conclude that 1b and 1c are covered. And I have read some of those books; they are more thorough than the Talking Heads and FMac ones I have personally used. RB88 (T) 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Sorry for the delay in revisiting, but I think we are in the right territory now. I reviewed quite a bit more sources, and amazingly there doesn't seem to be much more of substance than what you've already written. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Like a Rolling Stone Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp, Mick gold, Rlendog, Allreet - 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination from I.M.S. - I am nominating this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration Team. We have all been working very hard on the article for almost five months, building it up with the eventual goal of FAC. We now feel that the article is ready. Please express your opinions on the article, and we will try our best to respond to you and address any issues raised. Thank you for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborators, please add your co-nominations to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Media review: Three images. Alt text good for all.

File:LikeaRollingStone.jpg: Single cover (fair use), used as main infobox image. Usage: Good, standard. Rationale: Good. File:Dylan Rolling Stone Label.jpg: Single label (fair use), used as secondary infobox image. Usage: Dubious. The cover provides the necessary and sufficient identification. Not clear at all what significant purpose this serves. Rationale: Fine, except that Purpose of use is questionable, per above. I have deleted this image. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg: Dylan performing at Newport in 1965 (fair use). Usage: Questionable. The event depicted is undoubtedly unique and famous, but is Dylan's visual appearance at all significant here? Surely it was the electrified sound of his music and the crowd reaction prompted by that sound that made this event historic. Is there audio of the event available—perhaps audio that captures both the sound of Dylan's performance and the crowd's reaction? Or the part that would explicate the article's mention of where he "recited the lyrics as if giving a speech"? That, I believe, would be more informative than the image. Of course, if there is something worthwhile to be said (i.e., sourced critical commentary) about Dylan's appearance at the event, that would improve the basis for the image's use. Rationale: Inadequate. Full information must be provided on original source, The Other Side of the Mirror, including identification of copyright holder.

Three audio samples (fair use): Primary release version for infobox; significantly different alternative version, with sourced critical commentary; famous Jimi Hendrix cover version, with sourced critical commentary. Selection is good, but there are several problems:

File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg is too long at 35 seconds. We draw a hard line at 30 seconds. The rationales for all three samples must specify the respective copyright holders. I have added the copyright holder for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and for File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The rationales for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and File:Hendrix Like a Rolling Stone.ogg must specify the specific purposes for using the samples in this specific article. I have added to the rationale for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg to try to clarify the necessity of including the sample in this specific article. Please let me know if my change is not the kind specification you had in mind. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Great job, Moisejp. Audacity is not working for me at the moment - I'll try reinstalling it, then I'll get to work on shortening the clip. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I.M.S., let me know if you don't end getting Audacity to work. I could easily do a shorter sound clip myself. It might not be as good as yours, which fades in and out to show different highlights as I recall, but it would at least do the trick and fit the length requirements. But if you can get Audacity working, all the better! Moisejp (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) MOS: There need to be quote marks around "Like a Rolling Stone" in the lead captions in the article's sample boxes.—DCGeist (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I will shorten "Like A Rolling Stone" and address the MOS problem. Should File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg be deleted? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All points addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe copyright information for the Hendrix version still needs to be added. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I've done my best, but I don't know the copyright information for the Hendrix version... does what I've added look alright? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Questions: I have long been of the understanding that Dylan is referring to Andy Warhol in the stanza she rode on the chrome horse with her diplomat who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat - ain't it hard when you discover that he really wasn't where it's at after he took from you everything he could steal etc. His friend Bob Neuwirth, and Joan Baez and Marianne Faithful don't seem very likely as subjects in the story to me, perhaps Nico? I am a little disappointed not to see the lyrics, is that possible? Otherwise great job so far...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the compliment, Modernist. As to the Warhol reference, I agree with you that it would fit in with the "themes" section, but it would require a RS discussing the subject. Do you have one? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'll look for a RS, and the lyrics, can you publish all or some?...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) A source - This website has usually been accurate about alot of things: [28] - scroll down to the section about Bob Dylan and Bob Neuwirth. I'll check some other material as well...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for doing the research—let's see what the other collaborators think, then perhaps we'll add it. In the past, however, Warholstars.org was contested by the GA reviewer of "LARS"—search the talk page for "Warhol". You might also want to take a look at this discussion about Warhol, Sedgewick, and Neuwirth. Many thanks for you help! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The reference to POPism: The Warhol '60s by Andy Warhol & Pat Hackett, Harper & Row, 1980, is interesting. On page 108, Warhol reports that someone told him: "Listen to 'Like A Rolling Stone'—I think you're the diplomat on the chrome horse, man." I think this counts as WP:RS for the point that Warhol believed, or people in Warhol's circle believed that LARS was referring to Warhol. Warhol then states "I didn't know exactly what they meant by that—I never listened much to the words of songs—but I got the tenor of what they were saying—that Dylan didn't like me, that he blamed me for Edie's drugs." Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Well done Mick, I have a copy of the Edie Sedgwick biography by Jean Stein, although I doubt that it will offer anymore useful sources...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I've re-written Themes to expand reference to Warhol and Sedgwick. Mick gold (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Support - good job...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Fine. What makes these reliable?

http://www.bjorner.com/songss.htm http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=4063 (I suggest using everyhit.com). Switched to everyHit.com. Moisejp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) One source left to defend. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) User:Mick gold defended bjorner.com during the article's recent peer review: [29] (the discussion is near the bottom of the review). I hope this defends the site's use adequately. Moisejp (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I have changed the ref to Lars Winnerbäck's Lyrics website where you may read his Swedish version of "Like A Rolling Stone", which carries the credit: "Text & musik: Bob Dylan (Like A Rolling Stone), Svensk text: Lars Winnerbäck". Mick gold (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Go through all the refs and make sure online sources and organisations (including radio stations) are NOT in italics. (Also there's a Rolling Stone that needs italics.) This hasn't been done. RB88 (T) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help with this, RB88. Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Ref 82 needs a publisher. Ref 82 (and the info it was supporting) has been removed. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The lead does not need any citations as the material has to be covered in the text. Please remove them and make sure the material is indeed covered in the text. I have removed the most straightforward citations from the lead. What are left are the more "sweeping statement" kind. I'm sure it won't be too hard, but we'll just have to be careful when we're removing them that all the sweeping statements are explicitly cited in the article. They may well already be, I just haven't had time to look at them carefully. Hopefully I'll have time in the next few days, or if anyone else wants to look at them in the meantime, go ahead. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) All references have now been removed from the lead. Moisejp (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC) For conformity, ensure all books (or none, it's up to you) have a publishing location in the references. This hasn't been done. RB88 (T) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Make sure all ISBNs follow the same style and number of numbers for uniformity. I suggest 1-2345-6789-0. RB88 (T) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I removed the locations for uniformity, because they were a bit confusing. The ISBNs need to conform to the same layout. At the moment, there is mixture of 13 number ones and 10 number ones. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I have changed all the ISBN numbers to ISBN-10 style. Moisejp (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Books only used once can be put in notes rather than being repeated twice. It improves readership and is less clunky. Also, some books listed in references have the titles repeated in the notes section. I have removed the book titles from Notes. About whether to not put books in the Reference section that are only used once, is this optional? It seems simpler to me to in the References section list all books used, even if they're only used once. But if this is quite frowned upon, I can remove them. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) There's nothing set in stone either way, but I encourage books only used once to be put in Notes rather than repeated twice. It is less clunky and makes for more streamlined articles. Aaliyah for example improved pretty well because of it. It's up to you at the end of the day. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) If you're going to use [harvnb], do it for all books or none for uniformity's sake. But sort out the above point first. RB88 (T) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed - thanks for pointing it out. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Tropical Storm Marco (1990) Nominator(s): Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) and Hurricanehink 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have done an all-over look of an old friend (now-retired Hurricanehink) editor's article. He offered me to nominate it, and I accepted it. All comments are welcome. NOTE: I will add Alt Text as soon as possible. Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC) ALT Text is now in.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Alt text is good (thanks), except the alt text for File:Klaus Marco Rainfall Amounts.gif should briefly say the gist of the map (where did most of the rain fall? and how much rain was it?) rather than giving irrelevant details such as color. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) - In ==Preparations== it says "the Tampa Bay" - is an "area" supposed to be at the end of that or does the "the" need to be deleted? Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Something odd about the construction of this sentence, suggest revision; "With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida during its duration, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm force winds across western Florida." Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Watch out for excess commas. Many sentences are a bit choppy due to that. Care to point some of these sentences out?Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't there be an ==Aftermath== section? If not, why not. Klaus and Marco, since the two had an unusual interaction, caused rather little, outside of rainfall and about $30 million in damage.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comments - Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) All done. :) - Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This was not nominated for intent of the WikiCup, which I've been pretty quiet in. This is strictly to get rid of this blasted streak of FA-less in a year.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—Poor linking practices.

Why is "United States" linked? And twice???? Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "during its duration"? Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Rather than bunch linked words, this would be neater: Louisville, Georgia. Same for the other duplets. Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Why are "inches" and "mm" linked? Why is Cuba linked twice? Why is "atmosphere" linked? Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "Prior to the arrival of the storm"—bit ungainly. "Before the storm arrived"? Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Chain link again: "Florida Governor" must surely appear as a link at the top of the Bob Martinez article. Why link both. Just the more specific one, please. Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I'd have thought no need for "USD" at all. Certainly not $ and D. And why repeated three times in one line? We got it the first time, and didn't even need it then. This is for inflation mainly, because the prices are written in 1990 US Dollar and the inflation is there for the 2009. I got most of these.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) cold-front linked again. Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "President" doesn't need a link: it's bunched next to the guy's name. Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) MOSDASH: unspaced en dash please. Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Hidden link (2008). Why not put it 3 cm below in See also, not hidden? Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending Support

Overall, nice article, interesting but it needs some prose work. With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm-force winds over land. ..... Ummmmm, and wouldn't we expect that a tropical storm would produce tropical storm force winds? How about produced winds of 100 mph over land? Or something like that. The Lead mentions nothing about the peculiar interaction with Hurricanes Klaus and Lili, although this seems to be a specific feature of this TS. Suggest adjustment to the lead to reflect this. in section on development, it needs to be clearer how Tropical Depression 15 absorbed Klaus. ...while located northeast of Cuba. The TS? Or the the NHC? tracked along the coast of Cuba.... tracked parallel to the coast of Cuba before veering northward and crossing the Florida Keys? next paragraph: you just use just a few too many times to just make complete sense. Perhaps don't use it at all? It's one of those fluffy words. and by six hours after its peak intensity Marco reached a position about 6 miles (10 km) west of Bradenton Beach; .... I don't understand this. For six hours, after it reached its peak intensity, it traveled from Englewood to Bradenton Beach, a distance of how many miles (I don't think it's far). And why is peak intensity important here? Was it declining by the time it reached Bradenton? much of its circulation was over land,[2] and initially the storm was forecast to move ashore between Fort Myers and Sarasota.[4] However, the cyclone continued northward just offshore, and weakened to a tropical depression just prior to making landfall near Cedar Key early on October 12.[2] .... When it reached Bradenton Beach, most of its mass circulated over land. Initially, forecasters predicted the storm would move ashore between Fort Myers and Sarasota. However, it continued northward, the center remaining offshore, and weakened to a tropical depression prior to making landfall near Cedar Key early on October 12. Because much of its inner circulation had crossed over Saint Petersburg as a tropical storm, Marco was considered a tropical storm direct hit for the United States, the only of the year for the country; had it not been considered a direct hit, the season would have been the first since 1890 without a tropical storm or hurricane direct hit on the nation. .... this makes no sense to me. how does a hurricane accelerate and weaken at the same time. What does this mean? (It moves faster, but produces less wind and rain?...faster but produces less wind, more rain? With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida during its existence, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm force winds across western Florida.... see above. So these are the kinds of problems throughout the article. I'll expect you can find these yourself. This said, however, it 's very interesting and I'm looking forward to supporting it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Sam Loxton Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This fellow was notable for being an Australian Test crickeer from 1948 to 1951, yes he was in the Invincibles, he also played top-flight Australian rules football and was a politician for the Liberal Party of Australia for 24 years. He served as a cricket administrator for two decades, overseeing the Australian tour of Pakistan and India in 1959-60, which was successful. Since then, Australia have only won one Test in Pakistan and two series in India YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The political section is woeful. One small paragraph jammed in the middle of the "Later life" section for a 24-year career. Rebecca (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Are we looking at the same article? No "Later life" section here, and three paragraphs on Loxton's political career in the "Off the field" section. Not being an Australian I can't judge whether his political career was particularly notable, but it is as a cricketer, not as a politician, that he is most widely known. You wouldn't expect to find extensive stuff in the Bradman article about his career as a stockbroker, would you? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I just went on Google News and did a search for him between 1954 and 1980, one year before the start and after the end of his career. There were around 190 hits, and less than 10% of these are about his politics. The other 90% was about the latter stages of his playing career (as he still played while an MP) or his work as a cricket administrator during the same time. According to MS Word's word count, 2300 characters in the main body are about politics, out of a total of 14,573 in the total characters for 1954-80, so the political coverage is punching above its weight already (15%). It only adds another two sentences to what is already there: that he was the youngest MP when he was first elected, and that they let him make the first speech of the parliament, and that he had a strong personal following at then when he retired his party lost lots of votes and the seat. It also said that he was "low key" representative; he was a backbencher, out of around 40 Liberals in Parliament, and he was also away for about three months of the year still playing cricket, managing the team (4 months in India), watching the players and selecting them so it's not surprising that he wasn't driving the political scene in Victoria. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC) scraped out some more from all Google news had to offer, but the politics section is not disproportionately small YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Still waiting for Rebecca to reply YellowMonkey(bananabucket) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) From her user page it seems as though Rebecca has left the project. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) She hasn't updated her userpage since coming out of retirement, which was a while ago, and voted in another FAC just now YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I consider the the section relating to Loxton's parliamentary term to be more than adequate. Loxton was never a prominent MP and more detail could be seen as undue weight. If members of WP:AUSPOL wish to write it, a spin out article about his obscure backbench career could be developed. Just another point, use of the term "primary vote" is likely to be confusing to US readers, given the US system of primary elections. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Read through the 1948 England Tour:

"kicking a total of 114 goals before his retirement at end of the 1946 season to concentrate on his cricket career." Add another "the" after "at"? (Not sure if other prose reviewers would consider the change wordiness or not) Early and war years: "at Wesley College, Melbourne, and elite private boys' school." "and" has one letter too many. "First-class and Test cricket: Should "a" be inserted into "before going off to hospital with concussion"? I'm not familiar with British English that much, so I don't know if you would put it before "concussion" or not. Might as well ask about it. Invincibles tour: "Loxton's attempts to break into the first-choice team was hampered by a groin strain he suffered...". "was" → "were". "before scraping home without further loss after Yorkshire dropped both batsmend." Should the last letter be there? My lack of cricket knowledge strikes again. Italics for Wisden Cricketers' Almanack? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Changing all except hospital. In things like going to work/school/university, the definite article isn't needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: — Why aren't some single digit numbers spelt out? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a rule that when you have a group of numbers together, they are all spelt out or numbered, so "3 and 43" not "three and 43", as "three and forty-three" would be mroe of a hassle YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Support - Some may find this too comprehensive, however. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note for the record: There are no images in this article, so no image review is necessary. There is a single graph, which is obviously user-created and appropriately licensed. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support – My comments above were all addressed, and I went through the rest, tweaking a few other things. Yet another well-written, well-referenced cricket article. And yes, I think the section on his political career is adequate. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Leaning to support This article is stunning...in a lot of ways. I'm concerned about (1) Jargon; (2) loaded lead; (3) did I mention jargon? and (4) some awkwardness of the wording. examples (just from the lead) awkwardness he reached his greatest heights on the cricket field....heights? perhaps his greatest achievements? greatest acclaim? a further seven seasons before... seven more seasons jargon right-handed all-rounder belligerent middle-order batsman.... is belligerent good? Usually it isn't. I understand that since I know next to nothing about Aussie footie, or any kind of cricket, much of this sounds like jargon, but I suspect that a lot of it is. In particular, I found the lead nearly inaccessible. It is also really long, and perhaps has more detail than it needs. While I appreciate the editors' enthusiasm for the subject, perhaps less is more, in this case. I could not distinguish the most important achievements from the mere achievements. I gather this guy was the cricket and footie equivalent of Michael Jordan and John Elway. Multiple sport players, and good at nearly everything. I've linked the jargon in the lead. I forgot to link the lead and only did the body before that. At the time Australian rules football was only played in southern Australia, and they didn't have a national league, he played in a state league. In the old days there were many elite multi-sportspeople. That should take care of it as I can't explain the rules of cricket in the article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) verb problems, and general prose issues The younger Sam started his education at Yarra Park State School, where he learned to bat while a pine tree in the yard served as the stumps; the tree was used for the same purpose years earlier by Test players Vernon Ransford and Ernie McCormick, and long-serving Victorian player Jack Ledward Sam Jr. (parallel to Sam Sr.) learned to bat using a pine tree in the yard as the stumps; the tree had been used for the same purpose years earlier by Test players... question, the same tree? is the yard at the school? or at his home? or somewhere else? By yard, do you mean playground (school yard), or garden? since there is no article for Collingwood Cricket Club, perhaps at this point, write it out? the family then moved to Armadale, and young Loxton attended Armadale Public School before completing his secondary education at Wesley College, Melbourne, then? perhaps in XXXX, or just, the family moved.. The boys’ school coach was P. L. Williams, a renowned mentor of teenagers. Williams had earlier coached Ross Gregory and future Test captain Lindsay Hassett The boys's school coach, P.L. Williams, a renowned mentor of teenagers, had earlier coached Ross Gregory and future Test captain Lindsay... cucumber sandwiches? the staple of cricket teams? is this like pizza for Little Leaguers? Loxton was a kid during the Great Depression, and during and after WWII the economic situation was not great. At first-class and international matches there were anecdotes of the official lunchh catering being purely salads and a slice of ham. I don't think diverging to explain the food rationing is needed here with respect to Mrs Loxton's offerings YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) So it seems to me that the article needs just another run through with a copy editing pencil -- perhaps Ian can do that, or YM, but there are enough awkward points and clause confusion, modifiers, and participle problems that it probably could use another pair of knowledgeable eyes, if we are to say that this is some of WP's best writing. That said, I like the enthusiasm of the article, which is why I'm Leaning toward Support Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'll continue with this YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Comments: Being Australian I guess I don't notice any jargon as much as others might, so I'm probably not the best person to effect a copyedit for that. What I have done is gone through about half the article to reduce a tendency to use the guy's name in every second sentence. YM, if you could go through the rest yourself in a similar vein it'd be a good idea. Aside from that the general prose looks good to me, as with the referencing. Pity about no images... When I searched for "Sam Loxton" at Picture Australia I found a portrait from 1947, which is therefore PD-Australia but not PD-1996. However I wonder whether you couldn't ask the National Archives for a release under GNU; I did it once for a military pic and they agreed to at least say they considered it public domain world-wide, which was good enough for OTRS. Failing that, you might have a case for fair use, since you have no other images of him at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I've emailed them, hopefully it comes eventually although I don't consider a portrait to be critical except to show his face, which doesn't add to the understnading much. I've switched the words around by referring to him by various other things, as I didn't want to use he over and over YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Petlyakov Pe-8 Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a Milhist ACR and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (and who has looked at earlier images and can be presumed to know what a Petlyakov Pe-8 looks like). Problematic phrases include "Soviet", "ruble", "from 1945", and "CPA #989". Please remove these phrases or move them to the caption, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Perhaps you could transcribe the text in that stamp instead, as per WP:ALT#Text? Phrases that could be transcribed include "ПОЧТА СССР" "1 РУБ", "Петляков-8", and "тяжелый бомбардировщик". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Well, the phrases are Mail USSR, 1 Ruble, Petlyakov-8 and something bomber (Google won't translate the first word). So the verifiability issues are 1945 and CPA #989? I suppose I can always delete them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid that we can't assume that the reader of the Wikipedia article knows Russian, so the alt text should give the Russian, and the caption can give the English translation as needed. The caption is available to both visually impaired and sighted readers, and it should contain any English translation so that both sets of readers can see the translation. (Please see WP:ALT#Goal for alt text vs captions.) Yes, it's probably best to delete the 1945 and the CPA #989. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I would help you translate Russian words or sentences into English if you explain to me what you want (I didn't meet with ALT before this). For example, "ПОЧТА СССР" means "Post of USSR" or "USSR Post" just like "Почта России" means "Russian Post"; "1 РУБ" means "1 Ruble", the Russian currency; "тяжелый бомбадировщик" means "heavy bomber". CPA is the Soviet Union stamp catalogue. Tell me what you want and I'll help you. --RoadTrain (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your kind offer. I guess that what I need now is a citation for the catalog # and the date of release. If you happen to have access to one and can furnish the necessary information that would be most excellent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the translations, but the point is that the alt text should report only the original text, and any translations should be put into the caption so that both sighted and visually impaired readers get the translations. See, for example, the image in July 2009 Ürümqi riots #Arrests and trials: its alt text says the banner reads "维护法律尊严，严惩犯罪分子" and its caption translates this to "Uphold the sanctity of the law, and severely punish the criminals". Eubulides (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm. I think that I did understand what you need. You can't use the detailed description text giving at commons: "Почтовая марка СССР 1945 года: тяжёлый бомбардировщик Пе-8. ЦФА #989, 1 рубль, гашёная." as you must cite the only text on the image, right? Then it will be: "Тяжелый бомбардировщик Пе-8, ПОЧТА СССР, 1 РУБ". It's equal to "The heavy bomber Pe-8, USSR Post, 1 Rub".--RoadTrain (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How's this now?

There was a typo that messed up the formatting. I fixed it, and while I was at it, transcribed the text more accurately, removed a bit of confusion in the caption, and used "upright" to avoid having the picture be smaller than the 300px that some users prefer. That should do it for alt text; thanks again for your help. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose 'Comments. A very informative article, but the prose still needs some work. A few examples: "... a bomber that could carry 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 4,500 km (2,800 mi) at a speed greater than 440 km/h (270 mph) from an altitude of 10,000 metres ...". From an altitude? Fixed "The engine cooling system was revised to alleviate the problem with the aerodynamics of the outer engine nacelles ...". What problems with the aerodynamics? This is the first we're told of any problems. Do you think I should spell out all of the issues encountered by the prototype and then list the changes made to fix them? No, I think that you ought to have explained earlier that there were problems with the aerodynamics instead of introducing this non sequitor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Done. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) "The control system revised, an autopilot fitted and the electrical system was redesigned." Should that be "was revised"? It should indeed. "Other changes included the deletion of the 'beard' ...". Deletion seems a strange choice of word in this context. What do you suggest? Dropped, discarded. Deleted seemed OK to me. "The exhaust arrangements of the ASh-82 were not compatible with the guns in the rear of the engine nacelles and they were deleted." Which were deleted? The exhaust arrangements or the guns? Yeah, unclear antecedent there. "When Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941 only the 2nd Squadron of the 14th Heavy Bomber Regiment (TBAP—Tyazholy Bombardirovochnyy Avia Polk), based at Borispol[15] was equipped with nine TB-7s ...". So other squadrons were equipped with either more or less than nine? OK, rewritten "... the others landing elsewhere or crash-landing in Finland and Estonia." So they managed to crash twice, once in Finland and then again in Estonia? Multiple planes, multiple landing sites. "He was forced to turn around after a fuel tank was punctured and crash-landed in southern Estonia." So his fuel tank crash-landed, but what about the rest of the plane? OK "By the eve of the Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad, Operation Uranus on 8 November the regiments had fourteen Pe-8s on hand ...". Is there a comma missing here? Yep "During the early part of the battle, the long-range aviation units continued to strike targets in the German rear areas during the night ...". Awkward repetition. Fixed, thanks for your comments, they've been very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I'd like to see the whole thing looked at again, as I just gave a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments. I'm no image expert, in fact some days I can hardly even bother to open my eyes, so feel free to ignore my comments, but I do have a few concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in this article. For instance, the image in the infobox is claimed to be in the public domain, but I see no justification for that claim. Which of the Russian PD rules apply in this case? Similarly with this one. If the author is unknown, then how can the PD claim under Armenian law be supported? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Beats me. The Russian revision to their copyright law appears to reassert copyright over almost all WW2-era images which had previously been out of copyright. And I don't know what to do about the Armenian image. I guess I'll have to ask on the Village pump for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I don't have to address this question, you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) <sarcasm>Really? I hadn't known.</sarcasm>Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see any point in this. I don't think the article meets the FA criteria, and I'm not about to argue with you about that. If the issues I've raised aren't addressed then I will be opposing this article's promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) As you wish. I'm still waiting for a response at the Village Pump on the image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Based on the comments at the Village pump I've dropped one image and loaded the other here to change the license to FU.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Elcobbola can be consulted on Russian image concerns; he knows that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Why don't you replace the nonfree infobox image with the free stamp image? What does the infobox image show (that the stamp image doesn't) that justifies using a non-free image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Because I believe that a photo is always preferable to a drawing. The stamp is kinda neat, but doesn't come close to replacing a photo, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) That's not enough according to WP:NFCC, esp #8. I think the photo should be replaced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I take that back, because even the copyright status of the stamp is dubious. There are hundreds of Soviet stamps like this at commons, but I think they'll all be deleted eventually. The template used has nothing to do with stamps. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Read my comments to mav below; how is a stamp not equivalent to a banknote which is explicitly permitted under Russian copyright?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Comments - I assume that the Air International ref is the "Pe-8" article in the bibliography? Best to list the footnote closer to the style in the bibliography Hard to do since no authors are given for the article. Should I stay with journal title or switch to article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I'd do "article title" Journal title myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I did not review the russian language refs for reliablity. Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC) The "Post-war use" section seems rather thin. In particular, are any of these aircraft known to still be around? --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Nope, no survivors. Info on Cold-War era use for any Soviet aircraft is a bit thin on the ground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Question can you explain what the ilpilots and allaces cites are? I couldn't read the main page, but the website does look amateurish YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC) ilpilots is the Statistical Digest of the VVS during WW2 while allaces are regimental histories with citations. Be advised Google translate may show ilpilots as an attack site, but it isn't. Just use one of the other translation sites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending Support. Support This is an informative and well done article. Storm's reputation in the Military History Project is a solid one, and although I know little about this area of military history, I've reviewed some of the sources, and they look good to me. These are consistently sources that show up in other Soviet aircraft articles (although he/she does those as well). This article is well-written, with a few minor stumbles, and interesting to read. I'd recommend a couple of tweaks to it, which I have listed on the talk page of the article, rather than to clutter this space and check back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Storm has addressed the points I brought up on the article page, or is addressing them to my satisfaction. I've read the comments below about passive voice, and although I agree that usually the passive voice is bad, in the Soviet structure, it would be extremely difficult to put a specific name on a set of orders, unless it was Stalin's. The collective ideology transformed all decisions into the decisions of the people. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support pending addressing/resolving these points:

"The decision was made to proceed without it" has passive voice. Please tell us who made the decision or revise. My source doesn't identify who made that decision: "It was decided to build the TB-7 without this vital component, although without it the machine lost its major advantage of high speed at high altitude."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Somebody more familiar with image copyright needs to do a review of File:Pe-8.jpg and File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg. Pe-8.jpg was at first claimed to be PD but now has a fair use rationale, yet has no mention of original source or author. It is also not clear to me that USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg is covered by the Russian PD law. Source and author of Pe-8.jpg are unknown and probably unknowable at this stage since the original uploader didn't put either on the original image. Here's the discussion at the Pump. As for the stamp, it would seem to fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}} because a stamp is functionally equivalent to a banknote as a symbol of the state. And that's how it's licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. Interesting, but not well-written. Please get an experienced copyeditor to go through this. It needs more than light attention—a lot of the sentences need to be completely rewritten. Examples just from the top: The very first sentence is clumsy, owing to its lack of parallel structure: "The Petlyakov Pe-8 was ... a <noun phrase> <passive verb>" and then "the <noun phrase> <subject> <active verb>" I don't agree. "it was used to bomb Berlin in August 1941" since you wedged the time here, does it not apply to the other qualifiers? When did it bomb other cities? It bombed Berlin that one time, at a time when the Soviets were retreating like mad during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, and scored major propaganda points for the Soviets. Something that it continued to do for the next several years even though these raids were militarily ineffective. But I did clarify the timeline. The last sentence in that para: Why cram the whole bit about Molotov into the same sentence as the main mission? The resulting sentence is so long that we've forgotten the point we started with, "primary mission" Umm, because it's a contrast to its normal duties? And how about easing up on the hyperbole; you're not helping your case with it. Sorry. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC) "The loss rate to all causes doubled" Jargon requires linking or explanation. Most readers will not connect with "loss rate to all causes". Everybody else seems to have understood it just fine. Don't think loss rate is jargon. Pretty self-explanatory, IMO. FAC reviewers are definitely not representative of our general audience. They tend to have college degrees and be familiar with jargon owing to the number of FA candidates reviewed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC) "Sources disagree when exactly this happened" Confusing double entendre. Double entendre? Explicate, please. But I have rephrased this regardless. Could be read: "The sources disagreed at the time "exactly this" happened. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC) The remaining lead: How were they removed to service but also being using in transportation, testing, and Arctic missions? That sounds like service to me. True, but not service with combat units which I've clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I didn't make it out of the lead, but hopefully I've illustrated the need for more work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this image might even be better than the one we currently have to illustrate both the sculpture s underside and welds I support replacing that photo and will gladly make the switch if there

World War Wiki

Deleted from Wikipedia - Featured article candidates/Requests ...
This is a copy of the page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 (other versions), which Wikipedia has deleted (about deletion) ...
deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?...

review says the module has a cover that reveals the secret of the creatures I also believe it s based on the blaster gun and the high tech gas mask that one of the party members is waring here s a bigger image of the cover I ll think about how to best word it or if someone has an idea I m all ears Thanks Peregrine Fisher talk contribs 19 50 28 July 2009 UTC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton/archive1 ...
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton/archive1. From Wikipedia, the free ... Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in ...
surfingincognito.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRp...

Who s your daddy http www nodulo org ec 2002 n003p10c jpg

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2005 ...
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2005 ... This article definately fits the criteria for a featured article. It is well laid out, ...
timesharetalk.co.uk/wiki.asp?.../Featured_log/July_2005

I was going to add this image PD artist died over 100 years ago to the art section but I now see the referencing is a little weak on it That web source doesn t specifically mention A muscaria or even

Featured Facts (Linguistics, Feature Requests) @ Wretchedness.com
For featured articles in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Featured articles and featured article candidates For feature requests relating to the MediaWiki ...
www.wretchedness.com/featured/encyclopedia.htm

Is this the sort of thing you re after Giggy talk 04 21 3 October 2008 UTC

-sujay+
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. From Wikipedia, the free ... images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in ...
students.wharton.upenn.edu/~svennam

With daddy http www nrk no img 467538 jpeg

A possible image to include that is mentioned in that source would be Ruebzahl by Moritz von Schwind

the Kansas City Monarchs were the one and only Negro Leagues team Robinson played for Also here s a widely published and I believe superior fair use image of Robinson with the Monarchs 2 and contextualized with info 3 DocKino talk 05 24 25 May 2009 UTC

are decorative only There s little point to them We already know what she looks like and arguably better from the two free images on the article one of which is very high resolution 1 With Image EmmaWatsonBalletShoes jpg we can t even discern her face We don t need the two fair use images in this case I was surprised that Image EmmaWatsonBalletShoes jpg was not

Ah well you obviously haven t looked at as many of them as I have Breasts are certainly a big focus if you ll pardon my phrasing but see this this or this for example I didn t want to be specific about body parts a spacesuit that reveals expanses of belly and thigh in addition to barely covering the breasts is ludicrous on multiple