Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2008: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Featured log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:06, 4 June 2008 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,026 edits promote 6← Previous edit Revision as of 00:47, 7 June 2008 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,026 edits promote 2Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
== June 2008 == == June 2008 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nimrod Expedition}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Common Treecreeper}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Common Treecreeper}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/White-winged Fairy-wren}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/White-winged Fairy-wren}}

Revision as of 00:47, 7 June 2008

June 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 .

Nimrod Expedition

This is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British Antarctic expeditions of the early 20th century. Its three predecessors (Discovery Expedition (main page 1st May), Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition have all been promoted to FA. I have tried to apply lessons learned from these earlier FAC experiences to the production of this article, which has completed a peer review. Because these expeditions tended to follow a standard formula, and were basically covering the same territory, some of the material in this article will be familar to long-suffering reviewers who have patiently worked through the earlier articles. However, there are sufficient divergences among these stories to make each expedition memorable. The Nimrod Expedition, in particular, stands in sharp contrast to Captain Scott's formal, hierarchical and ultimately disastrous Royal Navy affairs - an adventure on a shoestring that exceeded all expectations. Thank you.

Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. The few links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. You have managed to bring the expedition back to life in a vibrant and exciting article. GrahamColm 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved GrahamColm 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few minor edits to remove a little redundancy. Please double-check the copyright status of the photograph of the expedition hut—I see it is "a scan from a film". This sentence seems ungrammatical, The only possible reason for any doubt about the farthest south was that after 3 January, when the latitude was fixed by observation at 87°22', all further computation was on a dead reckoning basis (course , speed and elapsed time). The use of farthest south as a noun here and below sounds strange to my ears. Apart from this and with regard to Criterion 1, the prose is certainly professional and engaging. GrahamColm 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Re picture: It seems that the image was uploaded to Commons by its creator - see User:Mbz1/Mbz1 gallery/Picture Gallery Arctic, Antarctica and Sub-Antarctic Islands - "copies of my old film prints". Its use under GNU seems permissable to me, but someone with a better grasp of image copyright may advise differently. I'll ask.
  • "Farthest south" is often used as a noun in Antarctic accounts, e.g. "Scott's farthest south", "Shackleton's farthest south", etc. Having said that, although I think that the sentence is not ungrammatical, it is clumsy and twisty. I am rewording it into two sentences, and adding a bit for clarity.
Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • "had been invalided home" — I must admit, I am not too familiar with the word "invalid" as a verb. Answers.com says it's "Chiefly British" — perhaps this can be reworded?
    • It's common enough usage here, and it's in the sources. However, I've reworded: "had been sent home from the Antarctic in 1903 after a health breakdown". That should clarify meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "He had not wanted to leave" → "He did not want to leave"?
  • I don't know the definition of certain words, such as prospectus, and I'm sure others don't, either as these are not commonly used words; at least, not to me. Could you at least link them, and maybe explain them a bit if possible?
    • I have changed "prospectus" to "programme". The link on prospectus isn't helpful, and I'm not so enamoured of the word as to want to keep it, especialy when it may cause confusion. Until I have further details of the other words that you don't understand, I can't take action on your request, but will respond when able.Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "£17,000" → "GBP£17,000"
    • I've yet to see the GBP£ formulation, or indeed a USD$ formulation, in an article. No doubt they exist, but not commonly. I have linked the first mention of £ in this article. Please tell me if you think this insufficient.
      • I take that back - I've now found US$ on several occasions. So I'll adopt GBP£17,000.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "(2008 approximate equivalent £850,000)" perhaps "(equivalent to approximately £850,000 in 2008)" to make it easier to read?

These are only in the first section, also. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you will have more to say, later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The above are just samples. It is suggested that a thorough copyedit by an involved editor be made. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by an "involved" editor. Involved in what way? If you mean in the article's production, that's basically me, and I've edited the thing until my eyes hurt. I believe that any article, at whatever state of development, is capable of improvement. However, a general request for further "thorough" copyediting, which suggests serious problems but doesn’t clarify what they are, is not particularly helpful. What, exactly, do you think this new copyedit should be focussing on? You obviously have issues with this article, and I would like to resolve them with you, but I can't do this via a guessing game. If it is largely a question of language, then I need to know the actual words or terms that perplex you, so that I can make some judgement about them. Or about whatever else it is that you think needs improving. I don't mind how lengthy the list is, as long as it's actionable in some way. (And if you can say anything positive about the article, so much the better.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant uninvolved, my mistake. I'm going to strikeout for now. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments regarding images. I corrected licenses and re-sourced several images. The following issues remain:
    • Image:Sir William Beardmore.jpg: PD-Old is inappropriate, as it's a life of author criterion (the author is not known, so we can't determine PD based on his/her lifetime). Source page says "Sir William Beardmore ... sketched after he was raised to the peerage as Lord Invernairn in 1921" (emphasis added), which is troublesome as 1923, for example, is after 1921 (works published before 1.1.1923 fall to PD). Also, the date is only an assertion of creation, not the date of first publication.
      • So, if I can obtain proof that this was published before 1.1.1923 we can keep, otherwise it has to go? The image is not that important to the article, but I will investigate.
    • Image:Marshallwildshack1909.jpg source claims date of creation, but how can we confirm it was published, not just in existence, before 1.1.1923?
      • This is a rather more important image, and it's somewhat frustrating. The photograph appears in my copy of Shackleton's Heart of the Antarctic, published 1911, which should render it fireproof - or so I thought. But, looking at it just now, I see that in the book the figure on the right is in a marginally different position. So the photograph I have used in the article is not the one in the book, published in 1911. I am now trying to establish when "my" photograph was first published, and alternatively, looking for an image of the photograph in the book which I can upload. It's most tiresome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I have replaced this image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The replacement has verifiability issues (WP:IUP). The source link is corrupt (address contains /.../ where, I assume, additional address information should be) and the link is directly to the image itself, not a site on which it is used from which we could glean copyright information. If the image appears in Heart of the Atlantic, providing the bibliographical information would suffice. I didn't see the image in Google Books' 1909 version of Heart of the Atlantic, but I assume I missed it or it was added later in the 1911 edition. I uploaded Image:Northernparty.png and Image:Northernpartyplateau.png as book-cited examples (I realize these depict different people/locations). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I am most grateful for your investigations and comments. Of your 2 uploads, the first is the Magnetic Pole party, which can now go into the Northern Party section of the article in place of the marginal glacier photo. I will use the bibliographical information, as you suggest, for the farthest south image. I hope that will settle image issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The huts image (Image:The Historic Hut - Cape Royds.jpg) seems ok, as the claimed author and uploader are the same person. It's perhaps odd that author is scanning it from their own print and that it is B/W when the rest of the series is in color, but those are just curiosities. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: This is an excellent article that I believe meets all the criteria with the possible exception of the unresolved image questions discussed above. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a heavily-involved editor who did a peer review of the article on 14 May. I also did a top-to-bottom copyedit today in response to suggestions made in the discussions above. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I enjoyed the article when I peer reviewed it. I found some picky stuff, which was corrected. The finer points of grammar sometimes pass me by, so I can't swear that it's perfect grammatically or spelling wise. Sources are good, but the poor pony! (sniffles). Another good one Brian. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 .

Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

An article about the Vietnamese Nationalist Party that was active mainly in the early 20th century. Best known for the failed Yen Bai mutiny that attempted to establish a general uprising and independence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support for an engaging, well-written and interesting contribution to the project.

Issues resolved GrahamColm 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I have made some minor suggestions, and here are some other concerns:

  • The genesis of the VNQDD was formed in the mid 1920s - is the use of genesis and formed tautology? (I hope I've spelt that correctly because I want to use it again later)
  • French labor recruiter - I thought the article was written in Brit. Eng. until I saw this.
  • Although the membership of the perpetrators was unclear, the French authorities attributed the killing to the VNQDD and launched a crackdown, arresting between 300 and 400 of the approximately 1,500 members. I suggest this sentence needs to be turned inside out. The French authorities attributed the killings to the VNQDD, (although the membership of the perpetrators was unclear), and launched a crackdown, arresting......
  • VNQDD forces combined with a mutineering by Vietnamese troops in the French colonial army, attempting to spark a widespread revolt against - the structure of this sentence poor.
  • The aims of the business were to achieve commercial success and promote revolutionary means of gaining Vietnamese independence. - I don't like the promote revolutionary means but I can't think of how to rephrase it.
  • There was considerable debate over the platform and ideology of the party. - Is there tautology here or does platform and ideology mean two different things?
  • Agenda is plural, (but no deal-breaker)
  • There was a problem with Financial Problems, (according to my notes), but I might have fixed it in my edit.
  • We have labor again.
  • As a result, Nghiep's faction was driven from the Central Committee. As a result, some sources reported that Nghiep had formed his a breakaway party and began making secret contacts with French authorities.
  • Trials...to try.. more tautology?
  • Oh I see we have labour here.

I enjoyed reading this article and I look forward to adding my support later. GrahamColm 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made alterations to all of the points raised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we get some more information about the role of the VNQDD's role in post-independence politics? You state that the party is still respected as Vietnam's leading anti-communist organisation, but there isn't any mention of their current activities. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Seconded. Post-1954 activities barely mentioned in article. DHN (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I've included everything from Hammer, both of them, unless you want me to explain the 1962 bombing in full detail or the 1960 coup. Because the coup trial isn't really considered to be a big deal (trumped up by Diem) and the bombing was more ad-hoc rather than centrally organised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a sample history page. Obviously post-1954, the VNQDD had no army left to do much, whereas in the 1930s-40s they were the 1st-2nd largest group, which is why they aren't much of a factor in the history textbooks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Redlinks aren't part of the FA criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, red links are not a bad thing; they are to encourage others to write the articles, and they are a natural and desired part of Wiki articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Resp. to Sandy: yes, but not too many red links, please. There's a point beyond which they degrade the appearance and readability of an article. There's a requirement for a professional standards of formatting.

Changing to weak opposeSupport Diff since my last comment; nice work.—It would be good to have a thorough copy-editor sift through to ensure that all of the sentences are properly constructed, and the weed out the few remaining obvious glitches. These problems are from the lead, except for the last one, which came very easily from straying into the body of the article.

  • "Beginning in the 1928, the VNQDD began to generate attention ..."—the? How did that happen, and right at the top? "Attract", not "generate".
  • "The mutiny was quickly put down and the retribution was heavy."—the two ideas are very interdependent, yes? "The mutiny was quickly put down, with heavy retribution."? "Along with other leading figures, Hoc was captured and executed."—Reverse the order of the phrases.
  • "Ho soon went back on his word and purged the VNQDD as his communist-dominated Vietminh soon became unchallenged as the dominant anti-colonial militant organisation."—Is the first "as" a because or a while? I really can't tell, and it's a good reason to avoid "as" in that context. Two of them in one sentence is one too many, in any case.
  • "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which saw the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule." Again, the way the ideas are integrated into a sentence is an issue. Try this: "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule."
  • "The French colonial authorities were aware of the real purpose of the business and put it under surveillance, without taking further action." Where would the comma be better located? TONY (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Update These have been fixed and Nishkid is doing another review. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support per Tony, but also depending on whether more refs are added. It's always good for a FA to have as many refs as possible, so that nothing can be questioned. A sign of quality as a well-sourced article. Also, would the title include the Vietnamese spelling as well? Khoikhoi 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update If there was only one ref for a paragraph that was because it all came from that ref. I tend to ref anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Spot-check by request: "Money was needed to set up a commercial enterprise, which would be used as a cover for the revolutionaries to meet and plot, as well as and for raising funds . As such, a; for this purpose, hotel-restaurant named the Vietnam Hotel was opened in September 1928."
  • As plain as possible, please: "The first notable reorganisation of the VNQDD took place was in December"
  • Try to avoid the normally idle "some", and there's confusion as to whether the "scholar-gentry" were part of the landlord and wealthy peasant set: "There were some landlords and wealthy peasants among the membership, but few were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank." --> "Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.

This is one paragraph taken at random from the middle. Needs a good copy-editor to mould into the required professional-standard prose. TONY (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The prose is decidedly uneven, and often very choppy; it's not always clear how one sentence leads to the next. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but more would be much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now done some more copy-editing, and hope that I've managed to improve the prose. The article's pretty close, I think. I can't really speak to comprehensiveness; the sources are fairly limited in number (are there not more articles available?), and a couple are a little old, but generally they appear solid enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hammer and Duiker are still the standards for the French era. The French era doesn't get much attention unfortunately for us. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved Ruhrfisch ><>° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done some copyedits to the article, as requested (please feel free to revert / change any errors I introduced by mistake). Here are a few questions that I had reading and copyediting it:

    • Shouldn't the Origins section identify the French as the colonial power earlier in the section, perhaps in or near the phrase They aimed to promote violent revolution as a means of gaining independence for Vietnam ...
noted, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Same section Chinese Revolution is a link to the 1949 one, but this is the 1920s - please fix.
fixed, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Formation section - could even down to copying the KMT's name be made clearer? My understanding is that both names end in "National Party", but it took me a while to figure this out.
pointed out, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The end of the Initial activities section says ... a VNQDD death squad killed several French officials and Vietnamese collaborators ... but in the Assassination of Bazin section it says The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack .... How is Bazin (one death) a major attack, or why were the deaths of several French and Vietnamese minor?
I just removed the comparison, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Internal split ... section - should the verb "were" be singlular (i.e. "was", faction seems to be singular): In 1929, the VNQDD split when a faction led by Nguyen The Nghiep began to disobey party orders and were therefore expelled from the Central Committee. or is it ... began to disobey party orders and were therefore expelled ...?
singular I think, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Exile in Yunnan section - ... including some followers of Phan Boi Chau who had formed their own Canton-based VNQDD in 1925. Since the Viet Nam based VNQDD was founded in 1927, was it really the first such party (as is claimed earlier in the article)?
I removed the name of PBC's Canton org, since there were a few different names for this obscure thing. In any case, I changed the top part to "home-grown", weakening the claim made the book. It seems that the book forgot about the activities of Phan Boi Chau in exile before 1920. And I copied it without thinking.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Same section - since the Second World War started at different times for different countries, would it make sense to add a year to The remainder of the VNQDD was paralysed by infighting and began losing political relevance, with only moderate activity until the outbreak of World War II. (probably would say it started in 1937 in China?)
noted, pointed out that they fired up after the chaos of the Japanese invasion of VN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In the Post-independence section, I agree that there should be something about what the VNQDD did between 1963 (Diem's death) and 1973 (Fall of Saigon). The website cited above says they were in the political opposition mostly and that party members fought the Communists during the war - even a sentence or two on this would help.
noted, I pointed out there were many VNQDD in the ARVN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am close to supporting - hope my copyedits helped. Ruhrfisch ><>° 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, great work as always --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. Leaning toward supporting—I fixed a few issues as I was reading but one thing confused me. In the "Formation" heading you state that the VNQDD mostly consisted of teachers, government employees, and non-commissioned officers but few workers or peasants. In the "Initial activities" heading, you write that French intelligence had the members as students, merchants, and bureaucrats. You then outright state that the group included landlords and peasants. These seem at odds with each other.
    • Are you trying to illustrate that the French had their facts wrong?
Well they were from the same book, but the author didn't explicitly designate the intelligence as being wrong, although he made a statement that is not in accordance with the intelligence. So I htink implicitly yes, although I am not going to make it explicit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we supposed to assume that what the intelligence said was correct?
Per above, simply as their analysis, I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Is the second statement after the intelligence statement ("Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.") supposed to be attributed to the intelligence report also?
I did this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Additional comment - question that needs further explanation in the text: "The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack by apprehending all the party members they could find ..." How did the French determine that the VNQDD was responsible? --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I clarified that they just attributed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

Common Treecreeper

Self nomination, a bit shorter than usual, but has passed GA. To anticipate possible concerns, (a) this woodland species appears to have no cultural significance anywhere in Europe (b) whilst, like other woodland birds, this species will be taken as prey by species like Sparrowhawk and Tawny Owl (I've even found Treecreeper remains in a Tawny Owl pellet) it's so obvious that nothing I can find specifically refers to Common Treecreeper (c) similarly avian diseases and parasites Jimfbleak (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Problems with prose, fails criteria 1a.

  • The lead alone shows some poor prose, such as "Also known as Eurasian Treecreeper, or (in the British Isles where it is the only member of its genus) just Treecreeper, it is very similar to other treecreepers, having a curved bill, patterned brown upperparts, whitish underparts, and long stiff tail feathers which help it creep up tree trunks." - This is a very long sentence.
  • "All the treecreepers are similar in appearance, being small birds with streaked and spotted brown upperparts, rufous rumps and whitish underparts. They have long decurved bills, and long stiff tail feathers which provide support as they creep up tree trunks looking for insects." - 'Being' is poor word choice. 'Typically' would probably work better here.
  • "The Common Treecreeper is 12.5 centimetres (5 in) long and weighs 7.0–12.9 grams (0.25–0.46 oz) It has warm brown upperparts intricately patterned with black, buff and white, and a plain brown tail." - After (0.25–0.46 oz), you are missing a period (or, full stop).
  • These are just a few examples, the article needs an entire copyedit throughout by an editor new to the text.
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues
  • See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've rewritten the introduction to address the concerns there. The other issues have been fixed by GrahamColm and Casliber for which much thanks. "Typically" incidentally is not appropriate, since it implies that there are exceptions.

Support. I disagree, this is an engaging and well-written article. I have made some very minor edits but, apart from which, I found no problems with the prose except: The Common Treecreeper is non-migratory in west and south of its breeding range, however some northern birds move south in winter, and high-altitude breeders may descend to a lower level. - which needs some attention. Some may express concern that the citations are few, so be prepared to defend this. I suggest you double check the copyright status of the original Commons images. Don't assume that they are free simply because they are there. Thanks and well done - a damn good read. GrahamColm 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • thanks for the constructive edits and comment. I've now fixed migration. I have 26 journal articles I could use if necessary, but the content is, unsurprisingly, mostly covered in Harrap's major book on this group. However, if the number, rather than the content, of references becomes an issue, I can just replace some of the Harrap refs with the primary research papers (interestingly, another editor said it's better to use books than the papers where possible). Good idea wrt the images. The originals for the birds are GFDL, the tree is PD, and the ant is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License", which I think is OK. If not, the image is not essential. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Available books and articles if more refs needed, as per above.

Suorsa, P. et al. (2005) Thresholds in selection of breeding habitat by the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Biological Conservation 121: 443 - 452. Suorsa, P. et al. (2004) Effects of forest patch size on physiological stress and immunocompetence in an area-sensitive passerine, the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris): an experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society - Series B 271: 435 - 440.

Huhta, E. et al. (2004) Forest Fragmentation Increases Nest Predation in the Eurasian Treecreeper. Conservation Biology 18: 148 - 155.

Adamik, P. & Kornan, M. (2004) Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forest. Ornis Fennica 81: 13 - 22. Huhta, E. et al. (2003) Habitat-related nest predation effect on the breeding success of the Eurasian treecreeper. Ecoscience 10: 283 - 288. Suorsa, P. et al. (2003) Forest fragmentation is associated with primary brood sex ratio in the treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Proceedings of the Royal Society - Series B 270: 2215 - 2222. Jantti, A. et al. (2003) Nest defence of Eurasian treecreeper Certhia familiaris against the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major: only one parent is needed. Ornis Fennica 80: 31 - 37. Enemar, A. (2001) Weights of yolk body and hatchling in relation to the egg weight in the treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Ornis Svecica 11: 147 - 154.

Jantti, A. et al. (2001) Prey depletion by the foraging of the Eurasian treecreeper, Certhia familiaris, on tree-trunk arthropods. Oecologia 128: 488 - 491. Osiejuk, T.S. & Kuczynski, L. (2000) Song functions and territoriality in Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiaris and Short-toed Treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla. Acta Ornithologica 35: 109 - 116.

Aho, T. et al. (1999) Reproductive success of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, lower in territories with wood ants. Ecology 80: 998 - 1007. Osiejuk, T.S. (1998) Correlates of creeping speed variability in two species of Treecreepers. Condor 100: 174 - 177.

Enemar, A. (1997) The egg size variation of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 7: 107 - 120.

Aho, T. et al. (1997) Behavioural responses of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants. Animal Behaviour 54: 1283 - 1290. Gil, D. (1997) Increased response of the short-toed treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla in sympatry to the playback of the song of the common treecreeper C. familiaris. Ethology 103: 632 - 641. Aho, T. et al. (1997) Effects of male removal on female foraging behavior in the Eurasian treecreeper. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 49 - 53. Kuitunen, M. et al. (1996) Food availability and the male's role in parental care in double-brooded Treecreepers Certhia familiaris. Ibis 138: 638 - 643. Peach, W., Du Feu, C. & McMeeking, J. (1995) Site tenacity and survival rates of wrens Troglodytes troglodytes and treecreepers Certhia familiaris in a Nottinghamshire wood. Ibis 137: 497 - 507. Enemar, A. (1995) Incubation, hatching, and clutch desertion of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 5: 111 - 124.

Arevalo, J.E. & Gosler, A.G. (1994) The behaviour of treecreepers Certhia familiaris in mixed-species flocks in winter. Bird Study 41: 1 - 6. Kuitunen, M. & Aleknonis, A. (1992) Nest predation and breeding success in common treecreepers nesting in boxes and natural cavities. Ornis Fennica 69: 7 - 12.

Enemar, A. (1992) Laying and clutch size of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 2: 93 - 102.

Suhonen, J. & Kuitunen, M. (1991) Intersexual foraging niche differentiation within the breeding pair in the common treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Ornis Scandinavica 22: 313 - 318.

Hogstad, O. (1990) Winter territoriality and the advantages of social foraging in the treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Cinclus 13: 57 - 64.

Kuitunen, M. (1989) Food supply and reproduction in the common treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Annales Zoologici Fennici 26: 25 - 33. Norberg, R.A. (1986) Treecreeper climbing: mechanics, energetics, and structural adaptations. Ornis Scandinavica 17: 191 - 209.

Laurent, J.-L. (1984) Flocking by tits, goldcrests, firecrests and treecreepers during autumn and winter in the Alpes-Maritimes department of France, and their behaviour in searching food. Alauda 52: 126 - 144.


Comments Sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Comments just a couple of small things (Moral or otherwise) I disclose that I am a member of wikiproject birds, but I hadn't seen this article before FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Its song is the best distinction from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range. - scans oddly for me. Distinction I think of now in terms of university grades, how about "It can be most easily distinguished from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper, which shares much of its European range, by its song" or "Its song is the key to distinguishing it from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range" or something along those lines...(I know..I'm being really nitpicky but the article is good :))
reworded as per comment
The Brown Creeper has sometimes been considered to be a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, but has closer similarities to Short-toed Treecreeper, -'affinity' for 'similarities' here?
reworded as per comment
It is common through much of its range, but in the northernmost areas it is rare or local, - I guess 'local' here is 'localized' as in occurring in small pockets?
reworded, removed localised, since meaning conveyed by rare. Thanks for the constructive suggestions, jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Treecreepermap.png: image should provide a source for the range information. Also, this really is a terrible image (blurry map and disorderly, imprecise coloration - done in MS paint?). Given that featured articles are required to "exemplif our very best work", this image does not appear appropiate. Please consider a visit to the graphics lab (I don't know their turn around times) or, if the range source is online or could be provided, I'd be willing to make an alternative version. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources added -AFAIK, the map doesn't exist on-line. The range map is as accurate as these things ever are. The outline is from WP:MAPS, and seems to be all there is available for free use. The mapping is done with what I've got available, which doesn't include professional software or skills. I don't think a map is a requirement for FA - see Osprey and Cattle Egret, so is it best to just delete it? jimfbleak (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is better than no map. We could ask around for some other map drawers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is prepared to take it on, I could email scans of the BWP and Harrap maps jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, despite the fact that I wish I had a "rufous rump". I read the article earlier in the day and wanted to read it again. I went to lunch and told my partner I read this article, and when she quizzed me on it, I was able to tell her so much about the common treecreeper I stopped mid-recitation and realized I was yammering on about a bird I had never seen. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, it's a nice little bird, but unlikely to get to Florida. Your partner would be even more concerned if you did have a rufous rump (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

White-winged Fairy-wren

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is on par with other bird Featured Articles with respect to comprehensiveness and prose. I am keeping my fingers crossed for another image or two but there is little I can do if permission is not given, thus I do not see it as a deal-breaker. All comments and suggestions much appreciated into how I can improve this article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I am a member of the birds project, but not seen or edited this article prior to today.

  • The White-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) is a species of passerine bird in the Maluridae family. It is endemic to the dryer parts of central Australia, stretching from central Queensland and South Australia across to Western Australia, and is part of the large order of passerines. Passerine repeated (oops. missed that)
  • The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing two species this seems a bit detached from former mention of back (changed to "this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species" i.e. the parting of the feathers had confused experts into thinking there were two species of different plumage. clearer?)
  • Phylogenetic -link or gloss (linked. thanks Graham)
  • least concern should this be capped? (either that or italicised. done)
  • closer in distance = "closer" or "nearer" (well spotted. nearer it is)
  • Each clan has a specified area of land that all members contribute to foraging from and defending—although these orders may vary year to year. What orders? (I removed the clause as it is self-evident that roles (i.e. orders) will vary from time to time. Too vague as is and adds nothing)
  • Wing-fluttering – does it need the cap? (The book uses single quotes and capitalisation as they are terms coined for specific displays. I was following the convention)
  • ref 1 – retrieval date not linked
  • perhaps the lead could be split as three sentences? jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. As usual, I have made some suggestions, , (not all mine). I have a few quibbles:

Issues resolved GrahamColm 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species. - This is a long, can we have two sentences? (easy. no problem)
  2. it makes up a phylogenetic clade sister to the White-shouldered Fairy-wren... - Is sister a technical term? sort of. means 'next closest relative on evolutionary tree' really. I have changed it)
  3. they replace each other across northern Australia and New Guinea - I don't quite get this. (where the range of one birds ends, the other starts. They have minimal overlap - hence depending on which direction one travels in one replaces the other. If I add the adverb 'geographically', does that clarify it enough? Otherwise I am open to ideas)
  4. It was previously classified as a member of the old world flycatcher family Muscicapidae and later as a member of the warbler family Sylviidae before being placed in the newly recognised Maluridae in 1975. - I think a comma or two might help here. (done. well spotted. I coulda sworn they were there before.... :) )
  5. Least Concern - does this need defining? (I've wikied this jimfbleak (talk)
  6. At present, there are three possible situations from which the three races of White-winged Fairy-wren could have evolved. - Is situations the best word? (reworded to 'there are three theories as to how the three races..')
  7. What is a reel? (defined on Reel (disambiguation) and linked)
  8. M. l. leucopterus inhabits similar habitats on Dirk Hartog Island and M. l. edouardi does the same on Barrow Island. This might need some non-breaking spaces to stop the species names wrapping. (done)
  9. extra pair copulations - Is there a less cumbersome way of saying this? (reworded to 'While petal-carrying outside of clan territories strongly suggests mating with other females is occurring')
This is a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article. It would benefit from the addition of more illustrations, but I don't think this should prevent FA. GrahamColm 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OpposeSupport—the writing needs work. But it's the type of writing that will scrub up very nicely indeed with one to two hours' work by a copy-editor. Otherwise there are attractive things about this piece. These examples of glitches come from the lead alone. The whole article needs treatment.

  • "A white-winged fairy may be sexually promiscuous and each partner may mate with other individuals"? I'm shocked; but seriously, the last eight words puzzle me after "sexually promiscuous".
  • The old noun plus -ing problem: "it exhibits marked sexual dimorphism with one or more males of a social group adopting brightly coloured plumage during the breeding season". It's not grammatical; please see these exercises in fixing it. Here, I think ", in which ... adopt ...". There's another one in the lead, too: "Three subspecies are recognised, with one occurring ..."—Try a colon plus "one occurs ...". Can you audit for this construction throughout? (they seem to have been done now. everyone is chipping in...)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "... the male. The male ..."
  • "light-blue" and "bright-blue" as double adjectives, certainly in AusEng. (erm, okay then)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unclear causality: "As a result,"—the "small, inconspicuous" bit I guess is equated with the "sandy-brown" colour of the females? The reader has to work hard there. But just why their accompaniment by one blue older male results from a previously stated fact I can't fathom. TONY (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Reworded to "Younger, but sexually mature, males are almost indistinguishable from females and are the commonest breeding males. Thus a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens seen in spring and summer comprises a brightly coloured older male accompanied by a number of small, inconspicuous brown birds, many of which are actually males" - initially folks thought all the brown birds were female, and hence these type of birds were called mormon wrens) - better?
(I had combined predators, threats and threat-avoiding displays in a threats section. Shall I just leave it in a big behaviour section, or relabel predators and threats?)
I guess the predators and threats should go into a new top level section - population and status or suchlike, the distraction displays can stay under behaviour or possibly just dealt in the breeding part since the rodent run is associated with nesting. Shyamal (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have reorganized but left as a subheading, I figured if prey is a subheadding then predators could be too. I do like hierarchies of headings. No hugely fussed and I don't mind if you want to take the extra = off to make a full heading really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both island subspecies are nearer in distance to mainland populations of leuconotus than to each other; - The structure of the subsequent work suggests that the idea is to say that the islands are (physically/geographically) closer to the mainland than to each other and that they were connected to the mainland during glacial times and therefore that the populations are genetically closer to the mainland populations than to each other. I am not sure if that is what is meant and if it is coming through clearly due to the use of distance in both geographic and evolutionary senses. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Have made some copyedits to fix this. Hope there is no mutation in meaning. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. meaning remains unmutated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I have done a Google scholar check and am satisfied that most of the journal references have been reviewed and incorporated into the article to make it comprehensive and well referenced. Prose is good while images, video and audio media can be hoped for in the future. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a request in for images and am awating written replies. One can only hope...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 5 "Rowley & Russell (Families of the World) is lacking a publisher and publication date, could these be provided, oh, wait, I see it's finally given in ref 30. Perhaps you could move that to a "references section" for the used-more-than-once refs? Same for the Schodde ref?
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Both monographs from which multiple page refs were taken are now at bottom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! All done here! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support- First of all, I am a WikiProject Bird editor, but did not work with this article before a final go-through just before the FAC. All of my issues (outlined on the article's talk page) are now resolved, and I think that the prose is above the level now with the copyediting that has happened since Tony's comment. It is a thorough and complete article, and while more pictures would be nice, there are none available and I don't think that that should prevent the article from becoming an FA. Therefore, I support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • "the Maluridae family"? Wouldn't "the family Maluridae" (or "Maluridae, the XXX family") flow better? (done - I'm not fussed whether 'fairy-wren' is left in or out, whichever flows better)
  • "this species has a marked sexual dimorphism" or "this species has marked sexual dimorphism"? (removed 'a' and changed to 'displays', which was the verb used in all my bird books)
  • "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers and is smaller than the male, which, in breeding plumage, has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings" - I think this would do better split into two sentences, or perhaps "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers and is smaller than the male, which has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings when in breeding plumage." (duly split, well a semicolon anyway but can easily be a full stop)
  • "Younger, but sexually mature males are almost indistinguishable from females and are often the breeding males"; maybe "Younger sexually mature males are almost indistinguishable from females. These are often the breeding males". (yup, done)
  • "Thus a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens seen in spring and summer comprises a brightly coloured older male accompanied by small, inconspicuous brown birds, many of which are actually male." I'd say ditch the "Thus"; I think it would read better without it. ('k)
  • "Three subspecies are recognised, one is found on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia" - either "Three subspecies are recognised. One is found on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia" or "Three subspecies are recognised: one on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia". (oops, forgot to mention mainland form there. done anyway)
  • "The White-winged Fairy-wren, which mainly eats insects, is found in heathland and arid scrubland, where low shrubs provide cover" - I don't think "which mainly eats insects" belongs in the middle of a sentence on distribution. (duly splitted)

Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-spotted. I am happy for input into how I can improve the article :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Some more: Taxonomy

  • the last two paragraphs don't really flow with the first two. The first two paragraphs are historical, and the fourth para starts historical, but the third para is not. The statement that it is in the Maluridae is made (albeit indirectly) in the fourth para, so it doesn't need to be made in the third. I would suggest moving the fourth para up, and then merging the third para into it.
(moved para 3 past para 4 and changed beginning so it segues nicely.actually works quite well!)
  • Subspecies
  • why "at present"? If there were more subspecies, you should say so. If there is a move to change the number of rank of some groups, say so. Otherwise, "at present" is unnecessary. (there were historically more, but no future plans I know of)

Evolutionary history:

  • talking about genetic distance and then moving into physical distance is likely to confuse some readers.
  • "There are three theories" - no; three theories have been proposed/published/have attracted much attention.

Description:

  • I think that "nuptially plumed" either needs to be linked, or you need simpler language. I don't think "nuptially plumed" is accessible to our target readers.
  • "The White-winged Fairy-wren is particularly well adapted to dry environments"? Why "particularly? Relative to what? (ok, removed. Well, to other birds really but agree the 'particularly' is redundant)

Behaviour:

  • This sentence has too many distinct ideas: "Hopping, with both feet leaving the ground and landing simultaneously, is the usual form of locomotion, though birds may run when performing the rodent-run display" (switched and split)
  • "Clans have 2–4 birds, that typically consist of one brown or partially blue male and a breeding female" - how about "Clans consist of 2–4 birds, typically one brown or partially blue male and a breeding female" (I like it. done)

Feeding

  • I think the first sentence would be more readable if it were split into two. (into twain it shall be (well almost - I used a semicolon))

Courtship

  • "and many broods are brought up a by male other than the natural father"; how about "and many broods are brought up a by male who is not their natural father" (done)

Predators and threats

  • I don't understand this sentence: "Another threat to the birds is from humans; many nests are destroyed during breeding season by human habitation (and even the occasional bird watcher) because the nests are hidden close to the ground and therefore difficult for passers-by to spot"; how is "human habitation" a threat? (by trampling. In fact, that is a useful word which encompasses much of what was in the aforesaid sentence)

Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and support. Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I can't believe that Mr. Fungus writes articles about cute creatures. I read it over and I could find only one confusing statement which I fixed. Good article. OrangeMarlin 06:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • comment the section on vocalizations could use more citations. There are two sources given at the end there. It isn't clear to me which statements in that section are using which for citation. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(there have been two significant published articles on the vocalisations which found similar results (which I have stated at the beginning of the para). Rather than pepper several points with refs from either or both I felt both at the end. I figured it was better this way. If there is a consensus that it should have refs all the way through which will be repeated and sometimes duplicated then I will do it, but it won't be pretty... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. That's satisfactory as is then. Oh, and just to make it clear support. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The referencing bit can be tricky sometimes, though a long-term solution may be optional visible ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few piddly points

  • I think this bit "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers; it is smaller than the male, which, in breeding plumage, has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings." would be better split. It starts with the girls and moves on to the boys. (split. good pick up as I had forgotten female bill colour. kept the same order for flow)
  • Under taxonomy it doesn't quite hang together where it says it was called various kinds of Superb Warbler and then says "The White-winged Fairy-wren was originally named the Blue-and-white Wren,". (good pick up. changed as not original per se, just an older name)
  • In "description" you've used "molt" and "moult" in the same sentence. (aagh. US spelling! fixed)
  • Pardon my ignorance, but is "coverts" plural here: "The breeding males' blue plumage, particularly the ear-coverts, is highly iridescent due "? (tricky this. The subject of the sentence is the singular 'plumage', with the plural 'coverts' in a little clause)
  • In behaviour - should Wing-fluttering display be wing-fluttering display? Similarly Rodent run using a cap in the middle of a sentence. (yup. missed those ones)
  • This "parasitism by the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo (C. lucidus) and Black-eared Cuckoo (C. osculans) is rarely recorded." should probably be a separate sentence.Fainites 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (done)

Well that's me easily pleased.

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

Madman Muntz

Self-nominator. I've put a great deal of work into this article, conformed all references to a singular style, copyedited, and passed GA. I haven't had a peer review, but figured the GA nom and pass would suffice in that regard. :-) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • I noticed there are some references that appear before punctuation marks; they should appear after them, per WP:CITE.

Gary King (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You just mean actual article dates, right? The cite news/journal/etc. template instructions say accessdates should never be wikilinked. Will link the other dates. It's doing something really weird. I've added all the publishing dates using the ISO format specified in the template instructions (and did not wikilink per those instructions) but only some of them are changing according to my settings. I don't know why it's doing that but I think something is broken in the templates themselves. Never mind, fixed it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • In infobox, "USA" → "United States"
  • Perhaps give titles to the sections with dates? Such as "Early career" or whatever is suitable.

Gary King (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • A couple of statements need citations, as they are opinions. I don't claim to have caught them all.
    • "Muntzing" section, second paragraph needs a citation, as "As a result they were usuallly very expensive, which limited their appeal to the general consumer market." is opinion.
    • Muntz Jet first paragraph needs a citation, as "...attempted to market a new sports car under his own marque, with limited sucess." is opinion
Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Ealdgyth, I think I fixed the two instances of opinion/OR by revising the sentences themselves. I'll try to find sources tonight if they're still no good. Regarding the ce.org source, it's Muntz' profile page from the Consumer Electronics Association (a major association in the consumer electronics industry, not a blog or someone's personal website). If this is a questionable source I can probably replace it with others, but why would it be considered questionable? (I'm not trying to be a pain, I really do want to know.) Kind regards! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Mainly I'm questioning it because it doesn't give its sources and it's on the CEA site. CEA isn't exactly a biographical organization, so while the site probably isn't strictly unreliable, it's very borderline. A better source would be either a written biography of the subject, if one exists. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll move the CEA bio to external links and replace in-text with other sources tonight. Done. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'd be happier with those statments sourced. The article itself is pretty light on sources as it is, won't hurt to hit a few more. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give it a shot. Done. I added three more reliable sources for the two sentences in question. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Looks great so far, but it also looks incomplete. Are you sure there isn't more to say about Madman Muntz?
  • A search on Google Books brings up 28 books with limited preview which you can use as sources: here
  • A search on nyt.com brought up this, which is of use.
  • Another NYT article, partly about Madman Muntz's legacy.
  • Here's some gold dust: a 1963 TIME article which mentions Muntz.
  • TIME's online archive goes back to 1928, so you should be also to find a lot through it here
  • A lot more articles listed : (some are pay per view, unfortunately).

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! I figured the main thing that could possibly keep me from FA would be the length. I'll see what I can do with the helpful stuff above. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I might also add that you should keep paying attention to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) as you expand the article. I don't like the current section/paragraph layout (doesn't help the flow/readability at all). For example, early years/education should be the first section after the lead, and then the Career sections after that. Keep up the good work! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion on the talk page said the early life and later years sections were too short and would work better merged together into a section named "biography", which seemed like a good idea to me. Does that help? I was having trouble finding info about his personal life. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Or did you mean that the new way (one biography section) isn't good? I totally restructured the heading levels and added a new main head in the middle. What do you think of this approach? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Okay, I'll work some more this evening, hopefully. Actually, I believe the stores are still in business (or at least there are phone book listings for two Muntz Electronics stores in LA). Will try to dig up more on these stores and will head over to the copyeditors and ask for their help. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's hard to know if there are any "true" Muntz stores left... I find a number of Electronics, Stereo, Audio-Video, etc. stores all over the US in directory listings, but there's no guarantee these aren't just some local store that happens to have had an owner with the last name Muntz. Not sure how I can expand on this section without using dubious info. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Not many images. Although it's not an requirement, I would appreciate more.
  • {{persondata}} should be used in biographies.
  • There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the units it's measured in.
  • "Earl William "Madman" Muntz (1914–1987), born in Elgin, Illinois, was a merchandiser of cars and consumer electronics from the 1940s until his death in 1987." - the phrase "Born in Elgin, IL" seems extremely random and out-of-place in the middle of that sentence. I'd recommend removal, but it's just a suggestion.
  • "Common opinion at the time dictated that used car salesmen should project a staid image, however Muntz completely rejected this thinking" - runon

More later. Nousernamesleft 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixed. I added the persondata template, I think I caught all the spots that needed nbsp, deleted Elgin, IL from the lead sentence, and split the runon into two sentences. I'll have a look around for images, although we may be stuck with fair use stuff. :-/ Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a couple more images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support - "fatten it up," and this is a support. Nousernamesleft 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope it looks better to you now. I added quite a bit more, particularly about his car and Stereo-Pak businesses. Hopefully I'll have a slow evening at work and will be able to include more about the stores his children run.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Couldn't find any more info about the stores after Muntz' death. But the article is now more detailed and complete than it was and has gone through a complete copyedit. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I reviewed all the recent work and it looks vastly improved. Prose is excellent. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose I share Wackymacs' concern that this is not comprehensive, even though you have several good sources listed. The later sections are especially light considering this man's considerable legacy. I think some more research and expansion is needed before it's worth scrutinizing the text. I will say, however, that there are some confusions just from reading the lead. For example, you say TV sets and then TV receivers, seemingly referring to the same thing. I'm also not sure why you mention his seven marriages but only list two in the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
While there are quite a few references (and I'm still working with the ones provided above), many of them contain pretty much the same information: they discuss his various businesses and his oddball TV ad character. I mention seven marriages for factual accuracy because he was married seven times (according to sources), however, I can only find information on two of the marriages (one source seemed to indicate he married 7 times as a promotional gimmick, but I find this dubious and so left it out). I can try to search marriage records to determine who the other 5 wives were and will do so. Will also change TV set to TV receiver throughout. And will try to add more about him and his businesses tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I should be about to fatten this up quite a bit. The books on Google Books are proving extremely helpful! So far I've conformed all instances of TV receiver. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've exhausted my sources for learning anything more about his other 5 marriages, unfortunately. LA country records didn't have anything online that I could access and I'm not sure I can get access to paper copies of his marriage licenses in a timely manner (or at all, as they have a ton of rules). So I deleted the 2 names from the infobox. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note' My internet at home is nonfunctional at the moment, so I'm having to do this from work for a few days. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Back up and running. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Will respond on by one: 1) I believe that if we change it to alter "merchandiser of cars" to "car salesman" it will change the meaning. "Car salesman" is just someone who sells cars, while Muntz owned his own lots. I think "Merchandiser" does a better job of setting him apart in this regard. 2) Perhaps it's not mandatory, however it's common copyediting practice to always spell out first and use an abbreviation afterwards. I feel that doing so here makes the article consistent. This change was made by someone who was asked to copyedit the article (it's been through a couple of thorough copyedits). 3) Why should Muntzing be described in the lead rather than wikilinked? I'm concerned that adding a description would disrupt the (relative) balance of the lead paragraphs 4) I'm not sure I understand your concern with the section headings... The "Early Years" main section does take us through the 1950s. "Audio and Video" begins with an intro that described how he transitioned from his early businesses into other areas. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    1) sounds decidedly awkward as is, and I'm not convinced of the difference; 2) this really does seem unnecessary; 3) beyond the fact that I don't like being forced to click on a wikilink to understand an article (a wikilink should lead me to extra information, not to essential information), in that his invention of "muntzing" is apparently an important aspect of his achievements and a prime indicator of notability, it should be spelled out, however briefly; 4) then I suggest a reworking of the sections, as in most similar articles "early years" is taken to refer to childhood and youth, rather than taking us to the subject's forties. But again, these are really sample issues. I do think the article needs to be looked at again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1) I disagree, I think this sentence is succinct and accurate. A "car salesman" is any old person who sells cars. Muntz was a business owner. Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference between an employee and the business owner? 2) ok, I will remove the parenthetical. 3) Muntzing is actually described in some detail in the section about Muntz TV. I will attempt to add a brief explanation of it. 4) I'm not opposed to changing titles but I would very much rather not start doing a full rework of the sections. They've already been shuffled and reshuffled, rewritten, edited, etc. and I don't see how a total rework would make a difference. I'll try to work with the headings though. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Support
  • I found it an interesting article. It made me want to learn more about him, and I think the article doesn't really quite give an entire picture of the man. I like that his advertising ploys are described, but there's not much about him behind the camera. I don't quite believe someone as innovative as Muntz, according to the article, was motivated completely by money. Why invent so many things? Why be so creative? Is there nothing more about his early life? His birth date, anything about how he grew up? Someone who craved publicity so much must have more about his childhood.
  • The image of the Muntz Jet - is that a vanity shot?
  • I like the article. I particularly like the potential of an FA on someone like Muntz. Is it possible to answer any of these questions? I would like to support. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad you like it! I wish there was more about his childhood, but I've exhausted all of my reliable sources. A documentary about him is tentatively set for limited release in the late summer and I'm sure it will have all kinds of great stuff about his personal life, etc. But I'm not sure film biopics would fulfill WP:RS and it's not coming out for a couple more months at least. As for your question about the Muntz Jet... I'm not sure what a vanity shot is... someone requested above that I add more photos to the article if possible, and since this was free it seemed like a nice addition. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through it again. A vanity shot is a photo of an object with someone's family member in it. As in, here's a famous hill and here's my son! They're not particularly classy. Somewhere down the line someone will probably point out that it's in bad form. I'm not going to oppose based on the image, but have you thought about contacting Muntz's estate to get GNU permission for a better image? --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh okay, I see what you mean. Nope, I don't know who that person in the picture is (I'm actually the one who uploaded it to Commons). I'll just crop them out of it and update it on commons. Fixed, I cropped and uploaded a new version to remove the random middle-aged woman. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm supporting, but I did a very cursory search for information on Muntz and was unable to find anything. If you're in California, you may have access to the California (Or Los Angeles) Historical Society journal. Perhaps a regional advertising magazine. The article at its present state I feel is feature-worthy, but incomplete. I wish there were more about his background. But nonetheless, well done. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CommentsSupport—the prose could do with a careful (and quick) run-through; it's mostly OK. But I noticed the following things at random.

  • Lead: Dash after "persona" rather than comma, to signal that it's not all a list. Remove "also"—both of them. "and divorced six times".
  • MOS breach: use sentence, not title case for titles.
  • "would later be copied" --> just "was later copied". And weed out the other "would"s in this sense.
  • "New York-area electronics chain"—ouch. I think you need two hyphens here, if you really need "area" at all.
  • Muntz', I think, needs a final "s".
  • You gonna stubbify one or two of those redlinks?
  • "1/4-inch (1 cm)"—the conversion is very imprecise. Try "0.6 cm", with a non-breaking space.
  • "8mm video"—is that article title linked to a mistake? Surely spaced. Needs piping.
  • "After he died, his children, James and Tee, continued to operate two Muntz stores in Van Nuys and Newhall; the remainder were franchised businesses."—His children were franchised businesses? Relationship between these ideas is unclear.
  • Fair-use justification of the bottom pic: "irreplaceable as the original source (Los Angeles Times), is copyrighted." Um, no, that's not what we mean by "irreplaceable". Can you change it? See NFCC. TONY (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably worthy of promotion after polishing. TONY (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'll have a look tonight unless someone else beats me to it. I did improve the fair use rationale. Fixed all of these. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to use sentence format for book titles as well as newspaper titles, but I did, figuring everything should be consistent. Let me know if that's wrong. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer sentence case for everything, but I think MOS is OK about title case for books, etc. TONY (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "acceleration of 0 to 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) in 6 seconds"—I'd make it: "acceleration of 0–50 miles an hour (0–80 km/h) in six seconds".
  • Why the split lines for "Communist Party? / "
  • Space before ellipsis dots unless end of sentence ...

TONY (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure, but I think the problem is that you have one quotation, but two references; which is the source for that quotation? (If that's not Tony's problem, it is mine.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Both refs support the same quote. I figured a claim that he showed interest in joining the communist party for publicity reasons could potentially be controversial, so I provided two references to hopefully alleviate any concerns folks may have. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. Heh, am I being more of a stickler on prose than Tony, eh? Anyhow, I think the article could still do with a run through. To see the kinds of things I'd suggest, look at my own recent copy-editing. What's more, I notice that hardly any of the references have page numbers. This seems like a serious lapse. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead has a paragraph on his wives and celebrity friends, but there's nothing of the sort in the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much all of the book refs were found in a google books search, so I can probably get the page numbers tonight or in the next couple days. As for the paragraph about his wives and celebrity friends, this is one of those areas that I haven't been able to expand on. Originally (ages ago), this was in the body of the article in a section about his personal life. But that section was really small and during the GA review, it was suggested that I increase the size of what was then a pretty small lead with the smaller bits in the body that I couldn't expand on. The refs say who two of his 7 wives were, that Phyllis Diller was his girlfriend at one point, and that he was friends with the other famous people but I haven't been able to find any greater details about any of these relationships. I haven't even been able to learn who his other 5 wives were. :-( Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. It seems to suggest that the lead should summarize the article, provide a concise overview, and not tease readers with info that isn't expanded on in the article. However, I'd argue for keeping the info in the lead as-is for a couple reasons: 1) removing it entirely would shorten the lead quite a bit and earlier issues with the article included a too-short lead, 2) While the guideline does say the lead "shouldn't" tease readers, it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, and in addition, the guideline lead box states that occasional exceptions can be made. Logically, of course, we should learn more about Muntz's personal life and add a section the the article body. I can give this another try, or if there's some way to incorporate it into the body with a shortened lead sentence I'd be open to that too but I don't want to "Muntz" this article too much. :-/ I'll see what I can do about it tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

Baby Boy (song)

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)


Self-nominator I asked the user who opposed this article's previous FAC to conduct a copy edit and its now ready. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - It looks good, but the prose is still not brilliant. I can see misuse of commas throughout, and I even found a spelling error. Please get another copyeditor to go through it. Lists of copeditors can be found at: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/volunteers and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Also, is the fair use image in the music video section really needed? The article already has many good photographs. References look good, links are fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If that makes you oppose, I'll try to sift through the article and try to contact someone to copy edit. I think i need to capture the best image for the video for it to pass. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I'll remove the image. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Still opposing. There are still commas everywhere I look, for no good reason. For example, " "Baby Boy" is a hybrid of R&B and dancehall, and also features influences from reggae." - Why the comma here? There are similar examples all the way throughout. The unnecessary music video picture is still there. Now that I think about it...you've never written R&B in the full (which you should, on the first instance). And isn't it contemporary R&B, not just R&B? I still think this needs a copyedit from someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have only addressed what I mentioned, please get a copyeditor new to the text involved - they will help polish and make the prose "brilliant". See the links of copyeditors I posted above earlier. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For non-copy editors like me, or should I say, non-English native, how do you gauge "brilliant"? --Efe (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, a prose becomes brilliant when it has no misused punctuations, clear language, correct grammr, no awkward passages, and the like. If you can spot some of them in the article, I welcome you to highlight it here so that I can fix them. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked a copy editor already. --Efe (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not many edits have been made from editors other than yourself since 27th May - can you get someone else involved for copyediting? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks much better now that it has been copyedited. And in response to your earlier comment on someone's Talk page, Efe, I am not hard to please - I just like the prose to be excellent as it should be for a featured article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. I left a response in your talk page. --Efe (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this so important that it need s mention in the lead? "The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers recognized the British record company EMI at the 2005 Pop Music Awards as Publisher of the Year, for publishing "Baby Boy" as well as other songs recorded by contemporary artists." An award for the record label isn't important for the song.

I'll remove that. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to discuss more about the song's music and the lawsuit. If Sheet Music Plus isn't even notable by Misplaced Pages standards, what makes it a reliable source? indopug (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned about the lawsuit. The sheet music is published by Hal Leonard Corporation, so I believe its reliable. --Efe (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "United States singer-songwriter Jennifer Armour filed in 2005 a copyright infringement" - needs reordering, start with the year and go from there...
  • "and rapper-hip hop artist and Knowles' long-time boyfriend Jay-Z." - lots of "and"... my rule of thumb is to not use the word more than once in a sentence
    • Fixed to "...and Knowles' long-time boyfriend rapper-hip hop artist Jay-Z." Is it awkward? Actually, its ok to use "and" twice but it depends on the phrasing. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "But once the track was done, Knowles still thought something was missing" - it wouldn't really be "done" then...reword/clarify
  • "both releases varied in content." - "the releases..." would sound better I think
  • "complimented the song as one of the "high-profile collaborations" in Dangerously in Love" - this is more a statement of fact than a compliment...nothing else to say?
  • "2003 MTV VMA" - what's that? (next para too)
  • The image in the Copyright infringement lawsuit section isn't really relevant...
  • "with sales of 70,000 units" - you should say in excess of or something like that; it could have sold between 70K and 140K and gotten platinum
  • No music video image?

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I requested that the music video image be removed because it is was copyrighted material, and I do not think a fair use rationale can be justified when the article is already well illustrated with free images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*nods* They're usually seen in song FAs but I see your point. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Yes, it's a book, but the telling phrase here in the Google review is "tell-all book" and it's a publisher I've never heard of. Google search on the publisher reveals they are probably reliable. It's also classified as a "Juvenile" book. While I won't say it's unreliable, it might be able to be replaced with something better. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any source that tell the same information. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Given what it's sourcing, it's probably reliable and I've struck it. Is the other one still being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah. Its still there. I cant access the site now; the connection got awry. Any strong reason for me to remove it? Or can find any "about us" in there site that suggests negative impression? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is it looks like a personal or fan site. Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but it is going to what appears to be a personal site. This seems to bear out the "fan site" impression, it says "... it builds on our legacy as the #1 fan site for MTV's TRL, and it reflects the community that keeps the site alive to this day." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does that fail against WP:RS? Is the sourced content very controversial? Am not expert on this so Im depending on you. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think it fails RS. However, if you want a second opinion (and I won't be at all offended if you do) go ahead and ask about it on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for the link. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments taken from my talk page
  • What does it mean that the tour "began from late 2003 to early 2004"? It can only begin at one point in time, did it last this long?
  • There's an inconsistency between "Murder She Wrote" and "Murder He Wrote". This may not be wrong, but it needs clarification.
  • Under "Chart performance": "attained more and immediate commercial success than". This makes no sense to me at all.
  • Description of the video does not require sourcing, as the video is the source. Still WP:POV terms like "footage designed to have sex appeal"/"Knowles tosses herself sensually" should be avoided.
  • In the same section: "Scenes of Knowles and Sean Paul are separate." If the two artists do not appear together, I assume this is because they shot the video at different times, perhaps even at different locations. Can you find sources for this?
    • No. But its in the video. There is no scene where two is present. They always have different scenes. Like Knowles with a man; Sean with girls. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Lampman 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Nice article overall but still needs some fine-tuning. Points in the first few sections:
  • "The track was produced by Knowles and Storch, and was released on October 14, 2003" - second "was" probably not necessary.
Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The case, however, was dismissed the following year in favor to the defendants." - "however" not contradicting anything
Removed too. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Whole of "Background and writing" is a bit clumsy and occasionally seems overly informal ("something was missing", "delighted") although that may be hard to get around. I think it should be "was to add vocals"; the phrase "whose musical approach she admired" jars with me slightly (possibly a personal thing); "Knowles talked to him by phone for possible collaboration" does the same (should it be "about a possible collaboration"?).
Is "whose musical approach she admired" tends to be POVic? Knowles say it in a source. Anyway, Ill try to change it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "According to Roger Friedman of FOX News" - that statement does not suggest he has the expertise or credentials to comment; does he? Is he a music journalist? If so, it would be better to say that than simply "of FOX News".
Removing the name. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "sequel of sort" - it's quoted, but we have no idea who sees it as that? The artists, the journalists, the public?
The artist? Is it better to add his name? --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "the releases varied in content" - how and why? Is it worth mentioning at all?
Amh, this part has been fixed so many times. Am removing it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "which was released in 2003." - "which was" could be removed.
Removed. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
None of this is especially bad, but I think the article can be improved and requires detailed attention all over for words which can be cut, sentences which can be phrased more clearly or concisely, etc. I don't think it's far off though. Trebor (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking pretty good since the copyedit. Quick points: "In the following scene, Knowles is seen on a bed tossing herself" - um, in the UK tossing can refer to something else which I'm assuming you don't mean...might be worth rephrasing. And the first sentence of "Chart performance" (which has a lot of commas - maybe split it) says the song "attained more and immediate commercial success than "Crazy in Love"" - the "immediate" doesn't really make sense. Did it receive more commercial success, more immediate commercial success, or something else? Trebor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that alarmed me too (!) The chart performance sentence is fixed, I think. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • toast? (had to check the link) Its kinda obcure for those of this who don't listen to modern Pop/Hip-hop.
    • But it would be ridiculous as well if I will define it right after the word. Unlike establishing Madonna, for instance, as an American pop singer, giving definition to toasting like ..toasting, a kind of blah blad bladh... is not good. I believe. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not just remove it? "a toast by" in the lead can go I think, and when you mention it later, you can describe it. indopug (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Does there need to be small text in the Track listing? It makes me squint, while having no obvious positives.
  • Surprisingly I see MoS issues: MTV News, while there is both Slant Magazine and Slant Magazine.
  • "who is behind Knowles' "Crazy in Love" video" Huh? Is that even necessary? (I read it literally the first time, and it was quite ridiculous)
  • "Parts of the video were captured in a house with different rooms"
  • "On a bed in the following scene, Knowles tosses herself" The construction reminds me of Shakespeare, or is it Yoda?
No get rid of it as fast as you can. See cmt from trebor above....eek. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that chart performance need to be so huge? It is very dry and boring: it charted here, here , and here, and there too. And all the information is sufficiently covered by the chart tables below. Honestly, I don't see anybody reading the section with interest (if at all); whittle it down to a paragraph and add it to the Reception section.
  • The recption section is meant for for magazines saying if the song is good or bad and why. "Lisa Verrico of the daily US newspaper The Times called the song a "Latino-tinged collaboration ... set to clicky beats that sound like castanets"" is just a description of the music. Further, "called the song" is poor wording in this case.
  • The lead suffers from proseline.
  • OK, not exactly "proseline" a bunch of disconnected sentences that hardly bring out whatever is unique about the song.

Needs much copy-editing, indopug (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — JD554 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "entering the top ten in most countries" in the lead section and "peaking inside the top ten on most charts" in
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that there are a lot of countries and is it really known that the song reached the Top 10 in most of them? If it's not I would suggest "many" instead of "most", or something to that effect. --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Chart performance". Are you sure? There are an awful lot of countries and indeed charts. You also say "In most European countries" but then only list 12 in the charts section (there are approximately 50 countries according to Europe).

Says "many" now. I think 12 covers that. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "in August 7 to 8 in 2003" should on "on August 7 and 8 2003"
  • Given the The Guardian's reputation for spelling mistakes, I'm quite amused that you've spelt it "Guardin" in reference #22.
  • All Music Guide in references #10 and #42 should be Allmusic.
  • The infobox should only contain the earliest know release date (the Canada one?)
  • I agree with indopug's comments about "toasting". I keep imagining Sean Paul saying "here's to you" before drinking a glass of wine. Maybe I'm just too old!
Ha..There's an image! How would you suggest we rephrase it? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I can't think of anything I'm afraid, but it's not a huge issue. --JD554 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
--JD554 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support Gave this a copy edit, but there are a few issues above that I'm sure Efe will be able to tend to. I think the article is quite comprehensive, and the "Composition and theme" is particularly well done; an area usually sadly lacking in articles of this kind. I'm also impressed by free images, though I do see an About.com. ref which needs to be repaced or removed. As a disclaimer I do love Beyoncé; though I rarely listen to her music. Anyway.... Ceoil (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support now. Well done sir. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ceoil for the help. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(Tips hat) Just doin' my job. ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks sir! I mean Jb. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Further: thanks to Ceoil's remarkable copy-editing, the prose is fine indeed. Just two more points:

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

Zelda Fitzgerald

This is my first attempt at a literary FA, so I've been moving slowly through GA and PR where this has been thoughtfully reviewed by Scartol, Brianboulton, Giggaman, and Yllosubmarine. I look forward to addressing whatever weaknesses remain. --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose The majority of the references all came from one source, which is most likely a book or something. One source ain't gonna do it. Try adding different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • They come from five high-quality sources: Zelda_Fitzgerald#References. The only two biographies of Zelda (one that was nominated for a Pulitzer) and are informed and corroborated by readings from three of the leading Fitzgerald scholars in the world: Bruccoli, Bryers, and Prigozy. --JayHenry (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please look in my above message; most of those five sources came from this one: Milford 1970. Even though that source is reliable, I still believe the article needs more sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    How many sources would you like me to use? And what percentage of citations from the Milford book is acceptable to you? --JayHenry (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, can you try at least 10 different sources? And please, they shouldn't all be books. They should be internet sources, newspapers, whatever reliable source you can think of. Just not one source, or one type of source. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to support. Dabbydabby (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh...first time I've ever encountered anyone opposing based on some arbitrary set number of sources. And since when has relying on book sources become taboo?! For what it's worth, by my count, more than one-third of the footnotes are from a source other than Milford (including, yes, a few non-book sources). BuddingJournalist 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Opposing because book sources are used is, well, a bit daft. If anything, book sources should be preferred over newspapers, internet sites, and the like. — Dulcem (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm opposing this because almost all of the book sources are used. It would've been inconvenient for a reader to go find that particular book because very often readers do not have the book right in front of them. Internet sources on the other hand are just a click away. I would believe that the reference list should have a variety of different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a valid oppose. I don't mean to offend you, but there is a significant amount of scholarship that exists other than on the internet. Also, we are supposed to find the best possible sources, not the most easily accessible ones. For older subjects, often the best sources are printed and not available on the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dabby, we judge sources on reliability not accessibility. BuddingJournalist 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter now; you can delete my oppose vote if you want. (Just don't change it to support.) However, I'm still holding my own opinion. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Dabby, I think your point is fair and wouldn't want to see your oppose deleted. I think that I'll be able to find some Web available but highest quality sources. Here are two that I think I could use:
I'll look for more, but I think these two (in addition to the Web sources already there) will be a worthwhile improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked, and those are indeed reliable internet sources. The only concern I initially wanted to address was its variety of different sources. If you can access book and internet sources (maybe even a visual source too?), I think it would be a great addition to the article. If you ever needed help with formatting the references, you can always come to me for reference. (No pun intended. :D ) Dabbydabby (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We call you Dabby because you're our new friend :) You can call me Jay in return, if you'd like. I didn't realize you were actually renaming to Dabby, but it's a good name. --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: I asked Dabby about this on his talk page. He said "I still believe that the article needs more internet sources still, but I see you have been working hard to find reliable sources. I will not change my vote to support; however I crossed out my oppose vote." I'll keep looking to make sources easily available, though I do think it satisfies WP:WIAFA in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Nothing I see wrong with using mainly printed sources, considering the lady died in 1948. Personally, I think this is one of the more reliably sourced articles at FAC right now.
All the sources look fine to me, and the links check out fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • JayHenry, be a dear and fix me a gin fizz you incorrigible harlot I love you. In normal words of the hopelessly boring (and unfortunately sober), this means Support. I am terribly sorry I did not read through this again when you asked me to. I went through and fixed teeny things, but a question or two:
  • With the affair of Jozan, who didn't know Zelda asked for a divorce? That's confusing.
  • Amid the families' bereavement is that the one family? Zelda's? Should that be family's?
I think it's very well-written, and the quote by Woody Allen made me laugh out loud. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Moni. You're beautiful, like a May fly. My great fear is that I was far too sober when I wrote this article. (Hey, at least I haven't tried to tackle Hunter Thompson yet... that will be a deadly task.) Jozan didn't know she asked for divorce. I'll fix that. I just meant one family. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: The day Misplaced Pages disparages printed sources is the day that this librarian packs her pencil case for good! Hrumph. This is a splendid article, one that is a joy to read; well written, a little dramatic here and there, not heartless but not over-involved; I approve. My previous concerns were fixed during the PR, although the Zelda thing still bothers me -- when scholars refer to well known male writers' wives simply by their first names, even when they're the subject of the biography, it's demeaning. The usage is far too familiar, implying that the women are not taken seriously (or at least as seriously as their husbands), which is something I feel that Misplaced Pages should strive to do as an encyclopedia. Are we ever to rewrite F. Scott's article using Francis or E. A. Poe's using Edgar? Are these equally important "wifey" articles to take second seat to that of their husbands? Oh, well. I'm willing to let my gender-related paranoia rest, however, if only because this is a particularly good article. Well done. María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the too-familiar issue, but (now I'm curious) how does one get around referring to Zelda as Fitzgerald and F. Scott as Fitzgerald? Mr. and Mrs. sounds like the society page. I haven't checked the Hilary Clinton article, but when spouses or close relations with the last name are both newsworthy, how do you differentiate? --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"Mr. and Mrs." makes me cry a little, but what's wrong with using full names when differentiation is needed? "Zelda Fitzgerald", "Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald", "Fitzgerald and her husband, F. Scott"? I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a rewrite, but I think it could be done if consensus is found that just plain "Zelda" seems less encyclopedic. María (habla conmigo) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Zelda and her obsessive drunken ballet dancing may warrant an alteration of the MoS, which would potentially apply to Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Coretta Scott King, Nancy Reagan, and on and on. I think seeing Zelda Fitzgerald as a full name throughout the article would be tedious to read, but I agree with your issue. I don't know what the alternative is. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Happyme22 ran into this with the Reagan articles, so you might want to check that out.--Rmky87 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We have run into at Mary Shelley as well. You might want to take a look at what we did. Certainly I've run into harsh comments by Mary Shelley scholars regarding the use of "Mary" or "Mrs. Shelley" exclusively. "Mary Shelley" or "Shelley" seems to be preferred. We use "Mary" only to differentiate from "Percy" - never "Mary" to differentiate from "Shelley" (i.e. Percy Bysshe Shelley). Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey everbody, I really apologize for this but I was unexpectedly away from my computer all day today and am going to be all day tomorrow as well. If you wanted to take a stab at this I would be forever indebted. Please, I really welcome people just jumping in. If not, I'll work on it myself on Wednesday. (Really apologize about this. Very unexpected for me.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've looked for examples where I can do this and attempted to reduce the amount of times she's called Zelda. Again, if you feel this is a weakness, this is one you can fix yourselves. Access to the sources aren't needed and I'm honestly stumped to go any further without introducing severe ambiguity into the text. I'm not willing to confuse the reader and please note that Zelda is always differentiated from Scott--not from Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Since there were questions about the sources used in this article, I checked in the MLA database for sources on "Zelda Fitzgerald". There are 33. Most are journal articles about Zelda Fitzgerald's writing. I'm a little nervous that more of these aren't used. However, it could easily be that the material contained in these articles is replicated in the books used in the article. If the article editors could reassure us that they checked this, my concerns will evaporate. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Awad! Bruccoli, Cline and Milford all have chapters devoted to her writing. Haven't gotten all the way through Prigozy or Curnutt yet (they're more Scott books, but from the chapter names it doesn't look like they go into this). I felt that this was sufficient, but to be honest I didn't realize there were that many Journal Articles on the subject. Her prose is generally described as florid, and perhaps containing potential, but ultimately unpolished. I don't have access to the MLA database. Awad, if you really think the article needs it, would it be too much imposition to ask to e-mail me the best papers? I'm happy to work to integrate additional material, and would even enjoy reading some of those different perspectives. I am Jay.Hank, at the wonderful e-mail provider of Yahoo.com. Like I said, if the chapters in the books aren't sufficient (and I'll defer to your judgment on that), I'd really be deeply grateful for help. And I will (promise) have time to read, ponder and integrate before the end of the week. --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading the article and looking at the material available, I do think that more could be added about her writings, especially since that is the way that the scholarship seems to be moving, as you note in the "Legacy" section: to recognize her as an author in her own right. Unfortunately, most of the material that I think will be helpful is not available electronically. I emailed you three articles. Here are the others that, from what I can tell, look like they will prove useful. If you want me to request them from my library, I will. The only one I can't send you is the book, obviously. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shurbutt, Sylvia. "Zelda Fitzgerald 1900-1948". American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies: Supplement IX: Nelson Algren to David Wagoner. Ed. Jay Parini. New York, NY: Scribner's, 2002. 55-73. - Although an encyclopedia entry, this looks like it might be focused on her writings, so it might be useful.
  • Felber, Lynette. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: Household Plagiarism and Other Crimes of the Heart". Literary Liaisons: Auto/Biographical Appropriations in Modernist Women's Fiction. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois UP, 2002.
  • Castillo, Susan. "(Im)Possible Lives: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Surrealist Autobiography". Writing Lives: American Biography and Autobiography. Eds. Hans Bak and Hans Krabbendam. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU UP, 1998. 55-62.
  • Nanney, Lisa, "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Southern Novel and Künstlerroman". The Female Tradition in Southern Literature. Ed. Carol S. Manning. Urbana: U of Illinois P; 1993. 220-32.
  • Hartnett, Koula Svokos. Zelda Fitzgerald and the Failure of the American Dream for Women. New York: Peter Lang; 1991.
  • White, Ray Lewis. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: A Collection of Reviews from 1932-1933". Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual 1979: 163-68.

Here are the citations for the articles I emailed you:

  • Tavernier-Courbin, Jacqueline. "Art as Woman's Response and Search: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Southern Literary Journal 11.2 (1979): 22-42.
  • Davis, Simone Weil. "The Burden of Reflecting': Effort and desire in Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Modern Language Quarterly 56.3 (1995): 327-362.
  • Wood, Mary E. "A Wizard Cultivator: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Asylum Autobiography". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 11.2 (1992): 247-264.
  • Support Oppose (for now) This article is an excellent piece of biographical writing. I was drawn in: the editors have made Zelda Fitzgerald come alive. However, I'm going to oppose for the time being on comprehensiveness: I feel that her writings need to be better explained. The themes, style, and genre of her writings can be better explained. I have every confidence that the material I have sent JayHenry and listed above will allow him to rectify this problem. I know he is a diligent editor and I look forward to seeing the new material. (It would be nice to have a painting of Zelda's. Can we use anything from The Romantic Egoists: A Pictorial Autobiography from the Scrapbooks and Albums of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, edited by Bruccoli, Smith, Kerr, and Lyons?) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for those papers, Awadewit. I will start reading them this evening. I have a structural question though. Where do you think it would be best to integrate this material? As I see it, I could include it under the Save Me the Waltz subsection, under its own section between the Biography and Legacy sections, or as a "Critical reappraisal" subsection of Legacy. My initial preference is the latter, but would welcome your thoughts.
As for including a paiting, I do have access to Romantic Egoists. But since Zelda painted after 1923 and died in 1948 it's my understanding that a painting would have to be uploaded under a claim of WP:FAIRUSE. Unfortunately, I've noticed that Misplaced Pages's WP:FAIRUSE policy is increasingly divergent from the actual legal and moral obligations of "Fair Use" and I'm reluctant to devote my energies explaining why it satisfies "NFCC#8" to editors who clearly have no legal or professional background whatsoever with Fair Use. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Structure? I think it depends on what kind of material you get out of the articles. So much of it is focused on Save Me the Waltz, I would be tempted to put it there, but if there are general statements, a "Critical reappraisal" section would work as well. Why don't you just do what seems best to you? We can always revise! :)
  • I do think that a painting would greatly enhance the article. ZF was clearly an artist in many ways - I think it would help readers to see her work. If you upload the image, I'll work on the fair use rationale, if you want. We don't want policy to get in the way of producing the best article possible! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm making a concerted push to address the rest of the objections tonight. Have added to the sourcing per Dobby and Mojska and have added information on style and themes. I'm going to rewrite the final critical reappraisal section here in a bit, but will probably save detailed discussion of themes, style and genre of her novel for the Save Me the Waltz page. Also removed the hip flask image discussed below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I am not quite finished yet! I will leave a note on your talk page when I'm ready, Awad. Sorry, been an awful week... I don't have the time for this hobby! --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm supporting now, but I'm kind of disappointed that only the articles I emailed you were used. Since I volunteered to go to the library and get copies of the other ones if you needed them, I assumed when you didn't ask that you had access to them. I'm absolutely certain that these three articles do not represent the entirety of scholarly opinion on Zelda Fitzgerald's work. The only way to figure out what is to read a range of sources and see what they all agree on or what is considered most important in the field. Perhaps after you have written the Save Me the Waltz article, you can come back to this one. Writing author or artist articles is a huge amount of work because one has to read about the author/artist AND their works. Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not knowledgeable enough to question the article's comprehensiveness as Awadewit has done and as I read it, I felt it was clearly up to FA quality. The sources are well used and the prose, (apart from an excessive use of semicolons), is professional and engaging. All articles can be improved, (even FAs), and no doubt this one will be. I have to support this FAC because there are quite a few FAs that fall short of the standard set here. Allow me a couple of nitpicks.
    • Please do something about the semicolons; they spoil the flow. A high-point of the prose,(IMHO), was the simple sentence "She complied."
    • And, she composed a novel - aren't novels written?

Thank you for this contribution; it was really engaging. GrahamColm 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, I will do some semicolon surgery. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, at least as far as 1a is concerned. TONY (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS hip-flask image: why left side? There's a narrow neck of text between it and the right-side one to the north-east. TONY (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the flask image per below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Disclosure - I reviewed this article for GA, when I felt it was close to FAC. Since then various improvements have been incorporated and I am satisfied that it meets all the FA criteria. A couple of suggestions:-
    • The "Last Flapper" image in Expatriates section looks better if placed after the first para of the section (I've tried it, trust me.)
    • The brief last section "Critical reappraisal" seems somewhat formidably titled, given the sparse content. Perhaps a less ambitious title would be more suitable?

Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! I was actually in the middle of rewriting that last section when I had to go out of town at the last minute, and you caught it in an unfortunate state. It will make more sense when I'm finished. Working on it tonight. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've opted not to do that for this article. Because of the somewhat unusual nature of her life, Zelda's biography doesn't break down into factoids very well. I support infoboxes in general (where they're providing uniform information across a clearly defined group of people), but this is an example of an article where an infobox would impart little useful information (beyond what's already in the first sentence), so I've opted for this style. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: After much deliberation, I feel as though I'm not as concerned about variety of sources as other folks. While I feel the article can be improved by adding info from more sources, I feel that it is currently at a standard I consider Feature-worthy. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I should add in the interest of full disclosure that I did a review during the article's gestation. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just went through this evening and added overviews from more of these sources. I think it's best not to go too much more in depth on topics like Save Me the Waltz's place in asylum autobiography on this article. I'd like to go through, however, and add more of that information to Save Me the Waltz. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Pretty sure that's everything. If anybody still has concerns let me know. Thanks everyone for the careful reviews and for your patience with my hectic schedule on this one! --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment According to WP:MOSBIO, section "Subsequent use of names" suggests that Zelda should be avoided in favor of using the last name. It also provides recommendations how to handle the case when there are multiple family members with the same last name, as in this case. (*They* get their first names used for clarity, but not the topic of the article.) This is one of those strange things that bother me, like news anchors calling Secretary Rice by "Condi". Because I also agree that this isn't a simple cut-and-paste because so much of the article necessarily relates to Mrs. Fitzgerald's interactions with her husband, I leave this as a comment only, not an oppose. But I hope that we at editors look carefully at our gender biases when writing biographies. JRP (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please feel welcome and encouraged to fix this in any case that you can identify. I have really, honestly and seriously, tried to address this throughout and have literally begged for help with it. Please note this article conforms relentlessly to WP:MOSBIO. Zelda always contrasts with Scott; Fitzgerald never refers only to him. Furthermore, I can only advise those with this concern not to read biographies of Zelda. They do not call her Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, this is not at all the same as Condoleezza Rice. She was born a Rice, there is no other Rice implicit or explicit in any of the writing about her, (it's always implicit and often explicit in this article) and certainly not a Rice that shares her vocation, let alone a more famous Rice with whom she is principally known by association. --JayHenry (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 .

Riven

Think it fulfills the criteria, natch. I've printed out the article and done a copyedit of the text, so I think I've fixed all the issues that I'll be able to find. Covers the gameplay, plot, development, and reception, so it's comprehensive; the major aspects are touched on in the lead; and it's got images with appropriate fair use rationales. Oh, and lots of print sources and such, but I don't see any questionable WP:RS issues, I could be wrong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • This comment is practically on every FAC I review: redundancy. "though some publications such as Edge felt that the nature of point-and-click gameplay limited the title heavily." - just one example, there's more.
  • You could make the caption to the single picture in the article more concise; it seems unnecessarily verbose.
  • "The game's sound and graphics were consistently praised" - I think it would sound a bit better with the context if an also was slapped in there - "The game's sound and graphics were also consistently praised"
  • "Gehn's theme is only heard in its complete form near the end of the game, portions of the melody can be heard throughout Riven— this served to highlight the way Gehn controlled his Age." - there should be a but after the comma, shouldn't there?
  • If you're sourcing the "story" section, some of it is lacking a source.

Nousernamesleft 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth mentioning that Ghen's Theme is only heard at the end during a specific(?) bad ending? (?) Rehevkor (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw it—Well, this is one that needed more work before nomination. It should be withdrawn and resubmitted after fruitful collaboration. Here are random issues from one small sample of text.
    • "Also"—weed out all of the idle instances, please.
    • "a trap book—book that appears to be a linking book, but is actually a one man prison"—euuw, reps and missing hyphen and article; in a clunky sentence.
    • "Atrus. Atrus"
    • Odd use of the passive voice: "the book ends up being found by the Stranger". TONY (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the instances of 'also' and 'some', as Nousernamesleft pointed out above. Fixed the awkward sentence and combined sentences and reworded them so that one paragraph doesn't start out with "Atrus" every time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Riven is a game I could never complete, Myst was much easier even though it was hard.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted two outside users, Seegoon and AndonicO in regards to copyediting (AndonicO has already started helping.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - Prose is now much better. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 20 "Gann, Patrick "Riven The Soundtrack" ... can we source this to something besides RPG fan? I'm not sure about the reliablity of that site, and since it's just the release date and length, surely Amazon has it?
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've swapped the RPGFan ref with the Amazon product page, as requested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 11:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was under the impression that the "stranger" was designed so the player could completely immerse themselves as though they really were the character—no backstory, entirely first-person view, etc. Therefore, referring to the player's character as being male doesn't fit in, to my knowledge the "stranger" has not had a gender defined within Myst canon. I'd advise altering the wording of the story section to make it gender neutral, as there's no evidence I know of that suggests the player's character is conclusively male. -- Sabre (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. It's a bit awkward, unfortunately, but you're right, the Stranger is never given a gender or identifier. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "between $5 and $10 million" → "between USD$5 and $10 million"
  • "causing a delay in the publishing of Riven. Even though " — Citation needed?
  • "coverage." — Ascending order

Gary King (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed these issues. For the $ sign, I assume you meant US$ rather than USD$. Kariteh (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, US$ is correct. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.