Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 10 February 2009

February 2009

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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

Greece Runestones

Nominator(s): Berig (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I hope it satisfies the criteria. I is already of GA status but I have expanded it considerably since it reached GA. Berig (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Sources in a non-English language need to state such in the sources.
• You need to list the bibliographic details for Rundata, rather than just linking to the wiki article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the issues you indicated. As for Rundata, I'm not sure what you mean but I've now followed the instructions given by the Rundata project.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the Rundata, you need to list who is the publisher of the information, when it was published, etc. Just like you would for a book, etc. A link to their page isn't going to be enough, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just verified how the database is referred to in the bibliography of a scholarly work (Jesch's book Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age (2001)), and she writes "Samnordisk rundatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm)". If this is how scholars refer to the book in bibliographies, then why it is wrong for WP?--Berig (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the Misplaced Pages MOS doesn't allow the use of bare url links. That's why. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found a solution.--Berig (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked your solution and we're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Greece runestones.JPG - This image needs a description, author and date.

• Oops - I forgot to mention that this image needs a source. All maps need a verifiable source against which to check the information included in them. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have given the source the map. The original source was Rundata 2.0, but after the update of the database it is even more easily verifiable. It's Rundata 2.5 with map functions offering both Google Earth and the Swedish map provider Eniro.--Berig (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Almost all of the self-made images of runestones need a more preceise description than "stone" or "runestone". It is clear from the article that each stone has specific number, for example. I would include the number of the stone and its location on the image description page and any other information you feel is essential to identifying that particular stone.
• File:U 270, Smedby.jpg, File:U 922, Uppsala cathedral.jpg, and File:U 446, Droppsta.jpg,

• The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
• This image descriptions say that Johan Hadorph is the author of the image. According to Misplaced Pages's pitiful stub on him, he was an antiquarian who collected art, not an engraver or artist. Is Misplaced Pages's article simply incomplete (no, it can't be!)?
• I'm wondering if the Swedish PD release is quite right - what does Swedish law mean by "photographic works"? Does it mean original photographs? Is this image a photograph of the 17th-century engraving and would that count as an original photograph? I would have thought that this image would no longer be under copyright because the author's life + 70 years have passed (being that the author, whoever he was, lived in the 17th century).

• File:U 374, Örby.jpg and File:U 1087, Lövsta.jpg:

• The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
• I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.
• The image descriptions say that Johan Peringskiöld is the author, but our stub on both the elder and younger describes them both as antiquarians, not engravers or artists. Again, is Misplaced Pages simply missing information?

• File:Sm 46, Erikstad.jpg - Could we get a first name for the author? Also, I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.

Hopefully it will not take much time to resolve these issues. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to address all the issues you have indicated. As to the Swedish antiquarians of the 17th and the early 18th century, they were very different from those of today and they had to undertake considerable field work in order to find and document runestones. Drawing what they found in order to document it was a natural part of their work. The article antiquarian deals with how the profession has changed during the centuries. As to the Swedish PD releases there is the problem that if someone scanned a PD painting and published it after 1969, the particular scan is not free for use on Swedish Misplaced Pages. This has led some people to want to delete (from the Commons) what might be used on Swedish WP, and the Swedish PD tags are there to remind that the images are free whatever PD concerns that might possibly be raised.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, the article on Johan Peringskiöld explicity says that the elder made drawings of runestones, so I don't think we are missing information in that article.--Berig (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I must have missed that in the JP article - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's an incorrect {{main}} template at the top of the article (see WP:LAYOUT and the instructions on the template), I left edit summaries of MoS fixes needed, and I contacted User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty endashes in the citations. (I don't know where to categorize this article at WP:FA if it passes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. I have followed your edit summaries and hope that it is more satisfactory according to MoS now. If the article should pass, runology and runestones fall under linguistics at universities.--Berig (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Berig has done some great work here, not least taking so many photographs! As for classifying the article, I think "Art, architecture and archaeology" might be the most appropriate group. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, great article. I'm slowly going through it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work, Berig. The runestone photographs you've taken are extremely helpful, and prior to your great effort, were scantly found on the internet. I applaud the time and effort you've put forth into this; hunting these stones must have been great fun! I've gone through and done some minor prose adjustments and a little formatting. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks really interesting and well made. Ukabia (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article, it manages to present such an inaccessible topic in a very easily comprehensible way. I second Bloodofox' comment on the runestone images, you have clearly devoted yourself to that hunt! –Holt T•C 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Queries/Comments of --Redtigerxyz 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• In which language are the inscriptions in? If i interpret it right, in Old Norse. So why is the Latin transliteration included? Not much use for an English encyclopaedia reader. Even the Old Norse transcription can be put in some "Notes" like section. I just ignored 2 lines 30 times, as i can't understand them and how many readers will be able to read them?
• I was a little perplexed by the notations U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81. Can they be explained better?
• I came across Runestones of Högby, which has 3 runestones described (photos of all 3 by Berig, I must say Berig did a great job with the photos), Greece Runestones describes only one, namely Ög 81. 82, 83 are ignored. Can you please explain? --Redtigerxyz 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As is explained in the intro, the language is the Old Norse dialect of Denmark and Sweden (or Old East Norse). Informative articles on runestones usually provide both transliteration, transcription and translation of the inscriptions, and Rundata even provides transcriptions into both Old East Norse and Old West Norse (the Norwegian and Icelandic dialect). The annotations are the names that runestones virtually always have in scholarly literature, so if you read about runes and runestones, the inscriptions are usually named U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81, and so on. The first letter represents the province (U=Uppland) and the number represents the order in which they were documented together. This is scholarly practice. As for the Högby runestones, a great many runestones appear in groups, but they often do not tell a coherent story together as they may have been raised at different times and for different purposes, and among the Högby runestones, only Ög 81 tells about a person who went to Greece. Consequently, Ög 82 and Ög 83 are a bit off-topic in an article on the Greece runestones.--Berig (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add the info about the info about the notations somewhere in the article or a footnote. I still would prefer the non-English lines to be in footnotes, not much useful to a general English-understanding person. Haven't read the article in detail. Will surely do that tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will add some info about the notations in a footnote as you suggest. I think that the non-English lines are useful since they provide an easily verifiable way for readers to compare the pictures of the runestones with the translation into English thanks to the resource which is linked on the bottom of the page. Just check out words from the Old Norse transcription of any runestone with this tool, and you can verify the translations, and see that the particular runestone is listed with the notation system. Moreover, they don't take much space.--Berig (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• All images are right-aligned. WP:MOS reads:
  • "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox."
  • "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left"
• WP:weasel words: add reference and/or name of person who considers.
  • "Búi's location of death is not given, but it was probably in a way which was not considered as glorious as those of his brothers."
  • "the ornamention is considered unusual"
  • "The personal name that is considered most interesting by scholars is Ormika" exactly who?
• References needed:
  • Numerical data like "measures 2 m (6.6 ft) in height and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) in width," needs inline citations. Applicable to every section.
  • "Öpir, the most popular and productive of the old runemasters": point of view
• "The stone (U73) shares the same message as U 72 together with which it once formed a monument" So U 72 discusses Greece too?
• Please correct the links "refined Urnes (Pr5) style" etc. The organization of the article linked has changed since ;links aere first added. Have changed one, please check it, if correct.
• Overlink: "unorthodox use of the haglaz rune (ᚼ), as in hut for Old Norse út ("out")." 2 words in the sentence link to the same article. Please remove one.
• Sentence as above and "as in Ragnvaldr": Why is hut and g bolded? May be italics will be better alternative. ?
• Prose: Long sentences, which may be split as the reader may lose track of the beginning.
  • "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South, but it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." ---> for e.g. "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South. However it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." OR something like that. Can be done in better way when what i have written.
  • "Very few could boast of returning home with the honour of having been the captain of the Varangian Guard, and the name Ragnvaldr shows that he belonged to the higher echelons of Old Norse society, and that he may have been a relative of the ruling dynasty."
  • "Runestone U 328 relates that Ragnvaldr had two aunts, Gyríðr and Guðlaug, and runestone U 336 adds that Ulf of Borresta, who received three Danegelds in England, was Ónæm's paternal nephew and thus Ragnvald's first cousin."
• <br clear=both> are causing neccessary spaces.--Redtigerxyz 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• British English and American English spellings like "grey" and "gray" used together in the article. Stick to one: British or American --Redtigerxyz 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to stagger the images, but doing so only messes up the look of the individual sections. However, MoS only says that they "can" be staggered, not that they "should" or "must", so it does not appear to be necessary. U 72 does not mention Greece, it says "Gerðarr and Jôrundr have raised these stones in memory of their sister's sons Ernmundr and Ingimundr", which was intended to complement that of U 73, which is why they "share the same message". hut needs to be bolded per academic convention as it represents the runemaster's use of runes, and not the transliteration into Old Norse which would be ut or út. I'll remove the bolded g in the name Ragnvaldr since it was only intended to help the reader see what phoneme in the name that was pronounced in a special way. Otherwise, I hope that I have changed according to your suggestions. Please inform me if I have missed anything.--Berig (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missing dimensions in "U 140", U 518, U 1087 ("an unusually large and imposing runestone" is a view, numerical data is more precise) etc. Please search for more if any. Checked til U 1087 --Redtigerxyz 05:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added all the dimensions given in the official publication Sveriges runinskrifter.--Berig (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missing date for ref: (Swedish) Nordisk runnamnslexikon by Lena Peterson at the Swedish Institute for Linguistics and Heritage (Institutet för språk och folkminnen). --Redtigerxyz 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• File:Greece runestones.JPG; it would be nice to have an SVG version of this with actual place names on it; reading the article i was a tad confused about where the heck these stones are supposed to be. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that such a map would be feasible considering the great concentration of runestones just north-west of modern Stockholm. The exact location of every runestone is easy to find thanks to Rundata 2.5.Download here.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about marking every single location, but you've got an entirely blank map with dots; frankly, that reduces the usefulness of the map to absolutely jack. As for Rundata, I don't have a PC and this article should be able to stand on its own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added links to maps as provided by Rundata 2.5. I hope you think that the article stands more on its own now.--Berig (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Would something like {{Earth Labelled Map}} be an idea? Maps like that are incredibly userfriendly and informative. If it's worth the trouble, it'd be ideal. –Holt T•C 11:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be possible to make such a map work, considering the concentrations of stones you can see near Stockholm.--Berig (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that this issue is fixed now, thanks to Lokal Profil (talk · contribs). Clickable svg map with proper labels, couldn't ask for more! –Holt (T•C) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks to you who asked him :).--Berig (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Redtigerxyz above in that some explanation of the coding is needed for flow (though clearly not too hard to figure out). I would remove the mention of U112 from the lead s it is meaningless until the coding is noted. I'd put a short section called nomenclature or naming below the lead, explaining in 1-3 sentences what the letters and numbers are for, and who actually came up with the classification. This then helps explain the rest of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work. One more thing, a sentence at the beginning of that section stating who came up with the original catalogue for all the IDs and when? I note mention of national searches, was that when the bulk of them were found? That would be good to note as well as a one-liner here.

Thanks! I doubt that it think it is possible to find a reference for someone who came up with the IDs as they were the result of many scholars working together to produce catalogues since the 17th c. The custom derives from the runological tradition of just referring to the publication where scholars could read about the stones. In other words, the modern IDs replaced earlier IDs like B 123, where B stood for an 18th c. catalogue named Bautil and the number represented its order in it, or L 123, where L represented a catalogue by a 19th c. scholar named Liljegren. Consequently, when Söderberg and Brate produced the first tome of the official Sveriges runinskrifter, which is named Ölands runinskrifter (1900-1906), it must have been inevitable to continue the convention by simply referring to the Karlevi Runestone as Öl(ands runinskrifter) 1, since it is the first stone listed in the tome.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recall with Stonehenge much discussion on where stones were quarried and transported etc. Were all the stones local? It might be good to note something about common elements of their construction in a construction section (?) (not sure if enough is known (?)) - eg local, what is known about tools etc. all different/similar etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the transportation of loose stones by the great ice cap of the Ice Age, Sweden is incredibly richly endowed with glacial erratics of every possible size - and origin, and so the stones are presumably made from material available locally (it would anyway be impossible to prove any transportation of stones the way they can do in southern England). Often they simply engraved the inscriptions on boulders that they couldn't move, or on flat bedrock. As for the actual procedure of making the runestones, I think the best place for it is in the articles runestone and runemaster.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments I hate to say it, but my first thought on skimming this was that it's more of a list than an article. You have a lead and then a long list of items. They have more depth than some lists, but there is no prose flow and typical article organization. I'd like to toss the idea out there that this should be a Featured List Candidate, not an FAC.
  • "Contrary to the popular stereotype of Viking warriors, the individuals who served in the Varangian Guard were not uncouth ruffians ..." This sentence is much too long in the lead. Please break up.
  • "The first part is a letter that represents the area where the runic inscription appears ..." You go on to give examples that are more than one letter.
  • "If the inscription was documented later than the official publication, it is listed according to the publication where it was first described, e.g. Fv1958;252, which stands for Fornvännen, year 1958, p. 252." This doesn't make sense to me. Is Fornvännen the publication, then? The place? Why do you use an example that doesn't appear in the article? If Fornvännen is the city, the where is the page 252?
  • Just out of curiosity, is there a reason we don't provide the depth (thickness) measurement of the stones? Is it because they are all of a nominal depth?

--Laser brain (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • I have tried to fix the points you indicated. If there is anything I have missed, please tell me. As for the thickness of the stones, it did not seem that relevant. We are for instance not showing images of the runestones from the side.--Berig (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • What about my comment that this is more a list than an article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Hm, I see your point and agree. Thanks for your hard work. I switched to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks :)--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - All Swedish? Not one English source? I feel as if I should oppose based on comprehensiveness because there really should be something in English on the topic. Runes are an important study focus and this would definitely have something. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, more accurately, you could oppose on verifiability. "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." However, I seriously doubt there are authoritative English-language sources for this topic. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposing because my views are normally seen as controversial and I would rather not deal with it. However, I believe that there are many more English sources out there that are not mentioned. I have studied the history of the English language in multiple graduate classes. I have seen a lot of information that talks about runes. There are not that many, so these would have to come up a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • There are more than 6,500 runic inscriptions in Scandinavia alone, and this article concerns a tiny minority of 30 runestones. If you want to find detailed information about individual runestones such as these, you are restricted to scholarly works in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.--Berig (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I find that comment to be utterly absurd. Sorry, but I do. As I stated above, this is a major pursuit in those who focus on Indo European languages, which is a large portion of Linguistics. I know many people, Swedish, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, etc, who focus on runes and who publish primarily in English even though its not their native language. There are also many conferences that take place in English. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Can you please indicate *any* English language source that discusses one of these 30 runic inscriptions in detail, with history of discovery and dimensions?--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - There was an introduction of multiple English sources and an inclusion of extra background information that provides a more complete understanding that the original lacked. I definitely think that the page improved from the additional content and can be considered complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - comprehensiveness. First result in google books: The Varangians of Byzantium. An English work done by non-native English speaker and -translated-. Proof that there are English sources that can be used. Some links so that the writers can go back and have a start in reworking in English sources and making this page comprehensive: 1 and 2. Furthermore, "Greece" Runestones? I don't buy it as a term. Most hits would place "runestones" without capitalization, and many more separate rune from stone. This needs to be reworked with the large amount of English works with official English titles. There are plenty out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Note - "U 431" was pictured in one of my old linguistic texts. That's what tipped me off to this page being fundamentally flawed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  The major problem with your oppose is that you link to these 1 and 2 searches as indicating any major literature on these stones in English. There is not a single source that you have found that treats any runestone in detail, as they mention these stones in passing, as examples of particular words and voyages, and they can only be used as token references. As for your objections to the name, there is no conventional term for them in English, like there is in Swedish (Greklandsstenar). If you are serious with your oppose you should provide sources that can compare with the Swedish ones, and not just pretend that they exist.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Berig is right. As far as I understand, there is no comprehensive work that approaches this subject in the English language. You might find a picture here and there or an odd article about a specific runestone that has been newly discovered somewhere or about a particular inscription, but that's about the extent of it at this point. Runestones in general are poorly represented in English language texts. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated, there are no in-depth studies we know of that treat any parts of this particular subject. The name Greece Runestones is a fully functional and correct translation of the Swedish term, which naturally has not appeared in English yet, as there is no English literature on it. –Holt T•C 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct translation according to whom? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an "incorrect" translation according to whom, Ottava Rima? Holt is a Scandinavian and in a good position to judge the correctness of the translation. If you want to change the name it is up to you to show reliable and verifiable sources for a "correct" and established English translation of Swedish Greklandsstenar other than the one that is used here.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the stone that is at Oxford (U 104) is cited to Swedish sources. It is at the Ashmolean Museum . Nothing can be found in English? I highly doubt that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be no problem for you to provide a good English secondary source on the runestone (if such sources exist as you assert). You can't just assert things without providing any support for your views.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a peer review. This is a FAC. I am not going to do all of your research for you because you refused to go down to a library and find appropriate English Sources. What it looks like is that you simply translated from the Swedish page and refused to do any work beyond that. That is not FAC quality and is definitely not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you do not know of any secondary sources in English. Moreover, I'd be very interested in seeing that Swedish page, you claim that it looks like I have translated. Your oppose has nothing behind it and is very inappropriate for a FAC.--Berig (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Admit what? There are thousands of books on Runes at the Library of Congress. What do you want me to do, march down there and start giving you titles? The simple fact that you tried to claim that there aren't any sources in English is utterly absurd. You can't hide it by trying to claim that -I- have to do something. Your reluctance to even investigate for English sources to begin with shows that you shouldn't have brought this to FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out and that you ignored - one of the rune-stones is at an English museum, and yet you failed to get any English sources on that. Don't try to claim that there aren't any. All museums have records of their holdings. At the bare minimum, there would be an entry listing of the records. Yet, nothing in the article. That only verifies that you haven't done any appropriate research. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your intent is clearly disruptive. You post an oppose falsely claiming that the article excludes an amount of imaginary literature, and since you can't provide any evidence for this non existent literature you refuse to accept any responsibility to prove that you are honest. Anyone can pretend that there are unicorns and shift the burden of evidence on those that disagree.--Berig (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there. If you want to note something as uncited or inaccurate, you are welcome to post it, but you have yet to show any evidence for your claims. Furtheremore, are you seriously calling Berig lazy? Did you happen to notice that all of the photographs on that article were taken by Berig, that he's been working on this specific article regularly for months, and the he has addressed every concern brought up to him about it? I've always found Berig to be a perfectly reasonable editor here, even when we've disagreed. As I've pointed out before, it has been my experience that you're not going to find a definitive work on these works in English and, once more, you may find a paper about a specific stones or a few specific stones here and there (such as the case you've brought up), but beyond this English works on the subject are lacking. If you can come up with a definitive work covering the subject matter of Greece Runestones in English, I'd be happy to read it myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - disruptive? No evidence? Bloodofox and Berig, stop it right now. You have yet to answer why one of these was given to an English Monarch, is in an English Museum, and how there is not one -English- source on this item. English Museums document important pieces. English linguists discuss Runes. The simple fact is that there are sources out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many English language works on runes. However secondary literature on Swedish runestones in English is something that no one here but you has ever heard about, apparently. Too bad you refuse to cooperate and share any references with the rest of us (if such references actually exist).--Berig (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Case in point this. Now I expect an apology for not only be dragged in the mud, but actually trying to hide from simple research. As I listed before, this was one of the books on the google hits. Everyone can see it and find it. There are plenty more out there. Do the right thing, withdraw this FA and come back when you have finished your research. Furthermore, as the source points out, your translation was horrible sloppy and needs to be re-evaluated by proper sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another tertiary source which adds nothing that is not already provided in a more updated form by Rundata in English. You're gripping at straws, and you do not appear to be familiar with the difference between secondary and tertiary sources.--Berig (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to write the same thing. A tertiary source with little to add. If you look at his references, all the works are Swedish, and they are exactly the same works that Berig has used in this article. This Sigfús Blöndal, probably a good scholar, has not been able to come up with English works with original research. This is evidence pointing in this article's direction. –Holt T•C 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the damn copy editing. It makes it impossible to respond. You have been proven wrong by one simple hit, and it is from a whole book that devotes a large portion to these stones. One book from the first page of the google books hit. That proves that there are plenty out there that even a cursory glance would have discovered some. So, insult away, but this FAC is not even close to being comprehensive, let alone does it fall under Verifiability because it is based on translations that are provingly incorrect. You got the inscriptions wrong according to the source which goes into detail about the whole set of stones and provides legitimate translations for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is a tertiary source which is outdated compared to Rundata (2008) if they disagree on translation into English. You simply refuse to aknowledge that there are no secondary sources on these runestones in English.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

14 pages cataloging runes, providing context, and providing actual translation is more than what you have produced for most of them, especially when it puts into doubt your translations. Furthermore, user based translations need to be marked properly, which yours have not. Also, on the Museum stone (thats the only one I'm focusing on now, since it is so easy to find sources): this. It discusses the stone, how it got the stone, etc. So far, two big sources that contradict what you say now and in the article. Need I continue or will you apologize and withdraw already? So far, you are just wasting everyone's time. It is taking me mere seconds to find sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another, p. 361 of this about the presenter of it and how the process happened for it reaching the Museum. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another, U540 here. All it really requires is to type in runestone and the stone. Amazing how many hits come up, and google doesn't even have nearly 10% of books online, let alone journals and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, that beauty right there has most of the Upplandic Runes. But guess what, its a journal devoted to it, in English! Why? Because its a major field within Linguistics and English speakers pursue it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the low level of accessibility these books and journals have on Google Books, I have not been able to read the whole context, and cannot make a tenable statement on the links you have provided. To quote WP:V again, English sources should be used in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality. This is not the case here, from what I can tell. The best original research that has been carried out on Swedish runestones, is by the Swedes themselves. Tertiary sources are not of equal equality to the Swedish, secondary sources. What do you wish to prove/achieve? –Holt T•C 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that the term "preference" means replacing. No one has stated that these need to be replaced completely. The argument is that this page fails under the requirement that it reflects academic opinion. Ignoring the English interpretations and uses does just that. There is a whole journal devoted to one region listed. And you can use the term "Tertiary" all you want. The state of the article makes it blatant that every source used is tertiary, hence why there is almost no actual information listed on each Runestone. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe you need to reread the definition for "tertiary". A book that discusses the stones as part of the whole cultural phenomenon is not a tertiary source. A journal devoted to the region's runestones is not a tertiary source. A source that forms the Museums catalog and the stone exists at that Museum is not a tertiary source. So, throwing around misapplied ords to try and dismiss a source doesn't actually work. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will probably return to this soon enough, but I'd like to take a break to let the discussion rest a bit, like the others seem to have done. I believe we have met a dead end. If you wish to continue criticizing the article, I think you ought to write a list of the concrete issues you have encountered, so that others may get a decent overview of what you really are opposing. –Holt T•C 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, there is no way this article meets comprehensiveness. There is barely any information as is, and there are very few uses of English sources. The one source about the museum alone would add a few more lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Sawyer, B. (2000). The Viking-Age Rune-Stones (first name is Birgit, by the way) listed but not cited? This is a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information. When I was looking through the English sources, I figured that you had this and thus had some, but you don't use this. I picked up a copy of it, and it is a standard within teaching Runes in the US. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I cited it previously in the article since it contains some general information about voyages on runestones. However, I had to trim down the lead. Otherwise people would have opposed the article for having too long a lead. Since you have the book in front of you, you can see that the book deals with social life as evidenced on runestones and that it contains precious little on the Greece runestones. Please show us what important information I have left out that relate specifically to these stones.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, for some reason you call Sawyer's book a "catalogue of each of the Runes". Since I have read the book and it is nothing like a catalogue of runes, could you please explain what you mean? Maybe you are confusing "runes" with "runestones", but it is not a catalogues of runestones either, unless you are talking of the lists in the appendix.--Berig (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Its appendix is part of the book that collects a large list of pieces. That is a catalog. If you want, I can put together over 10 sentences to add in just three listings from the sources that I have posted here. Now, as anyone can see this book contains a lot of important background information. You don't explain in the article how the stones are a source for linguistic evidence. You don't explain how they are a source of customs. You go very little into the background of why these stones are even important. As of right now, this is merely a dignified list page. You can fix that by using books like Sawyer's and the Varangians book listed above to flesh out the importance of these stones.

Example of information that should be added: p. 20 "The wider context is suggested by the fact that only certain individuals, mostly men, are honoured, and that the emphasis is put on the sponsers.... Only eight of the (more or less complete) inscriptions lack a commemoration formula, but four of them are parts of double monuments and the formula is found ont he other stone. Two others (U 29 and 73) will be discussed in Chapter 5.6. It is obvious that the relationship between sponsers and the dead weree significant in determining who commemorated whom. A systematic study of all relationships has revealed patterns with distinct differences between regions that cannot be explained as due to chance; there must have been rules, principles, or customs determining who should commemorate the dead in this monumental way, and they were not the same throughout"

This is just information on one stone. There is no equivalent of this vital context within the article on the stone. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, pp. 114-115: "In Spanga parish we meet another Inga who had inhereited from her sons (U 72 and 73). After her death her brothers, Gardar and Jorund, inherited from her, and - as in Gerlog's case - we can only speculate what happened to the inheritance after that. We can be fairly certain that Gerlog did not leave any heirs, and it is at least likely that neither Gardar nor Jorund did so either. Since both inscriptions describing those inheritance cases (29 and 73) are among the very fw that do not state who sponsored them, it may well be that in these cases there was no claimant other than the Church, which then took responsibility for the commemorations." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The only Greece runestones that you can find any information on in Sawyer's book are U 73 and U 136, since they concern what Sawyer is interested in. However, I think it is a bit off-topic to add Sawyer's theories on the runestone tradition, since it would bloat an already large article, and such information properly belongs in the article runestone. I still don't understand how you can call Sawyer's book a "catalogue", which it definitely is *not*, as anyone can see in its list of contents.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloat? No. This is an incomplete article on a large topic. Adding ten more sentences from Swayer would not bloat it. Adding two more sentences from each of the other sources will not bloat it. You have nothing on the themes and images that connect them, let alone the major tradition. you have stones, a base examination of what they say, and a tiny history. You even only have 129 footnotes. There are much larger and better footnoted articles out there, so don't mention bloating when it comes to an oppose that says that this is not fully comprehensive. You have two books that talk about some of the runes that need to be added. You have a journal that is devoted to all of the U runes that should be examined. You have information on a museum piece that should be discussed. You really should think about adding in some of the required information instead of responding that you can't. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 000 runestones in Scandinavia, of which these runestones constitute 1 %, and there are more than 200 runestones that mentions voyages. The only thing that makes these stones a special topic is the fact that they mention Greece and can be connected to the Varangian Guard. There is nothing else that these stones share that they do not have in common with other runestones. Writing on traditions, "themes and images" is preposterous when these things do not set the Greece runestones from other stones, and are much more appropriately covered in generic articles like runestone and runestone styles. If you want to continue old habits in this discussion and also be the only one to oppose this article, be my guest. I don't think we will get any further in this discussion. Cheers!--Berig (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Berig, now you are being completely incivil. You have failed to address the topic at hand. You were given multiple sources and failed to meet it. This oppose is over a fundamental requirement and can be used to deny the whole page as an FA. I produced two books that heavily deal with these stones and with the Varangians. I produced a whole journal devoted to the one region's stones which have articles talking about many of the stones listed. I have produced articles about the museum piece. What is your response? Attacks, deflections, and claiming that there is no information. You are disrupting your own FAC by refusing to fix the blatant error. Why? Do you have no respect for this process at all? You obviously have no respect for me with your personal attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to address your objections, Ottava, when they are riddled with factual errors and show a hasty and poor judgment of the topic and sources that appears to be made ad hoc. You call Sawyer's book a "a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information", which is as preposterous as calling a book on medieval manuscripts, a "catalogue of Latin characters", and I hope you understand that people are prone to seriously question your seriousness or honesty when they check out the book's list of contents. You pretend that the two books you refer to "heavily deal with these stones", when Sawyer's book only mentions two of them, and Varangians and Byzantium is a tertiary source that is not specialist literature on these stones, although I agree that it is a useful book. It is difficult for me to find anything that should be worth objecting for in what you write. It is your behaviour here that caused me to check out your block log, which shows that I am far from the only one to have had this kind of discussion with you Ottava. I don't think we get any further in this discussion. Sorry!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Berig, your response does little for you. You attack my use of the term "catalog", when it is clear that the source has a large list of various stones, goes through and analyzes commonalities, and address a lot of points that are not included in the article. Yes, a lot of points are not included in the article. Comprehensiveness means that nothing major is left out. Talking about the classification type of the stones and other linguistic features found in the various sources that I have point out is a major gap. And you can say they are "tertiary" all you want. It does not make them so. Instead, your response makes it seem like you are unwilling to actually do research, which completely undermines any credibility you have at this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The headache comes when we discuss sourcing if all the Secondary sources are Swedish and the English language ones are all tertiary. I consider myslef fairly well read and I had never in my life heard of these stones before (ever!). Which I was impressed by. I don't have a problem with using swedish only - this is an unusual case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - But File:Greece runestones.JPG does need some context. Maybe just the name of the waters, name of one of the islands, or one current major city, but at least something. Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a new version according to your suggestions.--Berig (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (for the moment)_{(see below for my updated opinion) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)}: I have to say I'm not a connoisseur in this area, but I do have a number of problems with this article:

• 1. the lead does not at all summarize the article content! This is absolutely crucial for being even a good article (see WP:LEAD for the guideline). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have summarized to the best of my ability. If you have any suggestions for how to do it in a better way, I'd be most grateful.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as an easy rule of thumb, every (shorter) section (or subsection) in the body should be summarized by one sentence in the lead. Vice versa, a paragraph in the lead should correspond to a (longer) section. From what I can see, the second paragraph in the lead is not at all covered by the main body. You could consider moving this to a sort of "Introduction" section. This would shrink down the lead by about 50%, which gives you the space you need to cover the content of the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you moved that paragraph as an extra section, which I think is better. The rest of the article still has to be summarized. WP:LEAD puts it very nicely: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (emph. added). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a new try.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2. the language, especially in the lead, is not encyclopedic: "the Guard represented an irresistible attraction to young, adventurous Scandinavians" (emphasis added) and further similar phrases sound a bit like a fairy tale. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address this now.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you did this one. Others remain, e.g. "to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" sounds a bit enthusiastic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been removed now.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• 3. the very first image would be better if it mentions that we are seeing Sweden. Otherwise it may be hard to read. Even better would be to draw the regions mentioned later in the text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you have already added some better known locations. They are (IMO) too small to be easily readable in the thumbnail view. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added to the caption that the map shows southern Sweden.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 4. Why is it that practically no english source appears? The titles Swedish sources should be translated. Also Rundata 2.5 for Windows is overlinked (in the footnotes). The external link lacks an accessdate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There is virtually no secondary literature on these runestones in English. You can find them mentioned in some English secondary literature, such as Jesch's Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse, but they don't specialize on these runestones and only mention them superficially.--Berig (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This claim has been exploded in the above discussion. There is a journal devoted to just the one type of stones, two books that, if used, would double the size of two of the stones, background information on another stone, which means at least three (discounting the journal) sections could be double their current size with new information that is lacking. That is a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 5. The article seems to lack good global structure. Actually, it could be a candidate for Featured List instead? From what I can tell, a section summarizing the common features of the stones would be good (or necessary), answering questions such as: When have the stones been built/erected? Who coined the term "Greece Runestones"? Are there other runestones from a similar period, but unrelated to Greece? (The navbox at the top makes me think so). In other words, more context should be provided. When have they first been studied/described in scholarly literature? What, in addition to all of them being related to "Greece", makes them one entity, so that a common name (and a common WP article) is justified? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a category of runestones, and not a special topic in runology. They don't have an established name in English, but they are called Greklandsstenar in Swedish of which Greece Runestones is a reasonable translation, IMO. The only thing that sets these stones appart from other runestones is the fact that they mention Greece, and so IMO the things you ask for are more properly treated in the article runestone.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there is a parent article on runestones does not exempt you from the duty to give the context of your topic w.r.t. more general topics or related topics. The information you just provided above would be good to tell in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • As for my not considering it a list I have answered the question above, but I'll repeat it here for convenience: I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit at the border between article and list. See below for a suggestion. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• What do the signs "×" etc in the latin transliteration mean? Why are they boldface and the Norsk transcription italic (neither should be highlighted, according to MoS). Also uncommon letters like þ should be explained, perhaps in a footnote. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • • • According to scholarly convention, transliterations of runes into Latin letters are to be in bold, while the transcription into a normalized Old Norse are to be in italics. Surely, WP should respect such conventions. As for the x sign it represents a dividing marker in runic inscriptions, but it can also look like a *. I don't think it is actionable to make Greece Runestones into an extensive discussion on runic transliteration and transcription for which there is already an article.--Berig (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have added a line that should help with the queries you have.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I still don't find it particularly enlightening. I was thinking of having a brief section à la " The stones use the dialect of ... The meaning of ×, þ is the following: ... " Try to write an inviting, yet brief overview of what is needed to appreciate/understand the sequel! Pointing to Runic transliteration and transcription and Runestone styles is not doing the job, mainly since the article should make an effort of being reasonably self-contained, and also since the two articles are not terribly helpful (they don't mention the x signs, for example). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section on this now. I hope that the present version is more helpful.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Jakob, for your comments. This article has been listed here for almost a month, and finally a person arrives to convince me that this topic cannot possibly become the subject an FA. I have asked SandyGeorgia to delist it. Thanks, again!--Berig (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure it is impossible to make it an FA. Many of my concerns above are amenable in an article but it would require a fair amount of additional effort, I guess. However, I also think doing that in short time may be too much, so delisting seems the best plan. Good luck with the topic... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia says that there's a good level of support for the article being an FA, so maybe I should make a try. Although I'm not sure whether I'll be able to satisfy your terms enough for you to support the article, I'll try to amend what I think is actionable.--Berig (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakob makes some good points. This can be an FA and will need some tweaking. Don't be afraid to withdraw, rejig and renom, or maybe have a go now. Much of the lead is actually background expalnation which should be a section called Purpose or something (not a general Introducion or Overview section as it is quite specific - the reasons teh stones were built. This is very doable, but it is late here and I need to sleep. I am juggling too much but may have a look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Any help at improving the article will be most welcome :).--Berig (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• To what extent did you use the website nationmaster.com for writing this article? That page is incredibly close, both in terms of article structure and content. There are differences, but I'm led to believe that the WP article is a derivation of the said website and not the other way round. For example "Most of the men for whom the stones were raised died there, but some returned with riches" (nationmaster) and "However, some runestones tell of men who returned to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" (WP). It looks like the WP version tried to reword the Nationmaster version. Another example, Berig derived the very first image in the article from this file on meta (by removing some of the irrelevant dots, it seems) and very recently (today) added captions to the image (Oslo, Stockholm etc.). The new version of the file looks exactly the same as the corresponding illustration at the nationmaster article. Unless there is a good explanation that I do not see right now, I believe this article contains a fair amount of copyright infringement. Berig, and others who are writing on the article, please explain. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you automatically assume that we have taken any information from Nationmaster, and not the other way round? I'm sorry but I didn't even know that NationMaster existed until now, but apparently it uses content from WP.--Berig (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got the impression, but I asked you. I also just see that it uses WP content. So, don't worry. Probably they just copied an old version of the WP page. Never mind. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it uses a very early version of the article, from long before it was nominated for GA.--Berig (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the previous comment. I should have checked more calmly. However, other issues and ideas come to light when reading more in detail:

• Johannes Bureus is overlinked. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• After thinking more about it, I would suggest reformatting the article. The current problem is still that the reader will have a hard time telling what the common features are and what makes certain stones particular in certain respects. For example, imagine a reader that is curious about who did scholarly research on the gadgets. The article leaves him/her puzzled, since the information is all over the place. Here is my suggestion for a, as I think better, article structure:

• 1) Lead section (summarizing everything with appropriate weight)
• 2) "Historical background" (brief mention of Varangian guard and generalities on Swedish or Scandinavic warriors abroad or such things)
• 3) "Runological background" (or a more intelligent title) (expound on the language back in 10xy; key notions of runology, in particular explaining the signs showing up later; description of (really only) main facets of the runology styles that you use later; things like "The erratic use of the h-phoneme..." belong here)
• 4) "Research" (start off with Johan Peringskiöld (1654–1720), to finish with the Rundata project; somehow indicate that most or all of the research is done by Swedish people; nomenclature)
• 5) "Description of the stones" (this is the most difficult section, I guess): writing one section about general features of the stones. Try to delineate what is more or less the same with every stone. Try to highlight interdependencies such as the one U 112 and U 328,336. Leave any interesting particular facts about individual stones for following section
• 6) "Particular features of individual stones". Don't be shy about trimming down. IMO, things like "Although the landowner was reported to have been careful when he raised the stone, some pieces were accidentally chipped away and the upper parts of some runes were lost." could do with some trimming. Likewise, "... The next time Djurklou visited the location, he was satisfied to find the stone raised in the cemetery." Also "satisfied" is clearly superfluous.
• 7) A table about minor facts, such as heights, material etc., or even consider putting that into a separate list-style article.

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the verse on Ög 81 repeated twice? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  The first time, it shows how the poetry is intended to be read, but I'll remove it since you think it is superfluous.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• What does "Danegelds" mean? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  Protection money paid to Viking chieftains so they would leave England alone. I have linked it now.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I striked out some comments of mine which are now addressed. I don't want to insist on a reformat of the whole article (even if I think it would improve the article a lot, make it possible even shorter(!), and more understandable do a broad audience). However, the criticism w.r.t the lead is still not covered adequatly, in my view. Once this issue is resolved, I'm going to change my vote to neutral. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to expand the the lead to summarize the entire article without going too much into detail which would explode the size of the lead. I agree that doing as you suggest could make the article shorter, but it would make it look like these stones are unusual in other respects than the fact that they mention Greece. Every runestone is unique, but AFAIK, the Greece Runestones are only a special group by mentioning Greece.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've struck my oppose vote above and change it to neutral. I still think there is space to improve the article, along the lines outlined above; but the article definitely did improve quite a bit in the last weeks, thanks to Berig's concentrated efforts. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your suggestions have helped improve the article.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Not there yet in terms of professional-standard prose. Too much redundancy and awkward phrasing. Spot check on a couple paragraphs reveals this:

• "The stone was already in a ruined state when Rogberg depicted it in 1763." What is "it" referring to here?
• "used to be located outside the church of Kölaby in the cemetery"
• "The stone consists of flaking gneiss and it measures 1.85 m (6.1 ft) in height and it is 1.18 m (3.9 ft) wide." "and ... and" is an indicator of too many ideas in one sentence as it is currently phrased.
• "that it was located in the rock fence"
• "It was in the same spot in 1869, when Djurklou visited the stone." The logical order of the sentence is confusing. Try "When Djurklou visited the stone in 1869, it was still in the same spot."
• "Djurklou considered its state to be unhelpful" What does "state" mean here?
• "since a part of the runic band was buried in the soil," "since" is often ambiguous, do you mean "because"?
• "There was only one rune stone in Småland that mentioned Greece. The stone has disappeared, but not before its inscription was recorded by runologists." Source?
• "a statement which is contradicted by later depictions."-->a statement that is contradicted by later depictions.
• "In a traveller's journal made in 1792 by Hilfeling" You don't "make" journals, you write them.
• "it is likely that it was indeed at their time used as a bridge." What does "indeed" add here? The order is off; try "it is likely that it was used as a bridge at their time." It is unclear what "at their time" means (who is "their").
• "In 1822, Liljegren arrived to depict it and a surviving yet unsigned drawing is attributed to him (see illustration)." These ideas seem unrelated, why are they connected by "and"?
• "that the runestone some 40 years earlier "-->that some 40 years earlier, the runestone
• "Someone had at that time decided to remove" Obviously it was at that time
• "However, it was not possible for the runologist to find any remaining runes on what was supposed to be the runestone." Was it really impossible or was he just unsuccessful in his foray? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of your objections are a matter of taste, but never mind. I have changed according to your suggestions. If you spot any further cases of poor English, please inform me and I'll take care of it right away.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support great article about an interesting subject. Meets all FA criteria, I hope it gets featured. I did not find the prose to be a problem and I thought the sources were fine. I liked the structure of the article and I found it very comprehensive with terrific pictures. While I think the article could be improved as per Ottava's and Dabomb87's concerns, I don't think that they should prohibit advancement to FA because at present the article meets FA criteria and these comments could be addressed with minor adjustments afterward. NancyHeise 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I agree that while prose needs some polishing, it is not urgent enough to impeded FA status. I struck my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't Scandinavians (in the lead in) be changed to Norsemen since Scandinavians is a disambiguation page. /Lokal_Profil 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments Not going to block its promotion, but I still see some issues.

• "About 3.000 runestones" Use commas, not decimal points, to break the sequence of every three zeros.
• "9,1–10%" And here, use a decimal point (period), not a comma.
• "Several runestones explicity talk of inheritance such as " I don't thing runestones have a voice.
• "The last stone to be found was a stone in Nolinge" The second "stone" is redundant.
• "The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson who was the "-->The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson, the
• "The later version which was written down 1250–1300 adds"-->The later version, which was written down from 1250 to 1300, adds
• "Among the runestones, 9,1–10% report that they were raised in memory of people who went abroad, and the runestones that mention Greece constitute the largest group of them, being only rivalled by those that mention England, and the Ingvar Runestones raised in memory of the Ingvar expedition." A bit long and rambling. Split this up. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb87! I have fixed these issues.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 9 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs

Did you know? That Sigourney Weaver was the inspiration behind the shapeshifting convict Martia, but the role went to supermodel Iman? That actress Kim Cattrall posed for nude photos draped on the USS Enterprise bridge set; the resulting shots were deemed dangerous to the franchise and Leonard Nimoy personally ripped them all up? That the alien Klingons claim Shakespeare to be one of them? You would if you read this article. Images were run through by Awadewit (see article talk page) as were refs by Ealdgyth, I don't believe they've changed much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments I watched this film so many times when it first came out on VHS . . .

• Is it necessary to note in the first paragraph that the film came out during the franchise's 25th anniversary? The second paragraph provides better context.
• Don't need to note Eidelmann's age in the lead.
• The plot summary needs a copy edit.
• "Casting director Mary Jo Slater loaded the film with as many Hollywood stars as they could afford, including a cameo appearance by Christian Slater in a likely attempt to lure younger audiences" That sounds like speculation.
• Any reason as to why the filmmakers gave Sulu his own command?
• Maybe it's just me, but I find it hilarious that the Valeris link takes people to a list entry that's even shorter than the space devoted to her in this page. You really don't need the link, or similar links for minor characters without their own article.
• Add a citation to the information contained in the Christopher Plummer photo.
• The mention of Rene Abjenjrhnds;gjkbskopous being cast as Odo later on is essentially trivia.
• The production section is massive. The subsections within are massive. I'd advise removing the "Production" heading and make all the third level headings second level headings. While you're at it, make a a subsection devoted exclusively to makeup, since the "Design" section spends four weighty paragraphs on it.
• "Less evenly received than other elements were the Cold War allegory and the whodunit aspects of the film" This seems like too much of an assertion to make. Rephrase.

That's the basics of what should be addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone through and delinked, removed, and cited as above, did as best a copyedit as I could on the film (it probably needs someone unfamiliar with the text to check it though.) Two things, however; I've reworded the bit about critical reception, but I'm not sure if that addressed your point or not. Also, breaking up production into further sections would result in excessive whitespace due to image placement, and I don't really see how removing a heading helps any. I figure it makes sense to keep production elements identifiably organized (similar methods are used in video game articles, for example subsections in Halo 3#Development).

Just remove some images. We really don't need that image of Walter Koening, for example. WesleyDodds (talk)

It's in the beginning of the development section, removing it will only leave a block of text you dislike. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cut down on some images and cut the huge blocks of text into more manageable subsections, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comment: Check yer dabs! I'll give the article itself a read closer to the weekend. Steve 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: Awadewit has not stricken all of her concerns off at Talk:Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country#Image check; three still exist. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to suggest that they had been completed per criteria, just that a preliminary check had been made of the talk page and so image reviewers could look at that for reference/inspiration/what have you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let us get started then.

• File:Star Trek VI-poster.png: a rationale for this image as an idenitification shot too?
• File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png: I am not certain we need to illustrate Excelsior, but the Praxis effect has a strong case. The question is would this or this be better pictures to illustrate this technique?
• File:Hiro narita.jpg: if the author wishes to release under another license other than what Flickr specifies, then it should be through the OTRS. Stifle has pointed out that submitted OTRS:2380210 is yet again different from the information given. You might want to investigate the situation further.
• File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png: the rationales are not convincing; illustration of main character and phasers would not hurt the article if removed. The explanatory labels are too small to be read. The subtly worn areas might just be lighting and texture, not paint, hence questionable. The cramped set design could qualify, but would this or serve that rationale better?
• File:David-warner-2008.jpg: though CC-2.0, the caption could be misleading; he is not in his make-up.
• File:St6-klingon dinner party.png: again, illustration of characters is not a strong point. Showing the reuse of a set is not strong either, since readers might not be familiar with TNG in the first place to make the association. Costumes and cuisine choice could qualify, but would this, this, this, or this be better choices? Costume might be more clearly illustrated with this.
• File:St6-klingon blood.png: the rationale could be better focused on the CG-ed blood, describing the image is to illustrate the shape and dynamics. Personally, I think this is a better image to do that.

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the extraneous tags to the hiro narita image, as the OTRS wasn't really essential with the Flickr link anyhow since he changed the license; I've also added to the FUR of the poster and reworded the caption so it's clear that just David Warner. In regards to rationales; I'm trying to cram in as many elements as is possible. Segregating fair use images into sections that only illustrate single elements is a bad idea. Yes, there are pictures that better show blood and better show blue food and better show characters and better show the wear and tear built into the design and better show the gallery and better show the set and better show the uniforms, but I am constrained by minimal use and have thus chosen images which combine as many of these elements as possible; featuring the Excelsior, filmed specially for this film with a different lighting scheme, as well as the Praxis wave. Main characters commented upon in the text, as well as props, a point of contention amongst fans (the galley), the wear on the vessel and explanatory labels (I don't think you really need to read a label to understand what it is, especially when the captions tell readers exactly what they are looking at.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use pictures are to clearly illustrate and help the commentary/criticism. The current picture of Valeris and the phasers, for example, does not convey a sense of cramped spaces (although that rationale can be removed). The explanatory labels in this picture is not clear enough to illustrate that they are in such detail that Nimoy called corrections for typos. Personally, tuc0641 better illustrates cramped spaces and could qualify on the same level as the Valeris shot for explanatory label (there is one on the upper left). The quality of tuc0641 is, however, poor; the shot lacks an object of focus. Image tuc0443 is a lesser shot for cramped space (but better than Valeris), and shows a large part of the cast with uniforms and on the same level for "painted wear and tear" with the Valeris shot (bottom right corner). For the blood part, the suggested picture shows the dynamics better than the current picture (more distinctive globules and spray pattern), and even serves for the demonstration of costume that the current image's rationale purports. Neither shot aptly demonstrates the Klingon corridors though. For the dinner picture, tuc0148 shows Gorkon's costume at about the same level of detail and better illustrates the disgusting appearance of the food. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the FUR for the Klingon blood and replaced the image, as I agree it is a better shot. But I still have to disagree with the others. The image of just the wave, for example, gives readers no sense of scale; the ship is integral to providing that, and adds more usefulness to the image. Swapping out the galley shot for an image of the uniforms is foolish, as they are already discussed in Star Trek II in length and they are visible in the shot as well. I'm trying to place in as many elements as possible, I do not see why this is an issue; if you think the resolution can be bumped up, that is a different matter, but it's per spec with rez guidelines. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of Excelsior as a scaling device is a good one, and I agree with that. I have rewritten the rationale of that picture to reflect that (please review it), and struck it off as an issue. Images have to show its purpose clearly, regardless of whether the intent is shown only in a small portion or as the main subject. The Valeris shot's kitchen utensils are blurry, even on the original screen capture, and might be mistaken for something else. I would posit that for a combined rationale of galley, labels, and wear and tear of walls, this (tuc0387), this (tuc0389), or this (tuc0390) (not so much as the first two) are better as they show the kitchen with greater clarity while retaining the same level of details as the Valeris shot. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The original image I had in the shot was of Valeris vaporizing the pot (tuc0389.jpg) but Awadewit voiced the opinion that the labels and wear and tear were much less visible, hence the shot was replaced with the current one. Chekov is currently in an article and probably will be again, and Spock is in the dinner scene with Gorkon (and in a side profile, which has the advantage of better showing the ear design which Nimoy specifically asked for.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick: original shot of Valeris vaporizing the pot is tuc0388, not tuc0389, and the current image has only a partial back shot of Spock (not really identifying). How about putting tuc390 (Spock with labels and clear pots) in, and replacing the dinner shot (no food, partial back of Spock, partial Gorkon's and Azerbur's fronts) with tuc0137 (clear food, other Klingons, Gorkon's back, and Azetbur's front) or tuc0148 (clear food, other Klingons, full smaller Gorkon's front, no Azerbur)? For the last image, Gorkon's costume would likely not be visible in default thumbnail, but is visible in the 450px wide resolution for the File page. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we still lose Valeris, who isn't going to be found in any other article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain that is a reason, it is not possible to have a picture of every character in every film in this project while abiding the policies. I do not see the non-depiction of Valeris as a loss. Anyway, the last two images, in my opinion are not opposable issues (the opinions involved are mainly subjective); I just think they could be better. They are left unstruck for discussion. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dinner and Valeris images were removed per below, thus stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I never get to do full reviews of these articles... they always get promoted before I get to them! (Shows how useful I am.) Anyway, I am hesitant about the usage of File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png. It is not immediately clear what the fair use rationale is (one has to go to the image description image to find out). So its presence in the "Plot" section appears to be decorative, since that section cannot support any image. We have at WP:FILMNFI: "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Either it could be moved, or an explanatory sentence could be inserted a la Dirty Dancing, but the latter approach feels very awkward to me. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't around when the film guideline was crafted, so I can't speak for it. Common sense: images are always decorative in some fashion. In terms of images, moving the Excelsior later results in an article that is frankly not that interesting to look at above the fold, with squashed together images later on that is similarly unappealing; while that's not exactly the best defense, the image is still covered by NFCC in that it provides immediate visual information that is referenced several times throughout the article, starting from simple plot illustration to aiding critical commentary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the visual appeal, but not the above-the-fold argument. Even with the TOC hidden, I only see a sliver of the image at my 1280x800 resolution, and it seems like a bigger resolution is necessary to even view the image. Why can the "Plot" section not exist without any images? Can the sections not be re-shuffled to put those with visual appeal at the top? There is no clear guideline for placement, but I don't think it's within NFCC to say that the screenshot can illustrate the plot on a simple level. It seems a bit of a reach for readers to understand the significance of an image when the commentary for it is either in the image description page or at another part of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• A Praxis effect shot can exist, even in the Plot section; the image, however, must clearly illustrate the effect, explain why this shot illustrates the effect and why removing it would hamper the readers' understanding of the effect. Furthermore, the caption should be appropriate, relating to both plot (for context) and effect (a successful technique that would be used for other films). Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a tad. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Either use pp or don't use it. Need consistency there. Also, pp. is usually only used for more than one p.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Films are a bit out of my comfort zone, but the article looks be of high quality.

• My main concern is that the length is a lot to take in. I'm not complaining about the details, but I found myself having to refer back to the "Plot" section frequently for reminders of what element (especially with a large number of unconventional names) was being discussed to fully understand the later "Production" subsections. Not sure how to fix this though. Maybe include a few reminders or hints here and there about the element. "Penal colony Rura Penthe" is a good example of one that helped me remember, but something like "The battle above Khitomer" had me scratching my head until I checked the plot again.
• I agree with the comments above for File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png and File:St6-klingon dinner party.png. Those two images add the least to the article. I know images that consolidate elements are preferred, but these end up showing very little of their intended elements. I don't think much is lost by their removal. For instance, I didn't really need an image to visualize dyed squid and pasta or wear and tear on sets.
• There are several lengthy quotes in the "Reception" section that should be paraphrased/summarized.

Those are the main things that popped out to me. Overall, the article is in excellent shape. (Guyinblack25 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I've removed the images, and gone through to shorten/paraphrase some of the passages. Do they look better now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotes you tweaked are better, but it's still too much in my opinion. I think more summarizing would be better.

In regard to Laser's opposition below, I don't think the "Themes" section is a disappoint. But after looking at that section again, I do think the last paragraph of it should be further expanded if there are the sources to do it. It seemed to me that the Shakespeare portion overshadowed the themes of change, which looked to be the themes the production staff were really going for. (Guyinblack25 )

I like the extra bits you added to that last paragraph. My only remaining issue is the lengthy quotes in the "Critical response" section. I don't think much is gained from reading the critics' exact words, and believe the same information could be condensed if paraphrased. (Guyinblack25 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

But I don't really see why it needs to be paraphrased. As far as I can see, the quotes aren't obstructing flow but adding description to declarations; I'd rather let critics speak for themselves (they are more interesting than me reciting their list of grievances). If you can point out a policy page that prohibits such use, feel free to correct me :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more my personal preference. I don't believe it's in any policy or guideline. I've always felt that if readers wanted to know exactly what critics said, they could read the review. But that's just me.

Weak support: As I said before, films are not my forte, but the article looks of high quality. The length can make it bit inaccessible for some readers, but everything else looks good. It's well written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. (Guyinblack25 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose, 1b. I do so with no pleasure, because the article is well-written. However, the Themes section is a disappointment. Most of the section outlines how Shakespeare was worked into the film's dialog, but much more work is needed on the film's major themes and what they mean. This section should contain information drawn from major sources of film criticism that exist for the Star Trek films. For example, one of the most important books is Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions On Star Trek by Harrison, et al. This and other books will include important criticism that you can use to flesh out the article. For some examples of other film articles where this is done well, see Mulholland Drive (film) and Barton Fink. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• In re to both Guy and you: I assure you I've looked for sources on the thematic front. I'm currently seeing if there's a little more to make a decent paragraph about the parallels between the obsolescence of the cast and what shows up on the final print, but with all bluntness, Star Trek VI isn't Mulholland Drive; Nicholas Meyer didn't have big artsy pretenses when he set out to make the movie. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• But.. have you looked at the Enterprise Zones book? It is an entire book devoted to serious review and criticism of the Star Trek films. From the Amazon synopsis: "... Enterprise Zones dissects the episodes and films. The contributors challenge Star Trek's avowed utopian vision and liberal humanism, demonstrating the concerns of recent cultural studies in academe. Essays explore such topics as Captain Kirk's masculinity, Lt. Commander Data's cyborg nature, and Counselor Troi's costumes. Emphasis is given to the politics of the original series and The Next Generation, and both are discussed in terms of militarism and neocolonialism. The contributors write with suspicion, insight, and respect for their subject matter, making this a sterling addition for any academic library." I don't see how we can, in good conscience, leave out such a promising source when that section is so slight. --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hey now, I wasn't saying I wouldn't go out and get it (it's at my library), I'm just saying that don't hold your breath for serious philosophical points here; from what I can tell the only entirely Star Trek VI-related piece is on Chang as homoerotic something or rather. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now that is just comedy gold. I smell a Cracked pitch. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not really, I tried submissions like that and Cracked said they don't take pitches relating to only one film/series (and my Jurassic Park one was killer too :( ). Anyway I'm off to the library to see what I can find of actual merit :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the book now, and unfortunately I don't think there's anything good for this article in it. STVI is only referenced in "Enjoyment (in) Between Fathers; General Chang as Homoerotic Enablement in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". Besides the fact I have found no indication that the author's views have been given much credence elsewhere, I present the following passage: "...That is, how does Chief of Staff General Chang's presence, in all its complex figuration, adumbrate a homoerotic economy? How does heterosexuality emerge and function as a nodal point that does not simply exclude homosexuality but excludes its own nodality? Such a reification of what has hitherto been contingent is heterosexuality's instituting repudiation, the constitutive repression that is indistinguishable from the return of the repressed." And it goes on like that for pages. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Well, there goes that idea. I'm sorry you had to waste your time going to look at the book. However, maybe you can ascertain if it would be useful for any other Star Trek film articles, assuming you plan to do more of them. --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not so much the movies, from what I saw, but a lot for The Next Generation and their characters (Worf, Troi, Data)... the rest of the essays seem less BS and jargon filled. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose; the prose could do with a tweak in a few places, but it's nothing major and I'll go into that later. Content-wise for now I've only a couple of issues/queries:
  • The "Reception" section is a little all-encompassing. Do you think there is scope here for splitting it into two sections: theatrical release/performance and critics' remarks? And is there any more information on releases and performance in English-speaking countries other than the United States? It should also be noted that Box Office Mojo rolls the performance figures of the United States and Canada into one, so consider altering references here to "North America". There are also a couple of instances where quotes are attributed to a publication, rather than the writer of the review. If the reviewer is named, this should be used.
  • Some of the other sections are likewise a little long. A good thing for comprehensiveness, but consider splitting those under "Production" into further subsections for ease of navigation and reading. Information in the "Development" section could, for example, be split off into one on "Writing", with similar splits in "Makeup", "Design", "Filming" and "Effects" if possible (or desirable). Let me know if you want any suggestions on this score.
  • What was the film's budget? Constant mentions are made of "budget cuts" and attempts to stretch the "limited budget", but we're never actually told what it was.
• But overall, another nice job. The issue that Laser brain brings up with regard to Enterprise Zones might be a stumbling block down the line, but I'll await your reply to that issue before remarking on it further. All the best, Steve 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • • I've gone ahead and split reception, changed US to North America, and added in reviewer's names (there's only one I left the way it was, because we don't actually have the guy's first name and I thought it would be strange.) For subsections, what do you think they could be split in to? I've already separated makeup from design, but I'm at a loss to other clear splits. Finally, in regards to budget: I've found a reported $27,000 1991 figure at The Numbers, but I am not sure as to the reliability of the site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, The Numbers can likely be proved reliable. However, if you want to stick to the mainstream sources, try this from The New York Times:

        ...The asking prices of all the stars, including William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, and costs for the special effects and elaborate sets envisioned by the producers would have added up to $41 million. That is not an outrageous sum to make a movie generally, but it is for a "Star Trek" movie. The series has had little appeal abroad and would be unlikely to sell $100 million in tickets at the box office in the United States, the minimum needed for a $41 million film to break even... ... The film's production budget was reduced to $27 million, and filming begins this month.

        HTH. I'll take a look at those subsections now. Steve 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I think there is a strong case for splitting the "Design" section into "Production design", "Models and props", and "Make-up". "Make-up" itself could also be split into "Klingons" and "Other aliens". A rough test of this can be seen in this revision. Further tweaks, to both the layout and the section headings, would probably be required, but I think doing something along these lines would be a good aid to navigation. Steve 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not one for a large table of contents, myself. I regrouped elements in design and spun off a "props" section, but I'm wary about adding even more section headers. As for the budget, I integrated it into the article (NYT; thanks for the find.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it just an aesthetic consideration, your not wanting a large TOC, or do you think as currently structured the sections present the information in the best possible way? (Struck resolved, btw). Steve 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
              • A mixture of both; I just think it's better to have fuller sections then segregate all the content; it has the side effect of hampering article flow, I feel. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Fair enough; I still disagree, but that's a valid editorial reason, so I'll strike that oppose. The last thing I'll say on this is that you can subsection "Design" without losing the layout or interrupting the flow, with "Makeup" and "Props" as subsections in "Design", and the text currently in the "Design" section contained within a "Production design" subsection. Anyway, some brief comments on the prose to come later today. Steve 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Because the prose is already pretty good, with only a few tweaks required IMO, I hope you don't mind my making the alterations outright; it would take longer to type out and post the list here TBH. Feel free to revert any you see that you happen to disagree with. Steve 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • Why the hell would I? They look good so far :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
                      • Struck oppose; will also post at bottom below for ease of navigation for delegate. Steve 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support with critical comments. A comprehensive, engaging and generally well-written article. I have some comments:

• Is the article written is US or UK English? There are "usefullness", "modelled", "traveller", "oderous" (sic) and "colourful".
• Here Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score; the resulting music was darker and purposefully different than any previous Star Trek offering - "the resulting music" sounds a little silly, how about "Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score which is darker and purposefully different to any previous Star Trek offering."
• Here, The Undiscovered Country was completed in just 11 months, for release in December 1991 - how about "and was released"?
• And here, On release, The Undiscovered Country garnered positive reviews, - the "on release" is redundant as is the "(in order) to" later on.
• Here A special collectors' edition DVD version of the film was released in 2004, with Meyer making minor alterations to his cut of the movie. - how about "for which Meyer made"? Also, none of the "special collectors" at the bottom of the article have the possessive.

*There is a problem with "protege". I prefer the acute accents as in "protégé" but I am prepared to let this go if something is done about "protegé" later on. Thank you for an interesting hour. Graham Colm 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :) I have made your changes above, the only BritEng word I didn't change was "traveller", as it's direct quotation from shakespeare. The rest were just me being confused about where I live. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Full support and best wishes. Graham. :-)) Graham Colm 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on resolved issues. Still not wild about the section structure, but it's not a major issue. Nice work. Steve 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Just got through the "Development" subsection; great article so far! Hope you do not mind, but I clarified some wiki-links. Also, for film titles, there seemed to be inconsistency in identifying the Roman numeral or not. How do you want to treat it? Also, another issue is the "See Cast" bit in the infobox; it seems self-referential, basically saying "Visit the 'Cast' section if you want more information." Is there no way to provide a short list of the top-liners in this field? Will continue reading and copy-editing; let me know if any of my edits are out of order. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed your edit to clarify the film titles; I don't have too strong a feeling one way or the other about this, but thought I'd explain the reasons behind my formatting them like they were in my recent minor copy edit. The article previously used a mix of the main title (e.g. Star Trek V) and the subtitle (The Final Frontier). My thinking was to use the full title (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) for the first instance in the article only, with only the subtitle used thereafter. This offered to my mind the best mix of giving the reader enough information to know which film was being referenced, without sentences becoming clunky and overburdened by using the full titles. Steve 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I understand what you intended. I thought it was strange to see "The Wrath of Khan and co-wrote Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home" -- struck me as inconsistent. Should I restore the previous formatting, or is there another solution we can use? Also, a question for the primary contributor... is the usage of "pryo" in the "Effects" subsection how it was printed in the reference? Maybe use instead? It just seems strange to see this misspelling since "pyro" is the typical shorthand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support this comprehensive article; reflects the qualities of Misplaced Pages in being the best (and most accessible) source of information about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support as minor contributor. It just amazes me how in-depth this article became so I felt so unworthy of reviewing it, but considering others' issues have been resolved I now endorse it. Alientraveller (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I performed a light copyedit prior to FAC (for all the good that actually did, I'm a rubbish copyeditor), but I'm happy to lend my support now its been vetted by more experienced users. There's no problems I can make out, the article is comprehensive, informative and reads well. -- Sabre (talk) 23:47, 10 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I'm renominating this biographical article for featured article status because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. The article was previously nominated on 2 December and the comments that it attracted were dealt with as far as possible. One "oppose" was outstanding when the candidacy was ended on 20 December 2008, although it is impossible to provide the additional information requested. Minor changes have been made to the article since nomination was ended. DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I supported this at its previous FAC, and see no reason for withholding now. It is a well-written, comprehensive article about an interesting life. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support: A very nice article. I have a couple of comments before I can support it though. (They are not all essential to gaining my support, but if you chose not to implement them please explain why here). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to place the quoted letter form Speyer to Asquith in blockquote format to differentiate it from the surrounding text?
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• The nine points raised by the inquiry: Were they the actual findings of the inquiry verbatim or is this a later synthesis by the editors of this page or subsequent historians? If it is a quote then this should be made explicit. If it is a later synthesis then there are a couple of punctuation errors that I didn't want to correct without establishing the lists origin.
  • They're my synthesis of the official report which was published in full in the Times on 7 January 1922 (ref 50). I think, I may have corrected the punctuation now but let me know if there is anything else which needs revision. --DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• The legacy section feels a little bit short: I suggest providing a brief mention of the histories of the tube lines and the Proms since Speyer's death (which tube lines were they by the way?). Is the house in Norfolk still a hotel? Does it have any form of government listing as a heritage site? His wife and children - what was their subsequent history after his death? Has there been any scholarship into the inquiry that either agrees with or disagrees with it? Have there been any calls for his name to be posthumously cleared? These are just ideas, but I think the section needs to be improved and expanded before this can be promoted.

• Thanks for the suggestions:

• The Norfolk house is still a hotel and is grade II listed. I have added this with a reference.
• His wife, who has her own article, was a poet and lived until 1956.
• Nothing much is recorded of their children apart from society page reports in the New York Times of their various weddings in the 1930s. They don't appear to have done anything notable or married anyone notable.
• The underground lines were the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (now part of the Northern line), the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now part of the Piccadilly line). These are listed in ref 5 already but I have added a bit more in the legacy section.
• There appears to have been no scholarly review of his denaturalisation and no real call for a posthumous clearance, however:
  • The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (ref 1) does end with the following "His services to London's transport, music, and hospitals need not be obscured by the events of 1915; but, though it may be that he was guilty of no more than minor technical offences against the laws of his adopted country, there can be no doubt of his pro-German sympathies." This was included in the 1949 original Dictionary of National Biography article on Speyer of which the ONDB version is an update.
  • The abstract of the Leanne Langley talk (ref 21) ends with "Speyer’s rescue of the Proms preceded the BBC’s by a generation, his own point of departure in a cloud of political controversy in 1915 ensured his contribution would be tarnished – still a blemish on the nation – which deserves redress."

I decided not to include these views in the article as they are really personal opinions and there is no campaign as such to have him cleared.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds fair enough, although I have combined a couple of the floating one line paragraphs in the legacy section to make a more coherent paragraph structure. Hope this is OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Many issues were resolved at the last FAC, which I did look over, though I did not !vote because I thought it would pass then. Still leaves that effect on me. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:London Underground Electric Railways.png - Do you have any more publication information on the source for this image? Note that WP:IUP states: "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
  • The image is from the cover of a free route map published in 1908. The publishers would have been the Underground Electric Railway acting together with the other lines shown on the map (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR and the MR). A History of London Tube Maps has a colour version giving details and an image of the map itself. The copy that I uploaded was from a photocopy I was given of a similar one. I've changed the image license to {{PD-UK-unknown}} which is more appropriate. --DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• File:Qnshall.jpg - Do we know where this was first published? For pre-1923 licenses, this is good information to have so that we can consider transferring the image to Commons. Also, who is the author of this image?
  • I didn't upload this image but, during the previous FAC, I corrected its source info. It is from a previous version of this page which contains a slightly differently cropped version of the image. The caption there indicates that it is drawing of the opening concert for the hall in 1893. I imagine that it would have been first published shortly afterwards by the Queen's Hall's management.--DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please note Jamd and Getty Images, the image is now in the possession of the Hulton Archive. The year of creation is established to be 1893; however, no author or date of publication is listed. The key question here: is the image from a drawing or an engraving? If the former, then it would have been in the public domain in 1943 (according to Crown Copyrights). However, if it was from an engraving, then the issue of publication comes into play. If it is unpublished, then it would enter public domain only in 31 December 2039. If not, its copyright expires 50 years from the date of publishing. We have to ask: is this image found in Robert Elkin's Queen's Hall 1893 – 1941 (1944, which would have made the image PD in 1994)? NQHO states that "most of the facts and photographs for this article are taken" from Elkin's book; that means, there is a chance that the Queen's Hall image did not come from it. If it did not (and if the image was from an engraving), then this image is not PD. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for helping out here! DC, what have you been able to find out about this image in regards to Jappalang's questions? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks Jappalang for your research. I cannot say where the image came from or when it was first published, but a close-up view of the image appears to indicate that it is a drawing. For example, the shading under the boxes on the left and along the front of the stage seems to have been done as a wash rather than hatching - the more usual method for an engraving. That said, I do not think the image is vital and if it features on Getty Images I am quite happy to remove it from the article, if you think that is the appropriate action to take. I will see if I can find another for the hall.--DavidCane (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If it is a drawing, then there should be no problem with the image as PD in UK (although finding the proper license tag for its use on US servers would be another issue, see the FAC for Operation Brevity above). It would be best if there is a source that can confirm the nature of the image. Can anyone try to locate Elkin's book in his or her library and confirm if the image is in there (and if it is a drawing)? Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I haven't been able to find an alternative, so I have removed the image and replaced it with one of the Whitechapel Gallery (File:The Whitechapel Gallery.jpg). This is an attribution share-alike image taken from Flickr, so usability is clear. It has the additional benefit of bringing a bit of colour to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
              • New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All image concerns have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note on sources, unstruck sourcing questions on previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the above note; the following three sources were questioned in the first FAC by Ealdgyth. After explanations for their use were given, he left them for others to decide on their suitability:

• http://www.tournorfolk.co.uk/index.html - was used as a source in note 18 but has since been replaced by another source.
• http://www.passmoreedwards.org.uk/pages/history/Libraries/Whitechapel%20art%20gallery/history%201.htm - used in note 27 to provide some more general information on the Whitechapel Art Gallery. Speyer's involvement is also detailed in the ONDB article (note 1).
• http://www.cozio.com/Owner.aspx?id=2828 - used in note 33, this is a professional database listing antique stringed instruments and lists instruments owned by Speyer.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose by karanacs. I believe this is overall a very good article, but there are quite a few niggling things and an unreliable source. I am willing to strike my oppose provided the sourcing and the majority of the other small things I found are fixed.

• Suggest that you spell out (and wikilink if appropriate) abbreviations the first time they are used in the body of the article, even if they were used in the lead. For example, UERL.
  • Done, although there are only two abbreviations used in the article: UERL and PC. The first is defined with its abbreviation in the lead and the second is defined in the Philanthropist and patron section. All other abbreviations are in the notes section and are defined on first use. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Did Speyer serve as UERL chairman at the same time that he was chairman of Speyer Brothers?
  • Yes, he was head of both at the same time. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really see a need for the headings "Life to 1914" and "Life after 1914", as there is nothing in those sections that is not already including in the subsections. I would just move the subsections up.
  • I would rather keep them as it helps make a clear distinction between the period before and after the attacks were made against his name.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the subheading titles make that pretty clear already. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The prose in the Financier section bothers me a bit. It seems clunky - I suspect that the prose could be tightened to get rid of unnecessary words and it would read much better.
  • Could you elaborate about which bits you have difficulties with?--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the hard part - I didn't see any one major thing that needed to be fixed. I just had to read the section a few times to follow what was going on. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The works were carried out by Detmar Blow and Fernand Billery in 1910 and 1911" - I am not sure what "the works" is supposed to mean here. I'm not as familiar with British English - perhaps this is something expressed differently than in American English?
  • Done. "The works" are the rebuilding works. To make this unambiguous I have changed this to "rebuilding work". --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence about Speyer donating money to save the Needham Market bank seems to have nothing to do with the rest of that paragraph (which discusses his homes). That sentence needs to be moved, or a better transition needs to be created.
  • Done. I put it there because Needham Market is in Suffolk which is the next county to Norfolk (where his country house was), but have moved it to follow the King Edward's Hospital Fund donation where it's chronology also fits better. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• was described as "the sole monetary force which kept the Queen's Hall Orchestra afloat". - described by whom? Yes, this is cited, but is the quote from the source or someone the source is quoting?
  • This is from the source, John Bird. The link in the reference takes you to the page in his book on Percy Grainger where this appears. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this could be attributed directly in the paragraph? "He was described by John Bird..." Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of Philanthropist and patron seems to meander around; the first half of the paragraph flows well, but then I feel like it jumps a bit from idea to idea. A bit of reorganization of the paragraph might help (and it might need to be two paragraphs).
  • I have separated the bits that are not related to music and joined them to the paragraph about the fund for Scott's expedition and have moved the bit on the violins up to the end of the second paragraph. Does that help? --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That is much better, but the last two sentences in the music paragraph still seem tacked on rather than a good continuation of the paragraph. 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've reworded slightly to try and pull them in more.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is it really important that he owned Stradavarius and Guarneri violins? That seems like trivia. It is especially inappropriate because the information does not appear to come from a reliable source (from the website..Cozio Publishing disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the Cozio Publishing web site)
  • I think it is important for two reasons: his wife was a concert violinist and he funded the Proms concerts. Whilst she does not appear to have played professionally after their marriage, she did play in concerts at home and elsewhere and would have certainly have used these instruments. Stradivarius and Guarneri violins were prized instruments and, as now, they were often owned by wealthy patrons and loaned to violinist to play. It is therefore likely that he would have leant them for use in Proms concerts, although this is not recorded.
  • regarding the disclaimer: this is a standard legal disclaimer and is there because cozio.com is a business and operates as a place to buy and sell antique violins. For similar reasons, Misplaced Pages has its own disclaimers. Cozio.com is referenced on a number of wikipedia articles about specific instruments, e.g. Du Pré Stradivarius or Davidov Stradivarius, and is in fifteen of the references in the Stradivarius article where it is is accepted as a "generally reliable source". For the sources of the information on Cozio.com, see its library section which lists 2175 referenced documents. If you do a search on Cozio Publishing, the company behind Cozio.com you will find that they have published in conjunction with Sotherby's a book on Violins.
  • Incidentally, the portrait of his wife painted by John Singer Sargent (see her article) shows here playing a violin - probably the Guarneri.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looking beyond the reliability of the source (which also allows individuals to submit information), what you have written above would make the information about him owning the violins much more relevant in the article. Without that level of detail, however, it just appears to be a random fact. I see that this was removed, so I'll strike. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• There is only one sentence about Speyer being on the Privy Council. Did he actually do anything? Was this an in-name-only type of appointment?
  • Being a member of the Privy Council is not a sinecure. Its members are advisers to the monarch and council meetings are held regularly. Although modern practice means that those that now participate are the members of the government, this was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century when King Edward VII appointed members from a larger range. Which meetings he attended and what advice he gave would be recorded in the National Archives. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• What did he do to impress Kaiser Wilhelm so much?
  • It's probable that he lent the Kaiser or his government some money. About the same time, his brother-in-law and partner in the Frankfurt bank, Edward Beit was "made a von" and took the name of his wife's family's home town (Speyer) as his geographic distinction. The Order of the Crown was the lowest ranking Prussian order and his rank in the order was the middle of six classes, so it was not a particularly high status award. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Further investigations of Anglo-German relationships at the time indicate that he helped found the Anglo-German Union Club in 1907 with Sir Ernest Cassels and Bruno Schröder, so that may also may have had something to do with it - although it does not appear in his ONDB biography but Schröder's.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The information about the novels before WWI does not seem all that relevant to me. I would suspect that similar warnings were issued in newspapers, etc. Why pick out these two novels in particular?
  • Like the image of the Kaiser stubbing his toe, these were picked as examples of context. They are the two best known examples of the genre. The link under anti-German sentiment gives more detailed background. Yes, the papers were behind a lot of the sentiment and the Quex's book was serialised in the Daily Mail. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It still doesn't seem to fit. Why focus on the novels (which makes it feel like a manufactured concern that people aren't really experiencing) rather than on the real-life reports that increased the hysteria? If you want to focus on the novels, then we probably need some cited information that discusses their impact. As written, I just thought "so what - there are novels about all kinds of things and how does this impact Speyer?" Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The linked article on anti-German sentiment gives examples of the impact and provides citations, but, as I haven't read the books cited, I didn't want to add them here. Accusations against Speyer specifically are mentioned in the next paragraph.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Make sure that each quote has a citation, even if that means the cite is duplicated across subsequent sentences. I saw several issues with this in the Revocation... section.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I am worried about some weight issues. There is a lot dedicated to his resignation and the "Revocation of naturalisation". Is it appropriate to list all of the findings like that? Can't we have a small summary of results? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the recovation findings were very interesting and relevant. In reading the article, I had seen no real clues as to why he would have his citizenship stripped; this section answered that question. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is as brief a summary as I could make it and still explain the issues. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies supposed to be 20% about a tiny portion of a life that is negative? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The course of Speyer's life was substantially and fundamentally altered by the events during and immediately after WWI. If the war hadn't come and he hadn't been subject to unjust anti-German attacks (remember he was born in the US and had been a British citizen for 22 years by that time), he would almost certainly have remained in the centre of British musical society and finance and as Chairman of the UERL and would be remembered for completely different reasons. Therefore, I think, a fifth of the article dedicated to this matter is not unreasonable. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is only required to establish the basis of having an article, not what the article is supposed to be about. This is a biography. I would expect a well thought out discussion of his life and not giving to one tiny moment that may have changed his life, but getting married, being run down by a bus, etc, can also change one's life. It seems like it is far too negative to dominate in such a large facet, especially when this guy is notable also for being on the PC. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, I put a lot of thought into this and I cannot, with a clean conscience, support an article that devotes so much to one aspect of an individual's life in such an undue manner. He was a member of the PC, a very important role, and yet that doesn't even have as much size or even close to as much size as the "Revocation of naturalisation" section. It goes against every single instinct that I have in regards to biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  A note on the above - he was a Privy Counsellor from 1909 to 1914. Nothing is said about this. 5 years at a position and nothing. We get him being kicked out for a section. Privy Counsellors are notable. Baronets are notable. I would expect at least a section at least twice as large as his removal devoted to his time as a Privy Counsellor. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Whilst it is notable that he was a Privy Counsellor, what he did as one is not necessarily notable. It was an advisory position not legislative - a record of what he did would be just a list of meetings attended. Of these, the truly notable meeting would be the one on 7 May 1910 at which King George V was proclaimed King (see here for the announcement).

  Looking at recent main page featured biography articles, this concentration on the important aspects of a subject's life is not uncommon. For example, the Richard Hawes article concentrates on his 3-years as Confederate Governor of Kentucky. His four-year term as a member of the House of Representatives, when he actually had power to influence legislation, is covered by a single sentence. In the Robert Sterling Yard article, 35 years of his journalistic and publishing career (1880 to 1915) is covered in a single, three-sentence paragraph and the majority of the article covers his time in the National Parks movement.--DavidCane (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but your comments are 100% unacceptable. I will refrain from expressing the moral outrage that I feel in response to what you have stated. 5 years of a person's life and career cannot be ignored. There is a clear POV expressed in this article, and it is an anti-Speyer bias. You have contradicted most of the ethics that go into Misplaced Pages, and if this article is put in as an FA in its shape, I would be deeply ashamed at this community for allowing such a thing to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support on this point I think the coverage of these issues is fine. Privy Council does not explain these matters all that well, but in all probability his first meeting and the one proclaiming the new king were the only meetings Speyer ever attended. Being a PC was by this date a formal thing, though relevant for ministers etc, but for the likes of Speyer essentially just an honour. Probably a sentence explaining the very limited nature of the function should be added, since the PC does feature largely in the article. OR is however right that "notability" is the wrong word to use when talking about article content. The rest of the article looks FA quality, but I haven't read it all. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Ottava Rima I'm sorry to have outraged your morals in some way, although I am at a loss to see how simple comparison with the structure of other featured articles can have caused this.
  • I have not ignored the period of his life when he was a Privy Counsellor as you seem to think - much of the sections on finance and philanthropy cover this period. As for his activities in the Privy Council, I could put in the fact that he was present at the new king's proclamation in 1910, but that is really just triva. There really is nothing more to record.
  • My bias is most certainly not anti-Speyer and I don't believe the article can be read that way. If I was anti-Speyer, I would simply have left out everything in the pre-1914 part of the article which clearly show his willingness to contribute time and money to the public's benefit.
    • Personally, having read the decision of the committee that recommended his denaturalisation, I feel he was made a scape-goat. Of all the issues that were examined by the committee, the only one that really indicates foolishness on Speyer's part is his attempt to maintain a correspondence with his brother-in-law (and through him his sister) and to evade the censor in doing so. A number of the matters considered seem trivial in the extreme and there seems to have been no consideration given to his long-term support of the arts, the hospital, the King's fund or his service in putting the London Underground on a more sound financial footing (although, as an investor, he did have a personal interest in the last of these).
    • The section on anti-German bias gives a very clear explanation of why Speyer was under pressure and why he chose to leave Britain and is not anti-Speyer; nor is the section on his philanthropy.
    • In drafting the section on the committee's decision, I have used a far more neutral tone than that in which the decision was phrased and in which it was reported in the Press.
    • Personally, I think it is possible that the decision of the committee was at least partly political, a result of the split in the Liberal party. Speyer was a friend of H.H. Asquith, the former Prime Minister and leader of one branch of the party, whereas the committee was established under the National Government of David Lloyd George, the leader of the other half of the party and Asquith's political rival. There is none of this in the article as it is all my conjecture, personal point of view and would be considered original research.
  • As you will see in my answer above to Jackyd101 on the matter of posthumous rehabilitation, I decided not to include the comments from two of the sources used about the unjustness of his treatment because they are really just their personal views rather than a concerted effort at rehabilitation. --DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Cover this area? Really? I reread it. Not only are the times completely unstructured making it almost impossible to read the article as a biography in a standard biographical sense, the weight on two moments dominates the whole page. That is completely unacceptable in terms of weight, comprehensiveness, or the rest. If the position was only honorary, you can state exactly that and explain why. There are very few exact dates listed, there are very few exact moments, and I would honestly hesitate accepting the page as a Good Article Nominee in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• To reinforce what I state. It took me two seconds to find this from Offer, Avner. "Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914 Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914." The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 119-138.
  • It mentions: "By 1912 he was deeply involved in Brazilian railway schemes" (p. 124). There is no equivalent in the article. It also states that Sir Almeric Fitzroy, clerk of the PC, was upset that Speyer was placed on the PC. This is not in the article. There is nothing about an important individual named Sir George Paish and his involvement with Lloyd George through Speyer. There is also: ""Speyer then delivered the same message in a speech to the Institute of Bankers, which, if it did not actually signal the start of the Edwardian capital export boom, (as Paish later claimed), at least broadly coincided with it." (p. 125)
• This is one tiny article that deals with the missing time period and how the position of PC needs more information. There is a lot more out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well thank you for that. You must have access through an academic membership as jstor.org is not open to individuals nor can it be searched by non-users. Its content is, therefore, effectively invisible to outsiders and my library does not subscribe to it or the Historical Journal referenced. The article does state that Speyer Brothers were involved in the finance of railway projects although, I admit, it does not mention Brazil specifically. If you'd like to forward the text of the article (you can paste it, and anything else from Jstor, here if you'd like) I will very happily incorporate information from it. Paish was a statistical economist who specialised in railways so I can see how he and Speyer would have crossed paths.
  • If you can give me the information, I will add a note on Fitzroy's being upset that Speyer was made a counsellor, but whether his opinion was of any value is debatable. He sound an interesting character as his ONDB entry includes the following: "His routine work, however, was simply to organize meetings of the privy council and to arrange for the formal presentation to the sovereign of legislation brought into force by orders in council. Much concerned with ceremony and protocol, FitzRoy read the official proclamation of the accession of Edward VII in 1901 and that of George V in 1910; in 1917 he also submitted a draft of the declaration by which George V changed the name of the royal family to Windsor. But despite FitzRoy's self-important air and his relish for being at the centre of events, attributes which attracted some mockery, he played no part in the formation of policy." ONDB also describes his indiscreet memoirs upsetting Queen Mary and a minor scandal in which he was convicted and fined for "wilfully interfering with and annoying persons using Hyde Park". Although subsequently cleared, this led to his resignation from the clerkship in 1923.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point of the one article was to show that a cursory look through information could find something. You have many biographies listed, surely one or two has information on the time period. I can try to get portions of the article for you tomorrow. However, personal constraints keep me from being able to devote a significant portion of this. If it was the summertime, I would spend a few days at the Loc just digging up enough information to almost double the page. There seemed to be that much out there. He met a lot of important people. He gave quite a few speeches. He wrote some letters and some people wrote some letters about him. He was more memorable than what the article gives him credit for being. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. The prose needs significant work:

• "Sir Edgar and Lady Leonora were the basis of the characters Sir Hermann and Lady Aline Gurtner in E F Benson's 1919 novel Robin Linnet." The characters of ... were based on ...?
  • The existing sentence seems preferable to me than the alternative formulation. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    I see this has been changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... to point to a strip of material evidence that would induce any fairminded main to support the monstrous conclusions of this report." Does the source really say "main"?
  • No, that would be a typo. Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• "After their return to America, Lady Leonora began writing poetry and won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1927." After whose return to America?

• The Speyer family's return.--DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Accusations of his disloyalty and treachery appeared in the Press ...". Why is "Press" capitalised? The use of capitalisation needs to be looked at throughout the whole article.
  • This was requested in the Good Article review. Please identify any others. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have gone through the article again an believe that capitalisation is fully regularised now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The pre-opening estimates of passenger numbers proved to be greatly over-optimistic ...". When would an estimate ever be post the event?
  • Estimates can be done at any time as part of normal financial planning be it monthly profit, quarterly cash flow or annual turnover estimates. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    I see this has been changed to preliminary. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• ... he came to London to capitalise on the emerging opportunities for new deep level underground "tube" railways there." Came to London? Is that where this article was written?
  • Yes. Changed to went. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

These are just a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I really think, if the above oppose is being maintained, that further instances should be provided of the "significant" work that the prose is supposed to need, otherwise the oppose is unactionable. Personally I think the prose is well up to standard, though I suppose it's always possible to quibble. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They were just examples, as I said, and I am not satisfied that they have yet been properly dealt with. A few more examples:

• "He was chairman of the Classical Concert Society until 1912 and, following financial problems experienced by Robert Newman, chairman of the Queen's Hall Concert board from 1902 to 1914, paying £2,000 per year (£160,000.00 today) to underwrite the Promenade Concerts."

  I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Speyer's friendship was recognised by the dedications to him of Becker's Three Pieces for Cello with Piano Accompaniment and Strauss's Salome." Awkward passive. Why not something like "Becker dedicated Three Pieces ... to Speyer, in recognition of their friendship."

  I see this has been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Speyer collected ... room interiors". How can a room interior be collected?

You buy it, get workmen to dismantle the panelling or (harder) plasterwork, & re-erect it elsewhere. This was the great period for this, though many went to the US. The Victoria & Albert or Metropolitan are full of them - perhaps there are some in Manchester too. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a well known practice, but to avoid further complaints I changed it, reducing the significance of its meaning. I replaced the more enlightening term in an attempt to satisfy those who are not familiar with the practice. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Sheppard reference states that many of these were obtained from the continent. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• ""Nonetheless, suspicions against Speyer's German parentage ...". Against?

  I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Significant sections of the article, for instance Philanthropist and patron, are a series of short, disjointed sentences with no discernible flow.

  I have done some work on that bit to try and improve the flow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, I think this article still needs to be thoroughly copyedited. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - a fine article and a moving story told with an absence of flourish and irrelevant detail that renders this article all the more effective. I have gone through the entire article looking for prose and other issues. I find that it meets the FAC criteria. I am not persuaded by the rationale of the opposes. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The writing is mostly OK. I've looked at the lead and first few sections: here are a few suggestions.

• Opening para: "the company opened three underground railway lines, electrified another and took over two more". Was the one he electrified among the three he opened? Unclear categories. (one of which he electrified, and ...?). Or use the wording further down.
  • The one that was electrified was separate from the three new ones. I have clarified this. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "not compatible"; where a compound negative is available, probably better: "incompatible".
  • Changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "he became a subject of anti-German attacks" --> "the subject" may be better.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1884, Speyer became a partner in each of his father's companies. He headed the Frankfurt office for three years before taking control of the London office, Speyer Brothers, in 1887." Is it possible lose "for three years"? Seems redundant after the "1884".
  • Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "deep level underground" (hyphen) TONY

(talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• PS Could you take the pennies out of 160 thousand pounds?
  • Done. It was annoying me as well. I have found out how to get rid of these. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• In summary, I think Malleus's general concerns need to be addressed by a fine eye cast through it. Tony (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, if they were "companies" they had directors not "partners", to be picky. Or were they partnerships? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. They were partnerships so I have changed "companies" to the more encompassing "businesses". --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've struck my earlier oppose and am now ready to support based largely on the excellent copyediting job done by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 4 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

John Calvin

previous FAC withdrawn

Nominator(s): RelHistBuff (talk)

This article has been rewritten since reaching GA and has gone through peer review. Looking forward to all your comments. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is neither a road, nor a hurricane, nor a wrestler or wrestling move, and as such clearly fails Misplaced Pages's notability criterion. Suggest AfD. Another option would be to reframe content as a video game or grudge match wrestling article, e.g. Alien vs Calvin. Ling.Nut 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, it is not an article on a minor actor, a pop singer, a television show, a military operation, a sports figure, a US politician, or an university-related subject either. You see I am trying to contribute to systemic bias of Misplaced Pages toward major, but fairly boring historical figures. I know we have too many of those around here. The next article I will work on is Guitar Hero V - High School Musical version. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you promise to take Guitar Hero to FAC, I'll strike my Oppose. Striking now. Ling.Nut 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (And I can't wait to see RelHistBuff do a video game FAC.. this should be entertaining...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I have been a contributor to this article in the past, and RelHistBuff has done a great job on rewriting it. Kudos! A few specific comments (more to follow as time allows):

• There are small comma issues throughout, particularly when used in apposition (cf. Apposition#Restrictive versus non-restrictive). I have tried to correct them in the lede and the first section and will try to attend to the other sections as I have time, but feel free to take a whack at it if you are so inclined.
• MOS:IMAGE says that it is preferable for portraits to look toward the article text, though it is not strictly necessary. This is not true of the first two images in the article. FWIW, There are a goodly number of other free images of Calvin available that would could fit the bill. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• The quote from the preface to Calvin's commentary on the Psalms could be quoted directly from a free source such as the CCEL () rather than from a secondary source, which are cited in the following sentence for their analysis anyway.
• In that same following sentence ("Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with a rupture with the Roman church."), I'm not clear on what sort of "rupture" is in view here -- a local, regional, or global event -- or how it relates to Calvin's conversion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

• On the comma issue, I will try to filter through the article.
• Concerning the images, I also would prefer that the images face in toward the text. For the lead image, I changed it to the left side like another FA, Joseph Priestley, but when I last tried a similiar action in John Knox, Raul changed it back to the right side. However, as MOS guidelines call for facing inward, maybe it is ok now (at least Priestley has been untouched). On the second image, if it is placed on the left, then the indent for the quote disappears making it look like another paragraph. So I would prefer to keep the second image on the right. As for using other images, there may be some free ones, but the problem is getting good source description information. Otherwise they will not pass FA muster. I have personally added in the description information for the two that are used, so I have confidence in defending them.
• On the quote, I have at least two translations from secondary sources, Parker and Cottret. As they provided (or at least accepted from another source) the English translation, we can be confident that the quote has the backing of a modern scholar. The CCEL version is a translation made by Arthur Golding in 1571.
• On "rupture", I meant "breach" or "break". I changed it with a possessive.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The translation by Golding Anderson is from the mid to late 1800s when the Calvin Society was actively publishing Calvin's works in English. Do the translations you have differ significantly with each other? If not, I'd still prefer the primary source link since it gives greater context for the quote and since you immediately give sources where scholars present and evaluate the quote. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Golding's translation is from 1571, but that is only used in the dedicatory. I took a look at the ASCII text version on CCEL and their version is actually Anderson's from 1845, which is what Cottret uses. So the current citation is correct in that Anderson is properly credited and the source used is Cottret. I added a link to Anderson's text on CCEL in the footnote. By the way, the translation by Parker is quite different from Anderson's. I originally preferred Parker's translation as the English is not quite so stilted. But I went with Cottret because his book is more recent (although admittedly the translation he used is old). --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by the modified sentence: "Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with his break from the Roman church." Is it important to mention what specifically scholars disagree over? If not, why mention the disagreement at all? Also, I am still confused by the second part of the sentence. Is it just saying that there was no intervening period of his following another religion (or no religion), i.e., he left the Roman church for the reformed church, rather than that he left it and some time later converted the reformed church? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Parker had a whole appendix devoted to the conversion. Cottret had two subsections starting off with "An enigma lies at the heart of Calvin's life. How did the young and brilliant humanist, author of a commentary on Seneca become Calvin the Reformer?". He follows with arguments from various scholars and then adds his own. The differences stem from the "when" and "how". It gets quite detailed and clearly the event is of interest to historians. So something about the scholars' debate should be mentioned, but in the end it is simply, in Cottret's words, "...Calvin's conversion took place and that it corresponded to a rupture with the old church". I think the sentence that is in the article is a sufficient summary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we then alter the sentence to something like: "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to Calvin's change of heart, but they agree that his conversion was coincident with his break from the Roman church."? On another note, what is the meaning of "fugitive from justice" in describing Servetus? Was his only crime heresy? If so, I'd change the wording there since he's really fleeing the ecclesiastical powers that be rather than the civil courts (overlapping though they were at times), and "fugitive from justice" is misleading to the modern ear. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The four sources give scholars' opinions on that passage. I think the minimal statement that is there avoids any potential interpolations. I changed the Servetus text to "ecclesiastical authorities". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources are fine, but I think a brief statement of what their debate is about is in order. It's odd to mention that there is controversy but not say anything at all about the content of the controversy. Do you think "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to this change of heart" is accurate? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That statement would not be a good summary of what is in the four sources. I think the minimal statement is best and I added some of the scholars' views in a footnote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good compromise. Thanks. I wonder if you could explain the footnote more or reword them: "Ganoczy ... argues that Calvin conversion took place over several years and that it was not a biographical or chronological event." Huh? Does he mean that it was not a single experience but rather a gradual process? In any case, it was still a biographical ("relating to the facts or events in a person's life" - it is clear that there was a change of his allegiance, which is a biographical fact) and a chronological ("arranged in the order of time" - it occurred after he left home and before he went to Geneva) event. The Olympics is held over an extended period of time, but it is still a chronological event. I just don't understand how the words are being used, I guess.

Continuing: "Cottier quotes Olivier Millet, ... noting a typological rather than a biographical perspective of the account of his conversion." Huh? Calvin was speaking typologically? I know what typology is (particularly in biblical interpretation), but what does it mean in this context? "The biographical argument is promoted by D. Fischer." Does that mean that he takes Calvin's words as an autobiographical and literal description? Parker "concluded that a certain period for his conversion could be determined." Is there a "not" missing here, or are you saying that, in distinction from other historians who feel they can't identify anything about the time of his conversion because he is not speaking literally, Parker thinks he can narrow it to a certain range of years? Thanks for clarifying. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Still wondering about this, RelHistBuff. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the specific pages from the two books where I quote the info in the footnote. Ganoczy argues that it was not a sudden event. I really do not want to reword what is there because I have used Cottret’s wording in summarising the views of those scholars. More details can only be obtained by going directly to the scholars’ own articles (which I have not read). I would not like to use different wording because I am not quoting from the articles but from Cottret’s summary. Concerning Parker, his view is in sympathy with Ganoczy, but he does attempt to narrow the time of his conversion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support The lead includes a lot of relatively minor info but leaves out a number of really critical things, including the relationship with Zwingli; the fact that Calvin and Zwingli's differences with Luther formed the first major schism in Protestantism; doctrinal differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans including predestination, abhorrence of images, lack of respect for various rituals, and belief in a personal relationship with God, which combined to make Calvinism much more austere and less authoritarian than Lutheranism or Anglicanism; also the fact that most modern Protestant sects can be classified as either Calvinist, Lutheran, or Anglican in derivation. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the lead now. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see about putting in something about his relationship with Zwingli and Luther, perhaps some kind of summary from the article. But as for your other points, these would be relevant in an article on Calvinism not on Calvin. In Calvin's time, "Calvinists", "Lutherans", and "Anglicans" did not exist yet. They were individual reformers who agreed and disagreed with each other and their interactions are in the biography. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with RelHistBuff on Calvinist/Lutheran/Anglican. Moreover, Anglicans aren't Protestants in the proper sense but see themselves as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. The third branch should be Anabaptists (or Restorationists). --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, with respect to the intro, I do think the history could be trimmed a bit and a little more from the theology section included. It's surprising to me that the two concepts most often associated with his name -- predestination and total depravity -- don't appear there at all even in spirit. Both concepts do appear, e.g., in the one-sentence summary of Calvinism in a recent article in the NY Times magazine: "you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time." Compare the American Heritage Dictionary's description: Calvin "emphasiz the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone." --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A summarising statement in the intro on Calvin's thought is a good idea. I would hesitate though on using terms that came after his life. Also, I would like the statement to be easily supported from one of the references, so I will go back to the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on anachronistic terminology. Predestination and elect appear throughout the Bible and Calvin's writings, so no problem there. While there is some disagreement over whether Calvin taught a limited atonement, I know of no dispute over his holding the other four points of Calvinism, which were formulated after Calvin's time (even the Arminian Remonstrants, against whom the five points were issued, held to total depravity). One can easily find the concept -- if not the exact phrase -- of total depravity in his works, e.g., "You see that places unlawful and depraved desires not in the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part in which it is not perverted and corrupted." --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the T of tulip might be anachronistic, at least in using both adj and noun together. A summary from a Calvinist theologian compared to a church historian might have quite different wordings. I will see what I can find in the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence on predestination to the lead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Following up, I feel that the lead has improved, but along with Ealdgyth below, I still have a sense that it doesn't really convey his importance, both during his lifetime and afterwards, as strongly as it ought to. So I'm not quite ready to switch to a full support yet. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review File:GuillaumeFarel.jpg - We need to list at least a century for this image to demonstrate that it is in the PD. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. (I hope to get around to reviewing the entire article!) Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, while I hunt around looking for info of the original, I will temporarily change this image with a photo of a statue of Farel. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it. It is from Theodore Beza's Icones as I suspected. I updated the description and put the image back in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All images check out now. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very nice article about an interesting person. I hope it makes FA. NancyHeise 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. I asked User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the endashes in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support: A few more minor tweaks are coming, I suspect, but it is already in excellent shape. Great work! --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now Leaning towards support The article needs a thorough copyedit, which I am doing now, and a few clarifications, which I will ask for on the article talk page. I look forward to striking this oppose in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am answering as many of these questions as I can with the sources that I have on hand. Unfortunately, a couple of sources are checked out and will not be returned until February, so a few answers will be delayed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the first round of copyediting - the bulk of the work. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the huge amount of work! The questions are even more valuable because they force me to go back to the sources and double check on things. I am getting close to answering all the questions that I can answer for the moment. There are two books that are still at the library. If they are not returned, then there is another library further away that might have the books. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you let me know which books you need access to, I can check my library, too. It is only a 15-minute walk away. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished copyediting the article. Most of my questions have been answered and I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your extraordinary efforts for this article! I feel a bit embarrassed, really. I will leave a note on your talk page if I have to take up your offer. I should have some news about the books next week. In the meantime, I hope Raul and Sandy will keep this FAC in the queue. In any case, I assume more votes are needed before a decision can be made. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki! We help each other out! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All of my questions have been addressed - full support. Can I just reiterate how wonderful it is that someone is working on these important articles about Protestant reformers! Thanks again, RelHistBuff! I just directed my class to this article last week. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SupportOppose - for now. I have a few concerns, some quibbles, and a pile of questions. Switch to support, concerns addressed.

• I think the leads a bit skimpy. You've got 6700 some words in this article, about a man who, arguably, is one of the most important folks in the history of religion, and there's very little meat in the introduction, nothing explaining who important he was in his life. As it is, there isn't really a good feel for why Calvin's a "Big Name" in history.

I added that he was a polemicist and apologist. He was also a preacher, a theologian, and a church organiser, all of which are more-or-less contained in the lead. Is there something else that is missing? What makes him appear to be larger-than-life are the developments that occurred after him. It was his ideas, i.e., Calvinism, that eventually had a great impact, but this is already mentioned in the lead. I think Cottret had a good description of why he does not come across as someone spectacular: "Unlike some modern televangelists, he eludes the camera; he was discreet, secret, and shy. In short, he was the absolute opposite of a movie star,..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at setting him in a broader context in the intro. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RelHistBuff removed some of my changes in this regard out of concern that they might disrupt the FA process and suggested on my talk page that we instead ask what sort of "Big Name" context you (and others) are looking for. Perhaps the removed material would do it, or perhaps not. Let us know! --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Flex's proposed text, assuming it's sourced to a reliable source, reads pretty well to me. It's just about right, just enough to give a quick broad overview without being too detailed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will put his text back in. The source (Hall) is from Flex so he can tell you more about it. I have another major source on the subject of Calvin's socio-economic impact so I will likely work on it some more. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Probably want to give a capsule explanation of what receiving the tonsure means. Most folks (unlike myself..) won't understnad it too well.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Capsule explanation of "humanist" wouldn't hurt either.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Someone will probably want a cite for the last few sentences of the second paragraph of Early years.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, you MUST explain "reformed faith" in the third paragraph of early years. It's not even linked, it needs more context. And WHICH reformed faith was he converted to at this point? Lutheranism? Anabaptism? Something else? It's unclear.

I dropped "reformed faith". See my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mention "winding up their father's affairs..." when did papa Calvin die?

26 May 1531. Yes, there is a gap in time before Antoine was in Paris dealing with his father's estate (sold for 144 livres Tournois). This is not explained. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You'll probably have someone want a cite for the last sentences of the second paragraph of Reform work commences.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the third paragraph of Reform work commences... "subscribed to the confession of faith" implies that there is only one confession ever. Suggest "their confession of faith" or something similar.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Same section , last paragraph. I know you have "call" redlinked, but you probably need to explain that a bit in the text.

In fact, I don't think the source meant that Farel received a "call" from God which would be a call in the theological sense. Farel received a call from the authorities in Neuchâtel which is simply a call from another church. I changed it to "invitation". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, this is the historian Geek in me, but in the Minster to Strasbourg section, what Greek version did Calvin translate Romans from? Septahowever you spell it? Or another one?

Romans, along with the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek. Calvin returning ad fontes for his exegesis is worthy of note because the Latin Vulgate translation had been the main text scholars used for some time. (The Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what makes me so glad I'm a medievalist. We don't have to deal with Greek texts on top of the Latin. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There were four possible Greek texts that he could have used and the one he most likely used is the edition printed in Paris 1534 by Simon de Colines. I didn't put that in because it seems that that would be more relevant on an article on the Commentary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Who was Simon Grynaeus, and why did Calvin dedicate the Commentaries on Romans to him?

Calvin wrote the dedication when he was in Basel and Grynaeus was another reformer based in Basel, but the sources do not indicate why he dedicated it to him. I removed the reference to Grynaeus. It is not important; the main point was his comments on the three reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Any idea why Calvin changed his mind on the first proposed marriage?

The sources do not say, but see my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the added quotes help a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Explain what a colloquy was for the non-historians?

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mention that Antoine's family was with John's in Geneva, but never mention when/where/why the brother joined Calvin...

Antoine appears at various moments in Calvin's life and the sources provide no details on what happened in between or the motivation of certain actions. I could just drop the mention of Antoine, if it is a problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was more idle curiosity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Final years section, third paragraph .. the sentence "Some of the professors Calvin tried to recruit for the institute included his old friend Cordier and Emmanuel Tremellius, ..." you say "friend" but the sentences seems to have two objects there .. "Cordier" and "Emmanuel", two different people. Perhaps reword to remove the ambiguity?

Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• When did Joachim Westphal first identify "Calvinism"�?

1552. Included. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You say that Calvin accepted Lutherans as members of the true church, what was his attitude towards Catholics? Anabaptists? I think I can guess his attitude towards Unitarians...

The information is contradictory concerning the Catholic Church. He clearly said that he left "them" to be under Christ which appears to imply that he did not consider Rome as part of the true church, but he also said that the Catholic Church belong to the "covenant of God" and that their baptisms are accepted. He definitely considered the Anabaptists as heretics and wrote strong polemical treatises against them, but his views would be no different from the prevailing opinions at the time among reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer) and the Catholic Church alike. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything to add about the basis of Calvin's theology? What he built on?

All the elements that influenced him are there in the article, I believe (humanism, Augustine, other reformers). Cottret has a chapter titled after Bernard of Chartres's famous metaphor, "Dwarfs perched on the shoulder of giants".

Some of these are pretty easy to deal with, some may be more difficult. I look forward to supporting when most of them are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm packing, I'm still connected to the internet and am keeping an eye on this. Never fear. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - there are concerns above that I also hold, but I feel that many of the sentences are wordy or roundabout. Example from the first line: "was an influential French theologian during the Protestant Reformation who expounded a system of reformed Christian theology later referred to as Calvinism." I see four clauses lumped together. Split it up, rearrange, something. (Suggestion - "was an influential French theologian." "During the Protestant Reformation, he expounded <probably not the right word> a system of reformed <definitely not the right word, way too pov and inaccurate> theology that was later called Calvinism." Note, you do not "refer" to it as Calvinism. You label it. There is a difference. Then you have words like "invited" and other such terms that seem inappropriate. Finally, there is a lot of nasty stuff about John Calvin that was not included in the page. If the RCC FAC was heavily criticized for lacking it, it would seem inappropriate for Calvin not to hold up to the same standards. The sources are only from a handful of limited views (most from the Cambridge Companion, which has a unified basis of theory). This causes it to fail comprehensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What nasty stuff do you have in mind? It deals with the major incidents like Servetus, Gruett, and Perrin. Please be more specific.

As for the sources, there are several articles from the Cambridge Companion, but the majority of notes do not come from these sources. Cottret and Parker (in several books) are cited repeatedly, for instance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of anti-Calvinistic sentiment while he was alive and after. Hell, even Jonathan Swift viciously tore into Calvin in Tale of a Tub. The faithful Anglicans didn't like him. The Catholics didn't like him. You can look to either side there to find out a lot of anti-Calvin sentiment. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article cite the two modern biographies of Calvin, Cottret and Parker. It includes the most shameful incidents of Calvin's life, Servetus and Gruet. Concerning the polemics, those made after his death would be relevant in the article on Calvinism. In the case of disagreements with Anglicans, the article on Puritanism would be the place for the arguments. At the time of Calvin, he exchanged letters with Cranmer, but that was the extent of Calvin's interactions with the Church of England. The disagreements with the Catholics and the Lutherans during his lifetime are in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are under the impression that I am referring to negative moments in his life. No, I am referring to negative responses to him as a person and the sheer massive volume of hatred that has been poured out against him since he was 30. There is nothing on the negative pictures, the anti-Calvin pamphlets, the mocking of him through various books, trashing his religious beliefs, etc. The RCC FAC made it clear that the page did not have enough criticism of the Church. This man is one of the main Protestant theorists and he had a lot of criticism. This should be added in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What anti-Calvin pamphlets do you have in mind? I know Westphal, Caroli, and Pighius disagreed with him, but they were theological disputes, not volumes of "hatred". I could add an additional paragraph describing these disagreements with his theology. Would that be sufficient? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything, RelHistBuff. There is nothing on the very large amount of anti-Calvin. just look at the sheer volume of works about Calvin out there. I don't think you have nearly enough to reflect academic opinions, let alone harsh criticism of the individual. If you want, I can go down to the Theological College next week and ask for every book that tears apart John Calvin as a theologian, then I can go to the Dominican House of Studies and ask for the same. I know the Catholic Church would be able to provide shelves and shelves devoted to the topic, especially seeing as how they are diametrically opposed to John Calvin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Castellio comes to mind. Calvin also debated with various Catholic authorities, but we want secondary source coverage here. As a tertiary source, the Catholic Encyclopedia contains a rather negative view of him and his theology. BTW, a goodly number of the works in your Amazon link are to the books already cited in the article, and many of the others are Calvin's own writings in English translation. On a quick look over the first five pages of results (after which relevance takes a dive), the only one that jumped out as far as criticism was John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the controversies in the Theology section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I could see a little more needing to be added. I'm trying to hunt down some Anglican responses. By the way, could you mention in the legacy (one or two lines) that Jonathan Swift mocked Calvin in Tale of a Tub based on theological views? This was a very influential work and represented part of the 18th century Anglican response to Calvin and Calvinism. He was a very hated individual by a lot of people. The legacy needs some of the backlash listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that plenty of notable people have viewed Calvin negatively or positively for one reason or another. How do we choose whom to include, how do we make a representative selection? IOW, why include Voltaire, Swift, Rousseau, Max Weber, R. H. Tawney, Will Durant, or George Bush? Why do their views matter in the context of this article? Presumably our selection should be based on secondary sources discussing the expressed opinions and their importance and notability in the grand scheme of things. Obviously we can't include everyone (though a spin-off Criticism of John Calvin or Views of John Calvin article could provide more), so we need such neutral selection criteria. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, views of Calvin are very difficult to discriminate from views of Calvinism. The person's view would be "coloured" by the events of his/her era (as in the case of Swift and Voltaire). I have put in the Voltaire text only because it is included in Cottret's major biography on Calvin. My preference, however, is to leave the Calvin article specifically in its own era. I would like to go back to the original ending just keeping the first two paragraphs of the Legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do their views matter? Because Calvin is not as popular as the article suggests! We are supposed to keep a Neutral Point of View. This article basically worships Calvin. The bias is overwhelming. Too many people complaining about an individual is not an excuse to ignore them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, a spin off goes against the guidelines on NPOV. You would have to summarize the content on the article, including the criticism. By the way, Tale of a Tub, a very famous work by one of the top English authors and Dean of St. Patricks (Anglican), discusses Calvin as one of the main characters. That is more than just a small commentary on by some random famous person. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As for a "Views of Calvin" article, I would fully expect that the material be properly summarized in this article and hence wouldn't be a POV fork, but again we would need similar selection criteria for creating the summary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about Calvin v. Calvinism. I think we need at least the material about capitalism, representative democracy, and individualism, which is fairly widespread claim in the literature (I'd be shocked if some of your already cited books didn't deal with some or all of these topics at least in passing, and cf. Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy?). I think it's entirely appropriate to have some representative and notable negative views of the man and his ideas too, but secondary sources must be our gauge of importance. (Does Voltaire's complaint qualify? Does Cottret hold his view to be important or influential?) --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You can ask User:Geogre about the amount of sources dealing with Tale of a Tub and John Calvin. I can count quite a few when I worked on Swift (I focused on his religious works and pamphleteering, not his satire). Voltaire should have a lot of sources, and I would contact the group that worked on the Voltaire FAC. They should be able to provide some. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I had been writing the article (actually, I did write considerable parts of the pre-FAC article), it would have been more theological in nature and less biographical, but I think the latter focus is equally acceptable and probably better for this article. (If desired, the theology of John Calvin (which is not the same as Calvinism) can be covered elsewhere -- cf. Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, which RelHistBuff spun off while taking Huldrych Zwingli to FA.) That biographical focus, however, means that there will necessarily and appropriately be fewer controversies and contemporary negative opinions described throughout the article. I tend to think we're missing criticism from the Catholic Church and perhaps other Protestant contemporaries, but I'm not yet convinced that plaudits and criticisms from Swift, Voltaire, et al. are necessary or appropriate here. (At least there's a book in your Amazon search about Catholic criticisms.) The best (only?) way to determine relevance to any of these articles is with reliable, secondary sources that gauge importance. I don't think we're ready to call in User:Georgre or anyone else to help us until we can first establish the relevance of any person's or institution's opinion. Otherwise, we'd need to go consult about myriad others' views of Calvin. Chances are, we can establish the necessary framework for positive/negative views from the sources already cited. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, any analysis made that is significantly distant from Calvin’s lifetime will be difficult to differentiate as a view of Calvin or a view of Calvinism. In addition, views change with time and each era (Age of Enlightenment, 19th century/Victorian, current, etc.) has their own biases. The various views would be difficult to filter and prioritise. Even current views are contradictory. Weber’s thesis is well-known, but many have noted that he dealt mainly with Calvin’s heritage as opposed to Calvin himself. Others have disagreements with him. Hall’s view is considered new and provocative. I believe this article should concentrate on his life and theology and I prefer the original Legacy section without the last paragraph. Having said all that, I do not see much of a problem if two opposing point-of-views are presented and it is stated that there are many different opinions. Readers can then do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I consider this matter closed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some problematic language, especially here: "He defends the trinitarian view of God and notes that images of God lead to idolatry, a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church". The sentence reads as if "a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church" modifies the -complete sentence-. Thus, it would be saying that Catholics don't have a Trinitarian view of God. This should be rewritten. Also, you have "He often cited the Church Fathers in order to defend the reformed cause" but don't put anything about the attacks that he received. You should probably separate this into a paragraph and include who the attacks came from. Otherwise, you created a strawman. Finally, the Theology section reads like a summary of Institutes of the Christian Religion instead of about his theology as a whole. Its one thing to refer to it, but calling it a "magnum opus" and breaking down book by book seems a tad excessive, especially when it doesn't include his whole theology, which is far more nuanced and developed over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the trinity sentence. I'll let RelHistBuff handle the "attacks" part from the sources. (In essence, I'd guess that Catholics were arguing that Protestant doctrine was novel and that Calvin responded by trying to show it wasn't by quoting the Fathers. But I'd like to see it cited rather than just asserted.) As for the Theology section, the Institutes *is* a summary of his entire theology, and so it seems appropos to summarize it in order to summarize his theology. As the article says, he revised it several times, but it almost always expanded to cover additional topics rather than changed coverage of existing topics. Hence, his theology was pretty stable over time. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Comment: Ottava Rima dislikes the complexity of the syntax. Since I teach second language students, I've become reasonably adept at reducing the cognitive load created by syntactic complexity. Anyone mind if I look 'n see what I might simplify? Feel free to revert me if I turn silk purses into sow's ears. Ling.Nut 12:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, so please go ahead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oi, are there two Philibert Bertheliers? How could he be in a dispute in 1553 if he was beheaded in 1519? ...... Oh OK. Father/son; daddy beheaded in 1519. Got it. Misplaced Pages needs to draw ths distinction. Ling.Nut 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. I commented during the peer review, and I think the article has much improved since then. I do think some of the detail in the Early life section could be trimmed out - for example, where he hid out during his period of hiding after Cop's speech. There are other tidbits like this throughout the article that could be removed without really losing anything important. As written, though, the article seems comprehensive and reasonably well-written. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive and well written, this article deserves recognition as a featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coemgenus (talk • contribs)

Support. Nasty lead image location (flush right is the only way to go!), but a solid article. Nicely done. (Just do something about that image!) --Spangineer (háblame) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The MOS recommends portraits look towards the text. It is bizarre aesthetically to have a person staring off of the screen. Awadewit (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: There are some comments about this near the top of the FAC. Other FAs such as Joseph Priestley have the image on the left. Another editor added some special parameters concerning the TOC that should make the flush-left image to fit better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I reversed the image and moved it rightward. That's one small flip for PaintShopPro; one giant flip for Misplaced Pages. ;-) Ling.Nut 11:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure if that is allowed or desired. I think this kind of image flip has been discussed in other forums and the idea has been deprecated. Personally, I am not too keen on messing around with someone else's painting. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit's comment makes sense, but I think Ling.Nut's edit "aesthetically" is the best overall. But if there is a major issue with flipping images, I'll relent. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Flipping images is a terrible idea. We don't alter quotations in this way, so we shouldn't alter images. It is best to retain the artist's intention. I've reverted this change. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK Ling.Nut 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • "France was taking an interest in Geneva": what kind of interest?

To form an alliance. I added a clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Philibert Berthelier asked the council for permission to take communion": why was he excommunicated?

Interesting coincidence. I had just finished a stub article on Berthelier. He and two others had insulted a minister. I added a sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut 09:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comments

I do not think this article should be prohibited from becoming FA only because of Ottava Riva's strong oppose. I also think that religious articles like this one and RCC should not be prohibited from becoming FA based on desires of people to have huge amounts of negative opinions of non -believers included in the article. If we require these articles to include such info, they will be too large and will not help Reader find the facts about the article they came to seek. All of these articles have some summary of criticism with a link to a main article discussing criticisms in greater detail. Let's not toss someone's huge contribution to Misplaced Pages just because we don't like the subject matter or because we feel we have been treated unfairly or held to different standards at another FA. NancyHeise 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd add that RelHistBuff has done a great job in reconstructing the article and responding to criticism here and on the article's talk page in a timely fashion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:31, 9 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

Sideshow Bob

Nominator(s): Scorpion

My first FA of 2009 is one I've been meaning to do for a while but just recently got around to it. I'll finish this nom with some wisdom from Bob himself:

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!" - Sideshow Bob, 1992

Anyway, as always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.moviesonline.ca/
    • It's a movie news site and they do check their sources. Unfortunately, I can't find any other online articles from better sources, but I have found several on NewsBank. However, I think NewsBank should only be used as a last resort. -- Scorpion 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think what Ealdgyth is looking for is some kind of proof that the site is to be considered reliable beyond an editor statement that "It's a movie news site and they do check their sources." Something like the site's being considered reliable by a more obviously reliable source. Luckily for MoviesOnline, it has been cited by publications such as New York Magazine (here), and MSNBC (here). Maybe that'll be enough. If it isn't, then check the Google News Archive for further instances. Steve 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd give it a "on the fence" statement for those. (Thanks, Steve, btw!) Why are sources on NewsBank to be used only on a last resort? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Because not everyone has access to them. I prefer to use sources that everyone can immediately see. -- Scorpion 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm inclined to think it's unreliable, but I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Then add both refs like<ref>(i) <br>(ii) Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing the billboard link as dead, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, replaced with a NewsBank Hamilton Spectator ref. -- Scorpion 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Please check citations for consistency in usage of p or pp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It uses p in cases where there is just one page, and pp for multiple. -- Scorpion 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I think it was that some pg no's had dots after them, some others didn't. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cecil and Bob.png - I am on the fence about this fair use image. There is critical commentary in the article comparing the two characters, but I am not sure that we need to show Cecil. Apparently, Cecil is meant to look "related" to Bob. On the one hand, I think showing the two characters is helpful, because I wouldn't have guessed they were supposed to look alike. On the other hand, this article is about Bob, and I wonder how necessary this image of Cecil really is. My concerns here fall under WP:NFCC #8. I would appreciate feedback from other reviewers on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this problem can be solved by adding to the intro a statement on the lines: "only one relative of Bob has been introduced on the show, Cecil". This way having a section and a image with him would make it more ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple members of the Sideshow family have been introduced on the show, including both of his parents, a wife and a child. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The intro's a little long, but it's all substance. Good work. kag₇₂ 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please comment on the fair use image per my request above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it should be left in, but I see how it might not be justified. See what others say. kag₇₂ 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So have you reached a decision on the image? I can remove it if you like. -- Scorpion 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent article, though my comment on the PR was not addressed. There are multiple cases of repetition in the article. One is how Bob is stalled by reciting the HMS Pinafore and is captured, which is in both the Appearances and Analysis sections. Reywas92 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It can't really be avoided though. It's a major plot point, so it should be mentioned in appearances but it's also cited as an example in the book we use. You have to assume that the reader is not familiar with The Simpsons (or that they bothered to read the entire article), so in both cases a short description is provided. -- Scorpion 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not at all close to 1a. Update: Scartol's copyedit has greatly improved the prose.
• From the lead:
  • "He began as a sidekick " Began is quite vague here...began as a character (out of universe, and began is still too unspecific) or began his career (in universe)?
  • "involve Bob/him -ing" is quite ungainly, especially in two sentences in a row.
    • Do you have any suggestions?
  • "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic"," Citation for quotation? Passive perfect tense is weak.
    • Per WP:LEAD, citations are not needed in the lead if there is a citation later in the article. And the complete version of that quote is used (and cited) later.
      • Per WP:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright then. Done.
  • "has since been praised for his portrayals" Yet more passive perfect. What's the "since" doing here?
    • Removed.
  • "Several parallels have been drawn in the show" And more. In fact, the weak perfect tense is used throughout the lead.
    • So what is wrong with the sentence?
      • Nothing wrong grammatically; I'm pointing out that it, plus numerous other sentences, use the perfect perfect progressive. They often beg the question, "by whom?" If this can be answered, then a recast into an active voice often leads to stronger prose. BuddingJournalist 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "the premise of the Coyote chasing the Road Runner by having Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life." These two ideas, connected by the "by", don't seem to relate to each other.
    • They do too. Have you ever seen the Coyote and Road Runner cartoons?
      • I have, but how does "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" connect with this idea? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, you have to remember that it's just the lead and the idea is exanded upon in the development section. But the Coyote is a self-proclaimed genius who continually chases this stupid bird for whatever reason and always loses. This premise is similar to Bob & Bart. Also, that idea was mentioned by a producer in one of the DVD commentaries. -- Scorpion 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • One of the tough parts of the lead is balancing clarity with succinctness. "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" is vague and does not seem to connect to the previous idea of "chasing". Draw the parallel explicitly. BuddingJournalist 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay.
              • I'm still not seeing the connection of "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" with Coyote/Road Runner (note that this exact phrase is used later as well). The recurring theme of the cartoons is that the coyote repeatedly tries and fails to kill the road runner, which seems to be the correct parallel, not the vague "unexpectedly inserting himself", no? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "a role as the main antagonist in The Simpsons Ride and several of Grammer's musical..." Broken list: either "and a role...The Simpsons Ride, and several" or recast "and several of Grammer's..." so that parallelism is kept through the list.
    • I split it into two sentences.
  • Looking at some sentences at random below the lead:
  • "decided to have Bob return to get revenge" This is just begging for a recast.
    • Why?
      • There are much stronger words to use than those two here. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "and the directors think they are always crazy and fun for them to animate" Encyclopedic prose, please.
    • To be fair, "crazy and fun" is in quotations; so it must come from the directors themselves. JonCatalán 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The quotations weren't in there before. I have since changed it to a different quote. -- Scorpion 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It wasn't in quotations when I made the above comment. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The writers believe that Grammer has a great voice and try to create something for him to sing each time he appears." Yet more simplistic prose.
    • And?
      • And what? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've re-written it, is it better? -- Scorpion 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, at least "something" has been eliminated. Great is not the most encyclopedic adjective. Now there's nothing objectively wrong with "The writers believe that Grammer has a great singing voice and try to write a song for him every time Bob appears", but it is rather simplistic, wordy, and dry. "Grammer's singing talent inspires the writers..." is just one example of a pithier way of expressing this idea. BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "His intelligence can sometimes be a plus such as in "Cape Feare". A Parole Board asks Bob why he has a tattoo that said "Die, Bart, Die" and he replies that it is German for "The, Bart, The"." Huh? Is the second sentence supposed to serve as an example of why this is a "plus" (note also the un-encyclopedic and vague use of "plus")? If so, I'm not seeing the connection.
    • I added a bit more detail. Better?
      • Ah, now it makes a bit more sense, but what exactly are they impressed about? The sentence seems to imply that the important information is that they believe him. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd have to add a bit more detail (generally I try to keep plot details as brief as possible), but I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not seeing the necessity for more detail; I'm just wondering whether "impressed" should be replaced by "believes him" or something similar. But then again, I don't know the episode. BuddingJournalist 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• The article seems far from 1a standard and needs a significant copy-edit. Whoever decides to undertake the copy-edit will probably need access to the sources to rewrite much of the rather simplistic language and sentence structure that is used throughout the article. BuddingJournalist 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to keep you up to date, I am still looking for a copyeditor (the user I would normally go to is busy), do you know any? As well, which of your concerns listed above are still not fully addressed? -- Scorpion 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • As for copyeditors, maybe User:Cirt? I struck the ones I believe have been addressed, although I may have overlooked some things. But these were just examples; there are many areas for improvement in the prose throughout the article.
        • Take this paragraph, for example: "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" in season 19, along with their previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, who was played by John Mahoney. Mahoney had also played Martin Crane, the father of Grammer's and Pierce's characters in Frasier. However, the dynamic of the characters was changed: in Frasier, Mahoney played the "down-to-earth, average guy" to Grammer's and Hyde Pierce's "uppity snobs"; but Robert Terwilliger was portrayed as being just as highbrow as Bob. Bob also has a wife named Francesca (voiced by Maria Grazia Cucinotta) and a son named Gino, both of whom were introduced in the season 17 episode "The Italian Bob" and returned for "Funeral for a Fiend"."
          • Easily spotted errors such as "their", "Grammer...characters"/"Grammer..."uppity snobs"", and using a semicolon incorrectly should really be resolved in a copyedit/proofread before FAC.
          • Redundancies such as "who was", "also", and "being" can be eliminated in favor of crisper prose.
          • Since the contrast of the dynamics is explicitly laid out, the "However, the dynamic of the characters was changed" can be safely eliminated for a simpler comparison.
          • "played" gets a bit repetitive.
          • "returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen". You'll need to find a way to recast this sentence.
          • The last "also" is a weak way of transitioning to Bob's wife and son. It really ought to be eliminated, but doing so makes the break in discussion more jarring. Is there a better place within the Family section for this sentence—perhaps at the very beginning? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • BuddingJournalist, could you comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I'm no image expert. I hold the same view you do; I think it'd be fine in an article on Cecil, but am unsure of its utility in this article. BuddingJournalist 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Another Update Cirt, has started doing a copyedit and has done the lead. However, this will likely be archived tomorrow so I'll probably have to give it another try. -- Scorpion 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Another fine Simpsons article that is strong on substance and sources. Has no strong considerable problems and appears to be complete. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

• Could you please comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think above you made reference to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The "topic" in question here is "Bob's family". Given that, I think having the picture showing the 2 characters together does significantly increase my understanding of how they are drawn to resemble each other as family would be, and not having the picture would be detrimental to my understanding of that. In my opinion it qualifies as fair use. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm I would stay away from statements like "Sideshow Bob has become a popular character from the series". Without a reference it is POV-pushing. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is referenced. -- Scorpion 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wouldn't it be useful to end the article with a section that lists the ten episodes he appears in? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Like this? -- Scorpion 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My bad, though a proper section might still not be the worst of ideas. This template doesn't exactly catch your eye (as I unintentionally demonstrated). EnemyOfTheState_|talk 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • A section might not be a bad idea, but there isn't one because of precedent. In the past, every character had a "major episodes" section. For Sideshow Bob, this isn't a problem, but with the majority of the rest of the characters it was because it can be very subjective. We finally decided to get rid of the sections and I would prefer not to bring any of them back. I can make the template non-collapsed so it will be more noticeable. -- Scorpion 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It was confusing to have the first navbox collapsed and the second not, so I made the second navbox autocollapse. It should be easier to spot the first one now. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this, felt it was very close to FA standards at the time, and believe that the edits since have only improved it. I think the image of the brothers is acceptable as a fair use image. Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment WHile I believe the Bob and Cecil image meets WP:NFCC, I am also OK with its removal. Ruhrfisch _><>° 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose—style and prose concerns, crit. 1–3. In several places the wording is clunky and choppy, i.e., "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic"; Frasier Crane is Grammer's character on the sitcoms Cheers and Frasier." Then there's the fact that the appearances section is written in past tense, in contradiction to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I'm not convinced that File:SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png significantly increases reader understanding, as required by WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • About the appearances section, up until recently it WAS written in present tense but it was changed. I have since taken it back to present. Why aren't you convinced about SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png? -- Scorpion 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, before I even edited the article, half of the Appearances section was already in past tense. I just followed whatever tense it was using the most while copyediting it ;) Gary King (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, we're none of us perfect. I think I've caught a lot of the past tense. However, the section starts off with past tense because it recounts things that happened in the past in the show. -- Scorpion 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to pass on the image as the other one has been removed. However there should be some care in terms of the free images added; in some places they are aligned left in violation of MoS rules regarding images, and clutter up the text, breaking up section headers and adding whitespace; add breaks if you're going to have so many. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried shifting the images around and I uploaded cropped versions of the Grammer and Hyde Pierce image. Is it better now? -- Scorpion 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the images — I felt they helped break up walls of copy. What MOS violation are you referring to? The only one I can imagine is not left-aligning images just below level-three headers, which I always carefully avoid. In any case, it looks like Scorpion has fixed the clutter problem. Scartol • Tok 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, criterion 3. The Cecil and Bob image is a deal-breaker at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? I've got three different image reviewers telling me three different things. Awadewit says she isn't sure, David Fuchs apparantly doesn't have any objections and you find it opposeable over. -- Scorpion 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a subjective matter. I don't believe it lends anything to understanding the material, and we are trying to build a 💕 which means we must keep non-free content to a bare minimum. I don't even care for the image in the infobox but I'm afraid one must be tolerated. --Laser brain (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there anything I can do (ie. Fixing the rationale or using a different image) to change your opinion, or will you only change your mind with the removal of the image? For what it's worth, I asked some users on IRC and they thought the image was okay. -- Scorpion 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the only way the image would be acceptable is if it was accompanied by sourced, critical commentary that is essential to understanding the character. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, personally I think it does already do that, but it's really not worth having this fail over, so I removed it. -- Scorpion 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I have stricken my image comment above, but upon examination of the prose, this is far from meeting 1a. It needs a thorough copyedit. I agree with BuddingJournalist's assessment that the prose is very simplistic, reading more like a episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Random samples just from the first section:
  • Confusing mixture of past and present tense when talking about Bob's history. I thought you had a system going, but it breaks down quickly.
    • There is a system going. Events that appear in the show are in present tense, events that were not depicted in the show are in past tense.
      • I understand that. I'm saying you aren't following the system. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "This was part of a scheme to gain access to ..." Avoid using "this" to refer to a previous concept without restating.
  • "After this escapade, Bob is genuinely redeemed ..." We have to wait a tortuously long time before reading how he was redeemed.
    • What? That was part of the plot of the episode, Bob was genuinely changed and thus he was released.
  • The whole section, actually, is not a compelling read. The long list of "Bob is released from prison. Bob does something. Bob is returned from prison." is a labor to read through. Sorry, but this has quite a way to go.
    • Have you ever tried condensing the plots of 10 full episodes into a three paragraph section? It's immensely to explain the same basic premise over and over again in such little space without sounding repetitive. -- Scorpion 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure it's difficult but that's part of the challenge of meeting criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to do as thorough a copyedit as I can, starting today. Hopefully I can help finesse the prose a bit. Scartol • Tok 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've finished my copyedit. I hope it helps. Scartol • Tok 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've stricken my opposition above. It's looking much better. --Laser brain (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything that can be done to get you to support? -- Scorpion 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looking much better.
  • Still not convinced by "having Bob unexpectedly insert himself into Bart's life". At the least the first time this is used, there is an "and attempt to kill him." The recurring motif of the the Coyote/Road Runner cartoons is that the Coyote repeatedly tries to kill the Road Runner in elaborate ways, no? Therefore, "by having Bob repeatedly attempt to kill Bart" or something similar makes much more sense to me.
  • Okay, I can go for that. Done.
    • Forgot to mention: this is actually what happens in the episode though, right (that he repeatedly attempts to kill him)? I've never seen it; I was just extrapolating from the comparison. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't think of that. Usually the episodes revolve around one plan to kill Bart, rather than numerous failed attempts, so the previous wording was more accurate. -- Scorpion 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I guess I'm still left wondering about the comparison then. I can understand how the comparison can be made across multiple episodes, since he repeatedly fails at killing Bart, but the current wording suggests something specific about that one episode that recalls the Coyote/Road Runner episodes. BuddingJournalist 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" during season 19, along with the brothers' previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, played by John Mahoney." "Returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen".
    • Fixed (I think).
      • Not quite. What I mean is that the second clause basically clashes with the verb choice of "return". Since Dr. Robert Terwillinger is "previously unseen", then his appearance can't be a "return". See my tweak. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Believing that "nobody who speaks German could be an evil man", they release him" Quotation needs citation. BuddingJournalist 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it was covered by the book cite, but I did add a cite for the specific episode as well. Thanks again for your input. -- Scorpion 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support — I gave the article a quick read-through and found just two items, which I fixed myself. Good work by everyone who contributed to the article. I only wish that every Wikiproject had as dedicated and organized a crew as Wikiproject Simpsons. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

In Utero

Nominator(s): WesleyDodds (talk)

It's been a while since an article relating to the seminal alternative rock band Nirvana has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. The main reason for this is that there is such a wealth of material on the group it takes a long time to sort through everything and then fashion it into an exemplary article. As proof of this, I've been working on this article about the band's third (and final) album off and on for well over a year (although not as long as I've been working on Nevermind, which I hope to get ready for FAC by 2011 at the latest). Thanks to the occasional assistance from fellow members of WikiProject Alternative music (particularly Brandt Luke Zorn) and plenty of intensive work by myself in recent months, I feel that the article now meets all Featured Article criteria (I know the soundclips are a bit long, but that will be sorted out pretty soon). If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know (hopefully as soon as possible, because I really should return some of these books to my library at some point). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Media review
The two images (front cover and back) are okay with the fair-use rationales and supporting commentary given.

• File:Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box.ogg and File:Nirvana - Milk It.ogg, however, have the same rationales ("Allows the reader to understand the stylistic approach of the album and the loud-quiet techniques that are typical throughout. and Exemplifies the grittier and rougher production of In Utero in contrast to the band's previous album Nevermind.). Obviously if both songs serve the same purpose, then one should be removed (the one least fitting the rationales). It could be an oversight of copy-and-pasting, but the purposes the two songs serve should be different.

Awaiting comments and feedback. Jappalang (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All images media check out fine (hmm... should be media review). Jappalang (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have never seen the album, but it was always my understanding that the song "tourette's" was intentionally not capitalized. Is that untrue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it isn't capitalized, but because of Misplaced Pages's grammar rules, it is left capitalized. Also the reason that the rest of the song's titles aren't completely capitalized (e.g. "Serve The Servants", which is how it's listed on the CD; I own it). As for the rest of the article, I'll have to read it more before supporting or opposing it. I passed this article's GA review, but it might not be ready for FA. kag₇₂ 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No, there's something somewhere in MoS that allows for things like eBay; if I was correct that it's not capitalized, it should be shown that way in the article. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed per suggestion. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I think it should be capitalized. WP:MOS#Capital letters point to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters), which points to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization for Music albums. In the last, it states "In titles of songs, albums, and band names in the English language, the project standard is to capitalize the first word and last word in the title." Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the song title is intentionally lowercased it should be reflected as such in the article - that's what I've always thought, anyway. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anything in the MOS to say that a lowercase first letter for the song is allowed. As already mentioned WP:ALBUMCAPS disagrees and the eBay/iPod rule is for when the first letter is lowercase and pronounced as a letter per MOS:TM, which I don't think applies in this case. --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why not WP:IAR? The song name is intentionally lower case. (Although this issue isn't important enough to hijack the FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to hijack FAC, I was simply trying to see if you or Giggy could show why you felt your positions to be the case. I am happy for IAR to be the case here as it's such a minor point. --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

oops, sorry; I wasn't implying that you were, JD554 (I was the one who raised the issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the song is consistently referred to in secondary sources as "tourette's". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If Pennyroyal Tea was a single, why aren't any of its chart positions listed in the "singles" subsection under "chart positions"? There was a "Latvian Airplay" chart position listed on the Pennyroyal Tea article; are there any sources? kag₇₂ 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

JD554 added the singles chart positions, so I'll see what he thinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Latvian chart position for Pennyroyal Tea is uncited. However, I couldn't find a source (reliable or otherwise) to verify it so felt it best to not include it. --JD554 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that the Featured List Nirvana discography doesn't list any chart placings for the song. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (WP:ALM member.) The prose is a bit dense at times, but I too believe that the article fits all the criteria. kag₇₂ 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• References (even printed ones that aren't on the web) in non-English languages need to note that in the footnotes.
• Current refs 83 (Scapolo...), 90 (Kent, David..), 91 (Collin, Robert...), 92 (Pennanen ...), and 95 (Scapolo) are lacking page numbers
• Current ref 83 (Scapolo...) is lacking a publisher

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked JD554 about this, so it should be taken care of quickly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had AGF'd those sources as they were already there. However, I've been unable to get them confirmed so I've changed the references/data per Charts.org.nz, Australian-charts.com, Ultratop.be and Finnishcharts.com. This created space in the singles table to add the Netherlands position for "Heart Shaped Box" citing Dutchcharts.nl. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So all the ones lacking page numbers are replaced? And did the non-English sources get noted? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments—Surprisingly, there is no mention that InUtero is on the Rolling Stone "500 greatest albums" list (which should probably be in the lead), and generally, on many such "greatest albums ever" lists. There's a standard table that many classic-album articles have that lists all the accolades the album has received; we should probably add one here. I wonder if a Legacy section could be warranted considering that many (including the band) consider it to be the "true" Nirvana album, as opposed to the overproduced Nevermind, as well one of the most important records of the 1990s. indopug (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been considering that. I'll add a paragraph tomorrow (although we probably don't need a whole new section for it). There used to be an "accolades" table, but I removed it because a lot of it was unreferenced and it's better dealt with in prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. One more thing, are you sure none of that paragraph deserves a mention in the lead? indopug (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The broad sentence about critical acclaim sufficies, I think. None of the accolades really call out to be singled out in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe the RS500 deserves a mention in the lead, but you're probably a better judge of that than I am. kag₇₂ 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I always hate when an album or song's placing on the Rolling Stone lists is listed in the lead. Definitely worth noting in an article, but not so important it deserves a mention in the same breath as, say, a Grammy win or being added to the Library of Congress at the top of the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well this is one of the best articles I've seen for an album that was listed in the RS500. (I own the book.) kag₇₂ 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support as WP:ALM member. WesleyDodds has outdone himself and once again makes the rest of us look bad, the bastard. indopug (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm getting together a list of issues. I will post them here when I am done. NSR77 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is all the information on "Heart-Shaped Box" listed entirely in the sound-sample description? That location is designated for a short summation of the info that should be in the prose. There should be no citations in this area unless new information is introduced. Please transport the—rather lengthy—info from the sound-sample description to the "Music" section of the prose and then write up a short summary of what the clip is supposed to represent. NSR77 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the information is present in the production controversy section. Thematically I felt the sound clip fits better in the Music section, but it can be moved to the other section if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems more logical to have the info in the "Music" section. Then you wouldn't have to take the sample out of context; could be confusing to some readers. More comments are to come. NSR77 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just move it to the next section, since the remixing is discussed there. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments...I'll give this the ol' once over...or twice....and drop some notes below. Over the line prose-wise. heh Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, the band intended the record to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991). - I know active is usually preferred to passive but the subject has shifted and it sounds funny. (i.e. the subject of the first clause is the album, then the band is the subject of the second. I'd make the second clause passive or try - "The band intended the record, which was released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991)." or just split them. Have a play anyway.

I fixed this by simply moving the clause to the first sentence, where it was originally. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To capture a more abrasive and natural sound - for mine, the bolded adjective "natural" is vague to the point of meaningless and adds nothing. I know what you are getting at ("raw", but that sounds too music-jargonny) or ? "less-produced"/"underproduced" or something which means somesuch..."spontaneous" (?) - anyway, have a play.

"Natural": that's what Albini and the band wanted, judging by the sources. I could go with just abrasive if you think that would suffice. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(bloody grunge music...sigh) I am happy to go with the flow here, if the term has a specific enough meaning that is implied :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good. I made some minor fixes as I was reading, but listed some below for your consideration:
  • "Upon release, the album debuted at number one ..." Is the "upon release" necessary? I think it's assumed that it can't debut until it's released.
    • I'll rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I never really understood this concept, but is an "album" the same as a "record"? Because you call it both in the lead.
    • Yes, although some older folks instantly think "vinyl" when they heard the word. Still beats saying "album" all the time. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "... with work proceeding slowly ..." Avoid the ungrammatical noun plus -ing construction; please check for these throughout.
    • Why is this considered incorrect? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've never been as good at explaining it as Tony1 is, so I'll direct you to his entry about it here. --Laser brain (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've altered most of them, but I left a few that if removed would have made the sentences worse. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "In October 1992, Nirvana recorded several songs (mainly as instrumentals) that would later appear on In Utero during a demo session with Endino in Seattle." This is ambiguously worded as to sound like the songs appeared on the album during the time of the demo session. It can be solved by moving the ending clause to the middle.
    • Fixed and reworded. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Make sure that if a quotation ends in a period, you put the period inside the closing quote. Please check throughout, as there are a few of them wrong. (ex. "Albini observed that 'they wanted to make precisely the sort of record that I'm comfortable doing'.")
    • That's a quote fragment, and per the the Manual of Style punctuation is placed on the outside for that sort of thing (I know that in American grammar we are taught that punctuation always goes inside of quotes, but I've long ago come to accept this quirk of Misplaced Pages). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The band recorded the tracks live ..." As opposed to?
    • Recorded live means they all recorded together at the same time, instead of each doing their own takes which are later pieced together, which is the typical way of recording a big-budget album. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I know what you meant when reading it in context, but it seems like there would be a better way to say this. Isn't there a recording industry term for when the musicians record synchronously in the studio? "Recorded live" usually means the album was recorded from a live performance with audience. --Laser brain (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Rewrote. Also, I just noticed looking back at the Azerrad book that he explains the definition of recording live. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "... with some dating back to 1990." Another noun plus -ing.
    • Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The phrase had originated in mid-1992 as Cobain's response whenever the question 'How are you?' was asked of him, was intended as humorous." This is ungrammatical.. I'll leave the revision to you in this case.

--Laser brain (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • This was added by another editor from a source I don't own. I'll try and fix it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed thanks to Google Book search and re-reading the Azerrad book for additional context. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great article. Wish I could write like this. However, the paragraph attached to the sound sample of "Heart-shaped Box" is extremely difficult to read. Could it be shortened? The length of the caption makes it look like you could find anywhere in the article to put the info.-- EA Swyer _{Contributions} 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The caption helps justify fair use. I can try cutting it by a line or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Why don't you use the Template:Tracklist for the tracklist? It would be much more transparent and "nicer".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Tezkag72_{私のはかい} 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The template is not mandatory and is in fact needlessly complicated and difficult to edit. It's the same reason I don't use the cite tempaltes anymore. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 11 February 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 .

United States Military Academy

Nominator(s): — BQZip01 —, Ahodges7, Madcoverboy, Alex Middleton, BlueAg09

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-referenced, well-constructed, and one of the best articles I've seen here on Misplaced Pages. It meets all the standards and would be a fine addition to the list of FAs. Props to Ahodges7 for pushing this one! — BQZip01 —  18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support refs have improved and the article checks all the boxes. WP can be proud of this article. Comment I think the citations still need some more standardization and work to increase reliability. Sources like flickr, admissions office, GoArmySports, geocities are borderline reliability as either authorities or SPS. Not insurmountable, but my primary concern. Standardizing formatting of citations also needs some massaging. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments

• Wilco on the massaging. On a related note, some of the refs' links (see the tools on the right) seem to have gone bad since the beginning of January. I'll double check. SPS aren't prohibitted, but their information should be suspect. If there are extraordinary claims, I would expect backup from another unrelated source. The admissions office is a primary source for basic information like enrollment figures and is appropriate in this case. — BQZip01 —  18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  Removed the reference cite*d by geocities; it was a factoid not necessary for the article. The flickr reference is merely a picture of what the sentence claims and it is also backed up by another reference, so, while flickr isn't necessarily the best source, it certainly paints an accurate picture in this case. The rest are primary sources of information and are not controversial points of fact (enrollment, record of football team, etc.). BTW, I put you in as a co-nominator. If you don't want to do so, feel free to remove your name. — BQZip01 —  18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've removed the Flikr reference. I reworded the sentence and provided a photograph in the article to verify the statement that "Beat Navy" is prominently displayed on campus (the Beat Navy tunnel in particular). Sorry to have wasted so many people's time with a Flickr citation when I could (should have) just taken the photo myself.  Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Even if the Flickr ref. is backed up by another (reliable source), what about it merits its inclusion? It's still practically a self-published source, and while Wiki allows for self-published sources in some cases (if the author has been published in a reliable third-party source), there's nothing to indicate that the author of the Flickr picture being cited is such an author. Also, if the picture itself is being cited, there isn't anything in the picture to back up the statement (that "Beat Navy" is painted on the bleachers). Same goes for the YouTube ref; there's nothing to indicate that the videos meet WP's criteria for the inclusion of self-published sources.

Also, in some cases, a magazine's title is italicized, while in others, it isn't. Shouldn't the magazines' titles be in the "work" field of the citation template and the publishing company in the "publisher" field? That would also solve the consistency problem with the italicization of titles, I think. Ink Runner (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Right you are. I've removed the sentence backed up by YouTube and the flickr ref (wasn't really needed anyway). My reference to SPS's is for matters of public record for which USMA (as a segment of the Executive Branch) is responsible for publishing. While USMA may publish them and the article is about USMA, these facts are backed up by the federal government and a well-respected institution of higher learning and should be accepted for basic claims (student population, demographics, etc) as they are primary sources. Working on the inconsistencies in the citation templates. — BQZip01 —  22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fixed all the refs. The Flickr picture should stay. It isn't an SPS because it was taken by someone else other than a USMA employee IAW his/her duties. As for the medium in which it is published, a picture is, by definition, an original source. It can't be anything else. It is fine and should stay, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see comment about Flickr resolution above (it's no longer in the article).  Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3 - Significant work needs to be done to bring the images into compliance with WP:IUP: Awadewit (talk · contribs)

• File:WP Ring.jpg now File:WP Ring 2.jpg - The jeweler owns some copyright in this image and thus this image requires a fair use rationale, if the jeweler is not the US federal government. See, for example, File:AggieRing.jpg.

  Replaced image and added copyright info, but with Fair Use tag. The manufacturer may not own a copyright on the design, but that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't own the rights (such as the Class of 07 class council or something like that)

  We need to list the copyright holder and I'm wondering if the resolution is too high on this image. Usually, fair use images have a lower resolution than this - well under 1000px on each side. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  The problem is that we don't know who the copyright holder is. All the designs are made by the cadets while the 3-D implementation and the actual molds are retained by Jostens. Quite frankly, both are given appropriate credit and this is a fair use application of the image no matter which entity controls the copyright. As for the resolution, there is more to it than just the size of the image, but the detail contained in said image. The image at this magnification has a quite low resolution. I could take this image and blow it up to 10x the size, but it wouldn't increase the resolution. As stated on the image page, the resolution is low and it cannot be used in any appreciable way to infringe on any copyright. — BQZip01 —  19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg - Can you find me a statement on the website that says all material is in the PD or something to that effect?

  Note: This is the sole remaining "unresolved" photo from Awadewit (talk · contribs) original comments. The remaining objection to it is incorrect. The photo is an official army command photo, the same as seen in the articles: Wesley Clark, David Petraeus, or Richard A. Cody. It should be considered resolved and struck.  Ahodges7    01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Note: This photo is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg, which is sourced, attributed, and tagged PD. Should be resolved.  Ahodges7    23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Official photographic portraits are PD, by definition, as much as any other official Federal document. — BQZip01 —  23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I am simply looking for a statement on the website that says this material is in the PD - I looked for a while, but I couldn't find it. Again, we need proof. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've updated File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg with a correct link for its source and author with proper PD tag.  Ahodges7  11:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    How do we know "USMA Public Affairs Office" is the author? Can you add such a link to the image description page?Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

    You are welcome to call and verify this is the case. What is it you are looking for? Obviously we aren't providing the information you want. — BQZip01 —  00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

    I will repeat myself: The image description page claims that USMA Public Affairs Office is the author of this photo and, thus, that the image is in the PD. I cannot verify that information any where on the website, as required by WP:IUP. Just show me where it says this on the website. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

    You are not required to verify this information on a website IAW WP:IUP. The policy you are citing only states that asone of the options:

    "Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.

    1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.

       done

    2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer..."

       done

    I think some of this may be a misunderstanding too. Not all military images are kept on the internet. The vast majority are retained on local Intranets that encompass the base with limited access to other bases as well. Military members such as myself and Ahodges7 have access to stock photography that may or may not be on a publicly accessible website. Personally, I have about 120 such images but I have chosen not to upload them here (most are just neat photos with limited encyclopedic value). They also haven't been placed anywhere online for the general public (keeping all of them available everywhere & all the time is cost-prohibitive). In the case of these images, the best information we can give you is that they came from a specified source and give their contact information. Should those images be placed on a website, I would have no problem citing that website. Should we get more information, we would be happy to place it on the image pages. — BQZip01 —  04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

    I contacted the PAO office and got the name of the photographer. The image now has the source and controlling agency link attached as well as the author's name. What else does it need to satisfy your issue with it being in the public domain?  Ahodges7   18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

    Possibly an OTRS verification per comments at the Bob Knight picture below. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

    This information is not required. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 —  01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

    (undent) On a stretch here, but: Army websites would use Official Military Photos that are taken by authorized studios (explanation of these Photos here). Illustration of the portraits for promotable colonels and generals could be seen at the Pentagon Portrait/Department of the Army (DA) Studio. Would this be convincing enough to state that all portrait images on official US army websites are Official Military Photos (especially those of colonels and generals with the American flags in the background); thus the Hagenbeck image here can be PD-USArmy even though it would have "unknown" in its author field? Jappalang (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

    These photos aren't taken by "authorized" studios. They are taken by soldiers (or Department of the Army civilians) whose primary career field is professional photography. They are usually taken on the installation in which they are stationed, though I've seen a few taken at previous assignments where they actually received promotions too. Aside from that little misunderstanding (which I think I could have explained better earlier). I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make that assertion, but the unit and/or installation that created the photos should be credited if no author can be identified ("HEY Murray! Do you know who took the photo of the Commandant?...Yeah, me neither.") If the Army is anything like the Air Force, Public Affairs or a separate photography unit took the photos. Let me know if I'm on the money or way off Hodge. — BQZip01 — 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

    BQZip01 is on the money, except I've already done the legwork for the user by contacting the Public Affairs Office and getting the name of the photographer of the Supe's photo. The "authorized Visual Information (VI) activities" thatJappalang referenced here are official government photography shops, run by Department of the Army civilians or military photographers. As a result, the photos that they create are official US Army (and hence US Government) documents, and are PD, just like any other Unclassified government document, OR like the official photos of elected officials.  Ahodges7    16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:West Point Fortifications.jpg - This image looks like it is copied from a powerpoint presentation for a class. We need to know where it was originally published to establish that is in the PD because it is a work of the federal government.

  Note: this image is no longer in the article, but the opposing editor has yet to strike the comment.  Ahodges7    01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  It appears to be from a class at West Point (noting the logo in the lower corner). The images on here appear to be public maps (planning charts, etc.). My career field is navigation and I can assure you that these are PD and the work of a federal entity. The fact that they are published now by a federal entity is the key, though. With no disclaimers, this document, as a production of a federal entity, is PD as are any images contained in it. — BQZip01 —  23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  Including something in a powerpoint presentation for a class is not "publication". To establish that this image is in the PD, we need to know the original publication information. It does indeed look like other US maps I've seen that have been made by the military, but that is not enough. We have to be able to prove the PD claim and so far we cannot. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've located the course description for the current version of the class cited as the source. The class nomenclature has changed since the source link was posted. I'll track down the course director on Monday to get updated information on the image. What would satisfy the criteria beyond establishing that it is a work of the USMA Dept of Geography and being used in its Military Geography class?  Ahodges7  12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  That it is being used in a military geography class is irrelevant. We need to find out when and where it was published and who wrote it. That information needs to be verifiable by users. Hopefully the course instructor knows the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think what we're both getting at is that this information was published as part of the courseware. The important thing is that the USMA Department of Geography is the publisher of the image. Their academic standing is on the line and they wouldn't publish something like this without it being a PD image or clarifying it as such (a violation of copyright is a pretty serious offense in academia). — BQZip01 —  00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  I see no evidence that this powerpoint presentation has been published by anyone - that it has undergone editorial oversight. We need to know the origin of this image - that is what establishes the PD claim. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  ??? I'm sorry. It is a PDF of a Powerpoint presentation that is part of the published courseware for a class at the Academy. Why doesn't it meet all the criteria you mentioned? — BQZip01 —  06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Considering that it is Scott (http://www.i3mm.com/#page=scott) who uploaded that powerpoint to Scribd.com and not the USMA, it might be prudent to inquire if he was the author of the picture in question. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  He's not claiming he is the author, so, no. This was a USMA-produced document. That Scott posted it is irrelevant to its original source. — BQZip01 —  01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  If it is a USMA-produced document, it should likely be on the USMA site, yes? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. The individual departments publish their course documents online from time to time, but the vast majority of this exists behind the USMA firewall. Because of the (nearly) unique status of USMA being a top-level college and at the same time a military installation, the academy balances the need for openness to foster collaberation and learning along with the need to protect its network from cyper-terrism and hackers. So long answer to your quesiton is "no", just because the academy produced the document, it doesn't mean that document will be on-line. Like BQZip01 has tried to explain, you can contact the Department of Geography to verify if the document came from them, but you are unlikely to find it on the academy's or department's website for the reasons I just listed.  Ahodges7    20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  (undent) For the sake of progress, could this rough sketch of a map from a powerpoint presentation of unverifiable origin not be replaced by the old maps here, here, here, or this book? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  It can. I've replaced File:West Point Fortifications.jpg with File:1780 Map of West Point Defenses.jpg. The monochrome sketch map looks more appropriate given the Colonial period being described anyway. Thanks to Jappalang for posting this image. I still side with BQZip01 as to the PD status of the previous image, but this resolution should move us towards resolving objections to the article on image rights disputes.  Ahodges7    20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg - This may need a fair use rationale - I'm not totally sure. I'll look into it.

  Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7    01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• FUR only applies to copyrighted images. It doesn't apply to trademarks. As such, trademarks are free images which have restrictions on commercial applications. — BQZip01 —  23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Trademarks are different from copyrights. Ignoring the troubles that brew behind the scenes, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos and Misplaced Pages:Logos#Trademark concerns state that such logos used here are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article). This article is about the USMA, not the Black Knights. Public domain or not, trademarks must be used appropriately on Misplaced Pages. Personally, the article must discuss about the logo in question to qualify for "criticism or commentary" of the subject (e.g. discuss how the logo came about). Putting it here without such information renders the purpose of use as purely decorative, the logo is just there because the body it represents was mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't say that. It applies to "Product logos and corporate logos". As this is not a product nor a company, this guideline does not apply. Furthermore, and I really hate to go toe-to-toe with you on this, your personal ideas as to when a logo is appropriate in your eyes is not policy or a guideline. It has no backing with regards to consensus. Neither source you provided states "logos used...are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article)." — BQZip01 —  23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Specifically, the very first sentence in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos, "Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell, Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, or company." Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just see below, but short version: this doesn't apply because it is not a product, corporation, company, or service. This doesn't meet the criteria described above. — BQZip01 —  05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the below, it is relevant because this trademark, aside from branding the team, is for commercial marking of merchandise associated with the team. Hence it is for commercial use (product). Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg is part of the USMA.edu Public Affairs press release website. The purpose of this website is to allow the use of the image to represent Army Athletics for identification, such as with news agencies. I don't see why its is an issue to use it to identify the athletic program on the Misplaced Pages article for USMA. Regardless, I am in the process of contacting Mr. Jim Flowers, the director of licensing for USMA athletics to gains written permission. Will that satisfy your objection?  Ahodges7    14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the logo from the article. This should end the debate.  Ahodges7    02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

  Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7    01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  You can contact the USMA DPE if you wish to verify the photo. — BQZip01 —  23:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  This source is too vague - most users will not know what "USMA DPE" means nor how to contact them. You need to give as much information as possible to allow users to verify this image. Currently, not even its license can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've replaced File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg with File:Coach Knight and Coach Krzyzewski at West Point Oct 2007 1.jpg, which came from the USMA Public Affairs office and has a US Govt PD tag on it as well as a link to the PAO's office for verification.  Ahodges7  11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  The new image doesn't have a source link or specific source publication information. We need one or the other. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  They don't need to be published or have a source link, merely a source. PA usually takes lots of stock images and only uses a few here and there. You can contact them to verify anything needed. Would a phone number help? — BQZip01 —  00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Users need to be able to verify the image and its license, per WP:IUP. We cannot do that with this image yet. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  See above under the general's photo. — BQZip01 —  05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  I have updated the source link (as good as it is going to get) and the author information. If an editor wishes to verify further, they are going to have to contact PAO because the photo is not on an internet link that the general public can access. I believe that the photo should meet the standard now. It was taken at a public event, by a government photographer in the performance of his duties. It is properly cited and attributed. What else does it need?  Ahodges7    20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Generally, in these cases where the source of the information is not verifiable to the norms (on-line, books, videos), the OTRS is the avenue to pursue; forward confirmation with the USMA that this image was taken by an army employee to the foundation. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  This information is not required and jumping through these hoops isn't necessary. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 —  01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:West Point Rugby Player.jpg, which is sourced and should have no issues being PD.  Ahodges7    02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved image comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

• • File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image. Note that WP:IUP says "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified." - "USMA" is too vague to allow a user to verify anything about the image.

    File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg is from the USMA Bicentennial History website. The image was taken circa 1870. I have updated the licensing tag, per BQZip01's comments below. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Henry Flipper First African American USMA Graduate.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    Same source as above, PD for the same reason. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Washington Road West Point c1880.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    Same source as above, PD for the same reason. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Class of 1980.jpg - We need to link to the appropriate file at the National Archives so that we can verify the license.

    This photo came from The Smithsonian National Museum of American History website entitled "West Point in the Making of America". It credits the photo the the National Archives. I've updated the photo with an NARA license tag. Is this OK, or is anything further required? Ahodges7 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    The NARA tag is not a licensing tag. Note that it says "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work." We need to find the NARA ID number of this image - once we do that, we can see the information about it and identify the proper tag (assuming it is in the PD). Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Have located File:Class of 1980.jpg at the National Archives and updated the source, author, NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-111-C-CC117640, and affixed appropriate PD tag.  Ahodges7  12:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks. I added the ARC number so we can link directly to it. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:USMA Cadet Rank -1.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    The image comes form Bugle Notes (1994), published by the Directorate of Cadet Activities, which is an entity of USMA, and as such a government agency. Never the less, I've contacted the publishing coordinator at DCA and received permission. They can be reached at 845-938-2780 or webdca@usma.edu if anyone wished to verify permission. I am not sure how to tag the photo, so I've tagged it as the work of the US Army while at the same time stating the author as DCA, while providing contact info to DCA. Ahodges7 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    What we need to do is to list more information about this publication. If you could provide a complete bibliographic citation, that would be best. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Bibliography: Hulse, Glen (1994). Bugle Notes:86th Volume. West Point, NY: Directorate of Cadet Activities, p. 62. I've posted the same bibliography on the image under "source". Does this suffice or some other format needed? Ahodges7 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Bastille Day 2002 westpoint2.jpg - We need source and author information for this image.

    I've removed File:Bastille Day 2002 westpoint2.jpg because I'm not sure where the photo came from. It was an artifact from a previous version of the article. I've replaced it with File:2012s Motto Beast March Back.JPG which is more appropriate for the topic being discussed in that section anyway. I took that photo, and release the rights for its use. Ahodges7 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Goat Engineer.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    This photo was taken by a soldier from USMA's Public Affairs office on 3 Dec 08. I've updated the image and credited the author. Ahodges7 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    I changed File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg with File:USMA Graduation Hat Toss 2008.jpg, which should have the appropriate PD tags and citation. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

    Uploader (User:Ahodges7) will have to answer that for these. — BQZip01 —  00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg, File:Henry Flipper First African American USMA Graduate.jpg, and File:Washington Road West Point c1880.jpg are from the USMA Bicentennial History website. Perhaps I was mistaken, but since USMA is a governmental agency, I thought that it was legal to use a photo that is posted on their website. The photographs are 130-150 years old, so their should be no photographer's rights infringement issues I would think. Ahodges7 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    • You can't just use an image because it is on a government site (realize this is not necessarily a legal issue, but one of Misplaced Pages policy with regards to copyrighted images). Those images may be copyrighted and the site using them under license or with the permission of the entity which owns the copyright. That said, these images are Public Domain because their copyright (if one was ever formally in place) has long since expired (1923). — BQZip01 —  02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

      • The issue with these images was that we could not verify anything about them because the sources listed for them was too vague. Now we can verify them, which I have indeed done. Note, however, that File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg still has source that is too vague. Users do not know where to look to find this image. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

        See response to File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg issue above.  Ahodges7  10:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:U.S. Military Academy COA.png - We need a source for this image.

    Why isn't the given source enough? — BQZip01 —  23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't see a source on the image description page. What is it? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia produced by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. — BQZip01 —  22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've added a summary section to File:U.S. Military Academy COA.png which includes source link as well as dates and author(s).  Ahodges7  11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you Ahodges7. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:DMI USMA crest.gif - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.

    You can contact the department listed — BQZip01 —  00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've added the link to DMI on the image. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for adding the link. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:DPE Shield.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves. Also, if this is a government-created image, it should have the appropriate US federal government tag.

    You can contact the department listed — BQZip01 —  00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've added link to DPE] for the image source and have placed a US Gov't PD tag on it. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for adding the link. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:SR01 032.jpg - We need to link to the HTML page where this image is found, not directly to the JPG file, per WP:IUP.

    No, we don't need to. "A good source for an image from an internet location is to point to the HTML page that contains the image...and not directly to the image itself". While I admit it is a good idea, it isn't mandatory and is simply a "good" way to do it, not the only way it has to be done. — BQZip01 —  00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    The reason this is a good idea is so that information about the image can be verified. Currently, nothing about this image, including its license, can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've replaced File:SR01 032.jpg with File:USMA Color Guard on Parade.jpg, which is appropriately sourced and tagged PD as a comparable image.  Ahodges7  17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you Ahodges7. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Sedgwick's Spurs.JPG - Who created this statue and when? I'm wondering if WP:FOP is applicable here.

    It isn't and was dedicated in 1868. {{PD-Art}} applies. — BQZip01 —  23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    I have added the date to the file so that no further questions arise. Please add the name of the sculptor. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've added the name of the sculptor to the description of File:Sedgwick's Spurs.JPG.  Ahodges7  11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Dwight D. Eisenhower, official photo portrait, May 29, 1959.jpg - The source links are broken.

    Fixed. — BQZip01 —  23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please respond under each image name with questions or comments. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on inappropriate image use: File:DMI USMA crest.gif and File:DPE Shield.jpg — I am raising these two again here on concerns about their appropriate uses. Per Misplaced Pages:Logos#U.S. government agencies, has specific permission been requested and received for the decorative purpose these images serve in this article? Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved image comments from Jappalang (talk · contribs)

1. The reference you cited states, "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain.". This is primarily for the use of items like the Presidential Seal which is protected by law. There is no evidence that these department logos from West Point fall under such an exemption.
2. Hopefully that clarification addresses your concerns.
3. I respectfully request that you put this in your own section as an object or comment. This is another user's section. We may address all of his/her concerns and attain support, but get your support. This is your objection, not his/hers. — BQZip01 —  23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let us go over the sentences. They state "Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, ..." The meaning is not "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page". "Restrictions of usage" are separate from "copyright status"; the statements declare that a trademark does not affect the copyrights of a logo. This is the principle behind the considerations of trademark use in this project. If a logo is copyright-free but registered as a trademark, the necessity of why such an image should be used in an article must be carefully considered, pertaining to its encyclopaedic purposes. The onus is to show that the USMA allows the insignias of its departments to be used for any purpose. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for moving these comments. This is much better.

1. I never said "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page". Trademarks are restricted from certain use. They need to be associated with the entity they represent and not another entity. They cannot be used for commercial purposes or to indicate an entity supports or endorses any statement without their consent.
2. You parsed out a crucial part of the sentence "However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain." They are still PD images even if restrictions exist (and I'm not contending they do exist).
3. "Use of such logos" is in reference to the previous sentence: "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission." These designated logos of government agencies are spelled out in U.S. law, primarily, in 18 USC Chapter 33. Some examples: Sec. 711, Sec. 711a, Sec. 712, Sec. 713, Sec. 715. All of these are specifically mentioned in law. Outside of those specifically mentioned, government images are PD. Permission is not needed in this case because it is not a designated logo.
4. The purpose of this image is to identify the paragraphs related to athletics and the trademarked logo associated with that athletic organization. It is appropriate and is used all over Misplaced Pages and, more importantly, on almost every featured article about an American university:

   Texas A&M

   Duke

   Michigan State

   University of Michigan

   Florida Atlantic University

   Texas Tech

   UC Riverside

— BQZip01 —  05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I did not parse out important detail. The crux is "public domain (copyright)" and "trademark (permission)" are two separate concerns, not one. Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please look at the trademark link for the USMA you have supplied. Download the ppt pointed by "West Point Institutional Names and Identifying Marks is a visual portfolio of our logos, marks, verbiage, and colors. Please note that this list is non-exhaustive; the absence of a mark from this list does not constitute a waiver of any intellectual property law rights." The insignias and trademarks listed are in the Powerpoint. Regardless, the site itself has stated that permission should be sought to use the marks related to USMA. From the very start, this is not a matter of copyright; it is a matter of permission, and appropriate use of image. Sidenote: refer to {{Insignia}}. Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I firmly believe that it was legitimate to use File:DMI USMA crest.gif and File:DPE Shield.jpg, I've decided to end this debate. I have replaced those images with File:USMA Cadets Cross a Rope Bridge.jpg and File:Horizontal Ladder and Vertical Rope USMA IOCT.JPG, which both should have no issues with being PD. They have appropriate PD tags and source information. Can we close this lengthy debate? Jappalang, do you oppose the article's FAC on any other reason than those two (now removed) images in question?  Ahodges7    15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• So stricken with the replacement of the insignias. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S.

• • The following requires a citation: "Since Douglas MacArthur's tenure as superintendent, every cadet has been required to participate in either an intercollegiate sport, a club sport, or an intramural (referred to as "Company Athletics") sport each semester."

    Reference provided now. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you might want to revisit this sentence (spelling and gramma): "Cadets are not refereed to its as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors."

    Spelling and grammar fixed. Sorry for the typos. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ealdgyth

• • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.

    The only citation I saw with this error was #15 (List of NHL by state from the NPS). It is now fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Dead links. Link checker tool is showing a number of them, please fix.

    Fixed or removed all dead links per link checker tool. should be good now.  Ahodges7  19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Current ref 130 (USMA, Princton ...) is a .doc, and should be noted in the reference

    The link went dead last week, it is now removed.  Ahodges7  19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Current ref 29 (John Brubacher...) the publisher here is not Google books, which just hosts the scans. Its the original publisher of the printed book. The ref should be formatted as a book, not a website.

    Fair enough, but we should list where we got it, not just who published it. It's fixed now. — BQZip01 —  05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noted current ref 60 (Shcumach..)) but there may be others)

    All the NYT and Pointer View citations are now italicized. Some very senior MoS editors have scrubbed this and not italicized Time Magazine, even though it uses the {{cite news}} template, so I'm leaving those alone.  Ahodges7  11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Isn't the publisher for current ref 70 (In Memoriam...) the West Point Association of Graduates?

    It is the Association of Graduates. Apologies for the misspelling. AOG typically refers to itself as "The Association of Graduates", not the "West Point Association of Graduates", even though this particular web page does so. Since that is how AOG is titled in this particuliar reference, I'll change it in the citation. Occasionally, "USMA" is added after AOG as well for disambiguation. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Current ref 141 just refers to a wikipedia article, that's not reliable.

    Moved that "ref" to a wikilink. It really wasn't so essential there

  • Current ref 149, is Pointer View a newspaper? If so, should be in italics. (used again 172...)
  • Current ref 176 (Edson...) is lacking a page number.

    The Edson reference (currently #180) is included without a page # because the title of the book is what is need to support the statement. The statement is that the football team has historically been called the "Black Knights" even though that was not a school mascot, and the Edson book is a history of Army football titled "The Black Knights of West Point". Do I need to cite a page number in this instance or does the book title sufice?  Ahodges7    13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • what makes http://freshmanperspective.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/secrets-of-west-point/ reliable?

    I had included that citation simply for its photograph of the "Beat Navy" tunnel, not for any of the text content. I've removed the citation and placed a self-taken photograph of said tunnel to support the statement concerning the rivalry with the Naval Academy.  Ahodges7  20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • what makes http://www.aldenpartridge.com/ a reliable source?

    It is not. I've replaced it with a citation from Norwich University.  Ahodges7  11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/09/03/how-they-teach-at-west-point/ a reliable source?

  This one's been replaced. — BQZip01 —  00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's simply been removed. There were two other sources that backed it up and a third simply wasn't needed. — BQZip01 —  01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.nndb.com/people/361/000099064/ is not reliable, it needs to be resourced

  Now appropriately sourced. — BQZip01 —  00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

from? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/10/what-keeps-bill-parcells-awake-at-night/ — BQZip01 —  01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this site, what makes it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-respected online journal. That Bill Parcells was an assistant is not a controversial fact and is backed up by numerous references, but apparently these don't meet your concerns; if my answer does not satisfy your concerns, can you pick a site from this list that does meet your reliability concerns? I'll be happy to replace it in the article. — BQZip01 —  01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2008/11/15/a1b_dolphins_1116.html will work fine. Newspapers will be a lot less open to question when your article hits the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. — BQZip01 —  01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes. (I noted RMC of Canada...but there may be others...)

  This is in the title of the article. If anyone wants to know more about an acronym used in the article, they are welcome to do so, but that has little to do with the information contained in this article, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only common courtesy to spell out abbreviations that folks won't necessarily know. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the context in which it is used, I would assume (I know, I know...) that its usage would be obvious. Still, I annotated the acronym at its first usage in the article, but this isn't a policy or guideline of which I am aware. Please educate me if I am in error. — BQZip01 —  01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, the article needs a lot of WP:MOS cleanup; I left some sample edits, but there is more (also image layout issues). I suggest asking Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  I have cleaned up all the disambiguous links other than "USMA" and "West Point" which are at the top of the article. Pardon my ignorance, but I believe this clears up the disambig links? Ahodges7 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've contacted Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to see if they can help out. As for disambiguating "USMA" and "West Point", I'm not sure what to do there.  Ahodges7  18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has answered the call for help and made many WP:MoS corrections.  Ahodges7  12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I live less than half an hour from West Point, and have attended a couple of football games at Michie Stadium. I like to comment on the Athletics sections in university articles, and am happy to do so for this one in particular. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs)

• • "U.S. sports media use Army as a synonym for the Academy and is officially endorsed by the Academy." Doesn't work grammatically.

    fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Football: "but Army avenged the loss in Annapolis the following year.The academies...". Space needed.

    space added. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Second Earl Blaik link isn't necessary.

    agreed, removed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Cadets attendance is mandatory...". Change to "Cadets' attendance is mandatory...".

    fixed Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "In recent years, Army was a member of Conference USA". Instead of using a term like "recent", it would be better to state when they were in the conference.

    dates of membership the the conference are now added and sentence is reconstructed accordingly. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That covers most of the section. I'll try to do the rest at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to conclude the section review.

• "Every year, Army faces Royal Military College of Canada Palladins in the annual West Point Weekene hockey game." Either add "the" before Royal or drop the Palladins nickname.

  sorry, a previous version had "RMC" not spelled out, when it got spelled out, forgot to add the "the" in front. fixed now.  Ahodges7    01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "where they lost to the Tennessee, 102–54."

  another correction casualty. was "the Tennessee Volunteers", dropped the Vols, should have dropped the "the" (dang!) - fixed  Ahodges7    01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comma after "before moving on to Duke".

  fixed  Ahodges7    01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "West Point captured the national title in cycling and women's team handball." Perhaps make "title" plural.

  fixed  Ahodges7    01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Future NFL coaching legends Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells...". A term like "legends" is usually considered point of view for FAC purposes. Also concerned about "historic Michie Stadium".

  while I can see Parcells being debatable as a "legend", surely all would agree to Lombardi's "legendary" status? either way, I understand NPOV rules and "legends" is removed. I've removed "historic" Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is unchanged. Was it changed back? Giants2008 (17-14) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure what happened there. It's back to being fixed. The sole remaining "historic" reference to the stadium is in relation to its status as a historical landmark. — BQZip01 —  05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose Being a summary, a well written lead will need few if any refs. Details requiring requiring refs should be in the body. There are 9 refs in this lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Rlevse

• It is my understanding that leads are allowed to have citations, as seen by FA's Texas A&M (2 citations in lead), Duke (8 citations), and Ohio Wesleyan (8 citations). Do you object to this article's lead having citations or to the actual content or structure of the lead section?  Ahodges7    12:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  First, I can't keep an eye on every article and it's lead, but I did see yours. I have not seen the others you mention. Leads can have refs but when I see more then 3 or so, that's a signal of one of two things:

  1. The lead is not a summary and has details that are not repeated in the body
  2. The lead is a summary that is expounded upon in the body and has refs that it really doesn't need

  The problem with this lead is it sounds like a brief intro, it should be a summary of each major topic in body, then you won't need all that detail and refs. You have entire sections of the articel that are not mentioned in the lead.

  So, if you want you can work on this yourself or if you want I'll fix it for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Rlevse, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but WP:LEAD says otherwise:

  "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."

  I concur on so many levels that a lead shouldn't need citations at all since it is a summary of the article below, but inclusion of citations shouldn't be a problem either. I'm sorry it leads you to believe those things, but I have personally faced significant problems when references aren't in the lead because some readers are simply too lazy to look through the article to find out where you got them (and later when you show them, they still insist on a citation in the lead (of course, sometimes these same people make completely unreasonable demands such as, "you need to have everything sourced to someone unfamiliar with the topic" or something like that). IMNSHO, I think leaving the citations in the lead is fine, doesn't contradict any policy or guideline, and potentially prevents problems in the future.

  This issue is completely independent of the content of the lead. It should be both a summary of the article and an intro, per WP:LEAD. — BQZip01 —  18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  'as appropriate is the key here'. If it's well written, the refs won't be needed in the lead. The problem in this case is there are so many details that entire sections of the body are skipped, making it a non summary lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  I have reworded the summary and removed citations. All needed citations are now in the body of the article. The lead works better now anyway.  Ahodges7    01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  Looks good! Rlevse, I guess we disagree on appropriateness. — BQZip01 —  05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with Comment In the same way that the lead does not need to be referenced if the info is referenced elsewhere in the article, the infobox does not need references if the info is referenced elsewhere. Since all the information in the infobox is referenced elsewhere in the article, I think all the references in the box should be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While they do provide summary information, they do not always repeat the same information. An infobox may include information not included elsewhere and the references should be kept, IMHO. On a related note, this was specifically removed from the WP:LEAD section because WP:V requires verifiability when challenged. Keeping the references means we have a way to easily source the information instead of having the reader verify details in significantly varying sections of the article. If this explanation doesn't address your concerns, I guess we agree to disagree, but it isn't a policy or guideline to remove references in either the lead or the infobox, it's a preference. — BQZip01 —  00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's a well written, thorough article and has nice supplemental photographs/images. The only real issues I noticed were related to image positioning and subsequent 'text sandwiching' and title displacement. These problems are easily remedied and even if left as-is are not significant enough to prevent a FA blessing (in my opinion).--Elred (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Support:

• From the second para of the lead, should the comma be inside the quotation marks or outside? "a cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do".

  Which comma are we talking about? — BQZip01 —  19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, not comma, the period. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Inside/outside is a standard which varies between citation standards. Misplaced Pages doesn't specify anything in WP:MOS. — BQZip01 —  21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because of the academy's age and unique mission, its traditions influenced other institutions. This is not a good sentence to start a paragraph. I am also of the school that "Because" should rarely/never be used to start a paragraph.

  Then I guess we disagree. This sentence is structured properly with respect to grammar and follows WP:MOS — BQZip01 —  19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  We may disagree, but I still don't think this is great writing. Also, where in the article is the information about how its traditions influenced other institutions? KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  all seem to disagree with you. I think the first one explains the rationale best.

  The traditions influenced the building of other technical and military schools. This is addressed in the article. — BQZip01 —  06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't have the time to go read the entire article at the moment. In the interest of getting this FAC over so we can all go back to our lives, which section is it in? KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I now see where it was added. KnightLago (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Does the school have an endowment?

  It is a federal institution and has the backing of the US government. It doesn't need an endowment. — BQZip01 —  19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, then how is the school funded? Does it have a set budget from the Army, or does it go to Congress every year? KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  It gets money from Congress like just about every other U.S. Government entity (exception: non-appropriated funds entities like AAFES). — BQZip01 —  20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Is this in the article somewhere? Non-government universities talk about their endowment in at least a sentence. KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Explained its funding line in association with its establishment. — BQZip01 —  06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why isn't the number of students in the infobox?

  Ummm, it is: 4,487 — BQZip01 —  19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I missed that. KnightLago (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Under athletics in the infobox, I think Black Knights should be in the nickname or mascot field. I would put something like NCAA Division 1, independent or multiple? in the athletics field.

  Fixed, but NCAA Division 1 could be misleading. This is better addressed with an explanation (already contained in the athletics section). — BQZip01 —  19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• West Point was first occupied by the Continental Army on 27 January 1778, making it the longest continually occupied post in the United States. Does this meant the town was first occupied?

  This is a common misunderstanding about the term "West Point". There is no town of West Point, though there is a West Point, NY, which is a Census designated place for the purpose of counting the population living on the USMA reservation. During colonial times, the series of defensive forts defending this s-shaped curve in the river was know as "West Point". The closest town to the area is Highland Falls, NY, just outside Thayer gate to the south. So when the article says "West Point first occupied..." it means the physical geographic area where USMA now is located. The Army had a garrison there called "West Point" for 24 years before the academy was founded. The academy is often called "The United States Military Academy at West Point" for this reason.  Ahodges7    19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I understand now. Do you think there is anyway to make this more clear for people who aren't from the area? KnightLago (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've debated trying to explain this in the article, but like we've been discussing at the bottom of your comments, there just isn't much more room in the article. I'll try to work something up in the "Campus" section, and keep it short.  Ahodges7    21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Founded to be a school of engineering, for the first half of the 19th century, USMA graduates gained recognition for engineering the bulk of the nation's initial railway lines, bridges, harbors and roads. There is a lot going on here. Does this mean that after the first half of the 19th century graduates lost recognition for engineering or did not receive any?

  fixed. — BQZip01 —  19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The academy was the only engineering school in the country until the founding of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1824, and West Point was so successful in its engineering curriculum that it influenced every American engineering school founded prior to the Civil War. There are two separate thoughts here mashed into a single sentence. Maybe make two sentences?

  Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nearly every general officer of note from either army during the Civil War was a graduate of West Point. Really? What does of note mean? How many general officers were in the war total? Did West Point have that many graduates at this point?

  "of note" means "notable" It can mean many things, but its general meaning is anything noteworthy. West Point had many graduates at that point. The total number of generals in the civil war is not germane to this context. — BQZip01 —  19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I disagree. You're making the assertion that the vast majority of notable general officers in the entire Civil War graduated from the academy. Which source says this specifically? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I am not making that assertion, Theodore Crackel is. This is a reliable source and a reliable publication.

  As a further explanation, please realize USMA grads comprised nearly half of all generals (pretty much the same percentage on both sides of the civil war . Given that they were professional soldiers schooled in the profession of arms and army tactics, they comprised over half the generals, it is not unreasonable to see that they would likely be standouts in the Armies of both sides. — BQZip01 —  20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Source #1: USMA Bicentennial Website, cited in article, which states "In the end, 89 percent of the graduates living in 1860 served on one side or the other during the Civil War, dominating the leadership of the warring armies. Only one academy graduate, Joseph E. Johnston, Class of 1829, was a Regular Army general before the war, but 294 graduates served as generals for the Union and 151 for the Confederacy." The Simpson reference, which I left at my office, provides the statistic that over every major battle during the Civil War, at least one side was commanded by a USMA graduate. I really don't think that this is a controversial statement. Its my understanding that this is fairly well known.  Ahodges7    20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I defer to your knowledge of the sources. From someone not very familiar with the academy, this just seemed rather exceptional. Maybe you could add the sources when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  It is rather exceptional. The Simpson source inclusion should meet the standard, but I'll try to track down an on-line source that can be more easily accessed, as the "every major battle" statistic is commonly quoted in history circles. Admittedly, I was a history major as an undergrad.  Ahodges7    21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The academy enjoyed unprecedented fame in the years immediately following the Civil War due to the role its graduates had played. I think this is kinda clunky, can it be reworded somehow? Does the source say unprecedented fame?

  Yes it does, "unprecedented" was directly from the Crackel (2002) text.  Ahodges7    20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Spanish American War caused the class of 1899 to graduate early, while the Philippine Insurrection did the same for the class of 1901. This increased demand for officers led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. I don't think these fit well. You say that the war caused two classes to graduate early, but you don't really equate it to an actual demand. You just say they graduated early due to the wars.

  Actually, this demand for officers directly resulted in an increase in size of the cadet corps to increase output. — BQZip01 —  21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, maybe I am misreading this, but IMHO you don't equate the graduations to an increased demand resulting from the conflicts leading to an increase in size. Also, if Congress increased the enrollment size in 1900, how does the 1901 class and the Philippine Insurrection result in an increase? Was the 1901 class the class of 1900 - 1901? How about this: As a result of the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection, the classes 1899 and 1901 respectively, graduated early. These conflicts led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think you are misreading it. The two are not causally linked. Two classes graduated early to join in conflicts because officers were needed. Because of this increased demand for officers, Congress increased the allowed size of the student body. Just because they graduated early doesn't mean they didn't know this was going to happen in 1900. :*::::"We need more officers!"

  "The soonest we can get them to you is January"

  "Then we need to increase the corps size so this doesn't keep happening..."

  I think you may have misread this and associated the dates too much with the order of things. — BQZip01 —  06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I see what you are saying. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Douglas MacArthur became superintendent in 1919, instituting sweeping reforms to the academic process, including introducing a greater emphasis on history and humanities. He made major changes to the field training regimen and the Cadet Honor Committee was formed under his watch in 1922. Is the under his watch part necessary?

  Yes. He was instrumental in making these changes. To simply state it was created while he was there neglects his influence. — BQZip01 —  21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think it is redundant. You shouldn't emphasize his influence by being repetitious. How about: Under his watch major changes were made to the field training regimen, and in 1922 the Cadet Honor Committee was formed. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  It isn't redundant. There are two verbs for two different actions. The one verb does not apply to to both of them in this case. He didn't "make" the CHC, it was formed with his guidance. By moving the phrase to the beginning, it implies the CHC was formed during his tenure without emphasizing his role in its creation. WP:UNDUE — BQZip01 —  06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The class of 1943 was graduated in six months early in January 1943 while the next four class years graduated after only three years. In 1943, summer training was formally moved the new area recently acquired southwest of main post, which would later become Camp Buckner. The first sentence needs to be reworded, also would it be possible to not mention 1943 three times in two sentences?

  Fixed — BQZip01 —  23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  You fixed the 1943 problem, but "was graduated" is not brilliant writing. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. Please don't be so insulting. Please realize there may be more than one way to correctly state something.
  2. "Was graduated" indicates a forced action on the cadets from the perspective of the faculty
  3. To alleviate any concerns, I've removed "was". It is now a passive sentence.
  4. If you can be more specific up front, it would make this a little easier.
  5. You could also simply remove the three letter word and we wouldn't even have to have this multi-paragraph discussion. Just mentioning an alternative you don't have to abide by, but would be quite useful... — BQZip01 —  06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that was graduated is not correct. It is now and was a passive sentence before you removed was. And what do you mean if I can be more specific up front. Do you know how long it took to review this entire article, make extensive comments, and then to respond. I am giving as much detail as I can. If something is vague you only have to ask. If I was to fix every problem I saw I would not be reviweing the article for FAC, I would be working on the article. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The WWII abbreviation is not explained anywhere. Like World War Two (WWII).

Done — BQZip01 —  23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• West Point played a prominent role in WWII; four out of five of the war's five-star generals were graduates and nearly 500 graduates died during the war. Could we cut this down to one use of war?

Done. — BQZip01 —  00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules, but most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates died. Doesn't flow well.

Done — BQZip01 —  00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the current version: Unlike some other conflicts, the Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules. Most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates perished. Other can be removed. The second sentence still is not brilliant prose. Graduates is used twice within four words. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — BQZip01 —  06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Garrison H. Davidson became superintendent in 1956 and instituted several reforms that included reforming the admissions process, changing the core curriculum to include electives, and increasing the academic degree standards for academy instructors. Two use of reform with 4 words.

Done — BQZip01 —  00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The 1960s saw the size of the Corps expand 4,400 cadets while the barracks and academic support structure grew proportionally. Something is missing here.

  Please add something. — BQZip01 —  20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  How about adding "to" after expand. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  done. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs of the modern era have a lot of In 19XX, starts.

Fixed — BQZip01 —  00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cadet Leader Development System (CLDS) is used in this form twice.

  fixed — BQZip01 —  21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Despite its reputation for resisting change, Really? This is the first time this is mentioned.

So what do you want fixed? — BQZip01 —  00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a saying critical of the academy that "USMA is 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress." How would you like something like that worked into the article? I don't really think it needs to be stated in so many words, given the lengthy historical section. The idea that USMA was an early adopter of internet and network connectivity should be a fairly obvious contrast to its stark stone walls and wool uniforms from a by-gone era. I think this sentence is just fine, but if you feel otherwise, please change it or suggest a solution.  Ahodges7    00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem here is that you are mentioning its reputation for resistance to change (in those words) but the reputation is not dicussed anywhere in the article. Could this be removed? KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It has a resistance to change. That is stated here and it doesn't need to be expanded. It stands alone as a sentence. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. You can't just throw a sentence out like that and then say the sentence speaks for itself when it doesn't. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Despite its reputation for resisting change" is removed. The sentence is worded entirely differently now and should good to go.  Ahodges7    18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• During the Gulf War, the commander of Allied Forces, General Schwarzkopf was a graduate, while the current senior generals in Iraq, Generals Petraeus, and Odierno are graduates. Flow.

I see nothing wrong here. — BQZip01 —  00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The prose are not brilliant. I am not sure how to improve this sentence, but it needs to be. This could be cut into two sentences or simply mentioned in the alumni section. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased. Now "graduates" isn't used twice. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Better. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Following the September 11 attacks, applications for admission to the academy increased dramatically, security on campus was increased, and the curriculum now includes coursework on terrorism and military drills in civilian environments. Clunky.

Seems fine to me. — BQZip01 —  00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have following the September 11 attacks, was attacked, and then later in the sentence the curriculum now includes. This should be a couple of sentences. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the significance both of the Revolutionary War fort ruins and of the military academy itself, the majority of the academy area was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1960. This doesn't fit the lead which says the entire campus.

  The lead says the "entire central campus", not the "entire campus". The reservation is ~16,000 acres, while the "central campus", where the cadet live and attend class is the National Landmark area. I don't feel the statement is misleading or conflicts.

  Maybe the confusion rests in what is the central campus. Another one of my points deals with this. Having never been there I have no idea what the central campus is from this article. You mention it is by some buildings, but that really doesn't clear things up. Is the campus divided into areas? Like North, Central, South? KnightLago (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  The problem is that every area has a "central" area near the "center". It doesn't really matter too much what is there if all you are describing is the basic location within the entity. — BQZip01 —  20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Though the military reservation is quite large, the academic area of the campus is entirely accessible to cadets or visitors by foot. Is there a source that describes it as quite large?

  as cited in the article for the size of the reservation (~16,000 acres): USMA Facilities. This reference also gives the size of "central campus", which it calls the "immediate post" and lists as only ~2,500 acres. This source is cited in the article and should satisfy your concern without needing to modify the sentence quoted above.  Ahodges7    21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the sentence to better explain the difference between the entire reservation and the "central" or "cadet" area.  Ahodges7    00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The source does not describe it as quite large. You are describing it as quite large. The changes to explain the central/cadet areas are great. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  16,000 acres is "quite large". We do not need to use the exact same verbiage as the text does. This is being a little too picky, IMHO, without being helpful. If there is something you want us to change it to, we'd be happy to do so, provided it is accurate. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  You don't need to use the exact wording of the text, but you cannot use your own descriptive words. You are boosting the campus by saying it is quite large. If a source describes it as quite large then it would be fine. Without a source it should be removed. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  No one is boosting anything. The campus is quite a distance to walk if you go end-to-end, but the area we are talking about is proportionally small. rephrased. — BQZip01 —  23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The quite large wording remains, that is what I have been objecting to all along. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The wording "quite large" is now replaced by the actual size of the campus: 15,974 acres (65 km).  Ahodges7    01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  That is better, but that creates another problem. The first sentence of that paragraph states one number for size, and the sentence you added has a different number. I also think having both numbers is redundant. Could we maybe put the correct number in the first sentence and then maybe move the remaining sentence down or to somewhere else in the article that would flow with it? KnightLago (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I've removed the first reference to the # of acres, which was rounded to the nearest thousand anyway. I believe this should alleviate the flow problem. If you can think of a way to write the prose more brilliantly, please do so because I think its fine.  Ahodges7    22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• In 1902, the Boston architectural firm Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson was awarded a major construction contract that set the predominately neogothic architectural style still seen today. Does the source say major?

  Yes it does. Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson were awarded a $10 million dollar contract (in 1903 $s) to build the main administration building (Taylor Hall), the Cadet Chapel, Hayes Gymnasium, and other smaller structures as part of a single contract that is described as "major" in Palka (2008).  Ahodges7    21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is the central cadet? Is this the same as cadet central which is used a few sentences later?

missing words replaced. — BQZip01 —  00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Global War on Terror doesn't need to be linked again.

Done. — BQZip01 —  00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Originally opened to the public in 1854, the West Point Museum is the oldest and largest military museum in the country. Do you have more than one source for this? The oldest and largest? How big is this thing?

The source is acceptable another is not really needed. Yes. Big. — BQZip01 —  00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force says their museum is the oldest and largest aviation museum. The Air Force is a part of the military. See here. You may have the oldest part won, but what about the largest? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It says it is the largest military museum. The Air Force museum is an aviation museum not exclusively dedicated to military projects/history. — BQZip01 —  06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here the museum says "to view what is considered to be the oldest and largest diversified public collection of miltaria in the Western Hemisphere." So the museum itself says it is considered to be, not that it is. Also, the Air Force is part of the military. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "largest" is removed. I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the aforementioned website or the published source as being suspect. There are know known military museums in America that are older. The AF museum is no doubt "larger" in terms of square footage. The terms "largest" was referring to the number of items in its collection, not its physical size. Do you have an objection to how it is now written?  Ahodges7    18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• This position is roughly equivalent to the president of a civilian university, but due to the military status of the academy, the Superintendent holds more influence over the daily lives of the cadets than would a civilian university president. President can be linked to University president.

Added — BQZip01 —  00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since 1812, all Superintendents have themselves been West Point graduates, though this has never been an official prerequisite to hold that position. Themselves can be removed.

done — BQZip01 —  00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The current Superintendent is Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, Superintendent since 9 June 2006. Two uses of Superintendent.

done — BQZip01 —  00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The academy is a direct reporting unit. Is this a proper use of this term as Direct Reporting Unit talks about the Air Force.

  The concept is still the same. — BQZip01 —  20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• where they train for current tactical situations that they will soon face as new platoon leaders. What is a current tactical situation.

  "Current" versus "historical". Tactics of WWII don't directly translate to tactics of modern warfare. This is an example of the differences in training. — BQZip01 —  21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done — BQZip01 —  07:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, please work this into the article. Non-military people are not going to know the distinction. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Modern works. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Department of Physical Education (DPE) doesn't seem to be the proper name for an article unless that is the actual name of the department.

  It actually is the name of the department. Like USMA, it is generally known and almost always referred to by its initials only.  Ahodges7    21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  This doesn't sound correct. The DPE website here doesn't have Department of Physical Education (DPE) as its name. It simply has Department of Physical Education. The article should be moved to remove its initials from its name. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed the name of another article... — BQZip01 —  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• What are advanced combatives?

  Modern Army Combatives which combines jujitsu-style grappling with striking while on the ground or in the clinch (open hand to face, closed fist to body). Originally I have this internally linked for this reason, but a senior copy-edit editor removed the internal link. Do you think I should put it back into the article to explain what "advanced combatives" means?  Ahodges7    20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think putting it back would be best so non-military people will understand. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  done. — BQZip01 —  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• scuba should probably be scuba diving.

  I agree. It was before another editor shortened it. I could go either way since scuba is well understood in the english language to mean "scuba diving".  Ahodges7    20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think Scuba is well understood in America to be scuba diving, but I am not sure for Europe. I would add diving. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  SCUBA is an acronym: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. By definition, it is diving. If they don't know what it is, they can click the link that has now been added — BQZip01 —  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the meaning of scuba is well known outside America, but the link will fix it. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes such as scuba, rock climbing, aerobic fitness and many others. Flow. How about something like Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes, including... and then drop and many others.

  Done. — BQZip01 —  21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Moral-ethical development occurs throughout entirety of the cadet experience by living under the honor code, and through the formal leadership programs available at the academy. Move the "the" from after through to after throughout.

  Fixed — BQZip01 —  22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• How is a guest speaker program vigorous?

  Fixed — BQZip01 —  22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cadets previously enforced an unofficial sanction known as "silencing" by not speaking to cadets accused of violating the honor code, but the practice ended in 1973 after national scrutiny. One of the sources does not attribute a silence to the honor code, but occurring as a result of cadet displeasure at certain officers.

  Well, there are 3 sources. Which one? — BQZip01 —  23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  133 KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  deleted. — BQZip01 —  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  You cannot just remove the source when it says something different than what you wrote. The source actually gives first hand accounts of why the practice was done. That raises the question of which sources are correct, the one you removed was right, or the other sources that you left? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The reason I deleted it is because we are talking about cadet vs. cadet not cadet vs. officer. Ergo, the deleted source is talking about something else. — BQZip01 —  22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok. Why mention only one over the other then? Cadets did both, why not mention both? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The complexities of the silencing practice were too extensive to cover in depth in this article, similar to the dialog we've covered on hazing. The vast majority of silencing was as a result of cadets who were honor code violators, but some cadets were silenced for other perceived infractions. The later is a part of the history that should/will be addressed in the History of United States Military Academy, but does not need to be covered in this article or section when discussing violations of the honor code, hence BQZip deleting the confusing citation should clear this concern.  Ahodges7    01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, I understand now. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cadets receive a small annual salary, and all meals in the dining halls are free to the cadets, while internet, phone, and television service is provided free of charge in the barracks rooms, leaving cadets with very few expenses. While usually means that you are going to contrast something, and the is after service should be are. Is there a source for the leaving part?

  "While" indicates something that is happening in conjunction with something else, not necessarily contrast. Fixed the verb tense issue. — BQZip01 —  21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Cadets is used twice in this sentence. Who says the cadets are left with very few expenses? Where in 5? How about: In addition to a small annual salary, Cadets receive free meals in dining halls, and internet, phone, and television in their barracks. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  You really should have mentioned the double use the first time. Now it's fixed. The source says they are left with few expenses. This is a summary of what the source says. It doesn't need to be verbatim. — BQZip01 —  07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I missed it the first time. The source, under the Estimated Student Expenses section, says no data available. You are putting your own interpretation into the article here. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  That would be the price tag on such expenses, not the number of expenses. This quantity of expenses is much lower than the average college student who pays for all of these things. Ergo, the phrasing included is correct and accurate. — BQZip01 —  22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Is there a source that says that as I asked in the beginning? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I do not know of a source that uses the exact wording of "leaving", so I have removed this phrase per your concerns. The sentence should stand alone now and have no issues with citation support of the statement.  Ahodges7    22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• he student population was 4487 cadets for academic year 2007–08. Missing a comma in the number and a the before academic year wouldn't hurt.

  fixed — BQZip01 —  22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The student body is 15.1% female. So I don't have to find a calculator, what is the male percentage.

  That isn't relevant in this context. The point is that there is a sizable percentage of the student population that is female. Additionally, you relly shouldn't need a calculator to figure out 100-15. — BQZip01 —  19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 92% of entering students re-matriculated for a second year, the four-year graduation rate was 80% and the six-year rate was 81%. This is just a bunch of info mashed together because it is related.

  Generally related materials are grouped together into a sentence. — BQZip01 —  07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  You have two sepeare ideas here mashed togehter. One is the re-matriculated rate. The other is graduations. If not two sentences or a rewording how about a semicolon. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Retention and graduation are inherently linked. Added semicolon. — BQZip01 —  22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The link is tenuous as you are talking about two different things. The semicolon works. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Each company lives grouped together in the same barracks area. Remove grouped.

  fixed — BQZip01 —  23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. The source says the cow class, which I believe are juniors.
• The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. Do they flip a coin to determine when exactly?

  This responses is to the preceding two comments. The source says "new Cow class", which is the start of their junior years, which is the same as saying "they scramble after their sophomore year". The process has changed several times in the last 10 years. Traditionally the scramble was after freshman year, then during the 1990s, it was after sophomore year, then for the class of 2002 and 2003 it there was no scramble. Now the scramble is back. Why, I don't know, the academy has not published its reasoning, but the source cited does not conflict with the article as written which states that "the method of scrambling has changed several times in recent years", and is cited by both a web and published book source. As to the "flip a coin" comment, the book source, Murphy (2008) states that the Class of 2002 actually had the opportunity to vote on if they wanted to scramble or not, but that is extraneous and too lengthy to include in the article.  Ahodges7    20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Due to the structured culture of the Corps of Cadets, there is little tradition of Greek fraternal societies at the academy. What does this mean? Is there some or not?

It means some, but not much. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How many? Do they have their own houses? How do they fit within military life? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't really relevant. We just stated they have little importance/little influence/little impact. There is no need to carry on into an additional sentence. — BQZip01 —  07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. This is a university. A sentence or two explaining this would be fine. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any greek life currently, but I believe there might have been some in the past. Accordingly I've removed the sentence. — BQZip01 —  23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The cadet fitness center, Arvin Gymnasium, which was recently rebuilt in 2004, houses extensive physical fitness facilities and equipment for cadet use. Does cadet need to be used twice.

  No, it doesn't. Fixed. — BQZip01 —  07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Each class of cadets elects a class president and several administrative positions. How about several administrators. you are talking about a specific position and then several positions.

Well a secretary, treasurer, class ring representative, etc. are all "administrative positions" while they are not "administrators" — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This still does not flow well. How about: Each class of cadets elects a numbers of students to fill leadership positions, including class president, secretary, treasurer, and class ring representative. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased. — BQZip01 —  07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• They also elect a ring and crest committee, which designs the class's crest, the emblem that signifies their class for eternity and is embossed upon their class rings. Wouldn't class' be the correct usage?

Again, two schools of thought there. Class is a singular noun and can be used either with an apostrophe or apostrophe+"s". — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets, Source?

See the given source

I looked, where specifically? Who said quality of life was improved? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a summary of the given source using appropriate word choice. — BQZip01 —  07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your summary may be that life is improved, I may say that DCA really doesn't improve life. Nobody cares what our opinions are, they care what the sources say. If there isn't a source that says this, even not in these words but with the same meaning, then it should be reworded or removed. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See cadet testimonial here, found on the DCA website. Combine the testimonial with the material published on the DCA website, and I don't think its inaccurate, or my own interpretation, to state that "DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets". Do you still disagree?  Ahodges7    20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Should Army, in the army be capitalized?

not necessarily. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some knowledge is historical such as found in the Bugle Notes. Doesn't flow well.

Tweaked — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Cullum number paragraph needs more than a single source.

  Respectfully, no, it doesn't. The source needs to be verifiable and reliable. If you have an issue with the source itself, we can discuss it. — BQZip01 —  19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  My issue is that you are relying on a single source from the USMA for an entire paragraph. Are there not multiple reliable sources? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Multiple sources are not required for Misplaced Pages. If you want to add another, please take your pick: . — BQZip01 —  20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835. How did the tradition begin in 1835 when the next two classes did not choose rings?

  That doesn't change the start of the tradition. A tradition need not be an annual event. — BQZip01 —  23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  The definition of tradition includes "A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage." KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  That is a single defintion of the word. "Tradition" can mean many things:

  1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
  2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
  3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
  4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
  5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

  Hodge and I are both alumni of schools steeped in tradition. I assure you, this is the appropriate use of the word "tradition". — BQZip01 —  07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  My understanding, backed up by 4, is a tradition that occurs regularly. This tradition did not begin occuring regularly until the third class after the first class got rings. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Respectfully, you are wilfully ignoring other definitions of the word, specifically #3 "long-established", #4 a "continuing pattern" (which is still happening today, not continuous as in it never stopped). Did the tradition begin after that 2-year hiatus? Uh-oh, one class got cufflinks. So it started after them? Well one class got their rings later than another class...

  No, it started when the first class did it. You're reading way too far into this. — BQZip01 —  22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The source says: "The tradition of class rings at American colleges and universities is believed to have originated at West Point when members of the class of 1835 designed their own rings, which were purchased at private expense and made to individual order. In 1836, no ring was adopted, but in the following year the custom was taken up again, and has been consistently observed ever since." The article now says: "West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835." The source says West Point is believed to have originated at West Point, not that it did. The source then says the custom was taken up again at a later date. Why not reword this closer to how the source is describing the events? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  It is accepted in American history (and properly cited in this article) that USMA started the tradition of class rings, and it did so in 1835. See here, here,and here. I believe that you are being too literal in the interpretation of what a tradition is. The facts are: 1-USMA was the first college to have class rings, 2-The first class that did so was 1835. Hence, if you were to say "when did the tradition of class rings at USMA start?" the answer would have to be 1835, regardless if 1836 chose to not have rings. What if the classes of 1835 through 1850 had rings, but 1851 took one year off? Would the tradition be correctly stated to have started in 1852? No, the correct start date would be, and is 1835.  Ahodges7    22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok. KnightLago (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The award is given each year since 1958 by the academy to an outstanding citizen whose service and accomplishments in the national interest exemplify the academy's motto, "Duty, Honor, Country". Change is to has. How about each year to annually.

Done — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• A monument to Union officer John Sedgwick stands on the outskirts of the plain across the street from Trophy Point. What is the plain?

The name (if it even has one) is irrelevant. It is a description of the location. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The plain is the expansive parade field where cadets perform parades reviews. In a previous version of the campus section, I had a paragraph describing the Plain, but I had to cut it out because the article was too long. I forgot it was gone and assumed the reader would be familiar. I've tweaked the sentence to make it less ambiguous.

• Cadet legend states that if a cadet is in danger of failing a class, they are to don their full-dress parade uniform and visit his statue at midnight before the final exam. Sedgwick's bronze statue has spurs that freely rotate, and if the cadet spins them at the stroke of midnight, they will pass the exam and the course. Does the source support both of these sentences? Don't these really say the same thing.

Yes, no. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01 is right. The reference supports both sentences, and they do not say the same thing. However, I can see how it might be worded more succinctly to avoid redundancy. I've re-arranged the wording, so midnight is only used once.  Ahodges7    03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Army mascot has traditionally been a mule, but the academy's football team was historically called "The Black Knights of the Hudson". Why?

Please read the given sources if you are interested in that information. The specifics of every detail aren't essential to convey the broad picture. — BQZip01 — 

The reason why a university has its mascot is an essential element. Thus this needs to be explained in the article. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A mascot is not an essential element and doesn't need further explanation. — BQZip01 —  07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a university. In every other featured university that I know of the mascot is explained as it is an essential element of the school. It does not make sense to not explain why they are called this. It can be done in one or two sentences. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read

1. Texas A&M
2. Duke
3. Michigan State
4. University of Michigan
5. Florida Atlantic University
6. Texas Tech
7. UC Riverside

Your standard of "every other featured university" is simply not true. Every single article you mentions has one sentence (or less) on their mascot (do a word search based on "mascot" for verification) except Texas Tech. — BQZip01 —  21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My standard was every FA I knew of explained their mascot, from your examples:

1. Texas A&M - Link to article explaining the term.
2. Duke - Link to article explaining the term
3. Michigan State - Link to article explaining term.
4. University of Michigan - Not a good example. Pre-2006.
5. Florida Atlantic University - In the article, I wrote it, I know.
6. Texas Tech - In the article as you mentioned.
7. UC Riverside - In the article and linked.

You make a point of saying the mascot of the Army is a mule, but the Academy is the black knight. Why not just explain the origin in a sentence. It is logical question to ask why a university has their mascot. KnightLago (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added an explanation as to "why a mule" and where "black knights" came from.  Ahodges7    16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry and the inherent intra-service rivalry with the Navy in general. This does not flow well.

  fixed — BQZip01 —  23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy due to Air Force's relatively young age and geographic distance from Army. Flow. Is there a source for not as fiercely?

  The Army-Navy rivalry is legendary and is one measurement of any rivalry in the U.S. Stuff all over the campuses of both schools is emblazoned with "Go Army/Navy, Beat Navy/Army". To state that the rivalry is "not as fierce" is simply a statement of fact based on the fact that the Army-Navy rivalry is pretty much the pinnacle of rivalries. On top of that, the source is given. I don't have access to that source, but I assume that it came from the given source. I'd check there. — BQZip01 —  20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  My question is whether the source actually says not as fierce or if someone just put their own interpretation in. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to use the same words as the article. This is appropriate word choice to summarize the source. — BQZip01 —  07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, but I want to know what a source says, not your individual interpretation of the rivalry. My interpretation may be that Air Force is the fiercest rival. But nobody cares what I think, they care what a source has to think. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Please pick from the many choices as to which one you think best describes the relationship between the schools. I'll be happy to add it. — BQZip01 —  22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Let me know when this is resolved, I will then strike it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  "West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy" is now removed. I had a source that spoke to the difference between the Navy and Air Force rivalries, but I cannot put my finger on it at this time.  Ahodges7    15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Army football began in 1890 when Navy challenged the cadets to the still relatively unknown game. Source for relatively unknown?

  fixed to "relatively new sport". — BQZip01 —  23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cadets' attendance is mandatory at football games and the Corps stands for the duration of the game. Should there be a the before Cadets'?

No. An article is not required to begin the sentence. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status. Just read this.

I read it. What is the problem? — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status.

Missed that one. Now fixed. — BQZip01 —  07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The 2008 football season marked Army's seventh consecutive loss to Navy. This just seems to be thrown onto the end of the paragraph. At this point you stopped talking about Navy a few sentences ago.

  Fixed. — BQZip01 —  22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Though football is the best known varsity sport at the academy, West Point has a long history of athletics in other NCAA sports. Source for best known.

The TV contracts and substantial emphasis makes this sentence a transition between the previous section and this. A source isn't needed as it is a summary of all of the previous section. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. You are are drawing a conclusion. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is rehashing what has already been stated above and is a transition between the paragraphs. "Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry..." — BQZip01 —  07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Same as fiercest above, I may say basketball is the best known, but nobody cares what I think. They care about the sources. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree, but for the sake of ending this, I've tweaked it. — BQZip01 —  22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Long Gray Line should not be buried in the alumni section. I think it should be explained much further up in the article. I forgot about it until I got to the end.

I think it is fine where it is and is addressed in the lead. — BQZip01 —  00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not addressed in the current lead. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It used to be, now it isn't. The placement isn't important since importance isn't predicated on placement. — BQZip01 —  07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. The Academy is known for this. It probably deserves to be referred to in the lead as another nickname. Placement is extremely important. Why bury this detail in the alumni section. Hell, why is this mentioned in the alumni section anyway? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "buried" in the alumni section, it was placed there because that is where it belongs. Those part of "The Long Grey Line" are all graduates, so the alumni section is apropos. Tweaked now to mention it in the lead — BQZip01 —  22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Doubleday stuff, in relation to baseball, according to his article is a myth debunked by "almost all sports historians." So you had better find some sources.

  removed — BQZip01 —  19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  There is another mention of Doubleday and baseball in the Other sports section. KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  WP:BEBOLD? I've got it, but if it is a simple fix, you are welcome to change it yourself. That would improve the article without a discussion for each change. Your call though. — BQZip01 —  22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  This should have been taken care of before FAC. At this stage you should have everything ready and set for review. I shouldn't have to fact check simple points like this. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, it should have been, but now it wasn't. Now it is fixed. Why not cross it out instead of berating us. It is a common myth and if it is common it is going to have several reliable sources that were wrong. — BQZip01 —  07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I am not berrating you. You are suggesting that I go and change everything wrong with the article, and linking BOLD, when I am reviewing the article for FAC. I am not the one who brought this article here, you did. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I was not suggesting that you go and change everything, I suggested you delete this. Perhaps other simple typos would also be easier to fix than to write an sentence or two about the error. — BQZip01 —  22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• An unofficial motto of the academy history department is "Much of the history we teach was made by people we taught." This is just attached to the end. It would be more useful in the intro the the alumni section.

  Agreed. Its now the opening line of the "Alumni" section.  Ahodges7    19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• West Point Association of Graduates (WPAOG or AOG) are the abbreviations needed?

  They aren't needed, but they are known by the abbreviation almost as much as their full name. I'm in the Air Force, and I've only heard them referred to as the AOG. Adding a common abbreviation adds clarity. — BQZip01 —  19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A few things. I think you are using too many images. They seem to be everywhere and break the flow of the article. Has there been no controversy? During the civil war, integration, the 60's, protests, admission of women controversy. How about academic freedom of serving military officers who are professors? What about hazing. I am almost positive I read something about severe hazing in the past, I think it happened to one of the famous graduates. I want to say knee bends over glass shards. How did the government get the land the academy is on? I mentioned it above, but I really think the Long Grey Line needs to be moved up and better explained. Just a few thoughts. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has suggested removing images yet. Which do you feel are extraneous?  Ahodges7    19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The cadet life section seems cluttered as does the traditions section. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BQZip has modified images, to include removing some. Do still feel the article is cluttered?  Ahodges7    15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, much better. 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to add the hazing stuff at the least. The other stuff needs to be looked at too. The Time article below is very informative. After a minute search I found this, this, this, and this. Time mentions a few notable incidents you do not mention at all. And I was right, MacArthur was the famous graduate. I have changed my comment to oppose for the time being. I question whether everything that should be in the article is included. KnightLago (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is "much more" that can be included, especially on the history of the academy to include past problems with hazing, but the issue is simply there is no room to cover everything that you've mentioned. MacArthur was known to have been the subject of intense hazing for several reasons, the least of which involved his high class rank, his famous general officer father, and his mother living at USMA while he was a cadet. The issue of hazing at the academy could be an article by itself, however, the article is already 90K. My next project is to massively expand the History of United States Military Academy, which is admittedly weak at the moment (but its not up for FAC), to include all of the topics that you discussed above, but there simply is not enough space to cover it here in the main article. I feel that the article serves the purpose of giving a summary of the academy's extensive history, without becoming too long in that category. The article does discuss the civil war, integration of African-Americans, women, social unrest in the 1960s, ect.  Ahodges7    19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your point about the size of the article, hazing still should be mentioned. MacArthur testified before Congress about it. A brief search yields numerous results including cartoons, quotes from notable people, and a book on the subject. In regard to the other issues, my problem is that the history fails to go into any real detail. Sure you mention the subject in a sentence, but there is no substance. You discuss the civil war, but what happened on campus at the time? Was there tension between the students? You mention the first black graduate, but nothing about whether his admittance was openly welcomed or controversial. The same with women, I know VMI had a lot of controversy, did the academy? And you mention the 1960s, but nothing but there was some upheaval. I think you are glossing over a lot of controversial subjects with the excuse that there is not enough room in the article. I think we should favor comprehensivness over size worries. KnightLago (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, again, there simply isn't time to go into the details that you ask here. What would you have me leave out? The article cannot exceed 100K, right? All of the above are excellent topics to be expanded upon in the History of United States Military Academy, but we just can't go into that level of depth here. None of the other University FA articles have that level of depth in their history sections. Why do you demand it here? I would understand if you were reviewing an article about the history of USMA, but not the overall USMA article. I agree about needing to mention hazing. I'll work it in to the "post civil war era" as that is acknowledged to be when hazing first began at the academy.  Ahodges7    20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion — If you're concerned about space, how about splitting off a "Controversies at the United States Military Academy" subpage and putting the appropriate refer wikilinks in the article? Development of that article would satisfy Knight's concerns (and admittedly my own, though I haven't stated them before), while avoiding the size problem that you've stated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to the inclusion of any criticism section as this is a canonical violation of NPOV and will withdraw my support if such a section is included. I would echo other editors' responses that this article is being held to an unreasonably high standard with regard to exhaustively documenting various controversies when few if any other university FACs have more than passing mention of their bluer history. Excuse me for indulging in WP:WAX, but the lacrosse scandal has no mention in Duke's history, Michigan has but two sentences devoted to the whole of its noted campus protests, Dartmouth and Georgetown only making the most nebulous references to the intense controversy surround their becoming co-ed in the 1960s and 1970s, and so on. This isn't a perfect article, but to the extent that it is as comprehensive as other UNI FAs and that it is (in my view) superior to several other FAs for not gorging itself on admissions hype and not indulging in the quiet boosterism of documenting its feats while obscuring or ignoring other salient descriptive information, stop holding this article to a different standard. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

JKBrooks85, thanks for the suggestion, as I have considered that as well. I agree that hazing is a part of USMA's past, and should be addressed (per my previous post, I will address it in the "post civil war" section), but I disagree that it needs to be covered in the depth that you or KnightLago appear to expect to see. USMA is being held to a higher standard than all other FA university articles for its history section. The history section of this article is already significantly larger, and more in-depth, than those of any other FA-level college/university, see: Dartmouth College (which is much older than USMA), Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown University (another older school with lots of potential controversy that is not addressed), Michigan State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, University of California, Riverside, University of Michigan, or Texas A&M University. None of these articles have a separate "Controversies" segment, so why, for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard, should USMA's article? I realize that as a federal institution, the academy is under a public scrutiny microscope that other universities are not, but it seems unfair to expect a differing standard for this article. Again, addressing USMA's past with hazing is going into the article soon, but I don't feel the need to add a separate "controversies" sub-article for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard. The History of United States Military Academy will cover all major controversies in the school's past eventually, but that article is not up for FAC.  Ahodges7    12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think hazing deserves a brief mention as it is something closely related to the culture of the Academy itself. The other issues Lago brings up are wholly irrelevant to an article of such a broad range. No other featured university articles delve into those things. None detail the reception of the first black students, most don't even mention them at all. One of those articles on a college in the deep south, Texas A&M, says only: "the college was officially integrated as A&M welcomed its first African American student" (emphasis added). Re the 1960s: I would even suggest cropping that sentence from the article ("West Point was not immune to upheaval") as it seems misleading. Unless I'm missing something, there wasn't any upheaval at West Point itself (that would be quite counterintuitive anyhow, among the voluntary body of cadets). Rather, it is about Vietnam-era public perception of USMA as an extension of the US military. You wouldn't talk about how the citizenry was critical of the military in the article on the 1st Cavalry Division for the same reason: it is irrelevant and outside its scope. Strikehold (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rolled out a new paragraph that describes the origin, pinnacle, and decline of the practice of hazing at the academy and have provided multiple citations. Please tweak and adjust per MoS as needed. This should hopefully address the need appropriately and succinctly discuss the history of hazing at USMA.  Ahodges7    16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested a criticism section and do NOT think one should be added to the article. I also have not singled out this article for any special attention. If you doubt this please go back and check other FACs for universities. I am satisifed with the addition of the hazing section and some of the other tweaks done to be more clear about some of the issues I mentioned above. If you are looking to cut this article down a bit the traditions section could be made into a single paragraph with a link to the main article. In regard to images, it looks like the offending images have been removed. However, they should not be readded if this passes its FAC. This comment regarding images by Madcoverboy, one of this article's nominators, is troubling. That is all I have for now. I have struck and commented. Once the above issues are taken care of I will change my oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate a fire because you think you see something that looks like smoke. It could just be condensation. What Mad said was "The article will likely be fine without them for FAC, you can get whatever permissions whenever that happens and put them right back in." There is no malice here, but removal of said images is easier right now than trying to fix something in a short space of time. Once we have time to devote to searching for the permissions for an image, we can go back, make the appropriate corrections, and then place the images back in, so, yes, the images can come back in eventually if they are correctly used and annotated as to their source/permissions. — BQZip01 —  08:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read the comment like you do. Nobody is going to object if the images are added back with proper licenses. To say otherwise does not make sense. He says "While I'm not advocating you do this, if and when USMA makes FA, I don't believe there would be any opposition among day-to-day contributors if those images re-appeared at a later date." He is saying while you shouldn't does this (but you could) none of the regular editors to the article are going to mind the readdition of the images without proper licenses once the heat from FAC has died down. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF: Just assume that what I said is what he's advocating. I'll back you up on this, ok? — BQZip01 —  23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know you will keep an eye on it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, don't parse my ramblings too closely much less let my off-the-cuff comment torpedo this nom. I was merely observing that once the heat of the FAC dies down, images with similar licensing problems always have a way of finding their way back into the article. I can point to examples in many of the older UNI FAs which fail to meet the stringent standards set here: the images find their way in, the diff fades into history, and the image becomes part of the unalterable tapestry of an FA. I was merely observing that there is little day-to-day viligence among the article's regular editors to enforce these policies and I expect USMA to be no different in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really suggest you drop this, but we can get into it if you want. Improperly licensed images are simply not allowed in articles, especially featured articles. Please point to the examples so I can go remove the images. Improperly licensed images are enough reason to fail a FAR or FAC. KnightLago (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dropping as a tangential topic, but just letting other interested editors know that I responded on your talk page with examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)