Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 15 March 2009

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Knot theory

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 23:40, 29 March 2009 .

Laurence of Canterbury

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's another short one. This is the successor to Augustine of Canterbury, but a whole lot less is known about him. Sorry, no bad boy bishop here, just a nice solid little-known saint. He did get whipped by St. Peter in a dream though! He's part of my Featured topic push on the Gregorian mission. Copyedit by Malleus, research by me. Any prose problems are my own. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Dabs and external links are found up to speed, based on the respective tools found in the toolbox.
• Ref formatting is not up to speed (based on WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following ref name is used more than once to name a ref, when it should only be naming one ref.

• ASE112--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by sasata

Cool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ealdgyth put up with three of my fungal GAC reviews, so I thought I'd partly return the favor by leaving some notes here. Bear in mind these comments are from the perspective of someone who knows next to nothing about Christian history, so if I appear ignorant, it's because I am!

Lead

• "He was a member of the Gregorian mission sent from Italy to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons," ...to Christianity (needs to be spelled out clearly for people like me who don't know this stuff)

• Similarly, perhaps consecrated should be wikilinked

• "he was eventually reconverted however." Comma needed before however (I think).

Early life

• Again, please briefly mention what the point of the Gregorian mission was.

• The timeline/logic outlined in this section has me somewhat confused. Here's how I interpret it:

595 dispatched from Rome with St. Augustine

597 arrives at Kent (maybe 601) (Augustine stays behind in Kent?)

598 starts his journey back to Rome with sidekick Peter (Was Pete already in Kent as part of the Gregorian mission?)

601 returns to Rome. Has "Gregory's replies to Augustine's questions". What are these questions? How could he have brought back Gregory's replies to questions-how had Gregory already seen the questions?

• Does Gregory the Great = Pope Gregory I?

• "...which information Gregory says he received" Construction sounds awkward to me.

• Ok now I see in the last sentence that Laurence returned to England in 601. But I'd prefer not to have to get to the last sentence before the chronology is clear.

• Who is Mellitus?

Archbishop

• "so he may have been considered as uncanonical." By whom?

• Wikilink or define Synod

Pagan reaction

• "archiepiscopate" - there's a fancy word I don't know the meaning of.

• "...forcing many of the Gregorian missionaries to flee to Gaul following the pagan reaction." What was this pagan reaction? Did it involve torches and pitchforks?

• "...sees Eadbald's actions as a repudiation of his father's pro-Frankish policies." pro-Frankish?

• "Not all historians agree with this argument however" Comma needed before however.

I think I've addressed most of these, some with wikilinks, some with added information. I think I've added enough to the "early life" section that it should make a bit better sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. The article now has my Support. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Laurence/Lawrence

• Not being familiar with this topic I confused Laurence of Canterbury or St. Laurence with Saint Lawrence, or Lawrence of Rome (I've since discovered) you might make the distinction in this article clear. Modernist (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Added hatnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch

Hi Ealdgyth: for the most part, this is a well-written & clear article on the subject, but there are some points which I feel need to be handled before it can truly be considered a Featured Article:

• What are Laurence's origins before he was part of the Gregorian mission? I find it a little surprising that no quotable authority has speculated whether he was born & raised in northern or southern Italy, southern Gaul, etc. If his origins have been conceded as unknown or unknowable, simply stating that would fix this.

Brooks, in the ONDB, says "He was one of the Roman monks who had accompanied Augustine from Rome in 596..." Lapidge, in the Blackwell Encyclopedia article says "... was one of the original Roman missionaries..." I did find one source that mentions that "nothing is known about the previous history" of Laurence, which I added to the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Bede makes a point of comparing Augustine's action in consecrating Laurence to St Peter's action of consecrating Clement as Bishop of Rome during Peter's lifetime, which may be Bede's way of criticising the practices of the church in his day." This is one of those cases where the opinion of an authority needs to be quoted explicitly; it's one person's opinion (although an obviously qualified person's opinion), so you would be better served by modifying that sentence to "Bede makes a point of comparing Augustine's action in consecrating Laurence to St Peter's action of consecrating Clement as Bishop of Rome during Peter's lifetime, which Benedicta Ward believes was Bede's way of criticising the practices of the church in his day." I noticed a few statements in the first paragraph of the next section ("Pagan reaction") which probably should be rephrased in the same way (e.g., "Kirby interprets &c.")

did the first, but it's Wright, not Ward, who argues this. Got the other two. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also looks good. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mention of the "Pagan reaction" section raises a rather important oversight in this article: you fail to explain why it was important for Laurence to remain in Britain. (The answer being, IIRC, was that his departure might mean the end of the church there, & future missions musts needs start from the same beginnings, if not with a further handicap. Again, there must be a reliable source who can be quoted to say this very thing.) This is an easy omission to make: you obviously are too close to the material, & just needed a tap on the shoulder to see & fix it.

It's not that it's really an oversight, it's more that most historians figure it's so blindingly obvious that they never mention it (laughs). The best I can do is from Yorke's Conversion of Britain p. 225. "The Gregorian mission almost lost its tenative hold within England when it objected to King Eadbald wishing to marry his stepmother, the widow of his father and predecssor AEthelbert. On th is occasion the king backed down, convinced by his own epileptic fits and the apparent scourging of Archbishop Laurence by St Peter that the marriage was ill-omened." The only other bit I can find is from Wright, the theologian, who says "So, by the intervention of none other than St Peter himself, the church continues to be present in England." I think we can make this more obvious to the reader without having to stretch the sources by saying ..."Among them were Mellitus, who was Bishop of London, and Justus, who was Bishop of Rochester, and the only other Roman bishops in Britain besides Laurence." which keeps information but allows the reader to make the connection themselves. I find Yorke's statement a bit thin to base something on, but if you're comfortable with it, I'm open to wording suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So did I just reveal myself as the civilian identity of Captain Obvious? ;-) I thought about your response, & when I looked at your text I realized that most of what bothered me could be fixed by adding a few words. Does my edit help? -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. I know I'm a bit of a stickler about OR, but I try to avoid going beyond my sources, I've just found it easier to not go too much beyond. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, as think about the dream of St. Peter, I wonder whether any commentator has pointed out a possible allusion here to the Peterine legend quo vadis. If not, until we find one who does -- be it a formal paper or a grad student's thesis -- to include it might violate WP:OR. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't run across it, not even in Wright's work, which is the most overtly "theological" of my works. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an important thought. It is a point I hope some budding medieval scholar takes the time to investigate, which is the only reason I would add it. Too bad some folks are very anal retentive about the original research rule, otherwise it could be added as a "maybe" for that reason.

Yeah, if I'd stuck with medieval studies, I could always do a paper on it (but if I had, I wouldn't be doing wikipedia... so..) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I mentioned further research, I'll add a new question: is there any reason not to add references to the main primary source for Laurence's life -- Bede's Ecclesiastical History? I ask for a slightly selfish reason: I have a copy of Plummer's edition of Bede, & late last night I tried to identify the sections where Laurence is mentioned in order to see if Plummer makes any worthwhile comments. Yes he wrote over 100 years ago, but he does know the later medieval chroniclers quite well, & sprinkling some of the later traditions on Laurence might improve this article. And there is the consideration that if a Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be a starting place for research, then pointers to Bede would be a good thing. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally try to avoid using the primary sources unless it's for a quotation. I don't have a problem with putting a link to the various editions and pages of the original sources, but I think if you look at the Prosopography external link, you'll find that it gives all the original mentions of Laurence in a handy link source. (I love PASE, it's a great resource). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for those behind the times like me who aren't familiar with PASE, you could do us a favor with a note alerting us that it contains these links. (And now that I found the relevant passages with PASE, Charles Plummer does have some interesting bits -- shall I list them on your talk page so you can decide which to add & which to discard without worry about needing to add them to make this a Featured Article?) -- llywrch (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll get a note on the PASE link. My talk page is always open, feel free to drop notes there anytime. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is it correct that the only primary sources are Bede and Alcuin, and that everything else is interpretation based on their writings? Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we could call Alcuin a primary source on this. We have some spurious charters that purport to be signed by him. Also the Life of Gregory from Whitby mentions him, and it was written about the time of Bede. The ONDB article gives some letters of Gregory as sources, I'm not sure if those are the ones preserved in Bede or if they are from the Papal registers. Check out the Prosopography link at the bottom, it gives all the genuine and spurious listings of his name that come close to being contemporary. (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions him too, but during the time frame covered by Laurence's life, it's likely derived from Bede.) There was a Life composed in 1091, but it's not going to be a good source for information. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this information should be in the article -- at the very least a mention that the bulk of info comes from Bede. Looie496 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why? The entire article is sourced to secondary modern sources. The only source I have that gives any information on where his name is mentioned is the PASE external link, and all that is is a listing of where is name is mentioned and the editions/etc that it is. I can safely say from secondary sources that "Most of the information that we know about the Gregorian mission is from Bede." but that doesn't follow that I can say that "Most of the information we have about Laurence is from Bede." None of my sources say that. PASE doesn't list ALL mentions, nor does it interpret the listings, it jsut lists it. The two "articles" on Laurence (from ONDB and the Blackwell Encyclopedia) don't say anything of the kind that I've said above. Yes, it can be inferred, but it can't be sourced to reliable secondary sources, it can only come from interpreting the PASE link and the bibliography listed at the ONDB and the Blackwell Encyclopedia article. None of the other sources used in this article are devoted to Laurence alone, unfortunatly. I'm just not comfortable putting that above into the article, it smacks me as original research. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question Are there any images? Icons of Laurence? Modernist (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I've found that's close in time. I just checked the Canterbury category on Commons again for another article and still nothing. Since all of the buildings he would have known are gone, I don't feel comfortable using a pic from Canterbury Cathedral, since it dates from the late 11th century. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are unlikely to be any at all early, and they would certainly not be portraits in the modern sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not likely to be any. And anyting modern I dislike using on a biography article, it gives the wrong impression that the picture is indeed that person when we know it's not. If I had a medieval illustration of him, I'd not object much, because it would be pretty obvious, but I've not seen any illuminated manuscript pics of him. I could put a pic of Canterbury Cathedral, but again, it'd give the wrong impression because the current cathedral is about 500 years after Laurence's time. Same for pictures of the ruins of St Augustine Abbey, they are definitely gothic. I could put a map in, but he didn't move around much, so there's not a lot of point. (Basically, Rome and Canterbury is where we know he was.) I'm not opposed to pictures, I just haven't seen any that I think make a lot of sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

However we do have two good illustrations of St. Augustine Gospels, a book Laurence almost certainly handled and as Archbishop owned. Amazingly neither of these are used in Augustine's article either. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more a "probably" owned. But if you want to pick one pic for it and write a caption, go for it. (It is mentioned and illustratedEaldgyth - Talk 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC) in Gregorian mission) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is an existing church built in Anglo-Saxon times dedicated to St Laurence in Bradford-on-Avon in Wiltshire. Okay, I'm sure that there is an AS church in Bradford because I have visited it; just not sure if it is dedicated to this St. Laurence. (And I'm not entirely certain that it is the one pictured in the Misplaced Pages article -- my memory is of a tiny, undistinguished little building which would barely hold a dozen people.) Otherwise, would a medieval illustration of the Gregorian mission work? -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the church, but what is visible now seems mainly 9th-10th century & it is not clear which Laurence was the dedicatee. It isn't quite that small, nor undistinguished imo, but probably not right for here. About the only AS pic we seem to have of a building that looks much the same as in Laurences day is Bradwell in Essex, but that is a all but a Roman building re-cycled, and there is I imagine no evidence Laurence knew it. I've added the Gospel book pic - though there is no direct evidence, asfaik all art historians regard it as highly plausible that the book was at Canterbury by Laurence's day. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Point that nobody seems to have mentioned: Nowhere in the article does it say why he was canonised. There's no suggestion of any miracles or martyrdom, and "mainly remembered for his failure to secure a settlement with the Celtic church, and for his reconversion of Eadbald following Ethelbert's death" doesn't seem like particularly solid grounds. I note from List of members of the Gregorian mission#Members that all the former archbishops are listed as saints, but there's nothing in Canonization to suggest that the process was ever automatic-on-retirement for archbishops. – iridescent 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Historical process of beatification and canonization - he was a confessor. But perhaps something on this should be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither "biography" article even mentions that he was a saint. (That's the ONDB and the Blackwell Encyclopedia). He's listed in Walsh's Dictionary of Saints but it doesn't say what he got considered a saint for. I've linked the "regarded" in the last section to Canonization#Historical development of the process, which gives a bit of information.Basically, as I explained somewhere else (I think it was Peter of Canterbury's article) some folks just came to be regarded as expecially holy and then they were saints. Prior to about 1100, this was generally all that was considered necessary, there was no formal process until then. Sometimes, such "pre-congregation" saints went through a process that "proved" their holiness (see Historical process of beatification and canonization#Confirmation of cult but I haven't seen any sign that this happened in Laurence's case. (Peter, who I just mentioned, had that process done in 1915) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Goscelin labels him a saint in his series of Vitae he wrote on the occasion of the translation of the relics of St. Augustine & his companions; according to Charles Plummer, Laurence is listed with Mellitus & Justus as a saint in the Stowe Missal (Plummer's edition of Historiam ecclesiasticam, vol. 2 pp. 81f). So there appears to have been some kind of unofficial "canonization". Whether that is still the case today in the C of E or the Catholic Church is another issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsh's book (which is a source) is based off the Vatican's Martyrologium Romanum and unless otherwise indicated in the entries, assumes that the saint listed is venerated in the Catholic Church. Since there is no other indication in Laurence's entry, he's RCC recognized, at the least. I don't have access to Farmer's Oxford Dictionary of Saints, unfortunately. (Well, i Can get to it from Amazon) Interestingly it has your Quo Vadis bit, Llyr. All it adds (besides the QV bit) is the bit about the Stowe Missal and that his tomb was opened in 1915. I'll throw that information in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have access to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints if there's something you need from it. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I got the informatoin in from the Amazaon link. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - I'm heading out of town this morning, and should be back late Tuesday night. I'll have intermittant internet access (at least hopefully) but it might be a bit longer than usual between replies. I'll also be without my books, so anything serious will have to wait until I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• comment Very nearly there, given the brutally limited sources. It would be good to know more on his posthumous "reception" as WP likes to say - did he have a medieval shrine? What churches were dedicated to him (I think there is a database on this or book listing dedications)? I see the Canterbury cricket ground is named after him! Apparent ref to relics here. Also, for his return from Rome in 601 he was given some books by Gregory, which may have included the Augustine Gospels (if not carried on the original mission(. It would be good, also for the article on the Gospels, to have the original source for this - Bede? Some disam mention of St Laurence O'Toole, who was nearly killed in an attack at the shrine of Thomas a Becket, might be desirable. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The implication is that he had a shrine in Canterbury, as he was transfered to it in 1091. I've not been able to turn up anything beyond the fact that his tomb was opened in 1915 (Given the Dissolution, the assumption would be that the shrine went boom in the 1530s, but I'm not seeing any direct references.) If there is a database listing dedicatons, this the first I've heard about it. About the books, the information that the books came in the second group is indeed in Bede originally. I'm pretty sure it's not in the Whitby life of Gregory, but it might be there too. (Since I'm on the road, I can't consult the book.). I've got a hatnote on the top of the article, that links to all the various St Laurence and St Lawrences, where O'toole is mentioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bede says (p. 85 in the Sherley-Price translation) "They brought with them everything necessary for the worship and service of the Church, including sacred vessels, altar coverings, church ornaments, vestments for priests and clergy, relics of the holy Apostles and martyrs, and many books." I don't have a copy of the Whitby life of Gregory, unfortunately, so I can't tell you if it's in there or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Media review: The images (3) are all in public domain and hosted on commons. Good. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I read through the lead and the final section of the article, and could find no glaring issues. –Juliancolton · 02:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support It would be nice to have more info at some point on where the tomb is or was, what it contained in 1915, where the remains are now, & any info on the shrine, but article meets FA standards as it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support All in all a relatively short but informative work. Nicely done...Modernist (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:40, 14 April 2009 .

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to satisfy the requirements for FA. However, this is my first submission, so I might just be wrong. The main event took place May 10, 1775; it would nice to make FA before then. Thank you for your consideration and feedback. Magic♪piano 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit uncomfortable with "It also involved two larger-than-life personalities in Allen and Arnold, who, each seeking to gain as much credit and honor as possible for the actions taken, engaged in a war of words and politics that still echoes today", especially in the lead, as there's no evidence presented anywhere in the article for this being the case. The War of Words section does say "As a consequence of this war of words, histories and biographies sometimes contain conclusions and observations that reflect the author's preferred subject", but gives only two examples, one of which is over 100 years old. I've no reason to doubt it, but if this academic dispute is the main legacy of the incident (as the article seems to suggest), it needs to be sourced that the dispute is still ongoing. – iridescent 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I had actually hoped to find a good instance of a more recent Allen bio that shows a more overt bias, but haven't had any luck yet. This is one reason why I characterized the war of words as "echoing" -- there's not much left to it, as most biographies and histories are now somewhat more evenhanded, as later research has punctured Allen's self-promotion and somewhat rehabilitated Arnold's reputation.

One question of clarification: are you also objecting that the phrase "larger-than-life personalities" is not adequately addressed (by their respective behaviors)? I could deal with that more explicitly, but I'd have to bring in more biographic details than I thought were appropriate for this article. (I could also moderate the language, using something like "brash" or "bold" instead of "larger-than-life".) Magic♪piano 13:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if this is a "you need to cite that the sky is blue" situation. Growing up in upstate NY, the history of the American Revolution I was taught was along the lines of "Saratoga, Ticonderoga, and a bunch of Virginians but they owned slaves", so it's hard to assess it objectively as I'm too familiar with their personalities. I personally don't think it needs to be cited – "self-appointed military leader" by definition implies a larger-than-life personality as far as I'm concerned – but someone with less knowledge of the figures involved would probably be better placed to comment. (Note: don't read anything I've said as an oppose, just an observation). – iridescent 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Based on the respective checker tools in the toolbox, the dabs and external links of the article are found up to speed.
• Ref formatting is not found up to speed (based on WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following refs (coding pasted below) are duplicated and appear more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead

• ], p. 109
• ], p. 104
• ], p. 117
• ], p. 86
• ], p. 116

• The following ref names are used more than once to name different refs, when they should only be naming one ref

• Chittenden109
• Randall104
• Bellesiles117
• Randall86
• Bellesiles116--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the refs did not actually appear more than once in the refs section, as a visual inspection of the article would have made clear. In any event, I have removed the duplicated reference texts. Magic♪piano 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I was one of those who reviewed this for MILHIST's A-class rating. The only suggestion I have is to add locations and OCLC's to all of the books in your bibliography; just enter the ISBN in for the #'s here, and it's easy to get these: www.worldcat.org/isbn/#########. Worldcat is your friend :) —Ed 17 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the refs have either an OCLC or ISBN. I've not routinely been adding publication locations since (some time ago) I didn't think they were displayed; I may have just done it wrong. I will take care of this in due course. Magic♪piano 13:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• General Comments

In general, the article looks great. But I think it could use a copyediting round and a few small-to-moderate changes. There are a number of times when I think a little too much information was crammed into unnecessarily complex sentences. These could be simplified and broken apart into multiple sentences with events placed in chronological order. For example, the only casualties of the operation are mentioned in this sentence: "Allen, after penning a message for the merchant to deliver to the citizens of Montreal, returned to Ticonderoga on the 21st, having left Saint-Jean just as the British forces arrived, and having lost three men in skirmishes." The fact that Arnold spent his own money to capture the fort is in this sentence: "When they arrived on June 22 and made it clear to Arnold that he was to serve under Hinman, he, after considering for two days, disbanded his command, resigned his commission, and went home, having spent more than £1,000 of his own money in the effort to capture the fort." Specific comments are below. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a bad habit of making sentences long and complicated, something I'm trying to stop, if only I could find the period key, which sometimes seems harder than it should be. Fixed, I hope.

• Intro Comments

• The consequences of the action are discussed in two places: in the final sentence of the first paragraph and again at the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph. Are tactical consequences separated from strategic ones? Consider placing all the important consequences at the end of the first paragraph.
• In the third paragraph, the capture is described as a "relatively minor military action" of "significant strategic importance." On the surface, I don't think both can be true. Some clarification is needed about the term "minor" in this text or it should just be removed. The numbers of the forces involved speak for themselves.

Reply The action was minor in scale (small number of forces), but significant in effect. I'll try to find words to clarify this. Reworded

• I'd remove the phrase "bold effort." This doesn't seem NPOV.

Reply I'm open to suggestions. (In the MILHIST-A review, the word "risky" was rejected.) The effort clearly contained elements of daring and risk.

• Concluding the intro with the clash of personalities between Allen and Arnold and it's impact on historiography doesn't seem appropriate for the intro to a general purpose encyclopedia. I think most readers will come here for information about the capture itself, and the lead and the article itself should focus on and conclude on the main topic.

Reply Noted. See below for discussion on the relevant section.

• Infobox Comments

• The image shows Allen demanding surrender from a man and woman in nightclothes. Who are they supposed to be? The text says the fort commander emerged fully dressed. Is a better image or more accurate image available? If not, more info should be given so the reader knows who is supposedly pictured and knows it's inaccurate.

Reply Short answer, no. There are a fair number of depictions from the 19th century. I believe the New York Public Library's collection is the most extensive, but there are images in other online collections as well. Most of them are essentially inaccurate in their depiction of the event. Changed label

• Were the three casualties deaths or wounded? Were any seriously wounded?

Reply Good question. Some of my recent reading leads me to believe they may not have been casualties at all, merely left behind and forced to make their way back overland. Clarified and corrected

• Background

• The first two sentences jump from '75 to '58 to '63 and then back to '59. This probably doesn't have to be in perfect chronological order to get the point across, but it should jump around less.
• The fort was "not the important fortress it once was" but was "a valuable asset." On the surface, I don't think both can be true. Some clarification is needed or the "not the important fortress" statement should be removed and maybe replaced with the statement "more like a backwoods village than a fort."

Reply I'll work on these two. Reworded

• Capture of the Fort

• The sentence beginning "Frustrated, he retired to the captain's quarters..." seems to refer to Arnold, but only Allen and Delaplace were mentioned in the previous sentence.

Reply I'll work on this. Reworded

• The statement "the plan to strip the fort and send armaments to Boston was in peril." implies that this was someone's plan in May. The Fortification_of_Dorchester_Heights article says "After George Washington took command of the army outside Boston in July 1775, the idea of bringing the cannons from Ticonderoga to the siege was raised by Colonel Henry Knox....Knox went to Ticonderoga in November..." Was this plan discussed by Arnold and the Massachusetts Committee long before Washington arrived, but the specifics of the logistics were Knox's idea? Are you making a distinction between armaments and heavy cannon?

Reply The discussion with Arnold did not include any specific logistics for delivering the armaments (and I believe Arnold realized he was out of his depth in dealing with it himself). Knox did not get involved until after Washington arrived outside Boston. Added I've added words that clarify what Arnold was doing in the interval between the capture and is departure from the scene.

• Crown Point and the raid on Fort Saint-Jean

• "Arnold rechristened the schooner Liberty..." It would be good to have its original name.

Reply Unclear if she was formally named, but I will look through some of my sources. I can temporize by changing to "christened" if the name doesn't turn up. Original name added

• Aftermath

• The fort was "not at the time an important military post" but "its capture had several important results" and Lord Dartmouth wrote that its capture was "very unfortunate indeed." See comments above about the Background section and Intro where there seems to be an effort to present a dichotomy that either must be made more specific or be removed. Is there a strong opinion among historians that the British underestimated Ticonderoga's importance in 1775 while the colonists recognized its value? Did both sides recognize its importance in the French and Indian War but neither side thought it needed more resources to successfully defend or attack it? Did Dartmouth think it was a blunder that the fort had not been reinforced with more men after Lexington and Concord?

Reply This is something that probably deserves mention. Gage did in fact realize the importance of Ti, and sent instructions to Carleton to refortify the place (I believe after Lexington and Concord), but events overtook the message (Carleton got Gage's message on May 19). I don't know enough of the context around Darmouth's comment to know if he understood the implications. Added I've added words that I hope clarify the perceived importance.

• War of words between Allen and Arnold

• "Allen also wrote several versions of the events" may imply that the versions he wrote differed from one another in substantive ways. Did they?

Reply The differed, but I don't believe the differences were significant enough to detail. I only wanted to make clear that the writings delivered to the different bodies were not copies of the same thing.

• The selections chosen in the last paragraph seem POV to me. Even citing a published author's POV is tricky unless some balance is given. The statement: " is an odd figure to be revered as a revolutionary hero." may apply in most of the United States, but is it odd for modern Vermonters to revere him as a revolutionary hero? Was Wilson writing for Vermonters or for other Americans? The final paragraph seems to unfairly pit Wilson, writing in 2001 with more sympathy to Arnold than to Allen, against Hall, writing in 1895 about Allen at a time when a book with sympathy toward Arnold might have been a foolish thing for a historian to write. Except for the first sentence, this final paragraph seems to detract more from the article than it adds. Especially the final couple sentences seem to just be a critique of Hall. I think some of the information could be included in a footnote, moved to the Benedict Arnold article or removed altogether. Any action that Arnold was involved in probably has a similar historiography. I'd consider shortening this section considerably and moving it to the Aftermath section as a subsection. The article should focus on the capture from beginning to end. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I wasn't trying to put Hall and Wilson against each other. I was merely trying to illustrate that biases, introduced by the actors, were traceable into the histories. Arnold and Allen are both difficult subjects to write about. Some reading of mine only in the last week is causing me to rethink my appraisal of Allen with respect to this section; there seem to be credible assertions that Allen's discussions with the British skirted treason. Removed I've removed the last paragraph; I don't really buy the premise by which I constructed it anymore.

Thank you for your detailed comments; they've been a big help. I'll try to address them in the next few days. Magic♪piano 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of the factual issues; let me know otherwise. I'll have a look at the prose tomorrow. Magic♪piano 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Prose hopefully improved. Magic♪piano 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review File:GreenMtBoys.jpg - I'm a bit unclear about the permissions for this. The image description says "photo by Amber Kinkaid used with permission" - where was this permission granted? Is the uploader actually Amber Kinkaid? Awadewit (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. The original uploader appears to be a somewhat infrequent contributor; I'll leave a message on his/her/its talk page. If this attribution is not cleared up in a timely manner, I can substitute this image, which I don't like quite as much. (There are no obvious search results leading to further information.) Magic♪piano 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get an answer from the image uploader by about Thursday, I will pull the image. Magic♪piano 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully someday you will get a response - the original image is so much better. All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral—1a. There are still opportunities to tighten the wording. Examples from the first few paras:
• I recommend pluralizing "cannon" to "cannons"; although both are correct, the extra "s" may avoid confusion for some of our younger and/or non-native readers.
  • "Hangers-on"—it's grammatically correct, but perhaps you could use a different word? It just seems awkward to me for some reason.
  • "Cannon and other armaments captured at the fort were subsequently hauled away and used to fortify Dorchester Heights and break the stalemate at the siege of Boston." Opportunities to tighten this sentence: "captured at the fort" "subsequently hauled away" come to mind. Perhaps something along the lines of "Cannon and other captured armaments were used to fortify...."
  • "In a bold effort on May 18, Arnold and 50 men raided Fort Saint-Jean". A very nitpicky comment: you can ax "in a bold effort" and replace it with a "boldly" before "raided". It's trivial and debatable either way.
  • As User:Tony1 always points out, "While the scope..." should be "Although the scope..."
  • In the last sentence, "...for the actions taken" seems redundant.
  • The pacing and content of the lead is great, but the entire article needs a couple quick passes to ensure optimal quality. Great work! — Deckiller 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 1a... I'll go through it a few more times over the next couple of days to see if I can tighten things up some more. Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. It's definitely not bad, though you may want to get another outside editor to help perform a final proofread. I also like how the lead summarizes the article without going into exhaustive detail like other FA leads. — Deckiller 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Query Hi Magic, that was an interesting read, but re "a number of cannons and massive artillery", in that era did artillery other than cannon exist? ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Period artillery also included howitzers and mortars. According to Henry Knox's records of what he hauled away, all of those were found at Ti. Magic♪piano 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that. ϢereSpielChequers 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks better—I'll support after a third-party user goes through the article. — Deckiller 03:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Support with proviso that I now have a very small interest following my copyedit. Comments - I've just completed a minor copyedit of this excellent article but, to be honest, I found the prose generally very clear and engaging. I do have a couple of suggestions/queries, however:

• Lead: I think we use the word 'capture' too often. I'm sure we could substitute 'took' or something else in one or two places - however in this case prefer the nominator to consider/alter rather than do it myself.
• Colonial forces assemble: Riding furiously northward (his horse was destroyed) - if he's riding, clearly he has a horse - are we saying his own mount had been destroyed and he was riding another one?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the use of "capture", I'll tune. As to the horse, perhaps it should read that the horse was subsequently destroyed. Thanks for the look! Magic♪piano 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, glad I asked about the horse, since clearly I had completely the wrong idea (it has been a long day, so I'll take some responsibility for that as well)...! Anyway, having been through it I see no reason not to support this for FA - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (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 Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009 .

Agrippina (opera)

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk), Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

I am co-nominating this with User:Shoemaker's Holiday. 14 April sees the 250th anniversary of Handel's death. There are no featured Handel articles; it would be good if this were featured before then, as Agrippina was his first big operatic success.It was written by the youthful composer towards the end of a short sojourn in Italy, but is reckoned to be fully up to the standard of his mature style.

The user Moreschi, who was the main editor on earlier versions of the article, was contacted and advised that it was being prepared for a possible FAC. He has not edited it since January 2008. The article had an extensive recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added in some sources, worked on structure, and minor copyediting, but I must admit that Brian's done most of the heavy lifting, with major copyediting work, and actually locating a libretto - which I could not. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

• Dabs and external links are found up to speed (based on the checker tools in the toolbox at the right)
• Ref formatting is not found up to speed (based on WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following refs (coding pasted below) are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead.

• Brown, pp. 357-58
• Sawyer, p. 534
• Boyden et al, p. 56

Fixed the only one of these where this was, as far as I could tell, the case? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• You got them all.--₮RUCӨ 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The following ref names are used by different refs, when only one specific ref should be using it.

• Brown3578
• Sawyer534
• Grove--₮RUCӨ 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the same refs, just with the text copied in case things get moved around. We could remove the text from one, but, frankly, it's probably less breakable if we leave it like it is. I have double checked they're all the same, and fixed one that wasn't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see you are right, why aren't they in a <ref name="(text)"/> format?--₮RUCӨ 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They could be, but if you're editing things, it's often convenient to have a bit of redundancy so that if you end up deleting a sentence or something, you don't have to go and find the ref it once connected to. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to change them to that format now, I'm just wondering if it's desirable to remove the redundancy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case it doesn't matter since it doesn't affect the formatting and output of the refs, so you're in good check.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Media review - All images and clips have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. (I only wish there were more audio clips!) Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did what I could, I fear. Even what little I did get was difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I peer reviewed this and have enjoyed the article and following the development of the article, and hope it can be featured to be on the Main Page for Handel's 250th. I have two minor quibbles. Since both cities are in Germany, could The first was in Schwetzingen (Germany), the other at the Göttingen International Handel Festival. be clearer as something like Both were in Germany: the first in Schwetzingen, the other at the Göttingen International Handel Festival.? Second, aren't some sort of references needed for the CDs in the Selected recordings section? Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Would gfhandel.org be an acceptable cite for the recordings? The site is run by the Handel institute, which includes several scholars of note. They list two additional recordings, but we could always add them, and then everything would be cited. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the "Both were in Germany" line. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the gfhandel.org site is co-produced by David Vickers, a leading opera scholar especially of Handel; he is co-editor of the (2009) Cambridge Handel Encyclopedia. I have added the refs to the discography section. Since it is a selected discography, I see no reason for adding further discs to it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All my quibbles have been resolved - well done. Ruhrfisch _><>° 13:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Impeccably referenced, comprehensive and easy to follow. Four tiny comments:
  • I wondered about the very opening line. Libretti are set to music, but is music set to a libretto as here stated?
    • You are dead right. I have fixed this Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Background: first para: "Allesandro" (Scarlatti) should be "Alessandro"
  • Composition: second para "…and other arias frm the opera.." needs an o
  • Synopsis: second para: "Aggripina" should be "Agrippina" Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Other points likewise fixed. Thank youBrianboulton (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support This article is a clear introduction to the opera. It covers the composition and production of the opera as well as its music. It is also well-written and uses high-quality sources. The only thing standing in the way of my fully supporting this article is the sourcing issue I outline below.

• There are no redlinks in the article, but it struck me that some of the pieces mentioned probably deserve an article of their own. Could redlinks be added where appropriate?
  • I've linked every opera and cantata mentioned in the text, creating a new article on Ero e Leandro. I didn't link the pasticcio "Perseo", though, but I don't think, at least, that it was particularly notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• at that time there was little difference, apart from increasing length, between cantata, oratorio, and opera, all being based on the alternation of secco recitative and aria da capo - There are too many phrases and words set off by commas here - the sentence becomes difficult to follow.
  • I have repunctuated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is already difficult enough to read Misplaced Pages's footnote-peppered articles, but I find it extremely distracting to read sentences with footnotes interrupting the sentence. Could we move the notes to the end of the sentence where possible?
  • I'll see what I can do in this respect, but my own preference is for citations as close as possible to the relevant material. I also have a "thing" against long reference strings at the ends of sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree - I prefer combined footnotes - one footnote to list them all. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've shifted all but a couple of refs to their sentence's end, combined some, & generally made things tidier. One or two refs which refer to specific quoted expressions or phrases I have left where they were. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• When writing about literary works, it is customary to list their first date of publication in parenthesis after the title. Is there such a custom in musicology?
  • Not certain of your point here. Is the suggestion that the article should be titled Agrippina (opera) (1709) - or am I misunderstanding you?
    • She means, for instance:

I've gone ahead and done that. It's useful enough. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, during the run Poppaea's aria "Ingannata" was replaced with an another of extreme virtuosity - Is there a better way to describe the difference between the two? What made the second one more technically difficult, for example? Later in the paragraph, it is suggested that what made this demanding was the range. Perhaps rearranging the information here a bit would improve this section.
  • Dean doesn't specify beyond extreme virtuosity, a term which most opera-lovers would understand as combining range and coloratura. I think the rest of the sentence makes it clear that the new version was intended to showcase Scarbelli's vocal skills. The final point is really just saying that such embellishments were unusual at this time. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you telling me this section is written for opera lovers (GASP)! I wish something on coloratura could be added because I didn't know that, but, if not, that's ok. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, Dean was writing for opera lovers, and omitted to mention coloratura in his "extreme virtuosity" description, so I can't oblige by adding it. Honestly, though, I think the meaning of the sentence is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • That said, if Dean's book contains more information or clarity on this subject, please do add it in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• However, when interest in Handel's operas awakened in the 20th century - Could you explain why interest in Handel's operas suddenly emerged in the 20th century?
  • I don't think there's any particular reasons - things go in and out of fashion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Skirts go up, skirts go down. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• There have been numerous productions since - since when? (This sentence begins a section, so it needs to be particularly explicit.)
  • Done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Recent revivals have used counter-tenors in the roles written for castrati. This is so in the 1995 Gardiner recording, in the 2002/2007 New York State Theatre productions, and in the 2007 ENO version - This sentence seems lonely. Is there a way to integrate it into the "Contemporary revivals" section?
  • I've integrated it into the main paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that the article quotes two pieces of gradute student work quoting Dean and Knapp's Handel's Operas leads me to believe that work has not been consulted. As it is the only book in the reference list devoted exclusively to Handel's operas this concerns me. There is a revised edition of Dean and Knapp's book from 1995 that I have access to. Would it help if I consulted this book?
  • If you would, please do - we tried to find it, but were unable to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm so lazy that I ordered it sent from our music library to our main library. It'll be there tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Apparently delivery is slower during spring break. Still waiting for the book. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • That being the case, while we are waiting could you please either strike or add comments to the other items in the review so that we can close them? Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I've struck them. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I've acquired the book - it does have quite a bit of information not covered in this article. I've offered to scan the relevant pages at Talk:Agrippina (opera). Awadewit (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks to Shoemaker's Holiday and Brianboulton for adding material and carefully checking the article against the new source. I'm fully satisfied with the article's sources now. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
              • And thanks to you for locating the source and enabling us to enhance the article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Agrippina by George Frideric Handel". written at Richmond, Va.. Virginia Opera. 2006. Retrieved on 5 March 2009. - Can we link "Virginia Opera" somehow so that readers know why this source is reliable?
  • Linked. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bianconi, Lorenzo; Giorgio Pastelli (1997). Opera Production and its Resources (tr. Lydia G. Cochrane). Chicago: Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-2260-4590-0. - Note in this entry in the "References" list, the translator's name is italicized. Is there a translator field in the template? (Yet another example of why templates are more trouble than they are worth.)
  • No, there isn't one. Damn templates. I've changed it to put Cochrane in as a parenthetical author. Why does FAC insist on these damn things being used? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • FAC doesn't insist. I find them generally helpful, though on occasion they can be a pain in the backside. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I find them both useful and frustrating - they make sure you get all the important information, but lack options for anything unusual. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dean, Winton (1980). "George Frideric Handel". New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (British special edition). 8. London: Macmillan. pp. 85–138. ISBN 0-3333-23111 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. - Does this mean "Vol. 8"?
  • Yes, that's the way the template does it, I'm afraid :( Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've fixed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Handel, George Frideric". Encyclopædia Britannica 15th edition. 5. 2002. pp. 678–80. ISBN 0-85229-787-4. - Is there an unspoken agreement not to list the publisher and location of the EB?
  • No idea why this info was omitted - fixed.

• LaRue, C. Steven (1997). Handel and the Aria, in The Cambridge Companion to Handel, ed. Donald Burrows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45613-4. - This should use the "book chapter" template - note that the chapter, book title, and editor are currently all in italics.
  • Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "Further reading" entries do not match the citation style of the "References".
  • Fixed, insofar as they'd fit into the damnable templates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, most of this is small potatoes. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your careful reading, copyedits & comments above. It would be interesting to know if the Dean & Knapp book contains information or insights not covered here; I'd be a little surprised, because a lot of this article is based on Dean's writings on the opera, as well as on other scholarship. The book is pretty well unobtainable in the UK – even the Royal Opera House couldn't help me – but if you are able to consult it, your comments would be appreciated. Other points above, e.g organisation of template formats, etc, are being worked on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am now fully supporting this article. Wonderful work. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Since Awa caught the small formatting glitches) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Augh, screw it, these templates are broken pieces of shite adding bad grammar, like "...in Amanda Holden. New Penguin Opera Guide." . I'm going to replace everything with PROPER, NORMAL citation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Kill the template, kill the template..." :) Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. And don't forget to sing that in an Elmer Fudd voice to Ride of the Valkyries, Awadewit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I definitely was. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a comprehensive, well articulated, and well referenced article.Nrswanson (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support & comment. Speaking of "kill the template", it would be helpful for outsiders to weigh in on the look of the role table vs , and also on the discography table, which dosnt have room for annotations & review links. Sparafucil (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to tweak tables as necessary, if there's consensus for it, before or after the FAC. Shoemaker's Holiday (from an internet cafe) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.88.42 (talk)

• Support - I first saw this back when it was a GA. Wow, what a change! I would request the editors to work on Serse next. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Zaprešić Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Yukon Quest Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

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 Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 .

Samuel Johnson's early life

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because Raul listed the Samuel Johnson page as the Featured Article of the Day back in January and Johnson needs a FA article for his 300th birthday coming up 9 September 2009. This page was originally part of the main Johnson page but was split to make room for information on themes, works, criticism, etc, that some FAC reviewers wanted (as it met the size range before FAC). That FAC was supported by over 30 people in the end.

The sections moved were written by myself with the original guidance and copyediting of Malleus Fatuorum‎. I would list him as a co-nom, but he knows that regardless of his actual participation in this directly, that he will get credit for the many months of work that he put into the page as a whole and these sections. Since his and mine original work (and over a dozen copyeditors), I added two new sections ("Parents" and "Early works") along with a few sentences to expand on a few issues that seemed that they could use a little more. I also added 4 more images since then to fill in any gaps. I also had an additional 6 more copyeditors look through the page for any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support – issues resolved.--Patton 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerns from Patton123

• After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, before Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds.—(Lede, second paragraph) I think this would parse better as "Johnson attended Pembroke College, Oxford for a year but was forced to leave due to lack of funds".
• Although Johnson began his career as a minor Grub Street hack writer, he would eventually make lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer.—(Lede, third paragraph) Take out the "although" at the start and put in "though" after the first comma.
• At the age of 29 Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman named Mary Neild, but she had broken off the engagement.—(Parents, second paragraph) order so it reads "Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman at the age of 29..."
• During the previous June, Johnson, while working as a tutor for Thomas Whitby's children, applied for the position of headmaster at Solihull School.—(Edial Hall, first paragraph) move "Johnson" to after "Thomas Whitby's children,"

Technical review:

• The article has two disambiguation links: editor and infectious (Do they really need to be linked at all?).
• Images all good.
• Referencing is awesome, though I think it would be better to use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} rather than {{reflist|2}} . That adjusts the reference columns based on resolution, with only one column for 800x600 screens, and 3+ for 1440x900+.

That's all. It's a brilliant article, great work! I really liked the quote boxes :-)--Patton 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid wikilinking unless it is to proper names. I don't remember when those came in but I removed them. I changed some of the wording. I think the first problem was from a merged sentence. I removed some more wikilinks that seemed excessive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Collapsing and supporting.--Patton 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ..are up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref is duplicated (wikicode pasted below), and appears as such in the ref section. Use a ref name instead

• {{Harvnb|Demaria|1994|pp=5–6}}--₮RUCӨ 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It appears that there was a formatting error. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Fowler&fowler

I'm an sorry to be this blunt this early in an FAC review, but the prose has far too many issues of grammar, usage, clarity and logic to be worthy of an FA. Here are some examples from the first lead paragraph. I want to stress though that every paragraph in the article has similar problems.

• (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
  • (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is very faulty. (Exercise)
  • (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height)
  • (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?"
  • (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?"
• (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
  • (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
• (Sentence 3) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
  • Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."

The article needs a very careful copy-edit. My own sense is that such a copy-edit cannot be undertaken in the time frame available for an FAC. The article should be withdrawn, worked on, and re-submitted. We owe at least that much to Johnson. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As per this page, the bulk of the article has been copyedited by over two dozen people. As per the comments above, there is no real grammatical issues. If this user continues in his way, I will take him immediately to WP:ANI for a point violation. As such, I will not acknowledge this user's presence within this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - the lead, the first section, and last section (the "new" sections) have been copy edited by over seven people. Notice how he is unable to come up with a true grammatical issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless Fowler has been disruptive in the past, you seem to have taken exception to a difference of stylistic opinion. I came across this while browsing Misplaced Pages but I wanted to point out you have a grammatical issue in the sentence where you say there is no real grammatical issues. Sorry, couldn't resist. Mobile Writes (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think that all of the points raised by Fowler&fowler have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post2 by Fowler&fowler—Question for Sandy Georgia or Awadewit

What is a point violation? What have I violated in my statement above that is worthy of AN/I time? I am happy to point out prose issues in pretty much every sentence of the article. I have tried to be polite in my post above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't point out any prose issues. You used incorrect terms. You even questioned what "dominate" means when a native English speaker understands what a dominate part of a life is, and you even claimed that you would find tons of problems within the best FA right now, which this was a part of and whose prose (the vast majority) was passed by over 2 dozen people before it was placed on its own page to make room for others. Those who passed it included some of our top copyeditors. This all comes after -you- threatened to find "errors". You coming to this FAC almost immediately, combined with the threat, and combined with your false oppose is enough to warrant that you are here only for disruption and should be banned from FAC. WP:POINT if you want to know what a point violation is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post3 by Fowler&fowler—Further comments on syntax and diction in remainder of "Parents" section

I am working with this version of the FAC page. I have already commented on Sentences 1 through 4 in this section (on the FAC talk page). Here are most of the remaining sentences in that section.

• (Sentence 5):"William was the first Johnson to move to Lichfield, and died shortly after the move."
  • One refers to "the move" (i.e. the act of relocation) if some details of the relocation have been provided. So, for example, we can say, "On June 19, William Johnson moved from the village of Cranleigh in Strattfordshire to the nearby town of Lichfield; he, however, expired shortly after the move." When no such details are provided, one says, "... and died shortly after moving there."
  • What do we mean by the "first Johnson?" Had no person with last name "Johnson" moved to Lichfield? If the latter is intended, then is there a citation for this? Or do we really mean, William was the first person in his family (or extended family) to move from rural Strattfordshire to Lichfield? In other words (especially in an encyclopedia), we should be saying: "William was the first person in his (extended) family to move to Lichfield and died short after moving there."

• (Sentence 5)"Michael Johnson, after leaving his apprenticeship at 24, followed in his father's footsteps and became a book seller on Sadler Street, Lichfield."
  • Wasn't being an apprentice to a bookseller already a case of following in his father's footsteps?

• (Sentence 7):"At the age of 29, Michael Johnson was engaged to be married to a local woman, Mary Neild, but she cancelled the engagement."
  • "was" is incorrect when you are describing a time period such as the "age of 29." It should be "At the age of 29 Michael Johnson became engaged to be married to a Lichfield woman, Mary Neild, who, however, later canceled the engagement."

• (Sentence 8): "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford. She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..."
  • "Middle-class" is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time. Its first occurrence is 1745 and it is generally not applied to the UK before the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars (1815).
  • "... and was twelve years his junior, daughter of Cornelius Ford." has faulty syntax. Simpler to say, "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford, who was twelve years his junior and daughter of a local miller and farmer, Cornelius Ford."

• (Sentence 9): "Although both families had money, Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty."
  • "Both families" here is vague (since the two people mentioned are the two women he became engaged to);
  • Similarly, "had money" is vague as well (i.e. in an encyclopedia). Better to say, "Although neither of his parents' families was considered poor by the standards of the day, Samuel Johnson often claimed (that) he grew up in poverty."

• (Sentence 10): "It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."
  • The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second.

No, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the mysterious happening. Graham Colm 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been addressed below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "marriage of his parents" Although most people will understand what is meant, it is more correct to say, "wedding of his parents"

No, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Marriage: The action, or an act of marrying; the ceremony by which two people are made husband and wife Marriage is the best word in this context. Graham Colm 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have the March 2009 draft edition of the OED right here. "Marriage" for "wedding" is archaic, Scottish or South Asian usage; not standard English usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archaic? Get a better dictionary. Gay marriage is used quite frequently. Marriage is a legal definition. Wedding is not. This is just more evidence that you should be a primary English speaker before criticizing English usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "provoke" usually means something more deliberate (i.e. to excite or stir up, to incite, to spur on); it can be used to mean "give rise to" or "prompt," but that use is usually restricted to physical phenomena. (An example is, "A streptococcus was indicated as the trigger that provokes acute rheumatic fever.") Best to say, "..., Samuel's birth to cause a reversal of family fortune ..."

No, again from the OED, Provoke; to give rise to Graham Colm 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am quoting from the OED (the complete one, that is.) The usage "give rise to" is restricted to natural phenomena as I have already observed.

Comment good writing is writing that is understood, better writing has colour, feeling and nuance. I am often accused of being a notorious nit-picker, but really the comments from Fowler&Fowler would be used by H. W. Fowler, were he still alive, as examples of constipated prose that fails to keep up with modern English usage. Graham Colm 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Fowler actually would use your first sentence to illustrate failure of logic, and urge you to change your second independent clause to "better writing also has ...." Clearly better writing needs to be understood as well. That is only the most obvious problem in that sentence. Besides there are nine sentences that I objected to above. You haven't said anything about them. If you honestly think that user:Ottava Rima's broken prose has color, feeling, and nuance, why don't you give me a few minutes and I'll give you some more examples from another section of the article. (It will be in F&f post4.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note after reading Fowler's third set of comments, I can't see one concern that isn't already contradicted because the passage is either part of standard speech or common sense. Thus, I will be ignoring the concerns as they lack merit. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to give an example - "'Middle-class' is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time." This is quite untrue. The above user has probably never read a book by either a Marxist or New Historical bent critic, let alone the thousands of others who aren't in either field. Lane makes it very clear that they were middle-class and even states "middle-class". These, and other such comments, show a lack of understanding how biographies work, how criticism works, and show a disregard for what he is actually reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I haven't read these critics, but I have read some Marx and some history. Note that we are saying "She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..." and referring the period before 1706. Here are a few references:

1)Davidoff, Leonore; Hall, Catherine (1991), Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 576, ISBN 0226137333 Quote from book: "What was the English Middle Class? The provincial middle class took shape during the turbulent decades of late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."

2)Briggs, Asa (2009), "Britain, 1815–1914", Encyclopaedia Britannica Quote:"The term middle classes began to be used more frequently in social and political debate. So too were working class and classes."

3) OED First use of expression, "Middle class" 1745 J. BRADSHAW Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France "The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in ..."

4)Daniel Defoe, writing after the time we are referring to, distinguished six classes: "1. The great, who live profusely, 2. The rich, who live plentifully, 3. The middle sort, who live well., 4. The working trades, who labour hard, but feel no want, 5. The country people, farmers etc., who fare indifferently, 6. The poor, who fare hard." In which class would Defoe put a bookseller or miller/farmer? Doesn't seem to be the "middle sort."

5)Finally Marx and Engels, themselves, usually reserve the term "middle-class" for the industrial age. However, they sometimes do use "manufacturing middle classes" to describe the mercantile guilds of early capitalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• For an example that Fowler doesn't understand grammar - "The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second." Actually, the subject of the sentence is "It" and part of "what happened" or just "happened". This is something -very- obvious and the fact that he believed that Johnson was the subject of the first clause shows that he does not understand what a "subject" actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I made a mistake, but pointing it out doesn't make your sentence any less ambiguous. The two sentences are: "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover." What do we mean by "his?" If we are using "his" to refer to Samuel Johnson already mentioned in the previous sentence, then why are we saying "Samuel's birth" next and not "his birth?" In other words, it is much less ambiguous if we say, "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the wedding of his parents and his own birth three years later to cause a reversal of family fortune, but his father quickly became overwhelmed with irreversible debt." Note too that you've responded to only one or two points; there are several others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle class simply means "skilled working class" - merchants, skilled laborers, lawyers, etc. It comes from a source. The basic definition is standard English knowledge. The source only verifies its legitimacy of use. The first should have kept you from claiming that it was inappropriate, and the second verifying that. I don't need to respond to -any- of your points because they are all equally absurd. "your sentence any less ambiguous" It really does. "It" is right at the beginning. There is no hidden subject. The first sentence states that there was an event, the second sentence states a response to that event. This is obvious from context. Are you even a native English speaker? I highly suspect that you are not, especially with your interest in Indian articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What does interest in the history of early-modern- and colonial India have anything to do with not being a native English speaker? There are many people in the former group: Christopher Bayly, Eric Stokes, Judith Brown, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Barbara Metcalf, Muzaffar Alam, ..., are just a few. Some are native English speakers and some are likely not, but all write superb English prose. Besides South Asia itself has many native (or near-native) English speakers, a direct result of over 200 years of British rule. The novels of Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are but two examples of the burgeoning corpus of Indian English literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You've used incorrect terminology for grammar, switched things around, made staunch claims about what is proper when there is no strict rule, and your strong interest in Indian articles and terminology suggests that you speak Hindi or some related language. Now, we all know that grammar in England is different than Grammar in the United States. It is even more so between Indian grammar and the rest because of the influence of native languages. It would explain why you are so adamant about things that are incorrect or not important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post4 (Examples of poor prose from Early Works section)

• Sentence 11: "More importantly, the work helped to mould Johnson into a biographical career; it was included in his later Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets series."
  • Wrong word: "mould Johnson" One can't mould (or mold AmE) a person into a career. The work launches the person into a career. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

I believe you mean "career" with one "r", and no "or" about it. This is a British page and deals only with British spelling and usage. Mould is proper because it is the act of setting within a physical mould. Launch isn't even close to appropriate, especially if you have read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but a search for "mould * into a career" (* is the generic blank) among authors of books turns up quite empty.  :( This is not the case for the expression "launched * into a career". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books has nothing to do with standard diction nor is it acceptable means to find out what standard diction is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can mould/mold an avocation into a vocation (or career), but you can't mould a person into a career. If you don't like Google Books, which search only among the published authors in the English language, why don't we search in Google Scholar or even the plain old Google web? ... but a search among all scholars for the expression "mould * into a career" too turns up quite emptly.  :( ... but a search among all 1 billion English speaking denizens of the planet only three use the expression "mould * into a career". Of these three, two are talking about moulding a hobby or research into a career (as I have already alluded to above); the third, who does talk about moulding a person into a career, is none other than Mr. Ottava Rima, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't even have logic. People can be moulded into anything. You have no ability to prove that wrong, so you substitute that by putting up a bunch of empty words. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Ambiguous usage: The expression, "biographical career," means many things in the English language (here is an example from the Cambridge Companion to Goethe, where "biographical career" means personal life), however, it is only rarely used to mean, "career as a biographer." In an encyclopedia, it is best to avoid ambiguity. It is at once clearer and correct to say, "The work helped launch Johnson's career as a biographer; ..." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Then you haven't had enough experience with English language usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but the Google search for the "biographical career" of some eminent biographers turns up quite empty. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, google search is not an acceptable tool for finding "standard diction" or diction patterns.

• Sentence 12: "It was successful in its partial analysis of Savage's poetry and in portraying insights into Savage's personality, but for all of its literary achievements it did not bring immediate fame or income to Johnson or to Cave; it did though provide Johnson with a welcome small income at an opportune time in his life."
  • What does "portraying insights into Savage's personality" mean? Was he portraying insights? Do you mean "providing insights?" —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Nope. The work is a portrayal and if you bother to do research you would see how it portrays insights. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "portraying insights into".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books doesn't contain anything even close to claim "no author" anything. The fact that you relied on it for a third time is only indicative of the general problems with your responses as a whole. Now, I will call you a liar. Why? Because of this. A result of the phrase "portraying insights". Next time, don't try to selectively search and hide from the real results. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, weren't we talking about the expression "portraying insights into?" I can certainly say, "The author has been portraying insights associated with the School of Cacophony as those of a demoralized fringe." This is more or less what the sole (i.e. one, unitary, or single) link in your "this" is saying ...  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrase is "portraying insights". If you knew anything about grammar, you know that -into- is part of a different phrase. However, your constant abuse of grammar rules and of the English language suggests that you don't care. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You say at first, it did not bring "immediate ... income," but then add "it did provide Johnson with a welcome small income ..." If he received a small income, then he received an income. Period. There is a logical flaw in this sentence. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Key word "immediate". Also, you ignored that it is "fame and income" and that the small income came "at an opportune time in his life". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "welcome small income".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you searched on a phrase that you didn't complain about. Odd how you do that. The fact that you would even suggest that someone else would have to use the phrase is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing out that you made one more boo boo in that sentence. Please accept my apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No "boo boo"s exist. Its just you dodging from being wrong by throwing out more empty language to distract from your own flaws. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 13: *"Johnson early works and early life have been neglected topics within Johnson scholarship."
  • "early works and early life" is in the wrong order. I've never seen this expression before and neither has Google. Replace with 'early life and writings." Don't need to repeat "early" either. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Works takes priority over life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but none of the other 1 billion English-speaking denizens of the planet have used the expression "early works and early life".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said "It was the best of times" along with "It was the worst of times" before Dickens, and yet he managed to say it. Come up with a real argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Repetition of Johnson. Why do we need "Johnson scholarship?" Replace entire sentence with, "Johnson's early life and writings have been neglected by scholars." It is understood that we are talking about topics. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Scholars and Johnson scholars are two different things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Typo: Replace first "Johnson" with "Johnson's."

I don't have more time right now, but I have taken a quick look through the section. Each and every sentence is either chock-full of errors or plain old clumsy. That is unacceptable in a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PS The evidence mounts that no author of books written in the English language seems to be using Mr. Rima's mellifluence-free expressions. Could Mr. Rima be guilty of practicing "original cacophony?" Do we want OC on the Misplaced Pages main page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Not using English in a way that follows rules but might not be duplicated in google books! Heaven forbid! The fact that you were upset at "early works" being joined with an "and" to "early life" is troubling in the very list. You can't provide one book to verify that such is improper. The fact that you said "no one" says the phrase without searching through the over 800 results to see if it comes up only verifies that you are putting forth a sham argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no no Mr Rima! There are indeed no authors of books written in the English language who use your exact expression, "early works and early life," (see top of the link); the 800 links you allude to are to authors who use the expressions "early life" and "early works" separately somewhere in their book. What's the big deal in that? I suggest that you not carry on this discussion in order to just have the last word. You make yourself look less and less credible. However, since I don't believe that you will actually stop, let me state that this is my final reply to your increasingly random musings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See, here's exactly why your complaint and any complaint here on Misplaced Pages by you are pure nonsense. You don't understand that "and" connects two groups of words. "Early works" is a proper set of words. "Early life" is a proper set of words. Any set of words following this pattern is grammatically correct, just like I can say jungle gyms and kookaburras without it appearing anywhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here, but what does "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation"..." from the Parents section mean? Is is that he was the first bookseller or repute, the first reputable bookseller, or is it something fancy that I am too ignorant to know?  :) Otherwise the article looks good - I'll have another look at it more closely later Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The line it is based on Lane's (the source) phrase "the first Johnson of note in the little town" (p. 11), "a respected book-seller" (p. 10) and later "Michael Johnson may not have been the first bookseller ever to trade in Lichfield, but he was the first to achieve respect and reputation" (p. 13). The quote is used to denote Lane's word but also the general sense that it is subjective and not objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel there's a better way to handle this sentence, but it is so trivial in what seems otherwise to be a high-quality article Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - issue resolved. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - have you considered using this book? Apparently, Bate is a little outdated by now, and we should be reflecting the latest scholarship, right? - Biruitorul 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Martin was used in part on the main Johnson page, but he offers no new details. He also admits his debt to Bate. The only difference between the two is in Martin's interpretation of a few people who Johnson knew or on some of Johnson's writing. Neither apply to this page but he is a good source for all of the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note - read the bottom of the review: "Martin's response to his subject's actual work is neither lively nor personal: few people will be tempted to have a go at Johnson's admittedly forbidding writings after reading these blandly potted accounts of them. The adroit marshalling of evidence doesn't always make for vivid narrative, and the need to cram in everything that Boswell didn't know eats into the space left over for colour and anecdote." Bate's work has been praised for a very long time, has received multiple awards, and he is a much more famous critic than Martin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Having cleared that up, and having reviewed the article, it appears to meet all the criteria, so I support the nomination. - Biruitorul 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose pending clarification. EDIT: Struck. Steve I'm sure it's just a case of providing an extra cite somewhere along the line, but do any of the sources used in the fourth paragraph of the Childhood section directly link Johnson's early ailments—and his "difficult" birth—with the severity of his TS? The paragraph uses non-Johnson-related medical sources to give contextual information about the disorder and state that such childhood events can influence its severity, alongside completely separate Johnson-specific sources that detail his "difficult and dangerous" birth and his childhood illnesses. Neither the Johnson sources or the non-Johnson medical sources seem to categorically make the link, yet how the section is presented does infer such, and this could be seen as synthesising facts from both sets of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly supported by one alone. Steve 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Three biographies that went into the section state Tourette Syndrome, apply medical analysis, and draw conclusions. If necessary, I can provide scans of these pages, as the issue came up during the Samuel Johnson FAC. The Pearce source is by a well known research of Tourette Syndrome and also wrote a paper on Johnson's case. More information on what is said on that can be found at Samuel Johnson's health#Tourette syndrome]] to verify what is stated there (it contains more details and direct quotes to show that it isn't synthesis). But yes, Johnson's case has come up in at least three major biographies (that I have, and a fourth according to an article in the NY Times of a new one but one I refuse to buy because it is uncritical), a handful of newspaper articles, and a few medical journal articles. Many of the sources used were either directly talking about Johnson or used by those directly talking about Johnson. I hope that explains the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t doubt the sources state exactly what the section says they do. The problem comes with the presentation. The paragraph begins with Johnson's initial exhibiting of the tics that characterised his TS. It then provides context with information about how TS develops in childhood. This is OK to a point, as TS "follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms". However, the paragraph then goes on to state that "environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and ... can influence the severity of the disorder." This is cited to sources that do not appear to discuss Johnson specifically; they're speaking about TS in general terms, and there is therefore no guarantee that the sources are relevant to how Johnson's TS developed—none of the Johnson-specific sources are used at this point. Because the rest of the section does detail Johnson's troubled childhood (illnesses, environment, difficult birth), it implies a link that I'm not sure has been made by the Johnson sources. If any of them do make the link, then we should too, instead of leaving it a vague implication. Steve 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the off topic sources are used by other sources used, then off topic sources are perfectly acceptable for context. Let me make it more clear - biographer says "Johnson had tics which probably did this" followed by a footnote. The footnote refers to page __ of book ___ which shows that. Quoting from that study the pertinent section is not synthesis. Synthesis is creating a -new- argument and only a -new- argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And please provide where the links aren't made, because they are rather clear on who says what. I need to figure out which lines you are having problems with. The link above to the Pearce quote alone verifies that Pearce contains the basis for all of the information regardless of what the other sources say, so I don't really see how anything could be deemed synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm sometimes less than clear. You should have seen my original reply before I trimmed it down: thrice as long and containing several unnecessary digressions. I'll boil it down:

• I don't have a problem with any individual fact used in the section; it's all well-cited.
• Pearce details Johnson's childhood ailments.
• Two non-Johnson sources say how childhood ailments can (not "do") influence the severity of TS.
• Neither those or Pearce say Johnson's childhood ailments influenced the severity of his TS.
• The section implies such an influence.

If you're saying that Pearce also explicitly links Johnson's childhood ailments with the severity of his TS, then that's great and I'll happily strike my oppose if it's made clearer in the section. Steve 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the post hoc diagnoses of individuals who existed, in this case centuries, before the diagnoses was invented are extremely questionable and for the most part unethical by anyone in the profession. Well marshalled references specifically justifying the diagnosis in this case are needed by credible sources, that is, sources in the field competent to make a post hoc diagnosis. Otherwise, editors could be assigning diagnostic labels to historical figures right and left. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not the basis of my particular oppose; Johnson's posthumous diagnosis of having TS seems to be well-established both in this article and the parent article. Steve 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If this is true, then certain aspects of his behavior, and relationships between his behavior and other known contributing factors to TS can be reasonably hypothesized, as one could to with anyone with the diagnosis, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but we shouldn't be the ones hypothesising; others are free to, and we're free to cite them. But that's as far as it should go. In the article, there is an implication that the severity of Johnson's TS was influenced by his childhood ailments. This should come from at least one reliable source, such as Pearce. At present it doesn't; Pearce is used to cite the ailments, while other sources that don't mention Johnson are used to cite that such ailments can (not unequivocally do) influence the severity. Neither makes the link between the two, so nor should we. Steve 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I just rechecked and most of the sources such as Pearce cover both. Regardless, here are the biographies so you can see the raw information. I'm tired and I don't feel like dealing with this issue. Therefore, I wont. You have the raw information. If you think its a problem, then, well, I will state that the sources are clear on the matter and that there is no synthesis. The closing FA director/assistant director can decide which side they agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks, posting those is above and beyond (though we should perhaps blank that page when we're done). I promise to read those in the next few hours. Steve 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I find the hypothesizing and speculating posted on the page link above less than convincing. Especially causing unease is this statement: "This gap in the explanation of Johnson's behaviour has been readily filled by psychoanalytic account." But I will stay out of it and let others decide. A literature article is not science anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
              • • Wiltshire is published by Cambridge, Demaria published by Oxford, and Martin by Harvard. The medical texts that they refer to plus Pearce and some others are published in well known medical journals. The "tics and gesticulations" form a large portion of Boswell's biography along with large chunks of the Thraliana (Hester Thrale's account of Johnson) and some of the other biographies (and in many letters and small accounts of various times). There is also a painting showing one set of gesticulations. Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain started off much of the medical diagnosis of Johnson and applied psychological causes and the rest. This was followed by Walter Jackson Bate, an early biographytrained in psychoanalysis and a major scholar in the field, who originally associated the tics with some psychological stress before they really figured out how TS operates (the major medical works follow his biography, which is where Wiltshire, Demaria, and Martin fill in). I can count at least 25 sources discussing his Tics and at least 20 discussing them as TS. Even the NY Times discussed it ("Ungainly, scrofulous and afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome, Johnson provided the same easy target for schoolboys that he later would for caricaturists."). Convincing or not, it has been discussed by major scholars in biographical, literary, and medical fields and has no differing view-point except to the degrees of how Johnson may have been seen by others (with little difference there, just more or less application). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Good publishing houses can publish speculative science. When the information published defies the current state of knowledge on the subject, it does not matter who published it. The New York Times is not a reliable source for medical information. An article written by a professor of English is not a reliable source on whether Johnson had TS. From your sources: If Johnson's own statement that his 'unease' began in his twentieth year is accepted as including, though not necessarily comprehending, these symptoms, then this would make the onset of the disorder extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely, late. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • Mattisse, please provide a source that states that Johnson does not have TS or that it would not affect him in these ways. These sources are -summarizing- medical research and studies on Johnson. If you think they are fringe (and well known fringe must still be stated), take it to the Fringe noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I said I was not going to make an issue of it, and I am not going to contest anything. I am merely pointing out some generalities, that a publishing house does not guarantee the relevance of information to an article etc. etc. Those things I pointed out are true and should not be used in arguments to refute. Also, as you know, the author is required to produce sources for contested information, not the opposite. The editor who questions is not required to prove a negative. And, as far as I know, these sources are summarizing studies and opinions, not "medical research" into Johnson's physical status. Medical research is published in reputable medical journals, and per WP:MEDRS should be recent, preferably not from the last century.—Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that influenced how people viewed him in his later years; these formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS). TS develops in childhood; it follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms. Tics may appear up to the age of eighteen, but the most typical age of onset is from five to seven. Johnson's tics and gesticulations first manifested as a result of his childhood scrofula; studies suggest that environmental and infectious factors—while not causing Tourette's—can affect the severity of the disorder. Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had a "very difficult and dangerous labour", and that Johnson had many illnesses throughout his life, "suffered from bouts of melancholy, crushing guilt, habitual insomnia, and he endured a morbid fear of loneliness and of dying", and was "disturbed by scruples of infidelity" from the age of 10.

Struck oppose per this change. Good luck. Steve 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a well-researched and engaging article. It is well-written and poetic even in places. This is the standard of Misplaced Pages humanities FAs that I love to see. If only I could make my virus articles such a joy to read. Graham Colm 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent job, well-deserving of FA...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should have a special category for "lackadaisical and indifferent masquerading as passionate support" (LIMPS). Imagine that luminous age when all you will need is: "LIMPS Modernist"! Imagine too the economy, that soul of wit, which, when summed over millions of Wikipedians, might yet save our planet from its excesses. Not to mention that brave new world teeming with FAs, all written in the wondrous experimental prose of "Samuel Johnson's early life" (especially the "Parents" and "Early Works" sections); so what if a few curmudgeons like F&f are calling it broken English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck per Ceoil's request. My apologies to Modernist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Flowler, you so out of order here; I know you are fustrated, but this is unfair. I suggest you strike or better remove you comment and apologise to Modernist, who is just caught in crossfire. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly seen my share of sickly articles on FAC review, articles whose authors have the expectation that the FAC reviewers are "de facto peer reviewers" and will help fix the article on the spot. However, I've never seen a sickly article whose author blatantly insults reviewers. True, I made fun of Modernist above, but what really is the point of a one-line support vote? How does it help anyone? I mean, why even bother?

I do trust the opinion of some editors who have recently posted on the FAC talk page. Should any one of these, Malleus Fatuorum (listed as an almost-coauthor), Karanacs, and Tony1, be prepared to state that the prose in the two sections ("Parents" and "Early works") does meet the standards required of an FA, s/he will greatly assuage my concerns, and I will then cease challenging the unsupported supports in this FAC review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's good, and interesting to boot. There are some nitpicks here and there, but overall I feel the prose meets 1a. A few things:
  • "However, the ritual was ineffective and an operation was performed that left him with permanent scarring across his face and body." Are you implying that they expected the ritual to get rid of the affliction? What was the operation? We need more info here.
  • "Sarah later gave birth to a second boy, Nathaniel, which put financial strain on the family." Can we rephrase this so it doesn't sound like the act of giving birth put the strain? I struggled to think of anything—maybe it's okay.
  • "Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had ..." Seems off-kilter. You wouldn't say "I described that the music was terrible." You would say "I described the music as terrible."
  • "To meet the expenses, Michael Johnson allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" I'm unclear how this meets expenses. Did Samuel sell the books for cash?
  • "but neglected a number of mandatory lectures" Hmm.. "a number of" is needlessly vague. I'd greatly prefer even "many" or "several".

--Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. They believed that the ritual would work. It was a common superstition. The operation itself? Unknown. Johnson never revealed much about it. Its unfortunate, though. I believe it was just lancing and cutting pieces of flesh off his face. Source? None that I can find. 2. Well, the act of giving birth did put financial strain. But yeah, having another mouth to feed is the real item here. Changed to split the sentences. 3. Rewrote a little. 4. Johnson didn't have to pay for books that he needed for college. I changed "take" to "borrow" to remove any chance that selling of the books was involved. 5. Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it's looking great. I hope to see more in the series here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, pending a solution for the {{when}} tag. –Juliancolton |  18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice when that was slipped in. I'm surprised someone asked because it stated "after 6 months" immediately before. I assume Ottre added it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (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 23:50, 18 April 2009 .

Street newspaper

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ /_contribs

I have been working on expanding this article for almost exactly two months (since this) and have gotten a lot of good help with cleanup from GAN (Hunter Kahn and Mattisse) and PR (Brianboulton); Apoc2400 has also been doing a lot of work creating short articles on individual street newspapers so that this isn't a stand-alone article but is part of a topic. I think by now we've built it into something interesting and good, and I would like to take it through FAC. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ..are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• There are duplications of the following refs (coding copied below), a ref name should be used instead

• Howley 2003:9.
• Howley 2003:11.

• Multiple refs use the following ref name, when only one ref should have the ref name

• Howley20039--₮RUCӨ 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed duplicate refs. Thanks for running that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• ..is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: the final two subsections ("challenges" and "debate"), which are currently part of the big Description section, could easily be part of a new level-2 sections (which would allow the Description section to cover just the three main points that are given in the bullets at the beginning); the only thing holding me back has been that I can't think of what the title for such a section would be. If people think they should be in a new section, that is a relatively easy fix (we would just need to think of a good name for it). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment A minor nitpick but I'll leave it to you to fix, as it will mean restructuring a section; The Gambia is by no possible definition "in the southern hemisphere". – iridescent 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, you're right. I'll try to rewrite that bit, it's a bit awkward anyway. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, rewritten a bit. In early versions of this article I was trying to cram in every country possible in that paragraph, but now that there is a {{street newspapers}} template at the bottom of the article, it's probably not necessary to list them all, so I've simplified it a bit. Thanks for that catch, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 1 is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 2 is lacking a last access date.
• What makes http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-157259200.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Added the information for refs 1 and 2. Removed the third one; I think I just threw it in early on so I could add another country, but in any case it's not very important, and the sentence already has two other references. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
• In the lead paragraph, the last sentence is awkward and partly redundant. "Finally" is unnecessary and distracting, and an earlier sentence already notes that the papers "primarily provide coverage about homelessness and poverty-related issues", and it is implicit from the rest of the paragraph that the audience is non-homeless people who buy the papers, so the fact they "seek to educate non-homeless readers about homelessness" is redundant.
  • Ok, I've just removed the entire sentence. You're right, it was redundant with the surrounding text; I think it was a leftover that slipped through the cracks when I was overhauling the lede. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the last sentence of the lead section, it should be more explicit how "concentrates on attracting mainstream readers" is at odds with "emphasize homeless advocacy and social issues". That is, what kind of content do some papers use to attract mainstream readers?
  • Reworded to "concentrates on attracting a large readership through coverage of mainstream issues and pop culture". Is that acceptable, or do you think it should be still more specific? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's perfect. It's well-described in the body, so the lead just needs to describe the basic difference.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the historical foundations section: who is Norma Fay Green? A historian? An advocate for the homeless? A mainstream journalist? A street newspaper writer or publisher? Also, the same footnote is used twice in that sentence, once in the middle and again at the end. This seems unnecessary.
  • She is a professor of journalism, who does a lot of research on the history of street papers. If I began that clause "journalism scholar Norma Fay Green has cited..." (added bit in italics), would that clarify things? I wanted to put her name in just because the comparison between War Cry and street newspapers isn't necessarily 100% fact, it's just a claim she made (and a lot of other people have since repeated), so I felt I should make that clear. As for the duplicated ref, I have now removed the first instance of it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Journalism scholar" would indeed clarify things.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Where was Hobo News published?
  • Not really sure. This gives me the impression that it may have been St. Louis, but I'm not totally comfortable with that. Chapter 5 of this book looks like it might have the answer to your question, but I can't access it online; I can take a look at it next time I'm in the library, either Sunday or Monday. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "It is published in St. Louis or Cincinnati, depending upon where the editor happens to be, but generally it has come from St. Louis, How's home." I am writing Hobo News now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I just put Cincinatti in this article; I checked the Heinz source today, and it only says Cincinatti, as does this (don't let the geocities link scare you; it's a reprint of something that was published in a journal, and the geocities url is just a convenient way to access it). The book Apoc linked above does say St. Louis, but 1) it only says it was "published from" St. Louis, not that it was sold or circulated there; and 2) it's a reprint of a contemporary source, and I'm not even sure yet who the author is, so anyway I think the other two sources trump it. My library is all out of this book right now, but whenever it gets in I can check it as well. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• The reference to increasing homelessness as the precursor to modern street newspapers should link to the appropriate section in Homelessness in the United States, e.g., "increasing levels of homelessness".
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Modern street newspapers section, last sentence: pick either parentheses or commas to set off of the example.
  • Ok, I put it in parentheses. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Last sentence of the Operations and business section: "most papers sell as few as 3,000 copies a month" is a confusing phrase. "As few as" sets a minimum, but this is set up in contrast to The Big Issue, which is also above that minimum. Is around 3,000 a typical range? If most (>50% of) papers sell as few as 3000, does that mean the rest sell even fewer?
  • Would this problem be solved if I just change "most" to "many"? It would make the claim a little less strong, but I think it would clear up the logical issues. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, "many" works. I almost changed it to that myself, but I wasn't sure if the sources pointed to something more precise.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• First sentence of the second paragraph in the Coverage section: weird un-parallel syntax, with "in that...and because".
  • Corrected. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• What is the "citizen journal movement"? Is that supposed to be "citizen journalism movement", or is "citizen journal movement" a common term for the promotion of citizen journalism (or perhaps something more specific)? If the latter, citizen journal movement should be linked (or if it's definitely not notable, briefly explained, possibly in a footnote).
  • Just a typo. Fixed now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Last sentence of Coverage section: "debate between professional and grassroots ideals"... the ideals themselves don't debate.
  • Added "adherents of". rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

--ragesoss (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work. Support, assuming that you track down the detail about Hobo News and implement the other changes that you proposed but didn't yet implement. Feel free to strike my remaining comments as appropriate.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review. I've verified that all the images conform to image policies.--ragesoss (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Very succinct and straight forward. Other than obscure MoS issues, which I can't vouch for, the article fulfills the FA criteria. I have been through the article and can find nothing to pick apart. I admit that when you started it, I did not think you could pull it together and make a complete and interesting article out of such an idiosyncratic topic. But you did. Very nice job! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (WP:WIAFA#3): policy violations of non-free images

• File:Bigissue.jpg: what is this copyrighted image doing here except to illustrate the subject (i.e. decorative purpose)? It certainly does not show any "flashiness" that is source of controversy among street newspapers. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg: why can the "sorts of issues covered in" this image not be easily described in words? Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:EdMcLain.jpg: how can we be certain this image was uploaded and licensed by an authorized employee of Real Change? OTRS is required. Jappalang (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't think this is necessary at all (we AGF on images all the time, look at the tens of images I have photographed and uploaded—are we going to require OTRS on all of them now to make sure I'm really the person who took the photos?)...but I have contacted Real Change anyway. And if people still think it's a problem, I can easily replace it with any of the others at commons:Category:Street papers. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-free images presently do not comply with the WP:NFCC policy. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree; personally, I think the images illustrate these points far better than a text description does, but you're free to think otherwise. (I'll also note that another editor here said the images are within our policy...so clearly we are all having different ways of interpreting the same policy.) Also, displaying these old covers is not hurting the papers' ability to sell copies. In any case, there is not going to be any free replacement for any of them (as far as I know, covers for other papers will be just as copyrighted as these), so if these images aren't ok then no others will be either. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are not proper rationales to overcome the concern that these images are purely decorative. The images can be easily described in words and are not significant in the context used (failing WP:NFCC #1 and 8); non-free images have to fulfill all 10 criteria listed in the policy. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: that's just something we disagree on. You think words can describe it well, I think they can't; it's personal taste. Can we wait to see what someone else has to say on it? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The two covers do show the different content focus of these two papers. The Big Issue example is about music festivals, i.e. not about homelessness and poverty. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Point is not to illustrate what can easily be said; why can the article not describe what sort of issues the two papers were covering? "Instead of covering topics such as homelessness and poverty, Big Issue spends much of its pages on music festivals and popular culture; its cover page displays professional shots, printed on glossy format." states everything in that image clearly. The same goes for the other paper: its caption (and main body text) more than adequately describes what it has to show in words, so what is the point of the picture? Hence, the two pictures are mainly just for show—"pretty pictures". Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree. While these particular images aren't the only ones that could serve their purpose, illustrations of a) what different kinds of street newspapers look like, and b) what Big Issue in particular looks like, are important things for the article to show that can't be explained easily with text or replaced with free images. Maybe the rationales themselves could be expanded a bit to explain more fully why are needed, but I think the uses of these images are basically consistent with the non-free content policy. Regarding the Real Change image, it is our convention to assume good faith when the uploader claims to be the copyright holder.--ragesoss (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I too disagree. Words cannot describe adequately layouts, mastheads, and headlines that combine to create the effect of a newspaper's front page. An article about The New York Times could not merely describe the effect of that newspaper's front page in words. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not commenting on the layout of the individual publications, nor their (layouts) effects on the consumers. It is discussing their contents (topics). Ragesoss, if the rationales are expanded to state why they are needed instead of "To illustrate the appearance of a street newspaper and the sorts of issues covered in it." and "Illustrate appearance and "flashiness" that has caused The Big Issue to be a source of controversy among street newspaper.", (which I have pointed out above was totally replaceable by words), I might be convinced of their fair use(again that depends on stating adequately why the covers of this two papers must be in this general article about street newspapers). Jappalang (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A picture's worth a thousand words. I would venture to guess that just about every fair use image on Misplaced Pages could be replaced with a text description of it...but that doesn't mean the description would be effective or concise. It's my impression that this is the very reason we have fair use guidelines: to allow the use of media when it helps explain a topic and when it doesn't infringe the copyright holder's ability to make money from it (and I believe these images meet both those broad criteria). As other editors have stated above, I believe the images are far more effective in expressing these ideas, and increasing readers' understanding of the topic, than a mere description would be; that's why I included them. Trust me, when I was writing this article I really did think long and hard about how best to express the important ideas; I haven't just been adding "decorations" haphazardly. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

An attempted analogy of the two images lumped as one (you can simply skip to the last paragraph if you do not wish to read an attempt to focus on the issue at hand, failure or otherwise):

"Imagine an article about the Cherry Leopard genus (yes, I am probably killing the scientific classification system, but bear with me). Most images are in the public domain, taken by federal photographers or licensed for use under CC. However, a copyrighted photo of a rare blue Cherry Leopard species is claimed as fair use. The blue creature has the exact form and features of the standard animal, except that its fur is blue. The article only speaks of the creature as rare, and claims as fair use 'illustration of a rare species'. This, however, fails fair use: the description can be readily expressed in words (form and features easily known, just visualise blue). Defenders of the image simply chime: 'we need the picture to know what it looks like, it does not hurt the photographer's right to sell the image', failing to note that the reviewer is asking for justification to use the image. Another repeated the same thing, but with addages of 'well, the rationales could do with some work' (which was part of what the reviewer was asking but constantly ignored). One more stated, 'the image shows the inspring form and sleekness of the blue Cherry Leopard, which are distinct for its species and cannot be readily expressed in words, as poets have expressed much of their frustration at'. True, but the article never commented anything about the majesticness of the creature (what was discussed was its rarity) nor did the article go into literary aspects of the creature."

In short, neither copyrighted image in this article is specifically used in a manner that words cannot easily express. From the start of my comments, I was expecting answers to my first questions, hoping that the editors can respond, and we can find something to work on. Instead, all I have been getting is simply "I think it serves a purpose"—no replies to what I have been asking, no attempt to write up expanded rationales that show why the images are used not for illustrative purposes, and a misdirected approach (the images are used to show content, not layout). What I am seeing is an avoidance to actually answer the questions posed: what are the images, as used in the article, supposed to show that cannot be easily described in words? Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle dealt with its fair use images better than this article (albeit File:Energybending.PNG would need some form of its caption in its rationale, instead of "Illustrates part of the article's purpose"). If I am not getting any answers to this, my oppose stands as is. Jappalang (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: what we are disagreeing on is "used in a manner that words cannot easily express". You think words can easily express it; I and all the editors who responded above think words can't. By now everyone knows how you feel on the matter and everyone knows how I feel, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so I guess we might as well just drop it and wait for the closer to decide. (I will note, though, that in the article you pointed to above, I could say the same thing you've been saying about File:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg—why include the image when we could just say "the art was really good"? And the image doesn't illustrate anything about the character's voice.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for an answer to your last question... The Big Issue one is used not just to "show content," but production value and "flashiness," as stated in the NFUR. I could use the word "flashy" a hundred times in the article but it wouldn't get the same understanding across as well (and the copyeditors wouldn't be very happy). The Spare Change one is to show an example of the appearance of a different kind of street newspaper; just because it's not "flashy" like the other one doesn't mean it looks like a regular newspaper, it clearly has much different (more tabloid-style) format than a regular newspaper. It's in the Coverage section, which aims to describe what you'll find when you buy a street newspaper and reading it; that involves not just the content of what you're going to read, but the way it is presented, and there's not really a better way to describe the full effect than with an actual image of a paper. Anyway, I have now updated the Big Image caption (diff) and the Spare Change NFUR (diff). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the lion turtle sage was used to illustrate the art style, which is not easily described with words (what is "good"). Can you accurately describe the lines drawn and the visage of the object soley with words? That is totally different with what you are doing with the newspaper images. In effect, this shows you have misunderstood what I meant by "can be easily described with words". The Spare Change FUR is still invalid; nowhere in this article is there a commentary about the layout of this paper. As for Big Issue, avoid the general "appearance and flashiness", go with more specifics that pertain to the commentary in the article, i.e. point out why the glossiness, layout, masthead, etc (take inspiration from items pointed out above) contributed to the "production values and mainstream appeal of professionally produced" publication and that this image is to show all those concepts. Basically, explain on the image page (as rationale) that the image should not be taken away because of that. This is sort of what I am looking for. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't misunderstand, I just disagree. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the NPD on the Real Change image. Ordinarily, the image contributions of editors are not questioned; however, I have two exceptions: professional photos or those professed to have been taken by professionals, and those proclaimed to be uploaded by companies. Their livelihood in part involves copyright, and a sense of prudence on such images is well advised; a short stint of patrols on uploaded pictures have shown a fair number of such images uploaded by those who falsely claim copyright or that the holders have given clearance. Jappalang (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it's not really important enough to fight over and I don't really care. I can maybe re-add it in the future if either a) I get an e-mail from Real Change (they haven't responded to me yet), or b) enough people here decide that OTRS isn't needed. Then again, it was kind of awkwardly jammed in anyway, I don't know if there's a comfortable place to stick it. Whatever, we'll see. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Update It took a while, but I got in touch with Real Change and how now obtained verification of its status and forwarded the permission to OTRS. Accordingly, I have re-added File:EdMcLain.jpg to the article. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose - The two modern front covers are unjustified under WP:NFCC#3, has an attempt even been made to contact the publishers regarding licencing? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If enough people agree the Street Sense cover is unnecessary, I might remove it. As of now, though, I see no consensus either way—Jappalang has made some good arguments (and has helped improve the NFUR for the Big Issue image) but at the same time several other editors agreed that the image met the criteria. I would like to hear more input before deciding one way or the other. If enough people agree that the picture doesn't meet the criteria, it's a very simple matter to remove it it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

errata That should have been WP:NFCC#8 (although it is also inviolation, #3), I was thinking of #3 in Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, for which there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS Fasach Nua (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about consensus on whether or not there is consensus for FAC criterion #3, which everyone already agrees on. I'm talking about whether there is consensus that the image violates it, which people do not agree on (see above). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Big Issue cover meets NFCC #8 (the version of the article I'm looking at only has one fair use cover). "Professional" appearance can mean a lot of different things to readers, so it is a good idea to have a representative cover, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg does not appear to be contributing significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8). General layouts of newspapers and tabloids are not obscure concepts needing illustration and such information can be gleaned from the free, although de minimus, occurrences already in the article; this cover does not appear to be unique or otherwise meaningful/important. That the illustration is not needed notwithstanding, I rather doubt a thorough, if any, effort was made to contact various publishing organizations (this cover even has a web address) to determine whether even one would be willing to license a cover with a free license (NFCC#1). Subordinate issues also include failure to acknowledge a copyright holder (NFCC#10A), etc.
  • File:Bigissue.jpg needs to attribute a copyright holder (The Big Issue Foundation), but inclusion appears otherwise supported. Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - when you say "attribute a copyright holder", do you mean in the image caption within the article, or in the NFUR on the image page? I don't see a field for copyright holder (only |source=) but I suppose I could use |other_information=. As for File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg, I am talking with a couple editors (including Jappalang above) about possibly removing it, and I will let you know what happens. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This was all you need to do. You don't need to attribute in the article itself, just the description page. Эlcobbola _talk 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Update After doing some thinking, and discussing this with Jappalang, I have removed File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg from the article. I am still not entirely convinced that the image is useless, but enough people have raised concerns that I need to address them. I believe that with copyright and fair use issues, a simple majority isn't enough "consensus" for inclusion—we need to err on the side of caution, and so should only be including fair-use stuff when there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of having it. Since opinion is divided right now, I think it's safest just to remove the image. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - (this version)
  • Street newspapers, or street papers, are newspapers or magazines that are sold by homeless or poor individuals and produced mainly to support these populations.
    • The two "or"s in there, seem a little redundant to me. Any way to reword this? It's not a big deal, but just food for thought.
  • They are supported by governments, charities, and coalitions such as the International Network of Street Papers and the North American Street Newspaper Association.
    • Do governments actively support the papers? The way this sentence is worded, it sounds as though they give minetary support (if they do, ignore this please)
  • Several publications by charity, religious, and labor organizations tried to draw attention to the homeless in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not until the 1990s did modern street newspapers become common, after the founding of New York City's Street News in 1989.
    • Suggest a rewording of "Several publications by charity, religious, and labor organizations tried to draw attention to the homeless in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they only became common after the founding of New York City's Street News in 1989."
  • I'll admit that I skimmed the article, but this was quite an interesting topic that I had not known about. Hope to see this on the main page sometime! :) Cheers, —Ed 17 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Note I asked Ed for a review, see User talk:The ed17#Request for feedback.

In response to your comments....

• I could reword that first sentence to "Street newspapers (also called street papers) are newspapers or magazines that are sold by homeless or poor individuals and produced mainly to support these populations." I guess it's a matter of whether parentheses are worse than two "or"s. I will keep thinking about other possibilities.
• Re government funding: yes, it appears that a lot of these papers are supported by local government grants: "most of them are dependent on government and private grants and corporate sponsorship", and the Heinz and Green refs also mention it (might be visible in Google Books, but I'll have to take a look in a moment). I don't think any of them are specific about what proportion of papers are supported by local governments, or how much they are supported.
• Good suggestion on the 3rd one, I will make that edit now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You could also use "Street newspapers, also called street papers, are newspapers...." or "Street newspapers, also known as street papers, are newspapers...." —Ed 17 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah...fancy that! I like the first one. Changed, and now I feel quite silly. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - This is a well-written and interesting article. I'm wondering if it is possible to cover more of the day-to-day operations of the newspapers or if those are too diverse to cover in such a broad article? Also, I found the list of references surprisingly short. Is there really this little published on street newspapers? Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

About references... are you referring to the Bibliography, or the entire reflist? The bibliography only includes book references and academic journal articles (basically, things with page numbers). Stuff like newspaper articles, web pages, speeches, etc., are long-form footnotes. Talk:Street newspaper#More sources has a few more sources that I haven't gotten around to looking at closely or integrating into the article yet, but they all fall into the latter category and would not lengthen the "Bibliography" list (at least, not the way that list is organized now).

About day-to-day operations...I can take a look at some of the sources and see if there are more details on that sort of thing. I think you're right that it would vary a lot between the small rinky-dink ones (which I imagine don't have much "day-to-day", they probably get thrown together in short bursts by people who have other jobs most of the time) and the more professional ones that have a large paid staff and stuff like that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean "references" in a general sense - I was surprised that there wasn't more published information on this topic available to use in the article. Are you at that point in the research when the sources start repeating themselves and referring back to things you have already read?

I wonder if a bit more could be added about the day-to-day operations of the newspapers that aren't professional. It is pretty easy to imagine what professionals do, but the production style and work habits of non-professionals, who have the severe limitations of homelessness, poverty, etc., might be worth adding into the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Yep, there really is not a whole lot of information out there on this topic, as it's not a major area of study—as you can guess by looking at the version of the article before I started editing it, this is not a topic that many people are thinking about. You're right that most sources are more or less repeating themselves by now; for example, when that NYT piece came out two days ago I was excited, but there's actually not a whole lot there that I hadn't already put in the article, other than a few bits and pieces about how the recent economic downturn has affected street papers.

As for day-to-day operations of the newspapers...I think there's an abundance of information on the day-to-day of the vendors (several sources I have include vendors talking about their strategies, dealing with "turf", etc.), but not so much about the writing/publishing of the papers. As far as I can tell right now, anything I could add would essentially be speculation based on a few specific examples (i.e., I have some articles that might very briefly mention the operations of Paper X, but off the top of my head I'm not aware of any that discuss it in a more general sense). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: this might have a little of what you're looking for (the full citation is at Talk:Street newspaper#More sources). It's written as instructions/suggestions for how to start up and run a paper (by Tim Harris, the director of Real Change, so I think that should help with reliability) but might also help give a general impression what the day-to-day business is like. I have only had a chance to skim it so far, so I'll try to look into it a little more. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems a little too personal to me. I suppose this is just the sort of information that is difficult to come by. I've changed to full support. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - Quite an interesting article.

• My issues: Prose needs some fixing here and there. Overlinking is prevalent throughout (United States is linked). I don't mind giving the article a copy edit, but I want to ask that before I go in and change stuff that you argued with someone for three weeks on how to state something. Minor things that add up: two sentences in Historical foundations start with "Another...". I wish you provided an example or two of how mainstream media portrayed the homeless per the first sentence in Modern street newspapers. The section just above Debate is Challenges and criticisms. They seem kind of synonymous.
• Tell me (convince me) why the main description is in bullet points.
• Recently I wrote Save Our Children, that interestingly, had a bit about specialized media outlets catering to gays and fundamentalist Christians. I'm making my own connections between such specialized media, but most of these outlets are considered reliable sources depending on what they're being used for. What I didn't see in this article is mainstream journalism's views of how reliable the information is in street papers. Do they get scooped often? Have any of the papers influenced mainstream journalism to cover issues of homelessness and disadvantaged people? --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• About the prose: I don't mind if you tweak things. I've had a hard time copyediting the article with a view towards the whole thing, since I put it together in such a piecemeal fashion, and between different copyeditors some things have been changed back and forth depending on the copyeditor's preference. But anyway, you are welcome to do more copyediting if you're interested. I will take a look at the "another" thing you pointed out and try to think of a good rewording.

• I tried this to remove the extra "another". rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• About "debate" vs. "challenges and criticisms": the latter section is intended to be about mainly external challenges the papers face and criticisms they receive, whereas the former is about a split between different kinds of papers. Its original section title was "Schism between street newspapers" (which I threw in for lack of a better idea), and at PR it was changed to "Debate between street newspapers" because "schism" sounds too religious; then, of course, "between street newspapers" was dropped altogether because of MoS concerns. I'm still not totally satisfied with the current way the section is titled, so I'm open to suggestions.

• What about changing the section title to "Differing approaches", "Differing viewpoints", something along those lines? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I put the main description in bullet points because I thought it was a clear way to express that these papers generally have three separate kinds of goals that, while related, are also very different. It also seemed like a good way to digest and summarize a lot of yada yada that occurs in the sources, pretty much all of which boils down to these three points. Also, in earlier revisions of this article (before GAN) the "challenges/criticisms" and "debate" sections hadn't been added yet, the Description section just had three subsections, and the three bullet points fit well with the structure of the article—each bullet point corresponded to a specific subsection. To be honest, I am still somewhat considering going back to that kind of format, and splitting the "challenges" and "debate" subsections out into a different section (I mentioned that at the top of this FAC, just below the tech review, but didn't get any input). So anyway, that was my rationale for using bullets.
• As for your last comment...I haven't found many sources that talk about perception of how reliable street papers are, but several do discuss people's perception of the quality (ie, quality of writing, and importance of the stuff they cover); most of that is in the Ryerson Review of Journalism source and covered in the "Challenges and criticisms" section. As for reliability, I haven't seen much yet; I have noticed some isolated things here and there, like a story about a Toronto street newspaper that was apparently being used as a vehicle for mostly racist propaganda (that hasn't been incorporated into this article yet, but I think I have the citation at Talk:Toronto Street News), but nothing really that would suggest a general trend. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I added a sentence with more specifics about mainstream media's portrayal of homelessness in the '80s, per your request. I'm not sure how much more it would be reasonable to add; to me, this seems to get the point across pretty strongly. Let me know if there's anything else that you think is needed there. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ref number 4 lacks an access date and I think you should change the format of date that ref 18 was retrieved to be consistent with the rest of the article. I didn't have a chance to check the rest of the article's access dates.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed those, and a couple others I noticed. Thanks for catching that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

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 Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009 .

Noel Park

Nominator(s):  – iridescent

I deliberately left this one for four weeks after writing it to allow any dust to settle. It now seems to have settled into a stable version following my initial (re)writing and a subsequent copyedit by Malleus (the only recent edits since have been minor tweaks). I was originally planning to send it to GAC, but on reflection I think it meets all the FA criteria; it says all that any casual reader could ever want to know about the area and is fully sourced etc. Although it's not been through a formal process, it's been through a de facto peer review in that everyone I'm aware of who works on related articles has commented (thread currently on my talkpage here plus the article talkpage).

Pre-emptive replies to a few likely questions:

1. The official local authority website is used as a source on a few occasions; however, only for facts where NPOV isn't an issue (number of pupils currently enrolled at the local school, for example);
2. "Haringey Friends of Parks Forum" wouldn't ordinarily be a reliable source, but in the instance I'm using it it is; it's used solely as a citation for "As of January 2008, local residents were lobbying for the name to be changed back to Russell Park" and is a link to a statement on the matter by the residents group in question;
3. The images don't follow the neat left-right-left-right progression recommended by the MOS – I think it's more important that the images be next to the sections they illustrate, and a strict alternation would result in some of them pushing the headers out of place;
4. Three of the images (File:Noel Park and Wood Green, Earl of Dorset's Survey.jpg, File:Noel Park plans.jpg and File:Noel Park original designs.jpg) are uploaded at bandwidth-crunchingly large sizes; this is intentional. It doesn't affect how they display as thumbnails or the thumbnail download time, but these three images are the ones that it's most likely that any hypothetical kids-using-Misplaced Pages-for-their-school-project are likely to want to print out at a large scale, and I didn't want the loss of detail that resizing would entail. (As they illustrate precise architectural detail, I think it's important that they be viewable/printable at large scale).
5. There's an issue (discussed at length on the article talk page, and also on Sandy's talk a couple of weeks ago) regarding the accuracy of the section on the Walsham-How Mission Hall (currently the second-to-last paragraph of section 9). The most reliable source on the subject (a book by the leading expert on the area, published by a museum specialising in the area's history) makes an assertion that appears to be flat-out contradicted by photographic evidence. The paragraph in question has been deliberately ambiguously worded to allow for either possibility to be correct; I'm very reluctant to remove mention of the hall altogether, as the Mission Hall would have been one of the most important buildings in a community of this nature in this period.
6. While I've filled in some of the most glaring redlinks, there are still quite a lot of redlinks on this article. I think they're all "legitimate" redlinks, in that they're all for subjects on which we should have articles.

Oh, and I know there isn't the "notable residents" section one generally has in articles of this nature. Believe me, I looked (to the extent of walking the streets looking for Blue Plaques); despite a hundred years of history, I really can't find anyone notable who's ever lived there, other than Charles Christopher Watts, and he doesn't seem to me to have a significant enough link to the area to warrant mentioning. – iridescent 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Tech. Comment -- Dabs/external links (checker tool), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - an excellent piece of social history with a great collection of supporting photographs and images. --DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Text should not be hidden within the article ("Derivation of street names in Noel Park"); it doesn't mirror or print correctly. Can See alsos be merged into the article, per WP:LAYOUT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I know the collapse box isn't ideal, but it's the best compromise I could think of. I think it's worthwhile having this list somewhere, firstly because it illustrates the mentality of the estate's planners (most notable to me is the fact that a fairly religiously-minded organisation was willing to name a street after Darwin at a point this early); secondly, realistically most readers of this article will be people who live and work in the area trying to find out more about it, to whom this list would be of interest (I know our guidelines say otherwise, but I think "it's useful" is a perfectly valid reason to include something). However, having it in the body text uncollapsed would be unsightly. A stand-alone List of streets in Noel Park would be AFD'd within minutes by one or other Defender Of The Wiki screeching "WP:NOT#DIRECTORY!!!", while AFAIK there's no provision in the MOS for an appendix section to an article, which would be the most obvious place for it. If it's the only serious problem, remove it.
    I've removed the "see also" section; Council house I've found a place for in the text, the other three I've removed altogether as they're not really necessary. – iridescent 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • How about this as a solution to the collapse-box problem? It removes the collapse, but takes the section in question to the end creating a de facto appendix, so there's not an unsightly table squatting in the middle of the article? – iridescent 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. Slight oppose

• • Location: "When construction began, the River Moselle, running parallel to Lordship Lane a short distance south of it, formed.." seems awkward to me. Not sure how to fix it though. The whole sentence is really long, perhaps break it into two and become a bit wordier? Not quite sure though.
    • ✓ Done – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "now-lifted" suggest explaining that to non-railfans. (My father was one, so I know what it means...)
    • I've replaced it with "defunct"; there's no need for a technical term here. – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Early History: No Domesday records?
    • None that I'm aware of. Bear in mind that even on the 1619 map, over 500 years after Domesday, there is only a single house shown in the entire Noel Park area (basically everything to the left of Green Lanes, the road running north-south down the center of the map). AFAIK the nearest settlement listed in Domesday was Tottenham, a couple of miles east; in the Saxon and Norman period, this area was still the old forest and marshy floodplain (hence Wood Green). Sources seem to agree that the earliest recorded property in the area was Ducketts Manor, built in 1254, as currently mentioned. – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Construction: "Rowland Plumbe and Sir Richard Farrant, Deputy Chairman of the Artizans Company, visited the site to carry out an investigation to be told by Mr Hunt, the foreman, that "in answer to questions as to the mode of measurement in use for Ballast heaps, that one third was added to the measurement for shrinkage"." this sentence seems awkward and long to me. Suggest cutting it in half, and perhaps rewording the "... visited the site to carry out an investigation to be told by Mr Hunt..." part which is the awkward part
    • ✓ Done – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Need a citation on the quotation starting "a paper of measurements which were soon ..."
    • Fixed - that one just slipped through for some reason – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This phrase "... named for Charles Darwin, prominent naturalist and an early investor in the Artizans Company since 1871 who had died the previous year..." reads awkwardly. Suggest "... named for Charles Darwin, prominent naturalist and an early investor in the Artizans Company who had recently died..."
    • I've removed the "who had died the previous year" altogether as I don't think it's really relevant (if anyone disagrees, feel free to readd it) – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple of spots that could use citations, but are borderline enough I'm not going to insist. (Last sentence of Piccadilly line, last sentences of the last paragraph of Construction).
    • I've added a ref to Piccadilly line section; the missing citation from Construction was an result of my moving the "Derivation…" table to the end and is now fixed. – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• My main concern it the uncited quotations, that needs to be fixed before I can support. The others should be worked on, but I'm open to reasoning on exactly what that is. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all of them; the only one without its own citation that I can see is the one in "Financial difficulties" beginning "to issue them from Green Lanes…", but that's because it shares a source with the ""no one living in Noel Park could desire…" quote immediately following, and I don't like adding citations to the middle of sentences unless it's absolutely necessary. Can you confirm that there aren't any outstanding which I've missed? – iridescent 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Few image concerns as follows:

• File:Rowland Plumbe.jpg and File:Ernest Noel.jpg: UK copyrights are mainly based on the death of the holder. For these cases (published 1890 and 1883 respectively), it might be plausible that their authors might have died in 1940s, thus falling just short of the 70-year mark. Since they are unknown (hence, taking the publishing before 1939 option), the PD-UK-unknown could be applied, but only "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." For Plumbe, the research should be based on inquiries to Welch and the publishers of the Business NewsBuilding News. For Noel, it would be inquiries to Dods to confirm if the photo belong to them (or the House of Commons) and the photographer.
  • File:Rowland Plumbe.jpg was verifiably published in 1898 and hence as far as I'm aware satisfies the "A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1939" {{PD-UK-unknown}}; since it was uncredited at the time of its publication there's no reasonable way to establish the creator. Regarding File:Ernest Noel.jpg, to be honest I'm not going to spend a large amount of time chasing copyright permissions for a 126-year-old photograph which is not necessary to the article. In both cases, if they're causing serious problems they can either be deleted (neither is essential) or transwikied from Commons to en-wiki; according to Durova, whose word on image-related matters I trust completely, verifiably pre-1923-publication images are automatically PD under the Florida law under which en-wiki (as opposed to Commons) operates and hence can be legitimately hosted and used as free-use on en-wiki. Since it's vanishingly unlikely that any other language project will want to use either image, it shouldn't cause problems if they are brought across. – iridescent 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes to that. Durova 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with moving the two images to Misplaced Pages (which is only concerned with the US copyrights, hence the publishing before 1923 case). I would like to put up one question that might help them stay on Commons. Is Business NewsBuilding News still in operation (in one form or another)? If they went bust a significantly long time ago (and as you say, they did not state the photographer in their publications then), we can reasonably say that even Welch would not know of the creator and it is unlikely such records would be found in company registries (which I presume are only concerned with financial, hierarchy, and founding details). Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Building News, not Business News. The short answer is, I don't know. I very strongly suspect it's long defunct, as a new magazine of that name was launched in 2002, and I assume that wouldn't have happened if there was an existing or recently defunct publication of the same name, but that is a presumption without actual evidence. It's an unsearchable title on Google, and the existing publication of the same name makes any ISSN or catalog queries suspect. – iridescent 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I think, in this case, moving the images over here would pretty much solve the issue without further consternation and worries. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Building News appears to have stopped publication around WWI; there is an archive at York University; this covers the period 1870-1920. It may be the collection stopped, but a quick google shows up no results after WWI. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
            • It goes further than that... According to this, "Building News (1854-1926): originally Freehold Land Times and Building News (1854-56) continued as Building News and Architectural Review (1860-962); then Building News and Engineering Journal (1863-1962) absorbed by Architect and Building News, 1926". This is further backed up by this PDF of VictorianPeriodicals.com, which also states that the Architect and Building News was later changed to The Architect in 1971 and ended publication in 1980. All in all, I think it is reasonable that with the convoluted transitions and long history, records of who actually took the photos are near-impossible to locate (if they ever existed). I would key in my findings into the images on Commons to reflect this. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
            • For Noel's picture, I suggest moving it to Misplaced Pages to resolve this (unless someone has already contacted Dods). Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:Morley Avenue 1906.jpg: creation does not equate to publication. This looks possible as a family shot (or private take), lining the kids up for a "Kodak" moment. In which publication was it seen in 1906?
  • Removed. I think this is an ugly and almost unusuably low-resolution image anyway. (Almost certainly not a family snapshot but a publication from a church or school publication – Edwardian English slums were not the sort of place where people owned cameras – but I'm not going to go wading through musty files in municipal archives to look for attribution and doubt anyone else will.) – iridescent 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:Haringey wards with Noel Park highlighted.jpg: eh... where is the OTRS (or acknowledgement) from the Haringey Council for the base map to be GFDL? This could also be an SVG.
  • Hmmm, no idea. If you really insist, I can retrace the boundaries and reupload a file which will look exactly the same in every way; since this shows oficial geographical boundaries (which can't be copyrighted) and nothing else, the only artistic element is is the text and placement of the captions. I assume whoever uploaded the original saw no point in recreating something that already existed, but if you insist then I'll do so.
    Regarding SVG, I have no idea what the difference between SVG and any other file format is or what the advantages are, and would not have the slightest idea how to go about converting a file. If you think it needs would be an improvement and know how to convert them, feel free! – iridescent 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Created an indisputably free use – since I just drew it myself in Paintbrush – version. – iridescent 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've made and added a vector graphics (.svg) version which will scale smoothly if scaled-up. --DavidCane (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • You could handle the derivative works issue by redoing this based upon two or more sources. Durova 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • The current version shouldn't have any issue as it's a drawn-from scratch straightforward depiction of the borough and area boundaries; as everyone who's shooed off a legal threat from Transport for London's over-eager legal department knows, copyright law doesn't cover a plain representation of geographical facts, which is what this is. – iridescent 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Hmm... I am uncertain of that. One could argue that unlike hills and mountains, boundaries are readily set by man (the way how electoral districts can be redefined). The current SVG is a tad too close to what the commission has decided as the burrough of Haringey. Regardless, Durova's suggestion seems sound. Would File:Noel Park locator.svg suffice (it is a rough outline based on two sources, both government)? Sidenote: it is interesting to note that the BFI did not reproduce an exact copy of the OS map... Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Oh, it's certainly sufficient; it's purely to illustrate the rough location and rough shape. (Although I strongly disagree that there's any possibility that borders could ever be subject to copyright. If you want to get really pedantic, the boundaries of Haringey, as with the rest of England, are defined by statute – in this case the London Government Act 1963 ) – iridescent 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Since we agree that File:Noel Park locator.svg is suitable, I switched it in and struck this part. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, these should be easily cleared up. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns resolved has been struck; are they resolved or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only potentially outstanding image issue is the status of File:Ernest Noel.jpg. Rather than have it hanging unresolved (I think it almost certainly is in the public domain, but can't prove it; it was demonstrably published pre-1939 but not clear when the photographer died, or whether copyright resided with the employee or the employer. I'm going to move it it en-wiki, where (per Durova above) it's indisputably PD under US law. – iridescent 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now replaced with the en-wiki hosted image; I believe that's all image issues now resolved. – iridescent 17:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, all image issues for this article have been struck (sorry for noticing this late). Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - when few remaining image concerns are dealt with. A well written article on the history of the estate. I suggested a few structural changes to guide the reader - but these are not sufficient to detract from the quality of the article. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note – I'm not ignoring your suggestion for restructuring. This revision shows what the current version would look like split into subheads; as you can see from the flip-flopping in the history, I'm torn about whether the "subheads" version is an improvement on the "single level" version; does anyone have any strong opinions either way? – iridescent 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'll leave it to your discretion - but I prefer that version; it provides more guidelines for the reader by providing an overall structure to the article. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As I say, I have no strong opinion either way; I'll leave it in the "subheads" format unless anyone raises a reason not to. – iridescent 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My support is not dependent on the structure - so, thanks ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (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 22:19, 11 April 2009 .

M249 squad automatic weapon

Nominator(s): Patton

I withdrew the last FAC for this article because I was afraid the concerns were too many to address during the FAC. Anyway, I feel I have addressed all of them and am nominating it for featured status again. It's come a long way; I have created a "operational history" section and incorporated the reception into it. Thanks in advance to all reviewers.--Patton 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(Nom restarted. Old nom. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Images reviewed, outstanding questions on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've satisfied the sources concerns now.--Patton 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The oppose over referencing

Comments by Peripitus (talk · contribs), note that I've only read thoroughly to the end of the Development section. Not finished reading through yet - will finish in a day or so. Images look all good and have appropriate (free) licences, Referencing looks good (though I'm not keen on the use of titles in the notes sections...just for the sake of neatness) *Acronyms (and jargon) need to be consistent, explained at first use and minimised. I think that all acronym use needs to be checked for these issues, eg:

• • new 5.56 mm LMG - think that this needs "caliber" as this is the first text use of the term.
  • reference to studies of non-5.56 mm cartridges, it is already clear that 5.56 is being talked about and this is perhaps better as reference to studies of other caliber light machine guns
  • HK lobbied - Full company name needed on first use
  • FN - same again. Though it is expanded in the lead I think the first use in the text has to be a full name with acronym in brackets.
  • built in the FNH factory - should this be the FN factory ? - all been dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Some parts of the text are unclear.
  • Were Rock Island Arsenal awarded a dev contract or did they leap off on their own ? - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Development contracts for the SAW - were all of these for the 6mm cartridge only ?
  • Not made clear who designates the experimental models (eg: XM233) - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the XM249E1 variant and how does it differ from the XM249. Is this important enough to include ? Which version was the final M249 ? - better now - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • was phased out in the 1950s, as the M14 was scheduled to replace it - does this mean the phase out happened while the M14 was replacing it or simply as a consequence of the replacement schedule ? perhaps better as was phased out and replaced by the M14 in the 1950s - this is fixed but I'm not sure that the text reads well yet - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The official adoption and standardization took place on February 1, 1982. - does standardization refer to it being published as an army standard or does this mean something different ? If published as a standard can this be made more explicit and hence clearer ? Appears fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (Addition) - article notes the sustained fire rate but also mentions the quick change barrels. Usually then army doctrine specifies a higher rate of fire with some specified period of barrel changes. I think that having this information would bring the importance of the barrel change notes into focus.

*Some text issues involving convoluted wording and redundant words. (Don't count this as gospel - brilliant prose is not my forte)

• • It has a quick-change barrel so the gunner can rapidly replace an overheated or jammed barrel can be rapidly replaced by the gunner
  • There are tense problems at the start of the Development section. eg: The M2 is was a large-caliber heavy machine gun. Both are were very heavy weapons. Both the M2 and M60 still exist !. First three sentences of this paragraph need some work
  • Sometime before the end of Fiscal Year 1972 (ending June 30, 1972). Unless fiscal year is critical for understanding isn't this better as Prior to July 1972 as it is clear it has to happen after March 1972 from the proceeding sentences.
  • There were also In addition to these problems, there were complaints that the front sight required special adjustment tools
  • Neither of these designs was finalized March 1972, when by the time the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW in March 1972
  • Congress deleted funds for the M249 from the Fiscal Year 1986 defense budget, then retroactively set aside the program's prior year's funds for other purposes, including retirement and pay raises - all dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• One information question I couldn't readily see the answer to.....How many have been made ?

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Should there be mention that the belts are disintigrating ones? It certainly should be mentioned that the M249 is designed to take 20/30 round M16 magazines (or so the glorious internet tells me) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention that the belts are disintegrating, as all metal ones are, the only ones that don't disintegrate are the old fabric ones. The article already mentions in numberous places that the M249 can use M16 mgazines. As for production figures, I haven't found any at all in books or on the internet.--Patton 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are non-disintegrating metal belts in current service. They are in common use in Russian designs like the RPD and PK. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything in section 1 and 3 corrected; Patton, you're welcome :P. I'll leave the middle bit to you as I don't know the technical stuff. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a mllion Ironholds! Peripitus, thanks for your review! I've corrected the point from section 2. Dunno what the XM249E1 was, someone else added that sometime during this FAC, wasn't there at the start. Have clarified the M14 bit. The M14 wasn't actually schedueled to replace it as a SAW/LMG, it just had an automatic mode so the Army didn't think a new SAW/LMG was needed. "Standardisation" was also slipped in there somehow, wasn't there at the start of the FAC. I look forward to your review of the rest of the article.--Patton 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1) The XM249E1 was specifically mentioned in the FY 1981 Department of the Army Historical Summary. "The Fabrique National (FN) XM249 weapon was modified to incorporate the changes recommended during the selection process. Testing of the improved weapon (XM249E1) and ammunition (XM855 and XM856) began in June 1981 at Aberdeen Proving Ground."

2) Actually, the heavy barrel version of the M14 (the M15) was intended to replace the M1918 BAR. However, the M15 was never put into production as they figured a M14 equipped with a bipod could perform the job just as well. The M14/M15 were advertised as replacing the M3 submachinegun, M2 carbine, M1 rifle, and M1918 BAR.

3) Standardizing means that the item has been "type classified" as a "Standard" item. In other words, it has been determined to be either acceptable for introduction into the U.S. Army inventory or can made acceptable without any further developmental effort prior to fielding. In contrast, an item can be adopted but technically remain type classified as a "Limited Procurement" item. It is probably too technical for use in this article. However, a discussion of "type classification" might be a worthwhile article on its own. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs (checker tool)

• There are some self-redirects, I don't know if they are intentional or not, if they aren't they need to be removed.

• ..are up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External links (checker tool)

• ..are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• ..are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! The M249 squad automatic weapon self redirect is actually a link from the infobox to the variants section. The Mk 46 Mod 0 self redirect is in the navigation template at the bottom of the page, not in the article itself.--Patton 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, that's what I wanted to know. Cheers.--₮RUCӨ 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as I did before. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

References—Since Sandy requested a check, what makes the following sites/sources reliable?

• Arsenal-bg.com
• Jane's
• U. S. Army Board Study Guide By ArmyStudyGuide.com

--Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Arsenal is a Bulgarian weapons manufacturer. They should have a pretty good grip on what their own products weigh.
• Jane's Information Group is the oldest publisher of defense related books and magazines in existence, and probably the largest. They can trace their history back 111 years. In particular, Jane's International Defence Review is a well respected periodical. It has been in publication for over 40 years. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate. If Jane's isn't reliable on weapons/ships/planes, nothing will be. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be like questioning whether or not The Times is a reliable source for news. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And ArmyStudyGuide.com? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That I'm not sure about; it appears to be an unofficial guide to passing Army tests. Patton, can you tell us which bits you used it in? Maybe we could find references for them from a more reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that he only used it to establish the "basic load" of ammunition carried by a M249 gunner. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not important, then the refs to the study guide can be removed. If its important, there should be other sources to back it up. Either way I'm not seeing the reliability of this unofficial army publication. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reiterating Support from previous FAC. This article is comprehensive, adequately covers its subject, and presents its information in clear and concise prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments, some from before restart (but updated in any case):

• Regarding cites of "U.S. Army - Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel — Volume 11, Appendix 10 - The Army Small Arms Program": I believe I found this document online here; if this is indeed correct, please add the link. In any case, the OCLC number is 227968366.

• Regarding Note 48, "Kelly, Al (2007). M249 Squad automatic weapon. U.S. Army. Presentation at the National defence review": Are you citing a video or a paper of the presentation? I haven't been able to locate this online. In the interests of verifiability, let's clearly tell readers in what format this is available, and where.

• Regarding Note 47, "Smith, Jim (15 May 2003). Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned. U.S. Army.": Isn't this available here, here and here? Also, it appears to be a ten-page document; if that is the case, the citation should present the title within quotes, not italics.

• There is an item listed in References that is never cited ("Miller, David (2003). The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns. Zenith Imprint..."). Is there a missing short-form cite, or should this item be removed from the References?

This is still listed as a Reference, but not cited. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another item in References needs clarification ("Jones, Colonel Charles A. (December 12, 2005). "Phased out in 1960s, M14 was ‘very reliable’". The Lore of the Corps."). What is 'The Lore of the Corps'? If it's a journal, it needs to be italicized, and we need the name of the publisher.

I note that you added italics, but we can't evaluate the source without knowing the publisher. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a magazine called the lore of the corps. AfAIK it's not printed by the USMC but is independent.--Patton 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You've used "Lastname – Title, p x" for short-form cites. I can't say that I like it, but to each his own. They weren't consistent, though—some of the endashes were hyphens—so I've standardized to endash for those throughout the Notes.

Almost there. Maralia (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cleanup up what I could. What's wrong the PEO soldier lessons learned cite? I don't see why it needsto be in quotes rather than italics when that's the name of the report. Thanks a million for you review anyway, you've done loads :-).--Patton 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated my comments above. Per WP:MOSITALICS, italics are used for long works; the titles of short works (such as papers) are presented in quote marks. I've made the change on the Kelly and Smith References and cites. A couple issues remain above. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this comment is addressed.--Patton 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my last bullet point above, I tried to find information about a magazine named The Lore of the Corps in order to evaluate whether it would meet WP:RS. I was not able to find any magazine by that name. From this, it appears the piece was in fact printed in the Army Times. Please fix, and be extra careful next time to take full notes on each source; we have to provide enough information for readers to look them up. That was my last remaining issue from the list above, but I'm not quite prepared to support as it's been several weeks since I read through the full article; will give it another read after I make it through my watchlist. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1c, per no action taken on demonstrating reliability of web source above. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addressed. Good job you saw it because the figure it gave is apparently wrong ;-)--Patton 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okey dokey, that takes care of surface reading of sources for me. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, tending to oppose Support Concerns addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatfield (talk • contribs) 22:14, April 9, 2009

This article fails the copyedit test. For example:

• "Neither design was finalized by March 1972, when the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW." is repeated. This should not be picked up at FAC stage and throws out serious question marks about the rest of the editing.
• Short, choppy sentences need to be fixed, eg. "The HK XM262 reportedly came a close second. In September, FN was awarded a "maturity phase" contract for further development of the XM249. Testing of the new XM249 began in June 1981. The official adoption took place on February 1, 1982."
• Sentences that are too long need to be fixed, eg. "Because army doctrine required troops to use a rifle's semi-automatic mode on most occasions to increase accuracy and conserve ammunition, the M14 and M16 rifles used by the U.S. Army had not been designed with sustained automatic fire in mind, and overheated or jammed regularly." Also, avoid starting sentences with "Because..."; "Due to..." is preferred.
• Under-linked. For example in the first paragraph alone: automatic (as in fire), firepower, machinegun, squad, volume of fire & rifle. Paragraph two: jammed, bipod, tripod & magazine. Also "Picatinny rails were added to the feed cover and forearm for the mounting of optics, lasers, vertical foregrips". Now you have even lost me - Picatinny rail? Look for terms that may be unknown to a ten year old and link them: we are here to educate.
• Innapropriate language: "Soldiers are generally satisfied with the weapon's performance, though there have been many reports of clogging with dirt and sand." Rather choose some of the (excellent) information from the Operational history.
• "U.S. Army soldier holds an M249 SPW in Iraq." I see that this is the special purpose, but that is not clear in the text.
• Lastly, "The U.S. Army does, however, want to replace aging M249s with new SAWs." should be "...newer SAW models"

I marked this as "Comment, tending to oppose" because if I remember correctly a single oppose may stall the entire FAC process indefinitely and while these concerns are serious, I don't intend to block the FAC. It is unlikely that I will be able to check editing in the near future. The content is very good, and I strongly support the effort to improve all our weapon system articles. Dhatfield (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Points 1-4 and 7 fixed. Someone more specialised (patton?) will have to do 5 and 6. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ironholds. Have fixed 6, though I don't quite understand point 5.--Patton 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The intention was that you generalise the above comments to re-look at the whole article. Examples of remaining problems:

• "Studies of improved 5.56 mm ammunition, with better performance characteristics, began. The earliest reference to studies of other caliber cartridges for the LMG did not appear until 1969. In July 1970, the U.S. Army finally approved development of an LMG, with no specified calibre. At this time, the nomenclature "Squad Automatic Weapon" (SAW) was introduced. Actual design of alternative cartridges for the LMG did not begin until July 1971." Five sentences where two or three would flow much better."
• You have a "rior" in para 3, Development.
• Design details is still massively underlinked.
• With respect to point 5, in the introduction I would prefer "Lieutenant Colonel Jim Smith of the U.S. Army spoke positively of the M249, claiming that it "provided the requisite firepower at the squad level as intended", but a report entitle Lessons Learned in Afghanistan found that 54% of SAW gunners had problems maintaining their weapons in the desert environment". Something like that. It sounds better than "some guys said it's cool, but it breaks".

I trust you will follow through on this. Overall, good content, references and images. Vote changed to support.Dhatfield (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment—are there any other outstanding issues? If so, I'll keep this on the "urgent" template. It looks like it could use further auditing for redundancies ("two different gas port sizes", "partially replace the M249 in its service.") and other glitches (overlinking, some awkward/suboptimal phrasing, etc.). Would it be possible to contact another outside copy-editor to eliminate lingering issues? Copy-editing is a team effort that requires multiple passes. — Deckiller 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing a pass of copyediting myself, but that should be approved by the regular authors, especially during FAC. Dhatfield (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, why is the x in 5.56x45 mm NATO not spaced? Why are reports in WP:ITALICS? (Books, journals, periodicals and newspapers are italicized.) Page ranges in citations should use WP:ENDASHes, not hyphens, I'll ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them, but please note for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (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 21:45, 21 March 2009 .

Surrender of Japan

Nominator(s): User:Raul654

previous FAC (Nov 2005)

This is an article I previously nominated here on the FAC. It was written by user:Wwoods, and heavily edited by me. (It's a topic that's both contentious and complicated, as history topics go - hence the use of a lot of quotes.) I think it's good enough to be promoted to FA. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Nom restarted - old nom Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Images and sources reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SupportComments A very interesting article, but I found a few problems:

1. The lead should be expanded, in my opinion. The current lead does not fully summarize the article. For instance, the information from the three first sections is mentioned. Per WP:LEAD it should be 4 paragraph long.

   Done (See below). Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2. By 1945, the war was going very badly for Japan. Is this sentence really necessary?

   Yes - That's the thesis of the background section. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   I removed the offending clause myself. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

3. In 'August 13–14' subsection the last sentence in the first paragraph: President Truman ordered a resumption of military operations. duplicates what is said in the last paragraph of the same section. It should be removed.

   Good catch - I've merged the two. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please, fix links to dab pages.

   Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is all. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully disagree with the lead comment; I think that it should be a little longer (maybe three paras), but not four; that would make it too long IMHO. Plus, what are you going to talk about? The topic is the surrender; are you going to go through all of the end of the war in the lead? I hope not :) —Ed 17 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead to 3 paragraphs. It now broadly covers everything in the rest of the article. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with 3 paragraph lead. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Stupid question, shouldn't the article's title be dated or otherwise specified? (1945 Surrender of Japan) (Surrender of Imperial Japan)--Tznkai (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This came up before the restart. The answer is no, because Japan has only lost one war in its 2000+ year existence. The title is concise and uniquely identifying, and we don't disambiguate needlessly. It's also linked using that name from *a lot* of pages. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Further thoughts: Divisions in Japanese Leadership section has confusing prose. First seven paragraphs (Japanese policy-making centered on... to Because of its ambiguity) all read like bullet points and don't get to the point in a clear way, in addition to the actual bullet list. "Japanese leaders had always envisioned...." reads like an additional thesis and is unclear on what negotiated settlement means in this context
  • The first paragraphs in that section ("Japanese policy-making centered on ... collapse of an existing government") are necessary because it's impossible to meaningfully discuss the Japanese government's decision to surrender without talking about the decision-making apparatus of the Japanese government.
  • Everything after that discusses Japan's ideas regarding the end of the war. From the first day of the war they planned to end the war by negotiating with the Allies on favorable terms that let them keep some of their conquests, but by 1945 things were going badly enough that, for the first time, they finally started to reconsider peace on less-than-favorable terms. (That is the thesis of the rest of the section).
  • I've split that section to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ...are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• There are refs that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a ref name can be used instead. (the citation content is pasted below)

• Hasegawa, 244
• Hoyt, 409

• The following ref name is used to name more than one different ref, when it should only be used to name 1 specific ref.

• Wainstock, 115--₮RUCӨ 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...are up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. 14 red links, 14 links are dead ends, isn't cool nor perfect to a FA. MachoCarioca (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's totally spurious. They're all valid redlinks (place names and significant political and military figures); the only reason there are a lot of them is because our coverage of 1940s Japanese politics is incomplete. This is precisely the kind of situation for which redlinks were intended. – iridescent 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid oppose: see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I counted only 8 red links in the article. I've removed two of them, as they were went to colonels who were did not play significant roles in the coup (e.g, people who were not notable because of either their rank or actions). The rest of them, IMO, are significant enough to merit articles. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Spurious is your POV, sorry, iridescent. This is not an ordinary article, but one intended to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED, right? My criteria is higher than WP:RED, it s not my fault if it is lower. This is not an encyclopedia but Misplaced Pages, made with wikifications; an excellent article must have a perfect wikification to be featured, without dead ends. Users must go to somewhere in ANY link they click, to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED. *****This is not just about writtings. But I can support Aude views, waht about that, is it valid now?. As you see, reasons everybody has some. I don't agree in supporting 'excellent' articles by low standards. I can´t oppose it with lower standards than showed in politics, but higher?? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I strongly oppose the same star to be given to 'all-blue' articles and to articles with 5, 10, 25 or 50 (the number doesn't matter) dead links. Excellence here, in my view, is not just about the writtings. Sorry Raul, best wishes .. and ....what about complete the job? MachoCarioca (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Judge this article on its own merits, not by the fact that it links to ones that don't exist. That's the whole point of WP:RED policy. I do not have the time, resources, or inclination to write articles on some fairly obscure Japanese people from that period - my interest is this article up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not ready to support. I think the article needs to provide more context for use of the atomic bombs, though per WP:SUMMARY, it need not go into excess detail either. But there is no mention of the decision and deliberations about using the atomic bombs.

I'm enough satisfied with the changes in response to my concerns, and those in response to Ferrylodge, to withdraw my oppose. I do think there is some room for improvement, such as mentioning the "Committee of Three". But, I don't have time right now to do further detailed review or help with editing myself. Overall, I think the article is quite good and well-written. --Aude (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• In light of discussion in the article about how the Japanese had some willingness to surrender and were looking for ways they could do so, then why the atomic bombs?
  • This is already covered extensively. The article explicitly says that the Japanese were not seeking peace on terms acceptable to the Allies. (See the first quote in the 'Divisions within the Japanese leadership' section). And they were seeking it through a the USSR, which wanted the war to continue and did their best to scuttle negotiations. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Why were the terms not acceptable to the Allies? (see my comments below, regarding political consequences and the American public opinion at the time) I think that is the missing piece. This article should shed some light on that question. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Even after the events of August 9, the military half of the cabinet favored a four-condition peace -- preservation of the emperor, self-disarmament, Japanese control of war crimes trials, and no occupation of Japan. - Frank, 291. Other than the first, none of these terms would have been acceptable to the allies. They contravene several explicit points of the Potsdam declaration. And all of that is already listed in the August 8–9 : Soviet invasion and Nagasaki section. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you please discuss the other terms (in addition to the monarchy) earlier in the article, such as the "Divisions within the Japanese leadership". Maybe I missed them, but I don't see them, but only see discussion of retaining the emperor. --Aude (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Done. Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• As well, there was a lack of unanimity within the Truman administration on the decision to use the atomic bombs. The article could use some discussion about that. Here are some basic summary details that provide more context:

The "Committee of Three", consisting of his Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, advocated for an alternative approach for getting the Japanese to surrender, other than use of the atomic bomb. They suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy." Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, showed concern about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans. He also thought that use of the atomic bomb would give the Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans. Truman remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb.

It might be worth adding a note to the "Potsdam declaration" section discussing dissent in the Allied governments about the status of the emperor. I'll see about addressing this.

Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues surrounding the atomic bomb are long-winded and contentious (so much so that the bombings article was split into two articles - one describing the bombings and the other the decision to use the bomb). The scope of this article should (at most) include to the bomb's influence of Japan's decision to surrender, but not more than that. As such, I don't think a discussion of the use of the atomic bomb from the American perspective is in the scope of this article. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How the U.S. came to the decision to use the atomic bombs (versus other options) in order to get Japan to surrender is very much pertinent to an article on the "Surrender of Japan". Something should definitely be mentioned about Joseph Grew, James Forrestal, and Henry L. Stimson (the "Committee of Three"), and other aspects of the decision. I suggest 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the issues and decision regarding the bomb, and the debate within the Truman administration at the time. To do otherwise, I think means there is insufficient context and possibly POV issues. I think material about this aspect of the Japanese surrender can be done concisely and well, per summary style. Also, in terms of sourcing, Gar Alperovitz has written extensively (and his work has been extensively cited) on the decision of using the bomb and the Japanese surrender. If you can get his book (along with other sources to provide balance) and use it for filling in this part of the story, that would help address my concerns. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The article does discuss about the Japanese reaction and were discussion the possibility of surrender after Hiroshima, which begs the question... Why the second bomb? Why so soon after the first? The timespan of four days really didn't give the Japanese much time to react and try to surrender. But, the U.S. decided to use the second one anyway.
  • The short answer is that the Japanese (a) did not believe they had been hit by an atomic bomb, or (b) believed the US did not have a large supply of them. (Both of these points are already covered in the article) The article does not state that American planners correctly anticipated both of these reactions, and used the second atomic bomb shortly after the first in order to disprove both of these positions (and to give the Japanese the impression that the US could keep dropping atomic bombs every few days). Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is adequately addressed. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A "main article" link to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be useful in that section. I'm not so thrilled with the easter egg "blinding flash and violent blast" link, but wouldn't mind it as much if there was a main article link at the top of the section.
  • I've made that link more explicit. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The link is much better now, but a main article link might still help. Though, I know the section also is about the Soviet invasion, so perhaps two main article links would be needed at the top of the section. These help people who are skimming pages, which is how a lot of people read material on the Internet. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Very minor issue... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki links currently go to redirect pages. They could be directly linked.--Aude (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe all above issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments from Aude:

Looking at the prose, I think some copyediting is needed.

• "By 1945, for nearly two years, " - this could be reworded, and also change "had suffered" to the active tense, "suffered". Perhaps something like, "From 1943 to 1945, Japan suffered an unbroken string ..."?
  • It's impossible to put an exact date on the point at which the war turned decisively against the Japanese. Rewriting it as you suggest would make it less accurate. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought that might be the case. The current wording is okay. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Japanese shipyard at Kure, Japan" -> "Kure Naval Arsenal" (this change also eliminates the easter egg).
  • fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also see a lot more redirect links, some having to do with Japanese spelling (my personal css is set to show redirect links in a different color, so these are quite obvious to me). This isn't such a big deal and I don't care too much if it's fixed but would be nice.

I don't have time right now to fix redirects throughout the article, nor comment fully on prose. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. For most people, the issue of primary interest regarding Japan's surrender is whether dropping the atomic bombs was justified. So, it seems kind of curious that this article doesn't wikilink to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What's the reason for that?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that that's the primary interest, but I've added a link in the lead to the debate article. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the lead mentions that the USSR invaded Manchuria on August 9. But it was more than just an invasion of Manchuria, right? The bigger picture is that the USSR declared war on Japan at that time, so I would think that belongs in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking about the Sakahlin and Kuriles invasions, I believe. I don't think they're significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. The lead sentence explicitly dates the Soviet invasion (August 9), while those two did not begin until several days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean that the USSR and Japan went from a relationship of peace to a relationship of war on August 9, 1945 and that is not clear from the lead. Just saying that the USSR invaded Japan on that date does not convey the message, IMO. The Normandy Invasion did not signify the start of a war between two countries, but the Manchuria invasion did.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I've updated the lead accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Groves is mentioned as the leader of the Manhattan Project, and Oppenheimer is only mentioned later in conjunction with a bunch of other scientists. Perhaps Oppenheimer also ought to be mentioned in conjunction with Groves? Groves was the administrator, but Oppenheimer directed all of the scientific research.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's mentioned that Stimson struck Kyoto from the target list, but it seems from the current text of the article that it was some kind of personal nostalgic decision by Stimson, since he honeymooned there. In fact, Stimson knew that Kyoto was of great historical and cultural significance, it was the greatest religious center in Japan, and preserving it was necessary for a stable and friendly postwar Japan. Maybe we could briefly clarify that Stimson made the decision for larger than personal sentimental reasons?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here are a couple nitpicks....Can you modify the icon for the audio of Truman's announcement of the Hiroshima bombing? The icon indicates lovely music. Also, it seems odd to have an image of the Nagasaki mushroom, but not the Hiroshima mushroom.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The speaker icon is part of the standardized listen template. The Hiroshima picture is redundant with the Nagasaki one, and it would go in the same place as the Truman speech (leading to more image stack up). Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's reasonable. The tech folks someday ought to make a different standardized listen template for non-music.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the blockquotes in this article are disconcerting because they do not indicate who is being quoted, unless you go to the footnote. For example: "Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either." Maybe such a blockquote could be prefaced by something like, "According to historian so-and-so:"Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The capitalization in this heading seems odd: "Imperial Intervention, Allied response, and Japanese Reply." For example, why capitalize "Reply" but not "response"?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The heading "Soviet approach" is kind of vague (perhaps signifying something physically approaching the USSR, or a physical approach by the Soviet military, et cetera). How about something like "Soviet intentions"?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea -- done. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• At some point, the Americans initially told Hirohito unambiguously that he could remain as emperor. Does this article say when that point occurred? If so, I missed it. There's a lot of discussion in this article about whether the Americans would let that happen, but no indication of when the final decision was made, or when it was communicated to the Japanese.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Presumably this happened eventually, but if it did, I am not aware of it. It almost certainly would not have happened until after the occupation and started but before the list of class A war criminals was released (which would put it somewhere between September 1945 and spring 1946). Raul654 (talk)

• A nitpick....Do any other featured articles have huge multi-sentence parentheticals? "(The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading. In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945. The third bomb would probably have been used against Tokyo.)" I would urge either removing the parentheses here, or moving the whole thing to a footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think a typical reader would probably be curious to know whether the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9, and the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, happened by coincidence or not on the same day. My understanding from Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) is that the Soviet invasion began precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8, as promised at Yalta, and that news of the nuclear attacks on the two cities played no role in the timing of the Soviet attack. How about vice versa: were the nuclear attacks timed to deliver a double-whammy to Japan, or were they just delivered as soon as possible?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The bombs were intentionally dropped close together in order to give the Japanese the false impression that the United States possessed a large supply of them. (This is already covered in the article -- "American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, in order to demonstrate to the Japanese that the US had a large supply of them") That the second one and the Soviet invasion happened on the same day is a coincidence -- the Allies and the Soviets never shared that kind of tactical information (and, in fact, there would have been no point, since the anticipated dates for both the invasion and the bombs changed frequently). Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was mentioned earlier on this FA page that this was the only time in its 2000+ year history that Japan ever surrendered. That's a good explanation for the generality of the article title, but is this fact metnioned in the article itself? It's interesting, plus including it would help prevent efforts to re-name the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Potsdam Conference is described this way: "High ranking officials of the major Allied powers met at the Potsdam Conference...." That sounds like a ministerial meeting. How about briefly mentioning that it was a top-level meeting of the allied leaders, including Truman and Stalin? And wasn't it at Potsdam (or en route) that Truman learned of the success of the bomb in New Mexico? That seems worth mentioning (plus that Truman therefore no longer really needed the help of the USSR to defeat Japan).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the beginning of that section to make the participants more accurate.
  • The trinity test is mentioned in the previous section discussing the Manhattan project. You're right that the test occurred while Truman was at Potsdam, and that he was elated about it, but I don't think this point is sigifnicant enough to merit a mention here. You're incorrect that he no longer needed Soviet help to defeat the Japanese (the JCS would, to the time Japan surrendered, advise him that Soviet intervention was likely to shorten the war and reduce American casualties, which was his primary objective) Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that we don't have to mention Truman's elation, but it seems like the overall chronology wuold be clearer and more cohesive if the Potsdam section would very briefly mention that that's when Truman learned of the trinity explosion. Incidentally, though I disagree with them, some historians claim that Truman's main motive in dropping the bombs "was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia." Truman at least must have realized that dropping the bombs would limit the Soviet advance onto Japanese-held territory. This article already makes very clear that the Soviets wanted “to prolong the war” so they could transfer troops to the Pacific theatre and snatch up Japanese-held territory. Dropping the bombs thwarted that process, even if that wasn’t Truman’s intended result. Anyway, if we could briefly mention that Truman learned of trinity at Potsdam, that might help readers to keep track of all these inter-related events and how they fit together chronologically.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's the policy on quote marks at the beginning and end of a blockquote? I thought they were deprecated.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks - Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. As such, I've removed them. Raul654 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the military details, this article says in one section, "The search was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, and by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry." In another section, this article says, "B-29s from the 315 Bombardment Wing flew 3,800 miles to destroy the Nippon Oil Company refinery at Tsuchizaki on the northern tip of Honshu." But weren't these two things actually very closely related; the blackout was in response to the incoming B-29s, according to the following unreliable source: "The Japanese early radar warning system picked up the approach of the 315th Wing. Since the B-29Bs would be flying just east of Tokyo, the city responded with a blackout." Thus, it seems like serendipity that the bombing mission to the Nippon Oil Company triggered a blackout that foiled the coup.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the blackout was caused by 143 incoming bombers of the 315th bombardment wing, which were en route to the refinery. (Smith, 215) I'm not sure if all or just some of them were en route to bomb the refinery. The connection between the bombing and the blackout is the thesis of Smith's book. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether to mention the connection in this Misplaced Pages article is not something I'm very concerned about (it's not currently mentioned). However, I am concerned that the present language seems misleading: "The search was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings...." The blackout wasn't caused by any bombing, but rather by a mistaken belief that bombers were on the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is mistaken. The refinery bombing was one of many taking place that night. It's eminently possible that Tokyo was hit. Even if Toyko was not hit, it's still accurate - the Allies *were* bombing Japan, and the major cities turned out their lights in response. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Regardless of what parts of Japan were bombed that night, the blackout was a preventive measure due to the threat of incoming, rather than a result of bombs having knocked out the lights. This seems like a significant difference, but it's no huge deal if you think the current language is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't realize you wanted to distinguish between a voluntary and involuntary blackout. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. From what I've seen the article is very well-written, and all of my concerns have been addressed, except one which I haven't mentioned and don't feel very emphatic about: the lead sentence says that Japan surrendered in August, but actually it's not so clear that they did. The official surrender was on September 2. I wish I had more time to go over this with a fine-tooth comb, but what I've seen is top-notch. Plus I'm not a cricket. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some time to go through the article with my fine-tooth comb, which hopefully was not too aggravating for the authors of the article. I made a lot of tiny changes, and am all done now (for today). It still looks like an excellent article that deserves to be featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a pic of War Minister Anami. Regarding the pic of MacArthur at the bottom, do we really need it? It seems kind of anomalous. It's the only color photo, it's facing away from the text, and it is not near any pertinent text. There's already a pic at the top of the article showing the ceremony on the Missouri.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I moved the MacArthur pic up.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally all through tweaking the article until it gets featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The entire article is important and it looks very good, - at the end of the intro the lead says: "up into the 1970s" I think "into the 1970s" sounds simpler...and better, otherwise Support...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion (I didn't care for the phrasing either). Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (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 Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009 .

Noël Coward

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and User:Tim riley

We have nominated this article because we believe that it is a comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced article on Coward, who was one of the most successful and fascinating playwrights, songwriters and actors of the 20th century. The article was promoted to GA and then had a peer review. In addition, since the GA review, co-nominator User:Tim riley and I have challenged each other to continue to improve the article, and we now believe that it represents some of the best content in Misplaced Pages and deserves to be promoted to FA. Looking forward to the comments! Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing issues - is a newly dead link. The Oxford Dictionary of Biography requires registration. I raised that issue during the article's GAN but decided it wasn't serious enough to prevent listing. I find it more serious at the FAC level that the information can't be verified by any user.

We re-sourced all but one of the DNB refs during the GA process. The single one left is one I cannot find in print form. N.b., the ODNB is available in print as well as online, and is in that respect on a par with most of our printed sources. The quote referenced on the talkinbroadway site exists in various versions: Coward used various locations at different times (e.g. Brighton and Tunbridge Wells). I'll find one in one of the published biographies in the next 24 hours and replace the ref. Tim riley (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because a reference requires registration does not mean that it should be considered inferior. ODNB is a high quality source; quality trumps availability when dealing with sources. We should not get into the habit of preferring sources that offer instant gratification over high quality sources that might require some effort to obtain. I had a look at the GA of this article, and I believe you're misinterpreting WP:V, Otto. Having to go down to a library to check out a book or access online databases does not mean that a claim is any less verifiable (that is, Misplaced Pages's definition) than one freely available on the Internet. BuddingJournalist 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect issues - there are five redirects currently in the article. Otto4711 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Five reported, five fixed. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed it does! Thank you, KB. Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.musicals101.com/index.html

John Kenrick, its author and curator, is a well-known, well-published theatre historian. At the WP musical theatre project, we cite to this extensive and excellent website frequently. Can anyone else help, who knows more about the indicia of reliability for high-quality web sources?

If he's a published theater historian, you'll need to show something that proves that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hundreds of libraries, universities and arts sites link to musicals101. Kenrick teaches musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School. BroadwayWorld/com calls him "Internationally recognized musical theatre and film authority" and mentions his York Theatre Company lecture series here. His publications include the books The Complete Idiot's Guide to Amateur Theatricals (2006), and Musical Theatre: A History (2008). His article "Theatre in New York: A Brief History" appears in the textbook Theatre Law: Cases and Materials (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2004). Here is a Daily News article citing Kenrick as an authority. Kenrick has appeared in several documentaries about musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.noelcoward.net/ncmiindex/ncmi.html

This is the official website of the Noel Coward Society, whose fidelity and authority I have never heard called into question. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/sfla/sfla146.html (I fixed the deadlink (it had a comma at the end of the url which threw it off) but I'm not sure it's a reliable source.

I have replaced this with a quote to the same effect (Coward used this line in various forms over the years) from the Hoare biography. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the quote as used in Talkinbroadway (which is a good source for theatre reviews). Perhaps there is another cite with the more interesting version of the quote that we could use? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Paddington Square" (which doesn't exist) always worried me. Safer to stick with the ipsissima verba even if they are a touch less striking. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, is this source replaced or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is replaced with a source from a printed biography of Coward. Tim riley (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://epguides.com/GoodnightSweetheart/guide.shtml

The only thing we are using the cite for is to identify which episode the reference appeared in. Misplaced Pages has an article on Goodnight Sweetheart, as it was a popular show in Britain. Is there a more "official" reference?

I'm more worried about the site itself, not the show... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of newspaper references to the character of Coward in the programme: The Independent, 20 August, 2008: David Benson sings Noel Coward: "Returning to Coward, the character he played in Goodnight Sweetheart, David Benson fulfils a dream he first had at 12, when his grandfather gave him a Coward record." And The Times, 27 December 1997: "The first step will be playing Noel Coward in a new television series of Goodnight Sweetheart, by Laurence Marks and Maurice Gran." Tim riley (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim, can you add page numbers for these newspaper cites, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You CAN reference the actual episode, you know, if all you're referencing is that fact that NC appeared as a character in one episode, or however. You don't need a third party source for that info. Or you can use those press mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Press refs added. Tim riley (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://web.ukonline.co.uk/suttonelms/mkahan.html

This info can be cross checked against the UK daily listings of broadcast programmes if desired. I shall gladly do so if it is thought worthwhile. Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, there is nothing wrong with using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It's not only available online but in print also. Also, most UK library card holders have free access to it. It's certainly a better source than a lot of stuff that's freely available on the internet. Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Comment -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS), and dabs/external links (checker tools) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I peer-reviewed this article on 27 February, and I've informally re-reviewed it more recently. I thought it was nearly FA when I first reviewed it, and it has steadily improved. All of my concerns, including a fair number involving image licenses, have been addressed. It appears that the issues raised above have also been addressed except perhaps for the Kenrick question, which I can't answer one way or the other except to say that the Kenrick tidbits seem uncontroversial. Excellent article. A most pleasant read. Finetooth (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I also peer-reviewed it; the comcerns I raised then have been properly addressed. This is in my view a first-class article which will be a credit to the encyclopedia. I have a few final nitpicks, however:-

• "Charles Hawtrey, the leading actor-manager, whom the young Coward idolised and from whom he learned a great deal about the theatre, cast him in Where the Rainbow Ends, a children's play, in 1911 and 1912 at the Garrick Theatre on London's West End." Five commas, and too many twists and turns. I suggest: "The leading actor-manager Charles Hawtrey, whom the young Coward idolised and from whom he learned a great deal about the theatre, cast him in the children's play Where the Rainbow Ends. This ran in 1911 and 1912 at the Garrick Theatre on London's West End."

Done - slightly differently from above suggestion as the play ran on and off for years (until the 1950s I believe) and NC was in only the 1911 and 1912 productions. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Francis Beaumont and his sometime collaborator, John Fletcher". I don't really see the point of "sometime"

I was trying to accommodate the fact that modern scholarship generally attributes the play to Beaumont alone, but in Coward's day it was thought to be by Beaumont and Fletcher, and he was rude about them both in connection with the play.

• "The Vortex, Fallen Angels and Hay Fever ran simultaneously in the West End, setting a record." What was the nature of this record?

This was the first time that a playwright had three productions running simultaneously in the West End. I'm running out - Back on Tuesday. Tim, kindly revise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Will check on this: not absolutely sure if NC was the first to have a West End hat trick. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Have checked, but cannot immediately verify that he was. On the other hand it is true to say that he had not just three but four shows on at once, and I have so edited. Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Coward's intimate-scale hits of the period included Private Lives (1930), in which Coward starred alongside his most famous stage partner, Gertrude Lawrence, and the young Laurence Olivier, and Design for Living (1932), written for Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne." Another five-comma job, and two "ands". Awkward to read, difficult to rephrase. My best shot is to say "together with the young Laurence Olivier" and make the comma after Olivier into a semicolon.

Done. (point taken!) Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why did the success of Private Lives prompt Coward to institute the rule you mention?

Redrafted. (He found long runs boring and also needed time for writing.)

• "During a night of bombing at the Savoy Hotel..." – was this a regular feature there? Seriously, I should have picked this up at PR; it needs a little rephrasing

Done.

• "The Queen mother replied simply..." "Simply" is not neutral and has to go, I'm afraid.

Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless I fully concur with the opinion given above: an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Oh, well done! I made a handful of minor tweaks, mostly for the dreaded logical punctuation. A few remaining quibbles:

• "Coward encouraged his secretary and posthumous biographer Cole Lesley to be frank once he was safely dead" - Was there some sort of arrangement prior to Coward's death concerning a posthumous bio? I was struck by the (apparent) incongruity of the language here.

Thank you! Yes, NC suggested to CL that he should write NC's biography after NC's death. Shall redraft.

• "his secretary and close confidante Lorn Loraine" - She is previously referred to as "Lorn McNaughtan"; let's connect the dots.

Footnote to cover this.

• "His nickname, "The Master" "started as a joke and became true", according to Coward." - Either drop the first comma or add another to enclose the parenthetical, please.

Oh dear! My most persistent vice, opening subordinate clauses and not closing them! Shall deal instanter.

I don't think I've personally run across either of your work here at FAC, but I hope to see you back, and soon. Engaging prose, achieved in spite of the necessary litany of play titles, dates and descriptions? A true accomplishment. This is good writing. Maralia (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How very kind - and most encouraging! Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support (1a). I've cleaned up a few things in the first part. Mostly well-written. Well done.

Tweaks okay with me - esp. the one at the end of the lead. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we have to have the umlaut in the title. Announces that he was a poonce (I can say that only because I am also a poonce).
• For heaven's sake: hands up anyone who doesn't know what "singer" means. Or "actor". Why are they linked? See MOSLINK. I've removed them, with one query—you piped "Theatre director" to "director"; which is better? I'd have thought the narrower item, but then I see it was broader than this in the second para. I've re-jigged the order of the sentences about his plays in the second para. Please check.

Rejig is okay with me. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a better word than "tryout"? Tony (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS May I second Maralia's suggestion? It would be great if you could return here to review nominations. If time is limited, perhaps you could keep a check on the literary nominations? Sandy's talk page has a template with regularly updated alerts to nominations that need reviewing. Tony (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - such "terribly, terribly fine work". I have no problem with the musicals101 site; it may be the result of a personal passion - but it's a knowledgeable and informed passion written by someone with an academic reputation. I did think you might have missed a trick by ignoring the songs Coward published and performed in his own cabaret evenings and many recordings - but there it was, a whole section. The New Statesman says of Coward and the umlaut "a supercilious dandy, uttering epigrams in a voice constricted by snooty artifice; the umlaut he affected, which made no difference to the pronunciation of his name, was as otiose as a pair of strategically positioned beauty spots." I think I agree with Tony on the linking of 'simple' words; but then again, foreign - and younger - readers may be looking for an appreciation of the sense in which they are used. Kbthompson (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Several image concerns as follows:

• File:Coward with-cigarette-holder.jpg and File:Private Lives Theatre De Lys.jpg: these two images serve practically the same purpose—illustrate the trademark pose of Coward (cigerette holder). The photo has the advantage of being used solely for this article. The poster is used on three (could possibly be an issue with minimum use in Misplaced Pages); however, it is more indicative of the pose that is identified with Coward (after all, what is more indicative of the posture than a cariculture of it used to sell a show?). Nonetheless, one or the other should go.

• File:Londoncallingpromo.jpg: what is the purpose of this copyrighted photo other than to say "Coward starred with Lawrence"?

• File:Mrs astley cooper.jpg and File:Coward Hawtrey 1911.jpg: these are likely to be private photos (unlike File:Coward pestle.jpg and File:Coward as Slightly.jpg, which are likely publicity shots), and could be published only recently after unearthing them from a collection. I doubt they could serve any purpose of fair use as non-free images either. Creation does not equate to publication.

• File:Coward 1914.jpg: per above, reading Streatfeild's article, this seems more to be a private sketch or a base (for other paintings), and may not be published (publicly available) until now. It also would likely not qualify for fair use as a non-free image.

These should be are resolved before promoting the article as one of Misplaced Pages's best works. Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you're quite right. If they had never been published before their inclusion in the 1995 book, then publication there creates a right of first publication. Copyright is still vested (under UK law) in the photographer (or artist), but publication in the book creates new rights over the image. Tim needs to

(a) return to the book, and see if it contains any further source information for the images;

(b) check if there was any prior publication, Coward's life has sufficiently been pawed over for any 'private' photographs to be previously published in newspapers and in public collections - although, even ownership by a public body could still defer to a right of first publication.

(c) modify the rights statement to indicate that copyright derives from its 1995 publication; and either remove the image, or develop a 'fair use rationale' to cover the image's use in the article. In the later, case the fair use might be contested, so perhaps better to consider removing problematic images - unless you feel they are critical to the article.

There was a transition period for 'right of first publication' - if the image had been used elsewhere before that law came in, then (my understanding is) the image remains 'free'. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Misplaced Pages image rules were based on US law, since Misplaced Pages is US-based, even if the article's subject is a UK person? So, I think, the question is whether or not this is free or fair use under US law and WP rules.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, yes, it is based on US law; however, as I stated above, creation does not equate to publication. The photos in question were obtained directly from a 1998 book, not a pre-1923 publication; hence, unless they appear earlier in a publication earlier than 1998, they are first published in 1998. Jappalang (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jappalang, that's what I thought. I think Kbthompson's steps noted above are the right way to go about demonstrating that the PD images are free. Thanks, Kb. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On a further note, Misplaced Pages's fair use guidelines policy (WP:NFCC) does not allow for copyrighted images to be in articles simply for decorative purposes or for those that can be easily described in words. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the fair use images, each image is used for commentary upon the text that accompanies it. They are not being used "for decorative purposes". The question is whether "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Tim and I will review each image carefully and consider the WP:NFCC. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted photos claimed as fair use should have the rationale written in the image pages. The rationale should not simply be "for commentary purposes" but should state in what way the photo's removal would hurt the article. Basically, it boils down to explaining why text cannot adequately replace the image (#1 of the 10 NFCC criteria) and its significance (#8). NFCC asks for all 10 criteria to be fulfilled. Compliance with #8 does not override non-compliance with #1. Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose non-free File:Private_Lives_Theatre_De_Lys.jpg does not significantly increase the readers undersatnding and fails NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat harsh - a poster for a play is de facto something intended for publication in a public place. In UK copyright law that subverts any argument for 'diminishing exploitation rights' - the rights have been exploited at first publication - I don't know about US law, but I would imagine there is a similar argument. I must say that I agree with Jappalang though - each image needs to stand (or fall) by its own merit in expanding understanding on the part of the reader. It is better to remove problematic images than include items that detract from the quality of the article. Non-free images will not appear in other versions of this article, so fair use should be kept to a minimum - and avoided where possible. Kbthompson (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have now clarified the relatonship between the image and the text. Please reconsider your opposition. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Generally support. However the revue Words and Music is several times quoted, but does not appear in the Revues, musicals, operetta and songs section. Xandar 11:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Xandar. Yes, it does appear there - it was produced in 1932. Kindly look again. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps because it hasn't been wikilinked like the others, I searched through the list several times but didn't see it. Is there a possibility of wikilinking it? Xandar 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article. It was later revised in 1939 as Set to Music, and we pretty much say all there is to say about it there. I don't think we should link it to Set to Music though, do you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wondered a while ago about doing a separate article on the earlier version of the show, but concluded that it would be confusing for users. As long as they arrive at Set to Music, they will see back references to the earlier edition. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Words and Music is such an important Coward review that it should be wikilinked. Ideally it should have its own article, of which Set to Music would be a derivative, there being a seven year gap between productions. However it would not take long to link Words and Music to the existing article, and add some tweaks to make that more of a joint article. At the moment the article treats Set to Music as if that were the main production and people looking for Words and Music are lost unlss they catch on that Set to Music is basically the same show. Xandar 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add a brief article with appropriate links shortly. Tim riley (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is taken about the copyright rules applying to the pictures File:Mrs astley cooper.jpg and File:Coward 1914.jpg, which we have removed. Though we have not found any incontrovertible proof, the picture File:Coward Hawtrey 1911.jpg is, we consider, so plainly a staged publicity photograph that it is difficult to conceive that it wasn't published at the time (i.e. before 1923) and is, we believe, eligible. We also believe that the use ofFile:Private_Lives_Theatre_De_Lys.jpg would have been permissible for the rationale given, but we bow to the consensus, and it has been removed. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the Theatre De Lys image, per the rationale given above and by Kbthompson. I also clarified the text so that the image and text together are used to explain the resurgence of Coward's popularity. We may, however, replace the with a collage of uses of this image on both the poster and an unrelated LP album of the 1960s. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Collage now in preparation. Will post tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I give caution that a collage is still considered per individual copyright, i.e. two copyrights are considered. As I pointed out above, it seems that the poster and the LP album cover are used to point out Coward's signature pose. I believe the poster alone (pose still in use to depict the actor, and not simply a photo, but a derived artistic work) would best fit this purpose. The album cover, on its own, has only the advantage of sole use in this article. I am not of the belief at this moment that Coward's pose requires two non-free images to get the point of its significance across; however, if the rationale for the collage is convincing, that can easily change. Jappalang (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the 1960s illustration serves the same purpose as the 1930 photo. The 1960's image shows that Coward made an amazing comeback, reviving his popularity to the point where a revival of his early work would use a drawing (by the famous Al Hirschfeld of him instead of an image of the production or stars in it. The 1930's photo, on the other hand, is a straightforward image of coward (by the famous Dorothy Wilding) at the top of his game, in the middle of his era of greatest success, smug, suave, stylish. I think both photos are essential to show the artist at these two crucial peaks in his career. Have you re-read the text next to each image? There have been improvements since you first read it. I think that in each case there is substantial discussion and commentary that is amplified by the image. If the fair use rationale needs to be amended to better describe what we are doing, I'd be delighted to get any expert advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Coward's cigerette pose is the common ground (rationale) between the two images. Having one picture to illustrate it once is more than enough. The other occasion can be covered with words alone (borrowing on the remaining imagery). Let me try an analogy. Imagine an article on baseball great, Riley Ketchum (fictional) . His signature celebrated move is a mid-air catch, which is described by commentators as resembling that of a panther's pounce (not fully). Words would not adequately describe everything, so a copyrighted fair-use image to show this pose in action (1950) when it was first seen is likely plausible. A statue was commissioned in 1990, to represent his status in 1970, and his signature catch. The statue received reviews that commented only on its likeness to the subject, including the pose. It would not be fair use to claim that a shot of the statue is to display his catch when the 1950 photo is in the article, and on its own, the statue is simply a statue that can be easily described to be a real-life representation of the subject. Similarly, for Coward, the poster, if it is not to display the pose, is simply a poster that shows his profile alone—something that can be easily described in words without loss to the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We have now clarified the difference between the 1930 image of the suave, young, hungry Coward and the "grand old man" of the theatre caricature by Al Hirschfeld; juxtaposing the two in the article gives a unique view of the two peaks in his career. Would you kindly reconsider? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... you are using the poster to help visualise the "grand old man" imagery. Yes, personally, that is acceptable. As for the cigerrette pose, is it possible to get the first press photo where Coward in bed felt like a "Chinese decadent"? That imagery (that of the smoker in dressing gown, akin to a Chinese decadent) might be more deserving of illustration than him in a suit. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that photograph survives. A similar one can be seen here but I have never seen the one with cigarette holder described by Coward in Castle's book. The Wilding photograph is very much the enduring image of the young Coward, and I am sure is the proper one to include in the article. Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the photo is there—the front page of The Sketch. The cigarette holder, however, is almost indistinct against the headrest; he is holding it in his left hand with the telephone receiver. A pity this was published on April 23, 1923. Four months earlier, and it would at least be in US public domain (for free usage on Misplaced Pages servers). It could be acceptable to use it in place of the Wilding photo. This becomes a case of "this or the other", since the Wilding photo is used to illustrate his chic style. Anyway, either one will do, so it would be to personal preference. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I peripherally helped copy-edit the article during its GAC run, and thought it a great article at the time. I believe that the article has only improved since then, and certainly fulfills the FA criteria. The writing is masterful, as several others have pointed out above, the image changes have been for the best, and the article has a pleasing, clean look to it that I always appreciate. Great work, guys! One of the best I've seen come from here in a while. María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Extremely minor points:

• "Had the Nazis invaded Britain, Coward would have been arrested and killed" is speculative – the Nazis may well have planned to, but there's nothing to say it would in fact have happened;

If I correctly understand the case, the Nazi's "black book" was a list of those to be rounded up and dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "was scheduled to be arrested and killed...." Is there a better word than "scheduled"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• "He had little in common with the modern gay scene" – does "modern" refer to the 2009 scene, or the late-1960s gay scene?;

Excellent point! Shall address. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the brief mention of the abdication crisis, I think Coward's "England does not want a Queen Cutie" remark should be mentioned; it's arguably Coward's best-known remark. It's easy enough to cite (sample source);

It is certainly well documented and is an illustration of the edgy and ambiguous relationship between Churchill and Coward, but I wonder if it could be slotted in without disturbing the balance of the article. I am reluctant to add it myself, but am agnostic... Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I don't know the history well enough to comment or help with this. If you can't see how to put it in, would you kindly e-mail me about it, so we can discuss? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Queen Cutie line added as discussed. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be good to have images of the Noel Coward Theatre and of Coward's grave; not only would they be potentially of interest, but would add color to a (necessarily) rather monochrome set of images. I can certainly take one of the theatre if need be, and hopefully someone at WikiProject Jamaica (why does WP:JAMAICA not point there?) can rustle one up of the grave if there's nothing on Flickr or Commons – being derived from English law, I assume Jamaican copyright law includes the same "work of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display" exemption from copyright.

I so agree! I was proposing to take a snap of the theatre, but am not a very good photographer and will be delighted if you will do the deed! As to the Project Jamaica, how might we go about seeking help? Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Running through the list of members of WikiProject Jamaica, it seems that not one actually lives in Jamaica! Your best bet may be to ask one of these people if they'd be willing to licence one of their photos under Creative Commons Commercial Use (the only Flickr category we can accept), which is just a case of their ticking a check-box; once it's CC licensed, it can be imported onto Commons (follow the incomprehensible procedure here). It needs to be licensed for commercial use for Commons to accept it. – iridescent 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Have uploaded three photos of it at File:Noël Coward Theatre 1.JPG, File:Noël Coward Theatre 2.JPG, File:Noël Coward Theatre 3.JPG. None are ideal; the sky is unobligingly grey today, and some roadworks directly in front of the theatre have meant that the pictures have had to be taken from an acute angle to get a clear view (they intrude slightly into the third one). – iridescent 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than these very minor points, I can't see any issues at all. – iridescent 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Iridescent! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's marvellous - thank you so much, Iridescent. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'd have supported this ever were the points above not to be addressed – I think this is an absolute model biography, covering the subject comprehensively without going into excessive detail. I've no problem with the sourcing issues or the use of a fair-use image, which seems clearly legitimate in this context. – iridescent 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support A well-written and fully sourced article which meets all the requirements for FA status. The article is a credit to Misplaced Pages. Jack1956 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I added a few caption dates, looks like a FA article...good work..Modernist (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Can I make quite clear that my support for the article was not conditional on the various image problems. They have always been easily resolved, by resolving copyright issues through a strong case for fair use; or by excision. You did a great job to start with, and the process has done what it is supposed to do - improve the article still further. Really, well done. Kbthompson (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support The article is well-written and appears to be well-researched, and it certainly gives the reader a substantial overview of Coward's life and career without including the type of trivia that permeates too many biographical articles. Congratulations to all involved with whipping it into shape. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the comments above (that is, well-written, comprehensive, free from trivia), and want to add one more thing: I appreciate that the corresponding links to Coward's works are reasonably informative. Well done! JeanColumbia (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Wow, this is excellent. I love the integration of the quotes into the body of the article. Just a few comments:

• "In the 1950s he had fresh success" I always feel that "had" is weak in this usage, maybe "experienced"?

Good idea. I put in "achieved" - good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• "criticism he faced for apparently living the high life" Looking at the context (criticism), would "allegedly" work better?

Too legalistic, don't you think? I think Tim's term "apparently" conveys that Coward was not "actually" living the high life, but rather that it seemed so to people. But to make it super clear, we could say "for the public's perception that he was living the high life". Please advise further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. I was confused, as I thought Coward was living the high life. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim, can you comment here - have we caught the nuances/implications right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We inherited this sentence from a previous editor, and I don't feel bound to it with hoops of steel. I'd be happy with something like this: "His task was to use his celebrity to influence American public and political opinion in favour of helping Britain. He was frustrated by press criticism of his foreign travel while his countrymen suffered at home, but was unable to reveal that this his trips to the U.S. were on behalf of British intelligence." Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I added your new language with a couple of tweaks. See if you like it, or feel free to modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Relative Values (1951) deals with the culture" Shorten a bit, maybe "Relative Values (1951) addresses the culture"

Good, idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to when this is on the main page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Coward's 110th birthday is in December. Maybe that would be a good time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Christmas be more appropriate for Noel? (I'll get my coat…) – iridescent 14:42, 24 March 2009 (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 22:19, 11 April 2009 .

John L. Helm

Nominator(s): Acdixon

I have recently done a total rewrite of this article. Following the rewrite, I had a very good copy editor go over the text. The article just passed GA, and I believe should be able to make FA. To my knowledge, I have consulted all major sources on the subject. I look forward to your reviews, and hopefully, your support. Acdixon 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Comment -- Dabs and external links (checker tools), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Not that I was the GA reviewer, and brought up the age of some of the sources on the GAN page. You can see Acdixon's reply there about the fact that little has been written about his recently. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Simply excellent, but I do have a few nitpicks:

• "studied with noted educator Duff Green." I suppose you couldn't be more specific? Was he a tutor, professor, or just a plain teacher.

• The source doesn't really say. The Misplaced Pages article on Green calls him a "school teacher", but Kentucky's Governors calls him a lawyer, so perhaps he read law with him. I really don't know, so I've used the generic "educator".

• Better to play it safe than risk being wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• "in the office Samuel Haycraft" Is there a missing "of"?

• Yep. Thanks.

• "There were no lawyers in this new county" You just mentioned that the county was formed, so obviously it was new. Maybe "There were no lawyers in this county yet..."

• Done.

• "one of the youngest members ever to serve in "

• Done.

• "1827 and 1830, then was re-elected every year from 1833 to 1837" Missing conjunction, I think.

• I've added an "and" although I'm not sure if it's necessary grammatically.

• "The two were not reconciled until 1852" Simplify tense: "The two did not reconcile until 1852"

• Done.

• Per WP:DASH, em dashes should not be spaced.

• I thought I used all en dashes. I can't find any occurrences of &mdash;.

• "Logan County — many of whom he had personally sold stock to — to" Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Fixed now.

• There are inconsistencies in the page notation, multiple pages should be denoted with pp. and single pages with p.

• Good catch. I think I got them all now.

• "a number of other citizens " "a number of"-->several

• Done.

• "With the state's courts closed on account of the war" With is usually a poor connector. Maybe "Because the state's courts were closed on account of the war". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are other things that need to be addressed, or the above haven't been addressed sufficiently. Acdixon 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Helm was classified as a southern sympathizer by federal authorities." Convert this to active voice.

• Done.

• "September, 1862" I don't believe the comma is necessary.

• Done.

• "sufferage" Is this a word? Are you referring to suffrage?

• Yep. Bad spelling on my part.

• "eleven one-year terms" Numbers over ten should be spelled out, particularly because these are adjacent quantities.

• Done.

• "When Helm was 14 his father fell on hard financial times and Helm returned to work on the family farm" I think it would helpe readability here if a comma was inserted after "14".

• Done.

• "his father's debt's " Surely you mean "his father's debts"?

• Yep. Fixed now.

• "he built a home there which he " Two options: "he built a home there that he " or "he built a home there, which he"

• Fixed.

• "act granting debtors "-->act that granted debtors

• Done.

• "In 1843 the Kentucky General Assembly proposed to create a new county from part of Hardin County and name it Helm County in honor of John L. Helm." Another instance in which I think a comma would help, after "1843".

• Done.

• "death bed" I've usually seen it written as one word, although perhaps this is an English variant?

• Not sure if it is a variant, but I have no problem changing it as suggested.

• "Alderman" Wikilink, not a very common term (one usually sees "council member")

• Done.

• "and also succeeded in selling"

• Done.

• "introduced legislation that called for " Legislation doesn't really "call".

• Reworded. How does that sound?

• Better. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. Mostly proofreading stuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful reading. Hope you can now support the article's promotion. Acdixon 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suppport, this is very good. I was really only left with one question:
  • "After nine ballots Helm withdrew, and Letcher was elected speaker." Do we know 9 out of how many? That would provide a bit more context. 9 out of 20 seems gentlemanly, but 9 out of 100 seems babyish, if you see my point.

--Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response; my laptop charger died and my access to the Internet has been limited. The source says that Helm withdrew after nine ballots "whereupon" the House chose Letcher over Morehead. The implication seems to be that it was the very next ballot. Acdixon 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-done. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Images:
  • File:CSMorehead.jpg- you need a date here, else we can't verify that it's PD.
    • The Kentucky Historical Society's web site says the date of creation and author are unknown. This is the only image of Morehead I've been able to find anywhere. Acdixon 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, we can't use undocumented images, so it will have to be removed. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I've removed it from this article. Any chance it could stay (at least on the article about Morehead himself) under some type of fair use claim? Acdixon 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Possibly, but you have to meet WP:NFCC, so you're going to have to prove it was previously published or released (shouldn't be hard, but just follow it precisely.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 20:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • File:JohnLaRueHelm.jpg- no author or date here, either.
    • Added the author and date here based on Kentucky Historical Society web site. Acdixon 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • A fully filled out template like {{Description}} would be nice. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The thick black borders around the image are somewhat pointless and distracting, but that's an aesthetic quibble. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is shaping up to be a hectic week, but if I have time (and my replacement laptop charger comes in) I may see if I can crop that off. Acdixon 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Hope you don't mind, but I've gone ahead and cropped that; I agree it looks better without the border, and if you want me to do the same with the Crittenden image, let me know. Steve 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. EDIT: Struck. Steve I considered a support with added suggestions, as I don't think it's far off at all, but there are just a few prose issues, seemingly concentrated in the first couple of sections. It would be a shame if they weren't tackled before this disappears from FAC. Details follow. Steve

  Lead

  • "was the eighteenth and twenty-fourth governor of Kentucky. Though he twice held the office of governor, his service in that office totaled less than fourteen months." Seems to be telling us the same information twice (that he was governor two times). Consider merging or making the second sentence a lot shorter (e.g. "His two terms totaled less than fourteen months.")
    • Done.
  • "The Whigs won the general election and Helm was elevated to governor on July 31, 1850, when Crittenden resigned to accept an appointment as United States Attorney General in the cabinet of President Millard Fillmore." Slightly long sentence that could benefit from recasting to read more concisely. Example: "in President Millard Fillmore's cabinet."
    • Done.
  • "Although he openly opposed secession..." This is a borderline Easter egg link; the link points to Secession in the United States rather than secession. In any event, the sentence lacks context for anyone not au fait with that period of American history; the mention of the civil war only comes after this point. It wouldn't hurt to spell it out.
    • I've tried to improve this.
  • "Helm was labeled a Southern sympathizer at the outbreak of the American Civil War." By whom? The article body says, but it still begs the question up here.
    • Clarified.
  • "He was too weak to travel to Frankfort for his inauguration, so state officials traveled to his home and administered the oath of office there on September 3, 1867." The "there" is weak. Consider rewording to remove it, e.g. "He was too weak to travel to Frankfort for his inauguration, so state officials administered the oath of office at his home on September 3, 1867."
    • Done.

  Early life

  • Why does it use "John L. Helm" instead of "Helm" throughout the section? There are better ways of differentiating between Helm and his family members, and it would make the opening sentence less choppy.
    • Agree it's awkward, but with so many Helms being mentioned, I thought this was necessary. I've tried to clean it up some.
  • Speaking of which, it could be improved by eliminating the "twenty-two years later" statement; the dates are mentioned, so there's no need for this. It could instead be rendered more concisely by splitting and then merging with the second statement about Helm's birth, e.g. "...Hardin County, where John L. Helm was born on..."
    • Done.
  • "better-paying" Better-paid? Maybe both are OK.
    • I think both work, but it's not a big deal if you insist on making this change.
  • Should "Meade County Attorney" be "Meade county attorney" or "Meade's county attorney"? While you'd use capitals in the title "County Attorney John L. Helm", you wouldn't in "John L. Helm, the county attorney".
    • Yeah, seems like all of these rules are running together in this sentence. I've adopted your suggestion of "Meade's county attorney". It still seems a little awkward to me, but better than before.
  • "the Helm homestead where he was born." Redundant; we've already been told this.
    • Done.
  • "neighboring Hardin County..." Redundant; already told that too.
    • Done.
  • "Between 1832 and 1840 he built a home there that he called "Helm Place", and which remained his home for the rest of his life." Further redundancies; consider combining elements to make something along the lines of "Between 1832 and 1840 he built "Helm Place" there, which remained his home for the rest of his life." This presents the same information in far fewer words. It could even be merged with the previous sentence to eliminate that unsightly "there".
    • I thought it was necessary to identify "Helm Place" as a house, which was the reason for the awkward sentence, but looking back on it, I think it sounds OK the way I've edited it now.

  Political career

  • "Reeling from the financial Panic of 1819..." The capitalisation on "Panic" doesn't work if preceded by "financial"; consider removal of "financial", or recasting the sentence if you think it needs the context of the word. Alternatively, pipe it into the wikilink.
    • Done.

  President of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad

  • "some observers" Do we know who? If Klein doesn't say, fair enough.
    • I've already returned that book to the library, but best I recall, Klein doesn't specify.
  • "On February 4, 1860, two members of the company's board of directors wrote a letter requesting Helm's resignation and claiming they had voted for his re-election as president of the company with the understanding that he would resign when the main line between Louisville and Nashville was finished." A little long? It needs a breather at some point, e.g. "...resignation; they claimed..."
    • Yes, much better.
  • "But the rift between Helm and the directors continued to widen." It's seldom good to begin a sentence with "But".
    • Corrected.
  • No real need for that "Nevertheless".
    • Eliminated.

  Civil War and second term as governor

  • "were arrested by Colonel Knox." Who is Colonel Knox? He isn't mentioned before or after this statement, so can't be that relevant to this article.
    • The source only says "Colonel Knox". Because of this, I left him out initially. Then a reviewer said he wanted to know more about the forces who arrested Helm, so I added this as the only indication I had of who the forces were. I was hoping someone familiar with this time period could provide a wikilink, even if it's a red link.
  • "of his son, Benjamin..." Twice said in a short space. The first time in the section is enough to introduce him as Helm's son, and simply "Benjamin" thereafter will do.
    • Done.

  General—throughout

  • Inconsistent use of numerals: "twenty-two", "24", etc.
  • Inconsistent use of comma/no-comma after opening " ".
  • Review WP:DASH. Found hyphen used where endash should be. Check for other instances.
    • I'll have to get to these later, since they will take some time to identify in the prose. Not having my laptop (now have determined that my charger was lost in the mail) has made it harder to get back to Misplaced Pages with regularity. Hopefully, I can get these addressed in the next couple of days.
      • I think I've caught all of these, so don't worry about it. Steve 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• This long list makes the writing seem worse than it is; these are largely minor issues that should be resolvable quickly. The only other recommendation I have is to make further sweeps for redundancies; there are still a few spots that might benefit. Otherwise, it's an interesting read and seemingly well-researched. I'll watchlist this page, so no need to ping me if and when these issues are tackled/rebutted. All the best, Steve 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Let me know if any of my fixes above are insufficient, and I'll try to get to the remaining ones soon. Acdixon 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Your fixes/rebuttals check out fine by me. Striking oppose. Nice work, Steve 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1941 Florida hurricane Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 319

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 Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009 .

Harriet Bosse

Nominator: Bishonen | talk

• Tech. Review

Dabs (using the toolbox dabs checker tool)

:*Need to be fixed

• ..are to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

External link (toolbox link checker tool)

• ..is up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

:*The following refs are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, use a ref name instead

• Lagercrantz, 295.
• Comment by Bosse in Letters, 16.--₮RUCӨ 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand that, sorry. The notes in the article are consistent. Their numbers are consecutive. And you want me to use a different, non-consecutive, note system for four out of the 58 notes, merely because two pairs of page references come on the same pages? I use the normal note system in my academic field. If I understand you, you want me to switch to the system that medical studies use. That can hardly be obligatory for FAs. Or am I misunderstanding?

• I've never seen that before, but I'll take it into note. Ref formatting is up to speed (I'm guessing?).--₮RUCӨ 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain how to use the dabs checker tool (que?), and what's wrong with the dabs? Bishonen | talk 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

• I think you are misunderstanding, The content that I placed above is what the ref appears like in the ref section. These refs appear multiple times in the ref section, when this could be avoided by using a ref name instead. The dabs (as seen using the disambiguation tool in the toolbox to your right) need to be fixed, as in they need to be disambiguated to the correct page.--₮RUCӨ 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• "I take your point, though "multiple times" = twice, right? I know that two of them appearing twice could be avoided by using a ref name. On the other hand, having the footnote numbers in the text jumping about all over the shop, which is encouraged in some academic fields but not even allowed in others (and is IMO horrible, but that's a matter of taste), can be avoided by using the <ref>Waal, 56.</ref> system. Please see the Featured article criteria, 2 c: what's required of citations is that they be consistent. Mine are. Bishonen
• Regarding dabs, Truco is referring to this. These links in the article need to be pointed to the correct article rather than the disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I should have known Iconoclast was bound to be an album! Bishonen

• Support, I liked this quite a bit. I made some minor fixes and edits as I read, but overall it looks good. A couple items I wasn't clear on:
  • "Like his previous two marriages, the relationship was broken up by Strindberg's jealousy, which some critics have considered paranoid and psychotic." Hm.. critics of the relationship or critics of his work? :) Later you say "paranoid" and "delusional"; I'm no expert but I think psychosis and delusion are not interchangeable.
    • All of them and then some have been ascribed to Strindberg. But I should use interchangeable terms in the lede and the article proper, good point. Bishonen
  • "In spite of the disadvantage of speaking Swedish with a Norwegian accent ..." A point of interest. How is this a disadvantage? Was it looked down upon in Swedish society in general, or just in acting careers? The reason I ask is that I'm researching Italian opera from around the same period and the Italians didn't seem to care where singers and actors came from.

I hope one day to be known as an angry young socialist muckraker. --Laser brain (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Literary critics. Oh, it was a question of actors only. A Norwegian accent on stage wouldn't be a disadvantage today, but back then accents were thought to break the all-important illusion and be distracting. No, the Italians didn't care... Italian opera was a horse of a very different colour compared to the legit drama, which at that time aspired to realism. I'm afraid comparing features like accents won't be a lot of use to you; the attitude was quite different.
    • And I would like one day to be an actress who is exhorted not to look like a boiled shrimp.(Footnote 4.) Bishonen | talk 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've been watching this page from its infancy in Bish's userspace. I made a few punctuation changes a few days ago, but I can honestly not see anything else that needs to be fixed. Great page! Tex (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support A well written and informative page that meets all the criteria for promotion to a FA Giano (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: licenses were corrected to use Swedish public domain. Note that there is a dispute on Swedish public domain at Commons (ref: commons:Template talk:PD-Sweden-photo), but if that proves to be a serious problem, the images can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages since they were published before 1923; an exception would be File:Bosse and daughter aged six months.png since it might be a personal photo rather than a publicity shot (hence, not published). That does not come into play at this time anyway. The photo of the art in the metro is likely permanent, hence qualifying for freedom of panorama per Swedish law. Jappalang (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I never thought of the special status of the baby photo, but of course you're right: that's hardly likely to have been published as early as the others. Are you saying it was created sufficiently long ago in any case? The child's age shows the photo is from 1902. Also, it was definitely published by 1959, which is the year of publication of the book I scanned it from. Yes, the Strindberg image in the subway is permanent, it's not a poster or something. And I'm so glad I didn't see the Commons dispute about Swedish photo copyright before, what a nightmare... it would have put me off the whole thing. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
    • The Swedish PD law for photos is based on death of creator and creation date. US copyright is mainly based on publication date. As creation and publication are not the same, the baby photo in this case is possibly disputable as {{PD-1923}}, which requests for publication before 1923. As for the Commons dispute, just keep our fingers crossed, and if worse come to worse, we can always upload those photos (well, except for the baby) to Misplaced Pages as said. Jappalang (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is good stuff: the writing, the images, the topic. I particularly like the way the role of a highly creative woman comes out in relation to such a man. Tony (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and thanks for the copyedit, Tony. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 March 2009 (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 23:40, 29 March 2009 .

Phil Hartman

Nominator(s): Gran

"Ladies and gentlemen of the FAC process, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your encyclopedia frightens and confuses me!" yet somehow I was able to write this article... Joking aside, I've been working on the great Phil Hartman's page since October last year and after two peer reviews and several copyedits from users such as Scartol, I think it's ready for this. For the record, despite the efforts of Nehrams2020, no free-use image of Hartman has been located. Thanks, Gran 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is a Yahoo biography a reliable source? (Pls fix WP:PUNC, logical punctuation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll fix WP:PUNC. As for Yahoo, I don't see why it wouldn't be, the bio is written by the site's staff, as opposed to users. Gran 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yahoo removed, see below. Bradley0110 has kindly fixed WP:PUNC.

• Tech. Comment -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS), and dabs/external links (toolbox checker tools) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on sourcing issues.
  • The Yahoo source in unacceptable. That text is all over the web, with no attribution or indication of fact-checking or editorial process. A first step to getting this to meet WP:RS is establishing the actual authorship and publisher.
  • Why are we using a book named The Hollywood Book of Scandals to source basic facts, except for perhaps his going into rehab? Surely you can find more serious pieces of journalism to source this article.
  • Universal Publishers is a self-publishing house - any hack can get their book on Amazon through this service. Therefore, Milhorn is not a reliable source.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Okay, I'll remove Milhorn, as you claim it to be unreliable. The Hollywood book is primarily used to back up other points. I personally consider it "serious", despite the title, is there a problem with its reliability? As for Yahoo, I don't understand what you mean by "all over the web"; where else is the text used? Gran 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I suppose there isn't a problem with the Hollywood book - it just seemed odd to me. No biggie. If you google the first sentence of that Yahoo article, you will find that it is mirrored in many places. The problem is, we don't know which is the original since there is no attribution. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah I see, well I'll look into it, but it'll probably be easier to just find some other sources. Gran 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, Yahoo has been removed. Gran 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support from Dr pda. I reviewed and copyedited this at peer review, and my concerns were addressed during this process. The sourcing issues mentioned above have also been resolved now. Dr pda (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comments (I might add more as I read through the article.)

• Though Laser brain seems to have dropped his argument about the Hollywood Book of Scandals, I still think it would be better to use a different source. The book may be perfectly reliable and all, but first impressions are important, and seeing that title in the refs won't give a good first impression to readers. They might think this article is amateurish or sensationalistic, and might stop reading altogether. I doubt that the author of that book did much original research into Hartman's life, so everything you got from it can probably be cited to other sources.

• To be blunt, I doubt the average article reader would ever even look at the sources, but that isn't the point here. I disagree with this argument.

• Well, this isn't the sort of thing I would oppose over, but I still think it's something to consider. (Some people do look at the sources, especially if they're the sort who just like to complain about Misplaced Pages.) Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll maybe try a replace it, but I'm not going to go crazy about it.

• The article says a couple times that Hartman was looking for a "more creative outlet" than album covers. Is "creative" the best word here? Designing album covers does require a good amount of creativity. Zagalejo^^^ 08:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well the quote (the reference for which someone moved) is "He was also a little lonely working at his graphic designer desk every day, by himself, usually entertaining only himself, with flights of voice fantasies." "I had to find an outlet," Any suggestions? To me, he wanted to perform comedy and he thinks that is more creative than album covers.

• It seems like he wanted an outlet for the voicework, not creativity in general. Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've found another quote: "I was going a little buggy, 'cause I was spending long hours at a drawing board by myself and I had all these voices and characters, and I just didn't have much interaction with people," ... suggestions? Perhaps, a more "social" outlet?

• Maybe... but "social" doesn't make sense in this sentence: Eventually he felt he had developed this talent by attending evening comedy classes and began looking for a more "social" outlet. I'd say that the evening comedy classes are a social activity. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about switiching: "Eventually he felt he needed a more "social" outlet and developed this talent by attending evening comedy classes."

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In "Early career", there is a sentence fragment that simply says, "Pee-wee's Big Adventure." I think you might have accidentally deleted something. Zagalejo^^^ 08:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.

• OK. But I think Hartman also has a small role in that film, as a journalist or something. Is that worth mentioning? Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll add that.

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...revolving around a family who "live next to a toxic dump site, their water supply is poisoned, the mother and son go insane and try to murder each other, the father's face is torn off in a terrible disfiguring accident in the first act. It's heavy stuff, but it's got a good message and a positive, upbeat ending." -- The quoted section is poorly integrated into the surrounding prose. (Try reading it without the quotation marks.) What comes before "live next to a toxic dump site" in the original quote? Maybe we can reword this section slightly. Zagalejo^^^ 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Hartman describes it as sort of a merger of horror and comedy, like Beetlejuice and Throw Momma From the Train. It's an American nightmare about a family torn asunder. They live next to a toxic dump site, their water supply is poisoned, the mother and son go insane and try to murder each other, the father's face is torn off in a terrible disfiguring accident in the first act. It's heavy stuff, but it's got a good message and a positive, upbeat ending." Gran 09:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I'll think about this one. Zagalejo^^^ 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• I took a stab at it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In July 2007, at the Laugh Factory comedy club in Los Angeles, Andy Dick had an altercation with Hartman's former SNL colleague Jon Lovitz, who claimed that a year earlier, Dick had approached him at a restaurant and said, "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you; you're the next one to die." Lovitz alleged that Dick gave cocaine to Brynn, causing her to relapse and suffer a mental breakdown. What exactly happened at the Laugh Factory? Is that where Lovitz suggested Dick gave cocaine to Brynn? This section isn't entirely clear. Zagalejo^^^ 09:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• They had an "altercation" over the issue; Lovitz has always alleged Dick gave Brynn cocaine. Gran 09:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any more specific details about what happened? Zagalejo^^^ 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to avoid BLP concerns (for Dick and Lovitz). That's the transcript. Lovitz has long accused Dick of giving Brynn cocaine, which may have led her to eventually murder Phil. Years later, a drunk Dick told Lovitz "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you. You're the next one to die." A year later, Dick came up to Lovitz at the Laugh Factory and denied saying that etc. (you can see it in the transcript) and then Lovitz shoved him a few times. Gran 09:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm.. perhaps we shouldn't discuss these allegations at all. If you do decide to discuss them, you'd still need to make the sequence of events clearer. It's confusing to start from the Laugh Factory incident and work backwards from that. Zagalejo^^^ 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree, but the fact that Lovitz said this live on TV (and he was essentially Phil's best friend) gives it enough weight and notability, I think. I'll rejig it so it's chronological. Gran 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looking better. Is there anything you can briefly say about Andy Dick's side of the story? Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• - According to Lovitz, Dick claimed Lovitz had said Dick has "murdered Phil" although Lovitz denied that. All he says in that response piece is that he didn't know Brynn formally had a crack addiction and says that him giving her crack "couldn't" have done anything because it was months before the murder... So, that's not brief, but is it really more mentioning? Gran 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• If we're going to mention the allegations at all, we probably should say something about Dick's side of the story for the sake of neutrality. One sentence should be sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the response piece doesn't say anything other than Dick didn't know/mean for their to be any problem after her gave Brynn the crack. On Lary King, Lovitz states that Dick approached him at the Laugh Factory because he thought Lovitz had said that Dick had (indirectly) murdered Phil, which Dick disagreed with. So, how about: "Dick does not believe he is at fault in relation to the incident." Thoughts? Gran 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• That might work. Zagalejo^^^ 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• And that's done. Gran 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Emigrate/immigrate . Can remove a few alsos. Did he collaborate on the Pee-Wee Herman character itself, or the project? Some lines seem like they hide more information: "Hartman eventually grew tired of SNL" and "He remarked, 'My favorite fans are Troy McClure fans.'" Why? "Dick does not believe he is at fault in relation to the incident" - which incident, the comedy club in the previous sentence, or the cocaine? Overall, provides insight into the person. Good job. Gimmetrow 16:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Removed a few. Both, where exactly is it not clear? That's expanded by the following sentence. I don't know why, that's all he says in the source. Fixed. Thanks. Gran 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm getting at is: the linked article on the Pee-Wee character says that Reubens created the character. It doesn't say Hartman and Reubens created the character. I don't see anything which discusses Hartman's involvement with that character itself - rather more the project which involved that character and Hartman's character. With SNL, saying "grew tired" seems too vague. (It sounds like a euphemism for a salary dispute.) If the real reason is that he was the last of his original co-performers, then perhaps say something like "he eventually felt out-of-place as the SNL cast changed". Gimmetrow 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand the Pee-Wee thing. The article doesn't say Hartman created him, it says he developed him with Reubens, as well as the shows. Do you have a problem with the word collaborated? Would you prefer developed? Gran 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've rejigged the SNL thing to remove all mention of being tired (although I disagree that there was any problem with it). Gran 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Revisiting the article, the sourcing is no longer a concern but I'm not encouraged by the prose in a random sampling. I started reading at "Personal life" and I'm inclined to maintain my opposition. It's not far off, but it lacks attention to detail that a couple solid hours with an effective copyeditor could remedy. Examples:
  • Attention is needed throughout to MoS issues such as logical punctuation in quotations and times.
  • Why do you refer to some people by their first names ("Brynn") when everyone else is on a last name basis?
  • Your use of quotations is confusing. Are they quotations from the source, or from the actual subject? If the former, what is the purpose of quoting simple phrases like "own identity"? Can't we paraphrase unless the quotation is impactful or profound?
  • Is it "the couple's ... home" or "Hartman's house"?
  • "Upon seeing Hartman's body, Douglas called 911 at 6:20 ..." State a.m. or p.m.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well it's been copyedited by several people, and a user went through and fixed all WP:PUNC issues. Perhaps you could either: have a go at copy-editing yourself? suggest a copy-editor? (mainly for any WP:PUNC issues) point them out in turn? As for referring to "some people" by their first names - just Brynn - see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname. Gran 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• As far as copyediting goes, it's quality, not quantity that counts. MoS issues remain, and the text needs massaging. The whole Legacy section is lurching and not compelling. The Brynn issue is therefore one of clarity; you never mention that she changed her name to "Hartman". You give her maiden name and then start referring to her as "Brynn". In these social circles, it's not uncommon for people to keep their surnames through marriages. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, fine. Could you perhaps say what these MOS issues are? I'll have a go at copy-editing the legacy section myself. As for the Brynn thing, what do you want: "She changed her surname to Hartman after their marriage"? Gran 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• As noted above, the MoS issues are with logical punctuation. I strongly recommend you get someone new to the text to copyedit it, as it can be exceedingly difficult to spot our own prose issues once we're too familiar with the text. Like I said, it's not far off, but it's not meeting 1a currently. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cirt is currently copy-editing. Gran 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Just did a pass of copy-editing. Weren't too many issues that jumped out, just some minor tweaks with punctuation and sentence structure. Overall it is a well-written article, a good read, and also on a personal note it was poignant and moving to read about the tragedy and legacy. Great work. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose - none of the non-free images are justified under NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I asked you to help me improve the rationales of the images in November, and you didn't respond. It would be therefore helpful for you to say how they could be improved. Gran 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Oh, look who's back. Gran2, you'll need to try to find the author and copyright holder of File:HartmanPhil.jpg--the current source (MSN) is just a downstream user. Additionally, if it was originally a stock photo (GettyImages, et al), using it on Misplaced Pages could harm commercial opportunities. File:ClintonHartman.jpg currently isn't referred to in the main text, only the caption. You should expand the adjacent paragraph to include some info and direct reference to the scene (shouldn't be too difficult if it's his most famous sktech). Bradley0110 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks Bradley. Gran 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely I'll be able to find the official source of the image, so do you have any suggestions as to where the best type of place to find another one which does complies with the policy would be? Gran 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If sourcing does become a problem, could the article just use a SNL screenshot or even the Best of Hartman SNL DVD cover? Here is one from E! Online that might be a suitable replacement. -- Scorpion 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try getting a Flickr image relicensed, like this one. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Already tried, and failed (three times). And those are the only even potential free-use images on Flickr. Gran 18:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue then. The problem is that to use the image you must prove that no free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose rather than no free alternative is available. Some articles show that leeway is given to deceased people (especially those who died before the advent of things like Flickr) so the image's FUR should reflect that. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll remove the main image. That seems to be the easiest option. Gran 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the best solution. You never know what images could turn up in the future. I've left a note about this on Fasach Nua's talk page but judging from his history of opposes, I doubt he'll bother to come back here and review. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Still finding MoS problems (ex. more logical punctuation problems and WP:DASH violations) and grammatical issues. It's not ready. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I would appreciate it if a) You try fixing the problems your spotting yourself b) You point out explicitly what they are so I can fix them c) recommend someone to take a look at these problems you're finding. - I appreciate your concerns, but I'm not an expert on the MOS, and if two users who know a lot more about it than I do couldn't fix them all, then It'd be useful to know the exact problems. Gran 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying as I have time. I'm mostly making the point that I shouldn't be finding them at this stage in the game; it indicates that the article was not fully prepared before bringing it here. The FAC instructions are to make sure the article meets all the criteria before nominating it. If you know you are deficient in certain areas, you should get someone to review those things (like MoS) and not depend on reviewers to fix them. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, well I thought I had. And indeed, I did get several people to fix issues I was not an expert in, before the FAC. I was therefore under the impression they had been fixed. I wouldn't nominate an article if I thought it didn't meet the criteria. Gran 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I know, it's a pain. I fixed whatever I saw. My advice? Go look at what I fixed and learn. Most of your problems revolve around WP:DASH, WP:NBSP, and WP:MOSQUOTE. Learn them at least enough to make a targeted request of a peer reviewer ("I don't have a keen eye for logical punctuation; could you review it for me?") I know it seems nitpicky, but it's one of the vast differences between average writing and FA writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment regarding preparedness. When I (Dr pda) copyedited at Peer review I audited the article for dash compliance. In the last round of copyediting, Cirt introduced some spaced ndashes. These are permitted by WP:DASH as an alternative to mdashes, providing one form is consistently used within the article. When this edit popped up on my watchlist I had a quick look but didn't see any mdashes within the article body, so I just left it (though having another look now there was one mdash, so there was inconsistency). Dr pda (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this was the one subjective matter. Since there was already one em dash in a quotation, and we try to maintain the formatting of the original quotation, I thought it better to change the en dashes to em dashes. Mind-numbingly mundane, really, but there you have it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, according to WP:MOSQUOTE, changing dashes in quotations to conform to the style chosen for the article is allowable :) Dr pda (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A well-researched and -written article that nicely balances Hartman's better-known work with his other roles. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Query: Why is CNN in italics in the citations? See WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "work" field of the cite news template automatically adds italics. I've changed then to the publisher field, which does not do this. Gran 21:34, 29 March 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 .

Rhyolite, Nevada

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the requirements. It's about a popular Nevada ghost town that had a brief but spectacular life as a gold-rush settlement in the first decade of the 20th century. My thanks to User:Admiral Norton for a GA review and to User:Ruhrfisch for a peer review. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I recently peer reviewed this and found it to be up to the FA criteria. Ref 3 needs an access date, and I wish we knew if the caboose pictured used to be the gas station, but otherwise I have no suggestions for improvement. In the interest of full disclosure, I made a few copyedits and did make the locator map some time ago. Very well done, Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. I have added the missing access date to Ref. 3. Thanks for spotting this. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, made a few tweaks but this looks ready. A couple of items:
  • "Another building housed the Rhyolite Mining Stock Exchange ..." The section beginning with this sentence needs some clarity; it's written as if the stock exchanges bought and sold shares ("opened ... to trade shares" and "it had bought and sold"). That isn't strictly true - traders buy and sell shares, usually through a broker.
  • You've been spoiling us with modern-day currency equivalencies until the Bust section. Are these figures in historical dollars or current?

--Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, and bless you for catching the stock exchange error. I unwittingly compressed the source's explanation beyond recognition. I have re-written three sentences, and I hope this section now makes better sense. I've also converted the bullion figure that opens the Bust section and added a clarifying "historical dollars" comment about the stock prices. With the stock prices, I think the fluctuations are more important than the gross amounts. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs (toolbox)

• ..are up to speed.

External links (toolbox)

• ..are up to speed.

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref is duplicated, and appears as such in the ref section, use a ref name instad

• Lingenfelter, p. 210 --₮RUCӨ 21:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed the duplicate ref. Those rascals are hard to see. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, yeah, that's why the script does it for me :P (Ref formatting is up to speed.)--₮RUCӨ 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I fixed a few ref formatting errors for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking these and for fixing the ref errors. Try as I might to ferret them out, a couple of those "p" and "pp" critters always seem to hide in the eelgrass. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This is a wonderful article, drawing in many facets of American history {The Panic of 1907!), geology, finance, mining, (and more) all concisely worded. Pristine prose. Wonderful pictures and captions. A neat TOC, and a comprehensible list of references, this is (to me) what an FA should be. It draws in the reader to learn more, rather than presenting overwhelming evidence that you have covered all the bases. I commend you on your judicious use of wikilinks to a world of articles on other subjects. I don't pretend to know whether you have covered all the MoS issues. But it is obvious that a great deal of care has gone into the construction of this fine article. Minor, minor nitpick is the use of "lies". But really, this is so minor. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your extremely kind words and support. (I must not let this go to my head.) Is the "lies" in the Bottle House caption the one you mean? Would plain "is" be better? Or "fell into"? Finetooth (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sooo minor, but I was referring to places, such as "Rhyolite lies". But I tried to think of a substitute and did not immediately come up with one. (When it comes to wording, I am over-the-top picky!) —Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I like picky. I couldn't see it before, but now I do. I used essentially the same device a half-dozen times to avoid the passive "is located". I have changed three of the "lie" or "lies" to "is" to vary the pattern. Please let me know if that still doesn't cut it. Finetooth (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: I sorted out File:Charles M. Schwab - Project Gutenberg eText 17976.jpg and File:Montgomery mine panorama cropped middle.jpg, so along with the self-taken images, the images in the article check out okay. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My thanks, Jappalang. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria, nicely done, very interesting. Dincher (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Library of Congress has some images of this of decently high quality. Would you like me to try for some Featured Pictures? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering. Are these Library of Congress photos different from the mine photo I've already used? Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few, actually, and I believe there's also a higher-res version of the mine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are in the public domain and better than what we already have, please do. That would be great. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

• In general, I'm struck by the similarity between this and similar places here in Alaska like Eagle and Circle, though both of those towns still survive tenuously.
• In the lede, you give distances to what I assume are the nearest existing settlements -- could you also provide the distance to a city that a reader is more likely to be familiar with, such as Las Vegas?

Good suggestion. Las Vegas added to the first sentence of the lede. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I assume the Bullfrog Mining District's name is derived from the Bullfrog Hills, but could you state that explicitly?

Yes. Done, citing Lingenfelter. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. It was so named after the Bullfrog mining claim was filed, implicitly derived from the claim, not the hills. Finetooth (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now explicit. Both stem from the name the two prospectors gave to their mine. Sourced to Nevada Place Names. Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the names section, why is felsic in quotes?

Operator error. Fixed, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also confused about the order in which things happened -- was the Bullfrog mine and district named after the hills, or vice-versa? I'd assume the former, but ...

Implicitly vice-versa. I have ducked on making this claim directly in the article because, although my sources imply it, none actually says directly that the Bullfrog Hills were named after the original mining claim. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No longer ducking. Nevada Place Names makes it explicit. All things Bullfroggy in the region stem from the Bullfrog Mine name chosen by Cross and Harris. I have added a sentence to this effect to the Names section of the article and cited the place names book. Thanks for this nudge. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• When referencing Yucca Mountain, I'd suggest "proposed" before the link to the waste depository.

Good point. Done. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the boom section, I'd suggest "grew to a population of 1,200 people"

I changed the sentence to read, "Starting as a two-man camp in January 1905, Rhyolite became a town of 1,200 people in two weeks and reached a population of 2,500 by June 1905." Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this, but since you've got conversions for everything else, would it be appropriate to convert the references to "a ton" into metric tons as well?

I had given this some thought earlier but decided that the additional conversions would make the sentences harder to read without adding information of much value. On the other hand, prompted by your question, I have now linked the first use of "ton" to short ton. Will this suffice? Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Other than these minor fixes, I'd say you've created a pretty darn nice article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (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 23:50, 18 April 2009 .

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!)

A Vietcong bombing in 1964. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Dabs and external links (checker tools), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I got mired in problems pretty quickly and I think this should have some solid time with a copyeditor before further examination is possible. Samples from the lead:
  • The first sentence of the lead seems oddly repetitive: "The Brinks Hotel bombing ... was a bomb attack on the Brinks Hotel"
  • "Aimed at a building that housed United States Army officers, the explosion killed two Americans and injured 58 others." A couple problems: first, the dangling modifier (the explosion wasn't aimed.. surely the bomb?), and second, why the prominent mention of Americans killed while the others are relegated to "others"?
  • "Firstly, by attacking an American institution in the core of the heavily guarded capital, it demonstrated ..." The "it" is ambiguous. The only possible subjects you've introduced thus far are the Vietcong commanders, who are not an "it".
  • The "firstly" and "second" statements need parallel structure; they are at odds currently.
  • "The bombing prompted debate within the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, with most of his advisors favouring ..." Troublesome "with noun +ing" construction. The whole of the sentence needs work.

--Laser brain (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Monkey has done a self-copyedit. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• More - I've gone through and made some more fixes, and it is looking good. A couple other items I'd like to clear up before supporting:
  • "The pair drove their vehicles into the hotel ..." To me, this reads like they smashed their cars into the hotel. What is the correct meaning? They drove to the hotel, or they drove into a hotel garage or similar? I see later that there was a parking area under the hotel, but perhaps it bears stating here, earlier in the text.

I've reworded it...Drove a vehicle to the entrance normally.... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "Despite the clerk's reply that the colonel had left the country, the "major" insisted that he had not, and parked his car in the lot beneath the hotel, before telling his chauffeur to fetch the American with the other vehicle." I found this difficult to follow. Are you saying that the "major" told the clerk that he did these things, or that he left the clerk to do them at this time?

Reworded. The VC and ARVN knew the US officer was gone, but the VC kept on insisting he had an appointment and then parked his car with bomb in the carpark. Then the VC told his partner to go and pick up the officer (a getaway decoy), and the driver drove away. Then he said he was going for dinner (another getaway decoy) and walked out. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks great. Interesting topic to boot. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Images checked and are ok 2 images, both military public domain and both seem fine, Tom B (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. With the additional background information, all my questions have been resolved. Thank you for educating me :) Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comments. Overall, I thought this was a well-done article, but the reaction section is written almost entirely from the American perspective. What was the reaction, if any, in South Vietnam, and particularly in Saigon (especially considering civilians were injured)? Was the US blamed? Did people believe that the Vietcong were involved? Was there any reaction in North Vietnam (although I suspect that information might be difficult to find)? How were the bombers identified? Were they rewarded/punished for their actions? Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Added VC radio proclamation taking credit. Added details of a VC conference resolution (meeting was secret). No official reaction in NVN as they officially claimed to not be infilitrating the south at the time (noted in article). It's very typical in Asian countries, especially authoritarian nationalist ones, Vietnam is no different that people will never admit to any mistakes, so in newspapers and political speeches, they will always say that they won every battle, no matter how badly they actually lost. As you can't win a bombing, I wouldn't be suprised if there was no announcement at all by teh government or that the press chose to remain silent. The month before a whole pile of papers were banned by the govt for publicising VC successes...None of the books noted any south Vietnamese reaction...also the day of the bombing, the SV leaders had angrily denounced the US and threatened to expel the ambassador (background added) so maybe they were too busy to pay attention to a small bombing in terms of Viet casualties (5000 public servants inc teachers, nurses etc were usually murdered per year by the VC not in battle but by kidnapping and execution + soldiers etc), the impact of the bombing was mainly to embarrass the US Army. Well the bombers were never caught otherwise they would have been put to death, and probably owned up publicly after 1975 and they wouldn't have done a Hamas style suicide type otherwise their family would get put in jail. Karnow was the only person who interviewed the agent, the others just copied him, and he didn't give any other information about it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Other minor issue : Following World War I, the communist-dominated Vietminh - isn't that supposed to be WWII? Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed this. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support I think this has the potential to be a very nice article, but at the moment the prose is just not there. Examples below:

• "was an attack on the hotel of the same name in Saigon" - redundancy, try "was an attack on a hotel in Saigon"
• "The bomb was targeted at a building" - awkward, perhaps "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel, which housed"
• "with two aims in mind" - "two objectives"
• "However, the elections were cancelled" - doesn't need "however"
• Capitalise "North" and "South" when referring to the countries
• "With the Cold War in full-flight" - the correct colloquial term is full-swing, but I suggest using "at its height"
• The sentences that begin "The building housed . . ." would be better located after ". . . received orders from an intermediary to bomb the Brinks Hotel".
• "as a ARVN major" - "as an ARVN major"
• "going to a nearby café for sustenance" - no need for "for sustenance".
• "the explosion occurred" - "the bomb detonated"
• "causing a fireball to erupt" - "creating a fireball"
• "American entertainers such as Bob Hope" - "American entertainers, including Bob Hope,"
• "Some of our local squabbles will probably disappear in enthusiasm which our action would generate" - Are you sure this quote is correct? It doesn't seem to make sense.
• "However, at the time, the South Vietnamese government had been unstable" - wrong tense "However, the South Vietnamese government of the time was unstable"
• "Johnson administration officials concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack only a few days after the bombing" - this seems to (sort of) contradict the previous sentence - do you have nay more information on the investigation? Was this information released?
• "something that" - "a strategy that"
• "However, the attack fomented feelings of insecurity" - drop the "however", no paragraph should begin with "however"
• "This increased the tension between the president and his advisors" - with what result
• Its not essential, but do you know the names of the officers killed? It would be an interesting extra bit of information (according to , the only soldier recorded as dying on this date is Lieutenant Colonel James Hagen, so presumably the other death was from wounds some time later).

There's another guy who died a few weeks later with the same death description, both MACV and a few of the same RIP messages, so I think I identified them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is avery interesting article and once the above are dealt with I'd be happy to lend my support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all the rest. I'm surprised that Laser brain OKed the prose and another found fault (a first) but it's good to see the stds rising I guess. I fixed the above examples for you but I wonder whether I am capable of finding any more .... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'll do a second read through at somepoint today to see if there is anything else and decide on whether I can now support, but I think its likely that I will. The examples of prose problems were all I could find then, not a representative selection, and you seem to have taken care of them all, but I recommend another read through to check for redundancy and odd grammar. Good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A few comments but otherwise excellent and I support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel" - a bit repetetive, how about "Two Vietcong operatives detonated a car bomb underneath the hotel".
• "demonstrated the Vietcong's ability to strike in Vietnam" - presumably this is "South Vietnam"?
• "Secondly, it demonstrated" - did it actually demonstatrate, or was it "intended to demonstrate"?
• "Vietcong agents who escaped uninjured. One of them," - "who escaped uninjured" and "of them" are redundant and can be removed

Fixed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — YellowMonkey appears to be an inactive user now. I sincerely hope that he'll return to finish this FAC, but reviewers should be aware of this fact. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll volunteer to address the suggestions above and monitor the nomination until we know YM's status. Please give me 24 hours or so, as The Boss will have me fully occupied tonight. --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. EDIT: Struck oppose. Steve Generally well-written, seems well-sourced and comprehensive. I have a few issues, some of which you may disagree with, so feel free to rip me a new one in rebuttal! Comments follow. Steve

  Lead

  • "the explosion killed two American officers and injured approximately 60 military personnel and Vietnamese civilians." This could, if I'm being uncharitable, be interpreted as if to say 60 military personnel died, along with some Vietnamese civilians—but only if one walks into this article expecting clunky prose; perhaps I need to get out of that mindset.
  • "the bombing intended to demonstrate the Vietcong's ability to strike in South Vietnam..." Again, maybe it's me, but shouldn't that read "the bombing was intended" or similar? Otherwise, it sounds like the bombing's intent. Alternatively, recast the sentence to use the active voice ("The Vietcong intended the bombing to...").
  • Any real need to link United States, especially twice so close together (here and in the first section)?

Fixed these, apart from teh linking thing. Link once in the lead and once in the main body, per my personal habits.

• Background and planning

  • Consider linking "17th parallel" to 17th parallel north.
  • Shouldn't Lieutenant Colonel and Major instead link instead to Lieutenant colonel (United States) and Major (United States) in this context?
  • "They observed their target over a period of time..." Potentially ambiguous "they"; the bombers haven't been mentioned at this point for a few sentences, while several other subjects have.
  • Are we happy with "late-November" and "late-1950s"? To hyphenate seems unnecessary.

I nomrally do this. Tony1 (talk · contribs) is ok with it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "his partner dressed as a South Vietnamese officer..." The next section specifies a major, so perhaps we should be that specific here.
  • "over a period of time" Is this as specific as we can get? If so, consider removal/replacement with something more concise, or eliminating altogether.
  • Same "firstly" and "second" parallel structure requirement that Laser Brain mentioned above.
  • "because they using it"

Fixed the rest/ YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Execution

  • "The pair, one posing as an ARVN major and Xuan as his chauffeur..." Not sure we need this with the mention so close by in the previous section. Perhaps simply working in "were disguised" instead of the full descriptions would be suitable.
  • "Knowing from their intelligence that a certain US colonel had left for home..." I read this on the first pass to mean his "home" in the area, not the United States; only the clarification two sentences later made me backtrack.
  • "factually correct" Necessary?

Maybe. pruned to "correct"

• • Lots of repetitive uses of "the major"; the bomber appears to be unnamed, but perhaps that term (or similar) could be used to refer to him a few times.
  • "and that the American was still in South Vietnam." All redundant; the sentence begins with the clerk's telling the bomber that the colonel has left, following with the bomber's disputing it.
  • "The South Vietnamese government never caught the perpetrators." Doesn't fit in this paragraph, sandwiched between different aspects of the bombing, and perhaps doesn't fit in the section at all.
  • "was currently serving the MACV." "Currently" doesn't fit, considering this happened nearly 45 years ago. Removing the word retains the intended meaning. Also, is "serving the MACV" is missing an "in" or "with" after "serving".
  • "a total of" Almost always redundant.
  • "The injury reports are conflicting. Karnow reported that a total of 58 people (military and civilian) were injured, Mark Moyar reported that 38 American officers were wounded along with 25 Vietnamese civilians, while A. J. Langguth reported that 10 Americans and 43 Vietnamese were injured." With the exception of the wikilinked Moyar, perhaps it should be demonstrated in the text just why we're reporting the opinions of these people.

Done except Karnow who is already intro'd in the first section. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "girders supporting". The gerund requires this to say "girders' supporting" (you wouldn't say "me supporting", but "my supporting"). A lot of people don't like the way this renders; if you don't, then rephrase to avoid either version.
  • Comma required after Mr Hope.
  • "Lawrence J. Quirk reported that unharmed." Makes it sound as if it's Quirk's view that Hope and his troupe were unharmed, rather than fact.

Fixed these YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reaction

  • "of the time" Redundant.
  • "as numerous military juntas ruled for a brief period before being deposed by another." Does this mean that the government at the time was merely the most recent in a line of juntas? It's unclear. Also, should that be "brief periods" ? Unless that's the intent (several juntas in one brief period).

clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "who felt that the officers' disputes were derailing the war effort." Which officers? The junta's? It becomes slightly clearer in subsequent sentences, but be careful of too much elegant variation, which can introduce ambiguities such as these; the article is full of creative synonyms that are perhaps unnecessary, especially in the preceding section when referring to the bombers.
  • "General William Westmoreland, the US army head in South Vietnam, Taylor, and other senior US officers in Saigon..." Makes it sound as if "the US army head in South Vietnam" was a separate person to Westmoreland.
  • "the Vietcong having" Gerund → "the Vietcong's having".
  • "Johnson administration officials finally concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack four days after the bombing." Time-travelling Vietcong. Suggest re-order ("...officials concluded four days after...")
  • "international opinion towards an American air strike would be that Johnson was "trying to shoot its way out of an internal political crisis". Johnson is referred to as "its" here. Square bracket to , or reword to say the Johnson administration.
  • "Johnson was recorded in administration archives as saying to Taylor that..." I'm not sure all this is relevant. Why not simply say that "Johnson told Taylor that"? Unless his words in the archives are contentious in some way?
  • I altered a couple myself, but there are still several instances of BrE variation spelling throughout.
• Otherwise, it is a very interesting read, and while that might look a long list of issues, I'm sure there isn't anything that will take a long time to resolve. All the best, Steve 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Hope you don't mind, but I've made further language and MOS tweaks that I discovered on my second pass (it was quicker than listing them here), and you've addressed my other concerns more than satisfactorily. Nice work, Steve 10:09, 15 April 2009 (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 23:40, 29 March 2009 .

U.S. Route 50 in Nevada

Nominator(s): Dave (talk)

This will be my fourth road related FA if passed. This was by far the most challenging, but I think the most fun too. I've spent a year or so fine tuning this article and I believe it is ready.Dave (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is rough around the edges. I didn't read far before getting bogged down in confusing problems:
  • Is the Roads project seriously back to putting those little signs in the route table? They are awful. They are visual cues that draw the reader's eye in but don't offer anything.
  • Is there a link to where the A-class review took place? I can't find anything.
  • The language in the lead is confusing.. you have "areas .. traversed by the route", "US 50 follows a ... route", "route follows a ... corridor". To a lay reader, it's unclear whether the highway IS the route, or the highway FOLLOWS the route. If the latter.. how can the route follow something?
  • "US 50 crosses the central portion of Nevada, entering the state near Lake Tahoe and exiting near Great Basin National Park." This is a problem I always have when reading road articles: you seem to assume a "direction" that isn't apparent to readers. Which is east and west? Once established, why does the road "enter" on one side and "exit" the other as if it were itself traveling? The rest of the paragraph is no help.

--Laser brain (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment before I go to bed. It is the convention of the U.S. Department of Transportation that all roads begin in the south/west and end in the east/north. Obvious to us roadgeeks, but difficult to remember that many people in the world would have no way of knowing that. Thanks for the feedback, tomorrow I'll clarify that. I would encourage you to continue reading the article if you can. This article has had numerous rounds of reviews from within the US Roads wikiproject, but few reviewers outside the project, so your feedback is exactly what I need. Oh, and the ACR is here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 50 in Nevada.Dave (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One final comment, the use of marker images has been discussed ad nauseum, plus 100 more times, in virtually every forum in Misplaced Pages, WT:MOSFLAG, WT:USRD, WT:ELG, and various MOS talk pages. In all seriousness, you name the page, it's been discussed there. I do not consider this objection actionable, as every time its been discussed most people think they are appropriate with a few strongly vocal opponents. The last time it was discussed at MOSFLAG the consensus was that this policy does not apply. But thanks for the opinion. Dave (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've been reminded about the south/west and east/north thing before. That a regular WP user can't remember should be an indication to how well our casual readers will do. The only reason I raise the marker image issue is that the last time I reviewed a road FAC, I'm quite sure the images weren't present. I will live with it. --Laser brain (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead to hopefully be more clear. Please advise if you still have concerns.Dave (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.clui.org/clui_4_1/lotl/v27/k.html a reliable source?
  • I'll admit I have no personal experience with this organization, but they appear credible. They claim to have received several government grants for various studies, and their work has been recognized by others. . If these are not sufficient, could you expand on what makes you doubt their credibility? Worst case I do have other sources for this information, just not as detailed as this one.
• Likewise http://www.patricepress.com/books/580.htm?
  • The actual source of the data is the Lincoln Highway Association. Practice Press is just the publisher the association used. I'll clarify that with the rest of the fixes I plan to make tonight.
    • DoneDave (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, I know it's a tedious job.Dave (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Image captions which are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got those. Dave (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs (dabs checker tool)

• Need to be fixed.
• ..are up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

..are up to speed, using the link checker tool

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref name is directed at more than one specific ref, when it should only be directed at one specific ref

• AAA--₮RUCӨ 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. I believe they are all fixed now. Please advise if you still have concerns. Dave (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref formatting is also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• More comments:
  • "Some of these summits are over 7,000 feet (2,134 m) high, located in pine forests and feature 8% grades and switchbacks." Need parallel structure.. you have "are", "located", and "feature".
  • "Traffic along Route 50 varies greatly, with ..." The "with" is a poor connector; please revise.
  • You're not consistently using commas when beginning a sentence with "In <date>".

--Laser brain (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the Route description did have some poorly worded sentences. Thank you for pointing that out. I think I've got those fixed. Please advise if you see anything more.Dave (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• More - this is looking pretty good once I dive into it, so it's probably not far off:
  • "... however the Nevada Department of Transportation has announced that, upon completion, US 50 will be moved to a freeway alignment being constructed for Interstate 580." I'd prefer more durable prose that doesn't commit us to maintenance.
    • Of all your suggestions this is the toughest. I feel the need to include it, as if I don't some anonymous editor will, probably in a sloppy manner. However, your point is dead on.
  • "In addition to the trails of the Pony Express and Lincoln Highway, this portion also parallels ..." Spot the extra word.
  • I sure would love to see an article about Middlegate.. it sounds fascinating. Can you get someone to create a stub to research later? Is there some old fart that's been living there and running the shop for 80 years?
    • It's on my get around to it list. For the record, last time I was there the bartender was a pretty, young woman. You are correct that it's quite the curiosity. There's plenty of information about the place on travel blogs etc. the tough part is finding reliable sources.
  • If the Summits and Passes table has one source, I would prefer a footer row with a proper citation to having the table title footnoted. See an example of this in saffron.
    • Done.
  • "The original highway followed what is now US 93 Ely to the ghost town of Schellbourne, from there following a dirt road towards Tooele, Utah." I don't get what "Ely" is doing there.. is that part of the highway name? US 93 Ely? If so, it should be part of the wikilink. Or is it supposed to be from Ely?
    • it was a cut and paste error that didn't get noticed. Fixed.
  • "However, Utah instead favored ..." Spot the extra word.
  • Is there a reason for having non-breaking spaces between "US 50" but not things like "Route 2"?
    • Just being lazy, fixed.
  • "The border crossing was moved to avoid paving a route through Marjum Canyon in Utah." This requires more explanation. You've just said the paved route is 14 miles south - is that to say they moved it 14 miles south to avoid the canyon? Or were there other factors?
    • I re-worded this, please advise if its still confusing.
  • In the last section, you talk about portions of the road being closed... why? Disrepair?
    • Good catch. I found out from researching that it is not officially closed, although it might as well be. I have a four wheel drive, and I turned back =-) legible english.Dave (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Support, it looks good. Thanks for all your efforts and for your responses above. The Middlegate thing sounds like a challenge; if I can find some good sources, I'll let you know. --Laser brain (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments I gave it a quick read and made a few minor changes which hopefully should address any possible confusion of lay readers. Also, is there any way we can fix the stacking of the infobox and major cities templates? I know text shouldn't be squeezed between two images or templates, but large gaps in the text don't look good either. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The layout looks descent on my monitor. If it's rough on yours, feel free to play with the image layout, I always struggle with this. Dave (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I read it twice, made a few minor copyedits and I think it looks good. I bet you spent a lot of time on this, very comprehensive. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, yes of the 4 road articles I've nominated for FA, by far this one required the most time and research. I've debated including an extra sentence or two about the Pony express, which I may add shortly.Dave (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I will support it for FA:

1. Are alternate routes nessecarily considered "major" intersections?
   1. They are both among the 10 heaviest interchanges by AADT data. But I'll give you what is a "major" interchange is subject to interpretation.
2. Since this is a state-detail page, is it nessecary for "U.S. Route 50" to be bolded?
   1. This was discussed at In the past, the lack of bold title was causing grief for other FAC nominations, and subjecting these articles to vandalism edits from those not understanding the reasoning. So the project agreed to change the standard for state detailed articles, to be more agreeable with the at large wikipedia community.
3. "... traversing the resort communities of Lake Tahoe, the state capital,...", it may be helpful it indicate the state capital is Carson City
4. "In the stretch of highway between Fallon and Delta, Utah, a span of 409 miles (658 km), there are only three small towns, Austin, Eureka and Ely. This span is roughly the same distance as Boston, Massachusetts to Baltimore, Maryland or Paris, France to Zürich, Switzerland" - this information sounds a little trivial but interesting nonetheless.
   1. I agree this sticks out, but do feel the statement adds value. I've played with re-wording it a couple of times, if you've got ideas please share.
5. The "Loneliest Road in America" section in the Route description may fit better in the History section
   1. It was there in an earlier iteration of the article, and moved up by request. This paragraph has been a thorn. It's what give the article appeal to non-roadgeeks, so it needs to be prominent, but I agree that it's more historical background than route description.
6. In the sentence "Today, the Nevada Commission on Tourism sponsors a promotion where visitors can stop at several designated locations along the route, and request a state issued novelty passport with a stamp representing that location.", remove comma after "route"
7. In first sentence of "Western Nevada", it may help to indicate route continues from California
8. The route description section seems to go into unnessecary detail about the history of the towns along the route? Can more information about the route itself, such as what roads it intersects and what it physically looks like, be presented?
   1. I disagree. I think the "old west" mining character of the towns and the wide open spaces between them is what defines the character of this highway. I know some roadgeeks live for the GPS co-ordinates of the passing lanes, but I don't. IMO, that's what Google Maps is for, not Misplaced Pages. I would be willing to add a few statements to the effect that most of the highway west of Fallon is 4-lane, most east of Fallon is 2 lane, if that is agreeable. I have added two sentences stating basically that west of Fallon is well traveled and mostly four lane, east of Fallon is mostly 2 lane and very lightly traveled.
9. Is it standard to have the source spelled out and cited in the Summits and passes table
   1. In some projects, that IS the standard, WP:USRD is in the minority in not using this standard. was added per feedback above.
10. In history, It may help to mention when Pony Express and the Lincoln Highway were established
11. The sentence "The original highway followed what is now US 93 from Ely to the ghost town of Schellbourne, from there following a dirt road towards Tooele, Utah." sounds a little awkward
12. Change "These officials" to "They"
13. The sentence "This route was initially numbered US 50 from Ely to Wendover and US 40/50 across western Utah, however is now numbered US 93, US 93 Alternate and I-80." sounds awkward
14. "was cobbled together"? Is there a better choice of words that can be used here?
15. You use "the route of US 50" in two consecutive sentences. Can you change one of them?
16. Can another word be used instead of "via"?
17. In next paragraph, you use "The paved route" three times. Try using a greater variety in wording
18. The sentence "This route is mostly intact, however has been reconfigured to serve private residences in the canyon." sounds awkward
19. Is there any information about more recent history to the route that can be added?
    1. As in more recent than the Loneliest Road stuff?
       1. Somewhat, like any major construction projects that have happened along the route
          1. The "big" one is the Interstate 580 construction in Carson City, which the article touches on twice, and links to that article for more information. I'm not aware of any others.
20. Is there a more official source than Google Maps that can be used for the mileage in the major intersections table?
    1. Not that I've found, unfortunately Nevada DOT does not publish milepost logs.
21. In notes, U.S. routes should be mentioned like "US 395" not "US395"
22. Are state rotues in parentheses next to the road names unsigned routes?
    1. Yes. Although to be honest some of the intersections I've listed as signed may in fact be unsigned, NDOT's literature isn't 100% clear.
23. Why does the mileage in the major intersectinos table jump between different routes and not just reflect the mileage from which US 50 entered the state from California?
    1. The biggest reason is that it's not possible to drive, or compute mileage on the route as defined by Nevada DOT, as their logs use a routing that isn't finished yet, and doesn't show on most maps detailed enough to compute miles. The other reason is Nevada, similar to California and Ohio does not provide state wide mileage figures, only county wide. Then add that the problem county (Carson City) is the 2nd county traversed by the route, makes things even worse. If the problem county were only White Pine, I could do this without OR. However I can't compute statewide mileages without guessing mileages for an alignment that doesn't yet exist.
24. "Related routes" should be a third level heading
    1. Although the WP:MOS does not say this, most style guides I've read advise against orphan .1 sub headings in outlines. With that said, I see a valid point either way and am willing to change to meet consensus.
25. For reference 11, it does not appear to show the details of Stephen King mentioning US 50 in his book
    1. This reference does not mention US-50 by name, however the book Desperation itself does. What this reference does say is a cross country drive stopping at Ruth, Nevada. It's impossible to drive on paved roads to Ruth, Nevada without driving US 50. Then add the fact that the next source used says more or less the same thing, while mentioning US 50 by name. Putting those statements together, its an obvious inference well clear of the line of OR that US 50 is the highway being discussed.
26. For references 14, 15, and 38, is the source from "Department of Cultural Affairs - State of Nevada", "State of Nevada - Department of Cultural Affairs", or "Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs"?
27. Reference 27 links to the home page of the AAA and not a map
28. Reference 28 says nothing about the easternmost portion of US 50 being a scenic byway
    1. It's there. Click the link labeled "The Byways" at the top of the page, which expands the list.
29. Reference 34 is for a map from the USDA that has been uploaded to Commons. It may help to indicate this in the reference
    1. Agreed, but how would you do this? I'm not aware of a commons flag in the citation templates. So I'd have to do something like list wikimedia commons as an alternate publisher.
30. Reference 37 links to the home page of Benchmark Capital and not a map Dough4872 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)