This article is about the British Army officer, author and journalist. After successfully nominating this article for GA, DYK and A-Class Military History, as well as having a peer review and the infobox image listed as the POTD, I believe this article is ready for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (See? That wasn't so bad.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistancy:<ref> tags and {{sfn}} tags, and as per WP:MOS, you should use one or the other.
The other four articles i've had pass through FAC use both, and I don't think i've had someone mention this at FAC before. Can you point out where in WP:MOS it says to only use one or the other? Thanks. Freikorp (talk)
You should add isbns or oclcs (for older works) to two of the sources in the Bibliography.
I'm guessing since you using the same London Gazette issue over and over, you should put it with the other references and put page numbers for it in the citations.
One issue of the London Gazette is used twice. The other 6 citations to the gazette are from different issues. in any case, I don't know how to format an sfn for a work that does not have an author, which none of the Gazette articles do. If you want me to do all the rest, can you format one of them for me so I know how to do it? Thanks. Freikorp (talk)
Images is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "foreign awards" seems a little odd for a title. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair enough, i've renamed it 'Awards' and merged the award he got from his native country with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments I made some copyedits and overall the article is well-written and very informative. I have one remaining issue: the sentence " Bodley worked on the script for the 1938 film A Yank at Oxford.", in the first paragraph of the section "Later life". It succeeds a few sentences about another film script, and thus I could see confusion that Bodley reused the Chaplin script for this 1938 film. Perhaps consider saying "Bodley also worked on the..." or "Later, Bodely worked on the...", or some similar variant. ɱ(talk · vbm) 14:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word 'also' as suggested. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good then.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 11:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I think what you have is well-written and flows pretty well. I think there are a few areas that could be fleshed out a little more.
I wonder if it would be useful to give even a two or three-word description of who Gertrude Bell and Sir Thomas Bodley were. we know they are significant, because they are mentioned in the article and wikilinked, but I had to click over to their articles to find out why I should care about them.
Excellent suggestion. I actually added more than two or three words for each. Let me know if you think it is too much and i'll trim it back. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be useful to know in this article that his father was an author - he seems to have followed partially in his father's footsteps.
Mentioned that his father was a civil servant and author. Freikorp (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any overall analysis of his writings? In many biographies of authors, information is given about what makes their works stand out. Are there recurring themes, etc, in his fiction?
I'll have a look through newspaper sources and see if any book reviews give an analysis of his overall work or at least his last few books; i'm sure I can scrape something together. Freikorp (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs: Unfortunately I couldn't find any overall analysis of his work (I have offline copies of all the newspaper sources used in the article and I went through all of them), though I did find some tidbits on how he wrote his books, which I added to the 'Later life' section. Let me know if you have any more comments. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes in the beginning - it was easier for me to follow his family ties and place them into context. I realized looking over the article again that there are multiple facts cited to Bodley's own writings. In a few cases, these are explicitly attributed to the book, but in others they are not. At the very least, I would attribute this to his opinion/his book: "though he was regarded as too old for active service in the infantry".
I'm not going to oppose this, because I think you've done an excellent job of relating the facts about his life in an engaging manner. The only quibble I have is that I don't think one gets quite the understanding of how important his work actually was. You do mention one book review, but only that it was favorable. Did the reviewer point out anything special about the book or the writing? There appears to be another review in the NYT in 1964 for The Messenger (at least according to a Google Books search). There's also a review here and more are referenced if I search for "R.V.C. Bodley" and "literary criticism". Some of the snippets in the Google cache make it look like there might be at least some info about audience, etc. This may very well be information that you've already seen and rejected as not having anything useful to say. It may be that the kind of stuff I'd like to see doesn't exist at all (which is a shame for such a notable author). Karanacs (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've attributed the statement you mentioned to him. I've also fleshed out the review you mentioned as well as another one. I'll have a look for further reviews. Freikorp (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs: Went through all my sources again and added another review of one of his books as well as some general information all throughout. Have a look. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great detective work. I'm pleased that is't a bit more well-rounded now. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 17:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
P.G. Wodehouse needs no introduction. From before the First World War until the 1970s he wrote a series of comic stories, admired by the grandees of English Literature from A.E. Housman and Rudyard Kipling onwards as well as by a huge public in the UK, the US and worldwide. He was also a key figure in the development of the American musical. An otherwise fairly uneventful life devoted to writing was shattered during the Second World War, when he inadvertently blotted his copybook very conspicuously, but he was eventually forgiven and honoured with a belated knighthood in his old age. All comments gratefully received. - SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk, 22:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I won't say I'm a Wodehouse fan, I think there's a cultural gap somewhere along the way, but in reading for the peer review, I found SchroCat's and Tim riley's account most interesting. My few concerns were dealt with. Easily meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at PR and have no issue with supporting this fine piece of work. A really excellent effort all around I think. —Cliftonian(talk) 06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wehwalt, and Cliftonian, for your support here and your valuable input at PR. Tim riley talk 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And adding my grateful thanks to you both too: much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tim riley is in all honesty a bit of a nightmare to review for from my perspective because he's so sure of himself, it's very difficult to find real fault or anything in a review which he'll agree with. This is a great article though well worthy of promotion, sorry I couldn't have been of more help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc, for your excellent thoughts and comments - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the online references are missing retrieval dates. Some of these are archives of offline sources, but not all. I'm looking at #67, #171, and #189 in particular.
Ref #73 formats the date "7 May, 2015" which is inconsistent with the rest of the references.
Ref #81 could do with more information, what does "DNBarchive" refer to?
Personally, I'd split ref #99 into two separate citations, it's a little confusing with them merged into one. You've done this a few times, but this one is particularly confusing because they are different formats.
Ref #101 is formatted differently to the other Hansard references, #131 and #153.
Speaking of which, refs #131 and #153 have full-stops at the end of them (presumably because of the template), which none of the other references do. (Look, it's super-picky, but if you'll insist on submitting such relatively flawless articles for review, what do you expect?!)
Ref #171 needs author details.
Ref #181 has a raw link
Ref #188 has "Michael Joseph" as the author, where the other references would use "Joseph, Michael"
Ref #189 needs a space between the author's last and first name.
Ref #191 needs a comma after the work, Georgia Review.
In a similarly picky vein, ref #206 has a comma after the page numbers before "Project Muse" and then a full-stop at the end, while ref #207 doesn't.
Why is there a question mark at the end of the "Green, Benny (1981)" source? Harriastalk 14:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the question mark - it doesn't appear in the text. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it? It looks like it was something to do with the curly brackets. No real idea, but messing around in my sandbox, I found that if I deleted the original curly brackets, and retyped them, it displayed fine. Don't ask me. Harriastalk 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat has dealt with most of the above points, and I've looked after the remaining few. I think I should mention that SchroCat has kindly adopted my old-fashioned manual citation formatting rather than his customary sfn templates, so most of the above slips are my fault. I hope between us we've answered all the points in your review, Harrias. Thank you for a very keen-eyed scrutiny. Tim riley talk 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Harrias - mjuch appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Per COM:SIG, signatures in the UK are typically entitled to copyright protection
Good catch, Nikki. Wouldn't we be able to host this locally, though? This would be free in the US (wouldn't pass the TOO). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be possible, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Alright, Schro and Tim. It's up to you what you want to do. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of that, and though it's the middle of the night in England, I think that he nominators have both said that they like the sig. Crisco, if you have a moment, would you upload it locally with the "do not copy to Commons" restriction? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the templates. The link is dead right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the link in the file description, http://www.autographcollection.co.uk/ekmps/shops/autograph/images/pg-wodehouse-typed-letter-signed-[2]-17429-p.jpg? If so, that works if cut and pasted. There is a square bracket in there which clashes with our software. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Last I checked, we weren't supposed to link directly to the image itself, but to the page hosting the image (i.e. this page). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of the rule over where the link should point, so I'll bear that in mind for the future. Now updated with your link. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:61031-CLT-0025-01_Fort_van_Huy_(2).jpg: since Belgium does not have freedom of panorama, we need to explicitly account for the copyright status of the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the following to the Commons file, which should be sufficient for the purposes of use here.
The castle at Huy was built in 1818. According to Belgian copyright law, there is no Freedom of panorama in Belgium, but the protection ends seventy years after the death of the original author, which ensures this image is PD.
Please let me know if this is OK, or if you need some more info on this, Many thanks, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. You may wish to include a life+100 tag (as is almost certainly the case) to make absolutely explicit its freedom in the US too, but we should be okay with just your text if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that too, just to make sure. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich comments
The lack of parental contact, and the harsh regime of many of those in loco parentis, left permanent emotional scars on many children from similar backgrounds, - Many/many — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
where the Wodehouses were also living. - Construction feels awkward to me.
I took the liberty of removing "also". -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When Muggeridge tracked them down later, he managed to get Ethel released straight away and, four days later, ensured that rather than keeping Wodehouse incarcerated, the French authorities declared him unwell and put him in a nearby hospital, which was more comfortable; while there, Wodehouse worked on his novel Uncle Dynamite. - Almost Wodehousian... I'd simplify
I took a crack at redrafting this. Modify and Anglicize if needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Wodehouse's use of slang terms reflects the influence of his time at school in Dulwich, and partly reflects Edwardian slang. - Can this be worked in somewhere, rather than stand on its own? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merged into the following paragraph (which is where it was originally - I have no idea how it came to be cut loose).
Many thanks for your comments Chris, and for your help at PR, which was invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The former, used as an attributive adjective, is how it now stands. The noun would be perfectly acceptable, but I think it flows better as it is. Does it jar a transatlantic reader? Tim riley talk 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if its being Canadian, or being a child of the 90s. Anyways, it's a minor thing, really. Support on prose; good work everyone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I did some copy-editing on this article while it was at PR, and I have discussed various issues with the nominators, who have satisfied all of my concerns. It is good to see an important author getting a superb Wikipedia article. It is not only informative, comprehensive, well-referenced and well-illustrated, but very readable. SchroCat and Tim riley have done an excellent job of improving it until I believe that it is among the best content on Wikipedia and satisfies the FA criteria. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Ssilvers - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I desire to associate myself with that expression of thanks. Tim riley talk 08:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A superb article, extensively researched and beautifully written, which had my detailed attention at the peer review. I have little else to add here, apart from congratulating Tim and SchroCat on their work, and indeed on their choice of subject. It pains me to recall that Tim invited me to assist in the article's expansion, and that I had to refuse because I lacked the time to do basic reading. But before I sign off, can I please tweak Tim's tail over the description of Ian Sproat as "the biographer"? Sproat was a long-serving Tory MP and somewhat lacklustre Sports Minister in John Major's government. He wrote a book about PG's wartime travails, and for some reason ODNB used him to write their article on Wodehouse, but these credentials hardly justify calling him "the biographer". Knowing Tim to be a sworn enemy of the false title, would it be possible to give Sproat a more accurate description? Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BB for your support here and your substantial and valuable input at PR. As to Sproat, it seems heartless to out someone as a Conservative MP, especially when he's dead and unable to answer the accusation, and so I'll modify his label to something like "the author of the ODNB article on PGW". Point taken about the ODNB's choice, especially as they already had an excellent article by Lady Donaldson. Parenthetically, there was some talk a while ago about our collaborating on Osbert Lancaster, an illustration by whom appears on the dust jacket of my only Wodehouse first edition. – Tim riley talk 18:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aside from a couple of ref formatting issues (which I fixed), I had a great time reading about this much respected author. The article is well illustrated, brilliantly written and exhaustively researched. Worthy of FA status in my view. CassiantoTalk 17:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Cass, for your support. Glad you liked the article, Tim riley talk 19:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I found it a great read too, reading it at least wasn't nightmarish ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doc, that is particularly gratifying – thank you! Tim riley talk 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a fairly little-known painting—it was in private hands between 1835 and 2009, so has had little attention paid to it—with an interesting back-story. Owing to their joint participation in the campaign to restore York Minster to its previous condition after much of it was burned in an arson attack, a prominent Conservative politician decided that William Etty, at the time generally considered England's most notorious pornographer, was just the chap to paint his daughters' portrait. Rather than a straightforward portrait, Etty set out to make "a fine work of Art" which ended up taking two years to paint, and the end result is something of a perfect snapshot of the aristocratic bubble which was about to be rudely burst by the Industrial Revolution. – iridescent 00:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support - reading through, very good, but some small things
the seventh son of a York baker and miller: is this necessary outside of the bio.
I'm neutral on whether that stays. That biographical section at the top of each of these Etty articles is there primarily because William Etty itself is such an appalling article one can't direct readers there to find out his background. I think "son of a miller and baker" probably ought to stay, as a means of pointing out that Etty was a provincial oik gatecrashing the London elite. (This is more relevant to his history paintings—he was prone throughout his career to following bizarre suggestions from posh people on the grounds that they had the classical education and he didn't—but I think it relevant here as well.) At some point I intend to give the bio the WP:TNT treatment and write a proper one—the current page is mostly plagiarised from an 1889(!) work—at which point this level of background detail on the articles on individual works won't be necessary. – iridescent 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with that son of a miller and baker gives context. It was more the 7th son thing that made me wonder. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of that depends on knowing the cultural norms of provincial England at the time; the eldest son would have been expected to take over the family business, the second son would be an army officer or a clergyman, and the rest would be sent out into the world to sink or swim on their own merits. It makes no real difference whether it's included. – iridescent 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Etty painted a number of private portraits of 19th century, and portrait painters continued to be disparaged as a greedy and unimaginative group who survived by feeding the vanity of the emerging middle class - is the first 'and' misplaced.
I'm not seeing that—is your browser clipping out a line somehow? That should read "While Etty painted a number of private portraits of his friends and acquaintances, he produced very few publicly exhibited portraits, exhibiting less than 30 throughout his entire career. Portraiture continued to be seen as a vulgar and generally worthless form of painting throughout much of the 19th century, and portrait painters continued to be disparaged as a greedy and unimaginative group who survived by feeding the vanity of the emerging middle class."—you seem to have lost the middle 20 words or so. – iridescent 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I was reading in preview after inadvertantly deleting a swad of text. I'd better get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images and sources: Images all free and correctly annotated. On-line sources (Manchester Art Gallery, Clark, Art Fund) all back up claims, with close pharaphrasing not an issue here. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
supporting after an exhaustive read through, on the basis of comprehensiveness, use of sources, images, and prose. Last thing bothering me is the time taken to execute; the nom mentions two years, the article "a good deal of effort", which seems a bit WWI, even utilitarian. Ceoil (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "a good deal of effort" and "took some time to complete" are intentionally vague. He started it in 1833 and completed it in 1835, and spent more time on it than he usually did (see that quote from him apologising for the number of sittings). However, as per the section on its exhibition this was one of eight paintings he exhibited in 1835—I didn't want to give the impression he spent two years solid working on this one piece. – iridescent 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've been consistently happy with the visual arts articles, and this one is no exception, I think it will make an excellent TFA. Wikipedia is a visual medium, and the storyline is broadly accessible. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the copyediting. This one was taken to FAC much sooner than I usually would for a new article, in an effort to have it ready for the York Art Gallery's reopening on 1 August (four of the seven pictures included, including the title painting, are in YAG), so I'm aware the rough edges may not all have been smoothed. – iridescent 15:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but a few very small nitpicks:
Lead - "the older Charlotte is shown standing, helping the seated Mary decorate her hair with a ribbon and rose." >> I think Charlotte should be offset with commas so as not to give the impression she's the older of more than one Charlotte.
✓Done. There actually were quite a few Charlottes and Marys, which makes this family a pain to research, but the Charlotte depicted is the older of the two siblings. – iridescent 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background - hyphen consistency - well received / well-respected. I keep having to check Fowler to see which is correct but am too lazy at the moment, so leave it to you. It might be right as written for all I know.
Removed for consistency. I actually prefer the hyphens and Fowler be damned, but I know some AWB drone will remove them anyway. – iridescent 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following the success of Cleopatra, over the next decade Etty tried to replicate its success by painting nude figures in biblical, literary and mythological settings. >> "success" repeated
There are three long parentheticals, and after reading a few times, I think it's probably okay to move them into the text without the parenthesis, but that's a style preference and not a big deal. Or maybe put all or part of that info into notes?
In my sandbox draft I had them in the notes, but felt they didn't really work down there and moved them up. "Etty's male nude portraits were primarily of mythological heroes and classical combat, genres in which the depiction of male nudity was considered acceptable in England" and the aside about The Lute Player being unfavourably compared to Turner probably need to stay in parentheses; they're very much asides, but important enough not to relegate them to the footnotes. – iridescent 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Nice interesting read. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for the fixes. A couple more comments. It's difficult for me to support a VA article with a thumbnail size lead image and so I've left a note requesting those edits to be self-reverted. In the meantime, if the issue is that the lead caption doesn't contain enough information, it might be worth finding a compromise by adding the name of the gallery in the caption (for people like me who only read captions). RE the image sizes, I played with them in preview mode, and they looked pretty good with the upright parameter removed - again as a compromise. I was going to mention The Lute Player in my review, but thought the formatting there is probably a challenge because it might butt into the blockquote. Anyway, just throwing these out as possible ideas/solutions/compromises, if necessary. That said, I'm a big advocate of allowing personal preferences, but since I butted in on a conversation on your page (without at the time realizing the wrestlers was already in the works), and now we are where we are, just mentioning fwiw.Victoria (tk) 14:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article with a title which got me hooked, lovely to read! A few comments, possibly more with more time:
You guessed it, I miss at-a-glance information like I find for other paintings such as this.
You mean, the at a glance information of artist, year, dimensions, medium and current location, all of which is in the first sentence? This series intentionally doesn't have infoboxes; Etty's works tend to have a lot of intricate detail and many readers aren't aware that they can click images to enlarge them, so it's desirable to have the lead image as large as possible – iridescent 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Are you aware that you can have the lead image that size, if you specify image_size = 400px? --GA
Yes, and I'm also aware that a fixed image width would be a breach of Wikipedia policy (not an MOS-style "guideline" but a Wikipedia-wide policy) and cause an instant fail at FAC if anyone spotted it. (It's possible to force an infobox to large sizes by fiddling about with the Module:InfoboxImage syntax, but that runs the risk of the box becoming browser-crashingly large if the Wikipedia defaults ever change as it generates the width by scaling from the current default.) If you want to make forced-sizes permitted, the place to go is Wikipedia talk:Image use policy; if you want to make infoboxes compulsory, or even recommended, the place to go is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts. – iridescent 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you would think I want to make infoboxes compulsory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information: {{infobox artwork}} has now a parameter image_upright, for a scale factor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General: I like short section headers, but "Elizabeth Potts" gives me too little of what to expect.
The section called "Elizabeth Potts" is about the painting called Elizabeth Potts—what would you suggest would be a more appropriate alternative? The only reasonable alternative I can see would be to strip out the subhead and have the background section as a single block of text, but I don't see how that would be an improvement. There needs to be something on Elizabeth Potts (and on the York Minster campaign) to illustrate the route by which he came to be commissioned to paint the Williams-Wynns' portrait; most people who know Etty's name nowadays know him as a pioneer of pornography, and he's an extremely odd person for a Conservative cabinet minister to choose to paint his daughters' picture. The modern-day equivalent would be a high-ranking US Republican commissioning Larry Flynt to direct his daughter's wedding video. – iridescent 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All this is interesting but doesn't show in a women's name, even if the italics give away that it is title, in the context probably of a painting. Could subheaders point at the difference in appreciation of portrait vs. historic? - I don't know if reading first about the different value of portrait and history painting would have helped me to understand the reactions of admirers and critics better. - The woman's name also doesn't cover the last paragraph. --GA
I can't see an obvious alternative title. Any variant on what you're asking for would be something unworkably long. I honestly can't see the issue with the section header for a section about a painting being the name of the painting. – iridescent 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When we come to the painting in question, I would like a repeat of where in his career we are, time-wise.
How can it be clearer than "In late 1833 Etty was commissioned by Williams-Wynn to paint a portrait of two of his seven children"? (That isn't sarcasm; I genuinely don't see how that can be made more specific without including the exact dates.) – iridescent 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one-time reader in a bit of a rush has not remembered when he was born, and was careless reading the afore-mentioned paragraph, which after the 1834 exhibition takes us to 1829, then 1933. "In late 1833 Etty was commissioned by Williams-Wynn to paint a portrait of two of his seven children." - may I confess that I didn't realize that this means the painting the article is about. Going in my corner ... --GA
I've moved the last sentence of the Background section to become the first sentence of the Composition section, which ought to make the link between the date and the painting unmistakable. – iridescent 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like most painting images a bit larger (upright*factor), especially The Lute Player, to make comparison possible without a click.
I see no reason; the only time it's generally appropriate to override default image sizes outside of lead images is for unusually proportioned images or images containing a lot of detail, neither of which is the case here. The Wikipedia defaults are the defaults for a reason. Remember, a lot of people are reading these articles on phones. – iridescent 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All for now, off to rehearsal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New picky point: "Cleopatra was extremely well received, ..." seems a bit funny to me, especially after the last word of the preceding sentence was also Cleopatra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one "Cleopatra", since it's obvious from the context what's being discussed. "Foo was extremely well received" is absolutely standard English for "the critics liked Foo on its initial release/exhibition/performance/publication". – iridescent 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and on no account should the size of the lead image be reduced. There does appear to be a problem with the first entry in the Bibliography though, Burnage (2011a); I can't see where it's being used in the article? EricCorbett 16:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; that's there as a citation for the fact Lawrence had been Etty's teacher, which somehow got lost when I was shuffling references around trying to minimise the number of mid-sentence citations. Now restored. – iridescent 17:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I spotted this via a ping. First of all, it's a good read - quality prose that kept me engaged, and educated me as well as entertained me. It's also visually a very appealing page, and it's clear that considerable thought has gone into the choice of images to accompany the lead image. I'd like to emphasise the point that the captioning is remarkably well done. Quite often images are dropped into articles purely as eye-candy, but images really should be taking on part of the burden of carrying the narrative: at best they will substitute for the famous "thousand words". In this article, each caption (after the lead) complements the surrounding text, as it should do in an example of Wikipedia's best work.
On accessibility, there is no text too small, nor injudicious use of colour to spoil the article for a visually-impaired visitor. For anyone using a screen-reader, the alt text supplied with each image runs well into the caption, making that a more or less seamless experience for the blind. I admit I'm not a big fan of "Standing man looking at a painting", but I can't come up with anything better, so it would be churlish to be critical on such a minor point. Overall, I'd happily support this article as one of Wikipedia's finest. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, many thanks. I've replaced Mole's drawing with Mlle Rachel, so "standing man looking at a painting" is no longer an issue. Mlle Rachel is much more striking visually than Mole's portrait of Etty, and serves to illustrate Etty's changing portrait style. – iridescent 21:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - that's quite a dramatic change of style. I would never insist, but I think I might want to mention the fact that it changed so much over the years. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his later paintings weren't such a radical departure from his earlier style, although he got much more accomplished with the backgrounds; Musidora is probably a more typical reflection of his late style. Mlle Rachel was probably a rush job completed in a single sitting in which he concentrated on capturing her face and intended to fill in the clothes later, but never got around to it. I'll try to do at least a short article on it, since I suspect that even though it's not very well-known this is one of his works that will attract the most attention. When I get around to doing the bio, it will cover in detail how his portrait style changed over time. – iridescent 22:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's a tiny bit of copy-editing that could be done, but the article is really excellent work overall. Educative, clear and concise. Nicely done. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Denbies is a large country estate in the southeast of England, named after the farmer John Denby who owned the land in the mid-16th century. It achieved some notoriety in the mid-18th century after it was purchased by Jonathan Tyers, the proprietor of the pleasure garden just outside London. For reasons that are unclear, Tyers decided to install a garden known as The Valley of the Shadow of Death, incorporating macabre artefacts such as two upturned stone coffins topped by human skulls, as a reminder that time is fleeting and that life is short. What remains of the estate is now the site of the largest vineyard in England, but that's another story. EricCorbett 17:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using quotes for "labyrinth"? Who said this?
Because it's a direct quote from Brian Allen (1981), ref #11, which is cited at the end of the sentence. EricCorbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It had a thatched roof and fake stonework panels to form smaller internal enclosures, every panel covered in verses..." → "It had a thatched roof and fake stonework panels which formed smaller internal enclosures. The panels featured verses reminding the reader of "the vanity, the shortness and insufficiency of human pleasures"? I think we may need to put up with the panels/panel repetition unless you can think of an alternative?
Changed to "It had a thatched roof and internal enclosures formed by fake stonework panels, each covered in verses ...". EricCorbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"admonishing us that Time is fleeting, and even the least portion of it to be employed in reflections on Eternity" -- who said this?
It's a direct quotation attributed to refs #15 and #16. EricCorbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"To a sloping desk in the centre of the temple was chained a copy of Edward Young's poem Night-Thoughts and Robert Blair's The Grave, bound in black leather." → "Chained to a sloping desk in the centre of the temple was a copy of Edward Young's poem Night-Thoughts and Robert Blair's The Grave, bound in black leather."
"Denison had a son, William Joseph, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Anna Maria, from his second wife." → either "with" his second wife or "from" his second marriage, surely?
"Like his father, Denison junior was a banker and became a senior partner in his father's banking company..." → "Like his father, Denison junior was a banker who became a senior partner in his father's banking company..."?
Your version doesn't work, as it suggests that Denison junior's father also became a senior partner in his father's banking company, which he didn't. EricCorbett 18:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cubitt's new mansion
"Almost one hundred rooms made up the Italianate structure's three storeys, stretching across nine bays in a square formation." → "Almost one hundred rooms made up the Italianate structure's three storeys, and stretched across nine bays in a square formation."
I prefer the version as it stands. EricCorbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interior
This section seems to repeat refs [32] and [33] quite a lot. Could these be trimmed down?
"The remaining rooms on the basement level were workshops, wine cellars, parlours for the butler, housekeeper and other principle servants together with general storerooms." – "The remaining rooms on the basement level were... housekeeper and other principle servants"? Maybe "housekeeper and other principle servants quarters"?
I don't see anything wrong with the current version and I'm loath to suggest that parlours = quarters, as the latter implies sleeping quarters to me. EricCorbett 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point here was that the opening starts "The remaining rooms on the basement level were..." You list "workshops, wine cellars, [and] parlours for the butler" – all rooms. The "housekeeper and other principle servants" are not rooms, they are people. It sounds odd, I think, because these are people and you say "rooms" in the opening line. CassiantoTalk 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at tweaking it very slightly? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These were maintained by thirteen gardeners under the jurisdiction of a head gardener." – gardeners/gardener repetition; suggest swapping gardener with head groundsman?
Replaced with "These were maintained by thirteen staff under the jurisdiction of a head gardener.". EricCorbett 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and dispersal
"that year Henry moved to the mansion house after his father decamped to London following the death of Henry's mother.[44] He inherited the title and extensive estate after the death of his father in 1917.[44] -- identical refs in close succession. Would one cover all?
It would. I think the first citation was only put in to make it easier to move sentences around while we were working on the article, now removed. EricCorbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely worked and very interesting. This is well researched, thoughtfully illustrated and comprehensive. CassiantoTalk 00:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article. EricCorbett
No deal-breakers prose-wise...I guess I would have said "alternately" instead of "alternatively" but that might be more of a minority affectation of mine and certainly a minor stylistic issue. I would have also de-quoted "labyrinth" and use the word "network" but concede an essence of intricacy might be lost. Anyway all else makes for a fine read. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does the current "labyrinthine network" work better for you? EricCorbett 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Denbies_when_owned_by_Denison_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published? The given date doesn't make sense
File:Denbies,_Tyers_and_Cubitt_mansions.jpeg: was this attributed in its original publication? What does the source say about its provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at these, Nikkimaria. I think (hope) I've fixed the first one? I'm honestly not sure what to do with the Tyers and Cubitt mansions one. In the Fortesque book the image is simply attributed to Hermione Hobhouse. Chris, myself and Tim riley had a discussion on my talk page and Tim kindly checked the 1971 Hobhouse book Thomas Cubitt: Master Builder where the photo (Plate 102) has no further provenance. As you've probably guessed I'm not as skilled as I should be about licenses, so could you advise me, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for Phil's appraisal of the Tyers and Cubitt mansions image; we discussed it, and Tim kindly found a copy of Hobhouse's book to check, but sadly there was no provenance. To be quite honest, I'm shocked at how few images I've been able to find. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the two houses now in our article is, I confirm, the same as that in the Hobhouse book. Tim riley talk 11:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first image is now fine. The second is the one mentioned at your talk as Plate 102, correct? If so, I would mention the Hobhouse source in the image description as well. That would give us a workaround of life+70 plus {{PD-1996}} given the creation date and the pre-1978 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for being so patient with me in respect of the images. I've added the detail about the Hobhouse book to the second image, if you wouldn't mind checking if it's okay now, please Nikkimaria? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite right. The current tag, anon-1923, requires that the image was published before 1923 - but the earliest publication we know of was 1971. Unless we can find an earlier publication, my inclination would be to use {{PD-old-70}}, as given the creation date the photographer almost certainly died long enough ago for this to have been PD in the UK before the URAA date. The other option would be to use either {{PD-UK}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but I don't think we're certain enough of the initial publication. If we knew it was published in the 1800s we'd have a lot more choices. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria, I've swapped to the PD-old-70. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments. I shall be supporting this, but a few prose quibbles first:
Lead
"a more modest version" – of Osborne, rather than of the old house, which is what the wording says.
History
Really "momento mori" rather than "memento mori"? A misprint in the source article, I'm sure: see here.
"procul este projani" is quite definitely wrong. Reluctant as I am to revisit the Aeneid after fifty contented years without it, I have checked the phrase, and it is in fact "procul este, profani". See here, line 298.
Denison family ownership
one of the top-ten richest British businessmen – not sure why this is preferable to the more concise "one of the ten richest British businessmen".
Grounds
strongly refuted the suggestion – to refute is generally taken to mean to disprove: should this be "rebutted" or "denied"?
Cubitt's death and legacy
"2000 acres … was secured" – plural verb wanted?
Piping of titles: it seems eccentric to pipe the Lord in Lord Ashcombe but not the Sir in Sir George Gilbert Scott.
"Lord Ashcombe" appears three times in this section, and could advantageously be trimmed to "Ashcombe" on second and third mentions.
Decline and dispersal
costs were extortionate – I doubt if "extortionate" is the word you want: the OED defines it as "Grossly excessive, exorbitant". I wonder if "prohibitive" or "unsustainable" might be the right word here?
was not fully destroyed and left filled with rubble – I think clarity requires a second "was" before "left".
Notes
Note d: the syntax goes off the rails at "his father was Thomas, 5th Lord, as being born 1712" – dropping the "as being" would do the trick.
Note g: the OED does not hyphenate "remarry"
Pictures
some alt text is missing, for the benefit of blind or partially sighted readers who use screen readers.
Those are my small gleanings. – Tim riley talk 11:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Tim, it's much appreciated. I think I've changed/tweaked all of those now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The alt-text could still do with adding, but that apart I'm now easily able to support, and gladly do so. Tim riley talk 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim. I'll have another go at tweaking the alt text later. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through now, I had rather hoped Eric would have been unblocked by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So did I ... but I'll try my best in the meantime. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
"The house he built appears to have been of little architectural significance" -according to whom?
I've clarified this in the relevant section rather than adding it to the lead. SagaciousPhil - Chat
Do we have an article on Gothic landscaped gardens or not?
No, there isn't anything specific and other Gothic links don't appear to be relevant. SagaciousPhil - Chat
" but the Gothic garden he developed in the grounds on the theme of death achieved some notoriety, despite being short-lived. " -some rough indication of timeline here might be useful.
I've tweaked the sentence slightly to include the year. SagaciousPhil - Chat
"on three storeys" -is "on" or "in" preferable here? Tim riley is usually good with those sorts of things!
I'd write "on" here, as you are kind enough to ask. Tim riley talk 12:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim; I'd stick with "on" as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could probably merge the last two paragraphs and keep it to three.
I think you could elaborate a tad on the wine estate in the article body. I'd expect a paragraph or so summarising it. Another line on it could then be added to the lede.
"Nurseries were on the top storey beside the female servant accommodation." -that should go where you discuss the top floor before first floor.
Seems odd that you've mentioned nothing about the ground floor, like the hall, dining room, sitting room etc.
William Nesfield was commissioned to design the gardens -when?
"Cubitt covered the costs of building a siding on the north side of Dorking Town railway station,[41] which was initially used for trains delivering building materials required for the mansion's construction.[32]" -"covered the costs" looks strange here, I'd just say he was" responsible for building".
"Like his father, Henry followed a political career, becoming Lord Lieutenant of Surrey in 1905;[47] that year Henry moved to the mansion house after his father decamped to London following the death of Henry's mother. He inherited the title and extensive estate after the death of his father in 1917." -I'd restructure slightly as "Like his father, Henry followed a political career, becoming Lord Lieutenant of Surrey in 1905. That year Henry moved to the mansion house after his father decamped to London following the death of Henry's mother, and he inherited the title and extensive estate after the death of his father in 1917."
Recent times
"When what remained of the estate was marketed in May 1984 the selling agents, Savills, described it as being about 635 acres (2.57 km2).[6" -Try "When what remained of the estate was marketed in May 1984, it was described by the selling agents Savills as being about 635 acres (2.57 km2)."
" centrally heated,"? -Is that right or should it be central heated?
I think it's correct; wouldn't it be either "centrally heated" or "central heating"? SagaciousPhil - Chat
There definitely needs to be a bit more on the wine estate I think.
Notes
"a storm" -I think it would be better to show Burn's Day Storm fully here
Admittedly I generally prefer for the architecture and interior/grounds to have a section on its own and not be covered in the history. Would it be unreasonable to you and Eric to split it from the history?
Looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading through this, Dr. Blofeld, it's much appreciated. I'll start tweaking/addressing them today. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're quite welcome. Excellent work both of you, looks worthy for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting those, Nikkimaria, I've added the page to FN1 and slightly tweaked 59 to point to the hard copy publication rather than the Telegraph.co.uk. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Chester Brown got over his anxiety and guilt over his obsessive masturbating by drawing it for the world to see. He now advocates prostitution to replace traditional sexual relations. It all begins here, along with graphic depictions of Brown's peculiar masturbation style. Clearly this is the article editors will be tumbling over each other to review. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 08:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this article, not enough to be an FA. 333-blue 12:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Not enough to be a FA" is not a valid basis for opposing. You have to specify what it is that's is lacking from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without further elaboration, this will not be taken into consideration by the FAC Coordinators when closing. Graham Beards (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been permanently blocked at Chinese wikipedia, because constantly create disturbances at FAC, GAN, FPC and even speedy delection & AFD. For example, nominate a article at AFD to GAN, just for keep that article. And the worst part is: whatever talk, warning, 3 days block, 3 months black, apparently he really don't give a sxxx.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Poorly written and amateurish. This is one of the worst FAC nominations I've ever seen. Drivel like this would never get published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Singora (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is a bit rough in places, but it's fixable. One goal of FAC is to give positive input on articles, so any comment on what is lacking would help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Generally the FURs could be more comprehensive - particularly the parameters that are flagged as missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler in his artwork - Is this necessary? You've already said that he began to simplify.
Hmm ... I wanted to reword this before ... He had begun simplifying before The Playboy, and continued to simplify afterwards as well. Thinkthinkthink ... Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
angel-demon - you don't describe it as an angel/demon earlier...
I actually di quite a bit of rearranging to deal with this—you may want to take a peak. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though he knows his friends shortly will read it, he still feels uncomfortable talking with them about it face-to-face - I feel as if this could be tightened a bit "Though he knows his friends shortly will read it, he still feels uncomfortable discussing his masturbation with them" or something
I put this in, but changed "his masturbation" to "it" to encompass everything. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He portrays his friend Kris's negative reaction in "Showing Helder" to his depiction her in "Helder". - Is this really worth including in the running text?
I guess it could be clearer, but this is the main reaction that drove him to turn make the switch to stories of his adolescence. It's pretty much the main thrust of "Showing Helder", which appeared the issue before The Playboy began. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any contemporary reviews?
Aside from the ones I've included, not that I'm aware of. Until recently Brown seems to have been more talked about that written about—lots of name-dropping, but little analysis. There were also very few outlets for stuff like this back then other than The Comics Journal. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has Brown revisited pornography in his later works? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a way—in "Danny's Story" he's got jizzy tissues strewn all over the floor with his magazines, and in Paying for It he pays to give Alley Baggett a hug. Nothing direct, and nothing sources pick up on. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, thanks for slagging the prose, but you forgot to oppose. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I get the feeling that the prose could probably be cleaned up a bit more, but it reads acceptably to me, now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I could do without the rather prissy "mother passes away" – in the words of Noël Coward, "She didn't pass over, pass on or pass out – she died!" WP:EUPHEMISM, you know. And it may just be my irredeemably puerile mind, but in the context of this article I'd be inclined to redraw the phrase, "Brown comes across friends of his parents". That apart, an accomplished article, striking just the right note, which I imagine was far from easy to do. The adverse comment, above, from Singora seems to me inexplicable. – Tim riley talk 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks! I've obliterated that "passes away"—I don't know how I let it through. I'm disappointed my puerile mind didn't notice that "comes across", though—I've changed it to "encounter", at least until I can come up with something less stiff. Curly Turkey¡gobble!
Support from Iridescent comments
I'll do a proper FA review when I get the chance, but quickly asking—given that this is an autobiographical comic, would it make sense to include a photo of Brown so readers can compare the fictional version to the reality? I appreciate the only photo we seem to have is 15 years older, but I think it would still be worthwhile. (Speaking of images, neither of the FUR images show Chester's face. Is this intentional as it seems a bit jarring to me; I imagine most readers' first thought on an article about a comic is "what does the main character look like?") – iridescent 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—there should be a picture of Chet and the angel-daemon. As for the photo, I agree, but I'd rather not use a recent one, as he public image at the time was with long hair. Lots of images of him like that out there (in photos, in his own drawings, and drawings by others), but none that are free that I know of. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the foreshortening image and replaced it with one showing Chet and the angel-daemon. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 23:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually a difference between underground comix and alternative comics? They're two links to two different articles, but I'm struggling to see what the difference is. (Feel free to disregard this if this is a really stupid question; I assume most people reading this article are going to be fans who will be more au fait than myself with the jargon.)
Very much so—underground comix was a movement in the '60s & '70s strongly associated with the counterculture. It focused largely on countercultural (sex, drugs) and transgressives (extreme violence, etc) themes. It largerly died out in the late '70s, and the alternative movement of the '80s & '90s picked up many of the leftover pieces, but with a much stronger focus on narrative and characterization, higher production values, and a greater sense of purpose and permanence, especially in the trend toward graphic novels.
"his uncommon masturbation style has drawn notice" really needs a citation—both for the "uncommon" and for the "has drawn notice".
It is cited. It's so unusual it garnered a name. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown's attitudes towards pornography changed dramatically over time. When he made The Playboy he was struggling with his embarrassment over buying pornography; two decades later he vocally advocated for the decriminalization of prostitution" appears to be a non sequitur to me—pornography and prostitution are two different things, and it wouldn't be unusual for someone to be opposed to censorship but against the legalisation of prostitution (a fairly mainstream view in the US) or a supported of legal prostitution but opposed to pornography (a very common position in the feminist movement). What would be more relevant would be if Brown's attitude towards porn changed over the years from his initial ambiguity to either "ban this evil filth" or "they should be teaching this stuff in schools".
I can see what you're saying. What I was trying to express was more along the lines of his going from embarrassment over his sexual appetites to being vocally public about his consumption habits. I'm going to have to mull over the wording. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "toawrds pronography" for now—I think that's a slight improvement, anyways. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 22:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has it been published in any other languages? For something published in Quebec not to be translated into French would be unusual in its own right; if so, did it have any impact overseas, and if not why has it not been? (I appreciate there may be no source for this).
It has been, and I originally had a list of translations, but I took it out as I thought it was borderline OR (I mean, how could I be sure I got them all? I didn't find a list anywhere) Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any idea of whether it was commercially successful? A lot of critically acclaimed things are still commercial flops, and I'd imagine at least some bookstores probably refused to stock The Playboy given its subject matter.
I do have an answer to this, but it's entirely OR. Basically, this was his best-selling period before Louis Riel became a mainstream hit in 2003, but still Brown's sales (something like 7,000 copies an issue) were a fraction of those of people like the Hernandez Brothers or Daniel Clowes (something like 20,000 copies an issue), though critics generally saw them as equals. Brown was seen as "important", but it didn't translate into sales at the time. I can't back this up with an RS, unfortunately. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown stated that several women took offense at the book"—do we have any idea what sort of numbers we're talking about? Someone will always take offence at pretty much anything; was this just a few people saying they didn't like it, or a concerted campaign against it?
There was the odd letter published in the letters page—one reader tore up the first issue and sent it to Brown—but it's something the RSes haven't talked about. None of the sources give any details. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are all (aside from the porn/prostitution equivalence issue) relatively trivial points, and I agree with those above and below at being baffled by Singora's and 333-blue's comments vehemence above. – iridescent 11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something frustrating about writing about someone like Chester Brown is that there is a lot of information that "everyone knows" (who's in the know), but that hardly anybody writes about. For instance, the serial had a one-page intro about Brown's dad that was dropped from the collection, and which shines a lot of light on certain aspects of the book—but none of the sources talk about it. The most recent reprint went through drastic changes—all of the dialogue was relettered, a lot of the dialogue was rewritten, and the artwork was altered—but just try to find a source that goes into it. I keep telling myself I should write a book. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all reasonable replies, and nothing to keep me from supporting (although I do think the prostitution/pornography linkage needs to be rewritten). I agree entirely regarding "things everybody knows" that aren't actually written down anywhere, which is the bane of Wikipedia (try writing an article on any town not significant enough to be the subject of books if you really want to experience this feeling). – iridescent 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the position of reference 4. If it's supporting the connexion between the date and the fact, then the two refs (presumably ref 5) can go together.
I think it was a result of cut & paste—all the info was in Ref #5, so I've removed what was #4. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 22:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize they were incompatible. Done. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of two NASCAR exhibition races held in 2012. The Budweiser Shootout, was won by Kyle Busch, after passing Tony Stewart on the race's final lap. This is my second attempt at FAC for this article, which failed because of issues with prose. Since then, it has undergone a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to address the concerns from the last time. I gladly welcome all feedback and comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this partly failed because of prose but also because of a lack of response. I'll gladly support as the article is in better shape than it was when I peer reviewed it and the GOCE looked at it; I'd hate to see this archived again due to a lack of reviews. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments. I know nothing about racing—go ahead and snicker at any of my more ignorant comments.
Stuff like "So-and-so, aided by XXX, passed YYY" goes right over my head. Are all these people not rivals?.
Some of the individuals mentioned are team mates which I have added of mention.
I saw a mix of serial and non-serial commas—I went with the serial throughout, but feel free to undo that.
I have no objection to this.
The 2012 Budweiser Shootout was a stock car race held before a crowd of 82,000 on February 18, 2012 at the Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, Florida.: this sentence defines the topic of the article. I don't think "before a crowd of 82,000" is part of the definition of "2012 Budweiser Shootout", and should be moved out of the opening sentence.
There's this hidden comment: Contradicts 82 laps elsewhere in the article; are caution laps added to the 75—this contradiciton will have to be sorted out.
To avoid contradiction, I have mentioned that the race was scheduled to last 75 laps. In the race sub-section, I added mention of a green-white-checkered finish which extended the race to 82 laps after the caution was shown on lap 74.
Was it also broadcast outside the US?
Yes, although I am unable to find viewing figures for other countries. But i don't think it's important as NASCAR is primarily based in the United States.
@Curly Turkey: Is there any issues with the amendments that I have made? Z105space (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm giving this my support on prose. If you ever manage to find info on international stats or reception, please add it. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 23:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think the article is close to FA standard. A couple of questions:
The track has four turns, and I see from the image provided that they are at what would be the corners of the oval if it were perfectly oval. To my non-NASCAR-expert eye the front stretch looks to be just as much a turn as the other four. Is it just convention not to refer to this as a turn, or am I missing something?
This is not referred as a turn by NASCAR, as far as i'm aware.
Comment − This is called the Tri-oval; it is not referred to as an official turn. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Caution and green-flag laps were scored in the race" doesn't mean anything to me; you have a link to Racing flags#Yellow flag from "caution" in the lead, which is helpful, but I still don't know what it means to say these laps are scored. You might also link "green-flag" to Racing flags#Green flag; the green flag is mentioned in the yellow flag section but the extra link wouldn't hurt.
I have placed the extra link in and "scored" in this instance means it counted towards the laps run in the race.
I still think "scored" isn't clear to a reader unfamiliar with NASCAR. Wouldn't any race with caution flags automatically include green flag laps? The source says that the laps will "count", which I think is clearer. Does that mean that in some races yellow or green flag laps don't count towards the total lap count? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion has been taken forward. And for your answer, no, all yellow and green flag laps are counted towards the total lap count in all other races held by NASCAR.
I was surprised to see that the starting positions were determined by lot. Isn't it usual for practice session times to determine starting position?
No, starting position is usually determined by the fastest times in a qualifying session. This is the case in series like Formula One and IndyCar.
OK -- is a draw usual in NASCAR then? Or was there some specific reason to have a draw instead of using qualifying session times? If it's usual no change to the article is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The draw is unique to the Budweiser Shootout and has been so since the race's inception in 1979. All other races in NASCAR determine pole position by drivers' fastest qualifying times.
I think you should add that to the article; that's an interesting fact and most non-NASCAR-fan readers won't know it. In fact, shouldn't there be a paragraph or so about the Budweiser Shootout in general -- how it was started, when the first race was held, its relative importance in the season, anything else of interest? Has it always been sponsored by Budweiser? Is the overall race series worthy of an article in its own right in the future? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions have been placed into the article mainspace. The race is only important as it is a "warm-up" for the premier NASCAR event, the Daytona 500. The race series itself has its own article under its current name of the Sprint Unlimited.
You use "chose" to describe the starting position allocations; I think this should be rephrased -- "choose" implies something less randomized. How about: "The 25 drivers determined their starting positions by lot. Martin Truex Jr. drew the pole position, with Kyle Busch, Keselowski, McMurray and Ragan rounding out the first five positions. Kurt Busch drew sixth place and Biffle was drew seventh, ahead of Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Allmendinger in eighth and ninth. Logano, Edwards, Burton, Newman, and Jeff Gordon drew the next five positions. Tony Stewart, who drew fifteenth, was followed by Hamlin, Clint Bowyer, Jimmie Johnson, Kahne, and Waltrip for the first 20 spots. Ambrose, Kevin Harvick, Kenseth, Paul Menard, and Montoya drew the last five positions in the race." or something like that?
Reworded this.
You still have "chose" multiple times; if you don't like "drew" (my suggestion above) that's fine, but I don't think "chose" works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion has been taken
"The first exhibition race of the season, televised live in the United States by Fox, began at 8:10 pm EST": what's an exhibition race? Also, not knowing that this was an exhibition race meant that I didn't understand till the end of the sentence that this sentence is referring to the 2012 Budweiser Shootout, and not some other race. How about "The 2012 Budweiser Shootout was the first exhibition race of the season, ..." and perhaps a link to something that explains what an exhibition race is?
Link has been added and sentence reworded
"During the pace laps, Keselowski, Allmendinger, and Kyle and Kurt Busch had to move to the rear of the grid because of their car changes": why? Is this a rule of some kind? What kind of changes?
It is a rule when a driver changes a major component on his car or switches cars that he is required to start at the back of the grid. In this case, their crashes during practice required them to drive their team's back-up cars.
OK; I like that phrasing better than what you have in the article. How about "because they had switched to their backup cars"? And what does it mean to say "During the pace laps" for this; wouldn't it make more sense to say "Before the pace laps"? Also, why is it plural -- isn't there usually only one pace lap? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - ([User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at race footage myself and the cars had done three pace laps and this is the case in the other NASCAR races.
"On lap 25, a second caution was issued and Gordon passed Edwards to move into second place": this makes it sounds as though Gordon passed Edwards during the caution; I thought no passing was allowed during cautions?
I've amended this to avoid confusion.
After the third caution, "Earnhardt led the field back up to speed at the restart", but apparently Biffle was in the lead prior to the caution, so why would he not have led the restart?
Biffle was behind Earnhardt Jr. after the pit stops.
That explains it, but I didn't follow that in the article. I'd guess an aficionado would understand without further explanation, but a little more would help non-experts. I don't think you need "(followed by Biffle)"; instead I'd suggest "most of the leaders, including Biffle, made pit stops" so that it's clear why Biffle is no longer in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
The first paragraph of "Post-race comments" includes several remarks about how the race was "more fun"; it sounds like they're referring to something that changed, in the format perhaps. Is that the case?
They were referring to regulation changes which I have added into the background sub-section.
That's a great help. Any chance of a link for tandem racing? I can sort of guess what it means, but I don't really know, and I don't know why these changes would make it less likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunely, there is no article on tandem racing.
Well, I think Drafting (aerodynamics)#Bump drafting would work. You already link to that article; how about changing "After the two-car style draft" to link "two-car style draft" to the "Bump drafting" section directly? And also, how about putting "(also called tandem drafting)" in parentheses after "two-car style draft", to explain the quote later in the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken this suggestion.
The last paragraph refers to pack racing and makes it sounds as if there is some reason to expect that there will be more pack racing than tandem racing (whatever that is) in the future. Is that so?
@Mike Christie: I have dealt the points you have raised. Is there anything else that needs addressing? Z105space (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two more:
Footnotes 8 and 10 appear to have identical content; I suggest eliminating one of them.
Eliminated the Fox Sports source.
Footnote 11 is content-free; the archive failed.
Removed archive link because link displays robot.txt message.
Support. Everything I noted has been fixed. I checked two or three footnotes but didn't try to do a general spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks. Note that I do not follow racing of any kind. I thought the article was pretty eas to follow in general.
Do you really need the heading for Report? I'd eliminate that and promote those 4 subheadings to headings.
Yes. It is the standard for all motorsport race report articles and I believe it would be unnecessary to convert the subheadings into headings.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the cause and effect here: "During the pace laps, Keselowski, Allmendinger, and Kyle and Kurt Busch had to move to the rear of the grid because they had switched to their backup cars"
Keselowski, Allmendinger, and Kyle and Kurt Busch were involved in a practice accident and their cars were damaged in the event, which required them to switch to their backup cars, causing them to move to the rear of the field. Z105space (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Budweiser_Shootout_at_Daytona.jpg: do you have an updated source?
Original source has been archived
File:Daytona_International_Speedway.svg: is this based on another image or data source?
It would be both in my opinion
File:NASCAR_practice.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link has been archived Z105space (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
What makes speedway-guide a reliable source? It's down now, but I don't see any evidence of editorial process or evidence that reliable sources would cite it.
The Speedway-Guide source has been removed with one from ESPN.
Fn 22 and 25 - you write the same publisher differently.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ɱ(talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article merely to fill a gap in Wikipedia's biography collection. For someone who I couldn't find a single photograph of or really any detailed source about at first, I was surprised that as I researched, I found that Elliott Fitch Shepard was very well documented. I found numerous photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of his life. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fourth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19 TFA Briarcliff Manor, New York, and I nominated this same article a few months ago but had to pick through plenty of problems; all those that were mentioned are now resolved. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ(talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a minor point, which I'm not even sure on: Is there anything in any MOS anywhere about how to use a wife's maiden name over married surname? ie in the lead instead of "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, granddaughter of..." should it be "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt, granddaughter of..." or even "...married to Margaret Vanderbilt, granddaughter of...". Likewise with the spouse entry in the infobox? cheers, Gecko G (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question that I didn't know the answer to at first. The MOS's WP:FULLNAME states "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." In her case, the most commonly used name is "Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard", as can also be indicated by the fact that that's the title of her Wikipedia article.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, good find, it definitely fits for the infobox mention then. But for the lead I'm not fully convinced. Based on the very next section in that MOS under "Changed names":
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention
so I would take that to mean that it should be "he married [insert wife's name using maiden surname]", but I suppose that in this particular case, since it's ...he was married to... (emphasis added) -ie written in the past tense- it's ok, I guess, If I'm understanding that MOS correctly - It just sounds wierd to my ears when I read it. In any event, a very minor concern- ultimately either way ought to work good enough. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you'd think that. The term 'was' is only in the past tense because Shepard is dead. If he was alive right now, I'd use the word 'is'. That's because I'm not trying to list his biographical history in saying he became married to someone; I was simply stating the fact that Shepard's wife was M. Shepard. Therefore it should still work with the MOS. That's also why the next reference to the wife is when he's first presented to her, and thus I don't use the name 'Shepard' as part of her name.
Yet I just looked at quite a few of Wikipedia's US President articles (GAs and FAs) and they all seem to omit the married surname, so I guess I should.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I see your reasoning for the way it was and I find it sound. But since you changed it I hope you don't mind I went in and changed them all to piped direct links rather than using redirects. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman:: Thanks for the comment! I did the research a few months ago, so I can't be as specific as I could then, but I ran into a number of problems with one source providing different information than others. In all such cases I searched for more sources and used the statement backed up by more (or more reliable) sources. In this case the vast majority of sources say 1833, not 1835.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just have one minor nitpick:
When it shows page numbers, I think it would be more formal to do (p. 254.) instead of (p254)
@Tomandjerry211: Thanks! I use {{Rp}} which doesn't have an option for that. I can request it, unless you prefer the template's alternative of displaying like Xyz[1]: 23 instead of like Xyz[1]: 23 .--ɱ(talk · vbm) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for response, and on that point, I would prefer the keep it that way for now, as ":23" at the end of the cite seems unclear. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thanks for your comments and support!--ɱ(talk · vbm) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've read through the article, and here are some minor points that can be easily addressed:
in the lead, since Woodlea is a structure within Briarcliff Manor, should it be "residence of Woodlea", or something similar?
ɱ: I don't think any extra words are necessary here.
In the Civil War Service section- the 2nd sentence, though grammatically correct, seems to end abruptly. Should it be something like "recruiting efforts" or "recruiting soldiers" or something?
ɱ: Added 'volunteers'.
In the Career section-
the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph (that 650th Fifth Avenue is the current site) is unsourced.
ɱ: I am aware. Every other scrap of information in this article is sourced reliably. This piece should be common sense to anyone who can access Google Maps or similar software or maps, though I do not have a source for it directly. I don't think it's a problem; nowhere on Wikipedia is it stated that every scrap of information needs an inline citation.
Gecko: As I think I stated elsewhere, I'm not familiar with the FAC criteria (this is the only vague thing I could find) but from the lowly B-class assessment guidelines I know that As a rule of thumb, the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and FAC should be much stricter than B-class, right?
ɱ: That rule isn't meant to be taken as literally as you take it. The guideline wants at least one reference to cite a paragraph. In the small paragraph of this article, there are four references; far more than expected as a minimum in the guideline. Also see this.
Gecko: I've been in the position to make the very same defense as you currently are in B-class assesments and lost- and seen others do the same. Again, unless it is a specific difference between a B-class assessment & a FAC criteria (Any other, more knowledgable and experienced editors, care to weigh in on this point?). And why would it be common sense, to someone not from Manhattan, that 650 Fifth Avenue is at 2 West 52nd Street (or alternatively that 650 Fifth Avenue is the same as the former De Pinna Building)?
ɱ: So? People can easily be wrong, and people misread guidelines and policies all the time. After searching for your 'rule of thumb', I found that it's something written up by WikiProject Military History members. There's nothing that says I have to follow individual WikiProject recommendations here. This article is being weighed up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the Featured Article criteria. Also, I wasn't stating that the information is common sense. Just see the linked paragraph, that 'citing everything' is a misconception and is never required.
Gecko: ah, if that is something specific to MilHist then I gladly withdraw the objection. until now MilHist's B-class assesment review had been the limit of my experiences at reviewing articles.
The third paragraph (and maybe also the 4th) are out of place chronologically without any apparent reason from the flow of the text, should it be re-ordered to make it more chronological? (The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph - about him becoming a partner - could even be moved to another paragraph if needed to aid this effort)
ɱ: The third paragraph is all about his home in Manhattan. It goes somewhat off on a tangent chronologically, but I don't think it would be better if the information was reorganized fully chronologically; it would likely just be more confusing. Keep in mind that this is not a Timeline of XX history article, and thus prose can refer to earlier or later dates.
Gecko: It's not all about the home- See the first sentence as it is currently stated. Was the house part of the inheritance (or purchased using said money?), or did they acquire the house prior to her inheritence? If the former, then that should be mentioned - thus making the whole paragraph about the house as you apparently intended, but since that paragraph starts out with an event in 1885 it still would make sense to swap the 3rd & 4th paragraphs (which starts out "after his marriage" [>1868]) unless there was some flow to the text that makes a reasoning for doing it as is - which I don't see (ie there's nothing later in that section about the house that follows on to the info or required the information to be previously established as such). If the later, then the 1st sentence is oddly placed but the paragraph as a whole would be fine. Your correct that it's not a Timeline article, but if there is no logic to the order of the subjects discussed per paragraph, then it is either random and/or badly written. That logical order usually either come's from the flow of subtopics or, especially common in biographies, is usually chronological (plus the rest of the article seems chronological - asides from the one point you make below).
ɱ: The thing is, I'm really not sure whether the house was part of the inheritance. I do know that Margaret's father had it built for her and Elliott only started living there because of his marriage to her. I state that decently in the article already. I swapped the paragraphs as you recommended.
Gecko: ok
Middle of the 4th paragraph: should it be "As president of the newspaper company until his death, he approved every important decision or policy"?
ɱ: Not needed, but sure.
5th paragraph, 2nd sentence- Does the usage of a period rather than a colon (or something) match the MOS for usage of a title with a subtitle within text? It currently reads like it's meant to be split into 2 sentences, one ending "...in The Riva", the next starting "New York and Alaska taken..."
ɱ: This is an odd occurrence. The book itself is titled The Riva. New York and Alaska, and thus I write it as such there. I get that there's a slim likelihood for confusion. Here's a link to a photo of the actual book's inside cover: link
Gecko: yes, quite odd, the period is part of the title. But the "New York and Alaska" bit is a subtitle, so the point stands, just slightly modified- I looked around at the MOS but couldn't find anything about subtitles, but based on written forms It seems like it should read "...in The Riva.: New York and Alaska taken..." (or perhaps with a semicolon instead of a colon, I'm not sure). Can anyone find where the MOS discusses subtitles?
ɱ: I have doubts that it does, and I've never seen anything that mentions it. I would say I am pretty familiar with the MOS; nevertheless I searched it and citation guidelines and found nothing. Anyway, I think the colon or semicolon would be out of place here.
Gecko: If there's nothing in the MOS, then the next authority would be what is proper English. I even dug out an old college copy of Writers INC to try to find the answer, but it only has how to cite a work with a subtitle, nothing about how to use it within the text. :( Setting aside the specifc period in this case, There's got to be a way to indicate where the title stops and the subtitle starts. for example, if it was In word1 word2 word3 word4 word5 word 6 [author] asserts that... you can't tell if it is a 3 word title and 3 word subtitle, or 2/4 or 4/2, or etc. Adding in that odd period (is it a self-published manuscript from EFS? seems like a publisher would of edited that out) and the reader will be as confused as I was (at first I thought it was some old vandalism that had slipped through). If you think a colon is wrong, Perhaps rework that sentence to something like "He documented a trip from New York to Alaska taken by [list of who all] in The Riva." (leaving out the subtitle) and then cite The Riva (with the full subtitle) as a source for that sentence? Then the period is placed in such a way as to not be confusing.
I see now that it is already cited in footnote #26, but incorrectly without the colon there. It should have such per all the mainstream citation styles I'm aware of (MLA, APA, & CMS are all confirmed in Writers INC, I'm not positive but I'd bet that Harvard format is the same). Which citation format are you using?
ɱ: I always use Wikipedia's Cite web/news/books templates. I'd like if you could point out to me where those citation styles mention colons being added in to join titles and subtitles.
Gecko: As mentioned it's common to all the citation style's I'm familiar with, with multiple examples throughtout Writers INC: A Guide to Writing, Thinking, & Learning (I can provide several page or section numbers from my Third edition - 1992- if you wish), and is commonly seen elsewhere. But you said you use Wikipedia's cite templates- I did find in wikipedia Citation Style 1Subtitles are typically separated from titles with ": " though " – " is also used.. There are various examples using the colon at Cite book.
ɱ: Okay, I'll put it in. I'll reply to the rest of your responses as soon as I am able.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Briarcliff Manor developments section-
2nd paragraph, last sentence I think needs a couple of "as" to be added "...with Woodlea as its clubhouse and the J. Butler Wright house as the golf house." Alternatively something like becoming could be used to avoid using as twice in the same sentence if you wish.
ɱ: OK, done
Consider swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs around to make it read more chronologically.
ɱ: again, the first two paragraphs talk about the house; I really don't want to intersect that with a paragraph about the church.
Gecko: ok, it makes sense from that standpoint (ie I now see that this part flows logically, unlike above).
In the Family and personal life section- I wonder if the 1st 2 paragraphs couldn't be reworked to make one about his children and family and the other about him- as it currently stands it seems to jump back and forth a bit jarringly.
ɱ: Done.
Gecko: The sentence about being a strict father could also be moved to the first paragraph to help balance the two lengthwise and subject wise. If so, then you might want to consider swapping the two sentences about "renting pews" and "was politically ambitious" around so that the sentence about religious support & charitable societies is adjacent to the preceeding sentence about social organizations.
ɱ:Good thinking, done.
In the Later life, death, and legacy section-
1st paragraph, 1st sentence- Were the degree's earned or honorary? If they were honorary, that should be mentioned.
ɱ: I have never found a source that stated one way or the other.
Gecko: Unfortunate. It sounds like they are honorary, but without a source it's best to leave it as is.
Gecko: coming back to this point, having now read the source it definately seems they were honorary, but I'm not sure how specifically and explicitly such needs to be mentioned in the source before it can be called such on Wikipedia without being OR. Maybe other editors could weigh in. Here is the relevant sentence from the source: Last year the University of Omaha conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, and his alma mater the degree of Master of Laws. Honorary degrees are conferred while earned degree's are, well, earned. And why would it be specified that it was his alma mater if he had gone back to school to earn the Master of Laws? Do other editors think that is explicit enough or would it still be the dreaded OR issue?
ɱ: You make a good point, and no, I don't think that would be OR at all.
Gecko: I think so, but I've seen so many things attacked as "being OR" that I'd like to hear from others. Either way though, this point shouldn't hold up the candidacy.
And if you move that 1st sentence to another section (likely to the carrer section unless they are honorary degree's, in which case either carrer or personal life could work) then you can simplify the section title to leave out "Later life". Failing that, if you don't want to rename the section, then it is currently rather lacking on "Later life" information, so you would need to move some stuff to here from the career section - seems easyest to make it just a section on "Death and legacy" IMO.
ɱ: This 1892 bit wouldn't fit in the Briarcliff subsection or anywhere above that that's earlier. I still think this is best where it is.
Gecko: ok, in that case then the section needs more about his "later life", that is not about his "death & legacy" to make the section agree with the section heading.
ɱ: It doesn't need more information. It would be nice, but I don't have anything to put there, and it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'later life' part from the heading or move the content anywhere else in the article.
Gecko: Afraid I have to disagree here. If I see on the table of contents a section titled "A & B", and then the section has one sentence which only tangentially touches on "A" and then several paragraphs about "B", and nothing more, then that's not right (assuming of course that "B" is not obviously connected to, or caused by, "A"). As another idea, what about moving that bit to the education section of the infobox (though I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be included there)?
ɱ: I understand that it's not ideal, but there's no policy or guideline that states this as a requirement, and thus I am okay with leaving it as it is.
Gecko: Well, in my view this would make the candidate fail criteria 2b of the FA criteria - as I understand it (as well as more specifically A3 from the A-Class criteria, but I'm not sure if that is relevant here) and I would have to vote "oppose" on the article's candidacy if it remains in it's current form. As I understand it FA status is the best of the best here on wikipedia needing to be practically flawless and meeting the stringest (sp?) of requirements, so apologies but I don't think it meets it at this time. If you don't wish to move it, and don't have any further info to expand the section, then perhaps I can ask: is the sentence even needed? could it be deleted? (especially if they are just honorary awards from second tier {or perhaps lower} organizations - no offence intended to any alumni, but neither one is Ivy league).
Gecko: note: concerns on this point satisfactorily addressed, see below.
The last paragraph, last sentence- it's not clear why O'Donoghue's debts to publishing houses combined with news of Shepard's death provoked O'Donoghue's suicide (I presume it's explained why in the linked newsarticle)
ɱ: I know it's not as clear as I'd like it. I can't get anything of use from any sources.
Gecko: ok, I've read the news article's now- it sounds like O'Donoghue's suicide was not connected to news of the death of EFS beyond that he happend to commit the act right as his wife was reading him the obituary and the assumption had been that there was a cause and effect rather than a mere coincidence in timing. So maybe just add something to the end of the last sentence like "...debts to Chicago publishing houses, and not connected to news of Shepard's death[citation]" or some-such wording.
ɱ: I'm not sure if any publication flat-out denied that there was a relation between the two, even if they both suggest other motives. I can't be more specific or reach a closer conclusion than my sources...
Gecko: note that I had said "something like", you don't need to take my off-the-cuff draft too literarly. The source say's "probably", so word it in such a way to effectively (or directly) say "it was probably not connected". That would be in agreement with the source. perhaps something like: "Although his suicide was thought to be an impulsive act upon hearing the news, it was later learned that the likely cause was O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicago publishing houses and probably not connected to Shepard's death." Or something like "Although his suicide was thought to be an implusive act upon hearing the news of Shepard's death, it was later learned that it was probably rather prompted by O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicage publishing houses". again- just a off-the-cuff quick draft's, the specific's can (and should be- if nothing else to polish the wording) be worked around with.
ɱ: This is still much more easily original research than determining that the degrees are honorary or the building is 650 5th Ave. I don't like it.
Gecko: while I disagree, this point is not significant enough that it would cause me to vote "oppose".
Asides from the one unsourced bit, these are all minor (and some might actually be stylistic choices rather than outright oversights). Overall a very interesting read. Gecko G (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other points which I didn't reply to are either addressed or are styalistic differences of opinion rather than being wrong. cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could use some other editors to weigh in on a few of the above points. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps that would be helpful.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gecko G: I added in later life information. Was that the only remaining issue of the above discussions?--ɱ(talk · vbm) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say that is just sufficient enough. And yes, that was the last of the above points. Now some minor points on the new bits:
It could use explaining why he didn't want it to open on a Sunday, which could be as simple a change as adding "-The Sabbath" or similar to the end of that sentence. And did you mean to end that sentence with a semicolon or is that a typo? The bits before and after seem too long and complex to be clause's - but that's getting well beyond my grammer knowledge so I'm not positive.
ɱ: Okay, I've done these upon your request.
The second sentence about the fair seems oddly constructed. Are you trying to say that on Sept. 7, 1891 (nearly 2 years in advance) he paid up front for the 6 months that he planned to attend (which, btw I belive was the entire duration of it)? On my first read-through I thought it was saying that he attended the fair on just the day of Sept 7th but that he paid for 6 months of hotel services. That source won't load for me - probably just my old system - but double check that it's not a dead link - and assuming it's a book there should be a page # or page #'s.
ɱ: Yes he paid up well up front for those six months of stay. The link works, and it's really more of a booklet than a book, and as such, lacks page numbers. Still, it should be easy to use the page's search function for those who can view it. Can you view the download options, seen upon scrolling down, that can allow you to download the text or create a PDF?
and some bits I apparently overlooked earlier:
Shepard was being examined for a medical condition by doctors; they gave him ether at 1… Did he become ill and the doctors were trying to find the medical condition making him ill, or was he being examed for a pre-existing condition - for which they gave him ether- which in turn led to his death?
ɱ: I can add in more details recently found. Will do soon.
I take it that the source for the times ("at 1", "at 4", "20 minutes") is footnote #2 (his NY Times obituary) cited at the end of the sentence following those two sentences? You know the MOS better than I do, does WP:CITEDENSE, (or some other part of the MOS) apply here (and thus it's ok as-is) or not since it's not at the end of a paragraph?
ɱ: Yes, this is normal and applies to CITEDENSE. The first half of that paragraph is cited to the NYT obituary; the second half is to the NYT resting place transfer article.
Is the modern inflated value's really needed three times in one sentence (after 3 of the 4 amounts)? You might want to only use it on the last one, the total (the 1.35 million one).
ɱ: OK.
The usage of the term "Religious bodies" seems odd here. The source calls one a Body corporate and the other a Religious corporation... It might be best to just call them religious organizations, or religious institutes, or religious entities, or something.
Comments taking a look now - I'll make any straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
was a New York lawyer, banker and newspaper owner. He owned the Mail and Express newspaper - could we just reduce the repetition to "was a New York lawyer, banker and owner of the Mail and Express newspaper" ?
His early life seems bare of details apart from genealogy....but I suspect you've looked for material without success...?
In 1862 he visited Jamestown to inspect, equip and provide uniforms for the Chautauqua regiment, his first return since age twelve - huh? We have no background on leaving Jamestown apart from being born there.
Thanks @Casliber! I fixed the first query. In response to the second, I've added as much as I've ever been able to find on him, and just added a little bit more now, also partially addressing the third point. In response to the third, the article does state: "He attended public schools in Jamestown and graduated from the City University of New York in 1855", which bridges the gap fairly well, I believe.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He chaired lawyers' committees for disaster relief, including those in Portland, Maine ...err, what happened in Portland?
I'd reorganise Briarcliff Manor developments segment by switching paras 2 and 3 as 2 is largely after death so makes more sense chronologically.
@Casliber: I found and added material based on your good (first) point. As for the second, I don't know whether it would be better to have it more chronological as you suggest or to keep the first two paragraphs about Shepard's Woodlea and the third paragraph about Shepard's church. I sort-of don't like having one short paragraph about the church stuck in between two larger ones about the house.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can see that. Not a big deal...ok cautiously support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any prose-clangers outstanding.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability, will post request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Fn 1, publisher? Matthews & Warren is listed as the "printing house" but I'm not sure if that's considered the same thing.
ɱ: The Library of Congress, the Internet Archive, and WorldCat list Matthews and Warren so I will.
Fn 14, typo Houghton Mufflin
ɱ: Fixed, thanks.
Fn 17, I think you need to figure out the author, or provide some clue as to why it's not known.
ɱ: ? This is a newspaper article. Countless news articles don't have authors attributed, it happens all the time, even contemporarily.
Fn 25, what makes this Q&A column a reliable source for building history? Gray doesn't cite any sources and it's unclear why they should be considered an authority.
ɱ: Well this is a New York Times article. Such a reputable paper has enough of a review process to withstand WP:RS for pretty much any of its articles, except editorials. Oh, and apparently Christopher Gray has a Wikipedia article of his own that describes his reputability as an architectural historian with many books on New York and its history and architecture. That (and more reliable sources on the guy and his accomplishments) should place him as a very reputable source.
Fn 27, you don't provide enough information to meet WP:V here. Is this a book? Is the title correct (unsure why there's a period after "Riva")? How can we find it?
ɱ: This was published by Shepard himself. The title is correct, as I had to note to an above editor. Here is a photo of the inside cover to show: link. I am adding the OCLC number which should direct where one can find it, namely the Yale University Library, where I found it.
Fn 30, this is a job posting, unsure how it meets WP:RS.
ɱ: Well WP:RS allows less reputable sources if used properly. I use it because it was written by the country club; they list their main building as being a more conservative 65,000 sq. ft. rather than the 70,000 sq. ft. the other sources say, so this article therefore says the building is 65,000 to 70,000 sq. ft.
Fn 33, what makes this a reliable source? No sources cited, no indication of authority of author or editorial process. --Laser brain(talk) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Please see WP:SELFSOURCE. I use a webpage on the Scarborough Presbyterian Church's website to cite information about the Scarborough Presbyterian Church. Neither the content I cite nor any of the webpage's material contradicts any of the five criteria at SELFSOURCE, making this self-published source acceptable.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the fixes/responses—please consider my comments addressed. --Laser brain(talk) 10:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; thank you so much!--ɱ(talk · vbm) 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great read. Well done on the amount of research and effort you put into this. I see nothing in the current version of the article that is in need of attention or that falls below FAC standards. Freikorp (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Karanacs. I think this is a very solid article. I have a few nitpicks still.
The infobox includes the title "colonel", but the infobox itself does not mention his military service at all. I'd just remove the word "colonel".
ɱ: I tried to embed another infobox in order to add military information, but it didn't work; I believe the template's (or templates') coding may need to be altered to allow seamless embedding. I'll remove it anyway, I guess it's somewhat out of place.
I don't know if it has changed, but the MOS used to say that pictures should be places so that the person is looking into the text. This would mean that the photo of Shephard during the Civil War should be placed at the right side of the article instead of the left. The only way to do that, I believe, would be to shorten the infobox a lot. I personally wouldn't have included that much detail in the infobox anyway - I don't think we need to know his ethnicity or the names of his kids, parents, or relatives there.
ɱ: I'm very familiar with the current MOS, but I've only been reading it for perhaps the last 3 or 4 years; perhaps that rule was dropped before I started reading it. Also, I believe those specifics in the infobox should stay; I, like many other readers, will often just read the lede and infobox for a basic understanding on a subject, especially in a larger article like this one.
For those who aren't familiar with US geography, should we specifically state that he was in the Union Army during the Civil War?
ɱ: Good catch. I thought I had, but I guess I only did in the lede. Fixed now.
" In addition, Shepard was involved in correspondence with Walt." -> about what? as it stands, this sentence seems like name dropping.
ɱ: While I was researching EFS I was surprised and interested to find that he and Walt Whitman had written letters to each other during the war. I thought that was meritous enough to include, and nobody else has remarked negatively about it, on or off the Wiki. As for what they were corresponding about, I'm unsure completely, the letters on the Whitman website only tell of Shepard's letters, so it's pretty one-sided.
The third paragraph of Career bounces around a lot, in topic and timeframe. I'd move the last sentence (1875, arb court) to be the second sentence. Then you have 3 sentences in a row about his legal career. If you move the sentence about Judge Strong down with them, you have a soliid paragraph. Then split the next 3 sentences into a separate paragraphy (newspaper and the 5th Ave Stage company - great segue with the religion aspects!) The leaves the sentence on the college - that, timewise, seems to go up with his marriage in that paragraph.
Wow, good work, that reordering fits very well. Fixed, thanks!--ɱ(talk · vbm) 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
"I'll take my chance against the law. You'll take yours against the sea." So says Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) to Lieutenant William Bligh (Charles Laughton) in Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), the best-known of the five film versions, as the mutineers turn their captain and 18 others adrift in a small open boat in the south Pacific Ocean. The basic story is no doubt familiar to many of you from the movies and/or books: Captain Bligh is a tyrannical sadist in charge of a "hell ship"; Fletcher Christian proclaims "We'll be men again if we hang for it" and heroically leads the men to freedom. What resemblance has this to the historical events? Not very much. The records show that Bligh actually gave out an exceptionally low number of floggings for the time, though he was given to thunderous rages and humiliating put-downs. His harsh treatment of his former favourite Christian, whom he had made second-in-command during the outward voyage, combined with other psychological stressors to bring the younger man to a state of brooding, suicidal desperation that boiled over into mutiny on the morning of 28 April 1789. The rest, as they say, is history.
This account of the real life Mutiny on the Bounty has been a collaborative effort between the esteemed Brianboulton and myself over the past couple of months. It has undergone a peer review over the past week from an all-star selection of FAC regulars and received very positive feedback. We hope you enjoy the article and look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have. All comments are welcome. —Cliftonian(talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could find very little wrong with it at the peer review to the point that I felt useless reviewing it! An excellent account which clearly meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Doctor for your help at PR and for your very kind words. —Cliftonian(talk) 06:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. I was impressed then and am impressed again at a second reading. A fine piece of work that meets all the FA criteria for the text. I am glad to learn the facts of the case after a lifetime vaguely believing the myths. I don't usually comment on images, Wikipedia's arcane rules being beyond me, but I thought this article particularly well illustrated. – Tim riley talk 08:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help and the extremely kind words, Tim. —Cliftonian(talk) 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support could find little to criticise at the PR. I have some knowledge of the Bounty saga, having read several of the books on it, though not recently, and having been to several of the relevant sites. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Gary for your help at PR and the kind words here. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I echo my colleague's thanks to the above, and my appreciation for the parts they played in raising the quality of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is certainly one of the best articles I have read over the last few years. In fact, I liked it so much, I supported it twice 😉 CassiantoTalk 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the help and the kind words Cassianto. —Cliftonian(talk) 20:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. RE: "many of the men lived ashore and formed sexual attachments with native Polynesians". This is twee and wrong. Sex was heterosexual. The sailors screwed the local girls and had girlfriends. The phrase "sexual attachments" is silly.
How do you know that all the sex was heterosexual? There's nothing silly about the phrase, although "relationships" may be better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word "relationships" works. You could also talk about "bonds". And trust me, the phrase "sexual attachments" is twee.
2 RE: "descendants of the mutineers and their Tahitian consorts would live on Pitcairn into the 21st century". The word "consorts" is wrong.
No it isn't. The word is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "a wife, husband or companion" which seems to fit the bill exactly.
No, this is a silly argument. You know perfectly well that lots of words have multiple meanings, some of which are archaic or applicable to certain contexts only. Drop the word "consort" and use either "partner" or "girlfriend". The current wording is wrong.
You cannot say the Oxford Dictionary definition is "wrong" or that accepting it is silly. You can suggest alternative words which you think are better. The two you have suggested have a rather contemporary feel, and I'm not convinced that either is an improvement. If other reviewers wish to support your choices, I will of course accept the consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the word "consorts" was well-chosen. They were, after all, the lords of Pitcairn. And given the isolation and bleakness that they chose, the word "consorts" works in an ironic sense too. As for the Tahitians, I have never seen anything that suggested that the liaisons were all female. I think caution is the best path, given one thing and another.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. RE: "Mutineers divided" and the phrase 'Others, such as Stewart and Heywood, settled into quiet domesticity with their "wives"'. Why put quotation marks around the word "wives"? I really don't get all this old-fashioned prudishness. A bunch of English sailors met some girls, fucked them, established pair bonds, settled down and started families. Words and phrases such as "sexual attachments" and "consorts" seem horribly inappropriate.
This seems a somewhat contrived effort to get a four-letter word into your argument, such as it is. The quote marks around "wives" merely indicate that they were not necessarily the legal spouses of the sailors with whom they cohabited. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God! Did you notice I didn't use the term "fuck buddy"? What is a "legal spouse"? Do you believe a non-legal spouse is somehow inferior to a legal spouse and thus warrants quotation marks? Try to drop your Anglocentric view of what is right and what is wrong. Try to to understand that many marriages around the globe are sanctioned by religious authorities and cultural norms rather than faceless legal entities.
I will delete the words "with their wives", which seem to be causing you such pain and anguish. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. The word "loyalists" appears five times in the article. I really think this is the wrong word. I know what you're trying to say, but the word has unintended connotations. Some readers may feel that the "loyalists" were somehow morally superior to those who weren't "loyal". This kind of black and white portrayal of events is unacceptable in a Wiki article and raises question re: neutrality. Let's put things another way: what would readers think if we described those loyal to Captain Bligh as scum and the mutineers as Fletcher Christian's loyalists?
All on board Bounty signed up under naval regulations which bound them in obedience to their captain. "Loyalist" is the description used throughout the sources to describe those who followed Bligh in accordance with their duty under these regulations. Those that chose to follow Christian were legally mutineers. There is no question of any breach of neutrality in these descriptions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your arguments, but disagree with your terminology. In my opinion, the word "loyalist" has connotations which are inapplicable to this context. I suspect that many of those who joined Bligh did so out of fear of the consequences rather than any particular loyalty to crown and country; I suspect too that those who sided with Christian were motivated by their hatred of Bligh rather than anti-British sentiments. I also suspect that pussy may have been a motivating factor, but I shan't pursue this point as I don't wish to offend your Victorian sensibilities.
Conclusion. I've just looked through the article again. In the section Towards home I see that Mr Brian Boulton discusses Captain Bligh's "social intercourse". At this point it's time to call it a day. The article is very obviously the work of an "instant Google expert" rather than someone who's lived with the subject matter for an extended period and has a proper, academic understanding of the cultural and historical nuances; the prose is just stupid.
And now -- if you'll excuse me -- I shall take my leave and drive my consort to a local restaurant. I look forward to a well-cooked steak and some engaging social intercourse. Singora (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the FAC co-ordinators will give due weight to your insightful observations. Enjoy your steak. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brian. Unfortunately steak was off the menu so my consort and I ordered fish instead. Social intercourse was fine, however. Good luck with your nomination! Singora (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, Singora, but I have to say your phrasing above is crude to say the least, and your description of Brian and me as "instant Google experts" with no actual knowledge of the mutiny is frankly very offensive. If the article is as terrible as you seem to think it is I am mystified as to why it has garnered so much support from staid FAC regulars above. My co-nominator Brian has authored the third-highest number of FAs of any Wikipedian; the FA reviewers here supporting the article's promotion are the all-time FA leader, Wehwalt, and five others—Tim riley, Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, Dank and SchroCat—who have authored at least 10 FAs each. I am bemused and disappointed by your decision to conduct yourself in this manner and hope for your sake that this is the exception rather than the norm. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A brief comment, if I may. I won't pretend to be an expert on the Bounty saga. I've read a fair amount of the nonfiction as well as the classic trilogy. I don't come to the subject cold. I saw nothing unexpected or apparently wrong. This article represents hard work, uncompensated but for the satisfaction. Over the years, I've learned there are productive ways to approach reviewing, and unproductive ways. To avoid landing one in Column B, it's best have evidence something is wrong, rather than just words. I'm not sure whether the claim that the Tahitian liaisons were all female is based on actual evidence, assumption, or something else. More to the point, no one does. Please don't bring words to an evidence fight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A few minor tweaks undertaken here, all per the MoS. An excellent and extremely well-put together article that I have no hesitation supporting. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the tweaks and the support, SchroCat. —Cliftonian(talk) 01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for PR. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this help and support, Dan. Hope you're well. —Cliftonian(talk) 01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks added to SchroCat and Dan for their support, most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Impressive work but a few remarks :
Bligh's open-boat voyage : "Strains were showing within the party; following a heated disagreement with Purcell, Bligh grabbed a cutlass and challenged the carpenter to fight. Fryer told Cole to arrest their captain, but backed down after Bligh threatened to kill him if he interfered." What happened next ? Has there been a duel between Bligh and Purcell or did the captain regained his composure ?
Keep in mind they were all so weak each of them could barely lift a sword. Purcell showed no inclination of wanting to fight, Bligh shouted a bit more and eventually he threw his cutlass down and the crisis was over. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a contradiction between this article and Complement of HMS Bounty : In the first, Thomas Hall and Robert Lamb died in Batavia whereas they returned safely in England in the second.
Mutineers divided : "One group, led by Morrison and Tom McIntosh, began building a schooner" Did they succeeded in their enterprise ?
Not really, or they wouldn't have still been there when Pandora arrived. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they did complete it. It was requisitioned by Pandora, which used it as a tender. During Edwards's search for mutineers in the vicinity of Samoa, the schooner and its scratch crew was separated from Pandora in a storm, and believed lost. Amazingly, the crew managed to sail it to Batavia, where Captain Edwards presented it to the Governor of Timor as a keepsake. This little story isn't really part of the Bounty mutiny, but since it has been raised here, I will fashion a footnote with the bare details. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Pandora : "When Edwards gave the order to abandon ship, the armourer began to remove the prisoners' shackles, but the ship sank before he had finished." Is the armourer Joseph Coleman ? If so, why was he not also shackled ?
No, it was the armourer of Pandora. Coleman was shackled. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence of the lede ought to be worded differently, as it's tautologous currently. Perhaps: "On 28 April 1789 a mutiny occurred aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty", or "A mutiny aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty occurred on 28 April 1789"? This is the wording of, for instance, the article Sinking of the RMS Titanic.
Is there a particular reason why the article is not named "Mutiny on the HMS Bounty?" (again thinking of the example of the RMS Titanic above).
Hello MasterOfHisOwnDomain, thanks for this. I'm glad you like the article. First of all, please excuse my presumptuousness for moving your comments up, but I thought it better not to have them under the "source review" header.
Regarding the first point about the opening sentence: per WP:BEGIN, the subject of the opening sentence should be the title if this is possible. The article you linked to, "Sinking of the RMS Titanic", seems to me to follow this guideline and to closely mirror the opening sentence we already have for this Bounty article. So I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point here.
Currently the first sentence says that the mutiny on the Bounty occurred aboard the Bounty. If the articles were the same then the other would have to be worded "The sinking of the Titanic occurred to the RMS Titanic". Does that help show the difference? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reading about the subject for the first time might not know that the Bounty in the title is a Royal Navy warship called HMS Bounty (indeed they might not even know Bounty was a ship). The Titanic article says from the off that this is the "sinking of the RMS Titanic" so there isn't the same necessity in my opinion to clarify. —Cliftonian(talk) 20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second point: "RMS" requires "the" before it while "HMS" does not. This is because "RMS" stands for "Royal Mail Ship"—"the Royal Mail Ship Titanic"—while "HMS" stands for "His/Her Majesty's Ship". "The HMS Bounty" or "the His Majesty's Ship Bounty" is wrong. In any case, we go by the WP:COMMONNAME for article titles, which, because of the popular novel and film accounts, is undoubtedly "Mutiny on the Bounty". Thanks and I hope this is all okay. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk) 16:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian is correct in his reasoning, but looking at the current first sentence I find myself agreeing that the wording is not altogether satisfactory. Currently it reads: "The Mutiny on the Bounty occurred aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty in the south Pacific, on 28 April 1789". Per WP:LEAD, we don't have to work the article title into the first line when the title describes an event, and I think a smoother version might be: "The mutiny on the Royal Naval vessel HMS Bounty occurred in the south Pacific, on 28 April 1789". I would not wish to change the article's title, as the event described in the article is universally known as the "Mutiny on the Bounty". Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. How about "The mutiny on the Royal Navy vessel HMS Bounty occurred in the south Pacific on 28 April 1789."? I've gone ahead and made this change provisionally to make it easier to gauge in context. —Cliftonian(talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks OK to me (Naval → Navy no real difference) Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian and Brianboulton seem to have done a highly respected job of presenting this topic. However, at Template:Mutiny on the Bounty there seems to be some unusual presentation of unlinked encyclopedic content in the form of "and 17 others" and "and 12 others". At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Bounty_navigation_box, some discussion has been held on the subject. Cliftonian has argued that there is a need for demystifying clarification on the affiliation of the crew. My point is that it is not normal account for the non-notable elements of a set in a navbox in this way. I don't know how many template people will be viewing this, but maybe Robsinden and Frietjes could take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The unlinked added notes are for the benefit of readers who, unaware of WP template protocols, may wonder why, if there were 22 "loyalists" and 21 "mutineers", only 5 and 9 names respectively are shown. An alternative presentation might be to remove the unlinked notes and precede the lists of names with the word "including". I would have no problem with that. The important factor is that the navbox shouldn't mislead or raise questions in readers' minds, which simple removal of the notes might do. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers should be removed altogether, so readers wouldn't then be counting. Also, the years of the novels and films should be removed, except for disambiguation. I'd also like to see the HMS Bounty link removed from the left side (maybe to the title), giving that over to just the "Complement..." link. THIS would be my suggestion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this is what Brian and I mean. Looking at your proposed version here one gets the hugely misleading impression that there were less than 20 men aboard Bounty and that most of them were mutineers. The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of HMS Bounty was removed because having it there seemed to imply it was the only book on the Mutiny, which it obviously isn't (I added a couple more with links to the authors, but TonyTheTiger protested so I removed the whole section). I'm not sure why you think it is better to remove context by taking all the years out—the titles are all so similar it really helps to have the years given for everything. Bounty Dayis worth mentioning, so I have added it—good catch. Quaff distillery appears to be a hoax and as such I've nominated it for deletion here. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, and good work on the article! It doesn't matter what impression we give with a navbox - the numbers of crew (and their loyalties, fates, etc, etc) can all be found at the Complement of the HMS Bounty article. The navbox only exists for navigation between existing articles, not encyclopedic information. The removal of the The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of HMS Bounty sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and illustrates the previous point - just because it is the only article doesn't mean it's the only book (authors shouldn't be linked though, as they are only tangentially related to the topic of the navbox). With the books and films presented in chronological order, in my opinion there is no need for the years - this is actually the subject of an ongoing debate elsewhere though, but it's the navigation vs information point, and quite frankly it looks a lot more pleasing without the plain text years present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, and I realise you are trying to be helpful, but I think it does matter what impression we give with the navbox, which is an inherent part of the article page and will be seen by many readers who are not au fait with what navboxes are supposed to do or not do. These readers, as Cliftonian argues, will be misled unless we give them a slight helping hand, and for this purpose I think it's perfectly acceptable to bend the rules slightly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're adamant, as a compromise I'd suggest removing the numbers and adding a simple "among others" at the end. We don't need to quantify, that's what articles are for. Note that in bibliographies, discographies and the like we'd include the notable books and records (per WP:EXISTING) without this annotation, without worrying whether the reader would think that was all the books and records made by the author/artist, so I still maintain this is unnecessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made some changes, so now it is at THIS version. I've left the years in, although I'm personally against them, but I think it's a bit tidier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will go along with this version, and if Cliftonian is likewise happy we'll leave it at that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rob, for this compromise. I would prefer to see "and 17 others" and "and 12 others" stay instead of "among others", but I will accept this version. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TonyTheTiger has just removed the "among others" text again on the grounds that the crewmen without articles are supposedly "not notable". —Cliftonian(talk) 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted him. He does not have the authority to override discussions in this way just because he disagrees with the outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source links for this image are broken. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the "Online Map Creation" software at http://www.aquarius.geomar.de was broken, but the actual source information was okay. I've fixed the broken links anyway—thanks for this David. —Cliftonian(talk) 01:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tubuai.jpg - Fine, though apparently the "Conditions of Use of Astronaut Photographs" link is dead.
Link was apparently moved here; have rectified, good catch —Cliftonian(talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bounty stone Venus Beach.jpg - What's the freedom of panorama law like in Tahiti? When was this monument established? If French Polynesia is under French copyright law, then there is no freedom of panorama, and this is likely a derivative work of a non-free subject.
Hmmm. This seems to be correct. We may have to lose this one in that case. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any monuments in the UK? There's freedom of panorama there for both buildings and statues (and I'd expect the monuments to be quite a bit older, and thus possibly out of copyright anyways). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:HMS Pandora.jpg - Needs a US PD tag (PD-100 works, though you need to fix the link to the artist, and I'd provide his YOD on the information template as well).
Great. Thank you for all of this Chris, you've been very helpful. It seems the only issue is regarding the Bounty stone at Tahiti, which presumably comes under French law regarding freedom of panorama, unfortunately. Is there anything that can be done, you think? —Cliftonian(talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, I have withdrawn the image of the memorial stone. If it is later shown to be PD within the scope of these tortuous panorama regulations, then we can always reinstate it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the sculptor's been dead for 70 years, there probably isn't. K, images look good now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't terribly surprised by the deletion, alas. I didn't take one that makes it relatively insignificant, and if copyright laws for Tahiti are those of France, well, it wouldn't make it. Possibly I'll get there again someday. Or a better photographer than me will.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an impressive and extensive article written by two well-established editors. There has been plenty of support for its promotion to featured status already, so I thought my time might best be spent by performing a source review. I do not have much experience performing source reviews for articles with which I have not had any involvement, so I would be glad for help if I am not performing the review as required. I have done a spot check of five citations that reference sources that are available online, as I do not have access to the offline sources. Of these five citations, four matched up perfectly and one only partially. Citation 29 sources the following statements:
"Living space on the ship was allocated on the basis of rank. Bligh, having yielded the great cabin, occupied private sleeping quarters with an adjacent dining area or pantry on the starboard side of the ship, and Fryer a small cabin on the opposite side. Huggan the surgeon, the other warrant officers and Nelson the botanist had tiny cabins on the lower deck"
The portions of this passage that are in bold are the portions that I did not find on the page indicated in the citation. I do not doubt that the information is accurate or that it is provided in somewhere in the sources used in this article. For example, the fact that Bligh had yielded the great cabin appears to be sourced earlier in the article to the McKinney book; perhaps that citation could be added here as well. I hope this spot check his helpful; I would be glad to see this article up on the main page. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put an inline reference to McKinney in after "having yielded the great cabin" and expanded the Dening ref at the end here. I think it's evident from the wording and the diagrams on the pages immediately following how small these cabins were. Thank you for this David, this has been helpful. A source review usually includes a look at the formatting and consistency of the footnotes, bibliography, etc—do you think you could find a minute or two to have a look at that too? I'm fairly sure it's all okay but another set of eyes couldn't hurt. I'm glad you like the article. Cheers and I hope you're well. —Cliftonian(talk) 03:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing that concern. The footnotes and bibliography all seem to be formatted consistently and correctly. Thanks for inviting me to participate in this FAC! I hope you are well also. Neelix (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I add my thanks to Cliftonian's for your sources review. Please feel welcome to participate in any future FAC nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 14:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a spectacular collection of Renaissance treasures bequeathed to the British Museum by a Rothschild. It is the only part of the museum's collection that is always displayed together. Within the museum it is moving to a new, more prominent, position, and the display opens next month (June 2015). I don't think we have any FAs, and not many articles at all about collections, and though the range of types of objects and periods here is considerable, the unifying taste is distinctive, and very much of its time (the late 19th century). Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new display is now open by the way. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support this article now that the comments have been dealt with. It has improved a great deal over the course of the nomination. Well done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting subject matter. I have a few comments:
RE: the block quote regarding Ferdinand's bequest, could this be excerpted in the lede and reproduced in full (with accompanying material) in the body of the article? Related to this point, I feel like the article would benefit from a section devoted to the background of the collection as a whole, i.e. the circumstances of Rothschild acquiring these pieces, his donation of them to the Museum, and whether others were donating similarly etc..
Yes, I should be able to do this later in the week. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started this, but I think not finished it. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, with a "history" section at the beginning and a short one on the BM display history at the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE: schatzkammer and treasure house, are these distinct terms or simply the German and its equivalent phrase in English (in which case should it be "schatzkammer or 'treasure house'"?)
A bit distinct - schatzkammer literally translates to "treasure room/chamber", but the rather vague "treasure house" is more usual in English, so I think it is best left as is. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I have made a few minor changes myself.
Is there any way that "Objects from before the Renaissance" can be shortened? (I take your point about "Pre-Renaissance" not working, didn't gauge the dating of the objects at a glance.) Perhaps Medieval and Classical objects?
I can't think of a better alternative, but open to suggestions. "Medieval and Classical objects" is only 5 characters shorter. One could say "Earlier objects" but unless the lead has been read and absorbed, that begs the question "earlier than what?". Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Jewellery': "There is no such difficulty [in placing the country of manufacture] with the most famous jewel in the collection". This sentence is quite verbose, and despite it I still don't know what the country of manufacture is from the next few sentences.
Oh! Ok, "made in London" added. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Lyte Jewel emboldened? And, related to this, why is it the only item of the collection emboldened? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It redirects here, as being pretty well known. References in books etc tend to just say "British Museum", which will be the picture credit. I hope it will get its own article before long in fact. There are a few other objects with "names" that might be worth redirecting, but I haven't done them. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lyte had drawn up a family tree tracing James' descent back to the legendary Trojan Brut." I think it could be made more explicit that this is the reason James gave Lyte the jewel. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Lyte was not a regular at court, but he had drawn up a family tree tracing James' descent back to the legendary Trojan, Brut." Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse my two penn'orth now thoroughly dealt with
This is a gorgeous article, and I'll certainly be supporting it. A few qubbles first though:
The lead, to my mind, falls foul of WP:LEAD, as it contains important information not found in the body of the text. To comply with the MoS, I'd recommend moving the quote from the Baron's bequest to the main text and replacing it in the lead with a short paraphrase. Similarly, the detailed information about the display rooms belongs in the main text, with a shorter summary in the lead. And so on, with – for preference – all the citations in the lead moved to the main text.
Yes, coming - see 1st point above. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started this, but I think not finished it. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, with a "history" section at the beginning and a short one on the BM display history at the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate links in the main text:
silver-gilt (twice), Limoges enamel, rock crystal, and Horace Walpole
"rather too heavily for conventional modern taste" – I don't doubt it, but we want an inline source for this opinion.
For now I've added Tait, who mutters about decoration that is "less well-disciplined" and lacking "purity". I doubt John Berger deigned to notice such objects, or he would provide much more forthright language, but I will hunt around elsewhere. In a fortnight or so the press may provide some up-to-the-minute thoughts. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"damascened" – is blue-linked at second, rather than first mention here.
"James I of England, a great lover" – at first reading this doesn't convey what you mean it to convey. By the end of the sentence all is clear, but it distracts the reader momentarily.
I was mildly surprised to see James' rather than James's as the possessive. I think the former is usual in AmEng and the latter in BrEng. Not a matter of great import, but I mention it.
The Walpole quote omits the italics (presumably his underlinings in the original) and the hyphen he put in " out-issimo", as printed here.
Excellent spot! Walpole is as bad as Queen Victoria! These weren't included in the BM's website transcription of Tait's transcription of the Yale edition, but no doubt should have been - I'll check next time I have hard copies in my hand. Added. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
British Museum publications: the publisher is variously listed here as "British Museum Press", "British Museum Publications", and "British Museum". Is this right?
Although of course the same people, they have adopted a number of styles in the 20th century. These are per the details given for each work, except that the 1902 Read, which I've called "British Museum" actually has a long spiel beginning "Printed by Order of the Trustees...." [10] as they used to do. I would think these are best left, but open to thoughts. I've added "Press" to the new book (Thornton, Dora (2015), A Rothschild Renaissance: The Waddesdon Bequest, 2015, British Museum Press). "Press" and "Publications", covering the last few decades, are no doubt technically a distinct subsidiary company, that I think changed its name, though they live next door. "Publications" was used between the 1970s and 1990 or so. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I see the 3 volumes of "big Tait" spanned the change of name, 2 from "Publications" & the last from "Press". I'm inclined to as some catalogues do, & leave it at just "British Museum". Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are those (not me) who like to insist on the WP:ISBN letter of the law for ISBNs: 13-digits, hyphenated. If you are minded to oblige, the excellent ISBN converter gives:
Cherry: 978-0-7141-2820-7
Tait: 978-0-7141-1357-9
Thornton: 978-0-7141-2345-5
Vincent: 978-1-58839-450-7
Done those, thanks Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unkind of you to put this enticing article forward at a time when the collection is not on display. I can hardly wait! We can rely on you to update the article once the move has taken place, I know. Once it has, the little box linking to Commons "Room 45, British Museum" will want updating, as presumably will the Commons page itself, but I'm sure you have this in mind already. Tim riley talk 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim! Only about 3 weeks to wait - I'm not sure of the actual date of the re-opening. There will also be an event for Wikipedians before long, which I hope will generate some more articles on individual pieces or groups, or some artists. Also new and better photos. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opens to the public on 11 June, I see now. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. By then, I hope, this alluring article will have its wholly justified FA gold star. Very pleased to add my support. Tim riley talk 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this. All my photos (most in the article, like that one) use the age-based rationale, don't they? Equally I think the object is at least as 3D as a coin, which we assume doesn't pass as 2D in this context. I can see only one photo, apart from the painting, that might pass as 2D (File:Waddesdon bequest British Museum DSCF9814 03.JPG). Many that I expect you are thinking of have curved surfaces that actually present considerable difficulties to a skilled photographer (not me). Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of these likely could use an age-based rationale, but most of the images currently in the article use CC BY-SA, representing your or others' copyright as photographer only. However, I've looked into some of the UK freedom of panorama rules, and it appears they apply more broadly than elsewhere, so I'll withdraw that suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Certainly all the objects in the bequest are out of artist's copyright. Whether any count as 2D is questionable. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have read this a number of times. Beautifully written and illustrated, happy to see this scholarly article put forward. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora. Excellent. Singora (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good article and, IMO, exactly what Wikipedia needs more of. There are however a few issues.
1. Are inline citations allowed in the first two or three paragraphs? I think not. I think the deal is that content in the summary should be developed (and linked to) in the article's main body.
2. In the "Fakes and revised attributions" section you appear to have a one sentence paragraph.
"As he describes"? This is finishing the para after a blockquote. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. In the "Fakes and revised attributions" section, paragraph 4, you've written "his genuine works as a goldsmith are more rare than paintings by Giorgione". Grammar. The word is "rarer".
Indeed. It seems Columbia U have just shut that archive down, quite recently. The poiece was never published elsewhere, and is cited by several books. Removed - Tait covers it all fine. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Your refs are formatted inconsistently. For example, "Thornton (2015)" and "Read". Either include the publication date for all, or remove it from all.
Consistently, only Thornton, with 2 works used, is given dates. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Your British Museum refs are also inconsistent. At times you write (for example) "BM collection database, WB.33"; elsewhere you give only the BM ref (for example) "WB.77".
Fixed all these links Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't think you need to include the word "database" when giving BM refs.
I do, because the BM, very confusingly, has 2 different online databases of objects, "collection database" and "highlights" (the latter with several '000 objects, the former some 2 million). You need to distinguish between them. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Your bibliography contains errors.
Apologies -- I need to go out. I'll come back and finish this later.
Thanks for these, done the above, except the last, & will wait for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More from Singora Singora (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. OFF-TOPIC BANTER. Way back in 2008 you added a comment to the talk page of Persian embassy to Louis XIV. You asked if any Iranian sources were available. I wonder why you asked.
Well, for one thing, the actual status of the emissary seems rather dubious. Many thought, and perhaps still think, he was an ordinary merchant got up by French courtiers to cheer the king up. Johnbod (talk)
10. Your bibliography. I need to format this in a way that's not messy. Let's see what happens. In your bibliography you have:
Read, Sir Charles Hercules, The Waddesdon Bequest: Catalogue of the Works of Art bequeathed to the British Museum by Baron Ferdinand Rothschild, M.P., 1898, 1902, British Museum, Fully available on the Internet Archive The catalogue numbers here are still used, and may be searched for on the BM website as "WB.1" etc.
12. Do you see what I've done? Did you notice that my source is not the same as yours. Click the links and see. My source has photos; yours doesn't. My point here is that ARCHIVE.ORG sometimes has more than one version of the same source. If you're interested, you can upload your own sources. I've done this, btw. It's a great way of sharing. The next error may be tricky to correct. You have:
Vincent, Clare, in The Robert Lehman Collection: Decorative arts. XV (Volume 15 of The Robert Lehman Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art; several authors), 2012, Metropolitan Museum of Art, ISBN978-1-58839-450-7, google books
Ok, I will switch to the version with pictures - I'm puzzled I ended up with the other, as I certainly had the one with pictures up when doing the original writing. Thanks for spotting that. Otherwise I prefer the original style, including how to use these numbers to relate to the BM catalogue. So long as readers can get the necessary information from a source listing without difficulty, any style (used consistently) is acceptable per the FA criteria, and imo the main reason to choose between the plethora of options available should be for the convenience of the writers not the readers, to whom they are virtually identical. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. The above is not quite complete. I think trying to quote citation templates here isn't going to work. Oh well!
I can't see much benefit for the reader in this - when using google books links I think it is best to make it clear what they are, as they may only work from some geographical locations, and may come and go at the whim of the publisher, so they may not be available to all equally. Eventually the Metropolitan should fully release this book, & then that link should be used in preference. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have tried to offer suggestions here to improve the presentation of the bibliography, but find some of these templates a bit too fiddly. I don't have time to try again. Regardless, this is a great article and exactly the sort of work Wikipedia should be proud of. Singora (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I have now had comments from the 2 British Museum curators closest to the Bequest, which I have acted on. This diff pretty much covers them. Also some from the BMP editor on the new book. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Singora Singora (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those British Museum edits improve things a lot. The only one I might have picked up was the "collectors" versus "collections" issue.
Do you really have British Museum connections? If so, you may be familiar with Mr Meredith-Owens' Handlist of Persian Manuscripts: 1895-1966, published by the British Museum in 1966. One manuscript listed is Safineh-i Sulaimani, ref: OR 6942; it's an account of an embassy sent to Siam in 1685. To the best of my knowledge this is the only account of an embassy undertaken during the Safavid period. It was translated into English and published in 1972 as The Ship of Sulaiman. I'm currently writing a Wiki article about this embassy; I started a year ago and am now about 90% done. I'll put it on Wikipedia very soon.
The links below are from Encyclopædia Iranica. The first details the Persian embassy to Louis XIV; the second gives an overview of the The Ship of Sulaiman.
Yes, they have worked with WP at times since 2010, which is really great - see Wikipedia:GLAM/British Museum. But these manuscripts will have gone (I'm pretty sure) to the British Library when they were split off in the 1970s. They still use the OR numbers, along with fuller ones. Thanks for the links; the embassy page was using (I presume) an outdated link to the EI page, so I've updated it. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- there's been some discussion of references above but is anyone prepared to sign off on formatting and reliability of the sources (i.e. our standard source review)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having familarity with the subject matter, all sources are from reliable and authorative authors and publishers; no concernes re claims or close pharaphrasing from a spot check of 4 refs from the BM database. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 14:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Operation Goodwood was one of the British Royal Navy's largest operations of World War II, and one of its most embarrassing failures. A force centred around five aircraft carriers was dispatched in late August 1944 to repeatedly attack the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. However, due to a combination of bad weather and the inadequate performance of the RN's main strike bomber all they achieved was to put a large dent in the roof of one of the battleship's turrets and strike her with another shoddily made bomb which failed to explode. Following the operation, the task of attacking Tirpitz was transferred to the Royal Air Force, which soon put her permanently out of action.
This article is the third and final in the trilogy of articles on RN carrier attacks against Tirpitz during 1944 I've developed (following on from Operation Tungsten and Operation Mascot, both of which have been assessed as FAs). It passed a GA review in July last year and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in September. It has since been considerably expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
I've just fixed the AMs and PMs - thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a read through didn't turn up any issues. The article looks to be in good shape and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the article at A-class and my concerns were addressed there. Another read through did not reveal any additional issues. Great work, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
The first raid (Operation Planet) was launched on 21 April but cancelled three days "launched" makes me think of aircraft taking off; perhaps "sortied" (with a link to sortie)? Same for the Tiger Claw usage, although perhaps a simple "began" might be appropriate.
That's a good point: I've tweaked the wording to "initiated" and "began" Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "failed to" would read better than "did not"
I've swapped that in on a few of the occasions - this helps vary the text Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten links to FAA squadrons to just their number after the first time the full title is spelled out. The list in the 2nd para of the Opposing Forces section is a bit monotonous.
Not sure about this to be honest - I've already shortened the links a bit, and NAS looks clunky. Leaving out the "Naval Air" bit also isn't consistent with the naming conventions for these units used in sources (just "squadron" is usually only applied to RAF units) Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, RN-centric sources use just the number of the squadron, without spelling out Naval Air Squadron or using the abbreviation. I'd only worry about anything other than the number if you had to distinguish between RAF and FAA squadrons in the same article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From re-checking the sources (and especially David Brown's Carrier Operations in World War II), you're correct and I was wrong; I've made this change Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link to Bukta?
Unfortunately not. The only other Wikipedia article noting the town I can find (Bukta Tromsø Open Air Festival) also doesn't have a link. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that you describe the flak suppression mission of some of the escorting fighters, so it was a bit of a surprise to read that flak crews had heavy losses.
Unfortunately the sources don't describe this in any detail at all. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really need the detail, but you should mention a bit about the tactics employed during the attacks where some aircraft were dedicated flak suppressors, while other went straight for the Tirpitz. And talk about sequencing of the attacks, etc., so much as you can reconstruct from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more than this, but it's still not as detailed as I'd like - the sources barely mention the AA suppression aircraft, with the focus being on the aircraft which targeted Tirpitz (and even then the accounts are pretty brief). I imagine that the fighters used the same tactics as they did in Operation Mascot, with the planes making a single brief but well timed pass over Kaafjord ahead of the bombers, but no-one actually confirms this! Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to standardize your use of state/country in the publisher locations in the bibiliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted; done Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot, link Fleet Air Arm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
"German forces suffered the loss of 12 aircraft and damage to seven ships." – per MOS:NUMERAL, 'Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures'
"additional 20-millimetre (0.79 in) cannons, modifying the 150 mm guns so they could be used to attack aircraft, and supplying anti-aircraft shells for her 380-millimetre (15 in) main guns." – seems inconsistent to convert only two of the three measurements
Fixed both of the above Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(including 5 armed with a 1,000-pound (450 kg) bomb)" – per MOS:BRACKET nested brackets should be of different types, usually square within round
"from altitudes between 5,000 feet (1,500 m) and 4,000 feet (1,200 m)" – doing the conversion as a range might read better, ie {{convert|5000|and|4000|ft|m}} → from altitudes between 5,000 and 4,000 feet (1,500 and 1,200 m)
I didn't know you could do that - fixed, and thanks for the tip Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a 1,600-pound armour-piercing weapon" – unit conversion?
Fixed
"eight fatalities and 18 men wounded" – per MOS:NUMERAL, 'Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures'
"Convoy JW59 completed its journey ... most of its ships ... It had been ... and its" – quite a few it/its in a short span, consider changing one or two to something else (perhaps 'the convoy')
"...lack of effective aircraft–the Barracudas were too slow..." – per MOS:QUOTE#Typographic_conformity, dash should be either an unspaced em dash (aircraft—the Barracudas) or a spaced en dash (aircraft – the Barracudas)
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
As the UK election count carries on with about 300 seats announced, it's time to turns minds to the burning down of Parliament. The last time there was a major fire in Parliament was 1834 and it was an accident that destroyed most of the medieval structure of the royal palace. This article has undergone a recent re-write, and I am hugely grateful to Cassianto, Crisco 1492, Curly Turkey, Tim riley, Brianboulton, Dr. Blofeld and KJP1 for their superb thoughts and comments in a very productive peer review. – SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This fine article is a welcome distraction from tonight's horrifying parliamentary events. It is a splendid read, comprehensive, balanced, well proportioned, properly and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly FA standard. Tim riley talk 04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts and comments both here and at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My prose comments seem to have been lost in the hustle and bustle of PR. Here they are again
a publicly run Brigade - why the capital B?
to get a good view, and many took to the river in whatever craft they could find or hire to get a better view - view / view
What caused the casualties?
The sources don't outline how. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34 of the competitors - shouldn't start sentences with numerals
2 miles of corridors - worth including the metric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how I missed those! All done now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "B" in brigade? The nine casualties? (In such a commotion, there could be many causes; trampling, fire...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I'd made the changes, but not saved it! (got side-tracked). - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at PR. Looks really good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Crisco - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Did you respond to my comments at the PR? I oddly didn't see a response from you that you'd done so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Doc, I dealt with them all, but didn't, for some unknown reason, thank you for your comments. Many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Doc - some great comments in the PR, so many thanks for those. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'm a satisfied peer reviewer and the excellent comments from my colleagues seem to have improved it further. CassiantoTalk 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass. As always, your comments at PR were great in strengthening the article. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: PR seems solid and the article looks great! TheMagikCow (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TheMagikCow: your thoughts and support are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Map could be a bit larger - the details referred to in the caption aren't really legible at that size
I've upped it a little, and it's much clearer now. I can't do it too much more (I think) as it'll start sandwiching text with the tallies image on wider screens (I'm on a laptop at the moment, and all is OK, but I'll check later on my main machine. -SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Augustus_Welby_Northmore_Pugin00.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both points dealt with on the Pugin. Many thanks indeed, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN#49 and FN#66 shouldn't use an mdash, but rather an ndash
Location for The Observer?
FN#99: Access date?
OCLC for The Speeches of Charles Dickens?
Consider archiving some of these web references, to avoid the possibility of dead links becoming a problem in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, bar the last (so far). I only know the rather tedious way of manually archiving single links, but I have heard somewhere that it's possible to automatically do them in large batches. Any thoughts on how to ensure I don't have to do them one by one? Thanks so much for the review - very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any bots, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done it the old school way. All now done, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The improvements have put this article into FA territory, IMHO. Neutral. Oppose for now, per User:Johnbod's comments below about the map and images. I would like to see a clear image of what the building looked like beforehand, from the outside. Ideally, that image would be juxtaposed with an image of what it looked like after reconstruction, from the same angle. That way we might better appreciate (1) what was destroyed, and (2) how different the place would look today but for this little faux pas. Incidentally, you mention "Gothic Revival" in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead. Also, Lord Althorp is often credited with issuing a famous command during the fire, and the crowds were not merely watching, but cheering quite happily in favor of the damage to parliament.[13] Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts on this. If I can break down your comments a little:
1. I've not seen an external image from the same angle, partly because the buildings are on a slightly different alignment. Instead I've gone for the two of the interiors of the Lords and Commons.
2. There may have been a single style, but I don't remember seeing it. If there isn't, it's because the complex was the result of developments over several centuries. I'll go back over the sources later this evening to see if it says anything other than "medieval".
3. I know of Althorp's comment, but it certainly wasn't a command: Braidwood made the decision based on the progress of the fire, not at Althorp's direction.
4. The weight of the sources point in the direction of the crowd not cheering, although they had mixed reactions to the fire, and the quotes of the two eye-witnesses Carlyle and Hobhouse cover that. The BBC has, in comparison to more in depth investigations into the fire, simplified the reaction too far to be usable.
Thanks again for your thoughts: I'll get back to you on whether the sources describe the Palace as being of one identifiable style by 1834. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and I'll be curious about the pre-1834 style. As for an external image, are you saying that we can't get any external image at all, showing the building beforehand? That would seem odd. If Althorp wasn't giving a command, then why not debunk the common notion that he was? As for Hobhouse and Carlyle, it would be nice if we could provide a third source as a tiebreaker (Caroline Shenton's book says quite a lot about public reactions to the fire, which are as interesting as the facts of the fire itself). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need a "tie-breaker". We reflect what the sources say, and do so in as neutral and balanced way as we can. Providing something that moesthe argument towards one side or t'other would not properly reflect the sources. Yes, Shenton is excellent on all aspects of the fire, including the crowd reactions, but we also have to try and keep this in balance with the rest of the article, rather than try and give too much emphasis to this, at the expense of the other aspects of the fire. I'll be back shortly with the info about the architecture. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether Hobhouse was correct or Carlyle was correct, a brief quote from Shenton herself woukd clear it up: "The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to. The eyewitnesses show two different opinions, both of which are probably correct (we don't know where they were in the crowd, or at what time, and both are probably accuratly reporting their impressions). Shenton makes it clear that she has an impression of what may have happened, rather than just reporting a straight "fact", which isunverifiable at this distance. I do prefer to show the actual impressions, rather than trying to judge one side against the other based only on a C21st historian's own POV. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what Shenton and several other sources have written as I have read her and others several times. I am happy with what is there and do not propose to change it in favour of any particular "side", which would not reflect the full range of sources available. – SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both are passable images, but I do not propose removing the images of the Lords and Commons (which is what we'd have to do) to put these in. It's a judgement call, and I invite uninvolved parties to comment further on the selection of internal or external views of the old Palace. – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you would like to consider Shenton to be a "side" then it's puzzling why her side cannot be briefly included ("The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity"). I don't see why any image would have to be removed in order to show what the original building exterior looked like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'd have to remove images because we're about at saturation point with images in the article. On wider screens we are already close to sandwiching the text as it is, so to add any more, we'd have to take some out. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put one of those two pics at the top of this stack, modifying heading to "Before and after the fire started". If you want to see image saturation, take a look at Wells Cathedral! :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another image would end up with the Braidwood image out of alignment with his text, and have it going into the "Aftermath" section, which leads to the text sandwiching up against the Barry/Pugin image. As I've said, I'd like to hear the views of third parties on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd like to hear from third parties too. This article has 17 images, compared to 56 in Wells Cathedral so it's not quite jammed yet. And if more text is needed to provide a sufficient home for more images, a great place to start would be by including the Shenton quote: "Caroline Shenton has examined further evidence of the crowd's reaction, and concludes that 'The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity'". I think these two changes alone would greatly accentuate the excellent work you have done. But perhaps third parties will disagree with me about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that tiny amount of text would not avoid sandwiching issues, which would need about 400 words. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two pre-fire images I suggested, this one much more closely corresponds to the image at the top of this Wikipedia article. I can take this pre-fire image to the Wikipedia graphics lab if anyone would like to see how much it could be improved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As lovely as I'm sure they are, please, no more images. To much of a good thing can be bad and I think the article will suffer as a consequence of adding too many images. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like there to be a decent image of the pre-1834 parliament somewhere on Wikipedia, and if such an image becomes available then I would be glad to put it elsewhere than in this article, though it seems highly relevant here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I'm sure there will be, but your complaint is moot seeing as you now say you wish to see it "somewhere" on WP as opposed to just here. Have you considered finding one yourself and uploading it to the encyclopedia? If and when you do, here would be the wrong place as there is no room at the inn. CassiantoTalk 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Houses of Parliament before 1834 FireYup, thanks, that's what I'm thinking of. I have found a very nice image that I just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (at right). Cheers. Feel free to change your mind about including it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, Anythingyouwant mentioned that we "mention 'Gothic Revival' in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead": I've gone through my sources and it's not entirely clear what would be the best term (or terms) to use. There's a mention of a generic "medieval" style, as well as gothic, but sort of hints at other bits. As you're our resident architectural expert, do you have a view on this? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I also had an input at peer review and think an interesting article of high quality has been well polished by the PR. For what it is worth, I'm really not sure the collection of buildings that comprised the old palace, constructed over more than six centuries, could be said to have a defining style. If you look at the illustration, you seem to have some Wyatville Gothic - a hint of Ashridge, a bit of Palladianism, and some original medieval work. I'm a long way from my Pevsner, and no sources come to mind, but I don't think it would be appropriate to try to encapsulate the architectural style(s) of the earlier palace in a single term. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks KJP1, your comments and thoughts at PR were invaluable in the improvement of this article. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The considerable volume of comment and suggestions from the peer review has been used intelligently to produce an article that is informative, entertaining, and of high quality. My only complaint might be that the page is somewhat over-illustrated, but I recognise that this is a matter of opinion. Well worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Brian. Your cmments were as insightful as alwaysand strengthened the article hugely. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Singora (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC). Really good! Four points:[reply]
In the first line you say the palace was destroyed; in the second line of paragraph two you add "The fire ... destroyed a large part of the palace". This seems inconsistent.
Good spot: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think articles with too many photos look a bit cheap.
Do you mean specifically photos, or any images? Which would you suggest I get rid of, as I think they all serve a purpose, but happy to mull over any suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources include three articles from The Observer and two from The Times. When I click these links I expect to read the original article; I've zero interest in seeing a Wiki article about the newspaper.
The names of the papers are linked, which is what they link to. If the article titles were linked, that would be what the link would point to. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that ..." should be "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night and later wrote ...". Carlyle's letter are out of copyright and in the public Domain. Link to the source rather than a Wiki article. This is the link: https://archive.org/stream/lettersofthomascarl00carl#page/227/mode/1up
I've linked the main source to the archive, rather than linking away from Wiki in the middle of the article, which I think is frowned upon by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts. If you could let me know about the images, I'll review that point again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you've already linked to Carlyle's letters. Apologies! I missed that. I only saw the Wiki link to Thomas Carlyle. I see what you mean about the newspaper sources, but I'd not considered this before. I assumed that links would point to the article you're citing. So why link three times to a Wiki article about The Observer? I'll let you and your fan club decide which images (if any) could be removed. Once again, you've written a very good article. Singora (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to remove the fourth painting in 16 October 1834 as it's really not a very clear one with much to look at and four images in a row seems a lot. The problem though is that very painting seems one of the more notable ones and has its own article! Ah well. Other than that I don't think they look too bad at all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Pretty much there, but more clarity is needed as to what was there, and what went in the fire:
Echoing complaints above, it isn't very clear what the buildings that were destroyed were or looked like. The list of kings at the start of "background" "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from the first half of the eleventh century when Canute the Great built his royal residence on the side of the River Thames. Successive kings added to the complex: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued the process, which included Westminster Hall, started in 1097; Henry III built new exchequer buildings in 1270..." isn't very helpful, since I'd imagine only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned. What dates were the buildings burned? Shenton must cover this surely? There are in fact a number of images that can be used, either on Commons already, or easy to upload. But these should be captioned explaining how they relate to the plan already used; in particular which of the various Gothic gable-fronts is featured. From my reading of the article and looking at images, the large Georgian building at the left of the current top image is the Speaker's House, which burned down. But I'm not sure about this, and I should be.
Im not sure what you mean by "What dates were the buildings burned?" your comment of "only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned" is off the mark: the complex developed over time and aspects of the buildings survived and were merged into the rest. As I've said above, I don't intend to add an image of the outside of the building: there are two images of the inside (Lorda and Commons). It's a judgement call, and I've gone down this route, rather than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "What were the approximate dates of building of the parts of the palace that were burned?", to which it is becoming clear that you don't know the answer. I don't think this is an extravagant request, or one that is impossible to source. It seems you don't intend to use the images you already have to explain the buildings either. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try and double guess what I know the answer to or not: I was asking for clarification for a poorly worded question (the answer, prior to clarification, would have been 1834). - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the tiny 3/4-high multiple images, which I doubt are MOS-compliant. Use mini-galleries instead. The settings used at Waddesdon Bequest allow decent sizes & room for captions, and would allow for more images.
I don't think the article will benefit from more images. This has already been discussed above. CassiantoTalk 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw. But not settled, and I disagree with you. In fact the images already used, or the same number with a few swops, would probably be sufficient, if they were well-explained, which they are not at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gut reaction here is to leave them as they are, but it's certainly not set in stone (although I am not a fan of the mini-gallery approach). I don't think they somehow infringe the MoS: Crisco 1492, does the placement of images here go against the MoS in any way? – SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They come out far smaller that the default size (220px), which MOS discourages. I don't think that being part of a "multiple" gets round that myself, though I don't know if that issue has been pronounced upon. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any previous discussions, though the template documentation suggests it is allowed. When it comes to the multiple image template, the problem is that using the default thumbnail size means that images end up having different heights, which looks highly unprofessional and generates white space; hence why, in the past, I've helped Schro standardize images heights instead of widths. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone point me to the policy that says we cannot have images below 220px? I've searched through a couple of the relevant pages and can see nothing that disbars marginally smaller images from being used, so I suspect I've missed the relevant page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are uploading more images to Commons, please categorize them properly, unlike the the Constable you uploaded. They do not need to go to "Category:National legislatures", but they do need to go to "Category:Palace of Westminster" or "Category:Palace of Westminster in art"! In fact there should be sub-cats on Commons for the old PoW, and the fire. Personally I'd favour more images, but they should be explained properly.
I think we are at saturation point with images, and some have commented that there may be too many, so I am not inclined to add yet more. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Barry planned what Christopher Jones, the former BBC political editor, has called "one long spine of Lords' and Commons' Chambers"[77] which enabled the Speaker of the House of Commons to look through the line of the building to see the Queen's throne in the House of Lords." What everybody else calls this is an enfilade, and the PoW is mentioned in that article, which should be linked.
Enfilade now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image of the map is particularly useful, as compared to the image suggested above showing the buildings before the fire. But if the map is kept, is it correct? The same map is in the Palace of Westminster article, where the caption says: "The Court of Requests, between the two Houses, would become the new home of the Lords in 1801." The map is dated 1746 so it was largely obsolete by the time of the fire.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead image shows pretty much the same view as the one above, with added flames and smoke. Both show the complex end on, and you need the map, and either the explanations which the article does not provide, or a period of thinking about it (and knowing the present site) to work out more or less what is what. As it is, the unspecified but built-up/yard (?) areas of the map give rise to many mysteries. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image (like the one above) is a kind of "L" shape, with the base of the "L" being farthest from the vantage point. It would be wise for this Wikipedia article to say which of the two houses is the base of the "L", and to show the "L" clearly on the map, if the map is kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The images are I think the view from about the stray "A" at the bottom of the map, done in 1746, which was presumably before the large Georgian building on the left of both pictures (Speaker's House?) was built. They thus show none of the Houses of Lords and Commons, nor Westminster Hall, at all well. This is what makes the (a) map necessary. The large gable rising above the other buildings is presumably the west end of Westminster Hall. But I entirely agree, and have been saying, that much better explanations are needed. It is unacceptable in an FA that this sort of puzzling-out needs to be done by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful map now pointlessly removed, article taken a slight backward step. I do not think an addition of a replacement image would be beneficial, given the comments of those who already think there are too many images. – SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me, I didn't propose that at all, and described the map as "necessary" just above. If you have chosen to remove the one element that went some way to explain the layout of the buildings, the need for explanation by other means becomes all the more pressing, but you have made no moves in this direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I am at work without sources or the time to look into them. I will edit the section in question when I am ready to. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. There's no rush. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that little list doesn't cut it I'm afraid. You need to boil down this comprehensive account into a section, and then caption several of the images to explain what it is they show. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't need to do that. This is the article about the fire, not a full history and description of the Palace of Westminster. You may leave your oppose to stand if you wish, but I do not agree with what would be bloating of that section and will not add to it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "full" description is not in question, but an article on a fire cannot be called comprehensive with no attempt at describing the physical characteristics of the site that was burned. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description, and it is entirely adequate for the article. You have your opinion, and that is fine, but, like your personal opinion on the use galleries, it is not one I share. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded a detailed floor plan of the palace as it existed just prior to the fire. I still need to add some descriptive information, and will do so soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely helpful. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the map, User:SchroCat. There's one tiny thing that could remove some confusion: putting a red dot onto the map showing the vantage point for the image in the lede. Would that be okay? We could make a separate map image with the dot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be acceptable. Not only can the lead image can change at any time, to judge where the position was would be to go too far into OR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. One last question from me: the image description for the map says "The Old Court of Requests, afterwards the House o. Lords, and made the House of Commons since the fire.... C. The Painted Chamber, fitted up for the House of Lords in 1834-5." Since I am lazy, could you please tell me whether the Wikipedia article reflects these facts, and the apparent reality that the remnants of the palace were adequate to continue giving shelter to parliament?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is in the article, which you seem to have opposed without reading, if you don't know the answer! – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caption at the top image should say which house is at right, and which house is at rear. Since you don't want to answer my question, I will read through the article again to find the answer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the answer to my question seems to be in the following text: "The fire lasted for most of the night and destroyed a large part of the palace, including the converted St Stephen's Chapel—the meeting place of the House of Commons—the Lords Chamber, the Painted Chamber and the official residences.....Parliament still needed somewhere to meet, and the Lesser Hall and Painted Chamber were re-roofed and furnished for the Commons and Lords respectively." This seems a bit contradictory; the Painted Chamber was damaged rather than destroyed, or else the Lords couldn't have moved there. As for the "Lesser Hall", you start discussing it without saying what it was used for prior to the fire; contrary to Brayley, you say that the old House of Lords was destroyed rather than damaged. If I have erred here, it is because I am not an expert in this area, which is why I posed this as a question to you, User:SchroCat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now,you have the answer after finally reading the article. Well done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did read the article previously, and even after reading through it again the answer was still unclear. Therefore, I have directly edited the Wikipedia article.[14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was extremely clear in the original. Your edit was,poor and I've reverted: I'll tweak it properly in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the changes made are improvements, certainly, but I think none of the captions to the images already there have changed. What is the objection, for example, to explaining the rough vantage point of the top image, and relating it to key parts of the complex? Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still? I do not intend to discuss this further, except to point out that to play a game of "guess the vantage point" is WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTHESIS), a route down which I will not go. You have opposed based on your opinion, which is not one I share (and is nothing to do with anything as silly as "natives" being "unfriendly"). Time for you to sort out the issues on Waddesdon Bequest rather than keep pressing the same point here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the very fine print of the top image, it seems to say something like "As seen from Abington Street"? Is that correct? Where is Abington Street on the map?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The top image is the same view as the top image at Old Palace Yard. The map at Palace of Westminster shows the Old Palace Yard, southeast of which is the letter "A", being the first letter of "Abingdon Street". The map in the present article has north at left, and south at right. The top image of this article is from a vantage point to the right of the Old Palace Yard using the present article's map.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, um, is all of this fit to print or not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's very clear. In case anyone was wondering, since not much has changed since my original comments, I reiterate my oppose. I don't think the article meets FA standards in the text and images covering the buildings, which is a pity, as the main narrative of the events is fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bold: you have done that first time round and the bolding affects the featured co-ordinators' script to show an additional !vote. Perhaps you should now make your treatment of images on Waddesdon Bequest MoS compliant. I have not opposed (yet) to avoid accusations of a petty response, but I find it amusing that you fail to follow the MoS in your own nominated article, but feel justified in opposing it in others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, right. Strange how none of my reviewers have had any problems with the Waddesdon images, whereas several here have had issues, which you have for the most part firmly slapped down. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to go over and oppose, although I'm sure you'd complain about sour grapes. Hint: px is the main concern and the excessive use of mini galleries are both eschewed by the MoS. As to this FAC, "several"? No. "Slapped down"? No. There is a difference of opinion on one point, with two editors, that is all. – SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What complete rubbish. You might try helping out at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_overload, where the MOS theologians are not sure an article with "872 words of readable prose and 430 images" is against the rules! I will raise there the "fixing too small" issue; it used to be in the MOS & certainly should be. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PMSL – and you accuse me of slapping people down? Ta ta – I'm done with this silliness. – SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not competent to comment on the images/map issues but, re-united with my Pevsner, I wonder if using a little from his and Bradley's volume would address the other outstanding issues which, in summary, would appear to be what buildings were there before the fire, what style, if any, did these buildings have, and what survived to be incorporated into Barry and Pugin's building? In relation to the pre-existing structures, Pevsner writes; "the buildings of and around the palace were by no means in a monumental style. The informality with which the area was treated is astonishing." He then describes Wren's changes to St. Stephen's Chapel, Wyatt's, typically gimcrack, "additions and alterations" and Soane's rebuilding of part of Westminster Hall, the construction of the new Law Courts, and the "Neoclassical" royal entrance, royal gallery and staircase, committee rooms and libraries". Of the style of the Courts, Pevsner describes Soane's original "characteristically personal Neoclassical manner" which he subsequently "Gothicize(d)", following "ferocious criticism". Lastly, he summarises the survivors of the fire as "Westminster Hall and the Law Courts, the cloister and the undercroft of St. Stephen's Chapel, and the new Soane buildings..."
From all this, I think it can be confidently stated that the pre-existing structures did not have any single style, certainly not in the way that the existing structure does. I also think it would be quite easy to add to the existing paragraph in the Background section which begins "By 1834 the palace comprised..." and the final paragraph in the 16 October 1834 section, to clearly indicate what was there before the fire, the fact that these buildings did not have a single, defining style, (if this is thought necessary), and what remained after the fire. If people think this might address the outstanding concerns, I'd be very willing to try to draft a couple of sentences which I could place here for comment. I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be able to do it before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be helpful. Whether or not there was a unifying style was not an issue for me. There are currently a lot of images in the article but no attempt in the captions or text to say what buildings they are, and evidently some resistance to doing so. With reference to the Victoria County History and the new plan it is straightforward to identify the main features. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background - revise para. beginning, "By 1834 the palace comprised....." to read something like;
"By 1834, the palace complex had been further developed, firstly by John Vardy in the middle of the eighteenth century, and in the early nineteenth century by James Wyatt and Sir John Soane. Vardy added the Stone Building, in a Palladian style to the West side of Westminster Hall; Wyatt enlarged the Commons, moved the Lords into the Court of Requests and rebuilt the Speaker's House. Soane, taking on responsibility for the palace complex on Wyatt's death in 1813, undertook rebuilding of Westminster Hall and constructed the Law Courts in a Neoclassical style. Soane also provided a new royal entrance, staircase and gallery, as well as committee rooms and libraries."
16 October 1834 - revise para. beginning, "The House of Lords, as well as its robing and committee rooms, were all destroyed....." to read something like;
"The House of Lords, as well as its robing and committee rooms, were all destroyed, as was the Painted Chamber, and the connecting end of the Royal Gallery. The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms, were devastated, as was the official residence of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's House. Other buildings, such as the Law Courts, were badly damaged and in need of restoration.[53] The buildings within the complex which emerged relatively unscathed included Westminster Hall, the Cloisters and undercroft of St. Stephen's, the Jewel Tower and Soane's new buildings to the South."
Hopefully, these additions will address the issues regarding what was standing prior to the fire and what survived it. I've also tried to include something on the style of the pre-fire complex. If they work for people, I can, of course, add references. KJP1 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have amended the article in line with the above. Very much hope this addresses the concerns regarding the complex immediately pre and post the fire. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These additions seem fine to me, but I'd like to see SchroCat's opinion. Meanwhile, I suggest a slight tweak in the second sentence of the 16 October paragraph, to avoid the repetition of "as was". Thus: "The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms, the official residence of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's House, were devastated." Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy with the additions - I asked KJP1 (by email) to drop them in. I've made the tweak per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 13:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Scientific Detective Monthly is an oddity; a magazine that tried to appeal to both detective story fans and fans of the burgeoning (in 1930) field of science fiction. It failed at both, and is now one of the rarest of all genre magazines: I hope I've managed to make the story of its failure interesting. This is probably the last of these magazines I'll be nominating for a while; there are only two or three sf pulps left not at FA or GA level now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supportpending image check -- recusing from coord duties to review a few noms as I'll shortly be putting up one of my own...
Copyedited a bit so let me know if I misinterpreted anything.
Structure and level of detail look okay for this short-lived venture. The main thing I remember reading about the mag in one of my sf history books (and in hindsight it seems obvious from the title alone!) was that it folded after satisfying neither the sf nor the detective fiction market, and you said just that.
Sources look reliable and I couldn't spot any formatting issues.
Image-wise, I'll admit I'm not familiar with the licence so that perhaps should be checked by an expert.
Your copyedits look good, except that I changed "may have" back to "might have" in one case -- could be a BrEng thing but I'm pretty sure "might have" is the right usage there. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've reviewed all additions since I supported and after a couple of very minor tweaks am still happy with supporting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"In the middle of the year he launched three new magazines: Radio Craft": That sounds like one new magazine.
Personally, I'd like to see the alternative titles bolded in the lead- preferably in the opening line, if possible- "(later known as Some Other Name)" or something, maybe.
"At the same time the editor, Hector Grey, was replaced by David Lasser, who was already editing Gernsback's other science fiction magazines." How about "At the same time, the editor—Hector Grey—was replaced by David Lasser, who was already editing Gernsback's other science fiction magazines."
"Gernsback Publications Incorporated, and created two subsidiaries: Techni-Craft Publishing Corporation and Stellar Publishing Corporation" Any of these worth redlinking? Radio Craft? Techni-Craft Publishing Co.? Fiction Publishers, Inc.?
I don't think so. There might be a future article on Gernsback's companies in general, but he had quite a few and I think it's probable that they should all be covered under the article on Gernsback himself. I believe his companies all tended to be short-lived and so are unlikely to be notable in their own right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly short article- while it makes a great GA, I'm wondering whether there might be more to include for FA. Google Scholar is throwing up a lot of potentially valuable sources; have you taken a look at this one? How about this? This and especially this may be valuable. I'm assuming this is the same book as the one you cite? There seems to be a lot of discussion in there. There might be others. If you've already looked at these, please ignore this comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of any of these; thank you very much. I will have a copy of Gernsback Days in my hands on Tuesday, and I have access to Jstor, which gives me one of the others. Can you by any chance get me pdfs of the others? If not I'll ask at the resource exchange. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Extrapolation piece is here. The American Psychologist and Crime Media Culture pieces I've emailed to you. I've not looked if there's anything of value, but for an article so short even a passing mention could be useful. As I say, there may be other stuff out there- I didn't finish looking through the Google Scholar results, and it is not itself comprehensive! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be worth searching under the other titles! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Done. I was able to get several useful sentences from the Ashley/Lowndes book; and a tidbit from the Westfahl article. The others seem to me to be glancing mentions that don't add anything to what's in the article already. I did notice in the references for one of the articles that Lowndes wrote a reminiscence of the magazine in 1981 for The Armchair Detective, and I've found a copy online and will see if I can order it. However, I'd be very surprised if there's anything in there that isn't in the other references -- he wrote the Tymn/Ashley encyclopedia three years later, and I would have expected him to use that material there. Either way, I should have it this week, and I'll make sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff; I'll get to this soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that while the article currently does a great job of placing Scientific Detective Monthly within the sf pulp tradition, it does less to place it within the detective fiction tradition, which Littlefield (at least) seems to think it is a part of. I was getting the impression that Scientific Detective Monthly is part of the subgenre of "scientific detective fiction", or perhaps the tradition/subsubgenre of "American scientific detective fiction". I know that there's only a passing mention in Littlefield's article, but I wonder if a bit more on this could be brought into the article. (Sorry to be picky, here- I'm just scared we might be missing things that certain subject-matter experts would see as highly important.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at the Littlefield article with your comments in mind, and I added a sentence about the time frame in which scientific detective fiction was popular in the U.S. I think you're right that there is likely more that can be said about the historical context from the point of view of detective fiction, but I don't think I can get that from Littlefield, who is talking about the combination of the genres, not really about general detective fiction. I suspect little has been written in histories of detective fiction about this magazine, perhaps because Gernsback is far better known for his involvement in sf, so the judgement may always have been that it was "really" an sf magazine, not a detective magazine. However, I was able to locate a bookseller who had Lowndes' article in Armchair Detective and have ordered the relevant issues; I'll take a look at those when they arrive and see if they provide more material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read through the Armchair Detective article, and I don't think there's much I can do with it. It consists of Lowndes' comments about the stories -- he reread most of the issues for this article, and comments on the plots and on the various features in the magazine. I think there's already sufficient detail of that kind in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I appreciate the addition of the "scientific detective fiction" context, and I'm happy to defer to your claim that there's unlikely to be more out there from the detective fiction point of view. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this article is well-written, and it was as enjoyable a read as the others in this series. I trust that if more comes out of the Lowndes' article, that you'll add that in, too. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 13:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The prize money for the inaugural Wimbledon was ever so slightly less than this year's £26.75m. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then has been significantly improved. It is comprehensive regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. A peer review was recently concluded and the constructive feedback (thanks to Brianboulton and Resolute) was implemented. As an aside, WP Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games), it would be great if this could become the first one. Hopefully it will result in a TFA during the men's final on 12 July. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.--Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg The referenced book is from 2001. To claim PD-1923, we need to show that the image was actually published before 1923 (not just that it was created before then). Also, once that's dealt with, the template {{PD-anon-1923}} would probably be simplest for the license.
From Todd, Tom (1979). The Tennis Players : from Pagan Rites to Strawberries and Cream (p. 95) it is known that the image was sketched during the event by an artist of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but I have no access to the magazine edition in which it was published. Have added the {{PD-anon-1923}} template.
That's not proof of publication, however; it is simply proof of creation. Publication is when it was made available to the public. If it is anonymous and first published in 1979, it's almost certainly copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I found a source on Amazon which is from the July 14, 1877 edition of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but it is a slightly different version than the one used in the article and published in Todd (1979) and Barrett (2001). Can I upload it to File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg as a replacement (with modified source info) or does it need to be a new Commons image? --Wolbo (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's sufficient proof. Yeah, if you want to upload that version (I can see why; it's a bit more detailed), feel free to overwrite the one on Commons. Either way we should note this pre-1923 printing, even though our immediate source may be different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately decided against overwriting the existing version and uploaded it as a separate image to commons. Replaced the image in the article. --Wolbo (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lawn Tennis Court 1874.jpg - If Wingfield's authorship (or his attribution as the author) is made by the source (or other sources), I'd tag this {{PD-old-100}}; this indicates that the image is not only PD in both the US and the European Union, but also in countries such as Mexico and Columbia.
Done. The image was published in Wingfield's original rules booklet of tennis in 1874, the image has no further attribution.--Wolbo (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:1876 Racket.jpg - What page number was this image found on (the source is a 500+ page book; people shouldn't have to go through the whole thing to find the image)? If it didn't have a page number, then the location of the plate. Also, it would be better if full bibliographic information (available here) could be provided for the source as well.
File:Henry jones.jpg - Proof of pre-1923 publication? Also, if that can be found, {{PD-anon-1923}} would work best; the current template doesn't apply to Britain (which is PD-70 for anonymous works) and many other countries.
Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is likely that this image was published pre-1923 I have not been able to find proof of a pre-1923 publication and have therefore removed the image.--Wolbo (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found another image of Henry Jones (via BNP) published on 4 March 1899 in The Graphic. Added it with {{PD-anon-1923}}.--Wolbo (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted my moving his image to the left. That was based on WP:IMAGELOCATION, which recommends that images face into the text. If you still don't like it, please at least re-remove the extraneous comma after his name. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the rationale behind the image move but, despite WP:IMAGELOCATION, it just did not look right on the left side. I prefer not to place an image on the left side directly below a section header and in this case next to bullet points. The article in The Graphic mentioned H.H. Hay Cameron as the photographer, which I believe must be Henry Herschel Hay Cameron (1851–1911) so that info has been added to the image and the permission tag changed to {{PD-1923}}. Is that correct?--Wolbo (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since The Graphic was a British publication, the image would need something that applies to both Britain and the US. Since Cameron died in 1911, {{PD-100}} works best. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, have replaced the image, can you check it?. I have it from Todd, Tom (1979) The Tennis Players : from Pagan Rites to Strawberries and Cream where it is described as 'A photograph of S.W. Gore, the first champion, mounted on a card which he has signed', so at least it was in circulation before his death on 19 April 1906.--Wolbo (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's good. Image are fine now. Hopefully I'll have time to continue with a prose review today or tomorrow. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've read to the end of background so far, and done some light copyediting. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
This article used British spelling, but we have "standardized" in the lead, and the more common British spelling of "standardised" in the main body.
Done. I understand both forms are acceptable in British English but as "standardised" is more common that is now used.--Wolbo (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and the first of what was later to be called a Grand Slam tournament or "Major".": I'm not a huge fan of this sentence. Maybe something like "It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and was later recognised as the first Grand Slam tournament or "Major"."?
On this point, also made in the main body, this tournament would not have been called or recognised as a major in 1877, or presumably for some time after. No-one taking part would have thought of it in this way, so it is better to go for the "later recognised" form, or similar. But it does beg two questions: How prestigious was it for those taking part (and don't think we fully address this later), and when was it later called a "grand slam"? (Although we're drifting away from the main topic, it may be worth a note saying when the concept of a Grand Slam event first took off.)
The first edition was obviously not yet seen as prestigious, see also Gore's remarks. At that point it might just have become another fad like croquet or rinking. It was quickly seen as the most important and prestigious tournament, in the first decade or so together with the Irish Championships. Wimbledon was designated as an official World (Grass) Championship by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) in 1913, together with the World Hard Court Championships and World Covered Court Championships. This lasted until 1923 when it became an 'Official Championship' (together with the championships of France, USA and Australia) to allow the USA, whose championship was also played on grass, to join the ILTF. The term Grand Slam was not an official designation and was first used by the press in 1933 (see 1). This info is probably too tangential to include in the main article but I will add it to a note or create a new note.--Wolbo (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would cover it nicely. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note added.--Wolbo (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed on this point that there is an error in the current Note i: "There is a record of a tournament held in August 1976": Presumably this should be 1876?
Corrected. Well spotted.--Wolbo (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardized rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875 by the Marylebone Cricket Club.": Maybe clarify here why a cricket club is writing tennis rules.
Done. Added ", the governing body for rackets and real tennis.". Also changed "rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875" to "rules of tennis issued in May 1875".--Wolbo (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A Gentlemen's Singles event was the only competition held in the championship, and was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid a one guinea entrance fee.": What about the slightly neater "The Gentlemen's Singles, the only event the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid one guinea to enter."(Also avoids the later repetition of entrance fee)
That does indeed read a bit smoother. With a slight alteration it has been rephrased to "The Gentlemen's Singles competition, the only event of the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 players who each paid one guinea to participate."--Wolbo (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
"played by the populace.[5][6] The popularity": Can we avoid this populace...popularity tongue twister?
Done. Changed 'popularity' to 'prominence'.--Wolbo (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and the service had to bounce beyond the service line instead of in front of it": "instead" implies that previous games followed the "in front" rule. Maybe rephrase as "beyond the service line, in contrast to the modern game in which the ball must land in front."
Changed to "and the service had to bounce beyond the service line." --Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"to capitalise on the upcoming interest in this new sport": upcoming sounds odd here.
Not sure what the 'oddness' is, can you elaborate? --Wolbo (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming suggests that they knew it was going to become popular before that happened. What about "growing interest"?
"a dozen new club members were added": Were added sounds like they had little choice in the matter. "Joined"?
No proof this was in any way involuntary. Updated.--Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"On 3 March 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) convened a meeting at its Lord's Cricket Ground to test the various versions of lawn tennis that had been developed with the aim to standardise its rules.": As above, maybe clarify why they were involved. We have the later information "the MCC, in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis", which would be better at the beginning here.
This part was made slightly more concise as a result of the peer review, I have moved the segment ", in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis, " to the beginning of the paragraph to clarify the involvement of the MCC.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as the rackets method of scoring in which each game consisted of 15 points": Ambiguous. Does this mean they scored in multiples of 15, or the score went to 15, or it was the best of 15...? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to "rackets method of scoring in which the player who first scores 15 points wins the game".--Wolbo (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament:
"and made himself responsible for the remaining amount.": We do not specify what amount was remaining; as it reads now, it looks like the other 20 people covered the costs.
Have rephrased the sentence to "Henry Jones convinced 20 members and friends of the club to guarantee a part of the tournament's financial requirement and made himself responsible for the remaining amount." It is not known what the remaining amount was.--Wolbo (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we split the "first announcement" into two separate quotes?
Converted the second blockquote to a paraphrase.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, for me personally, I think there are a few too many quotes like this from rules, announcements, etc. I prefer a paraphrase, but that is just me. (I don't expect anything doing about this, and it does not affect my support)
See above.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Visitors were informed that those arriving by horse and carriage should use the entrance at Worple Road while those who planned to come by foot could best use the railway path.": Given that the people being told this could not have been visitors yet, perhaps "Potential visitors were informed"? I also think "could best use" is a little awkward. Maybe just "should use"?
Done. Changed to 'Potential visitors' and 'were advised to use'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are given in something like the present tense. I'm not sure if this is correct unless we are quoting directly. But I really don't know here, and maybe an MoS expert could clarify?
The rules as given are perhaps a little confusing in terms of attribution. One rule has a reference, the others don't. What is the attribution for the other rules? At the very least, the last rule should have a reference after it.
Have moved the reference for the individual rule to the beginning of the list and added a reference. Also expanded the last rule with info on the foot-fault.--Wolbo (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again on the scoring, "The real tennis method of scoring by fifteens will be adopted": Does this mean that they used the modern tennis scoring system of 15, 30, 40? Or a different one? Modern readers may assume this, so a little clarity is needed one way or another.
Yes, it means the tennis scoring system as we still use today. Have added ' (15, 30, 40)' to clarify this.--Wolbo (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"while the rackets used were an adaptation of those used in real tennis, with a small and slightly lopsided head": Why is real tennis in italics? (Maybe I'm missing something!)
My thinking was that putting it in italics could prevent readers from misinterpreting 'real' as an adjective instead of part of a noun. Another option to avoid possible confusion would be to wikilink it but that has already been done several times in the article. --Wolbo (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Italics are not really the best way of doing that, and probably break the MoS somewhere! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the italics.--Wolbo (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The ball-boys kept the tennis balls in canvas 'wells'": Why do we have quotation marks? Perhaps something like bag would be better, but if we really need quotation marks, I think they need to be doubled.
Removed quotation marks.--Wolbo (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The quarterfinals were played on Wednesday, 11 July for an increasing number of spectators.": Does this mean that spectator numbers increased during the quarter final, or numbers were up compared to the previous matches?
The spectator numbers probably did increase during the match but what is meant is compared to the previous matches. The sentence has been updated to clarify this.--Wolbo (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When the semifinal stage had concluded on Thursday, 12 July play was suspended until next Monday, 16 July due to the Eton v Harrow cricket match that was played at Lord's Cricket Ground on Friday and Saturday.": I'm assuming this was because it would be a rival attraction for spectators, as it was an incredibly popular match, but this is not clear to modern readers who are not 19th century cricket fanatics, so maybe clarify the reason.
Good point, have rephrased the sentence to clarify, it now reads: "play was suspended until next Monday, 16 July to avoid a clash with the popular annual Eton v Harrow cricket match...".--Wolbo (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some minor copy-editing, which you may freely revert if I've messed up or you don't like any of it. To conclude later, but looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are we doing with this now? I don't want to get onto the last section until everything else has been addressed or responded to. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, thanks for your comments / suggestions and for taking the time to review the article. I believe all your points have now been addressed or at least responded to.--Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm happy with the changes made here, and have just two final comments. I've done some minor copy-editing, but feel more than happy to support this article now. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!. Your comments have helped to further improve the article.--Wolbo (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gore indicated that the [real] tennis players had the tendency to play shots from corner to corner over the middle of the net and did so at such a height that made volleying easy.": Why is "real" in brackets, unless this is a direct quote?
Not a direct quote so removed the brackets.--Wolbo (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These rules were published jointly by the AEC<C and the MCC which gave the AEC<C an official rule-making authority and in effect retroactively sanctioned its 1877 rules.": Is retroactively the right word here? I think retrospectively would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that before submitting detailed comments, I'll wait until Sarastro has worked his way through. For the moment, though, I'll just point out that the first paragraph of the Background begins "It is believed..." This is not encyclopaedically acceptable. If this theory of the origins of tennis is voiced by your source Gillmeister, you should attribute it to him, e.g. "A theory suggested by the cultural historian Heiner Gillmeister is that the origins of tennis lie..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, there is a consensus in reliable sources that tennis originated in France, Gillmeister is a bit more precise by placing it in northern France. Have rephrased the sentence accordingly, added two sources and a note regarding Gillmeister's research.--Wolbo (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Have you finished dealing with Sarastro's comments? I'll add further comments when you have; meanwhile, the article is looking in encouragingly good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sarastro happy with your responses? Has he dealt with the final section yet? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
SupportLeaning to support: I have made a number of mostly minor prose adjustments/corrections, but I believe there is a little more work to be done. A few points:
Why is Gore only linked and properly introduced on his fifth or sixth mention in the main text?
Not sure, probably just a consequence of how the article was developed and expanded. Link and introduction have been moved to the first instance of his name in the 'Play' section.--Wolbo (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Marshall become "William Marshall" again rather than sticking to the surname?
That was done to disamb between "William Marshall" and "Julian Marshall" who both played in the tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences or phrases that tell us nothing shouldn't really be in the article. A couple of examples: "It is not known which player hit the first ball..."; and "A Centre Court did not exist during the first four years of the championship, and the match was in all likelihood played on Court 1 in front of the pavilion". Neither of these satements tell us anything, and could profitably be removed. There could be others of a similar negative nature.
Have removed the first one and turned the second one into a footnote.--Wolbo (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a British tournament (quintessentially so), the terms "quarter-final" and "semi-final" should be hyphenated in accordance with BritEng usage.
Done. Was not aware that the hyphen is needed for British English.--Wolbo (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On that issue should "The net will be lowered to 3 feet and 3 inches (0.99 m) in the center." be changed to "The net will be lowered to 3 feet and 3 inches (0.99 m) in the centre."?--Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one - yes, it should. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched this article from its relatively early review stages, and it has developed well. I look forward to upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link lawn tennis because the term doesn't have much common currency now?
Not sure, such a link would redirect to the tennis article. Would that not confuse?--Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly; "lawn tennis" is mentioned in bold in the "tennis" article, and explained there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardised rules of tennis issued in May 1875 by the Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body for rackets and real tennis. - Is this too much detail for the lead? I'd just go "A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardised rules of tennis issued by the Marylebone Cricket Club in May 1875"
I'm fine with removing "the governing body for rackets and real tennis" from the lede as the necessary explanation can be found in the body text.--Wolbo (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monday, 9 July 1877, and the final, delayed for three days by rain, was played on Thursday, 19 July, - Having the days strikes me as too much detail, particularly for the lead. I could have sworn there was something in the MOS that was against it, but I can't find it.
I prefer to keep them in the body text as they give the readers a better feel for the progress of the tournament in time. I have removed them from the lede.--Wolbo (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The winner's prize money was 12 guineas, and he received a silver challenge cup, valued at 25 guineas, donated by the sports magazine The Field. - Perhaps "The winner received 12 guineas in prize money and a silver challenge cup, valued at 25 guineas, donated by the sports magazine The Field."
That's indeed a bit more fluent. Rephrased.--Wolbo (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The service was made from a single side in a lozenge shaped box situated in the middle of the court and the service - could we avoid repeating "Service"?
Yes, we could. Done.--Wolbo (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to introduce lawn tennis (and badminton) - why include badminton? Especially since the remainder of your sentence is "capitalise on the growing interest in this new sport"
Reference to badminton removed.--Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
were handed over to lawn tennis to address the increase in new tennis members. - repetition of tennis
Fixed, changed to "were handed over to lawn tennis to address the increase in new members." --Wolbo (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 March 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis, convened a meeting at Lord's Cricket Ground to test the various versions of lawn tennis that had been developed with the aim to standardise the game's rules - perhaps this should be split
Made it more concise by removing "that had been developed", think it reads ok now.--Wolbo (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the names of different court styles italicized?
You mean Sphairistikè, Germains Lawn Tennis and Pelota?--Wolbo (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. WP:ITALICS doesn't deal with such a case, so I'm wondering if it's standard in tennis writing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sphairistikè and Pelota are in italics as they are foreign names, per MOS:FOREIGN, the same reason jeu de paume and longue paume are in italics. Germains Lawn Tennis is not a foreign name so its italics have been removed.--Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 June 1877, at the suggestion of the club secretary and founding member John H. Walsh, the club committee - which club? Prince Club? MCC? Those were the two in the last paragraph
Clarified. --Wolbo (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize whether or not you convert measurements
Yes, conversions should be used consistently. Have added two which were missing. Any others? --Wolbo (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All matches during the tournament were played as best-of-five sets - So what does it mean by The first player to win six games wins the set?
That is standard tennis terminology. Tennis scoring is made up of the cascading units: point < game < set < match. If you win six games (with a difference of two) you win a set. A match is won either by winning two sets (best-of-three) or three sets (best-of-five).--Wolbo (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
while the rackets used were an adaptation of those used in real tennis, with a small and slightly lopsided head. - Are these the racquets the players brought themselves?
The tournament made a profit of £10. - Why is this its own paragraph?
Mainly because it doesn't fit well with the preceding paragraphs. Have now moved the sentence to a more logical location (Aftermath) where it is part of a paragraph.--Wolbo (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heathcote said that Gore was the best player of the year and had a varied service with a lot of twist on it. He stated that Gore was a player with an aptitude for many games and had a long reach and a strong and flexible wrist. - structure is repetitive.
Rephrased the second sentence to "Gore, according to Heathcote, was a player with ...". Better? --Wolbo (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize: emdash or endash
Have changed one emdash into an endash. There is another instance of emdash, not done by me, and I believe its usage is correct per Dash (See: Parentheses-like use).--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DASH portion of MOS says that either or should be used ("either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article") so that one should also be a spaced endash. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's now all endash.--Wolbo (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did the club get their pony roller?
The money was not for the purchase of a new pony roller but for the repair of the existing one. There is no specific mention in sources of it being repaired but a sentence that it remained in use has been added (with reference).--Wolbo (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right; was missing a word. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not citing Barrett, John (2010). The Original Rules of Tennis.
I have that book(let) and it would indeed have been a logical source. I will check to see if it can be used but the article already seems sufficiently referenced as it is so it may not be needed (anymore).--Wolbo (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of duplicate links. Keep an eye out for them.
I tend to be lenient on the amount of links and don't mind a repeat link if they are far enough apart but this should be no more than one per H1 section.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, random comment: standardize whether or not you capitalize the titles of books in the references. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be in sentence case.--Wolbo (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, that should be title case.--Wolbo (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, I believe all your comments have now been addressed or at least answered. Let me know if any need follow-up. Thanks for the review! --Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still recommend trimming some duplicate links; we've got the link to the 1878 competition mere lines from each other, for instance. Also, if Barrett's 2010 booklet isn't cited, you could include it as further reading. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed three further duplicate wikilinks. That should cover it.--Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, have added a couple citations using Barrett (2010).--Wolbo (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9: as you are citing the Telegraph website, not the printed source, this also requires a retrieval date
Ref 15: requires retrieval date
Ref 32: "Sons" should be capitalised
Ref 53: requires retrieval date
Ref 59: ditto
Ref 71: ditto
Ref 77: year?
Ref 79: requires retrieval date
Ref 93: ditto
Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks: I have checked a large sample of the accessible sources, and found no issues of close paraphrasing. The cited text appears accurately to reflect these sources throughout the sample. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The first FAC did not reach a consensus. The last FAC I withdrew because of a conflict with another editor. A few tweaks and additions since then. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background: Are there no articles for the band members? "rehearsed quietly with Smith and Qureshi in their bedrooms so they would not disturb the rest of the household" seems like gossip or trivia. "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes...", did they work with several others as well? If not, mention them without the "such as". Cambalachero (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No articles for the band members except Jamie xx, who is linked in the article. Their rehearsal habit ties into the musical aesthetic mentioned throughout the rest of the article, IMO. Yes, the group worked with "a few others" also. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and production: "chose to record" is wordy, just say that they recorded there. "...and were the first act to record there" should be in a new sentence, and have a reference. The "McDonald felt it was important for the singers..." sentence should end with a reference. "He occasionally processed the sampler through an effects unit such as a Roland RE-201", again, is the "such as" appropiate? "Overproduce" is a common word, and should be unlinked. The event of the burglars seems like trivia as well, as nothing came out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "chose to record". I revised it, but a new sentence would be too short and inhibit the flow for readers IMO. Frost 2011 is cited at the end of the passage it supports, so there's no need to repeat citations. I reduced the "such as" throughout the article and unlinked "overproduce". I would not have added that line about the burglars if two notable sources on this article's topic hadn't discussed it, so I figured it was notable enough based on its third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics: "Music journalists" is a common term and should be unlinked, unless you talk about some specific journalist. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I unlinked it. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few comments. He used Logic 8 recording software on his Mac Pro and often worked in a nearby conference room while they recorded in the studio with drafts of his beats. Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday. He occasionally processed the sampler through a Roland RE-201 and other effects units. Firstly, I don't feel it's entirely necessary to mention exactly which products he used, as such things don't really contribute to the overall sound and atmosphere of the album (at least, not the Logic 8+Mac Pro mention, I'm not sure about the others). Also, I don't think it's entirely necessary to mention that the sampler was given to Smith on his birthday. It's not really relevant to the article. Just some thoughts so far. I haven't read the whole article, but I have read up to here, and other than that it's a pretty decent article. Either more comments or a support vote will come shortly. Jacedc (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, specifying things like Logic 8 gives context to his producing on a laptop, which not every readers knows how that exactly works. With a link to Logic 8 in the article, it leads readers to more information on how a digital workstation works. As far as mentioning his birthday, I think an aside to some personal detail makes for a more interesting (if not vital) read. If you still feel it inhibits the read enough, however, I can remove it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that both parts provide interesting information, but the question is whether or not such information is appropriate for this article specifically. This article is about the album, so should we really sacrifice brevity and focus for the sake of further reading on an otherwise unrelated topic? Also, I'm not real sure I understand how mentioning the birthday thing is interesting/vital. Similar to the robbery comment; did the fact that it was for his birthday (specifically) effect the outcome of the album? If so, how? If not, I'd say remove it. But again, it's you're area of expertise so maybe I'm not seeing it in a way more involved editors see it. Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "if not vital", so while it isn't vital, I just feels it adds some color to the text, like the second to last line in In Utero (album)#Recording about extracurricular activities for example; it intersperses prose that's very procedural as far as Smith's steps in producing the album. I would say it might be interesting because if Smith had not been given the sampler as a gift, perhaps it would not have been used on this album altogether. Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but same argument applies. While it's valid information, sure, the question is whether or not it's appropriate information. In my opinion I don't think we should sacrifice focus and brevity for color (which I honestly don't see as color, I just see it as a sentence that doesn't need to be there). And I'm sure if a lot of things had not fallen into place correctly then the album wouldn't have been created, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should list them all in the article. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: On one of the many late nights Smith spent at the studio, he walked in on ski-masked burglars who had broken into the building; they were alarmed by his presence and immediately ran away. Is this really relevant? If nothing really happened as a result of the robbery, or if the production of the album didn't really suffer, then I'm not entirely sure this should be there. Then again, as with my last comment, I'm no expert on this so maybe I'm wrong, just my two cents. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began an exhaustive mixing process, which lasted two weeks and was done with Logic 8. I would just shorten this to "Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began mixing, which lasted two weeks." No need to mention it was "an exhaustive mixing process", and as with my first comment, no real need to mention it was done with Logic 8. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It being "exhaustive" ties into "how long" the production process took IMO, but I removed "done with Logic 8"; no need to mention it twice. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read through the accompanying source and (as far as I could tell) it didn't say anything about it being "exhaustive", so couldn't that fall under original research? Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered it was thorough and comprehensive from details in the article like "...solidly going through..." and "People have said to me before, 'Oh, it must've been a really easy thing to mix, right?' but actually there was a lot of attention to the details to make everything feel right, and it took a long time." Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, as long as it's not OR. As it stands is fine, then. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For each song, they mixed one or two tracks of each instrument and used Waves Audio components to equalize the recordings. Similarly, I'm not really sure this is entirely relevant, but again, could be wrong. Just something to think about. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More of a question than a comment, but I noticed that the dates are formatted like DD MO Year, which I suppose is how it's supposed to be considering they're an English band, but then the article goes on to read "realize", instead of "realise". My question is if this article is supposed to be written in British English? It would appear to be so. If so or if not, I believe it should be consistent either way. Jacedc (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is written in British English, apart from that word lol. Autotype/correction automatically changed it from "s" to "z" when I wrote it. Thanks for pointing it out. Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and was impressed by how poised and refined such a young group sounds. This is a POV sentence so I think it would be better off as a quoted sentence. Perhaps quote exactly what Phares said instead of parsing it as raw text? Jacedc (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word "said", as in "...impeccable and said she was impressed by...", so everything after "said" is being attributed to her. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that works just as well! :) Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All issues that I raised have been addressed and I now believe this article would make a suitable FA. Good job! Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, it says "they continued to play as a trio": "they" is a pronoun without an antecedent, so I would replace it with "the remaining members".
Would "the group" in "...dismissed from the group..." qualify as an antecedent since it's before "they", @Esprit15d:? Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that usage includes her, but I think it's debatable enough that I won't press the issue.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In "Background", it says "On late nights": This very well may be a UK turn of phrase, but it sounded odd on my ears. Could it read "During late nights"?
Also in "Background", it reads, "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes to no success before": I would be inclined to put commas around "to no success", since it's an aside.
Under "Recording and Production" it says, "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left": This is incorrect past perfect construction. It should be a single event in relation to another single event. So, it should read, "They would usually record at night when (I prefer "after", though "when" is not wrong) XL's staff had left."
Otherwise, everything else looks really solid and thorough. I'd be willing to give a support vote.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose quality is excellent and it covers all of the necessary subjects with fine sourcing. I think this article has been thoroughly reviewed at this point and meets all the requirements. Shii(tock) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above. The prose quality is top-notch and the referencing is on-point. Yeah, seems good to me :) Soulbust (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the two users above me. Great choice for an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prose reads well. Sources I can view check out. Right size of article too. It gets my support. Great work to all involved! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above, The article is as intricate as possible, and it would make no sense for it not to be a featured article. @Joe Vitale 5: (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I noticed you replaced the comma in the genre parameter with a "flatlist"/bullet. I've noticed this has become a trend lately in music articles, but Template:Infobox album#Genre still says to delineate with a comma. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It thoroughly contains proper images, tracks and charts are well cited and active references are neatly organized. I agree that it should be nominated a a featured article. Good job! Nemesis2473 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong article and a excellent FA candidate.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56, I thought I saw this listed at WT:FAC for a review (sources or images) but it's not there any more -- looks like it does still need a formal source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – I will do a source review for this article - Evad37[talk] 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The letters used after "Anon. n.d." don't seem to relate to the order in the bibliography – e.g. FN89 ("Anon. n.d.(y).") links to the JB Hi-Fi entry in the bibliography, which is the 11th "Anon. (n.d.)" in the list (as opposed to 25th as implied by y).
They're meant to refer to their order in the references list. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christgau 2009a/b, Anon. 2009a/b/c, and Anon. 2010a/b/... are also listed out of order in the bibliography
Ditto... referring to their order in the references list; the bibliography isn't ordered based on when the footnote appears. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not suggesting that the bibliography be ordered based on the footnotes, but rather that the letter suffixes attached to the year or n.d. be in alphabetical order in the bibliography (so the first such entry listed in the bibliography is 'a', the second is 'b', etc). While linking footnotes to the bibliography entry is possible online, the references should still make sense in a printed version of the article. Also, with the letter suffixes out of order, it is not possible to "work backwards" from a source to see what it is supporting in the prose without looking at the wikitext source (also not possible when printed). Is there actually any advantage to the letters being alphabetical in the footnotes list (which is already in numerical order based on first usage in the article)? - Evad37[talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had not considered the printed version; the bibliography order and style (by author, which if the same then by date) was suggested to me at a previous FAC (Misterioso). I've revised and reordered it ([18]). Dan56 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
Title case or sentence case should be used consistently (at least for the same type of source, if not for the article overall). Some examples: "Top 30 Albums of the 2000s" (title case) vs "The 100 best pop albums of the Noughties" (not title case); and "Year End Charts – Independent Albums" (title case) vs "The xx – Chart history" (not title case).
Done, title case throughout. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"xx", "XX", and "Xx" are variously used – suggest harmonising with the article prose, which uses lowercase
Search instructions for "British album certifications – The xx – xx" are out of date. There isn't a 'Search' field anymore (seems to have been replaced by 'Keywords:'), and at least 3 characters are required – it won't let you search for just "xx".
Modified slightly. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should search instructions be in the middle of the citation (before the access date), rather than at the end? Perhaps the same format as "(subscription required)" could be used for such explanatory information?
Search instructions style is based on what would be rendered by the Certification table template if I had not made citations manually. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I think the instructions should be at the end, rather than in the middle (as they currently are) - Evad37[talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using the same format as what the template would produce is fine... but digging through the template code, the refs there are generated by Template:Cite certification, which does put the instructions at the end, after the accessdate:
Oh, ok, cool. It rendered differently at the time of the previous FAs I worked on, which I've gotten used to... fixed. I used the postscript parameter to render the instructions last. Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some titles have hyphens (-) used as dashes instead of proper dashes (–)
Okay, I notice you also have some harv errors -- use this script to detect them; you also have some long dashes surrounded by spaces -- either use long dashes with spaces or short dashes with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the harv errors @Ian Rose:. I don't understand what you mean about the long dashes surrounded by spaces. Where exactly, and what would be the problem, or what's the fix? Do you mean in the title field for the citations? Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, do you mean instances like this?: "...other producers before then that had — and no discredit to them — I guess..." If so, I should replace those long dashes surrounded by spaces with short dashes or keep the long dashes but without the spaces? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding sooner, I was off the air for a while... I think MOS accepts long dashes without spaces or short dashes with, so long as it's consistent within the article, which it is now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I hope all this is enough now to determine consensus. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I started improving this article on Australia's senior soldier for most of the Vietnam era way back in 2012, partly to follow up my work on his predecessor as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Frederick Scherger, and partly to see if I could add a general to my list of air marshal and admiral FAs. The "epitome of the professional army officer", as his biographer David Horner put it, John Wilton was as cool and "proper" as his clipped moustache and stern visage suggested, but a leader who always seemed to have the welfare of his soldiers at heart. A great deal has been written about him, from his early regimental service in India with the British Army, to his son burning his draft card in front of Parliament House, Canberra, so I hope I've correctly balanced what to put in and what to leave out. Thanks to all who helped out at the article's recent GA and A-Class reviews, and to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- interesting piece on an important figure. I fixed a few formatting issues with the refs; other than that, it looks sound. CassiantoTalk 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Cassianto, and I appreciate the eagle eye on my formatting errors! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 16:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully only needs minor tweaking to fully satisfy the FAC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one question that didn't come to me during the A-class review - the text of the WNT specifically mentions Collingwood as a ship Britain could retain for non-combatant use - any clue why the RN decided to get rid of her anyway? Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about that in my sources, but neither Colossus nor Collingwood were retained as they could have been. My best guess is that the RN had plenty of ships that it could use for training and that the government felt that they was too expensive to operate in a time of fiscal austerity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and that makes sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Jane's should be italicized in caption
Map could be slightly larger
File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
File:First_battle_squadron_in_the_North_Sea_(April_1915).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the licenses as necessary. Thanks for looking this over with your usual thoroughness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy, I wouldn't hold up promotion on this account (see exchange at the end of my comments below). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE: ALTERATIONS. "In addition, a pair of 3-inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns were added". WERE -> WAS. PAIR = SINGULAR
RE: CONSTRUCTION AND CAREER. "Including her armament, her cost is variously quoted at £1,680,888[3] or £1,731,640". Could you try "Costs including armament are quoted at £1,680,888 and £1,731,640"? I don't think you need the word "variously"; the word "or" seems wrong. Then again, maybe "or" is better than "and". But you do need to avoid repeating the word "her".
RE: WORLD WAR 1. "After arriving in Portland on 27 July, Collingwood (...) was ordered to proceed to Scapa Flow on 29 July". Could you not try "two days later"?
RE: WORLD WAR 1. You've used the phrase "fruitless sweep" twice in the opening paragraph.
RE: WORLD WAR 1. "did not become engaged" -> "did not participate".
RE: WORLD WAR 1. Paragraph four uses the word "severe" twice.
RE: BATTLE OF JUTLAND. "Prince Albert was a sub-lieutenant commanding the forward turret (...) and he sat in the open on the turret roof during a lull in the action". The word "he" is redundant.
RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "After the battle, the ship was transferred to ...". Is that comma necessary?
RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "Collingwood was sold to John Cashmore Ltd for scrap on 12 December and arrived at Newport, Wales on 3 March 1923 to begin demolition". The ship didn't begin anything; she went to Newport to be demolished.
Good suggestions, all, although I don't believe that you are correct regarding your first point. Forex, "the first pair of brothers were told..." "Were" is appropriate in both cases because the second noun in the sentence (guns or brothers) is plural. Thanks for taking time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from SinforaSingora (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. I still think the word "pair" is singular (in fact I'm sure it is), but have zero interest in pursuing pedantic arguments.
2. RE: "Collingwood was sold to John Cashmore Ltd for scrap on 12 December and arrived at Newport, Wales on 3 March 1923". This is better, but only works if your audience knows the nature of John Cashmore's business and the company's location. I think you need to tell readers that John Cashmore was a Newport-based scrapyard. Readers must understand why the HMS Collingwood went to south Wales.
3. Good luck with your nomination! This is a very good article.
Comments, leaning Support -- recused from coord duties to review...
Prose/detail:
Copyedited as usual so let me know if I misunderstood anything.
Level of detail seems appropriate.
Structure -- this was the main thing that stood out for me initially:
Generally we see a couple of paragraphs in the lead of capital ship FAs, though admittedly this particular vessel didn't exactly have an action-packed career so if it doesn't bother other reviewers I won't make a fuss.
Also we have some single-paragraph subsections, which were discouraged by MOS last time I looked -- if there's no further info then there's no further info, but can any be usefully combined?
Lastly, Alterations is a level-4 subheader under Armour, which suggest the alterations were to the armour alone, whereas in fact they seem to cover various aspects of the ship -- this could be resolved by making Alterations a level-3 subheader, or perhaps you could merge the entire subsection as new paras under relevant subsections above (my preference as it would help resolve my previous point).
Source review:
References look sound and didn't spot any formatting errors.
For completeness, I'd have expected the very first para of Design and description to end with a citation.
Image review:
Deferring to Nikki but see note following her comments.
I've deleted most of the sub-headers in the description and your copy-edit looks fine. I'm getting a proxy error when I click on the link that you gave. In fact, I'm getting one for the entire navy history and heritage command website, so I'm not sure what's up with that. I could change the source for that photo to the old mirror of the naval history and heritage command site on ibiblio, but I'm not sure what value that would add over the dreadnought project link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like the entire site is down at the moment -- as I say, I'm satisfied that it's PD, and happy with the structural mods, so won't hold up support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 16:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about Carl Nielsen, generally considered to be Denmark's greatest composer... Although during his lifetime he was seen as something of an "outsider", since his death, particularly since the 1960s, he has come to be seen as one of the great composers.
The context behind this nomination is unusual. Ipigott, who lives for part of the year in Denmark I believe, only realised about a month ago that the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth is on 9 June, a day which will get significant attention not only in Denmark but internationally. We thought what a great thing it would be to have a TFA for Nielsen on 9 June, even if last minute. So in the past month, we've been led by Ipigott to overhaul the article. It recently passed GA. My initial concern was that the biographical coverage wasn't quite as detailed as you'd expect, but I believe the Nielsen website contains the bulk of the detail on this which has mostly already been consulted, and I did ask Tim riley to look in the British Library and he found very little material I think. Several editors mentioned that they thought it should be an FA candidate. I asked Brian to perform an initial peer review himself and asked if he thought it was too late to nom. He believes the article is viable, and has stated that he is willing to do a vigorous review to try to get it up to the required standard. I don't want everybody to feel rushed here, there's still 24 days to go before the day, but I'd like the delegates and reviewers to keep in mind the target, should this succeed here. I believe there's still a long way to go, and wouldn't normally nom without a major prior review, but at least half a dozen of us think the 150th anniversary is worth doing this over, and I want to give this the maximum chance in the time we have left.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying note: "Brian" above is me (not everybody will know that). I confirm that I said I thought that this could be nominated, but I expect further review action here and will be providing further comments myself. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The regulars will, but I guess FAC is viewed by more people than we think at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor finishing touches still coming in to ensure this is the best possible article, hope this is OK given the circumstances here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I lend my linguistic services if any online sources in Danish need to be spotchecked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a brief overview of citations and sources I am a little apprehensive about overreliance on the Carl Nielsen Edition website and other online sources (BBC, Carlnielsen.org, New Yorker, NYT, Carl Nielsen society) and underreliance of published literature, such as some of the handful of biographies written about him which many of which are absent (the ones cited are from 1947, and one by Lawson from 1997). Newer studies include Reynolds 2010 "Carl Nielsen's voice: his songs in context" (pretty crucial since his songs are what he is mostly known for in Denmark), Grimley 2010 "Carl Nielsen and the Idea of Modernism", the Pictorial biography must also have some usefulness as well as the four volumes of Carl Nielsen studies. I also find the bibliography layout and citation notes (with its mixture of short linked and long unlinked citations) to be confusing and not very aesthetically pleasing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus. That there's an abundance of biographical material readily available isn't true. Even in the British library there's very little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On google books there are at least 5 different biographies and in addition his own famus account of his childhood. I've provided the titles of some of the ones that seem to be missing above. Even the ones that are used are not cited more than once or twice each and the bulk of citations are to web sources and the royal library website.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said readily available. Even the British Library had very little on him. The Lawson book I believe is heavily photographed anyway. Do you stock all of the books in your local library Maunus? Even on amazon.co.uk there's not much available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine I could get my hands on them within a week or two through interlibrary loan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Carl Nielsen Edition is a substantial academic work available in print (isbns are in the citations) as well as on the web site, although I imagine few can afford to purchase the printed version so it is great that we can also link to online files. Reynolds (2010) would be an excellent source for an article about Nielsen's songs, but most of it is rather specialised for this article. We refer to it twice in the section about the songs. Chapter 1 (pp. 13–49) does provide a biographical overview.
I agree that a reference list of all short entries looks nicer. Disadvantages of moving the web-based citations down to the citations list include: an extra click before the reader can open the reference; paper-based and web-based references get mixed up; care needed in naming the link for pages without an author (done quite nicely using publication name in Irataba, a current FAC). An advantage is that the reader can easier answer the question: "what resources have been cited?" because they are in an ordered list. It is though possible to move the citations down if we decide that is preferable. Thoughts from others? --Mirokado (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always add web sources and book sfn notes together in the citations section and have promoted many articles this way. I'd like to see Maunus get hold of those books and we can see then if he's right about the content in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I donøt think I have volunteered to do that. There are also 5 volumes of "Carl Nielsen Studies" that are not being used. The reliance on the "Edition" and websources, makes me worried about how well the article represents the literature. It is easy to miss larger themes in the scholarship or subtly misrepresent it if only engaging the academic scholarship superficially.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worried? Not sure I believe that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange for concerned if you like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also full long refs to journal articles in the citations mixed in with the short linked ones. There is a mixture of citation styles in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved all the longer citations to the citation list, with some tidying up en passant. --Mirokado (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed, and it looks much better now I think. Thanks!--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "mature composer" we hear of his son in-law without having heard that he had any children, except for the "love child". I think the children should be in the marriage section and not all the way down in the legacy section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "songs and hymns" section needs expansion. This is the crux of his importance within Denmark. Every night I sing a Carl Nielsen melody for my kids as I put them to sleep, and my parents did the same for me. There is hardly a meeting or social occasion in Denmark where Carl Nielsen songs are not likely to be sung. Reynolds' book as well as her article in Carl Nielsen studies vol 4 would be good for this. And so would probably Colin Roth's article in the same volume.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maunus, for all your constructive comments and your pertinent edits on the content. I have in fact looked at several contributions by Anne Marie Reynolds who has long been the leading expert on Nielsen at the Royal Library. There are in fact significant excerpts of "Carl Nielsen's Voice" on the web, including a summary of her analysis of his songs (p. 24). While I have referred to Nielsen's songs in the article, as their appreciation is limited to Denmark (and possibly the other Scandinavian countries), I intentionally did not include a major section on them in the biography. As my wife is Danish and my children and grandchildren also speak the language, I am of course familiar with many of them myself. I think virtually every Dane can sing or hum half a dozen of his songs (mostly without knowing who wrote them). I would nevertheless welcome further feedback on how far other editors consider they should be covered in detail here. An alternative would be a separate article on Carl Nielsen's songs which I think I could put together quite quickly. That might keep everyone happy.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the appreciation of the songs is not shared by all is not very relevant given that there is an English language literature about it. A stand alone article would be good certainly, but the current focus is the main article where a summary of three lines is just not enough. I would say that the section needs to be at least three or four times the size of what it is now, mention his collaboration with Laub, his favorite poets (Aakjaer, Andersen) and his three volumes of songs as well as the titles of some of his best known songs - and perhaps his falling out with Laub over their competing alternative versions of the national hymn. And it might be worth including the quote where he states that his songs are closest to his heart.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a main article on his songs would be the best way to cover it with just a summary here, rather than bloating it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section is so short that it has to be either expanded or combined into another section. It is not a summary at all and is highly superficial. As it is now I think it falls short of the requirement of comprehensiveness. Carl Nielsen himself stated that he found his popular songs to be closer to his heart than his symphonies btw. This alone means that more than two lines about them is required.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the section and (I hope) made clear some of the significance of the songs.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is clearly better now, but starting it with a quote comes off a little odd I think. Better would be to start with a topic sentence about his song production and the importance of his songs within his oeuvre. I also think his collections of songs published separately require mention, as do his collaboration with Laub specifically. And I think the short quote on page 121 in Reynolds is better than the one youve chosen (My large symphonies are one thing, but the simple, popular song lies closer to my heart [1924]).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is always a question of taste. The quote I chose to begin I think emphasizes that for Nielsen (and for foreigners) the folk music is a 'Denmark thing.' I think the rest of what I have written indicates the importance of his songs to him (and to Danes) and that they ate parallel to , but also separate from thew rest of his output. I will try to add a bit more about Laub and I like the other quote you mention. But if we go into greater details, that I think (I am sure) is something for a separate article, not for the biography article. It's so easy to get carried away with the things that are close to one. --Smerus (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the weakness of beginning with the quote is that it doesnt really bring the reader into the topic of the section. I think it is ok to have a quote, but I think the otherone is both shorter and clearer. I am not suggesting the section should be longer than the section on his symphonies of course, and what Isuggest to add does not necessarily add to the length, of the section for example with a shorter quote and some condensation of the slightly repetitive statements about the national implications of his songs, it would probably end up being the same length as it is now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Smerus has done an excellent job of covering the essentials of Nielsen's songs. For the English-speaking reader at least, the initial quotation not only explains Nielsen's love of songs about his country but also summarizes the reasons why his songs fail to strike a chord with foreigners. (Very perceptive of him at the time, n'est-ce pas?) I think we should leave the quote where it is. Sooner or later I intend to write a separate article on Nielsen's songs but to me this certainly seems adequate for the main biography. @Maunus: Are you happy with the way in which your suggestions have been implemented? Is there anything else of importance you think we need to deal with?--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I am happy with the way the section works as prose, I don't think the reader is likely to get as much information out of the quote as you suggest because there isn't an introductory couple of sentences to describe his song production. Reynolds by the way is sill not cited in the section, only the foreword by Krabbe. It is not something I will oppose over either, but I may end up adding the information I think is missing to the section myself. I haven't reviewed whether the academic sources I mentioned are being used more than before.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Now I am in fact very happy with the section, I think the latest changes have near perfected it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion of the article. I still think it can develop its engagement with the literature better, and I think criterion 1c is its weak point. But overall it is a commendable article that I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the impressive growth of the article from a few weeks ago. I find the prose readable without problems, thank you! Minor points for the moment:
Please decide a consistent format for works with a number such as the symphonies and quartets. Either "No. 1" or "First". We have Symphony No. 1 in G minor, - I suggest to get the key out -as not part of the title, and link it separately: Symphony No. 1 in G minor. First String Quartet No. 1 in G minor is too much, - First or No. 1 ;) - and for the key as above.
Same in his works list? I would do it myself but have little time this week.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Are you suggesting we should revise the List of compositions by Carl Nielsen along these lines? And the articles to which they link? Quite an intricate and time consuming job at this stage in the proceedings and perhaps not strictly necessary for the purposes of FAC on the main article? If we only have 24 hours left, perhaps it's more important to deal with other matters.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that to improve the works also on the occasion would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with this FAC outcome, and I didn't suggest that you should do it. - I might do it myself last minute. At the moment I enjoy a few days off, and on returning I have several projects until 7 June. - Remember, I wrote Franz Kafka works as a supplement to Kafka, a DYK on TFA day (and one of very few I wrote to make it to the stats). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you introduce a new piece, prepare it by a genre upfront, such as cantataHymnus amoris, rather than giving only the scoring after the title. - Reading again , I found that it was mentioned before but without link and translation, will change that. How about consistently original titles, with a translation the first time?
Hope this is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His wife with name and profession is mentioned twice in the lead, - the second time could be just "his wife".
Removed in second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that there is no article about the edition of his works and the catalogue, also some of the people important in his life. Are there articles in Danish for which stubs could be created?
I found some and made ill for them. Almost another set in the translation project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also surprises that the children are not in Life but Legacy, and I count five, no?
Now under "Marriage and children" - as also suggested--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with images on the left under a header, - old-fashioned training.
Moved as many as I could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say "Danish premiere"? Premiere in Denmark? (That may be just my limited English)
Yes, that's fine, more common way of saying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: can we say first what he is known for and then the "difficulties"?
I've made a short addition here but I think it is important to relate his personal life to his musical developments. Is this now OK?--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early years: Can his mother first give him a violin, then he speaking about it?
Well spotted. I've reworded this slightly. Now it looks fine to me.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style: Instead of style, we hear about reception first. Perhaps a different para for that, after style?
I've started to sort this out. Might move some of the style section to reception. See also suggestions on talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of Moderen?
done
Negro Dance (and the others) needs italics or quotation ;)
done
decide "Op." vs. "Op" consistently, please (didn't find the first because of that)
have made Op consistent throughout (I think) --Smerus (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provide "alt=" for all images, as an accessibility feature for people who don't see the image. Tell them what they would see. (first item on the checklist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago I began to use this for the images in my articles but never had any feedback. Although it does not seem to be a requirement for FA, I'll do it if I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Both Smerus and I have been working on this. I think you'll be happy with the result.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful using the symbol for "done", I like it but others think it increases loading time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. When commenting on GA, I was told to use the symbol but I've now removed it and won't use it again. I always try to keep as many people as happy as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one point not yet addressed: consistently original titles with translation in brackets the first time. I'll leave you for a few days, leaning towards support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I am not quite sure what you would like to see here. Are you suggesting that in the lead, for example, we should change the text to read "He premiered his Suite for Strygeorkster (Suite for Strings) in 1888..." (ditto for the other works, Wind Quintet, Maskerade, etc.)? Or are your comments intended strictly for the music section? For me, a bit of variety makes the text more readable. I think it would be less attractive to refer to all his symphonies in the style "Symphony No. 1", if they are also known as the First Symphony and so on, especially in cases when we can also call them by their more familiar names (Espansiva, Simplice...). The use of various names seems to me to be a good thing. I have looked at a number of the other FA articles on composers and they all seem to use the same kind of variety. Perhaps Smerus could comment on this? Maybe your approach is just a wee bit too German: Ordnung muss sein!!! (No offense intended.) It would be a pity if our failure to follow up on this continued to be the reason for your lack of support when we've been doing so much to improve the article as quickly as possible and have been able to implement nearly all your other helpful suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Kafka, again. We made a decision early on to use the German titles with English in brackets, because he wrote in German. I admit that music is different. Pieces known by an English title should probably be given in English, and Suite for Strings may be one of them, also symphonies and string quartets, which leaves things as Hymnus Amoris and the Danish ones. If you say the variety is on purpose, that's also fine, - I just noticed that there was no answer so far. - Back to vacation, take your time.
@Gerda Arendt: Glad to see you finally came back on line, Gerda. I saw you had been away for a couple of days. I didn't know I was bothering on your holiday though. Hope you're enjoying yourself. I don't really think we should adopt the Kafka approach for composers. I think it all reads very nicely as it is. So are you now willing to support our efforts? You say "take your time". Is that because you think it's too late to meet Crisco's deadline? I must say for the past three or four days I've spent hours and hours trying to respond to all your suggestion and those of the others on this page. Maybe it has all been in vain. Now I think the ball is in your court. Whatever the timing it would be really helpful if you could lend us your support.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carl_Nielsen.jpg: this will need a US PD tag, but currently there isn't enough information to support the current tag - what is the source, who is the author...?
Done - Image replaced with details of author and source. PD US tag included.
Everything with only a life+70 tag will also need some kind of US PD tag
Done - I think they now all have the necessary tags but will now look in detail at the files mentioned below.
File:Carl_Nielsen_ca_1880.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Done - Author identified with dates.
Same with File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg
Done - Have changed licence as it is not a work of art
Same with File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg
Done
File:Anne_Marie_Carl-Nielsen.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps have you taken to try to find the author? On what basis would this have been PD by the URAA date? Also, the source link is dead. All of these also apply to File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg
With the help of We hope, wWe've found a new image of the family which I think meets all requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: Source link is dead, and how do we know the author died over 70 years ago?
File:Saul_og_David_(Carl_Nielsen),,_Stockholm_1931.jpg: when/where was this first published?
There are additional details here indicating that it was first published in January 1931. Have added these details to Commons.
Sound clips should indicate licensing status of the works themselves as well as the performances
Comment: what do you (all) think of moving most sounds to the work in the works list, leaving only one representative here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done: now only in Wind Quintet article.Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since freedom of panorama in Denmark only extends to buildings, File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG should reflect the licensing status of the work as well as the photo
the grave was designed by his wife who died in February 1945. It is therefore PD in the EU and I have edited Wikicommons accordingly. But I don't know whether this meets Wikipedia criteria.--Smerus (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the rule of "life of author plus 70 years" in countries like USA, UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc. all allow the copyright to run until year end, so the actual grave won't be out of copyright until 31 December 2015 in many countries. Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am told by Nikkimaria that the life of the photographer needs to be taken into account - which I find surprising. But I have now deleted the image. If anyone can sort the licencing out, perhaps it can be restored but I will not undertake any further attempts myself.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Front_side_of_Danish_100_kr_note_(1997_series).jpg: the fact that he was put on a banknote can be explained in text - will need further rationale for including non-free image
There is a good fair use rationale for the use of the image already on the image page. The template used is {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, which - as I understand it - is a perfectly acceptable means of providing an FUR and is used as part of the upload wizard. I can't see a problem with what is there already. Unless the objection is that no image should be used at all because it can be replaced by text? --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I've seen the rationale, it's not wrong, I just don't agree that it in combination with the text justifies the use of a non-free image in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is important to display an image of the 100 crown note here. It is a major item in indicating the importance Denmark accorded this composer. Without the image, the text would not be very meaningful. (My opinion of course.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now finally removed from the article despite major efforts to have it maintained. (See also below}.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply because of the number of problems here - will be happy to strike once at least some are addressed.Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: We have been trying very hard to deal with all the issues you raised and I think we have made substantial progress. I hope you will now be ready to waive your opposition. Thanks very much for explaining all the problems which needed to be addressed. It's the first time I have been involved in an FAC and I am no expert on image copyrights, etc., so I hope the modifications are in order.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the improvements made I have stricken my oppose, though to be clear this is not yet a pass.
We still disagree on the banknote, as discussed above - Crisco, thoughts?
Smerus was very upset this image had been removed and I tried to restore it on the basis of the explanations from the Danish National Bank but I was told that it was still not allowed. Now finally deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've generally considered such things to fail NFCC No. 8, as there is no "critical" discussion, and no detrimental effect to readers' understanding if the image is not included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image of the banknote.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been re-added? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been removed. See above.--Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sound clip issue from above has not yet been addressed
Now in Wind Quintet as suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything using {{PD-US}} or similar needs to demonstrate that the image was published, not just created, prior to 1923
PD-1996 has a similar issue - images using this tag need to be published, not just created, before 1978. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg: if this only has a life+70 tag, it wouldn't have been PD in home country in 1996 and so wouldn't be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that this image is not acceptable, especially as it was uploaded by the highly experienced Dr. Blofeld. From Nikkimaria's explanations, it appears to be a matter of finding the right licencing tags. The photograph was taken in 1901. The photographer died 71 years ago. Is it really the case that these criteria do not justify PD? Maybe it is not a work of art? I have replaced the licencing tags in the hope that they apply. Perhaps Crisco 1492 or Diannaa could offer assistance here as the image is an extremely important component of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a work of art, it would be PD - I would argue that it is, but that's a matter of judgement, so I'd be happy for Chris or Diannaa to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know the unknown author died over 70 years ago? Given the creation date it is possible they did not
Live link now restored (here. I've added it to Commons. This appears to be an amateur photo (not a work of art) and therefore should be PD in DK. The tagging needs to be changed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the licence tags and think this is now perfectly in order.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg is not a photographic image
File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg: source link is dead, and on what basis do we believe it was PD in Denmark on the URAA date?
File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG: as above, life+70 needs to be supplemented by a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still not fixed - the first given PD tag applies only to the photo, not the gravestone. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this image as I cannot understand how to address the gravestone. I have been asking for assistance on all this for over a week but cannot find anyone to offer advice. The first helpful response (on my talk page) came from Diannaa just a few hours ago but I cannot reasonably expect more help at this late stage. I think it's a pity there is no central authority on Wikipedia where advice can be sought on such issues. The other editors involved in submitting this for FAC (Dr. Blofeld, Smerus and Mirokado) have not been able to help either.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can always ask over at WP:MCQ. However, the issue is not the life of the photographer, who in this case has released the photograph into the public domain. Because this is a 3D work not covered by freedom of panorama, we also need to consider the copyright of the creator of the original work. As Rex points out above, life+70 won't be accurate until the end of this year - at that point that tag plus {{PD-Pre1978}} will work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Would you please kindly help solve this yourself? Personally I'm not particularly concerned what images go in the time being, so long as they all comply. Long term I think our best bet would be to contact the Nielsen museum and get them to donate Nielsen images into the public domain. I still find it absurd that we can't use an image taken 114 years ago, but Nikki is the expert on this. If there's no decent portrait image freely useable we could probably get away with fair use for it anyway. The easiest thing really would be for you to simply say "This is what you can use", I think it's reached a point where it's difficult to know what to do here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting the Nielsen museum would only work for cases where they own the copyright - keep in mind that owning the image is not the same as owning the rights to it. However, they might be able to provide an indication of when and where the images were first published, which would help immensely with some of the URAA images - without that information there's not much I'm able to do right now. At this point, we either know we can't use or don't have enough information to know we can use:
the gravestone
File:Carl_Nielsen_and_family_1904.jpg (which we can use under life+100 at the end of this year) :*File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg
Finding a pre-1978 publication for all of these but the gravestone would allow us to use them. File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg and the banknote are both judgment calls - I would tend towards neither being acceptable, but waiting for input from Chris or Diannaa on the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any examples of what has been considered "photographic works" in Denmark? The lighting and deliberate posing suggests to me that this image was certainly well planned, but I don't know what the threshold is. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed. There are a considerable number here on Commons. Most of them are portraits, similar to the one causing concern here. Several also have lighting and poses comparable to the image of Carl Nielsen. I have been able to pick these ones up quickly based on the Commons category which indicates that the US PD (e.g. PD-1996) is missing. I am not expert enough to be able to find those correctly coded but I would imaging there must be many more. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Crisco 1492. I think I misunderstood your question. All of the above are portraits with PD-Denmark50 licences. I think what you are asking for are images which are not in this category because they are works of art. I'll see it I can find any.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More or less: the template says "'photographic works', which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer"... so thus, the copyright status of the image depends on whether or not this is considered a "photographic work" and not just a photograph. If we've got previous cases, we can come to a more definite conclusion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I have not been able to find any photographs from Denmark in this category. All the historic photographic portraits I have found, including those taken by court photographers, carry the PD-Denmark50 licence. I would argue that the portrait of Carl Nielsen could also be licenced in the same way. There is after all no indication it is a work of art, even if the photographer can be identified. I'm afraid I cannot spend much more time on this today - we have visitors.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: After a lot of searching, I have finally been able to find just one photograph on Commons licenced PD-art. It's not Danish but Ukrainian: File:Vasyl Dmytrijuk.jpg. I hope this makes it possible to arrive at a conclusion more easily.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as that. Take a look at these images: 1, 2, 3. Can you guess which of them was deleted from Commons for being a "photographic work" and not a simple photograph? Without reading the corresponding pages, I wouldn't have been able to do so. I'm not comfortable using this when the copyright status is so unclear; there is no clear definition of how much creativity is necessary for a "photograph" to become a "photographic work". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Unfortunately on the basis of your links I cannot "guess" the reaons why each of these files were deleted from Commons but I think that if the image of Carl Nielsen now under discussion is deleted from Commons, at least 80 per cent of the photographic portraits of famous historical Danes should also be deleted from Commons. This would, of cource, not only affect the articles on the EN wiki but especially those on DA wiki. I would be more than ready to support Nikkimaria on all this if only we could establish some clear user guidance on the matter. I have now spent about four hours per day every day over the past week looking at Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and Creative Commons trying to find guidance on these licences but have not been able to find anything of substance. All I have had to go on, apparently like you, is the very occasional deletion by an administrator from Wikimedia Commons. In most cases, such deletions seem to have been based on personal preferences rather than on a generally accepted rationale. On the entire range of Commons photographs worldwide, as far as I can see there is only one photograph surviving (mentioned above) with a PD art licence. Perhaps this should be deleted too along with all Danish photographs which have a PD-Denmark50 licence but no corresponding US licence? On a rough calculation, this would lead to the removal of the lead images from at least 80 per cent of the historic 19th and early 20th century biographies on the DA wiki, including most of the corresponding articles on the other language wikis. Maybe this would indeed be in the interests of the important objective of safeguarding copyright on Wikimedia Commons which, of course, I fully support but I think it should at least be subject to deeper assessment? As a former European offical who over some 15 years (until my retirement in 2006) actively encouraged participation by the EU national libraries, museums and archives in numerous collaborative projects including TEL, TEL-ME-MORE and especially Europeana, I would have thought that this might be a rather rash step given the EU's overall objective of providing wider access via Creative Commons to accessible resources from Europe's cultural institutions, but I also accept that US PD requirements may exceed the regulations established in the various countries of the European Union. In the absence of any significant examination of the legislation in place, would it be acceptable to maintain the lead Carl Nielsen portrait File:Carl Nielsen in 1901.jpg on the basis of fair use until we reach a final conclusion on the issue? If not, why not? En passant, I see you pinged me from here but cannot understand why or what you would like me to do? Perhaps I should add that Rosiestep suggested INeverCry could assist in resolving some of these Carl Nielsen image issues. I would of course also welcome any advice he/she is able to give. Respectfully --Ipigott (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the images I mentioned above were nominated for deletion a couple years ago. Numbers 1 and 2 were considered normal photographs, and thus kept, but number 3 was considered a photographic work and deleted; this is mentioned on Commons, with links to the deletion discussions if you want to check. The similarity of the deleted and not deleted images is such that I don't think we've got a clear enough definition for an image in an FA. I agree with Nikkimaria that File:Carl_Nielsen_in_1901.jpg should be nixed. As to the ping on my talk page: We hope has uploaded File:Carl Nielsen 1917.jpg (first link in WH's post), which is 100% most definitely free in the US (which is all we need for the English Wikipedia). I figured you'd be interested in having an image you can use to replace troublesome ones. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I have replaced the 1901 photo with the 1917 one mentioned by you. Nominators are free to revert my edit. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 03:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: Thank you for helping to sort this out. At this resolution, the image does not look too bad and I certainly think it should be maintained. I don't imagine Dr. Blofeld and Smerus will have any objections either. I would also like to thank We hope for all the trouble she has taken to ensure we have a usable image, and also Crisco 1492 for encouraging further efforts on the images. I suppose the article can now be reassessed for FAC.--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a very quick lookover, I do believe the images are ready. User:Nikkimaria, what do you think? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one more: File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg. The article should now be good to go. It appears that Royal Danish Library images were "published" (publicly available) as of 1976. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I do not intend to reinsert the image but for future reference (i.e. looking for other images to illustrate the article when I return to Denmark at the end of July) I would be interested to know why you think it is not in the public domain. It certainly does not appear to me to be a "photographic work". Is there something wrong with the way in which it is licenced?--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is PD in Denmark, but the {{PD-1996}} tag (which accounts for its status in the US) requires details of the first publication that we just don't have at this point - we don't know whether it was first published before or after 1978. If before, it's certainly PD in the US; if after, it may or may not be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your quick response but I think the guidelines here need to be revised. I have studied them carefully and cannot see why there is any problem with US copyright whatever the first date of publication. If this image is not acceptable, then only images with clear evidence of the date of publication can be included in Wikipedia articles. But this is a matter that probably deserves to be addressed elsewhere. In any case, thanks for your interest in this article and all the time and effort you have spent on reviewing the images.--Ipigott (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text size and colours used meet our standards outlined in MOS:ACCESS. Unfortunately, not one image in the article has alt text. That will result in some visitors who use a screen reader hearing something like "Link Saul og David open parentheses Carl Nielsen close parentheses comma comma Stockholm 1931 dot jay pee gee {then} Carl Nielsen with the cast of Saul og David, Stockholm 1931". --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify please, is alt text a requirement for FA status, or is it an optional improvement? If the former, are formulas such as 'alt=photograph' acceptable?--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(watching, and I made the same request above): the alt text tells a person who can not see the image what he would see, as a service to that person. To say "photograph" is better than nothing. Perhaps look at examples that were recently accepted, such as BWV 165 where the FAC has a detailed list of accessibility features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Personally I encourage the use of alt text but, no, it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, FACR has this opening sentence: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" (my emphasis). I maintain that a professional standard of presentation on a website demands compliance with WCAG 2.0, and no professional web-designer would get away with creating a website where images had no alt text. If Featured Articles are genuinely to exemplify "our very best work", then they must accommodate visually impaired readers - at the very least by not forcing them to listen to the sort of garbage that the example in my opening remark illustrates.
What is worse on Wikipedia is that almost all of our images are linked (because of attribution) and links require something for a screen-reader to read out. That's why we get the filename read out in the absence of alt text.
You can kid yourselves that you can ignore sections of the MOS that you don't like; but the MOS is there for a reason. How you deal with such uncomfortable truths is, of course, completely up to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. all done. What's with the 'kid yourselves' stuff? I only asked for advice.--Smerus (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being brusque, but the advice you got previously was sub-optimal, and from somebody who should know better. My apologies also for not addressing your question fully. If you use alt text that says "photograph" then that is what the screen reader will announce as the target of the link. If you imagine you're using a screen reader, you can make a decision at that point to follow the link (it might be something interesting) or continue on to hear the caption. I'm not sure that "photograph" is going to help inform that decision, but it certainly is a lot better than "Saul og David open parentheses ... dot jay pee gee" which is probably what you'd get now. I'd suggest something like "Carl Nielsen with several actors" might do a better job; it's difficult because the caption is already partially describing the image rather than concentrating on developing the reason why the image is there in the first place (as it should per WP:CAPTION). Getting the right images in the appropriate place with the right alt text and caption is a tough job if we want to make this an example of our very best work. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK much clearer, thanks. I may revisit in this light.--Smerus (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy does it, Rexx. At no stage did I say FAC should ignore MOS, more the opposite, that if MOS mandates the use of alt text then so should FAC. There have been many discussions on alt text in FAC and the latest consensus I recall was that the MOS guidance was problematic and therefore difficult to make a requirement, quite a different thing to "ignoring a part of the MOS you don't like". Granted it's been quite some time since then and if things are more straightforward now then perhaps it should be revisited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the guidance in MOS:ACCESS #images is problematic, then you need to raise your concerns on that talk page. In the meantime, that guideline enjoys community consensus in just the same way as any other part of MOS, and is mandatory in articles to exactly the same extent as any other part of the MOS, no more and no less. I accept that writing good alternate text is difficult and finding reviewers who can adjudicate on that aspect of the MOS is not easy, although I've always found Graham87 to be unfailingly helpful with questions concerning screen readers, as he has used one or another for many years. I do remember when Eubulides invested so much effort into the issues of alt text that he burned himself out and sadly retired, resulting in the FAC process dropping the requirement for alt text at the time. Since then, I believe that things have moved on, and I would recommend that you re-visit the current guidance as a whole: the purpose of images in articles, focussed captions, and complementary alt text together form an area that still offers many opportunities for improvement in so much of Wikipedia. I have no wish to try to force anything upon the FAC process, but it is worth reminding the regulars, once in a while, that Featured Articles are copied by large numbers of editors and even a small improvement in an FA can cascade into very many improvements throughout the rest of our project. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Just skimming through the comments prior to a review, and came across this. There is nothing mandatory about following what are guidelines, rather than bright-line policies. Advisable, certainly; good practice, definitely, but not mandatory. This is, however, all rather moot, as the images all now carry the alt. My review follows shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who suggested that "it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS". The whole of MOS is a guideline, not a "bright-line policy" (whatever that may be - see WP:PAG for definitions), yet I read it as a requirement for FA status under criterion 2. Of course it's not mandatory for any any article to meet FAC criterion 2, but I had thought it was necessary to meet that in order to be promoted. Can I take it that the next time an objection is raised under any other part of criterion 2, you'll be opposing that objection on the grounds that adherence to MOS is advisable and good practice, but not mandatory for FA status? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, it's a moot point, and I have no wish to continue any discussion. You have your opinion. It's not one I share and I will leave it at that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "follows the style guidelines" does not mean that an article has to be 100% compliant with everything in the MOS. Because MOS is not a brightline policy but a guideline. An FA should follow the general spirit of the MOS, not every letter. Alt-text is good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting thought, Maunus. But how is anyone to know which of the MOS guidelines an article doesn't have to follow to be promoted to FA status? Because as soon as we start saying we can ignore 1% of the guidance as long as we follow the other 99% (or whatever fraction you pick), there's a "thin end of the wedge" argument that rapidly devalues the entire process. Should we amend Criterion 2 to read "It follows most of the style guidelines" or "It follows the general spirit of the style guidelines"? --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trough consensus, RexxS. No need to change the criterion since it already doesnt say "complies fully with the MOS", and since the MOS isnt a policy with which one can request compliance.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've never seen much use in Alt text, in fact I'm not sure why people would think it compulsory and can't recall ever adding it to an article in nearly ten years here. I've seen some cases like "man with curly hair smiling at the photographer" and wondered how it was encyclopedic. I must be missing something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a somewhat disingenious thing to say unless you are actually accessing wikipedia through a screenreader. Kind of like saying "ive personally never seen the use of wheelchair access ramps" while having full use of ones legs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing here? Define alt text for me. I'm talking about the lame "alt" captions you see in articles like this which say "Pitt smiling".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are talking about the same thing. But you seem to not realize that that lame text is the only way that people who access wikipedia through a screenreader know that there is an image and what it is depicting. In absence of an alt text that can be grabbed by the screen reader the reader simply reads the name of the picture file and the html. That has to be pretty annoying to listen to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't see the image I don't see the point in describing it. Either they can see it or they can't. I suppose if the image file is being read anyway and alt text replaces it then it is an improvement, but why can't there be some coding instead which tells their screen reader to avoid reading File: or something ending in .jpg or .png, wouldn't that be better than having to read the lame "bearded man smiling" thing? I'm not sure why it would be an absolute essential to an article, it's sort of like saying a plane isn't fit to fly because it hasn't a ramp and seat for disabled folk. I suppose that there are some people who use screen readers and we should cater for them too, but I don't think it should be an essential for FA in my opinion anyway. Editors should be encouraged to be considerate to people who use screen readers I think, but to say "this can't possibly pass FAC, it doesn't have alt text", seems a bit extreme. But if Rexx or anybody else thinks it's important I'm not going to object, feel free to add it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every non-decorative image has to have a link (for attribution). When a screen reader reaches the image it will announce a link and read out the alt text. If there's no alt text, it may read out the filename of the image. So in your Brad Pitt example, they hear something like "Link Pitt smiling", which is better than hearing something like "Link Brad Pitt Fury two zero one four dot jay pee gee"; and clearly preferable to announcing "Link", but not saying what it is a link to. The point of describing the image for someone who can't see is to supply them with the information conveyed by the image. Not every blind person has been blind since birth and many will have a memory of what objects look like, so it behoves us to do our best with the description. Our vision is not "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge (except blind folk)". Alt text is by no means essential for "the regular user", other than the regular user who is visually impaired, or the regular user who has a low bandwidth and turns off images, or the regular user in a third-world country who can't afford to pay the data charges for large images. As for the flying analogy, it's a bit more like saying the airline isn't doing its job if it doesn't make reasonable arrangements for disabled passengers. You may find https://www.gov.uk/transport-disabled/planes and http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/disabled.htm enlightening on that issue.
I don't think we're disagreeing that some people will feel that making reasonable changes to improve the experience of some of our visitors is a good thing. I accept that we shouldn't impose such a burden on editors preparing for FAC that they feel it becomes a barrier to them, and that we have a job to do in encouraging editors to consider all the accessibility issues. But let's take small steps at a time, where we can. Thank you, Smerus, for supplying alt text for this article. You've improved it. And that's what counts. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rexx, yeah I don't have much experience with blind people, I wouldn't know what works best for them. But if there are a significant number of people who use screenreaders we should probably cater for them. Admittedly I didn't actually realise the purpose of the alt text all of these years, that's why I was ignorant of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: and @Maunus: I've expanded on the alt text as I think the general idea is that people should be given an idea of what the images actually depict, not just something approximating the caption. In any case, I think you'll find it is now adequate for the requirement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipigott, you're right: alt text is meant to be a replacement for the image for those who cannot see it. You've made a further improvement by reducing the overlap between alt text and caption, and that makes it just that little bit nicer for those using screen readers. I'd like to compliment you especially on the alt text you provided for the theatrical poster because you've given the same information to someone who can't see that poster as a sighted visitor would get from reading it - that's a perfect example of alt text! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had my grounding years ago in the articles on Van Gogh where it was really important to describe the paintings. These images are less critical. Do you ever get any feedback from those with visual difficulties? It would be interesting to know whether our efforts are worthwhile. Perhaps you should reply on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Nørre Lyndelse near Sortelung south of Odense": comma after Sortelung?
Done
"Nielsen gave an account of his introduction to music: "I had heard music before, heard father play the violin and cornet, heard mother singing, and, when in bed with the measles, I had tried myself out on the little violin".[4] He had received the instrument from his mother when he was in bed with the measles at the age of six": do we need to be told about being in bed with measles twice? (If these were on two separate occasions, this should be made clear and the wording tweaked).
Done
"However..." Always a bit of a red flag, and I'm not sure it is needed here
"Valdemar Tofte (da) (1832–1907)," is this how we do links to other language wikis? (I've not come across it before, and it confused more than enlightened me).
I've left this as it is for now as I will start an article on Tofte today or tomorrow.
This is how we do red links to topics which have an entry in a different language. The confusion will be gone as soon as the red link is filled, which will happen before the birthday, promised. Seven of ten are already done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something from the MoS that could be shown? I wouldn't take the word of the QAI project on anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why some might not like the look of it but I think it's very productive to alert editors in articles and we should aim to transwiki them asap. That link will be cleared soon enough anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that it may be useful, but it's not something I would expect to see in an FA. Things that break the reader's flow, or cause them to stumble, especially a non-standard piece of formatting, shouldn't hinder understanding. A stub would remove the need for the confusing (da), or even dropping the Danish link into a footnote where it could be properly explained would be better than this format, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a FA better has no red links. In FAC state, it's a good idea to invite translation of related articles, which I did in the form, helping both to notice it and to have easy access to the article in the other language. Thanks to SusunW (a QAI member) for the translations. - The collaboration on this article by all involved is delightful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hans Demant (1827–97)": I think the full year is needed on the second figure for life span years.
Done - You are right as per MS-DOB.-- Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a venue it shouldn't be.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fourth (1914–16) and Fifth Symphonies (1921–22), arguably his greatest works": according to who?
In addition to Fanning, others including Bernstein and the conductor Alan Gilbert also saw them as masterpieces. See for example this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fifth Symphonies": should be a lower case "s" I think, as it's not the title
You are right. It's been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hansen was unable to undertake publication": it does beg the question why not...
I remember reading that it was partly to do with Hansen's financial difficulties at the time but I haven't been able to find the ref. I'll keep searching and try to add something.--
Final years and death
"The final large scale orchestral works were his Flute Concerto": it's a new section, so I think we should stretch to including his name
done
Is there a picture of the statue that could be included here?
Unfortunately hot possible in Denmark because of copyright restrictions.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the punctuation in this quote "a poor boy...passing through adversity and frugality...marches into Copenhagen and...comes to conquer the position as the uncrowned King" as it is in the original, or are these malformed ellipses in search of spaces?
Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is here. The quote appears to be based on sequences with points de suspension. It can be found here and also here but I do not have the necessary subscriptions to access the full articles. How can we resolve this?--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got jstor access and seen the original now. With the removal of small sections of text the ellipses should have a non-breaking space before the three dots - I've done this one here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on the quote "We must go back...to the pure and the clear"
And on "in music... [I]t is intervals"
I have corrected the above ellipses, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I can see these have now all been corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These two sides were "officially" brought together": is officially a quote?
Done. Quotes dropped.--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that below you have "being typically 'Danish'." in a single mark. If official isn't a quote, then go for consistency.
"four large scale chamber works": I think it should be large-scale, but I'm always on slightly shaky ground with hyphens
done. You are right. Also under Final years.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"an example of the composer's 'progressive tonality',": is there any need for the single quote marks here?
Done. No need as already wikilinked above.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboard works
Ditto on the single marks for "The 'anti-romantic' tone": I'm not sure how such a use measures up to the strictures of our MoS, but I'm more concerned about whether they are actually needed.
"the outstanding organist": most people on the page are "outstanding" for one reason or another, and adding such praise to one and not the others looks odd.
The banknote is an interesting one and should, I think, be retained if possible, although given such scant coverage in the article it may be difficult to justify the inclusion of the non-free image. Is there something pertinent in the news media at the time of its unveiling to explain why Nielsen was selected? An additional line or two saying the Danish Mint (or whoever) chose "exemplary Danes", or "cultural heroes of Denmark" would help secure the image in place.
Have added something here.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"anniversary of the birth of Carl Nielsen": just Nielsen will do
You will also need to check your footnotes in a few places. A quick skim shows things like FNs 16 and 104 which need to be pp., not p.
All good, aside from that, in an interesting read. I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, SchoCat, for all these useful suggestions. I've tried to follow up on everything. Hope I've done a good job. Well past my bedtime now!--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the ellipses again, per WP:ELLIPSES, which staes that "this ... is the correct method". They shouldn't go in brackets, and the use in brackets at WP:ELLIPSES is to demonstrate the differences in the dots, not the examples of how they should be used.
Support on prose. Good luck with the deadline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this article for GA, and remarked at the time that it was approaching FA standard. Since then it has been further improved. It is thoroughly and widely sourced, a pleasure to read, balanced in approach and well proportioned. I have been much involved with composer FAs myself over recent years, and I think the present article is of the same standard. While rereading it with FA in prospect I have continually compared the article with that in Grove (by David Fanning). The Wikipedia article loses nothing by the comparison, in my view. – Tim riley talk 07:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Tim, that means a lot coming from somebody with as much experience in composer articles as you. Many thanks for the earlier review of this too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I carried out a somewhat hurried talkpage review of the article before it was nominated here, and have since been looking more closely at the Music section. Most of the issues in that section that I thought needed further work have been raised by other reviewers; having just read through the section again, I'm satisfied that it meets FA requirements – an excellent introduction to Nielsen and his music, very helpful to readers without knowledge of this under-appreciated composer. (Scandalously, in his Lives and Times of the Great Composers, Michael Sheen ignores Nielsen's existence.) Meeting the requested TFA deadline for Nielsen's 150th may not prove possible, but all credit to the team for trying. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Brian, not only for your support but above all for your encouragement and your extremely useful informal review. I believe today or tomorrow could be the deadline for TFA for 9 June, if I have interpreted Crisco 1492 correctly. Maybe we can still just make it?--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've still got the ninth open. The images are still an issue here (as I mentioned on my talk page before the nomination), and I'd expect that to hold up the FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's good to know. We've been working hard on the images and hope to receive reactions from Nikkimaria shortly. If there are still minor details to be attended to, I hope she will bring them to our attention so that we can sort them out as soon as possible. Maybe you Crisco 1492 could be more specific yourself? I'm afraid I'm far from being an expert on the Commons copyright rules but have been trying to do my best to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some RL stuff to handle first, but if there are still outstanding issues when I've got the time, I'll take a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion which I'd rather not need to make, but would the main authors of the article be willing to have someone like Chris remove the photos which are at issue and keeping the article from FA status? Since time is so, so short right now, it's the only thing I could come up with that would get the article to FA by the deadline. We hope (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I understand we have strict standards so please do whatever is necessary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needs must etc.--Smerus (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed several of the problem images. Possibly the others can be dealt with by correcting the tagging? I'm not sure how the poster should be handled. It certainly looks to me as if it should be PD. Perhaps We hope can sort it out? And also the tagging of the image of the grave which strictly speaking in now PD. Perhaps Crisco can then delete any that are still causing a major problem for FA. I have found other images with the names of photographers, etc., which could no doubt be added later to enhance the visual quality of the article but I don't want to introduce any additional problems at this stage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and updated the source on the Fuglsang image so this looks OK now provided the right tags are used.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a US tag to File:Carl Nielsen and family 1904.jpg which should also be OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "just in case" files-
I spent some time at HathiTrust last night and found a 1917 photo of him which is in the PD in the US as it was published in a 1917 Danish book on music. The problem with HathiTrust is that those not in the US aren't allowed full viewing or any copying due to an apparent IP "discrimination" system the site uses. Dr. B. and I have worked and dealt with the issue in the past (various works of William Burges, Ritz, London) by my copying the needed material and hosting it on my OneDrive because there was a lot of it.
Much of what those in the UK were locked out of with Burges and the Ritz were 100+ year old British trade magazines. Am quite sure those in Denmark are not able to fully view the 1917 book the photo came from; a better solution for HathiTrust would be to allow viewing only for non-US IPs as reading something doesn't violate any copyrights anywhere.
I also went to flickr, where the Carl Nielsen Museum has uploaded some photos. Did not select any of those with sculptures in them due to possible copyright issues, but these photos could be used to "flesh out" the article if necessary. A hand with enlarging the Commons descriptions of these files would be most welcome! :-)
What can be done about the photos at issue is for someone to contact the Carl Nielsen Museum and the Danish Royal Libary to ask if they will grant OTRS permission for the photos wanted for the article. This can be done after the conclusion of this FAC, because there's just not enough time to get permission granted now. We hope (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen all these any cannot yet see their place in this article. There are others at the Odense Museum which may be more suitable. Thanks anyway for all you interest and the useful work you have done in connection with the article. Hope we can work together in the future.Ipigott (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: I suggested at least three times here and on email to Dr. B that I could contact the Royal Library and the Odense Museum for further background on the images but never received any support. As a result, I now think it is most important to make do with what we have at the moment so that we can post the article on 9 June. I will nevertheless look into the above suggestions but I think our problem is mainly a result of insufficient expertise on the need to include appropriate licensing tags on some of the images we had already included in the article. As you will have noticed, I have played around with some of them (including the one you uploaded yourslef) and have added PD licenses, etc., but I am really no expert. I have also found several others (not yet uploaded) fom various sites with a specified photographer but I don't want to upset anything at this late critical stage. I think you have been doing a great job to help us along but I have noticed that you had not always included the necessary tags. I have tried to rectify the situation for two or three images but I may have made a mess of things. At least Crisco 1492 has something more to take into account before deleting more images.--Ipigott (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott:-The above files were gathered for a "worst case" scenario after image decisions re: what goes and stays are made. If, for example, everything or nearly everything has to go because it doesn't fit with one license requirement or another, the article would be left with very few or no photos at all. It wasn't my intention to offer these except for that. We hope (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just focus on getting the images free enough to pass FAC. We can add more images later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I've tried my best to get the licences right for all the images in the article. I hope everything is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Nikki have a look. Wouldn't want to cut in. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: No reactions from Nikkimaria for the past two days. I am worried that we are getting dangerously near to the deadline if further work is required, even though you say you have reserved the article for 9 June. If other images need to be removed from the article, would it continue to be a candidate for FA or would new images need to be introduced? If the latter, I could try to examine the copyright on some alternatives. I hope this can be sorted out reasonably soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She may be busy, Ipigott. Don't worry too much about the date... I've discussed things with Brian, and we've got an agreement worked out. So long as this passes, of course. Nikki, if you want me to take over, just let me know. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thanks for your immediate response. That's quite a relief. I look forward to further reactions on the images soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went into this one with basically no background knowledge, looking forward to an enlightening and enjoyable read. I was not disappointed. Well-structured and finely written; a pleasure to look through even for a classical music philistine like myself. I copyedited a little here and there but found nothing to stop me from lending my support. Well done indeed. —Cliftonian(talk) 23:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Cliftonian, also means a lot coming from a "classical music philistine"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly enjoyable article with nothing to report. A fine collaborative effort on an important composer. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sat for an hour or two (actually don't know) to find something requiring a fix, however, nada. Very good work. -- FrankBoyCHITCHAT 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very grateful, Frank, for you solid support. I hope this will help us reach TFA for 9 June but we are still facing major problems with the images.--Ipigott (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image problem has been fixed now I believe? So please strike that so as not to mislead the delegates!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article twice now, and I can only identify very minor things that probably come down to personal style choices. For example, it would be nice to avoid composer twice in the first sentence; "he soon started to develop his own style" could be trimmed to "he soon developed his own style"; "Nielsen maintained something of the reputation of an outsider during his lifetime" could be "Nielsen maintained the reputation of an outsider during his lifetime", etcetera. Minor style points aside, I think this is an excellent article that is definitely worthy of FA status. Great job to all involved! RO(talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: Thanks for your support and for these recommendations which I've taken into account.--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much RO, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the latest comments re. images, we're good to go in that respect, but has anyone carried out a formal source review for layout/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, quotes of longer than 40 words should be blockquoted - there's a couple that aren't
Have reworded the lengthy Fanning quote so that it is now well below 40 words but I cannot see any others that merit blockquote.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Saga Dream quote and the Simpson are both long enough to warrant blockquoting if not reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"thus the supposed "authenticity" of these recordings is now debatable" - would like to see direct sourcing of this, rather than simply the preceding statement
I've removed the quote as I didn't think it added much extra value and I've removed the quoting of "authenticity".♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN38: that doesn't appear to be the correct spelling of the publisher in either English or Danish
Be consistent in whether you spell out editions or use numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the "Seconds" into "2nd". --Mirokado (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nikkimaria for the enormous amount of assistance you have provided by listing items which required attention in this article. As far as I can see (as a newbie to FAC), we have now attended to them all.--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far - see responses above. Also, FN40 is not linking correctly to its Source listing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've managed to fix everything except the link to White. Perhaps Dr. Blofeld or Mirokado can see what I've done wrong?-Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)-[reply]
One minor thing: FN41 magazine title should be italicized. Once that is fixed this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: As far as I can see, all the outstanding issues have now been resolved.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there seem to have been no further comments for a few days I'll be promoting this shortly -- pls note that there are several duplinks in the article that you might care to review before the article hits main page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"Goliad Campaign": Readers who don't know what that is won't have a clear idea of what the first sentence is saying. I think of it as Mexico's main or first offensive in the war ... would that be inaccurate?
"His campaign was to neutralize the Texian soldiers gathered along the coast.": In the sense of "his campaign would later neutralize ...", or "the goal of his campaign was ..."?
Not an issue for me, but there's at least one hidden comment.
"While Santa Anna personally led the bulk of his troops inland to San Antonio de Béxar, he ordered General José de Urrea": To resolve the arguably ambiguous "while", I'd either go with "was personally leading" or drop the "while" and change "he" to "and".
I did some copyediting to address your concerns. [23] I also removed one of the hidden comments. The other is commenting out an image. I am still working on verifying the licensing, so the image is hidden unless that happens. I can remove that completely if it is an issue to have it hidden. Thanks for taking a look at the article! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very nice. I think both the title of the article and the way it's presented in the infobox suggest that "Battle of San Patricio" is a proper noun, so I went with "Battle". I don't mind if you revert, but if so, I'd want to resolve the tension with the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
English-speaking settlers in the Mexican border region of [[Mexican Texas|Texas]]: I wonder if there's a better way to link that so readers don't assume it's linking to Texas. Maybe "border region of Mexican Texas"?
In the early nineteenth century, captured pirates were executed immediately.: in general, or in Mexico?
Why is File:Frank W Johnson.JPG commented out? And are there really no other images you could include besides the map?
The fighting ended within fifteen minutes.: short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon at FAC.
Personally, I'd prefer this stays like it is, I think it was a good judgment call. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Execution of pirates was a general thing, not just in Mexico.
It'd be nice to clarify this, but I can't think of a wording that would do it. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been having difficulty verifying the PD status of the Frank W. Johnson image, so I commented it out for now. I know it was taken before 1884 and given to an artist before 1908, and that it has resided in the Texas archives since 1927, but I don't know who took the picture and haven't been able to track down if it has been published before. I found one picture purporting to be of General Urrea, but I can't verify it either.
Thanks for your ce help! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tolerating my hairsplitting. I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: Loving the story, but I have to admit I've very confused about the political situation being described...
"Leading federalists in Mexico"
Ok, so it seems the Texians were, essentially, being swept up in a larger movement covering much of Mexico? But then...
"Most importantly, it would move the war zone outside of Texas"
This seems to imply the opposite.
"The Texas provisional government"
Sooo... has Texas succeeded? Is Texas mostly "american" by this point? I think a little more background is warranted here.
"Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window "
What is this "yet"? It seems a leap to suggest that the Mexican troops would have been confused by a lamp, "yet" it seems to be what this is trying to imply.
Thank you for taking a look! You brought up some great points. I fleshed out the background section a little more. Do you think that helps enough?
The "yet" does mean they were confused. It said earlier in the section that loyalists were instructed to leave a lamp burning. So now they have intelligence that says the rebel leader is in THIS house, BUT the house has a lamp, implying federalists were living there. Do I need to reword it somehow?
This is a great improvement IMHO. The issue with the lamp... I see I missed the part about the lamp burning. Perhaps simply a re-mention... "seeing the lamp burning, and having been told the loyalists would have one,..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see why I missed it... is it there? I can't find "lamp" or "light" anywhere earlier in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
centralists were asked to declare their loyalties by leaving lanterns burning in their windows. I used "lamp" as a synonym later. Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it... so then I reiterate the "reminder" idea...
"Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window, the signal that this was the home of loyalist."
It doesn't extend the sentence too much, but I do think it makes it easier to read. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I added your suggestion. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text is adequately cited and everything is properly formatted. I had some concerns about "Republic of Texas Press", but it seems to be an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, a mainstream publisher. Everything else checks out fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Coemgenus. Would you mind doing a more comprehensive/general review as well? I just wouldn't mind one extra pair of eyes before we look at promotion, and the nom hasn't exactly been open forever at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look at it today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In "Background", you mention "Dr. James Grant". Under WP:CREDENTIALS, I think this usage is discouraged.
"The provisional governor, Henry Smith, was opposed to the..." I find "opposed" is almost always a better substitute for "was opposed to", unless you think it changes the sentence's meaning.
"...into territory officially part of the state of Tamaulipas..." This construction is confusing to someone not familiar with Texas history. I'm assuming it's because the territory in question was called a part of Tamaulipas by the Mexican government, but claimed by Texas? Or have I got that wrong?
"...Mexican dragoons began preparing..." Probably better as "...Mexican dragoons prepared..."
"The fighting ended within fifteen minutes." This might be my own pet peeve, but one-sentence paragraphs always look bad to me. Here, it kind of works, but I'm on the fence. Keep it separate from the paragraph above or not, your call. I just want to raise the issue for you.
Other than these minor issues, the article looks great. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU for the ping. I'm so sorry, Coemgenus, I saw your source review and apparently it didn't register when I saw that watchlist that you had added more. I will look at these today. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the first two.
The third was my poor attempt to signal that the boundaries in 1836 were different than they are in 2015. I've tried again, "into territory belonging to the state of Tamaulipas". I didn't want to just say "the state of..." because this was an extremely sparsely populated area; the state's political center was further south.
Changed the fourth bullet.
I think this is a personal preference issue. I think it fits this way.
Thank you for your help in tweaking the prose. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that all looks good to me, and they were minor points anyway. I'm glad to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^ abAardvark, A. A. (1999). The Best Moments for Eating.
.jpg){kind=link}
_p4.063_-_The_Houses_of_Lords_and_Commons.jpg){kind=link}
_p288_-_The_Houses_of_Parliament_with_the_Royal_Procession.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg#Summary){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
