Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:11, 12 December 2011

December 2011

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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I put this article together because I couldn't find much of the information it contains elsewhere on the web or, without prolonged digging, in print. I have duly dug, and this is the result. Gabriel Fauré's piano works are not so very numerous, and I think a single article covering them all is probably better than a series of short articles on the various pieces. The article has been peer reviewed, and revised in accordance with suggestions there and on talk pages. I believe (and certainly hope) it now covers the works in enough detail for FA, and I have tried to keep technical musical terms to the unavoidable minimum. Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I feel this well written article provides an attractive and genuinely useful resource to which music lovers can refer when listening, playing or studying Fauré's piano music. I agree it's handy to have well sourced background information on all these miniatures available in one place—especially when such material isn't always readily available elsewhere.--MistyMorn (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I did some copy editing on this article and made some suggestions and comments to Tim riley, to which he was very responsive. Tim's work here, as is typical of him, is extraordinary: Thorough research, careful referencing, delightful illustrations and images, and engaging prose. I doubt there is a better article of its kind on WP. As MistyMorn said, I think this article will be useful to students and classical music fans. It is much more useful to have information collected this way than to have a series of very short articles on each of these piano pieces. This is certainly the kind of work to which Misplaced Pages should aspire. Thanks, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gosh! Most grateful for the very kind comments above. Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Image check: All images appear correctly licensed and captioned. The term "secondo" in the last caption may need explanation. There seems to be no suitable wiki target. As the images are PD they should be transferred to Wiki Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Source check:
  • Ref #32 links to an audio source. This should be made clear and the time where the source supports the statement should be made clear as this is quite a lengthy piece.
    • Good point: the sound source is indeed lengthy, and I have replaced it with a print citation as being more reader-friendly. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All other on-line sources check out. No dabs, no dead-links, assume good faith for off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the checks. Glad they were satisfactory. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) And thanks for your support, below. Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the comment on the photo caption above? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I could rephrase it as "playing the accompaniment for..." though that's not quite as precise. Alternatively, just "duetting with", but that does miss the (I think) charming point that the composer was taking the subordinate piano part and letting the little girl play the star part. Thoughts welcome on this. Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How about ] which produces secondo linking to the Wiktionary definition. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good! You're way ahead of me. This will do splendidly, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article, prose reads very well, thoroughly sourced. A good example of the best of Misplaced Pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: As another of the peer reviewers I can confidently vouch for the quality of this article. I'll just mention a couple of tiny issues. First, the images of Fauré at various points in his life are all dated, until the Elgarish one in a bowler hat. According to the image description that is from 1918 - perhaps add this to the caption? Then, the final image shows Fauré playing the piano "for a young friend". It is possible, in these less than innocent times, that the phrase "a young friend" may be misinterpreted. The girl is named in the image description as Melle Lombard, and it may be politic to say "for Melle Lombard, a family friend" or some such. Only a suggestion, though. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and comments. I have acted on the latter precisely as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: An inspirational piece. My only criticism is that it's far better than anything I can write -- Cassianto (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support and your charming comment. Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Not bad, but I think it is rather a list than an article. As the article concerns his work, it should be probably renamed to "List of works by Gabriel Fauré" or anything similar.--♫GoP♫_TN 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I see your point, and I was originally in some doubt about whether to follow the list rather than the article route, but I think the expository detail for the various works takes the page into the "article" rather than the "list" category. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim's comment; the question of list versus article arose at peer review and it was agreed that the article route was the one to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim and Brian. There is much analytical detail here, as well as discussion of the relationships among these pieces and the historical and biographical context. Note that there is a separate List of compositions by Gabriel Fauré, which has a very different focus from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (just a quick one): I read through the article; this is really good work. The tone of the writing startled me for a minute; I'm used to every word in an article having a large sign over it shouting "NPOV!!!", so this was a very refreshing read. One thing to correct, though: the ISBNs should be consistently formatted (hyphenated or not). Clay_Clay 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hyphens now attended to. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Quite a good compilation. Because I am not much good on musical terminology, I will say I did not try to read it in as much detail as usually I do, although I did read it through twice looking for anything egregious. My comments are all from the front end of the article.

  • Background

I'm a bit dubious of the title of the section, given the broad nature of the contents.

How difficult headings can sometimes be! I'll ponder this one and see if I can come up with a better. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Now done. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about your drawing the "charm" comparison from two different sources, with one a quote. Since human charm is, I assume rather different than charm in music, is there some risk of SYNTH?

Good point. I've gone back to the sources to check that it is reasonable to speak of Fauré's personal charm and the charm of his early works in the same sentence. Nectoux, pp. 32–33 reassures me. (Nectoux, p. 473, also comments on the charm of Fauré's piano playing, but perhaps that's a charm too far for this article.) Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"It is not always possible" This paragraph seems rather out of place. Can't it be footnoted?

I'll experiment. I agree that this para rather pops up out of nowhere. I'll see how it looks as a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnoted looks good, I think. Shall leave it so unless anyone objects. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nocturnes

"Chopin's model, in contrasting serene" Strike "in"

OK Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Fauré did not intend the eighth nocturne to appear under that title". Perhaps "designation" rather than "title"?

Better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done, obviously a labour of love.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the support and for these very useful comments. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I generally admire authors who can put up an interesting article out of something that could simply be compiled as a list. Deserves FA status by all means. - ☣Tourbillon 12:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this support. I hope the article will indeed be found useful as more than just a list. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I echo the accolades above. Sorry not to have any constructive criticism to offer, but I did find one typo. Graham Colm (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm grateful for the amendment and the support. Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – I am really rather an amateur concerning this kind of music but I found this article thoroughly well-written, very informative and also very accessible for people, like me, who are not well-acquainted with the subject. Judging from the responses above, it also meets the standards for enthusiasts and keen listeners of Fauré's music. Pictures are well-chosen, accompanied by concise, unintrusive captions and given appropriate alternate text, further improving the article's accessibility. The article is very well organised, which as MistyMorn says above makes this an overwhelmingly useful companion for somebody listening to, playing or studying Fauré's music. Although the article is quite long, it does not seem to be, always appearing refreshing and interesting. It is thoroughly sourced, properly annotated and well-presented throughout. I enjoyed reading this immensely and am therefore posting a firm "support". I hope each of you will join me in congratulating Tim Riley on this fine achievement. —Cliftonian 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

M-185 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC); Mitch32 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a truly unique state highway in Michigan. It is the only state highway in the United States where cars are not allowed, and until a few years ago, it had never had an automobile accident. Only pedestrians, bicyclists or equestrians use the roadway around Mackinac Island, Michigan. This is article has been a collaboration of sorts with Mitchazenia (talk · contribs), who is co-nominating it with me. Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, its been two years since I've been here, when Tropical Storm Marco (1990) was promoted, and I've been drooling for a while to get back to FAC, but have had nothing to nominate. Finally, after persistent nagging of Imzadi, and me having taken a weekend vacation in Bennington, Vermont, I'm finally back. This article was a work in progress in 2008, that sort of died out, became active again in 2010, and finally now in 2011 is up for FAC. M-185 is my first time nominating a non-northeastern roadway for featured article status, considering all my other nominees have been in New York (or one in Rhode Island that ultimately failed.) Because my college schedule this week, after taking Thursday off, will be nuts, I'll try my best to get most of the stuff listed. Great to be back though. Mitch32 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
• FN 5: retrieval date?
• FN 13: "pp. 28M+"?
• FN 25, 26: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • All fixed except the last two bullet points: that article from The Detroit News spans several pages (28M, 30M and 31M), and the archive database does not indicate which of those three pages in the print edition contains the specific information. As for the other two footnotes, my copies of the articles lack page numbers; MDOT used to assemble a newsletter called Who's Talking about Michigan Transportation that includes photocopies of newspaper and magazine articles, usually without page citations. Until such time as a library that contains copies of the papers replies, I can't supply any page numbers for them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I anticipate supporting; I reviewed this article for ACR back in 2008. It's been 3 years though, so I'll probably take another look before making it official. --Rschen7754 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have looked over this article and offered suggestions for improvement beforehand, therefore I feel it meets the criteria. Dough4872 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose' see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1#Coordinates discussion --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support with a minor change. The article is well written and is consistent with my recent trip/trek on about 2 miles of the highway.
  • "Independence Day weekend in 1986" - People outside the US may not know the date. Either link to the article or even better explain the date as July 4 or early July. Royalbroil 13:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All done. Mitch32 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and one comment to help the rest of the world, including us poor Brits, could you please link or gloss short ton and long ton. We only have one kind of ton, and the rest of the world doesn't have any Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Links added, thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Basic information seems to be missing from the lead; there is no clear indication given of where Mackinac Island is, what lake or sea it's in, what mainland town or city it's near, etc The map is unhelpful as it carries no indications of geographical location and could be of anywhere. I see a reference in the lead to the Lake Huron shoreline, but that's not enough. Please remember that most of your readers won't know where the Straits of Mackinack are, and they should not have to use links to other articles to find out. Links should be for pursuing additional detail, not for finding out basic facts. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from a co-nominator: I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days, however Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) should be able to deal with anything related to the article in my absence. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. Mitch32 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cycling_(road)_pictogram.svg: description doesn't seem to mesh with claimed licensing, can you double-check this?

Otherwise, images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I just commented out the portal link, so that image no longer appears in the article. I'll ping the cycling people to alert them to the issue though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) —

Lede

"a popular tourist destination on the Lake Huron side of the Straits of Mackinac" — is "a popular tourist destination" really necessary?

"and is accessible from elsewhere only by passenger ferry" — tighten by removing "from elsewhere"

"and Lake Shore Road everywhere else" — "everywhere" isn't very professional, but that's only my opinion

"Until 2005, it was the only state highway without any automobile accidents." — needs clarification; was it the only state highway in Michigan to not have any automobile accidents, or was it the only one in the United States?

Route description

"the generally accepted starting point is at the mile 0 wooden marker" — this sounds a bit strange; shouldn't it read "wooden mile 0 marker"?

"originally a U.S. Coast Guard station, operated by the MISPC" — slightly distracting details

"The highway uses wooden, not metal" — change to something like "The highway uses wooden markers instead of metal..." or something like that. IMO, that sounds better than the current wording

"a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility" — slightly distracting details here again

"according to an article in The Grand Rapids Press" — this is similar to the "author says" problem. If you cite it, there's no need to say that.

HurricaneFan25 19:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the comments, pardoning the first one, the US Coast Guard and the last two. I want to defer to Imzadi1979 on the rest. Mitch32 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past, we've been told in previous FACs to explain the significance of an NHS listing, which is the exact details that you asked to be removed, HurricaneFan. As for the description of Mackinac Island, I feel it's needed to put the location in perspective. I have to say that I'm leaving that in the article for that reason. The sources either do one of two things: M-185 is the only state highway without cars (car accidents) in the US, or they omit a geographic restriction on the statuses. As for the others, either Adam or I have addressed them in some fashion. Thanks for the review! Imzadi 1979 → 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Floydian

• Resolved issues moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 03:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall, the article is excellently sourced, comprehensive, and just about ready for that featured status... But there are a lot of grammatical nuances. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 01:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a series of edits has covered this suggested changes. The only thing that wasn't addressed in some fashion was the inflation-adjusted numbers, because there is some debate over using the templates for that with capital expenses. (The text is there, but commented out waiting for a resolution of the issue.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - Everything looks good, and all the grammatical issues I had are now resolved. As I cannot find any issues to deter me otherwise, I support the promotion of this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 03:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've re-looked through the article and don't see anything worth opposing over or commenting on. --Rschen7754 04:15, 8 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Warkworth Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The ruins of Warkworth Castle are a spectacular sight to match their owners' interesting history. Founded sometime in the 12th century, but extensively remodelled later, the castle belonged to one of northern England's most powerful families, the Percys. The article is primarily based on the two most recent English Heritage guidebooks, written by authoritative authors: Summerson wrote many of EH's guidebooks and worked on the monograph for Brougham Castle, and Goodall recently published The English Castle 1066–1650 which has been widely praised. Hopefully, if you can wade through the army of people called Henry in the article you will find it worth your time. Thanks to Martin of Sheffield for helping out with the polishing, and to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Further reading and Bibliography formatting should be the same
• Probably worth noting that ODNB is subscription-based. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've added Template:ODNBsub to each of the ODNB citations. I think the differences between the formatting of the further reading and bibliography sections were the absence of the location where the book was published and an ISBN, both of which have now been added. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Specialist content

• In terms of covering the specialist literature on the castle, the article does a good job. The key authors are all present and the article reflects the different perspectives on interpreting the building. Support from this perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot checks

• Did Creighton; citations were accurate and no evidence of close-paraphrasing.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I think I read everything. I might check it over again once the issues are addressed. For the prose, I just gave some examples. That doesn't mean its all there is.

• Wikilink
• Parliment (parliment comes up several times in the article)
• Bamburgh Castle
• Anglo-saxon period (Anglo-Saxon England)
• Scottish Wars
• coat of arms
• Why is John Lewyn redlinked, but none of the other nobles who don't have an article not redlinked?

Bamburgh Castle and the Anglo-Scottish Wars are already linked. John Lleywn is linked because as architect of Bolton and Warkworth Castles ad Durham Cathedral he is notable by Misplaced Pages's standards, and ideally would have an article. Which other people do you think should be linked? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Roger fitz Richard is probably the one that came clearly to mind as he was mentioned several times. However, I do not claim to be an expert in knowing which of these people are notable or not, just wondering why you thought only John Lewyn was.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There was originally a link to his article as it happens, but if you check the article's talk page there some background as to why I chose to remove the link. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Prose

  • Remove some passive tense such as "In the late 19th century, Warkworth Castle was refurbished by the dukes" -> "In the late 19th century, the dukes refurbished Warkworth castle"
    • Had a go at that. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain" -> "When and by whom the castle was founded is uncertain"
    • I'm not convinced that the suggested change would be an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • " When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, " -> "When he died in 1240, his son,"
    • Though your suggestion creates a simpler sentence, the current phrasing, was chosen to avoid repeating the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • At the very least remove own. It's a redundant usage as his already implies that the son was fathered by him. Better would be to figure out a simplistic way of phrasing it that doesn't repeat the other sentance, but that's obviously harder to do.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This has been addressed by implementing Dank's suggestion below. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "one and a half - hyphenate
    • Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • now-ruined - rephase to not use hyphenated word
    • It's not clear why "now-ruined" is undesirable. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neologisms and new compounds While the prefix "now-" is not specifically mentioned in that list, it's being used in a similar manner.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The high end – next to the withdrawing chambers – was for the earl and his family, and the low end – next to the kitchen and other service rooms – for the rest of the rest of the household." Don't use 2 sets of emdashes in 1 sentance. Either change to comma, paretheses or split it into 2 sentances.
    • Fair point, I have switched to parenthesis. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• What existed before the Norman conquest? Was there any kind of fortification?

• No. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• A little info on what the Treaty of Durham would be nice. The reader shouldn't have to click on it just to find out the basics.
  • I've added some more context. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• The info about when the castle was presumably founded by Henry II should be moved to right after the declaration. The sentance at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place at the end.

Could you be more specific, which sentence are you referring to? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the sentence is out of place at the end, but I think it makes more sense prefixed by a "though", and I made the edit: , "though it is possible that Henry II founded Warkworth Castle in 1157 to secure his lands in Northumberland ...". - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain, though traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible." - That sentance seems to be acting a the intro for the remainder of the paragraph and yet it leaves out a crucial info about the possible date mentioned much later. IE, the final sentance contradicts the assertion that there is no ideas about what dates "may" have been the founding while making the asertion that Henry is recognized which is explained later and thus the reader is not suprised when there is info about the founding at the end by Henry, but would be by relative and more speicifc date.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that statement does act as an introduction of sorts, but an introduction doesn't need doesn't need to summarise what comes next. It does not say "there is no ideas", just that there is uncertainty. The various possibilities are then laid out, so there is no contradiction. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

However, when reading that first sentence it makes it sound like no actual dates are known, but the last sentence gives at least 2 possible dates. That may not be a direct contraindication in fact with the summary sentence, but it gives the uninformed reader the idea that there are no clear dates period.∞陣内Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't do given that it says uncertain, which is different to unknown. A reader doesn't need to be knowledgeable about Warkworth Casltle to know that uncertain means there could be a range of possibilities. This isn't a situation that can be painted in black and white terms and I'm going to stick with the current wording. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.∞陣内Jinnai 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The Catholic Thomas Percy joined the rebellion". Either remove the descriptor Catholic or explain before this why its important to note he's Catholic

It's important that Thomas Percy was Catholic because it was a rebellion of Catholics, as made clear by the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it must be the lack of the info on Queen Elizabeth I's religion that makes the statement seem off.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I took it for granted that readers would know Elizabeth was Protestant, I've now clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I knew that, but not everyone is Christian or knows about the Catholic-Protestant wars.∞陣内Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• "d (he was fined £30,000 and held in the Tower of London)," - is that relevant to the article?

Yes, because it illustrates that Percy was in financial troubles and not free to directly control his property. Without that, when the earl's financial troubles are mentioned later the reader would be unaware of the cause. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragtaph in Dukes of Northumberland doesn't seem to fit under that section name. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else. Even "Dukes of Northumberland and beyond" or something more generic like "Late 17th century to present". It shouldn't be broken up though as that would make the sections too small.∞陣内Jinnai 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've changed the section title as per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Updated comments.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• In Warkworth Castle#Layout, I don't believe I've seen subsections denoted by bolded words rather than subheadings before at FAC. Do other articles do this? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've not noticed it in any other FAs, I just thought I'd try something different to avoid making the table of contents too long, but I'm more than happy to switch to conventional subheadings. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On the points that aren't that important, my strategy at FAC is to try to avoid rocking the boat, so I think the edit you just made is a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger died in 1214 and was succeeded by his son, John. When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, Roger, inherited.": This is mentioned above. Personally, I'd go with: Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger was succeeded by his son John in 1214, who was succeeded by his son Roger in 1240.

• That avoids the repetition of "died", so works for me. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The now-ruined 15th-century building replaced an earlier hall on the same site, dating from about 1200,": This is mentioned above. The previous paragraph deals with another structure from around 1200, so per WP:Checklist#chronology, I recommend you move the information on the earlier hall that's in this sentence up to the end of the previous paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's a tricky one. The section isn't arranged in a chronology so much as a tour so I'll have to think about this. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood the sentence ... now I agree that we can't move bits of it up to the previous paragraph. I think it could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It might help that I've swapped the information on the Lion Tower and great hall as the great hall was the more important building. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Warkworth Castle was undefended. Its defences at the time were described as "feeble".": I'm not sure I know what it means for something to be undefended with feeble defenses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, the first bit refers to Roger's action, ie: me made no move to defend it. I've changed it to make this clearer. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "when his son Robert was one-and-a-half": It's not wrong, it's just that it's not often that the "half" is significant enough to mention, so, "... was one year old", maybe. But if the historians think it's important, I'm not in a position to argue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's a fair point, so I've changed it per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "A year later, John made the Crown inheritor.": I'm not positive people will understand. Also, did he leave everything to the Crown in his will, or just the family estates, or just the castle?

• As it happens I posted the relevant bit from Godall on the article's talk page. I'm cautious of saying John wrote the king into his will because that not what the source says, but it's pretty much what happened. I've clarified that it was all of his property that John gave to the king and it now says "A year later, John made arrangements so that on his death the king would receive all of his property." Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The years between roughly 1310 and 1330 were characterised by the inability of the English ...": I'd prefer that you either attribute that or shorten it to: "Between roughly 1310 and 1330, the English were unable ..."

• Yeah, I see the problem here, I've changed it to "Between roughly 1310 and 1330 the English struggled to deal with Scottish raids in northern England". Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• " would be paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms. In exchange for the annual fee, in 1328 Percy was promised the rights to the Clavering's property.": I don't follow, unless "would" is in the sense of "would have been" here. Was he in fact paid 500 marks a year for life? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• He was, "would" was a result of me using the wrong tense there. Is the bit about exchanging the fee for the Clavering's property clear? Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't really follow. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I expressed myself poorly, the bottom line is I changed it to "Henry de Percy ... was in the service of Edward III and was paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms". Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• "the march areas": could use a link.
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down almost halfway, to Percy family. These are my edits. I plan to come back to FAC reviewing within a week, after I get USS Arizona (BB-39) started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing. - Dank (push to talk)
• The only thing left over from above is: "for they have the hertes of the people by north and ever had": Although WP:MOS#Attribution only asks for in-text attribution for a full sentence or more, Chicago (Ch. 13) wants in-text attribution for any significant quote, and I recommend attribution here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get to this immediately, I've now clarified the quote was from John Hardyng. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 1380s John of Gaunt, a rival since 1381 and son of Edward III, rebuilt the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle which may have driven Percy to enhance his own main castle. On the other hand it has been suggested that the earl was spurred by a programme of building at the castles of Brancepeth, Raby, Bamburgh, and Middleham, and Sheriff Hutton by the House of Neville, a family becoming increasingly powerful in northern England.": I'd structure this along the lines of: Percy may have enhanced his main castle to compete with John of Gaunt, who rebuilt (was rebuilding?) the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle, or the House of Neville ... - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• That simplifies things nicely, so that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "similarities between the keep and work at Bamburgh Castle": If "work" means parts of Bamburgh, which parts?

• I've clarified the situation by changing the sentence to "Architectural similarities between Warkworth's keep, Bolton Castle, and the domestic buildings at Bamburgh Castle". Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The earl's 14-year-old son claimed to be a loyal to the king but that he was not to be able to formally surrender the castle,": There's probably a way to say that in fewer words.

• I've had a go at rephrasing it and have temporarily undone your further change. The thing is the surrender hinged on the son's claim not to be able to do it formally, ie: giving an exuse rather than flat out refusing. The quote from the source is below. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At Warkworth, the king's officer was met by Percy's 14-year-old son, who declared himself a loyal subject but regretted that he did not have the ceremonial trappings necesssary to surrender the castle formally to the king, and on this absurd pretext kept control of it.

What does "ceremonial trappings" mean here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question, but unfortunately Goodall doesn't explain. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Towards the end of the century the curtain wall was pulled down around 1752 was rebuilt.": ?

• I got into a tangle there, but I've moved mention of the rebuilda couple of sentences earlier where the demolition is mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Moving from the bailey east of the tower, turning south took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": From the bailey towards the east, or the bailey that was east?

• I've changed it to "Entering through the east of the tower from the bailey", hoping that it makes it clear the bailey was on the east of the tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The northern door led to the great hall, and west to a cellar under the great chamber.": I don't follow.

• I've changed it to "The northern door led to the great hall, and the western door to a cellar under the great chamber", does that clarify things? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

*I still think the sentence about the 14-year-old son raises a question it doesn't answer (see above), but I'm out of time, and on balance, I have no problem supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• After machicolations, I added "openings for stones to be dropped on attackers"; feel free to tweak. (Per WP:Checklist#clarity, when many readers won't even be able to guess what you mean, provide at least a clue as well as a link.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• That certainly makes sense, although I've changed it to a more general "missiles" than "stones" as what the defenders could throw at atttackers through machicolations wasn't limited. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Entering the east side of the tower from the bailey and turning south, took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": Fix this if it's wrong, I went with: Directly south of the east side of the tower was the castle's chapel. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, that's correct. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing. "building work" (instead of "construction") sounds a little strange to me ... does it mean something different than "construction"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland, supported Parliament, which may have prevented the Scots from doing much damage to the castle.": How so? - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly because the Scots were at that time against the King: see English_Civil_War#Rebellion_in_Scotland and "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay ... it sounds like it didn't prevent them from attacking, it made them less inclined to attack. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, just those two questions left from me. They don't alter my support. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Warkworth_Castle_plan.JPG: what type of source is this?

• The 1954 plan is from a book published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I don't have the book so I'll ask Hchc2009 for the page number. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• File:Plan_of_Warkworth_Castle's_keep,_1909.jpg: page number? Also, I had to laugh when I saw the "Do not copy to Commons" tag immediately above the "Now available on Commons" tag - that's probably worth sorting out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, headdesk. A similar issue regarding plans from Gotch's work arose during Peveril Castle's FAC and I asked that it should be deleted. I've asked again. The online source give "pp.82ff" as the location of the plan so that's what I've added to the file description. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments nicely written, I made one small tweak, hope you like it. If not its a wiki..... Information about the materials used and the size of the place would be nice. Heights of walls, area enclosed and types of stone would all be relevant if they are available, and perhaps a comparison with other castles? Also a slightly larger map showing it in the context of the loop in the river might make clearer its defensibility. ϢereSpielChequers 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the change and moving the clarifying statement about the House of Neville earlier made sense. The suggestions you make are good. I might be able to stitch together a map from Vision Britain; Martin of Sheffield made a similar suggestion about adding a map but I only recently remembered the website. As for heights, area enclosed etc, Summerson and Goodall didnt dwell on measurements (in fact I can't remember sseing a single one), but I should be able to get some rough measurements from one of the plans they provide, though not heights. What kind of comparison are you expecting to see? Castles come in all shapes and sizes, so while some elements may be compared to other sites (ie: the brief mention of Bolton Castle) it's not always easy. Events at Alnwick are mentioned occasionally to contrast the fortunes of Warkworth, although the article doesn't delve into specifics of design. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If the sources don't cover this then I'd be surprised, but for FA we only need to check if facts are available. If they aren't available in reliable sources then we leave that for some future editor after such info becomes available. However a slightly different picture might make some of my points visually. What do you think of File:River Coquet with Warkworth and the Castle in the background - geograph.org.uk - 538130.jpg? ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that photo is it's pretty poor quality. Though not quite as clear, the Turner picture adds something similar, showing the river below the castle, and has the added value of being by a notable painter. The main sources are not exclusively technical, so it's probably the authors felt it unnnecessary to weight down the text with excessive numbers, especially when plans are available in each from which such measurements can be taken. It's not that measurements are not available as such, more that the authors haven't included them in the prose. That said, I think it would have been nice if they had added a handful. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this? It's part of an Ordnance Survey map published in 1945. It's covered under Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication so licensing isn't a problem. The scale is 1 mile to one inch, so you can't see any detail on the castle, but I think it works at putting it within its immediate landscape. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that certainly gives local context. If possible it would be good to have a sentence or two on strategic importance if you can source it. If that A road is the old coast road then this castle would have been sited at the junction of the coast road and the river. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now. You know the drill :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This sentence " The Office of Works was given custody of the castle in 1922." is a bit too short in the lead, and I can't tack it onto anything easily. Can you add some info that makes it a tad longer? I feel it'll make the lead flow better.

Fair point, it now reads "Alan Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland, gave custody of the castle to the Office of Works in 1922." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

..... traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible - " held responsible" to me has a somewhat negative connotation which makes it sounds a little odd here. Funnily enough, "thought responsible" doesn't, so I think is a better fit...?

I like the suggestion so I've made the change. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... and surrounding manor to Roger fitz Richard. - I think an adjective or descriptor of who/what Roger fitz Richard is. If we know nothing, then adding "one" before his name will intimate that nicely.

Quite handily I'd put some information on the talk that helps with this. I changed it to "Roger fitz Richard, a member of a noble Norman family." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Twice in 1327 Scottish forces besieged the castle without success - any idea why they didn't succeed?

I'd love to know, but the secondary sources don't go into much detail, my guess would be because the primary sources don't either. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From the great hall was a door to a chapel and beyond that was a great chamber, a formal room where the lord would meet guests. - hmm, I think it needs a rewrite as doesn't scan well to my eyes, but an alternative isn't jumping to mind straightaway.

How about this? "A chapel off the great hall led to a large formal room ..." - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That works for me too. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

is there anything on current annual visitors, facilities or functions it is used for?

Where possible I like to give some recent visitor numbers. This site, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is handy but not comprehensive. So far I've had no luck looking for figures for Warkworth. Regarding facilities there are information boards and guided tours but not really what you might call a museum. I wouldn't be surprised if re-enactments of one sort or another were put on for visitors (it happens at Kenilworth Castle for example), but the English Heritage events page is giving nothing away. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The change from 'considered "feeble" so when the Scots invaded in 1173 it was undefended' to 'considered "feeble", and was left undefended when the Scots invaded in 1173' is a change of meaning. In the former the feeble state _caused_ the castle to be undefended whilst in the latter there is no such implication. PS, as I posted to Nev's talk page, the map makes things much clearer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this gives me a chance to talk about one of the harder Checklist items, WP:Checklist#because. Please tell me if that, and the related section on the talk page, shed any light. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the checklist entirely, but that's a different issue. Without access to the sources I can't make any judgement on this instance, it was just that when I read the differences it seemed to be more than a simple gramatical or stylistic change. Your judgement call! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

RAF Uxbridge

Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected for new nomination SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, based on prose and thoroughness of referencing (spotchecks not done). However, I noticed an issue with "... the 1969 film Battle of Britain were photographed in the 11 Group Operations Room, ..." Photographed seems odd as it implies that they were stills; if it was actual film, why not "shot" instead? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, as a suggestion, perhaps making the short references linked to the correct entry in the bibliography using something like {{harv}} family of templates would make more it user-friendly. Citation style, as long as it is consistent, isn't a criteria so this is just a suggestion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. Also, thanks for spotting the mistake with the Battle of Britain filming. I think it had been changed during a copyedit. Harrison49 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "photgraphed" is often used as a synonym for fliming, e.g. you have a "Director of Photography", even though it might be better expressed as "Director of Cinematography". Anyway "shot" would take care of it nicely... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is a BrE / AmE difference... I've never seen 'photographed' (the verb) for filming. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Working on some of the stuff mentioned below. For the footpath, I went with: "Until the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the station was open to the public. ... A footpath that had traversed the site until 1988 was reopened in 2011." - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help, Dank. Harrison49 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• "staging regular meetings in the grounds": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  I changed that earlier to read "The Duke staged regular hunt meetings in the grounds." Harrison49 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Malleus just beat me to removing "later" in the bit about later making a speech to Parliament ... although I think he's saying that "later" is always wrong ... I'm not sure about that. I think you could say that it means "significantly later" (which it wasn't in this case, only 4 days), but then, if it was significantly later, it's usually best to say when it was. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  I added "days later" to the end of the sentence. Harrison49 (talk)

• "hunts" sounds better to me than "hunt meetings", but AmEng and BritEng diverge in these matters so I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  I've gone with "hunts". Harrison49 (talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Multi-page sources like FN 39 need page numbers
• What is AIDU?
• External links could be culled a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Page numbers have been added, external links have been reduced and the full title of AIDU (Aeronautical Information Documents Unit) has been included. Harrison49 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support, also Spotchecked -- Reviewed, copyedited and spotchecked at MilHist ACR, after which I was happy to support. Having looked through changes since then and finding only a couple of minor things to correct, I believe FAC criteria are also met -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to ACR with spotchecks: WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Uxbridge. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support , one niggle station was open to the public, and a public footpath was open across the site until 1988 repeats "open" and "public". The second "open", at least, could be replaced by ran across Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've changed that part of the sentence to read "the station was open to the public, and a public footpath ran across the site until 1988; it reopened in 2011." Harrison49 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Check grammar on captions. Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• File:RAF_Uxbridge_Crest.jpg: not required, but generally good practice for the FUR to mention this is the lead infobox image
• File:Government_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg (the source for the infobox flag) appears to be based on a deleted page
• File:Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg: if this was created in the early 1900s, wouldn't it be PD in the UK by now? If the FUR is kept, should specify who the copyright holder is. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review.

• Full stops have now been added to captions.
• I would argue the crest was required as it is an intrinsic part of the station's history and identity and is described within the article. An additional note has been added to the rationale.
• File:Government Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg appears to have been remade based on File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. The deleted images seem to have been earlier names for the files.
• The fair use rationale for Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg cites the source publication and image credit from within the book, which is the available copyright information. The only UK PD licence as far as I'm aware is for UK Government works, which this is unlikely to be. Harrison49 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is also a PD-old template for the UK. If I'm not mistaken, 50 years after the death of the creator. If it was first published before 1923, it is PD in the US and at the very least can be marked as such at Misplaced Pages; Commons only accepts images that are PD in both the source country and the US. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking. I have no other information relating to the creator other than their name so wouldn't be able to use the PD-old template. Would it be best to leave it with the historical fair use template instead? Harrison49 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• To my understanding, if it were published before 1923 it could be licensed using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and kept on the English Misplaced Pages; unlike Commons, En-Misplaced Pages allows files that are free in the US but not the country of origin. Of course, to be safe (especially if the year of publication has not been ascertained) you could keep the fair-use template. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to leave the licensing as it is until any further details come to light. Harrison49 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Until the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the station was open to the public, and a public footpath ran across the site until 1988; it reopened in 2011.

The station cinema is also Grade II listed. The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument. While not listed, several other buildings on the site were identified within the plans for possible retention. These are the Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker.

The station cinema is also Grade II listed. The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument. The Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker are not listed, but were identified for possible retention.

Thanks for your review. I'm sorry it wasn't presented clearly, but a search for "path" would have found the information about the footpath. I've made changes based on your suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: Oppose, at least for now. this article still needs work, as even a cursory look at the lead demonstrates. The muddle over the public footpath still hasn't been sorted out. A few more specific comments follow:
  • I just went through the lead again; how does it look now? Harrison, I removed "and through the wooded land within RAF Uxbridge" because I couldn't form a clear picture from that; do you need it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

    I've added "wooded" back in as I think it's worth including. Harrison49 (talk)

    • It's getting there, but what about: "which handled the control of fighter squadrons". What does "handled the control of" mean? Controlled? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Harrison? - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

        It was just a way of saying that's what they did but has been changed. Harrison49 (talk)

    • "The Operations Room was also responsible for controlling the evacuation of Dunkirk in May 1940." Really? I thought that was largely a naval operation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

      Should have said "providing air support". Harrison49 (talk)

Lead

• "A footpath that had traversed the site until 1988 was reopened in 2011." So in 1988 it ceased to traverse the site?

Going with "A footpath through the site that had closed in 1988 was reopened in 2011". - Dank (push to talk)

Much better, thanks. Harrison49 (talk)

Early years

• "The Marchioness of Rockingham, widow of Prime Minister Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, purchased the house from the Chetwynd family in 1786 for £9,000". When did the Chetwynd family acquire the house? Last we were told it was in the ownership of the Duke of Schomberg. And are you going with delimiters in four-digit numbers or not? In the next section we have "the Royal Flying Corps Armament School which moved into Hillingdon House with 114 officers and 1156 men, making a donation of £2289 12s 9d to the Canadian Red Cross".

Got rid of the comma. If the Chetwynd family wasn't significant, we could always just omit their name. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are other occurrences of commas in four digit numbers throughout the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrison?

I was going with delimiters. The only exception had been the old money that the RFC's donation was made in, but that has now been changed. I've removed the Chetwynd family. None of the comprehensive sources I have consulted have any information of owners between the Duke of Schomberg and the Chetwynds. Harrison49 (talk)

• "Cox & Co, as the company was then known, was formed after Richard Cox was appointed agent to the Foot Guards (later the Grenadier Guards), providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century". The ending of that sentence doesn't match its beginning: "Cox & Co, as the company was then known ... providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century".

Went with "and provided".

First World War

• "Needing a site for the training of recruits in ground gunnery, the RFC used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians, and established a firing range." That's rather strangely written, as it implies that the RFC did two things: used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians and established a firing range, whereas they presumably established a firing range in the parts of the estate not required by the Canadians?

It might be correct as written. Harrison, use Malleus's suggestion if that covers what you're trying to say.

It is correct, but I've made some changes to the sentence. Besides the ranges, the RFC would have needed other areas for barracks, physical training and similar requirements. Harrison49 (talk)

Inter-war years

• "... as was the RAF Officers' hospital". Strange capitalisation. Is it called the "RAF Officers' Hospital"? If not, then why is "Officers'" capitalised?

I lowercased it.

• "On 1 March 1929, the Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps (ROC) was established at Hillingdon House". Why is "Headquarters" capitalised?

Harrison, is "Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps" the usual name of the unit?

The military would officially have called it "Headquarters, Royal Observer Corps", but I've removed the capital. Harrison49 (talk)

P.S. I've covered from Post-war years down and the first third, so as not to edit-conflict with Malleus. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Over to you now, I've promised to look at something else this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Second World War

• "A series of one-day training courses for pilots in the organisation of Group Control took place throughout November." I have no idea what that means.

Me neither. - Dank (push to talk)

It wasn't that important so I have removed it. It meant they were taught how a fighter group was controlled. Harrison49 (talk)

• "... only the garden wall and door was retained". The subject (garden wall and door) is plural.

Fixed.

Sorry, should have spotted that. Harrison49 (talk)

• "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle – Battle of Britain Day – 15 September 1940." Punctuation needs looking at. Consider: "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle ... 15 September 1940."

I went with: ... the entire battle: Battle of Britain Day, 15 September 1940

• "Luftwaffe pilots became confused at this unexpected landmark that was not on their maps, and so it is believed this contributed to the small number of bombs which fell on the station." That's pretty ugly, especially the "and so it is believed ..." bit.

I went with: "Few bombs fell on the station; Luftwaffe pilots may have mistaken the glass greenhouses at the Lowe & Shawyer plant nursery west of the station for a large body of water not on their maps."

• "On D-Day, the 11 Group Controller became responsible for ensuring sufficient air patrols of the United Kingdom, the main shipping routes and the beach landing areas". Was that just for D-Day, or from D-Day onwards?

Harrison? - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for D-Day. Harrison49 (talk)

Post-war years

• "The restored Operations Room in the No. 11 Group Battle of Britain Bunker". "A museum was created within the bunker and the operations room opened for group visits." Which is it to be? Should "operations room" be capitalised or not?

  Both. The bunker houses the Operations Room and a museum. I'm now going for capitals throughout. Harrison49 (talk)

• "In March 2003 the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was prepared at Uxbridge for a visit to the Gulf." How do you prepare an Under-Secretary of State? Give him a good wash and brush up and clean set of clothes?

  My source said "prepared" but I've changed it to "briefed". Harrison49 (talk)

• "Over 20,000 people watched the parade, which started from Uxbridge Magistrates Court, passing through the High Street to the RAF station." As "High Street" is capitalised then it must be a proper noun, the name of the street. Therefore prefixing it with "the" is inappropriate; you wouldn't say "passing through the Acacia Avenue" for instance. And what does "passing through" mean in this context anyway? How do you pass through a street?

I changed it to "passing along High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is common to describe a High Street as "the High Street". A High Street is generally a focal point for a town and the site of main shopping parades, so is treated differently to other streets. Using just "High Street" doesn't look or sound right. "Passing through" meant they went from one end to the other. Harrison49 (talk)

Understood, I just couldn't think of a solution as good as the one you adopted: "passing along the town's High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "A support network for the families of servicemembers sent into action was again established at the station". Is "servicemembers" really a word? Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've thought for years that that was correct, but it's not in M-W or the Cambridge Dictionary, it must be "service members". Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the original "servicemen and women". Harrison49 (talk)

What I understand of FAC style would make it "servicemen and -women". "Gender-neutral" writing is all the rage in the US ... I trust Malleus's judgment more than mine on which version we want for this article for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with "service members" then. Thanks again for your edits, Dank. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, picking up on Dank's gender-neutral point, we have "... support group meetings began at the station for the families of servicemen serving during the Gulf War." Was it really only males sent to the Gulf War? "Servicemen serving" sounds a bit awkward in any case. What about something like "personnel serving ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have gone for "station personnel". Harrison49 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your reviews and edits. Harrison49 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Hurricane Gert (1993)

Nominator(s): Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and 12george1 (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a complete and factual account on this large and devastating storm. Since its previous state, the article has undergone major changes and expanded greatly in both size and comprehensiveness. It has also received an extensive peer review, which helped improve in particular its prose. In addition, the article contains a well-balanced amount of both reliable English and Spanish sources, and I believe there are no significant omissions of coverage. Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that User:12george1 is co-nomming. Auree ★ 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments to come. HurricaneFan25 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • • Whose support is this (it's unsigned), and why is an editor supporting with such a long list of concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The support and comments were from User:Hurricanefan24. I added his signature and the time he made the edit. Auree ★ 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple pages should be notated using "pp." not "p."
• check publisher for FN 17

• Not too sure on this one. Should it be "Congreso Iberoamericano sobre Desarrollo y Ambiente"? Auree ★ 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 32: page(s)?
• FN 41: publisher?
• FN 43: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the rest has been addressed. Thanks for the review as usual Auree ★ 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. - right, reading through now (well, not while I type this) and jotting notes below (I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go - revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

where as much as 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured - just a query as I'm not familiar with these articles, is it usual to go to this degree of accuracy in precipitation?

Yeah, if such a specific total is available. It's even preferred most of the time (for meteorological accuracy). Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what a circulation is in this context.

How does "wind circulation" sound?

sounds fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its cloud pattern continued to organize - does "organize" have a specific meaning here, if we just mean "gather" then I suggest "coalesce" might be better...?

Hmmm... I'm not too sure about this one, since it is a pretty common term in meteorology. I really like "coalesce" though, and I'm all for using it since it conveys the same meaning. I'll ask around at the WPTC chat Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

radio stations broadcast warning messages to aware the public - hmm, can't use "aware" as a transitive verb like that (?) - I'd go with "radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public"

Very true! Good call Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Gert showed signs of intensification - why not just " Gert showed signs of getting stronger" or "intensifying"

I don't see much of a difference, but would "strengthening" work? Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

yup. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Although Gert's center remained off the coast of Costa Rica, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across the country. - why not just "rainfall"? Is there a meaning in precipitation that is not in rainfall. I always try to use a plainer word as long as meaning is not compromised.

Rainfall would work better here, yeah. Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall nice work - surprisingly little to nitpick about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank ya for the review! Your edits were fine as well. I'm not sure if you're done, but the comments have been addressed.Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work, good article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. YE

• Comment, some nitpicks:
  • The high terrain quickly disrupted its structure, and Gert entered the Pacific as a tropical depression by September 21. — can you be more exact as to where Gert re-emerged over the sea? It could have been over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or over the Sea of Cortez, and this sentence is arguably correct. Please be more specific, as not everyone can look at the track map and see it emerged near Cabo Corrientes.
    • If you can find a source to the location (which I didn't), I'd be glad to add it. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You could use the best track to show what data point it was at when it entered into the Pacific. (Which would be Nayarit) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Awesome, thanks! Added that to the MH now—should I add it to the lede as well? Auree ★ 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Considering that you went into detail on how it moved over Central America, I say yes. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Added. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A tropical wave, or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south, moved off the African coast well south of Dakar on September 5 and tracked rapidly westward across the tropical Atlantic. — use em dashes here, they work better for the interruption to explain "tropical wave"
    • Alright. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Owing to favorable tropospheric conditions aloft, the system began showing signs of development, — did the source mention anything about what made the upper-level conditions favorable (e.g. an anticyclone)? Also, link "development" to tropical cyclogenesis
    • Unfortunately, it didn't, though I did add the wikilink. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Struck. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Its cloud pattern continued to coalesce, and the NHC upgraded it to Tropical Storm Gert on September 15. — the lede mentioned that Gert briefly attained named-storm status, so add a timestamp here, so the reader can compare it to the landfall time you mention in the next sentence.
    • Yup, added. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved back inland near Belize City by the next day, allowing minimal opportunity for development — get rid of "by", and would "redevelopment" be better in this case?
    • Removed "by," but since I already mention it regained TS status redevelopment seems redundant. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe "even more intensification" would be better, then. "Development" is borderline jargony, and thus I'd avoid it. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Disagree here. WP:WPTC/J states that "This term is self-defining so a wikilink should be sufficient," and a wikilink had been added. I think with the previous mention of it (and elaboration on how it developed) and the commonness of the term, a reader would understand. Auree ★ 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Don't entirely agree, but this is so minor that I'll write this one off to "author's style". Titoxd 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Inland, a ridge of high pressure forced a weakening Gert to turn back to the west-northwest. — this sentence made me think at first that there was a mesoscale ridge of some sort over Central America, which sort of goes against the requirement for ridges having to be synoptic-scale features. Please reword this to something like "Once a weakened Gert was inland, it began to feel the effects of a high-pressure ridge, and turned back to the west-northwest" or something similar.
    • Changed to your suggestion. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The deepening convection consolidated over open waters with light wind shear, — you just said that the storm was weakening, so this makes no meteorological sense. (Yes, I know what you are trying to say. You need to explicitly say that Gert began to re-intensify once it entered the Gulf of Mexico.)
    • The way you reworded it sounds good for me. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On September 20, data from an air force aircraft indicated that the storm had evolved into a hurricane — Mexican Air Force? (I know it's not, say it was a USAF plane explicitly, as the lay reader doesn't know that.)
    • Meh, guess it couldn't hurt. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Once inland, the storm accelerated and rapidly weakened over the mountainous region; — mention the Sierra Madre Oriental explicitly, as you mention it in the Impact section by name.
    • Mentioned. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Gert entered the Pacific Ocean later that day, where it was reclassified as Tropical Depression Fourteen-E. — why didn't it keep the same name? (Link to the relevant article, tropical cyclone naming.)
    • Linked. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert for coastal regions on September 14, which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast the following day. — can you really say that the warning issued by the RSMC is an upgrade to the alert issued by the national meteorological organization? I like how you mention both, but I don't think that saying it is an "upgrade" is correct.
    • How does "replaced" sound? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It is still wrong. The alerts were issued by agencies in different countries, so the Costa Rican alert would remain active regardless of what warnings the U.S. National Hurricane Center issued. The current version of the text removes the "upgrade" text, which is an improvement, but I'd still mention explicitly who issued the tropical storm warning. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the source doesn't address who issued what. Auree ★ 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Then just leave it as is. Titoxd 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • National television and radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public, while emergency crews were dispatched in case conditions would warrant. — "would" is the wrong tense.
    • What should it be? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • "warranted", or if you want to go all out, use "were to warrant". In either case, it might be better to say "warrant {intervention | rescue | whatever}". Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Tweaked. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Gert was a large and tenacious tropical cyclone for most of its lifespan, — "tenacious" is a borderline WP:PEACOCK term. (Never thought I'd say that in a hurricane FAC…)
    • Well, it survived all the way through Central America, and one of the highest terrains in the Americas while retaining its tropical cyclone status. What else would you have me use to express that? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think it needs to be expressed, as the tone becomes borderline unencyclopedic. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • George removed it altogether. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There, the flooding affected 24,000 people and made communication with surrounding areas with limited road network nearly impossible. — "limited road network" sounds awkward. I suggest "limited connectivity to the road network" or something similar.
    • Removed "limited road network" altogether. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Perpetual heavy rain in the wake of the storm aggravated the situation, — it's still going on? o.O (Use "continued" here.)
    • Tweaked. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain donated over $300,000 in aid. — each, or in total?
    • Combined. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Although most of the affected population was aided within days, the limited road network caused a large delay in relief efforts to the hard-hit Mosquitia Region. — "received aid" would sound better here, and you used "road network" in the previous paragraph before. "Highway system" or something is equivalent and adds variety.
    • I agree with "received aid", just have bad experiences with it in previous reviews. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Now it says "received aided". Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Gah, fixed. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The governments of Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided $310,300 for the purchase of relief items. — again, is this a lump sum, or a contribution by each?
    • Combined. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Most of my complaints are stylistic, but there are some accessibility and jargon complaints in there as well, and I would like to see these addressed before supporting. Titoxd 03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Awesome review, just what the article needed. Quick comments have been addressed, and I'll look into the other stuff. Auree ★ 03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Struck most items, but a few are still outstanding. Titoxd 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, all my points have been addressed to my satisfaction. Titoxd 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an image review and a spotcheck of the sources for this article. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Where could I request these? Auree ★ 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review - You're good. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Woot, thanks! Auree ★ 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There are far too many errors in the "publishers" of Spanish-language sources for me to determine quickly if these sources are reliable (every single one I checked was wrong). Also, when listing some obscure national commission, you should give the country. Auree, do you speak Spanish or are you using an online translator? When you find a PDF in Spanish, you sometimes have to follow that PDF back to where you got it to figure out who published it, and if the case is some student at some University, that may not be a reliable source. You haven't identified the CRID as a publisher, and it even has an English section of its website. Unless Titoxd (who speaks Spanish) has time to get to all of this, I will have to do it ... Please ask Titoxd if he can have a look with the aim of fixing the publishers, adding locations when they are country-specific entities, and checking that Spanish-language sources are accurately represented in the article. If he does so, he can ping me-- if he can't, pls ping me next week and I'll get to it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Auree knows Spanish, so he can probably double-check himself. YE 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, YE (excess bolding removed). OK, following on Nikkimaria's original comment (above), here's the first one I found-- the rest are similar and need attention:

      (in Spanish) "Las inundaciones causadas por el Huracan "Gert" sus efectos en Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas y Veracruz" (PDF). El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil. p. 1. Retrieved 2011-10-26.

      This is publshed by www.crid.or.cr -- they have a website, and they have an English-language section of their website, hence they have an English-language publisher name. On the other hand, our readers will have no idea what "El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil" is or to what country it pertains. Next, if this was in fact actually published by some Costa Rican entity and then merely re-published by CRID, is it reliable? Should we have a "work" parameter as well as a "publisher" parameter on these sources? Titoxd will know, but the citations need to be cleaned up for two purposes-- should links go dead, our readers need to have enough info to know where to find them, and we need to know if these sources are reliable (that is, who actually published them, including the first publisher, what country etc). I found another one that was accessed on some library (El Salvador I think, but can't remember now) that appeared to be some sort of student publication, but I didn't check closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

      For the record, real-life commitments prevent me from doing anything substantial in Misplaced Pages for the next month. (A couple of conferences and finals will do that to you.) I can't check the citations in a time frame that is reasonable for the purposes of this FAC. Titoxd 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and pointing this out, Sandy. First off, I would like to clarify that I can fluently read/understand Spanish (I grew up with the language). Admittedly, I'm not the best at citation formatting, and I will have to check out the publisher issue. I'll ask others like Titoxd to help Auree ★ 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to know you speak Spanish, that helps-- PS, I haven't looked closely enough, but I'm also wondering if the CRID is hosting copyvios? Do they have the rights to re-publish those PDFs? Similar on others-- I'm sure you all can sort this without me, then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is everything we need to know about CRID, which seems pretty authentic. The document on the effects in Mexico was originally published by CENAPRED, so I'm not sure how to format this. Auree ★ 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Titoxd helped me with some of the issues offsite, though I'm not sure if they have been fixed properly. It would be great if you could take another look. Auree ★ 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your diff of changes, and it still needs more ... not all have locations, and there are multiple (different) websites that indicate the same publisher. Are some of these being republished? For example, the CRID one is, I think. You may solve some of this by listing the original publisher under the Work parameter, and the website where you found it hoseted under the Publisher parameter-- remember that if those links go dead, folks need to know what to search on, and in many cases, the website you found it hosted on is not listed as the publisher. Give it another go, and I'll have a look later ??? Are you sure none of those websites are hosting copyvios? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way (unrelated to whether this article meets FA standards), if you all are going to be using Centro Regional de Información sobre Desastres a lot for citation, it needs an article at either there or Regional Disaster Information Center, and CRID needs a hatnote at top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have a go at it once more. How would I best go about adding locations (if required) to those that apply to Central America/Latin America in general?

Edit: I've implemented your publisher/work suggestion to the sources, though I think I went a bit overboard with the locations... Auree ★ 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Auree, I'll continue this on talk here so we can get it sorted without filling this page-- it may seem minor, but since you are likely to use these same sources often, we should get it sorted once and for all-- that will aid your future articles. Our goal is to make sure that if any of these websites go dead (government entities have a way of doing that in Latin America :), future editors and readers can still figure out where to find the original reports. Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose for now, but remain frustrated at the way citations are written in this article. I don't have time to sort this further, but my concerns extend beyond the Spanish-language sources, and I suggest pinging in Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) for a look with an aim towards achieving a more professional citation standard for future hurricane FACs (he's good at this sort of thing, and may have better feedback than mine). I'm on a slow connection and am having a hard time loading the sources, so I'm afraid I'm not helping much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Sandy. You did help a lot, and I appreciate your determination to improve the citation formatting for this article. I will continue working toward achieving a more professional standard of sourcing. Auree ★ 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - Excellent article. Undeniably the best account of this storm available anywhere, which is my #1 criterion for FA status. That said, I have some comments regarding the met. history.
• A tropical wave—or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south - if you're going to describe it in the context of a "trough", you should mention that an EW is an inverted trough.

  I'll chime in here. Saying that easterly waves are inverted troughs raises the question, "What is an inverted trough?" Answering that is not the point of this article, and is too off-topic for my taste. I'd replace it with "area of low pressure". Titoxd 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Due to its position at a relatively low latitude, interaction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone - dangling participle as far as I can tell, unless I'm interpreting this line incorrectly.
• the system began showing signs of development, as the deep convection organized into well-defined curved rainbands. - "as", here, is irritatingly vague. I'm not sure whether to interpret it as "while" or "since/because". It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's disconcerting to read something and not know its intended meaning.
• By that time, it had retraced toward the north-northwest under the influence of a mid- to upper-level trough over the eastern Gulf of Mexico. - I'm having a hard time visualizing this. "Under the influence of" could mean any number of things.

• Changed to "in response to". Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved - grammatically, "it" modifies "the storm's duration", which I'm sure isn't the intended meaning.
• Once Gert was inland, it began to feel - example of a phrase that could be simplified. "Once inland, Gert began to feel..."
• After crossing the Yucatán Peninsula and decreasing in organization, it entered the Bay of Campeche as a tropical depression late on September 18 - I wouldn't use the pronoun "it" in a sentence that doesn't mention the subject by name or type ("Gert", "the system", "the cyclone", "the storm").

• Don't really agree here, it's quite obvious from the preceding sentences (and entire article). Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• that the storm had evolved into a hurricane with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) - "evolved" is incorrect here; it simply strengthened.
• Its forward motion had slowed slightly due to a shortwave trough to its north, allowing the hurricane more time to organize over water. - weird sentence structure in general. I still don't like using "it" in the absence of an immediately preceding subject. Also, you should try to explain why the shortwave caused the storm to slow. Did it suppress the storm? Lend extra vorticity to the hurricane causing it to deepen vertically and in turn become embedded in a different steering pattern? Spin up a superstorm akin to 1993 which phased with two other sources of upper-level energy and encircled the globe, ensuring Gert couldn't gain latitude?

• I could try, but that'd be OR. The source doesn't mention anything else. Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed here. This definitely goes into the range of synoptic analysis, which is blatant OR for our purposes. Titoxd 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gert subsequently attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, reaching winds of near 100 mph (165 km/h). - "near" is confusing, since 100 mph is the exact unit used elsewhere in the article.
• with its eye moving - poor structure; see if you can rephrase.

• I'll try... any suggestions? Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Although deep convection waxed and waned in intensity, satellite observations - another dangling participle-type thingy...
• No redevelopment occurred due to cold waters - this is more obvious, but I still don't like "due to" without any indication of cause and effect.

Overall, I feel like this section in particular is a bit knotty and disjointed, and could afford to be polished up. Feel free to point out where I'm off-base. Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Julian Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - enough of my concerns have been addressed to justify supporting. The information and quality of presentation in the article is very consistent with FA status. Juliancolton (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the nominator solicited my involvement in relation to citations, and I will be commenting at this FAC's talk page. In brief summary: I'm a bit disturbed that some high quality reliable sources aren't sufficiently well referenced; given that this is a gnomish problem I might just muck in one day and fix it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to sort out any citation problems here and then sign off; after this weekend when I have to go do something rather important to my personal life. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on 47/47 citations for citation formatting and source quality (yes I also checked source quality and approve) problems noted and being fixed all fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Update All the citations have been given a thorough look-through. I've made changes per User:Fifelfoo's suggestions and comments, and he will later double-check for any further mistakes. Auree ★ 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd like to thank Hylian Auree for doing so much work on such complex citations. I really am just cleaning up fiddle! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I hope Auree plans to become our next resident expert on citations :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks to both of you for all your effort and great help! And who knows, Sandy—I do appreciate high quality and meticulousness. :P Auree ★ 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks to Hylian Auree and thanks to Sandy Georgia. Sometimes you get dobbed in for jobs and they're tiring, hard, painful and worst of all: useless. This job was tiring, hard, painful and highly productive. It was good hard work and I was glad for it. Cite 31 handled brilliantly btw. Cite 36 was a doozy and the kind of bastard citation problem that calls for expert assistance (which was asked for correctly!). Cite 39 is also available as a PDF at the same location, and I suggest that the PDF be used over the .doc as PDF is a more "open" format, and I did that anyway by BOLDness. Cite 39 was a bastard too. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I totally forgot about this FAC. I reviewed it before it was sent to FA, and was quite pleased with it. I am confident that it is the best account on the storm anywhere, and I believe the sourcing problems (if there are any left) are minor enough for this to be promoted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after passing a GA review, I believe it meets the qualifications. Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm assuming from the different formatting of Fritsch and Kummer that in the latter both Kummer and Fox are editors; if that's the case, why not include both in shortened citations?
• Location for Kummer?
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or spelled out. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Locations and state should be fixed now. As to the editors: Fritsch wrote a monograph that Butts edited. Kummer wrote an essay on the 68th N.Y. that was included in a larger work about all the New York units at Gettysburg, which Fox edited. I've changed the cite format on Kummer to better reflect that. I also added the second editor, Daniel Sickles, whom I had inadvertently left off. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, some wikilinks added. GermanJoe (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served ...": Not your fault, you (and others) are following that awful advice in WP:LEAD ... but I just can't see it. "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment served ..." - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Made up mostly of German immigrants, it was also known as ...": Just an idea, this would be a little tighter: "Mostly German immigrants, they were also known as ..."
• "Cameron Rifles,": See WP:LQ
• "1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting.": had finished
• "Washington, D.C..": oops
• "re-organized": hyphen in BritEng, no hyphen in AmEng
• "They moved to Hunter's Chapel, Virginia, and camped there for the remainder of the winter. While there, Betge came into conflict ...": No big deal, but someone's probably going to complain it's not tight enough ... how about this? "They camped for the remainder of the winter in Hunter's Chapel, Virginia. Betge came into conflict ..."
• That covers the first section, and I probably won't have any trouble covering the copyediting in my self-allotted two hours ... but run through the rest looking for similar problems before I get started, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I do like my language to be concise. I've gone over the rest of the article with that in mind, but if you see any other problems, let me know. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your fixes. I get that there's an argument the other way, but I still don't like "In all, 1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting." If you don't like "had finished", it can be reworded.
• "Colonel Betge protested against what he considered the mistreatment his regiment": something's missing.
• "Frémont's force of 15,000 combined with the 10,000-man division of Brig. Gen. James Shields to converge on Jackson south of Massanutten Mountain.": most readers are going to read "combined with" as "along with", then they'll have to back up when they realize the sentence doesn't seem to have a verb.
• "they did lose two men killed": a little informal. "two men were killed" works I think.
• "April 2, 1863": WP:Checklist#second comma needed. Search for 1863 to catch the others.
• "the 68th crossed the Potomac and arrived in Virginia on July 16 and took up guard duty": The two ands don't work.
• "it and the rest of the XI Corps was": were; compound subject.
• "As the 68th had no colonel since von Bourry was cashiered": one of the verb tenses is wrong ... it could be either one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed all of these. I wasn't against the "had finished" language, I just missed it last time around. Should be good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• A little more: I removed "came into conflict with some of the other officers and" because it looks like what follows defines the conflict, but if there was some other conflict, perhaps it should be described. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you have it right. That language is fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• After comments in other FACs, I'm putting more work into editing to match the style I think the delegates are looking for. Please check carefully, since I'm making a few guesses. I guessed "loyal" was a word in the source and put it in quote marks ... if they didn't say "loyal", what did they say, so I can paraphrase? - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Your edits are fine, but I don't think there's only one style that is acceptable at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed ... but the style work necessary to get articles through FAC is diverging from the work necessary to get them through A-class ... and I've come around to thinking that that's actually a good thing. More on this later today at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's difficult to strike a balance between precision and clarity on the one hand and engaging, interesting prose on the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite. I'm actually going to put off that post til the weekly FAC update on Saturday night. The point I want to make is that too much fussiness at A-class is a bad thing, but the standards are pretty high these days at FAC ... particularly for Milhist articles that are a bit technical or involved. I'm putting in more work at FAC than I used to, and I don't mind, but it's going to be impossible not to come across as fussy. Feel free to revert or complain, we'll work it out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The regiment spent the first month on similar duty to the one it had left: guarding the railroads leading to Chattanooga.": Not sure I follow, how was it similar, or not? - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I just meant that after Gettysburg they guarded railroads in Virginia, then moved to Tennessee and guarded railroads there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I went with: "The regiment spent the first month guarding railroads again, this time around Chattanooga." Slight change in meaning ... that won't be right if they weren't actually around Chattanooga. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I changed it to "west of", because "around" might suggest all around, while the areas to the east and south were still held by rebels. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are a couple more "musters", which Kirk objected to.
• Otherwise, done. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:68thNY_Gettysburg.png: since this is 3D, you need either copyright info for both the image and the monument, or a freedom of panorama tag.
  • The pic is from 1900. The monument has been there at least that long. I'm not sure what you want me to add -- freedom of panomara doesn't apply in the U.S., according to that link. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • My mistake, struck. Just explicitly state that the licensing tag applies to both the artwork and the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I added that detail with a citation. The monument was dedicated in 1888. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• File:Acw_bs_7a.png: on what source(s) was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The portal picture? I have no idea. I can remove it if it's a problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • According to the page's description, the creator made it himself and releases it to the PD. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it appears to be derived from pre-existing flags, which need to be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • The user who created it hasn't edited in eighteen months, so I doubt we'll get any clarification from him/her. I'll just comment it out for now, if that's OK. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your image assessments before, but I think this one is a little too cautious. There's nothing to suggest that the creator of the image did anything but draw a combination of two well-known images. That said, I'll be glad to take it out for the good of the article -- I don't think it's that important and the portal is linked on the talk page already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I left a note on the image's talk page. Until a satisfactory response, I'm happy to leave it commented out. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks clear 3/12 sources; 5/79 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was concerned about your reliance on Fritsch, as it is a primary source. However, I note two things: 1) the text was edited prior to publication, not a great but better than nil; 2) Every thing solely cited to Fritsch is a matter of simple appointment or manoeuvre, no analytical content is cited to Fritsch, and the documentary analysis required to produce these statements would be trivial synthesis. (Grind teeth, accept use).
  • NYT at fn5;6 clear; Coffey fn4, 70, 76 clear.
  • From the style of summarisation of NYT and Coffey I have no doubts that this is clear of plagiarism and that the citations correctly support the sources.

Comments: This article looks very good and I would be glad to give you my support. However, there is something that you should improve before I do that. The lead has a single paragraph. Couldn't you enlarge it to at least three paragraphs? It's not that hard. All it would take is to copy and paste (practically) the most important facts. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a lot more detail. I think it should adequately summarize the article now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is a wonderful article and I'm glad to support its promotion to FA. Dank did all the hard work of pointing and correcting the minor issues and I support all his improvements. Coemgenus, it must have been quite difficult to write it all by yourself. This is one fine work. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Finding the sources was the hardest part. Once I tracked them down, writing the thing wasn't too bad. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I second Lecen's comment - good work.
• I dislike this phrasing The 68th was mustered out of federal service in November 1865. - its pretty close to the 19th century source and I think you could reword these in simple(r) English.
  • Changed to "disbanded". --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Similarly, ...sent them reeling....went their separate ways...reeling off the ridge...depressed by their defeat - Dank might have missed these; you should strive to use more neutral language.
• Link picket duty or describe it (preferrable). Kirk (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kirk, and I agree with your particulars (as follows), but I want to make sure we're clear: FAC reviewers don't want paragraphs and paragraphs of "A moved here and did this, and then B moved there and did that", with never a hint of commentary or emotion. What we're trying to avoid are trite and confusing phrases and emotional language that is unexplained, unnecessary, or out of proportion to what's going on. So:
  • "sent them reeling. Sigel's forces held firm": I misunderstood this the first time ... now it feels like it doesn't paint a clear picture ... they were reeling, then they held firm, then they fell back.
  • "disbanded and went their separate ways": Yeah, good call, there's not much in "went their separate ways" that isn't covered by "disbanded".
  • "reeling off the ridge": Not sure ... what was happening, exactly?
  • "depressed" isn't always a "non-neutral" word, but there are conditions. It's not clear to me what made them depressed (there are several options ... or it could have just been the defeat, but the readers don't need help figuring out that that was depressing). I've just added a paragraph to WT:Checklist#A_little_more_on the_two_new_points that I hope covers the issue. (You'd think with everything that's been written about expository writing, I could find something somewhere that covers this, but I don't remember seeing it in any of my guides.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • On that last point, I lumped that one together with the others and its a separate issue. I read the source on google books and I think you are aiming for "demoralized" to describe the mental state of the men in the 68th. Keller does use that word on the page, but I think its the best adjective to use here. I would also mention the high casualties in this section. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, there's no good synonym for "demoralized". - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm Traveling 1,800 miles (2,900 km) by rail, the 68th arrived in Tennessee on September 30 Its what the source says, but 1,800 miles by rail is St. Louis to Los Angeles; Warrenton to Chattanooga is about 500; they must have taken an indirect route but my best guess is around 1,000 miles unless they did some major backtracking - I'd find another source for this sentence. Kirk (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I'll try to tend to these today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, these all should be in order now, except for the last. I think the 1800 figure is correct -- the point of including it in the source, I think, was to demonstrate how round-about the route was, due to the dislocations of war, torn up tracks, etc. Fritsch also says the journey took seven days, which also suggests an indirect route. I'll look in the other sources, but I don't recall seeing anything to the contrary. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Without a description of the route (which would be interesting) I would use 7 days instead of 1800 miles. Kirk (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I just found another source that says it was 1,200 miles. Until I can resolve the ambiguity, I've changed it to "for seven days". --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support looks good, thanks! Kirk (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very good article, deserves to be a FA, it would be great if we had more articles like this one, nice pictures, good sources and well organized. The regiments from New York are very interesting, I was not familiar with this specific regiment, I knew about the Irish regiments and the Garibaldi Guard. I learned a lot, thanks. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

1689 Boston revolt

Nominator(s): DCI2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article for several reasons. The article has been much expanded by User:Magicpiano from the original, small one that I created a year ago, and is now a Good Article. It has undergone a peer review and is in a Military History A-class review that is progressing well (but somewhat slowly). I believe it to be a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, description of the uprising. DCI2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 51: is this a magazine article?
  • I believe this has been replaced or fixed. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Added missing locations. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - This text from the Lead, "of provincial militia and citizens formed in the city, arresting dominion officials and adherents of the Church of England, who were suspected of being sympathetic to the dominion" is duplicated here: On that website, Misplaced Pages is not acknowledged as a source. Could the nominator respond to this? Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no personal connection whatsoever with the Miner Descent webpage, and cannot recall. I do not believe that it is copied from the other site, and it doesn't look like any editor of the Misplaced Pages article has listed it as a source. I'm willing to revise. DCI2026 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the miner descent page includes a Lead that used to be on the article.

The "dif" might be adequate evidence of Misplaced Pages's priority, but it won't do any harm to recast the text in question—it's a little convoluted in any case:-) Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. DCI2026 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Oppose, tentatively. I may have this wrong, but I believe User:Magicpiano (who has done most of the expansion) wasn't consulted before this article was put up at A-class (Sept 23) before the nominator had responded to comments from the peer review (Sept 4), and wasn't consulted before bringing the article here. Let's let the A-class review run before we tackle this at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I would like to give this article its chance at an FA review. Could we at least wait to see what others say as to the article's quality? DCI2026 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Magicpiano appears to be a primary contributor, why don't you notify them of the FAC and see if they approve of it? If so, there's no problem. If not, I think this should be archived. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Magicpiano. DCItalk 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC) (DCI2026)

I have no issue with this article being at FAC (or in the A-class review). DCI is probably not aware that it is recommended to notify major contributors to articles when putting them into formal reviews. I will attend to review issues that seem to fall within my purview, but I am also going to be on a wikibreak in about a week, with generally reduced activity here for several weeks. Magic♪piano 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll withdraw the oppose. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator The article's A-class review has ended. The article was not promoted for the reason that there is a review underway here. DCItalk 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly, we should decline to promote this article to FA status for the reason that it did not attain an A-class rating. --Kafka

Link Check - No DAB links, no dead external links, 2 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell:

Completed issues moved to talk.

• Support. This article meets our FAC criteria. The prose is clear and lively, the article is well organized, and the sourcing is reliable. – Quadell 12:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture. If anyone is curious as to demands for Andros to surrender, there is a Commons file called File:1689 surrender Andros Boston MassachusettsArchives.png. It is a picture of the posted letter signed by some rebel leaders, calling for the governor to give in. DCItalk 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question. I am wondering if the demographics of those arrested in the revolt should be mentioned. The article currently seems to infer that the rebels rounded up any Anglicans they could find. They did not. Anglicans were arrested, but most of these were dominion officials and militia officers. A few town authorities, including the marshal and a tax collector, were jailed, as well. It seems that the only Anglican private citizens seized were a churchwarden and an apothecary.

I also have a question as to the aftermath of the revolt. The day after Andros's overthrow, a group calling itself the "Council for the Safety of the People and Conservation of the Peace" met in Boston to organize colonial government. Governor Bradstreet was appointed council president, and other members were magistrates, leaders of the rebellion, and some of Andros's council, the majority of which had supported the revolt. The council was disbanded after citizens expressed concern that "revolutionary" elements held sway over it. Should this be explained in the article? DCItalk 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comprehensive, well-written and -sourced. One minor suggestion:

• "At about 5:00 am on April 18, militia companies began gathering outside Boston at Charlestown (then a separate community), just across the Charles River, and at Roxbury (also then not part of Boston), at the far end of the neck connecting Boston to the mainland." ==> Could the bracketed information be moved into a separate note similar to the note about different calenders? I understand, the information is needed to avoid confusion about the locations, but it's a bit distracting in the main text. GermanJoe (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. DCItalk 00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Images:

• All check out as far as I can see, except for Sir Edmund Andros.jpg, where the pre-1919 date of creation needs to be explained further on the description page by reference to the date of death of the collector. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the Andros image with one that has better provenance (and is a color portrait to boot). Magic♪piano 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Background: Don't think multiple Massachusetts Bay Colony links are needed in this section.
  • Fixed. Magic♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Same goes for Puritan.
• What do we all think about using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a source? It is a fellow encyclopedia (and an old one at that), which is kind of odd to be using in a potential FA, at least to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's only use is to cite a relatively uncontroversial point in the aftermath (the duration of Jacob Leisler's tenure in New York). Magic♪piano 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down about halfway, to Revolt in Boston. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The text says "restoration of Massachusetts's colonial charter, revoked by Andros", but a recent edit summary says "Andros didn't revoke or establish charters". - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure at this point who added that language, but it's quite wrong. Andros had nothing to do with the Mass. charter revocation. Magic♪piano 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was probably me, when I attempted to reword the sentence. I was certainly wrong - Andros did not revoke the charters, and the dominion charter had already taken effect by the time he reached Massachusetts. DCItalk 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering - should any of the events listed in Webb's Lord Churchill's Coup be included in the article's "Aftermath" section? The book includes detailed descriptions of what happened after Andros's overthrow. DCItalk 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No opinion, I'm just dealing with prose on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing. "A boat from the Rose, of potential use in this escape attempt, was intercepted by militia": This doesn't feel right to me. If the boat was in some sense intended for his use, I'd prefer "A waiting boat from the Rose was intercepted by militia". If you want to be more specific, that's fine too.
  • The boat came ashore when they saw what was going on, probably to help out in an escape attempt. DCItalk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I went with "A boat that came ashore from the Rose ..." - Dank (push to talk)
• "citing the mob of which they claimed to be "wholly ignorant".": If they knew about the mob, they weren't ignorant of it. Maybe they were claiming not to know where it came from. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The mob was running rampant, hauling off dominion officials and trying to remove supposedly idolatrous objects from Kings Chapel, the Anglican church in town. The council was not a typical revolutionary body - it was a majority of Andros's council, with some old magistrates and officials removed from office because of the dominion charter. From what I can make out, the council was a little astonished by the speed of the locals' reaction, which is why they claimed to be "wholly ignorant" of their rebelling supporters. DCItalk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I guess we can leave it if that's what they said. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Since this one has been at FAC a while, I did another copyedit; looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quadell says the "sourcing is reliable", but I'm not sure what that means. There's a lot on the talk page. And, although it's not the question you asked, Magicpiano wrote most of the article in its current form, and he's got a solid track record at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable, and most can be found on Google Books in an abridged "preview" format. Some (anything by Webb, for instance) can be found in hard copy in a library. DCItalk 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the sources used, Lustig's biography of Andros is probably the most difficult to access. I found only a few non-circulating copies (unless you are affiliated with the holding institution) in the Boston area, where one might expect it to be a little more widely available. Portions are available in Google Books preview. Magic♪piano 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck clear 3/13 sources 15/59 citations. I am a modernist, not an early modernist. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Quality: Barns checked for claims that would be outdated, passes.
  • Palfrey passes (1 cite). Steele passes (2 cites).
  • Webb (12 cites): fn28 doesn't make sense to me, source says 10 January not 19 January, is this an OS/NS issue? It looks like a misreading of 1 January, 9 Days later, 10 January.
    • This is a math/reading error, fixed. All of the dates in the article are (or should be) OS. Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Webb 40a surely "As quoted in...?" This isn't a quote of Webb, it is a quote of a quote in Webb.
    • Are you suggesting that I have to go through all my other feature articles and add "as quoted in" language before such quotes? In context it is clearly not a quote of Webb. (A brief survey of some other FAs indicates similar sorts of quotations, and Webb furthermore does not identify who/what he is quoting.) Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Whatever solution is adopted here, I just want us to make sure we're all agreed that history is hard, and that an accepted style among historians of early modern history (certainly, and some later history, too) is not to insist on saying "I don't know for sure who said this first" every time they believe something is likely true but don't know for sure where it came from. This differs from more modern standards. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • While I defer to Dank on matters of style relating to citation amongst early modernists, I'd suggest emending the text to indicate that we as readers ought to treat that particular quotation as from the "horse's mouth" but backed up by a historian as true, representative, important. I skimmed over the quotes going, "oh this is just a historian's opinion," rather than giving it the true attention it deserved. Perhaps instead of "There he was told that, "…"" we could use "There told him, "…"". I read "There he was told that, "…"" to mean that the quote was a historian's paraphrase.
          • Good point. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • (Humbly, I was raised on Turabian with the full chain of publications back to the person who cited the document indicated in the footnote, but my period has a luxury and even superfluity of primary sources) Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • While I strugged at first to figure how to phrase this unambiguously given Webb's lack of source ID, Palfrey helpfully explains the document (see footnote on this page, quote is on next page). Magic♪piano 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Is the issue the agentic noun who told Andros off? "The Council of the revolt told him, "…"" appears to be fully supported by the Riggs document in Palfray? As far as a citation, if Webb doesn't identify it, "As Quoted in Webb...; also found as John Riggs (Servant to Sir Edmund Andros) 22 July 1689 "A Narrative of the Proceedings at Boston in New England upon the Inhabitants seizing the Government there" as recorded in full in Palfray… ? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, you've lost me (as in, I have no idea what you're asking for, or what your issue is, in the above). I've never been asked before to openly source quotes of this sort to this degree (and now wonder why the same level of explication is not being demanded of other quotes in this article). Referencing these sorts of quotations to reliable secondary materials seems to have passed muster in all manner of earlier reviews I've had to deal with. Magic♪piano 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                • Two separate issues, at this point they're merely stylistic and do not require action to complete the FAC. First issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for citation purposes: what style you use to cite quotes contained in the work you are quoting. If you are comfortable with your current practice, I am not concerned.
                • Second issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for prose and reader purposes: making clear to the reader whether you're quoting the historian (Webb), or quoting primary material quoted by Webb (the Council of the revolt). As I noted above, perhaps confusingly, I misread this quote as a quote from Webb; it would vastly improve my reading experience if I knew it was a quote from the revolters which was merely contained in Webb. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • Oh, ok. I have added words clarifying what is known of the quote's source. Magic♪piano 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 40b completely fails to support its assertion. No such man is named in the work. Suggest rewrite to match facts as put in Webb for the conditions of arrest.
    • Umm, true. There are other sources that do identify the man and his house; I've added one. (Neither identifies Usher as treasurer, but I'm not going to add yet another citation just to prove that bit.) Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If everyone knows Usher was treasurer, I'm not going to prevaricate. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't actually know what to do next with this. All observed issues were resolved, but they kind of imply another two undiscovered issues on the scale of "January 19" => "January 10"? How do we deal with a spotcheck that finds minor issues? FAC delegate, regulars, advice? Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have notified Ucucha. DCItalk 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I would encourage a spotcheck. I just changed the last word; the new charter of Massachusetts required religious toleration, not just tolerance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • N.B. I have checked the references to Lustig against my notes and Google Books preview and am satisfied that they are consistent. Magic♪piano 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• I am rather confused, as I have been away from this page for some time. I think that the details of the arrest are rather clear: Andros went to meet with the Council, which told him that they'd "have the Government in their hands." He was then taken to Usher's house. At some point (when the 1500 militiamen entered, according to Webb), Andros was taken to less comfortable confinement in the town jail. And, as for quotations, I think that it's fine to quote the text. As long as there's an inline citation near the quote, the reader should be able to tell what content is from primary sources and what is from secondary, eg. Webb. I also don't find it likely that a reader will be overly concerned with this matter. DCItalk 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support w/ comments
  • "Among the first to be arrested was Captain John George of the HMS Rose, who came ashore between 9:00 and 10:00, only to be met by a platoon of militia and the ship's carpenter, who had joined the rebels." - what was the Rose doing in the area, and why had George come ashore? As-is, it begs the question as to why the ship was not used in some way to counter the revolt. Also, what kind of ship was it?
  • Also, Rose should be linked, even if it's redlinked.
  • It sounds like the ship was captured at the end of the revolt. Make it clear what subsequently happened to it, as it was a notable piece of military hardware.

Just looking for a little clarity on that one detail in the article. —Ed! 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. HMS Rose (1683) was a 26-gun frigate. It seems to have been skippered by William Phips in 1684. On August 9 of 1689, during a period in which the rebel council still held sway over Boston, a group of merchants appealed to the council to restore Captain George to his ship. George wholeheartedly endorsed this plan (not surprisingly!). George sailed north to Maine, to defend locals against French and Indian attacks, and was killed during a clash with a French ship in May of 1690. I assume that the ship was the Rose, but do not know if it was sunk or badly damaged. I am inclined to assume that it was, and will search for info. DCItalk 00:35, 10 December 2011 (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 Ucucha 01:26, 6 December 2011 .

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and The ed17

Completed during World War I, the ship did not actively participate in the war. She was used for a vacation by President Herbert Hoover and spent most of the 1930s assigned to the Pacific Fleet. She was berthed in Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and suffered the greatest loss of life during the attack when her forward magazines detonated and she sank at her moorings. The iconic Arizona Memorial was built over her remains in the 1960s and she has come to symbolize the attack. We're a little late, but we believe that if we can get prompt reviews we can whip this into shape in time for a WP:TFA appearance on the main page on 7 December, the 70th anniversary of her sinking. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
  • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
    • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
      • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now?
          • Better, though I don't think that the date Arizona became a state is needed - this adds some scope for confusion for no benefit. Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) should be linked, and the years seem unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Agreed and I forgot to link Greco-Turkish War earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
    • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not as sanguine about the state of historical knowledge among the general populace as you seem to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
    • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it.
      • Done.
  • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
    • Reworded.
  • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
    • Reworded.
  • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
    • Deleted, TMI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
    • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
      • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I understand that. My point is that the current wording doesn't help readers to understand it. Why not word it as something like "To acknowledge the ban on alcohol which had been imposed by the Arizona state government, the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam" - this makes it a bit clearer to readers, though the governor seems to have not really acted in accordance with the letter of the law here ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
    • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
      • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • My concern is really the use of the phrase "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though." in association with this. When I read this at the end of a paragraph about the ship only engaging in training I expected it would describe some kind of operational deployment. Instead it discusses a sports event. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • • I'm still not really sure what to do here; I've rewritten and combined the sentences to mitigate any thoughts about a deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
    • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
      • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
          • I don't agree - the article discusses why the ship wasn't sent to European Waters during World War I, so it should also describe why she was deployed after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I believe she was deployed to protect American citizens and interests during the Grecian-Turkish War. If I remember right, there was a bit of speculation in one of Stillwell's interviews that she was deployed to protect Standard Oil's facilities, but there was nothing scholarly on that point. Also note that the oil shortage was due to problems supplying oil to the UK (a) during a war (b) over a route frequented by submarines and (c) when more useful items could be shipped. I believe all that eased with the war's end. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I was referring to the 1918 deployment to France rather than the 1919 deployment. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
                • Ah, my bad. It says why in the next sentence; essentially it was a diplomatic show of force. Ed  10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
    • Idle when anchored, mostly. How would you suggest rewording that bit?
      • Replace "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona's service was filled with training and idleness" with something like "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona only put to sea for routine training exercises". Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
    • True, the offending bit has been excised.
  • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
    • How does it read now?
      • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Supplies of fuel were not limited, per se, only the money to purchase them. I suspect that the normal cruising to anchored ratio before the Depression was on the order of 1:1, but these numbers show 1:2. Unfortunately, there's no handy tally anywhere to make the comparison with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, but the sentence's wording is still a bit awkward. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Due to the Navy's limited budget, the ship spent most of this period in port as a fuel-saving measure". Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
    • Agreed, let me find a source as to why.
      • Samuel Morison's official history would be a great source. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Found one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
    • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
      • A straightforward account of the damage would also act to debunk the mistaken accounts and would be much easier to read. You could add a footnote discussing the confusion over the reports if this is notable enough to cover as it's not really necessary in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • • Done, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
    • I've deleted the Japanese bit as unimportant, but I've reworked the awards and recognition section a bit. How does it read now?
      • Looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
    • Probably just the latter, but I'm just repeating the verbiage from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • Deleted.
    • Thanks for taking the time to enumerate these issues. I agree that it was a bit rushed and I'll start addressing them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I think that this now meets the FA criteria. Great work Sturmvogel. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) "the only known color photograph from the attack" - source?

• • It's sourced already.
• Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
  • Done.
• Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
  • I think that this has been cleared up.
• No citations to Hone or Jones
  • Moved.
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • There is no requirement that an article have one or the other. However, in this article, there's an issue with periods versus commas in citations, and I will address that next time I am at a computer. Ed  19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • They should be consistent now. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 27: linking
  • Done.
• FN 23: italicization
  • Done.
• Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Not sure what you're referring to here. If it's USS, we're replicating the usage in the source documents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 58: formatting, missing date
  • Not sure what you're referring to here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
• Further reading should use same formatting as References
  • Done.
• Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
  • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
    • See next reply. - Dank (push to talk)
• "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
  • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
    • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
  • Yes, evolution.
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, I'll be happy to support this one on prose after my final pass, after other reviewers' issues get resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looks to me like Nick is almost happy, and everyone else is supporting. I did more tweaking; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck clear 4/7 sources, 8/64 citations clear and supporting. I did not check content coverage or weight, only sources supporting their assertions as indicated below. One citation fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 20e DANFS (MIL sources are not propagating to Australia correctly tonight, cached copy used) clear and supports
  • 49 Friedman clear and supports
  • 39 Wohlstetter clear and supports
  • 56 Stillwell clear and supports
  • 25 NYT clear and supports
  • 48 NHHC clear and supports; this is despite the complex opinion being made, the wikipedia article accurately reflects the complexity of the military opinion (well done)
  • 62 clear and supports. Miscited: cite the lowest level organisation responsible for production in a bureaucracy; in this case the student's union.
    • I don't think that the Student's union wrote or published that page; it's just in that section of the University's website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 63 is clear and supports. (and uses the right bit of that god awful source: the reliable bit that was edited, wow... I never thought I'd pass a source like this, but the editors correctly use only the reliable section, and the editors of the reliable section are experts at roadside attractions by dint of publishing)
    • If there hadn't been a photo I don't think I'd have used it at all. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: a made a few tweaks as I saw them, but I also have the following suggestions (feel free to ignore anything you disagree with):
  • "and a full naval review by Secretary of the Navy Daniels". Per WP:SURNAME it can probably just be "Daniels" here;
    • Pretty sure I'm going to stet this, but I've asked at WT:MOS#WP:SURNAME just to be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries, you know what goes at FAC better than I. It seems this point gets raised in most Milhist ACRs, though, so I'm a bit confused. Nevertheless, its a relatively minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships". What's a "total battleship"? Would the fleet consist of "partial battleships"?
    • "In company with many of the ships of the fleet (seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships)," changed to "In company with six battleships and eighteen destroyers,". I don't know how many "many" is; I guess if it's "most", it wouldn't hurt to add that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistencies: "the navy" and "the Navy". In most cases, I think it should probably be "the Navy" as it is being used as a substitute for a proper noun, i.e. the United States Navy;
    • Most US style guides recommend lowercasing it, but there's some support for uppercasing, and it's uppercased more often than not on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy either way as long as it's consistent.
      • All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "before 8:00 am" and "08:00" and "07:55";
    • Fixed.
  • this seems a bit awkward to me: "Arizona was hit four times, plus three near misses". Perhaps try: "Arizona was hit four times; in addition she experienced three near misses";
    • "Near miss" is a really difficult phrase; it would be great if no one ever said it, since sometimes it means nearby or minor damage was done and sometimes it means the opposite, i.e. no harm done. In this case, you get a sense of what was meant by the sentence that follows this one. I went with: "The bombers scored four hits and three near misses on and around Arizona."
  • there is some repetition here: "The explosion killed 1,177 of the..." followed by "The explosion touched off fierce";
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this: "This theory is attractive because..." The theory is attractive, or is it "plausible"?
    • Fixed.
  • "The problem is that smokeless powder is..." The problem with what? Do you mean: "This theory is problematic, however, because smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags would have required a black powder pad to ignite the powder, making this theory improbable. As such, it seems unlikely..."
    • I changed "the problem is that" to "however".
  • Passive voice: "Acts of heroism on the part of Arizona's officers and men were many". Maybe try: "There were many acts of heroism performed by Arizona's officers and men during the attack."
    • That's not passive voice. Since it's the topic sentence for the paragraph, and since the paragraph is about acts of heroism, it works for me to lead with that phrase, though your suggestion is fine too.
      • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I really don't think it works, but that's just my opinion and we don't have to agree on everything. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I like Rupert's wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems tantalising to a layman like myself: "The latter battery fired its guns for the first and last time in August 1945". As a reader it makes me wonder at the circumstances: did they fire at a Japanese ship, or was it just in practice? If the sources are specific, may be you might consider adding a footnote explaining this (would only need a short sentence or two)?
    • Anyone?
      • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this seems a bit flowery: "men of her crew lost that December morning in 1941". Perhaps just: "men of her crew lost at Pearl Harbor";
    • I think it's fine for two reasons: the phrase itself is not flowery (though it may sound that way in context), and this is the topic sentence of a section dealing with the memorial; a tiny amount of emotion is not out of place, I think.
      • Fair enough, again you have more experience with what's acceptable here. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Navy, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has..." The wikilink here for "National Park Service" probably should be moved to the mention in the previous section (link on first mention). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. Thanks for making those changes, Dank. Good work as usual. I've added my support above. I would like to see a note about the battery firing its guns, but it's not a warstoper for me if it's not put in. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Are all the links in Further Reading really necessary? And couldn't you just cite Conway? NO DANFS?
  • I might be able to fit a reference to Conway's in somewhere, but I really don't see any necessity to do so. Your reference to DANFS is confusing as it's the third ref in the references section.
    • Whoops - read this one too fast...if you can't tell I'm not a fan of Further Reading sections.
• Similarly, the first 4 links in External Links don't seem necessary (you could cite #1 but I don't think that source is credible enough and note #57 has the relevant info). The 5th link I would cite; the 6th is unnecessary, the 7th is unprofessional but have a semblence of citations and interesting photos, I'd cite 8 and drop 9. That leaves you with one external link which may not be worthy a section.
  • You have a higher standard for the external links than I do. I've kept a couple which offer pictures or something useful.
    • Pretty good I guess.
• Merge one sentence paragraph in the Awards section.
  • Done.
• I would expand citation 7 to specify which facts (number of rounds, 5" guns which were wet) came from which page. Same for 6. I suspect I would find more of these but I'm out of time, sorry! Kirk (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Friedman doesn't specify which 5-inch guns were wet, but uses a blanket statement that they were considered wet. I bundle page numbers together when citing from a single source as much as possible and see no need to break them out. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand that's the way you do things but just to be clear page 116 of Freidman is in Google Books so my spotcheck revealed it says the Penn. class in general had "wet anti-torpedo batteries." (Which reads: guns for shooting torpedoes...does anyone edit these books?). I don't know what's on page 440 - if its duplicated, I would switch to #3, but if not I would switch #7 to just page 116 and put another #3 on the previous sentence. Its a minor detail.
      • That might be anti-torpedo boat batteries. Sturm, I think they were all wet to some degree, no? Ed  06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Overall, its very good. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image review—all images are from the US Navy, and as part of the US federal government, they're all in the public domain. All captions meet the appropriate criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia:

1. On the first occurrence of "the annual Fleet Problems", we have to click to see what those are-- can't we somehow define that here (fleet exercises or something)?

   Done.

2. Is "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged ... could not be fully salvaged" supported by sources? It couldn't be salavaged or the Navy decided not to salvage it? What do sources say?

   Stillwell says, "The Arizona was considered to be so badly damaged that she would not be suitable for further service even if her remains could be salvaged. At that time the priority was to salvage ships that could be used in the war effort. In addition, the harbor bottom around the hull was so porous that Navy salvage experts didn't consider it feasible to build a cofferdam so that the hull could be pumped out and bodies recovered."

3. Organization: Ship preservation is a subsection of Attack on Pearl Harbor-- that's not intuitive, and suggests article organization may need attention. How about combining Ship preervation with Memorial and honors?

   Reworked.

4. Description: are the water-tube boilers oil fired? We later encounter mention of fuel oil, which leads us to believe so-- clarify in text? I've seen other ship articles mention that some coal-fired ships had oil added.

   If a ship uses mixed firing, I always mention it. Generally I don't specifically state if the boilers are oil fired or coal-fired, as I let the fuel storage answer that.

5. Construction and trials: "The builders set a goal ... " and so on. I got all balled up in the chronology and long sentences here. Might you say, "... but the ship was only half done after 12 months, and not launched until 19 June 1915. Then the next thought about the naming should be a separate sentence.

   How does it read now?

6. Construction and trials: "After acclimating the ship's magnetic compass ... ": do you think acclimating is the correct term for the adjustment of the ship's compass? Is that the term the source uses? How about "compensating" instead? Link to magnetic deviation for compensating.

   Good catch, my eyes had slid right over that. The term is actually declination.

7. "She towed targets for Pennsylavania while outside ... " what's going on here? Why was she towing targets? For example, "she towed targets for Pennsylvania's training exercises ... or whatever it was. In other words, why does the reader need to know this?

   Deleted.

8. The turbine could not be fixed --> repaired maybe better ?

   Agreed.

9. the yard workers were forced to cut holes ... were forced to is redundant, they cut holes.

   Reworded.

10. "World War I": "... the wreck was sometimes used as a target for the 14-inch guns." The reader doesn't know that the wreck refers to the San Marcus (we don't know it's a wreck). "She rarely ventured into the ocean", then we don't know is the Arizona (fix both at once).

    Done.

11. "... easier to supply coal ... " wouldn't "obtain" coal be better here? Would the reader understand better if you point out that the ships that were sent were coal-burning? Is that what you mean to say?

    Good idea.

12. The war did not end on 11 November-- the fighting did.

    True

13. "1920s": "interspersed with a liberty visit" ... strange to use the word "interspersed" for one event ... seems to imply more than one thing going on.
14. "... Greek ground forces arrived in transports and landed troops" ... the forces didn't land troops ... how about "were landed"?

    Rewrote the whole sentence.

15. "Modernization": "... thickness of STS ... " do you think you should tell the reader what STS is so they don't have to click out?

    Done.

16. "Attack on Pearl Harbor": To say that the Japanese struck, and that there were then two ensuing attack waves, is confusing. Why is that -- ... -- even needed? Especially since the Arizona was sunk in the first wave.

    Rephrased.

17. "Ammunition magazine explosion": "Ironically, the blast ... ", why ironically, I'm missing the irony, sentence is fine without it.

    Few people expect a massive explosion to put out fires rather than create them.

    Changed to "Fortunately,". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

18. "Ship preservation", see above, why is it part of "Attack on Pearl Harbor", and the last paragraph of the section discusses the National Park Service, which really begs to be in the enxt section.

    I've restructured these sections along the lines that you suggest.

19. "Memorial and honors": "The wreck of ... ", three uses of the word "memorial" in one para-- suggest others like "commemorate".

    Agreed.

20. The whole sentence, "As of 2011, 70 years after ... " is awkward. Suggest: Seventy years after ... oil leaking from the hull still rises to the surface of the water. The as of 2011 is implied.

    I like that phrasing better. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all from here-- I'll ping Raul to look in here per potential Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All good (and fast!). I found one wayward "that", and I suspect that Special Treatment Steel needs to be all uppercase, per The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia entry on Armor, which means that article needs to be moved. It's a shame that, if we run this article on Dec 7, readers will (hopefully) click through to USS Arizona Memorial, and find ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mucked with a couple of these without seeing this here, but I think you'll be okay with anything I did. On the flip side, I did capitalize Special Treatment Steel. Now I'm going back to writing my paper because it's my 21st birthday and I'm going out tonight come hell or high water. ;-) Ed  09:34, 5 December 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Persoonia levis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This plant is amazing to see in the Sydney bushland - like someone coloured in its leaves with green fluoro marker - and this was the one I'd meant to buff up to FA but got mental block so did another one instead. Am now unblocked mentally and reckon it's over the line. If not, should be easy to fix. I figure by writing about it I can actually germinate and grow the damn plant (magical thinking). Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, this is a wikicu...oh wait, never mind.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, permission for second nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Include both authors for Wrigley citations?

not sure how to do that with sfn template - will read up on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations

was one book. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

tricky one as the first of the periods is an abbreviation in the publisher ("co." for "company"), and the second one is a routine period. Theoretically it'd look better to only have one there but does one period do two jobs...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The cite book template documentation recommends leaving out "corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc".", which solves the problem of double periods, so I did that here. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 1 overlink fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images are great; File:Persoonia levis bark nowra email.jpg could do with an information template (any reason there's "email" in the title? If you took the photo, there shouldn't be a problem). J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I cropped it and just gave it the rename on my computer and forgot to change as I uploaded. I'm not an admin on commons so can't rename there and never bothered getting round to ask one. Am happy for anyone to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. A few thoughts-

• "coined the name Persoonia salicina in describing it in his 1805 work Synopsis Plantarum," Clunky

declunked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Linkia levis" or "Linkia lævis"?

Cavanilles used "levis" in his original text, but some subsequent authors would sometimes say "lævis" (like "encyclopædia") and it is seen as an alternate spelling, however the use is dying out. I was just thrilled to be able to use "æ" in an article...a folly of mine which I will extinguish now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• What does "geebung" mean? That's an odd word

it's a local aboriginal word which has been applied to the whole genus in eastern Australia.Was wondering whether to includ terminology on speices pages but your curiosity suggests yes... added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Persoonia levis has seven chromosomes, as do most other members of the genus, and they are large compared to those of other Proteaceae." The chromosones of the genus are large or the chromosones of the species are large?

of the genus. will think how to unambiguify had a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "and hybrids with P. acerosa, P. lanceolata, P. linearis, P. mollis subsp. ledifolia, P. myrtilloides subsp. myrtilloides (in the Upper Blue Mountains, these plants resemble P. lanceolata), P. oxycoccoides, and P. stradbrokensis" This seems incomplete; or are you using "hybrids" as a verb?

woops, + have been recorded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The large green leaves measure 6 to 14 cm (2.2–5.5 in) in length, and 1.3 to 8 cm (0.5–3.2 in) wide, and oblong or sickle-shaped (falcate)." and are?

yup.added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The central style is surrounded by the anther and which splits into four segments, which curl back and resemble a cross when viewed from above." Rephrase?

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's evergreen, I assume? Is this worth mentioning explicitly?

interesting question - just about all species here are, with only a few notable exceptions. None of my guidebooks calls it such..and evergreen also has a connotation with conifers colloquially (?) Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Weighing 1700 mg, the fruit are adapted to be eaten by vertebrates, such as kangaroos and possums, as well as currawongs and other large birds." Presumably, then, the plant benefits from its fruit being eaten?

I can't find anything specific for this plant - for lanceolata, analysis showed these animals excreted the seed intact (and the stomach contents somehow help the damn things germinate - I actuyally have some seed I will try to germinate and am thinking of how to facilitate this - they otherwise take up to 2 years to do so (!!!!)) whereas rats chewed the seed up and excreted fragments. That reference doesn't elaborate, but the implication is that generally fleshy berry-sized things are designed to be plucked by vertebrates and carried off or eaten.. Casliber (talk · contribs)

• "P. levis is the food plant of the larvae of the weevil species Eurhynchus laevior." Feels a little tacked on. Not sure what to do with it, but letting you know anyway.

Yeah I know, that was frustrating to figure out where to go - how about this rearrangement? Not optimal but a bit better flow-wise maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I also gave it some light copyediting, feel free to revert if you disagree. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at your fixes, and it's looking better. I'm going to hold off support for now to see if anyone else raises anything. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I uploaded a few more photos which I took today onto commons (in the species category) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. No other problems have been forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Support now. The comments have been addressed satisfactorily, and the article is a great read. Any remaining issues should be extremely minor and non-detrimental to this article's much-deserved FA status, so I am happy to support. Great work! Auree ★ 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment article should use a consistent citation method throughout (WP:CITEVAR), so you should use short citations and place full citations in a separate section (example), as you did for Wrigley's work, or place all full citations in footnotes. — Z 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Given there were only three pages reffed in the book anyway, tweaked to single ref now Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just created this template to fix the lack of navbox, you can use that if you'd like, but the problem is red links, which usually should not be used in navboxes. — Z 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(chuckles evilly) but zey von't be redlinks for long.....mwahahahahahaaaa. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well done. — Z 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks (and ditto for two supports below)! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments. Just two niggles, otherwise fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I thought we didn't link continents and countries now.
• At its first occurrence, 5 m converts to 16 ft, at the second it's become 17 ft... very disorientating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

oops. unit conversion fixed and continent/country de-linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments – In the interests of efficiency, I took the liberty of making several copyedits that I would usually bring up here and make you do ;) Please revert anything you don't like. I'm close to supporting, but have some minor issue first: Sasata (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"'look ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• the Westen 1995 source is over 50 pages, and I think it needs to be cited to individual pages to help the reader who wants to verify the claims

was the chapter on the genus - extracted the four pages specific to the species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• the wiki Commons link in the references section prevent the refs from being two columns... nothing major, but it bugs me

tried rejigging - commonslink in cultivation segment now. 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• It also bugs me that the Dist & Habitat header is pushed right by the image in the preceding section... perhaps move to the right?

I chose a flatter more horizontal image so it wouldn't jut down so much - does that help? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some of those old Latin texts cited in Taxonomy are available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, and directs links to the cited pages would be a nice touch

The cavanilles one was in some spanish website which I can't find now (frustratingly), but is on google books. I'm keeping looking. The botanicus.org site has Persoon (1805) and Brown (1810), but I can't link to page directly, however clicking on the page in the left-hand column links to the correct page there (so is two steps). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the direct links (you can copy the link given under the page listing when that page is being displayed). Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha thanks, I'll remember that next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• broad-leaved geebung, broad leaved geebung. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

?...oh redlinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:SEASON (again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Added months to lead (must be a blind spot of mine...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

The Entombment (Bouts)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88

Mid 1450s (probably) highly emotive but utterly bleak and sorrowful linen cloth painting by Dirk Bouts. I saw it during a visit to London last April and it has haunted me since. Sourcing the page has been difficult to say the least but I hope ok-ish. Thanks esp to Amandajm for much needed guidance, insight and expertise. Very helpful PR from Brianboulton here. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support (following the comments and discussion below). Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Several comments, mostly minor. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lead says "glue tempera" (first sentence) and the image caption (and the last paragraph of the lead section) says "Glue size". Even if technically correct, this could be confusing. The NG page for example says "The muted and translucent colours are due to the use of a glue medium applied directly to the sized linen. The effect would always have been far less brilliant than egg tempera or oils over a chalk ground on panel." But our tempera article talks mostly about egg tempera, so is glue size a form of tempera or what? Update: Since I wrote the preceding, these edits have been made to the article - but that doesn't clear up the confusion - the article now refers in various places to 'glue tempera', 'glue-size medium', 'Glue size tempera' and 'glue size'. The confusion arises from 'tempera' sometimes being used interchangeably with 'egg tempera', and our article on tempera doesn't really help clear up such confusion. I would work out a clear way of handling this and stick to it throughout the article. Also, the source cited says 'Glue tempera on linen', but only on the key facts page. The front page actually cited only says 'glue medium'. Updated at 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The cloth on which the painting was painted was treated with an animal based glue to prevent the paint from seeping through - it was sized with glue. The paint used was water soluble tempera. The technique, referred to in German as tűchlein, is glue-sized, because the sizing allows the tempera to be used, but this does need some clarification. Am thinking about how to word it properly and am working my way through a more technical source to be used, which refers to it as a glue-based medium. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Update: apparently the medium (paint) was mixed with glue (binder) and the cloth treated (sized) with glue. From what I've seen the terminology appears to differ, but from the source I have regarding technique, I belief that our description is correct. It is confusing. Will leave it to Ceoil to clarify more if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need a seperate article on glue-sizing, I have enough sources, might have a stab later. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• article not posted, but the terminology is more standardisted now and the lead descriptor reads "soft tempera" which is at least mentioned in the tempera article. I do think though, that this article cannot be held accountable for confusion in linked articles. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• we have worked up a (much deliberated) section on technique which we think is fairly clear. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• It has improved, but I'm not striking this point as the piped link of soft tempera to distemper (paint) threw me a bit (actually a lot). I know this article can't be judged on other articles, but you are linking to them and I fear readers will first read the distemper article (which says "The National Gallery, London distinguishes between the techniques of glue, glue size, or glue-tempera, which is how they describe their three Andrea Mantegnas in the medium, and distemper, which is how they describe their Dirk Bouts and two Edouard Vuillards.") and then they will read this article (which talks about glue sizing and tempera) and they will get confused (I know I still am). I don't have any good suggestions, but hopefully someone will.

  Though on re-reading the distemper article and the technical section in this article, I think I see one further point that might need explaining. At the distemper article, it says "Distemper is an early form of whitewash, also used as a medium for artistic painting, usually made from powdered chalk or lime and size (a gelatinous substance). Alternatives to chalk include the toxic substance, white lead." In this article it says "The whites are mainly chalk mixed with lead white", but it also says (later on) "there is an underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead" (some of which was "left exposed in some areas" to form some of the white areas). So my question now is whether the entire linen sheet (after some poor sod spent ages weaving it) was: (i) treated with glue; and then (ii) covered entirely with this underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead; and then (iii) the paint pigments mixed with a glue binder were then applied over this underlayer (leaving white bits exposed or adding more white if needed)? If so (and please don't assume I've got it right), there must be an easier way to say that in plain English. At the least, if there was a complete underlayer applied, the technique section needs to mention this - currently it only mentions an 'under-paint' without explaining that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have this, and can expand. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm happy to remove the link to distemper if it's causing confusion because most of the sources refer to the paint as tempera. That said, I have found sources that are more technical and describe the paint as distemper. I've sent these on the Ceoil, and he can decide how to proceed. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. The new article on glue-size helps a lot. I hope someone will at some point try and make all these articles consistent, but that is more than enough for this FAC. Possibly removing or reducing the number of links later on, from this article to sizing, would help guide readers towards the glue-size article instead. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The link in the lead section to an image is slightly jarring (I see it was added following a comment made at the peer review) - I'm of the view that this use of an external link tends to surprise readers and that is usually a bad thing. I would personally put a link to the image in a footnote, or direct readers to the image in the gallery at the end of the article, rather than sending them off to an image page on Commons. (actioned)

• Not pushed either way, but seeing that the work is reporduced in the gallery, in this instance the ext link should prob go. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Venetian and patron are common enough to not really need linking, certainly not in the lead (and in the next sentence, Milan is not linked, so the linking is inconsistent). Linking purely to allow people to find out that a Venetian is from Venice isn't really a good use of a link either). (actioned)

• Removed patron; left Venetian and Milan. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The bit about "muted colours" in the lead seems to jar with "Its colours are now far duller than they once would have been." Does "muted colours" refer to the original colours or the present colours? (actioned)

• Clarified. The colours of the figures would have been opaque and "dry" origionally but have since darkened from the accumulated films of dirt. The muted equally refers to the restrained conveyance of the figure's expressions, and that idea is reflected in the dour, spare colourisation. If this is not clear I can expand. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The paint seems to have been thinly applied on the Z-spun and tabby linen thread support" - this is a bit jargon-heavy. Is it possible to explain a bit within the article what this means, rather than relying on links? The selvage, stretcher and warp and weft links in this paragraph are similarly daunting if the reader is not familiar with these terms. I suspect the majority of readers here will either skip past this without really understanding it, or will spend lots of time clicking back-and-forth to other articles to try and understand it, which will disrupt the flow of the article for those readers (the colours paragraph, in contrast, is easier to skim as from the context it is obvious that these are colours). (seems OK now)

• I've reworked this section and trimmed a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been quite an amount of deliberation about this, with people mind who have clue about it (TK and Amanda); wheather it was too technical and eye glazing or not. The end result is a sub section with the more obscure bits and pieces now in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The first mention of Campbell is a bit abrupt. What I'd do here is introduce Campbell first as "art historian" or whatever Campbell's role as commentator here is. You do this later for "art historian Susan Jones", and you also do it later for Campbell when you say "Art historian Lorne Campbell". (actioned)

• Moved the first introduction to Campbell. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Lamentation of Christ image caption makes a claim that should be sourced and/or mentioned in the main body of the article. (n/a - now removed)

Its obvious but claim removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The work had been lined and restretched" - it's not clear what "lined" means here. (deferring on this)

• Clarified I hope. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely clear. When a linen painting is "lined", is this the process of adding an inner (or underlying) lining as you do with a garment such as a coat, as described at lining (sewing), or is this something different? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the sources I have access to simply use the word lined or lining without elaboration. Presumably this was done because of paint seepage through the linen. Am happy to link to lining (sewing) if that would make it more clear, although I doubt it was done to cover or hide seams as is the reason for lining a garment. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I found this paper (from the Tate) on what lining means in this case. It seems it was a way of reinforcing/restoring the existing canvas. It sounds fascinating, but like the stuff about the medium, not really something to worry about too much. I think a link to the 'lining (sewing)' article would be wrong in this case, as it looks like this is something different. Maybe someone will write lining (painting) at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there sources that tell us what Adoration of the Kings shows? (fair enough)

Yes, the Koch journal entry covers it in detail, but it might be off topic here. I could give an easter egg to Adoration of the Magi in the painting title, but dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is obvious really (that is what I had guessed). It is something I'd explain in a footnote, only because there is no picture of it (unlike the other two), but it's up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is one instance of the spelling "centre" and a few of the spelling "center". (actioned)

• Have made this consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• This bit: "The influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece can be seen in the representation of Christ's dead body, while a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners." appears to repeat this bit: "The figuration and pose in The Entombment is probably informed by a relief seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's Miraflores Altarpiece." (actioned)

• Removed one of the sentences. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article says the Miraflores Altarpiece is 1440s, while the gallery caption says "c 1440", which is not the same thing. Similarly, for Altar of Holy Sacrament the article says "c. 1464–67", while the gallery caption says "1464–67". The Transfiguration of Christ gallery caption is missing the year. (actioned)

• Yeah, and the important fact was that it was 'after' 1440. Fixed re altarpiece, Transfiguration of Christ removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Missed one. The lead still says: "Bouts' 1464–6 Altar of the Holy Sacrament". That not only misses out the "circa" but also gives a different end year for the range (and is not consistent either - it should be '1464-67' or '1464-66'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• On this last point, I made this edit, and am noting here so that the nominators can correct it if that is wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works", does this refer to the earlier bit where Eastlake is "made aware of three companion pieces"? In the earlier section, you name these companion pieces, but in the later section you are more vague, which confused me as it is not clear if you are talking about something different here, or the same thing. (taking this to the article talk page)

• Yes, it is referring to the same thing. I've tried to tweak the wording without repeating the earlier sentence and introducing more repetition. Hopefully it's more clear now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Still not clear. I think you need to name the three pieces again further down to make it clearer. There is also inconsistency in that the earlier section says 'He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them' versus 'Their tone and size were similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych'. The first sentence seems to say they definitely were the companion piece, while the second sentence equivocates with the terms 'suggesting' and 'most likely'. You seem to have one source saying these are the companion pieces, and another source being less sure about it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another slight problem, but not really necessary to drag this point out at FAC - taking to article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The external link to "Other works on permanent display in room 63 at the NG" seems gratuitous - readers can reach that page with one click from the more relevant link you already provide. It is fine to have just one external link. If you do keep it, you need to expand or explain the NG abbreviation. (actioned, and now removed in any case)

• I included as I though the other painting in the room gave context, but have removed for now, undecided. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the further reading section, the "Roy, Ashok. National Gallery Technical Bulletin. Volume 8, 1984" entry is a bit opaque. What is it within that bulletin that you are suggesting readers look at? The whole bulletin? Does the article by Ashok not have a title or did he write the whole bulletin? (removed)

• Removed for now. Ashok was the editor at the time, the article appears in the biblo of a source I'd been using and looked interesting though I dont have a copy of it, I though it might be handy in the further reading section at least. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, though I see now that you have something there instead from 2 years later. My view on further reading is that it is best really to have read, accessed, or at least flipped through the work you are pointing readers towards, as otherwise you risk sending them to something that doesn't exist (if you give the wrong reference) or something that is not very good. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fair point. I can stand over the two that are in the section now. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have a reference to "van Veen, 297", but the work appears to be Borchert, unless you are referring to another work that is not given in the bibliographic listing (you later cite "Borchert, 203"). Also, one of your sources is: "Johnson, Charles. The Language of Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949", but this is not used for any of the inline cites. Also, is there no author or article title information for "National Gallery technical bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25"? (partially done)

• I've fixed almost all of these. Can't find an author for the Technical Bulletin, but will leave it to Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• One bit not done here. Only a minor matter, but flagging it up here anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To finish, I'd like to echo Brian's comment at the PR: "I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time". This article was a pleasure and a joy to read. Will check back in a few days and likely add my support then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good comments - thank you. Will take a couple of days to get through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed what I can - those I haven't responded to need sources that Ceoil has, so am waiting for his feedback. Thanks again for the review. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth thanks for the detailed review, very helpful and very welcome. Sorry for the tardy responce, something came up at work and I haven't been able to give the article any attention during the week. I do appreciate the time you spent. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope what I've struck and replied to above is clear. I'll check back at the end of the weekend, and apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Noting here (and above) that based on the comments and discussion, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. More importantly, thanks for the time and giving us an in-depth review, which has resulted in a substantially improved article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera." - source?
• "This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have appeared originally." - source?
• Missing bibliographic info for van Veen
• Full bibliographic info for Davies appears three times, and is notated differently on each appearance
• No citations to Johnson
• Is the Davies source in French? Should note this
• Use a consistent punctuation for retrieval dates
• Be consistent in whether or not your provide publisher locations
• Be consistent in whether volumes are notated in Roman or Arabic numerals
• National Gallery technical bulletin or National Gallery Technical Bulletin or The National Gallery Technical Bulletin? Check for consistency
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. Working through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Except for the two uncited sentences, I've fixed these. I think the uncited sentence are probably referenced in the next cite, but will wait for Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorted now,. Though I admit I'm confused as to how to format pub locs for journals and might need guidance and a hand. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add: I don't normally add locations for journal articles, only the title of publication, unless you want them for consistency? Am a little confused myself on this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly from the Nat gall so mostly London, I'd b happier without. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you include them or not, so long as you do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Found one that hadn't been removed and fixed. Should be consistent now. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a detailed peer review; the issues I raised there have been adequately addressed, with further improvements as a result of the points raised in this FAC. Maybe further fine tuning would benefit, but I am satisfied that as of now the article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, your review was of enormous help in the process. The remianing issues being discussed on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Brian. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - with a few minor issues:

• I saw "dates it to between 1450-55", I think the en dash should be "and".
• There are two occurrences of "the the". (one "the The" and one "the the").
• I saw "an usual".
• Should this be dirt, "Note the layer of dirth across the midground"?
• There is a "Bouts's" in the sources, whereas "Bouts'" is used in the text. But perhaps, we can't do anything about this.

Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta Graham, fixed all but two; 1450-55 vs 1450 and 1455 reads better to me; and I'd say the source using "Bouts's" are fairly dated. The others were typos introduced yesterday; TK usually watches my back on these. Thanks again the look is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But there is "completed between 1440 and 1455" in the Lead, which is correct; and "between 1450–55" further down, which is not. The Manual of Style says, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from". I agree with this because to me it reads between 1450 to 55, which sounds odd to my ears. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed to "between 1440 and 1455" because I prefer it that way, and per MoS and your suggestion. Ceoil is overruled here. Thanks btw for reading, the comments and the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm anally retentive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That would make two of us. I'll go through and make it as consistent as possible because now it's a little off. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Lots of improvement, and impressive work so far...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for the support and edits. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. They're all centuries old; I'll leave it to Ceoil to find an image reviewer. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

8 images, none post 1500. All pd:old and pd:art, all attribute source, holding gallery etc. No deritives, or showing frame etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead mentions it was purchased for the National Gallery by Eastland, but a reader digging in to the text at this point doesn't find any mention of the National Gallery:

• Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over £120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.

which makes that part hard to follow until one remembers (from the lead) that it was purchased for the National Gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an inconsistency in hyphenation of glue-size, not accounted for by whether it's modifying a noun. IN the lead we find "It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue-size, an ... ", but later in the text we found it used similarly without a hyphen-- pls review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. Fixed both of these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Battle of Kaiapit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A minor but important action from the New Guinea campaign of 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 5: is this one source or two?
• Kelly: you've included the volume name, but omitted the title of the complete work
• Given that the Kelly source is self-published, what are Kelly's qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• No citations to Willoughby or Coulthard-Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1. One source.
2. Template issues. Corrected.
3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

   I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• Alt text: Some images have it, some not -- should be consistent
• External links: The New Guinea Offensives link seems to just go to the main Official Histories page at AWM rather than the book itself -- probably an old URL
• Citation bot: Not checked -- timed out on me
• Dab links, redirects, and ref links: No issues reported

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Suggestions
  • time format: "1230" - probably should be "12:30" per WP:MOSTIME;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • title format in References: "A Report on War Crimes against Australians committed by individual members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy" - maybe "A Report on War Crimes against Australians Committed by Individual Members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy", per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "Against". - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • possibly redundant: "the lead plane was Captain Frank C. Church, who was considered one of the wing's "hottest" troop carrier pilots. King flew in Church's lead plane." (specifically the second "lead" - perhaps delete it and just say "plane");
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Captain King assembled his troops..." - possibly just "King" per WP:SURNAME;
  • possibly a typo: "The company reached Ragitumkiap, a village with striking distance of Kaiapit" (should it be "within striking")?;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • possibly incorrect caps: "guessed that Maxwell's Section" (probably should be "Maxwell's section");
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "50 minutes at a time and then rested for ten" (should "ten" be "10" for consistency?)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Australians suffered 2 killed and 7 wounded" (should these be "two killed and seven wounded" per WP:ORDINAL?);
    • Done.
  • there is some repetition in this image caption: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. Some 214 Japanese dead were counted after the battle." Perhaps reword. Something like this might work: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. After the battle 214 Japanese bodies were counted by the Australians around their positions." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Heh, Rupert, I noticed the repetition too but for some reason no improvement came to me and I left it -- your wording works well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • All my comments have been addressed. I'm pleased to see this battle get some attention. When I first joined the Army, before I crossed to the dark side and became an officer, I went through Kapooka in 12 Platoon, Bravo Coy. The platoon were known as the "Purple Devils" and had an association with the 2/6th Independent Company. Two veterans of Kaiapit, Bill and Eric, used to come to the base and talk to us during our training, and it was then that I first heard about this battle. Anyway, to cut a long story short, good work and thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look good. Minor copyedit but prose generally seems fine. A few suggestions:

• Situation
  • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
    • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
• Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
  • Small wireless set. AWA made them. I'll see if I can dig up something on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Red linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

Anyway, well done -- I'd never heard of this action till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring, commander of I Corps, Major General George Alan Vasey, commander of the 7th Division, and Major General Ennis Whitehead, commander of the Advanced Echelon, Fifth Air Force, and Allied air commander in New Guinea, met at Whitehead's headquarters.": It's possible reviewers will object and ask for parentheses around "commander of I Corps", etc., in order to keep one comma per element in the series. I don't think it's confusing ... until you get to the last bit. Would it work to write "Advanced Echelon of Fifth Air Force and"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted "and Allied air commander in New Guinea," Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• "aptly named Finisterre Range": why aptly named?
  • You think it is not? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Which meaning of "Finisterre"? Finisterre–Huon languages? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It says and links the Finisterre Range Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Not following. Since neither this article nor that article explains where the name comes from, how can the reader know if it's apt? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
          • From the Misplaced Pages: "The name Finistère derives from the Latin Finis Terræ, meaning end of the earth," Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Ah, of course. Still ... I've met some of our readers, and that's asking a bit much ;) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "It opened the gate ...": Since there are no commas in that sentence, it would use commas rather than semicolons in AmEng; I don't know about AusEng, but I expect commas are more common.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Comments Nice read! Needs some work on fit and finish. Some issues with prose, linking, and MoS are outlined below.

• "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
  • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
  • Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
  • Still wondering about this. I'm not necessarily asking for it to be changed—but I am wondering if there is a consensus order for military battle articles and if there is a rationale behind this order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The geography section was something that I invented. I isn't required, although some other editors have adopted it. The alternative would be to merge it with the situation section, if you think that would read better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't an alternative to be to place it before the Situation section and then start the narrative after you describe the geography? I just think it interrupts the flow of the article. If you disagree, I'm willing to hash it out. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, I have moved the geography section to the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
  • Just passing by... Yes, the old WARNORD -- sort of a heads-up in militarise. How would "advance order(s)" sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually love the term, but I'm concerned readers won't get it. Advance orders sounds good as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Prefer warning order. Don't think it would confuse anyone because it is in accord with the non-militarese use of the word. Added a bit though to make it clearer what the warning order said. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
  • Could you be more explicit? Reads okay to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe "To be self-supporting, the company had its own engineer ..." or even "The company was self-supporting, with its own engineer ..." What do you think? --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
  • Only one. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support (Disclaimer) Interesting read, looks good to me. Please see the media review below though, as some things need tweaking. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Review A few minor things. First File:Markham Valley.jpg really should have a description of exactly what is going on somewhere, if not in the article, on the file description page. Second, I was going to ask you to put File:Bulldozer arrives on plane at Kaiapit strip 1943.jpg in a Template:Information template, but I decided to do that one myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Red lines are who? Black lines are who? Who won what and when? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have expanded the caption and the alt text to add this. I guess I am too used to military maps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot check clear 6/10 sources 20/40 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Willoughby (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of mistaken Japanese impressions in Willoughby at 224? Please advise.
  • Ooops. Wrong quote. I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Kenney (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of good flying weather on the 22 September 1943 in this source, is this obvious? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I know what happened here! I replaced a reference with Kenney and did not notice it didn't cover the weather too. No worries; Dexter does, so added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: (I'm going to have to read Dexter I think before I'll sign off) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
• Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
  • Not so; it is p. 123 on the hard copy version. I had not realised that the online chapters did not have the same page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
• Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
  • Yes. Changed to Watson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • As each chapter of each volume of the USAAF official histories was written by a different combination of authors for simplicity most historians reference these books as 'Craven and Cate (editors)' or similar, so the original citation was also OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
  • Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • fn18c should be at p419;
  • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
• Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the description of the battle. All issues should be resolved now. It would have been nice to have used Dexter's map of the action, but it doesn't become public domain until 1 January 2012. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That is a shame, still, it is more fun than the annual "cabinet minutes" blah blah blah from the "archives" "journalists" on new years day. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Support A very, very nice article. I got here very late and it seems that the other editors have already addressed all concerning issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Only comment would be that Allies needs a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support As a disclaimer, I started this article in 2008 but haven't had all that much to do with it since. I think that this article is now of FA class, though I do have the following comments and suggestions:
  • You are still the second largest contributor though, with a whopping ten edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Saying that independent companies were "Somewhat larger than a conventional infantry company" is an understatement - they were about twice the size
    • "More than somewhat larger". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "As it came in to land, King spotted Papuan patrols in the area" - it's a bit unclear if you're referring to the PIB or local Papuans here. I'd suggest tweaking it to "As it came in to land, King spotted patrols from the Papuan Infantry Battalion in the area" to avoid any confusion.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "As the company advanced it came under light-machine-gun fire from foxholes on the edge of the village. A 2-inch mortar knocked out the machine gun." - the first sentence implies that there were more than one machine gun (through use of "foxholes") while the second sentence states that there was only a single machine gun - this should be clarified.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The account of the main clash between the Australian and Japanese forces seems a bit brief, though it is a good summary of the action. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to write about small unit actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Although some equipment was able to make the trek overland, ... Can equipment be "able to trek", or is that someting an individual does? WP:NBSP review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to "Although some equipment was carried on the trek overland,". FWIW, I just reminded people today in my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC that invisible codes in the edit screen are something I don't check for per my standard disclaimer, and gave them Ohconfucius's script that checks those. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably, since a trek is "a long arduous journey, especially one made on foot" but I much prefer your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Walking Liberty half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This is the ninth and final article on the Great Coin Redesign of 1907-1921 (there may have to be an additional overall article to gain the Featured Topic designation) The Walking Liberty half dollar. Undoubtedly beautiful, but it caused the Mint a lot of grief for thirty years. This turned out to be one of the articles where an unexpected person runs away with the article, in this case Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam M. Joyce, who did not like all the new coins, and they were a terrible pain to produce, but he went to bat to have the new coin struck as close to the artist's conception as possible. I hope you enjoy it. It is a beautiful coin and the "heads" side has graced the American Silver Eagle for the past quarter century. Second nom posted with permission of Ucucha. A special thank you to BrandonBigheart for the beautiful infobox images.Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can footnotes be in columns?
• FN 50: publisher?
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and dashed ISBNs
• Be consistent in whether publishers/locations are included for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like to use this for references: {{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}. I'll circle back later for a full review when i get the time. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll insert it. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That is done. I do not include locations when it is clear from the periodical title, but I see I was not consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: More comments:

• In "Background and inception", you start of two consecutive sentences with "The Barber coinage..." Maybe the second could be "The coins..."
• ...and that's the only flaw I could find. Great article! I've enjoyed this recoinage series. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• OK, one more: do you think linking to Palladium coin might be useful in the last section? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! I had no idea there was such a link. I will make the changes shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are done. Thanks for the praise btw. It's been a fun series.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support, one suggestion Nice work. Personally, I'd prefer preoccupied to intensely busy, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to overuse that intensely busy phrase. I don't like preoccupied, that implies a mental state to me, rather than the physical manufacturing activities of the Mint. I'll work on an alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Weinman's design of a Liberty striding towards the Sun proved difficult to perfect". Don't think the "a" adds anything here.
• Background and inception: "and on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations of their work answer his questions." Seems like it's missing an "and" before "answer his questions".
• Design: Try to avoid having a repetition from one sentence to another, like in "designed by Weinman. Weinman...".
• Don't think another Walter Breen link is needed here after the one late in the previous section.
• Preparation: "This permitted him to extend LIberty's head almost to the top of the coin". The I in Liberty shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work through these this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Overlooked doing it, I'm afraid. They are done now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Lovely, as is the norm with this series. Everything looks up to scratch. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the reviews and supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1916_United_States_Assay_Commission.png: page number?
• File:Walkinglibertyhalfdollar2.jpg: need copyright/licensing info for the coin as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Can the image of the plaquette of Joyce be moved? Currently it causes an unsightly large gap in the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be difficult. As this is Joyce's moment in the sun, so to speak, I'd like the plaquette there. So I made the captions less wordy. That should do the trick. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• There is info about clamor for a redesign before the minimum timeframe for a coin design, but no clear info on what that minimum timeframe is.

The second sentence of the article mentions the 25 year restriction; the body of the article leads off with the law which gives the 25 years (and also allows the Mint to hire private artists). That explains to the reader the situation and the discussion which did arise before 1916 is mentioned.

• It's mentioned that Woolley wanted unique designs for each coin because of prior similarity. First off, the reason why is not answered here (I have an idea, but it could be wrong). The second is the wording doesn't make it clear if he just means the immediate prior design or all designs of those coins were similar.

We don't know. Mint records from that time, mostly owing to the "Hackel debacle", the shredding of many Mint records by Carter's mint director, Stella Hackel, are incomplete.

• "...on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations..." - should probably Wikilink this as its not clear it means the state or the city.

Good point. It was actually at the New York Assay Office, so on "Mint territory" in NYC.

• The article is heavily quote laiden. Some of these are great, but and I think some this one "evidently the haste called the engraving...." could be better paraphased without losing any context.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the shorter quotes. Sometimes they are opinions, so I want to attribute them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped three of them in favor of descriptions including the one you mentioned. Some of them are needed to give the reader a flavor for the times, or the people involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Another thing: about the Palladium coin, the date is from June. That's half-a-year ago. There isn't anything newer considering it was up in the air then?∞陣内Jinnai 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I read Coin World or at least look at the headlines every issue and also I just ran a few google news searches. The eagles are in the news because of a special limited edition set that is getting a lot of interest, they would headline approval of the palladium coin. And I just checked the MInt website.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.